Jump to content
Tygo

United States Presidential Election

Candidates  

142 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. Who do you think SHOULD win?

  2. 2. Who do you think WILL win?

    • Bernie Sanders
    • Hillary Clinton
    • Donald Trump
    • Ted Cruz
    • Marco Rubio
    • Ben Carson
      0
    • John Kasich
      0


Recommended Posts

»ACP    33416

I agree with Joe here. Clinton is the least liked Democratic nominee in history. Trump is the least liked Republican nominee in history. If either party had picked literally anyone else they'd be crushing it right now.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe. said:

Rubio would be up by double digits.

Perhaps, I think Rand Paul would being doing rather well too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932

Basically all 16 GOP candidates would be beating Hillary - which I warned all Trump supporters about a year ago. They deserve every second of HRC's presidency for going so far off the reservation for Trump.

 

I can stomach voting Republican if the candidate is moderate enough. Issues like marriage equality matter a lot to me because I have close family members/friends who are not only gay but married. I'd vote for almost any Republican who concedes the SCOTUS has already ruled on that - over HRC. I don't think HRC is a strong candidate... but Trump has run a campaign I find reminiscent of fascism. So there is only one rational option.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foofatron    38

I've been observing people's reactions/discussion more than the process and it is some scary stuff. I've never payed much attention before so idk how much is normal. People are incredibly polarized and most of the support I've seen for either candidate is just based off of fear. It feels like a lot of people take opposing political positions as an attack on themselves and their way of life. They view the other side as illogical, blind, incompetent, and essentially their enemy... Such a divide and so much outrage.

 

I use to be conservative but feel I have been able to see many more perspectives. Now, I'm quite in the middle and don't see either side as a threat. I don't think a candidate from either extreme would actually 'destroy' our country, however our people could. We are all on the same team.

 

Also, I don't understand why so much energy is expended on elections. We know where they stand. We should know where we stand. The election is not now. Why, in general, do we discuss this so much? What is even accomplished? I've recently heavily reduced my time consuming media and quit yugioh and it feels so good. I don't think I'd mind it at all if the next time I saw the news was November.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932
21 minutes ago, foofatron said:

I've been observing people's reactions/discussion more than the process and it is some scary stuff. I've never payed much attention before so idk how much is normal. People are incredibly polarized and most of the support I've seen for either candidate is just based off of fear. It feels like a lot of people take opposing political positions as an attack on themselves and their way of life. They view the other side as illogical, blind, incompetent, and essentially their enemy... Such a divide and so much outrage.

 

I use to be conservative but feel I have been able to see many more perspectives. Now, I'm quite in the middle and don't see either side as a threat. I don't think a candidate from either extreme would actually 'destroy' our country, however our people could. We are all on the same team.

 

Also, I don't understand why so much energy is expended on elections. We know where they stand. We should know where we stand. The election is not now. Why, in general, do we discuss this so much? What is even accomplished? I've recently heavily reduced my time consuming media and quit yugioh and it feels so good. I don't think I'd mind it at all if the next time I saw the news was November.

 

I have no idea where Trump stands. He has no real platforms. They change every 20 minutes. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know I think there has been a bit of misunderstanding on where I stand. I'm no anarchist. Here is an example I work in the construction industry and we have this thing called building codes that establish uniform rules on how buildings should be constructed in a particular region and said codes are enforced by the government and that is an example of good government at work. The way I look at is you have to maintain a very fine balance between the good of the majority of society and the rights of the individual. I want to point out I'm not an ideological demagog. I can't expect my viewpoint on things to be 100% the way things get done and I'm a fallible human being like everyone else which means I should ALWAYS be open-minded because the fact of the matter is everybody ends up being wrong sometimes

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»Pharaoh Atem    15769
On 9/4/2016 at 0:13 AM, Joe. said:

Basically all 16 GOP candidates would be beating Hillary - which I warned all Trump supporters about a year ago. They deserve every second of HRC's presidency for going so far off the reservation for Trump.

 

I can stomach voting Republican if the candidate is moderate enough. Issues like marriage equality matter a lot to me because I have close family members/friends who are not only gay but married. I'd vote for almost any Republican who concedes the SCOTUS has already ruled on that - over HRC. I don't think HRC is a strong candidate... but Trump has run a campaign I find reminiscent of fascism. So there is only one rational option.


you remind me of me from a few years ago

at this point I don't have the luxury of considering the republican party capable of divorcing its actual tenets from its dogwhistles

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
p0key    20
Quote

I don't think HRC is a strong candidate... but Trump has run a campaign I find reminiscent of fascism. So there is only one rational option.

 

Yeah, fuck both and vote third party. It's far more irrational to vote for someone you outright say is not a strong candidate. This whole "vote for the lesser of two evils" is why you get the product we have today.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, p0key said:

 

Yeah, fuck both and vote third party. It's far more irrational to vote for someone you outright say is not a strong candidate. This whole "vote for the lesser of two evils" is why you get the product we have today.

Yeah man I with yah there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932

I could not disagree more. 

 

Preamble:

Among the elements of the weak form of democracy enshrined in the constitution, presidential elections continue to pose a dilemma for the left in that any form of participation or non participation appears to impose a significant cost on our capacity to develop a serious opposition to the corporate agenda served by establishment politicians. The position outlined below is that which many regard as the most effective response to this quadrennial Hobson’s choice, namely the so-called “lesser evil” voting strategy or LEV. Simply put, LEV involves, where you can, i.e. in safe states, voting for the losing third party candidate you prefer, or not voting at all. In competitive “swing” states, where you must, one votes for the “lesser evil” Democrat.

Before fielding objections, it will be useful to make certain background stipulations with respect to the points below. The first is to note that since changes in the relevant facts require changes in tactics, proposals having to do with our relationship to the “electoral extravaganza” should be regarded as provisional. This is most relevant with respect to point 3) which some will challenge by citing the claim that Clinton’s foreign policy could pose a more serious menace than that of Trump.

In any case, while conceding as an outside possibility that Trump’s foreign policy is preferable, most of us not already convinced that that is so will need more evidence than can be aired in a discussion involving this statement. Furthermore, insofar as this is the fact of the matter, following the logic through seems to require a vote for Trump, though it’s a bit hard to know whether those making this suggestion are intending it seriously.

Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle addressed in 1), sometimes referred to as the “politics of moral witness.” Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that “a lesser of two evils is still evil.” Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting-i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences, specifically those outlined in 4). The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.

While some would suggest extending the critique by noting that the politics of moral witness can become indistinguishable from narcissistic self-agrandizement, this is substantially more harsh than what was intended and harsher than what is merited. That said, those reflexively denouncing advocates of LEV on a supposed “moral” basis should consider that their footing on the high ground may not be as secure as they often take for granted to be the case.

A third criticism of LEV equates it with a passive acquiescence to the bipartisan status quo under the guise of pragmatism, usually deriving from those who have lost the appetite for radical change. It is surely the case that some of those endorsing LEV are doing so in bad faith-cynical functionaries whose objective is to promote capitulation to a system which they are invested in protecting. Others supporting LEV, however, can hardly be reasonably accused of having made their peace with the establishment. Their concern, as alluded to in 6) and 7) inheres in the awareness that frivolous and poorly considered electoral decisions impose a cost, their memories extending to the ultra-left faction of the peace movement having minimized the comparative dangers of the Nixon presidency during the 1968 elections. The result was six years of senseless death and destruction in Southeast Asia and also a predictable fracture of the left setting it up for its ultimate collapse during the backlash decades to follow.

The broader lesson to be drawn is not to shy away from confronting the dominance of the political system under the management of the two major parties. Rather, challenges to it need to be issued with a full awareness of their possible consequences. This includes the recognition that far right victories not only impose terrible suffering on the most vulnerable segments of society but also function as a powerful weapon in the hands of the establishment center, which, now in opposition can posture as the “reasonable” alternative. A Trump presidency, should it materialize, will undermine the burgeoning movement centered around the Sanders campaign, particularly if it is perceived as having minimized the dangers posed by the far right.

A more general conclusion to be derived from this recognition is that this sort of cost/benefit strategic accounting is fundamental to any politics which is serious about radical change. Those on the left who ignore it, or dismiss it as irrelevant are engaging in political fantasy and are an obstacle to, rather than ally of, the movement which now seems to be materializing.

Finally, it should be understood that the reigning doctrinal system recognizes the role presidential elections perform in diverting the left from actions which have the potential to be effective in advancing its agenda. These include developing organizations committed to extra-political means, most notably street protest, but also competing for office in potentially winnable races. The left should devote the minimum of time necessary to exercise the LEV choice then immediately return to pursuing goals which are not timed to the national electoral cycle.

*****

1) Voting should not be viewed as a form of personal self-expression or moral judgement directed in retaliation towards major party candidates who fail to reflect our values, or of a corrupt system designed to limit choices to those acceptable to corporate elites.

2) The exclusive consequence of the act of voting in 2016 will be (if in a contested “swing state”) to marginally increase or decrease the chance of one of the major party candidates winning.

3) One of these candidates, Trump, denies the existence of global warming, calls for increasing use of fossil fuels, dismantling of environmental regulations and refuses assistance to India and other developing nations as called for in the Paris agreement, the combination of which could, in four years, take us to a catastrophic tipping point. Trump has also pledged to deport 11 million Mexican immigrants, offered to provide for the defense of supporters who have assaulted African American protestors at his rallies, stated his “openness to using nuclear weapons”, supports a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. and regards “the police in this country as absolutely mistreated and misunderstood” while having “done an unbelievable job of keeping law and order.” Trump has also pledged to increase military spending while cutting taxes on the rich, hence shredding what remains of the social welfare “safety net” despite pretenses.

4) The suffering which these and other similarly extremist policies and attitudes will impose on marginalized and already oppressed populations has a high probability of being significantly greater than that which will result from a Clinton presidency.

5) 4) should constitute sufficient basis to voting for Clinton where a vote is potentially consequential-namely, in a contested, “swing” state.

6) However, the left should also recognize that, should Trump win based on its failure to support Clinton, it will repeatedly face the accusation (based in fact), that it lacks concern for those sure to be most victimized by a Trump administration.

7) Often this charge will emanate from establishment operatives who will use it as a bad faith justification for defeating challenges to corporate hegemony either in the Democratic Party or outside of it. They will ensure that it will be widely circulated in mainstream media channels with the result that many of those who would otherwise be sympathetic to a left challenge will find it a convincing reason to maintain their ties with the political establishment rather than breaking with it, as they must.

8) Conclusion: by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve.

https://chomsky.info/an-eight-point-brief-for-lev-lesser-evil-voting/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ensane    163

Don't blame the voters for not falling in line, blame the candidate for not being able to draw more people to them. And that's not just for one side or the other.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ZXtheD    272

I'm just not enthusiastic for either candidate. I'm definitely not voting for Trump, but the biggest thing Clinton seems to have going for her is that she's "not Trump". Oh and the SC picks, so that's another point for her. I don't know..I'll probably end up voting for her; if I do it'll be more of a "live to fight another day" kind of vote than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe.    4932

Denying climate change disqualifies anyone.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+rei+    34642
5 hours ago, ZXtheD said:

I'm just not enthusiastic for either candidate. I'm definitely not voting for Trump, but the biggest thing Clinton seems to have going for her is that she's "not Trump". Oh and the SC picks, so that's another point for her. I don't know..I'll probably end up voting for her; if I do it'll be more of a "live to fight another day" kind of vote than anything else.

She's good on health care, taxation, workers rights, womens rights, and justice while being "ok" on education and the environment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33416

From a game theory standpoint, third party voting is interesting. If you assume that everyone makes their vote individually, not at all being able to influence the votes of other people around them, it barely matters what you do with your vote. The odds that your individual vote will affect the result of the (presidential) election is so small, it's for all intents and purposes 0. In fact, it's so small that it's less than 1/googol (0.0000... (100 zeroes) ... 1). So from the individual perspective, there's no point in voting at all. You're just wasting your time showing up at the polling booth.

 

If we talk about voting on a larger scale, I think the merits of giving support to a third party are quite apparent. First of all, a third party candidate only becomes a "spoiler" if they appeal way more to one major party's voters than the other. If you take Gary Johnson's supporters for example, it's about 50/50 between Trump/Hillary as who their second choice would be. So if 5% of people who would otherwise vote Hillary and 5% of people who would otherwise vote Trump collectively agree to vote for Johnson, they're not screwing over either candidate.

 

Secondly, we have to accept that third parties may not become viable overnight, and thus voting for an "unviable" candidate for a few elections may be required to change the political landscape in the long run. Last election, Johnson got about 1% of the vote. This election, he'll get 7-8%. With the amount of press coverage that he got, perhaps he could actually be viable in 2020. But here's the thing, if no one supports him in 2016, then he can't be viable in 2020. To some people, the value of implementing a long-run strategy to affect the politics of the future is more valuable than being able to affect the politics of the present. This more so happens when people feel like both of their choices currently are shitty.

 

Thirdly, third parties whose sole purpose is to be a spoiler (ie the Green Party and the Constitution Party) can affect who the major parties field in the future. In most elections, the Green Party gets 1% of the vote. If in 2016, they actually get 5% of the vote, we'll all know the reason: Because Hillary Clinton is a shitty candidate. If she were to lose in 2016 as a result, it would serve to make the Democratic Party more likely to field actual progressives in 2020 instead of neo-liberals. 

 

Keep in mind, Chomsky is a philosopher and political activist. He's not writing his piece to try to determine the best voting strategy from a game theory standpoint. He's writing to try to get people to make the same voting choice as him.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Medb    773

Don't know when this happened, as I was at work. But, it was reported she was feeling overheated, and was in the process of leaving to go to Chelsea's apartment to rest when that happened. She was later seeing talking to people, saying goodbye, smiling, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
»ACP    33416

She was in Tampa just last week where it was 95 degrees outside. So I'm not entirely sure how she can be fine here and get overheated in New York where it's in the mid 80s and less humid. On one hand, I don't think she's telling us the entire truth here (shocker), but on the other I doubt she's about to keel over on the campaign trail. Logically, it makes no sense for someone to seek office if they don't think that they'll be in good enough health to make it to January. The only way that anyone would do that is if they're intentionally trying to fuck over their own party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
website is bad    2172

itt: the heat island effect is an sjw conspiracy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×