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

[archibaldcrane]

Hillary has had like 3 press conferences in the past two weeks.

[thetruepandagod]

Someday there might actually be a 3rd party candidate that has a snowballs chance in hell of winning, but that clearly isn't the case this election. There are several reasons for this, some that carry through to all elections in general. The way the system works, you get one candidate or the other, there is no middle ground. If you're willing to risk putting someone that you believe holds almost none of the values you hold dear in the Oval Office, simply to send a message that your side picked the wrong candidate, then you're just cutting of your nose to spite your face.

Well like andalusian said 100 pages back or so, you guys don't actually want more than 2 parties as it allows for candidates who have extremely high floors such as Trump who was incapable of dropping below a 35% base to snag elections with FAR more ease and is the exact same thing that gave rise to the nazi party.

[myreality]

Hillary has had like 3 press conferences in the past two weeks.

First time i heard about it and i been keeping an eye out on it. Care to link a few sources, please?

[archibaldcrane]

Here's one: http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/media/clinton-presser/

And one here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ampaign-plane/

Acting like Hillary hasn't acquieced to her defeated primary opponent more than any other candidate in history is a goddamn joke btw

[archibaldcrane]

First time i heard about it and i been keeping an eye out on it. Care to link a few sources, please?

You really must not be paying attention at all. Shit was over a week ago.

[myreality]

Here's one: http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/media/clinton-presser/

And one here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ampaign-plane/

Acting like Hillary hasn't acquieced to her defeated primary opponent more than any other candidate in history is a goddamn joke btw

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/media/clinton-presser/

Asked why she didn't have a more commanding lead over Trump, she said the race was always going to be close but her campaign was "in a strong position."
Asked about her promise to not put troops in Iraq, she reiterated her belief that "putting a big contingent of American grounds troops on the ground in Iraq and Syria would not be in the best interest in the fight against ISIS an other terrorist groups."
Asked to respond to a criticism from Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus that she was too serious and didn't smile enough at Thursday night's forum -- a remark many liberals criticized as sexist -- she said that these were "serious issues" that warranted serious responses, and said she would leave the questions about gender to journalists and campaign historians.
And so, in a press conference that lasted less than 20 minutes, Clinton achieved exactly what she set out to do: End the criticisms that she had gone the entire year without a press conference, and move the narrative beyond Thursday night's forum.

.....She didn't answer anything at all important, how the hell is this suppose to sway votes? This is a stunt to stop the clock,not to inform voters on why she is the better candidate. This doesn't hold up at all, its horrible.....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ampaign-plane/

Sigh, this is also horrible. Learned nothing new except what Trump and Russia potential involvement. Her strong stance on classification of documents and Chelsea Clinton involvement on the Clinton Foundation......

Can throw both of those in the trash, the clock still holds up.

I see she is trying really hard with those non issue, scripted questions that does not tap on anything the people are worried about. How in the world does this help her?

[Aerin]

Well like andalusian said 100 pages back or so, you guys don't actually want more than 2 parties as it allows for candidates who have extremely high floors such as Trump who was incapable of dropping below a 35% base to snag elections with FAR more ease and is the exact same thing that gave rise to the nazi party.

I have no problem with there being more than 2 parties. But while dreaming of a better world you need to deal with reality. If it's really that important to you and others, then there's probably more that needs to be done than just waiting around for a great candidate to come around. The presidential election isn't the only way to bring about change.

[archibaldcrane]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/media/clinton-presser/




.....She didn't answer anything at all important, how the hell is this suppose to sway votes? This is a stunt to stop the clock,not to inform voters on why she is the better candidate. This doesn't hold up at all, its horrible.....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ampaign-plane/

Sigh, this is also horrible. Learned nothing new except what Trump and Russia potential involvement. Her strong stance on classification of documents and Chelsea Clinton involvement on the Clinton Foundation......

Can throw both of those in the trash, the clock still holds up.

So you're mad that the media didn't ask the questions you want? You are ridiculous.

[Gredival]

So you're mad that the media didn't ask the questions you want? You are ridiculous.

CUZ IT'S THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA. THEY HELPED BLACK BERNIE OUT.

[myreality]

So you're mad that the media didn't ask the questions you want? You are ridiculous.

I'm mad the media didn't ask questions. Did you not read them? What the hell did she answer that wasn't already known? How are these even considered important to her voters?

CUZ IT'S THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA. THEY HELPED BLACK BERNIE OUT.

Someones getting flustered.

Edit: She is going to lose if she does not speak to the voters. Maybe she can address problems like her plans or ideas on how to handle education, healthcare, the heroine epidemic, infrastructure, wall street, middle east, ISIS, and a ton of other high list priorities that should be addressed by a person looking to be president. Do a two hour press conference with real questions of her plans to address how she will handle congress and the senate and its decade of gridlock. Touch on Citizens United and the corporate campaign donations that are going out of control, and recently how to handle people like Scott Walker. There are plenty of things she could do that are not behind the podium that could help her tremendously,hell Obama did AMA (AskMeAnything) on Reddit a few times which drove is likability way up.

[myreality]

Double post.

[archibaldcrane]

Did you miss her unveiling her mental health plan?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...al-health-plan

Or answering questions about her views on science?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...about-science/

How about you just say what you want to hear from her?

[thetruepandagod]

hell Obama did AMA (AskMeAnything) on Reddit a few times which drove is likability way up.

Yes, his reply to the NASA question made me roll my eyes so hard I went blind. I would prefer no one ever does an AMA again just to spare me that feeling ever again.

[myreality]

Did you miss her unveiling her mental health plan?
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...al-health-plan

Or answering questions about her views on science?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...about-science/

How about you just say what you want to hear from her?

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...al-health-plan

Like Obamacare, Clinton's plan aims to put mental health on the same level as physical health care in terms of how it is paid for by insurance companies.

In her proposal, Clinton promised to hold a White House conference on mental heath during her first year in office and to direct federal agencies to study suicide and how to prevent it. Her plan also would provide training for law enforcement officers on how to recognize and interact with people who have a mental illness, and would seek to provide better housing and employment opportunities.

YES! This is what i want! This is want i want badly, especially since i work in the care industry and interact with those who have mental health issues on a daily bases. This! Is what will translate into votes.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...about-science/

This one is alright, while touching on a major issue of science and education she doesn't give us anything specific. If i recall this was part of the deal that Bernie had with Hillary to gain his support. I hope to all that is holy that she follows through.

To answer your questions
Did you miss her unveiling her mental health plan?
Yes i missed the mental health plan, i do not know why its not plastered all over the news stations. Not going to happen unless democrats rule the house though.
answering questions about her views on science?
No i did not miss her plans for science and education but that was during one of her speeches after Bernie endorsed her.

She is obviously the better choice when it comes to healthcare. On the other issue we have two candidates making roughly the same promises on funding the Sciences and education, who do you trust more to keep there word(not me, the undecided voters)?

Edit: Had to look up the meaning of this word. Consortia

Also to this question: How about you just say what you want to hear from her?

I did an edit on the above on what i wanted while you were responding.

[myreality]

Yes, his reply to the NASA question made me roll my eyes so hard I went blind. I would prefer no one ever does an AMA again just to spare me that feeling ever again.

Despite what you disagree with, it helped him greatly.

Edit: Making to many edits due to being past my bedtime, have a goodnight!

[Xantavia]

Someday there might actually be a 3rd party candidate that has a snowballs chance in hell of winning, but that clearly isn't the case this election. There are several reasons for this, some that carry through to all elections in general. The way the system works, you get one candidate or the other, there is no middle ground. If you're willing to risk putting someone that you believe holds almost none of the values you hold dear in the Oval Office, simply to send a message that your side picked the wrong candidate, then you're just cutting of your nose to spite your face.

And the alternative is to send the message that you are A-OK with everything the party is doing and there is no need to change anything by voting only D or R.

[Aerin]

Because voting (or in this case not voting) for someone for President is the only way to send that message.

[Gredival]

And the alternative is to send the message that you are A-OK with everything the party is doing and there is no need to change anything by voting only D or R.

When a party becomes non-viable, it is forced to reinvent itself by offering voters what they want or it gets replaced. This happened to the Democrats with FDR (New Deal) and with JFK/LBJ (Civil Rights Act losing them the South) then to a lesser degree with Clinton 42 (triage, third way), and to the GOP with Reagan (voodonomics). And all signs point to it happening to GOP again, eventually due to how it's alienating key demographics (even if they manage to win this cycle).

[Marootsoobutsu]

And the alternative is to send the message that you are A-OK with everything the party is doing and there is no need to change anything by voting only D or R.

No, the alternative is to do something more meaningful than vote for President if you want to see that kind of change. Don't get me wrong-- voting is vital, and it can make some change happen. But if you're that upset, than make changes locally, and generate internal pressure. And realize you're never going to get what you want, because you need to compromise with hundreds of millions of people who think you're an idiot, who prefer their interpretations of data and analysis of history, many of whom are smarter than anyone you've ever shaken hands with, on both sides of the political aisle and on all extremities not within it.

[Quicklet]

When a party becomes non-viable, it is forced to reinvent itself by offering voters what they want or it gets replaced. This happened to the Democrats with FDR (New Deal) and with JFK/LBJ (Civil Rights Act losing them the South) then to a lesser degree with Clinton 42 (triage, third way), and to the GOP with Reagan (voodonomics). And all signs point to it happening to GOP again, eventually due to how it's alienating key demographics (even if they manage to win this cycle).

I agree that the GOP is somewhere along the stages of death as a viable national political party. The question is what happens after November whether or not Trump loses. Right now there's no indication that they're going to moderate at all, and voters haven't punished them for failing to do so.