›

The Next American President Thread (2016)

1…108109111113114…198

Comments

  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    edited August 2016 Posts: 3,564
    I thought @CommanderRoss made clear the difference between rules and laws. Sometimes breaking the rules gets you a slap on the wrist. Sometimes not even that. Breaking the law can have very different consequences. As Hillary has been the subject of intense public scrutiny since long before she ever ran for office, I suspect she's always been quite scrupulous on observing the letter of the law.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,978
    Germanlady wrote: »

    Commander, you really think ANYbody out there in a job higher then yours and mine, is without an agenda worth knowing about BEFORE we vote for them? Wow, Another ??? for me. We prefer the lies to not breaking rules SOMEBODY made at some point. Now people act, as it is was written in stone. Well, its not and most are worse shit right now. I say, bring out the truth about all those, who want to rule US and tell us, what we have to do. Its insane. Again - the sheep herd on its way.
    I don't base my opinion on assumptions, I base them on facts. And my job is about information amangement and record keeping. This means I have access to all sorts of government information, even the classified stuff. And I can tell you therefore that you highly overestimate our politicians. They just make policies on the go and change them when their 'sources' or the general public oppose them. Some, the better ones, try to make fullfledged plans, but the mainstay of their job is to generate publicity and thus underwrite their vain persona's.
  • FLeiterFLeiter
    Posts: 315
    Okay @timmer, this has gone far enough. Is nothing sacred? Are there no boundaries at all in Canada? Hoolgans roaming the streets in Manitoba wreaking havov and to make matters worse, dressed as a hockey goalie.



    And they only got 3 cases and I was told it was Budweiser. What idiots/ Keep your hands off my Peche Mortel, you criminals. As I'm headed north to get a line wet and hoping for some unsuspecting northern and wally to hook up with, these felons must be stopped. #CanadianBeerMatters.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,839
    dalton wrote: »
    I think Bernie probably missed his opportunity to turn the emails into a viable path for him to the nomination. Had he come out and pushed hard on it in that first debate and then in the rest of the campaign, it might have gained some traction with the American public. How much traction? Not sure, but it would have been a bigger thorn in her side than it's so far proven to be.

    But, you're right, at this point, I don't think the American public cares, outside of those who are so anti-Clinton that they won't let anything negative about her go. I personally don't care much about it anymore, although it does occasionally give me pause to wonder about how loose she might be with government secrets as president, but then I just think about the trouble Trump could end up getting himself into on Twitter from the Oval Office and I feel less concerned about Clinton.

    Well, I am from the other side of the political spectrum than you and my biggest worry about a Clinton presidency is that once she has been elected mostly due to an (understandable, heck even justifiable and necessary) rejection of Trump, she will have the leisure to reject the most liberal and progressive policies that an important chunk of her voters wants to have. This is one thing that I never liked about her: I always found her completely insincere in her convictions. And yet if I could vote this year in the presidential election, I'd vote for her without hesitating.

    Have you thought about running in 2020 @dalton? Seems you seem to be a rare breed of sane Republican.
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    Ludovico wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    I think Bernie probably missed his opportunity to turn the emails into a viable path for him to the nomination. Had he come out and pushed hard on it in that first debate and then in the rest of the campaign, it might have gained some traction with the American public. How much traction? Not sure, but it would have been a bigger thorn in her side than it's so far proven to be.

    But, you're right, at this point, I don't think the American public cares, outside of those who are so anti-Clinton that they won't let anything negative about her go. I personally don't care much about it anymore, although it does occasionally give me pause to wonder about how loose she might be with government secrets as president, but then I just think about the trouble Trump could end up getting himself into on Twitter from the Oval Office and I feel less concerned about Clinton.

    Well, I am from the other side of the political spectrum than you and my biggest worry about a Clinton presidency is that once she has been elected mostly due to an (understandable, heck even justifiable and necessary) rejection of Trump, she will have the leisure to reject the most liberal and progressive policies that an important chunk of her voters wants to have
  • daltondalton
    Posts: 1,631
    Ludovico wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    I think Bernie probably missed his opportunity to turn the emails into a viable path for him to the nomination. Had he come out and pushed hard on it in that first debate and then in the rest of the campaign, it might have gained some traction with the American public. How much traction? Not sure, but it would have been a bigger thorn in her side than it's so far proven to be.

    But, you're right, at this point, I don't think the American public cares, outside of those who are so anti-Clinton that they won't let anything negative about her go. I personally don't care much about it anymore, although it does occasionally give me pause to wonder about how loose she might be with government secrets as president, but then I just think about the trouble Trump could end up getting himself into on Twitter from the Oval Office and I feel less concerned about Clinton.

    Well, I am from the other side of the political spectrum than you and my biggest worry about a Clinton presidency is that once she has been elected mostly due to an (understandable, heck even justifiable and necessary) rejection of Trump, she will have the leisure to reject the most liberal and progressive policies that an important chunk of her voters wants to have. This is one thing that I never liked about her: I always found her completely insincere in her convictions. And yet if I could vote this year in the presidential election, I'd vote for her without hesitating.

    Have you thought about running in 2020 @dalton? Seems you seem to be a rare breed of sane Republican.

    I think that's a legitimate concern and one that I'd have if I were on the left. There really isn't much incentive for her to maintain much, if any, of the policy positions she's been forced to take in response to Sanders, especially with an opponent like Trump, who most will just be relieved to not have as president to really care too much about her moving back to her usual spot on the spectrum. Even though I don't really care all that much about what happens to Sanders' specific policy positions as it relates to Clinton upholding them, it would be a shame if she moved back to her more centrist positions because it puts us right back where we were, and an insurgent candidate who really did start a nationwide movement wouldn't really have made much of a dent, were that to happen.

    Also, can't say that I have plans to run for office. ;) I'm more than happy to support John Kasich in 2020, though.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    I think people should be aware that thno ere's a difference betwen 'rules' and 'laws'. If you break a law you'll be legally prosecuted, if you break a rule, there may be a plethora of consequences, the worst is getting fired or having to pay some sort of damages.

    Hillary wasn't following protocol with her emails. From a professional point of view I'd get pretty angry with her (data security is part of my job to an extent) but that would be it. I guess now most people know this.

    Assange's group is actively breaking the law. They are willingly breaking in to the Democratic systems and opening emails meant for other people. That's illigal for a reason. I wonder how people would react if it was the red cross or something. Even worse, I understand Wikileaks has also made public information concearning child rape, with the full names and adresses of the vicitms in there too....

    All in al lthey are turning into a huge public liabillity without any moral background.

    I know power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, that's why I don't like any presidential system, but that's a democratic choice. But assuming everyone in power has a hidden agenda is nothing short of paranoia. Even those in power are humans.

    Very good assessment @CommanderRoss. I fully agree. Helemaal mee eens.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    edited August 2016 Posts: 6,601
    CommanderRoss wrote: »
    Germanlady wrote: »

    Commander, you really think ANYbody out there in a job higher then yours and mine, is without an agenda worth knowing about BEFORE we vote for them? Wow, Another ??? for me. We prefer the lies to not breaking rules SOMEBODY made at some point. Now people act, as it is was written in stone. Well, its not and most are worse shit right now. I say, bring out the truth about all those, who want to rule US and tell us, what we have to do. Its insane. Again - the sheep herd on its way.
    I don't base my opinion on assumptions, I base them on facts. And my job is about information amangement and record keeping. This means I have access to all sorts of government information, even the classified stuff. And I can tell you therefore that you highly overestimate our politicians. They just make policies on the go and change them when their 'sources' or the general public oppose them. Some, the better ones, try to make fullfledged plans, but the mainstay of their job is to generate publicity and thus underwrite their vain persona's.

    Sure, they are worth nothing, but corruption is the way into politics. Not the small ones maybe, but certainly everybody, who wants to BE somebody. They play ball with the world and we are concerned about breaking laws! Hahaha, how funny. Lets see, how much these laws, we try to protect are worth, when the shit explodes. If bringing out the truth means breaking a law - hell, do it.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,978
    Nope, not corruption, but butt-kissing is the way into politics. That may seem the same, but it isn't. Some brake laws, but most at best break rules. If you think breaking the law is a good idea to 'bring out the truth' then you're starting a mideaval wich hunt in which everybody can fall victim to those claiming they 'know the truth'. I could go after you and claim you are corrupt. You wouldn't be able to prove otherwise (try proving you haven't done something) and by the time nobody believes me anymore, you'll have lost everything.

    You know, there's a reason why we have laws.....
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Russia again perhaps ...
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Hacking voting machines. My God, what's happening to our democracies :-(.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    Almost inevitable in this day and age of very talented hackers.

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,816
    Gustav_Graves wrote: »
    Hacking voting machines. My God, what's happening to our democracies :-(.

    Sadly voter fraud has always gone on but there are more laws against it and safeguards in the UK and Western Europe at least.

  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    No we do not have a big problem with voter fraud. The electronic hacking is new and seemingly trying to influence the election yes - but our record of actual voter fraud is overall good. We have NOT had a bad problem with this.

    The issue of voter suppression is ongoing and there have been several cases, in various states, making it harder for people to vote. That is not exactly the same thing as outright fraud. It far sneakier and is a problem. It is something that every state needs to look at and monitor against - and clearly some are not. We do not have a centralized voting system in that regard. That makes it more difficult.

    https://www.thenation.com/article/voting-rights-is-not-a-fringe-issue/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

    says in part re in person fraud: 

    ... some nightly news reporters have correctly pointed out that in-person voting fraud is virtually nonexistent (one study found a total of 31 credible instances out of 1 billion votes cast from 2000 to 2014).

    and on suppression

     “In 15 states it’s still going to be harder to vote this year than it was in 2012,” says the Brennan Center’s Wendy Weiser. Meanwhile, the legal precedents “are far from settled,” UC-Irvine law professor Rick Hasen wrote recently. “Things are very much in flux, and the possibility of disenfranchisement through confusion or reversals of recent gains remains.” On his Election Law Blog, Hasen runs down the latest flux in each embattled state.

    North Carolina, for instance, is asking the Supreme Court to restore parts of its voter ID law that a lower court had overturned, in part because it targeted “African Americans with almost surgical precision.” But the state’s case may be undermined by a recently discovered a memo that the North Carolina Republican Party executive director sent to GOP officials urging them, despite the overturned law, to take other steps to restrict voter access in order to produce favorable election results.

    Suppression has and will continue to affect and possibly swing elections. The media should not discount it. “There are very concrete numbers coming out of these court cases; we have razor-thin margins in many elections,” Weiser says. The press could be more regularly asking, she says, “what do voting rules mean for control of our House, state legislature, and federal races, which communities are going to win, which are going to lose with the current rules?”

    We know that the fake “voter fraud” Trump rails about is not going to swing the presidential election. But could suppression do it (without factoring in the effects of any potential machine hacks)? It likely happened in 2000, Ari Berman writes, when Florida wrongfully purged an estimated “4,752 black Gore voters—almost nine times Bush’s margin of victory…”
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,332
    Sometimes the old ways are best. Give me a piece of paper with a checklist any day.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    If they did away with electronic voting, it would be helpful. Write in/mail and in person are so much easier to control.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,332
    I'm surprised there isn't voting by phone yet.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Murdock wrote: »
    I'm surprised there isn't voting by phone yet.

    My hometown wants to implement it by 2020, according to a newspaper article I saw a couple years ago.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    This article is from 2011, but with good points about our electoral system.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chellie-pingree/ok-will-this-election-be-_b_33497.html

    In which, Jimmy Carter (whose Carter Center monitors elections worldwide) says in part this:
    “But there’s no doubt in my mind that the United States electoral system is severely troubled and has many faults in it. It would not qualify at all for instance for participation by the Carter Center in observing. We require for instance that there be uniform voting procedures throughout an entire nation. In the United States you’ve got not only fragmented from one state to another but also from one county to another. There is no central election commission in the United States that can make final judgment. It’s a cacophony of voices that come in after the election is over with, thousands or hundreds of lawyers contending with each other. There’s no uniformity in the nation at all. There’s no doubt that that there’s severe discrimination against poor people because of the quality of voting procedures presented to them.”

    And this year, we have had North Carolina being brought to light trying to suppress votes. Also, Wisconsin and Texas, I believe. So it is an ongoing issue.
    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-law-226438
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,459
    Well it seems that the Florida miscount/errors for Gore and Bush in 2000 election is still disputed & argued about. So I'll leave that alone for now. :)

    This is dry, not easy reading, but actually seems to cover the 2000 electoral process; whereby the electoral votes gave Bush the presidency (that is our system; the popular vote does not determine the outcome). Just sharing this, if anybody would care to look further into.
    http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2000120800

    Not quite towards the bottom in that is a timeline, which is a bit interesting.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,564
    Just one little phrase for us all to consider: black box voting. Here's a quick definition, let's start out here before jumping into the deep end. Bottom line: too much of what goes on in our voting system isn't actually verifiable and therefore is all too susceptible to fraud by the very people who make or program our voting machines.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_voting

    You say you're ready for the straight skinny? Okay, here you go...

    http://blackboxvoting.org/
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Well, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, I think you and I finally posted enough stuff to put people to sleep .... maybe we have at last killed this thread. ;)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    A not so pretty picture: a look at where known hate groups are in America
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,564
    4EverBonded wrote: »
    Well, @BeatlesSansEarmuffs, I think you and I finally posted enough stuff to put people to sleep .... maybe we have at last killed this thread. ;)

    Mission Accomplished!!! \m/
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Well. Trump is going to Mexico. Private meeting (not public) so far, with the president of Mexico. This raises so many possible scenarios. Let's hope it simply remains entertaining.


  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,978
    So it's just to show his people he can stand up to an orange-tanned bully. Well, if it works for him..
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,561
    @4EverBonded, those hate groups seem to be mostly situated in the Bible Belt, correct?
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    Regarding the Donald visiting the Mexican president: Tumpites will see this as a confirmation that Trump will take these elections seriously. So this will help him. But only him. A Clinton visit to Mexico would never catch such headlines.

    Sadly, I think this could help Donald Trump.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Or this could go really, really south. I'm sure the president will love it when Trump suggests that he's going to put up a massive wall across the man's border and that he's going to have to foot the bill for all of it. :))
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    I don't think so. First of all, the idea came from the Mexican president himself, not Donald. But my gut feeling tells me, that for the strength of Mexico as a nation, they will be better off with erratic Trump as president.

    No, this could prove a beneficial moment for Trump.
This discussion has been closed.