Atlanta Nov 2016 Presidential Election (Arabi: taxi, lawsuit, shop)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your so bent of wanting to hate Hilary but even by your on criticism would make Trump 10 x worst...
" The DNC were plotting against him the whole time. Stop acting blind and realize that the democrats don't care about us. They only care about their rich donors. "
Mean while..........
- Trump has more scandals,
- Has clearly said racist divisive stuff.
- Has said he want the recession to hurt Americans so he can take advantage.
- The GOP was clearly was plotting against him the whole time it was way more crazy,
- Trump is a rich donor, has super pac as well. he basically everything Sander has criticize.
"she still doesn't support taking money out of politics, and she supports the TPP which are two more reasons not to vote for her"........ Are You oblivious to Trump is a Billionaire? He is wall Street? He actually make products over seas?
Stop it......... Sanders and Hilary voted 93% the same in the senate It's like you want to ignore this, Sanders has said one of reasons he ran as Democrat because he doesn't want a republican to win in the first place. And has describe him and Trump as complete opposites.
"I'll vote for the best candidate. Not the one I hate least."...... So you most not be planning on voting......
Yes a vote Johnson for is vote Hillary, A vote for Jill Stein is vote for Trump, Hilary and Trump are only Candidates capable of winning. So if some who voted for Sanders does not vote Hilary they are essentially voting against the candidate with most similar views as Sanders. And Helping the Guy who stand for the opposite of him. Logic
So, what you're saying is the only way to make Hillary to look good is to compare her to Trump. They both have horrible track records, they were actually friends in the past. Hillary works for the establishment, Trump is the establishment. They are both horrible candidates. Like I said, I'm voting for who I agree with, not who I hate least. Young people aren't listening to that "only establishment votes count" BS. They only count if we believe they count. If we voted for different candidates they wouldn't count so much. Even if we don't win the Libertarian and Green parties can gain federal funding.
I wasn't quite old enough to vote in 2000, but I probably would have voted for Gore, because he was pro-science and the environment, and just generally seemed a lot smarter than Bush. I voted for Kerry in 2004 because I was frustrated with the huge, expensive mess that was the Iraq War. Even though we killed that crazy evil Uday Hussein, it still wasn't worth it. I voted for Obama twice, because I just like Obama, and he's been a great president. You can call me a "conservative" if that makes you feel better or whatever, but, I mean, I've only ever voted Democrat in my life. But that fact doesn't mean I have to now vote for Hillary.
And I've been a big Bernie supporter. And yes, absolutely I am concerned with the huge income inequality issue, but I tend to believe government policies have been more to blame for that, than necessarily lack of government policies. Big corporate lobbies are the buddies and cronies of big government. That's not the free market. None of that is. Anyway, Clinton will not change or help anything with any of that, as she is all about status quo and not rocking any boats.
We need to reduce military spending by 60% or even more. But, Clinton will not do that either, not even close. She'll probably increase military spending and get us involved in even more complicated foreign clusterf*ck conflicts.
Main while Trump openly said he wants to increase Military Sending, Has said disrespectful things to foreign leaders, he raise concerns from the UN to the Pope, believe in torture, And could increase US resentment especially in the middle East.
One of these are clearly far worst then the other.
Quote:
Hillary is just an opportunist, dishonest politician. She has never believed in gay marriage as a matter of personal freedom, she just took that position when the polls on it changed. While I would rather Georgia become a Blue state, that by itself is not a high enough priority for me to suck it up to vote for her.
I'm just stating my own view, not saying you shouldn't vote for her or that your views are necessarily wrong.
Do you not see how conceded Trump is?
First lets look at fact checker into dishonestly and lying, There's a video called Hilary lying for 15 mins the irony Most of what Hilary speaks to the public is true. While there's no Video of Trump, And Trump probably the biggest liar candidate in American History.
Trump has about 3x times scandals associated with him.
She has always been a center left politician, She lies no more less than other politicians, but because she's a center left she closer to position I want, I rather get some of what I want then nothing at all or potentially back stepping by Trump or a conservative. Main while
She overtly is running Against Some who's a habitual liar who literally on record lies 3 times more, Compare to the criticism I have of Trump, would make the Criticism I had Hilary a Joke.
Because you can't get (100%) Sanders
you rather reject (75%) Hilary
And Give (- 50 %) Trump to do the opposite of Sanders a chance.
That is the logic.....
Quote:
But sorry, I'm not sure what Jim Crow has to do with that. I am not a right winger. Yes, the right has hidden their racist and bigoted agendas under insincere pretenses of calling for "small government" over the decades. But that fact doesn't mean that actual small (or at least less huge) government is not, or would not be a good idea. A balanced budget and no national debt, that sounds like sound financial national security to me.
But Besides you was supporting Sanders who wants more government spending than Clinton.... and last time the budget was balance was under Bil Clinton which is ironic to this whole conversation.
The obsession with small government that trumps logic is racist. Again the South used the Small gov argument "states right" for the civil war, and viewed "reconstruction" as big gov. This was used all though Jim Crow, Which big Federal Government had to created civil right acts because the Southern states wasn't. They hated the big bad federal government for that. In more modern times Nixon and Reagan use the southern strategy "feel free to google" to go after the un represented White Southern voters who felt left abandon by the Democrats to the move left.
Reagan started his 1976 campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi with a speech about states rights, hmmmm and popularize the concept of "welfare queen" by repeating a story a Black Woman from Chicago. Across the South......
When the US begin, it was largely rural, less populated, and they didn't have modern issues, As Time progress the industrial Revelation brought issues that never exist, Major cities brought issues that never exist. When industrial Revelation came it was ugly, People Man, Women, Children over worked for small Sallies in dangerous conditions, People was selling anything dangerous products, Monopolies controlling princes.....
Then in the late 1880 to the 1920 came the Progressive Era..... Regulation of Foods and Drugs, Sanitation, Worker rights, Schools, Housing, Industry practices, Things that our necessary for the modern World.
Being against a communism society is one thing, and no body is asking for that. but being against the gov for fore filling it's roles in the modern world for US to be competitive. Is irrational.
Spending on Transportation strike fear on Minorities coming to Suburbs.
Government programs Strike fears and stereotypes of assassinating Minorities.
States that anti big gov 2016 seem to same states that was "States rights' 1960 and 1860. There this thing in South that big mean gov is out get Southern whites...... Minorities are try to take from them or use the system.
I just showed you we have a clear income inequality gap problem and the wealthy is getting richer, At the same time we are falling behind on infrastructure... Saying The Gov is too big when clearly the US gov needs to spends more, and taxes the rich higher. If some does that, that's Coming from some where irrational.
Quote:
I'm not extreme with libertarian, I'm not saying let's close the Department of Education or anything like that. Just saying, maybe it's time for someone in office who is serious about this budgetary stuff, and will veto bloated and bad legislation that just grows bureaucracy and doesn't make anyone's life any better (no matter which party in congress passed it.)
Obama has actually been overall pretty good in the regard of finances and spending and budget, but he is now term limited.
Again The Last time the Budget was Balance was under Bill.
Bush Taxes cut for rich cause the US gov to lose income.
So, what you're saying is the only way to make Hillary to look good is to compare her to Trump. They both have horrible track records, they were actually friends in the past. Hillary works for the establishment, Trump is the establishment. They are both horrible candidates. Like I said, I'm voting for who I agree with, not who I hate least. Young people aren't listening to that "only establishment votes count" BS. They only count if we believe they count. If we voted for different candidates they wouldn't count so much. Even if we don't win the Libertarian and Green parties can gain federal funding.
Like Noo
Hilary Actually have a progressive record of getting things done.......
I bring up Trump because all the criticism of Hilary is much worst to Trump. That makes the Hilary criticism of looks silly.
Any one goes around using the phrase "establishment" and "anti establishment" are telling on them selves, That don't anything policies of candidates. Or no anything about History of American politics.
The Green Party cause Gore the election and Bush became presidents. Then the Green voters had to deal with Bush as there president.
Again, I don't think you understand how the electoral system works. Trump is probably going to win Georgia, and probably going to lose the election. Either way, Georgia's 16 electoral votes simply won't be a factor. In the event that the tide in November is so blue that Hillary is picking up conservative southern states like Georgia (which is polling 58% Trump), then she will have already won the thing by a complete landslide. Do you understand that?
Hilary Actually have a progressive record of getting things done.......
I bring up Trump because all the criticism of Hilary is much worst to Trump. That makes the Hilary criticism of looks silly.
Any one goes around using the phrase "establishment" and "anti establishment" are telling on them selves, That don't anything policies of candidates. Or no anything about History of American politics.
The Green Party cause Gore the election and Bush became presidents. Then the Green voters had to deal with Bush as there president.
They have major policy differences on Education, Healthcare, Marijuana legalization, Glass-Steagall, and Wall Street.
Also, why do you care so much about who I promote? If Hillary is such a great candidate, she could win on her own merit despite her competition. If she loses, it's her own fault. Stop treating her like a child that must have everything given to her. She acted the same way in 2008 before Obama gave her a position in the white house. Also stop trying to push the email scandal under the rug. The Democratic Committee were plotting against a candidate in their own party. That's the exact opposite of Democracy. There is no excuse for what the Democrats did, and I expect major anger at the convention.
Again, I don't think you understand how the electoral system works. Trump is probably going to win Georgia, and probably going to lose the election. Either way, Georgia's 16 electoral votes simply won't be a factor. In the event that the tide in November is so blue that Hillary is picking up conservative southern states like Georgia (which is polling 58% Trump), then she will have already won the thing by a complete landslide. Do you understand that?
this may be the case, but by throwing in a third party candidate that seems poised to take a good chunk of the electorate with johnson, and possibly stein, we simply don't know what that will do to the electoral map. johnson might peel a few away from clinton, and if she doesn't hit 270, the election goes to the republican controlled house, trump gets elected, we have another one of these ISIS related terrorist attacks and trump loses his cool and wants to hit back, so he drops a nuke on syria, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and brings the US into a nuclear world war. i mean, this is what we're toying with here.
those of you that think that somehow everything's going to work out need to wake up and smell the coffee and see what is going on in america... even if trump loses this fall, this thing isn't over. there is a portion of the american public that is beginning to radicalize into this pseudo-christian american nationalist movement... anyone who has watched TV or had a discussion with anyone online over the past year has certainly encountered this growing number of zombies who live outside the real world, it's like facts don't matter to them. some of them are opportunistic and manipulative, but some of these people are really ISIS crazy. i was reading an article recently about the rise of atheism in europe on a conservative christian website, and i saw a comment that really shocked and disturbed me. i can't find the article because i wish i could quote it exactly, but the person said something along the lines of "wow, this is proof that liberal democracy leads to atheism. maybe osama bin laden will be seen as the last great religious leader who tried to save the world from atheism."
there is an undercurrent to this movement that is really dangerous indeed, and it's getting stronger. and people aren't doing anything to stop it and aren't taking it seriously at all. i'm very concerned that in 10-15 years we're going to have radical christian terrorists.
I'm in the minority of Libertarian supporters who are on the left or coming from the left. Don't worry, most people who will vote Johnson are just going to be hurting Trump. Glenn Beck even said he's going to vote for Johnson. Even Mitt Romney. The LP has traditionally closer ties with Republicans. Johnson himself was one, and so was Weld.
Stein will pull an insignificant amount of votes away from Clinton, mostly in the very blue states, so that won't cost her any states.
Third parties aren't spoilers; it's a big myth. Nader didn't cost Gore the election in 2000. Perot didn't even cost Bush I the election in 1992. Both claims have been debunked by people who actually looked at the numbers.
Counter productive for the Democratic Party establishment, maybe. But not the best interests of our country.
Incorrect. Counter-productive for the best interests of our country, from any shade of progressive perspective, and perhaps from any anti-reactionary shade of perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
Vote for the candidate, not some idea of party allegiance. That's all I'm saying.
No one elected official can do anything themselves, so voting for the individual is myopic and quite frankly pretty naive. People have to be smarter than that to make their vote count. They need to consider how to help shape the government so it can best serve the interests of the nation - it does no one any good if they cannot see the forest for the trees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
If that's Hillary, then vote Hillary. But I'm just tired of people ignoring the third party candidates for consideration because they don't have a chance to win.
I'm okay with you being tired of it. The harm from people of good conscience throwing away their vote is more important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
If you'd vote for them, they'd have a chance to win.
No. They wouldn't. That's the point. In order for a third party candidate to have a legitimate chance to win, a lot of groundwork needs to happen years beforehand, including the third party having clear majorities of voters in at least a dozen states. Without that we can safely say that there is no chance whatsoever that the third party candidate could win, no matter how much people beat their chests and stamp their feet to the contrary.
Third party candidates don't lose because people dismiss their chances cavalierly. Third party candidates lose because the third party doesn't really exist. It took the Republican Party most of a decade to grow from an insurgency into a legitimate option at the national level, even winning the Speakership in 1856, just two years after the establishment of the party. Just four years later the party won the Presidency.
Pay close attention to the necessary foundations of legitimacy: Significant numbers of representatives elected to Congress. That's the indicator of a reasonable chance to win the Presidency - not ... not ... uh ... what? You didn't even pretend to claim there was any reasonable basis in history for what you claimed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
And then maybe we could have a country where it feels more like an election than a selection.
That's little more than a rationalization for poor citizenship. When I've heard people say such things in the past, it sounded to me like a reflection of today's inane penchant for instant-gratification. "I want my fringe beliefs to prevail today!" Sorry, but that's not how life works in a society with other people. If you have a better set of values, you need to do the work to have others - many others - come to know you, come to appreciate what you've come to realize. It's a process, not pulling the arm of a slot machine expecting to hit the Jackpot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
Demographic shifts will happen in GA regardless, as old generations are replaced by new.
True and false. Demographic shifts will happen, no question, and the overall trend in western society over the last 350 years is in a progressive direction, also no question. However, old generations have and will continue to be sometimes replaced by new generations that become increasingly reactionary as they get older. We've seen a generation where this natural process ebbed a bit, but here we are in a generation where fear has been stoked and optimism gutted, perhaps by deliberately cynical tactics by the reactionary establishment to attract more converts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
Nobody has to vote for someone they don't like that much in order to achieve that goal.
You have no proof of what you are implying. I have Russia as a counter example of what you're implying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
It would just be nice if we went in a liberal direction on all social matters, but with a more restrained spending policy that doesn't look at government or politicians as the solution to all or even most of our problems.
That's like saying that it would be nice to lose weight without exercising or eating right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
