2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Niiro]

It's the kind of statement one makes when they, personally, will not suffer from the effects of a Trump presidency and has no concern for those that will.

[myreality]

I think, unfortunately, Hillary will win. But, I think it'll be closer than what people think it will be.

And, personally I'm voting Trump. I'd rather vote in a blowhard that say's some things that might hurt peoples feelings than a blatant criminal.

I don't think Trump will be a great president, but I think this country needs a serious wake up call when it comes to our government and sometimes you need to get knocked on your ass to see how bad things have gotten to realize it's time to pick up and improve.

America is the frog in boiling water when it comes to our government, politics, and how corrupt and ineffective things currently are.

I hear this argument all the time. I understand what you're thinking, the only thing is that Trump may very well destroy and split this nation to the point of no return. This guy is as narcissistic as it gets and will throw tantrums with access to nuke codes. This man announced that his first 100 days he will sue people to give you an idea of how concerned he is to make this nation great again.

Get people to vote local and state officials more for the change you want.

[Yuri-G]

It's the kind of statement one makes when they, personally, will not suffer from the effects of a Trump presidency and has no concern for those that will.

Don't get me started. My friend and I got into this back when the Bernie Bros were a big thing. Did you ever notice that pretty much every Bernie Bro who was going to abstain from voting to spite Hillary was a white college-educated male who had nothing to lose from a Trump presidency?

[thetruepandagod]

Burn it all down, class war now.

[Yuri-G]

Honey, the class war has come and gone, and y'all know damn well who won

[Gredival]

I have always said the Democrats would be incredibly strong if they stopped eating their young.

I think being willing to call a spade a spade, whether it's from your side or the other, is a valuable asset. It may do short term damage, but it helps keep everything inside in proper order. We don't need our own version of the tea party.

[thetruepandagod]

No one ever wins until socialism ceases to exist in the minds of the people.

[Gredival]

No one ever wins until socialism ceases to exist in the minds of the people.

Scandinavian countries indicate otherwise. Just need competent people (i.e. not named Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders).

[BerenTebogo]

Stumbling through FB comments and saw this. Too gold not to post.

[Gredival]

Election season truly is prime time for FB trimming.

[Aerin]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/26/europe...n-2/index.html

It's just a distraction guys. We don't know that those are real or if they're going to Russia. We need to focus only on ISIS, they're sending as many as 0 people over the border every day and inspire a few idiots on our soil. Oh, and don't forget, if Trump doesn't win, grab your gun and go looking for those who don't agree with you.

/sarcasm

[Andalusian girls]

Scandinavian countries indicate otherwise. Just need competent people (i.e. not named Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders).

all four Scandinavian states are market economies centered around private ownership with very little of the communal control of production that is the defining feature of socialism. indeed by some rubrics, such as free trade and corporate taxation and minimum wage laws, they are rather more laissez faire than we.

an extensive welfare apparatus or powerful private sector unions or high levels of taxation indicate different points of emphasis than American capitalism, but it is not socialism, as they are more than willing to tell you and Bernie and all the rest that take their name in vain.

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism," he said. "Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

In Rasmussen's view, "The Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens, but it is also a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish."

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/965003...bernie-sanders

[thetruepandagod]

That's an awful lot of semantics and words to say glorious white homogeneity.

Spoiler: show

Barring Sweden obvi.

[thetruepandagod]

I'm starting to wonder if a substantial amount of complaints might come about due to perceived corruption at the polling stations.
https://twitter.com/pzf/status/791471848873615360

People seem extra ornery this election cycle. Never mind one of the candidates actually pushing the narrative of a rigged voting system.

[Gredival]

all four Scandinavian states are market economies centered around private ownership with very little of the communal control of production that is the defining feature of socialism. indeed by some rubrics, such as free trade and corporate taxation and minimum wage laws, they are rather more laissez faire than we.

an extensive welfare apparatus or powerful private sector unions or high levels of taxation indicate different points of emphasis than American capitalism, but it is not socialism, as they are more than willing to tell you and Bernie and all the rest that take their name in vain.

The Nordic system is called both Nordic capitalism and Nordic social democracy for a reason. The elements of national level collective bargaining at the national level combined with a robust welfare are strong elements of a socialist state although they have manifested in an undoubtedly market-friendly variety in the Scandinavian countries. The high public spending of these states isn't just welfare, it's also high state spending from a "big" government. Sweden's SAP party is self-described as a democratic socialist party.

I mean if we're going to nitpick, we can point out all the ways America deviates from "true" capitalism as well. That's not really the point here. I'm objecting to the wholesale rejection of "socialism" in much the same way that I would object to a wholesale rejection of "capitalism."

[Quicklet]

I think being willing to call a spade a spade, whether it's from your side or the other, is a valuable asset. It may do short term damage, but it helps keep everything inside in proper order. We don't need our own version of the tea party.

I laughed at the irony of this statement.

Hillary and Dems get 2-4 years to start addressing the serious problems of income inequality in this country. The whole "stronger together" bullshit won't work if her supporters feel sold out to the banks, pharmaceuticals, and lobbyists. The best way to avoid a tea party on the left is to adequately address the issues that would give rise to it. Look at the collapse of Bayh's polling as a great example -- he may still win but he went from a sure thing to a much tighter race because of some really boneheaded decisions that make him look out of touch.

And if Dems don't take back the House so they can start accomplishing some of their agenda, they need to learn to effectively punish Republicans for obstructionism.

[Gredival]

The whole "stronger together" bullshit won't work if her supporters feel sold out to the banks, pharmaceuticals, and lobbyists.

Supporters don't get policy passed. See Obama's grass roots. See every argument against Bernie's revolution in this thread and the past threads. Politicking gets policy passed.

Again dirty hands is a feature, not a bug.

Also that's assuming we feel that we addressing the problem is even on the table given GOP obstructionism. I've argued multiple times that a Democratic presidency here is likely to be nothing but a bulwark with most meaningful impacts coming from executive power not legislation (my "Bernie = high risk, no yield, Hillary = low risk, no yield" argument). If the problem cannot be addressed, why is it part of the discussion?

The best way to avoid a tea party on the left is to adequately address the issues that would give rise to it.

Or, like the GOP should have done with the Tea Party, you don't give their crazy agenda legitimacy.

Look at the collapse of Bayh's polling as a great example -- he may still win but he went from a sure thing to a much tighter race because of some really boneheaded decisions that make him look out of touch.

Not staying a single night in your home state has nothing to do with his often light-red politics, which is the only reason he is viable in that race.

And if Dems don't take back the House so they can start accomplishing some of their agenda, they need to learn to effectively punish Republicans for obstructionism.

Except the rules of the system, as written, make that extremely difficult. If the Dems go nuclear they immediately regret it in 2018 when they are defending 25 Senate seats vs the GOP's 8.

Plus the GOP has been playing the last two decades (holding the country hostage to get their way) empowers them far more than the Democrats - majority or minority.

[Day]

anytime someone says feature not a bug its without a doubt a bug, i dont think that phrase has ever been said without sarcasm before

[Niiro]

It's a bug that it's a feature.

[Day]

that makes her smart