USA 2016 Presidential Election Thread

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

They won't listen to her because she's a liar, corrupt, a nutcase and would probably be in prison had Obama not intervened on her behalf - please don't start to trying to claim this hatred towards Hollary is anything to do with her vagina, it isn't and it lowers the tone of the debate.

 

It's a shame as any half decent Republican candidate would have beaten her.

 If it's not in part because she's a woman, why the massive divide in voting patterns between men and women this time round and the subsequent push by the alt right to "repeal the 19th"?

 

It's not by any means the biggest reason why people won't go for her, but it is a factor.

 

The Repub establishment knew as well as you do that someone like Rubio would have stood a good chance against her, but they were unable to gain control of the primary process this time round; hence their jettisoning of Trump now, in order to not damage their brand further and so stand a chance in four years. It would make an interesting study as to the reasons why. That all being said, I'm not sure how they think their particular brand of God fearing social conservatism will do any better than how Trump has done now, so they're banking on a catastrophic Hillary screw up in the first four years, which is possible.

[Nick]

 

It makes me laugh people saying that radical so called politicians don't get a fair crack of the whip by the media.

 

You've got a fella that's so deeply ignorant toward minority groups, gets called out on said ignorance time after time and responds by saying I'm being demonised and it's all rigged. On the other hand there's the argument that you behave like a bell end, say stupid things like a bell end and people will call you a bell end. 

 

This is true if you're Nick Griffin, Nigel Farage or Donald Trump.

 

But we're gonna build a wall, deport those who steal our jobs, abolish abortion and buy big guns to err protect lives.

 

Freedom and Independence?

 

Hilary at least has a brain.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

It makes me laugh people saying that radical so called politicians don't get a fair crack of the whip by the media.

 

You've got a fella that's so deeply ignorant toward minority groups, gets called out on said ignorance time after time and responds by saying I'm being demonised and it's all rigged. On the other hand there's the argument that you behave like a bell end, say stupid things like a bell end and people will call you a bell end. 

 

This is true if you're Nick Griffin, Nigel Farage or Donald Trump.

 

But we're gonna build a wall, deport those who steal our jobs, abolish abortion and buy big guns to err protect lives.

 

Freedom and Independence?

 

Hilary at least has a brain.

 

Just quickly I don't think Trump has never said he's going to abolish abortion, deport people who steal jobs or "buy big guns" whatever that even mean. (as for bulilding walls, lots of countries do that, it's a stupid idea as it won't work, but the abuse Trump has got for it compared to everyone else is bizarre)

 

On the point though I think it's becoming clear any politician from the centre doesn't get a fair crack, I'm sorry but I firmly agree with that, Farage, Trump, Corbyn and Sanders have all been victims of a press that have no problem lying about them and misrepresenting them in a way they never would to a Blair, Clinton or Cameron, two from the left and two from the right there and all have been slandered, pillored and mocked to an extent they have become comedy figures.

 

What should really scare the media is people are just starting to see through it now, they can't continue with these tactics, at some point they are going to have to confront the issues that are making these sort of people so popular on the left and the right, but my guess as per usual is we'll see more had in the sand, then more people heading towards extremes.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The Repub establishment knew as well as you do that someone like Rubio would have stood a good chance against her, but they were unable to gain control of the primary process this time round; hence their jettisoning of Trump now, in order to not damage their brand further and so stand a chance in four years. It would make an interesting study as to the reasons why. That all being said, I'm not sure how they think their particular brand of God fearing social conservatism will do any better than how Trump has done now, so they're banking on a catastrophic Hillary screw up in the first four years, which is possible.

Think I mentioned this before but a lot senior Republicans wants Trump to lose in order to save the brand, all likelihood whoever wins we are looking at a one term president.

Have you seen the polls in Utah by the way? Incrdible, could be the first state in history to elect a third party candidate.

[Darkon84]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

This may sound naive, but is a genuine question: What makes you say that?

 

I don't pay much attention to US politics outside election times. I'm aware of her private email server that caused a scandal and that she has links to various big corporations (hardly unusual in US or UK politics, unfortunately).

 

But what makes her stand out as exceptionally crooked and devious to you? it's a title for which there's a lot of competition, after all!

 

 

Haha ok I can't really say 'of all time', having not read up on every single politician there's ever been, and no doubt she has had some competition, but her track record of lies, flip flopping stances, money, dealings etc must be right up there. Matt and Obama have very kindly pointed out a few points above, but for me, it's the whole Bhengazi and e-mail scandal that has just been lie after lie after lie on such a scale that were it anyone else, such as Bradley/Chelsea Manning (serving 35 years), would be locked up. Even within the trials it was absolutely astounding how the top 5 witnesses connected to her and what happened, which were requested, were all granted indemnity somehow from the top of the FBI. For someone in her position to claim not to know that the (C) for classified meant on the emails is nonsense. For the 33,000 odd emails to be bleached AFTER being issued a subpoena. For her to OK the untrue story of the attacks in Libya being down to some ridiculous youtube video. For her to converse incredibly regularly with Sidney Blumenthal and use him as an advisor for such huge issues, even when it had been denied by Obama himself....the list is endless.

 

Then on top, of course you have all of the other things such as the harassment of rape victims, the odd dealings and setup of the Clinton foundation itself, the hypocrisy of things she stands against now and slates others for, such as tighter borders, including physical barriers, and saying Mexico sends their criminals up in to the US were all things she has said herself. The list really could be endless if you wanted to delve deep enough.

 

In the end, this will all end badly for America and unfortunately, it's the people who will have to pay for it.

 

NB. Sorry if some of the wording and sentence structure isn't great in some of the post. I was writing in pieces, whilst also working.

[Nick]

29 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Just quickly I don't think Trump has never said he's going to abolish abortion, deport people who steal jobs or "buy big guns" whatever that even mean. (as for bulilding walls, lots of countries do that, it's a stupid idea as it won't work, but the abuse Trump has got for it compared to everyone else is bizarre)

 

On the point though I think it's becoming clear any politician from the centre doesn't get a fair crack, I'm sorry but I firmly agree with that, Farage, Trump, Corbyn and Sanders have all been victims of a press that have no problem lying about them and misrepresenting them in a way they never would to a Blair, Clinton or Cameron, two from the left and two from the right there and all have been slandered, pillored and mocked to an extent they have become comedy figures.

 

What should really scare the media is people are just starting to see through it now, they can't continue with these tactics, at some point they are going to have to confront the issues that are making these sort of people so popular on the left and the right, but my guess as per usual is we'll see more had in the sand, then more people heading towards extremes.

Of course, the media isn't independent its subject to manipulation and sadly often designed to sell rather than to inform. 

I suppose when you look at any text or image, thinking about representation, ideology, mass media, genre, audience, institution and narrative is key to disseminating its intent. It's a good way of digging down when selecting sources. On an aside, Chomsky went to some incredible lengths in some of his research to find sources with less bias when investigating American foreign policy.

 

I'm however not naive enough to believe that all this stuff about Trump 'happens' to have come out in the final run-up to the election - its got security service prints smeared all over it. I don't agree with it but it's a road thats been gone down because the threat of such a fucking idiot leading the 'free world' is a greater than any risks associated with not trying to prevent such an outcome.

 

The world is full of people who have crazy, discriminatory and radical beliefs though - the idea that we label them as victims though is ridiculous because we should somehow entertain their stupidity and hate and give it some more thought. And lets be honest if you're as nuts as Trump, the only thing that gets you to this position with those kind of beliefs is spin and cash - he's not a victim here.

 

Edit:Oh and the notion that the politicians you have listed you see as 'from the centre' - seriously?

[sm1]

27 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

 

Haha ok I can't really say 'of all time', having not read up on every single politician there's ever been, and no doubt she has had some competition, but her track record of lies, flip flopping stances, money, dealings etc must be right up there. Matt and Obama have very kindly pointed out a few points above, but for me, it's the whole Bhengazi and e-mail scandal that has just been lie after lie after lie on such a scale that were it anyone else, such as Bradley/Chelsea Manning (serving 35 years), would be locked up. Even within the trials it was absolutely astounding how the top 5 witnesses connected to her and what happened, which were requested, were all granted indemnity somehow from the top of the FBI. For someone in her position to claim not to know that the (C) for classified meant on the emails is nonsense. For the 33,000 odd emails to be bleached AFTER being issued a subpoena. For her to OK the untrue story of the attacks in Libya being down to some ridiculous youtube video. For her to converse incredibly regularly with Sidney Blumenthal and use him as an advisor for such huge issues, even when it had been denied by Obama himself....the list is endless.

 

Then on top, of course you have all of the other things such as the harassment of rape victims, the odd dealings and setup of the Clinton foundation itself, the hypocrisy of things she stands against now and slates others for, such as tighter borders, including physical barriers, and saying Mexico sends their criminals up in to the US were all things she has said herself. The list really could be endless if you wanted to delve deep enough.

 

In the end, this will all end badly for America and unfortunately, it's the people who will have to pay for it.

 

NB. Sorry if some of the wording and sentence structure isn't great in some of the post. I was writing in pieces, whilst also working.

To add to the above, her own party colluded with her against Bernie, also their candidate, so that there was no doubt she'd win the nomination from her party. Shamefully after knowing this Bernie still publically backed her, back tracking on everything he had said. Then again rumours are he's brought a new lakeside $600000 villa, so he's be rewarded handsomely.

People may laugh when Trump says the system is rigged, but when you see the evidence of her own party sabotaging Bernie's campaign and the mass media refusing to highlight her criminality, there is truth in that. Like Clinton says ignorant voters are the key to winning the elections, and the mass media makes sure that most people are purposefully kept ignorant. Thats the way politics works globally.

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, MattP said:

Think I mentioned this before but a lot senior Republicans wants Trump to lose in order to save the brand, all likelihood whoever wins we are looking at a one term president.

Have you seen the polls in Utah by the way? Incrdible, could be the first state in history to elect a third party candidate.

That seems to be the case and would be the logical thing for the Republican establishment to do now. However, as I mentioned in the previous post I'm honestly not sure about how much more good putting up someone more forthright and socially conservative will do for them. They tried that with McCain and Romney and they both lost quite heavily (though you could factor Obama into that), so do they think enough people in enough swing states will buy what they're selling if they try the same thing come four years time, without a total Hillary meltdown in the meantime? I honestly don't think it is the case, it doesn't appeal to enough women and minority groups in crucial areas, not any more.

 

As for Utah, it does make an interesting case study. McMullin is the kind of boyo who could take advantage of the current climate and win there, but not in many other states - his appeal is too narrow.

[foxes21]

I wonder if Americans realise they could vote for third party, as both candidates are so terrible.

 

Very little politics has been talked about, during this election process. Hilary/Trump just throw personal insults, it was more of a roasting session than a debate. And, there has been so much fear mongering in the mainstream media, instead of indepth analysis of politic issues.. Sadly it's even spreading to YouTube: Casey Neistat who works for HBO, a company that backs Clinton's campaign, puts out this video... Completely insults Trump, trying to brainwash his viewers instead of giving any political reasoning as to why he will vote for Clinton.

 

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

Hilary is dodgy, but she is a million times better than Trump in terms of capability and stability.  **** popularity.  Bieber is popular, wouldn't make him president.

[yorkie1999]

21 minutes ago, foxes21 said:

I wonder if Americans realise they could vote for third party, as both candidates are so terrible.

 

Very little politics has been talked about, during this election process. Hilary/Trump just throw personal insults, it was more of a roasting session than a debate. And, there has been so much fear mongering in the mainstream media, instead of indepth analysis of politic issues.. Sadly it's even spreading to YouTube: Casey Neistat who works for HBO, a company that backs Clinton's campaign, puts out this video... Completely insults Trump, trying to brainwash his viewers instead of giving any political reasoning as to why he will vote for Clinton.

 

 

 

To be able to use being mentally sound, sensible and sane as reasons for voting for someone and to differentiate from the other candidate is scrapping the barrel a bit.It's like saying vote for jimmy saville because he was never found guilty.

[sm1]

5 hours ago, Darkon84 said:

 

Both of them are bloody terrible candidates, that much should be obvious to everyone. Trump is a loose cannon and shouldn't be near any form of position which involves countrywide, let alone worldwide policy, and Clinton must surely be the most crooked politician of all time, certainly the most devious I've ever seen at least.

 

Things are going to get worse over there, no matter who wins. Bad times are coming for America.

 

And now this has dropped. Undercover reporting highlighting links to Clinton's campaign that they are employed to send in people to disrupt and incite violence at Trump rallies.

 

 

 

The guy on there admits that they pay mentally ill people to "do shit" at trump rallys. What a bunch of sick c**nts. Americian politics is dirty but this is taking it to a whole new level.

[Jon the Hat]

To be fair, inciting violence at a Trump rally usually just means speaking out against the utter garbage he is spouting.

[MPH]

4 hours ago, foxes21 said:

I wonder if Americans realise they could vote for third party, as both candidates are so terrible.

 

Very little politics has been talked about, during this election process. Hilary/Trump just throw personal insults, it was more of a roasting session than a debate. And, there has been so much fear mongering in the mainstream media, instead of indepth analysis of politic issues.. Sadly it's even spreading to YouTube: Casey Neistat who works for HBO, a company that backs Clinton's campaign, puts out this video... Completely insults Trump, trying to brainwash his viewers instead of giving any political reasoning as to why he will vote for Clinton.

 

 

 

Most that i have spoken to  know there's other options but they feel that strongly to the left or right that they hate the opposite viewpoints more than they love their own, if that makes sense!

 

 

They feel like a vote for an independent would mean one less vote to stop the devil incarnate, for want of a better phrase....

[Barky]

4 hours ago, foxes21 said:

I wonder if Americans realise they could vote for third party, as both candidates are so terrible.

 

Very little politics has been talked about, during this election process. Hilary/Trump just throw personal insults, it was more of a roasting session than a debate. And, there has been so much fear mongering in the mainstream media, instead of indepth analysis of politic issues.. Sadly it's even spreading to YouTube: Casey Neistat who works for HBO, a company that backs Clinton's campaign, puts out this video... Completely insults Trump, trying to brainwash his viewers instead of giving any political reasoning as to why he will vote for Clinton.

 

 

 

I don't think Neistat works for HBO. He  had a show commissioned by them in the past but i'd be very surprised if they still have any control over what he says on his independent youtube channel.

 

Agree that American politics is awful in the way policies barely rate, but to be fair its not much better over here and you could argue it's voters fault for being generally pretty ignorant about policies.

[MPH]

3 minutes ago, Barky said:

I don't think Neistat works for HBO. He  had a show commissioned by them in the past but i'd be very surprised if they still have any control over what he says on his independent youtube channel.

 

Agree that American politics is awful in the way policies barely rate, but to be fair its not much better over here and you could argue it's voters fault for being generally pretty ignorant about policies.

 

 

Alot of people are so entrenched in their values that nothing else matters to them.

 

A vote for Hilary for example, will give you a more liberal president on matters like Abortion, gay marriage,  more freedom on immigration and a vote for donald will do the opposite. most other things are secondary to them

[foxes21]

you are both right, but the vote for third party is never talked about in mainstream media, so voters don't really understand what a vote for third party would mean.

 

Imo if I was American id vote third party. Bernie Sanders said it best, the fundamentals of politics in America needs to be changed. If there is no change, this merry go round between left and right will continue, every four years.

[Guest WarehamFox]

5 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

 

It makes me laugh people saying that radical so called politicians don't get a fair crack of the whip by the media.

 

You've got a fella that's so deeply ignorant toward minority groups, gets called out on said ignorance time after time and responds by saying I'm being demonised and it's all rigged. On the other hand there's the argument that you behave like a bell end, say stupid things like a bell end and people will call you a bell end. 

 

This is true if you're Nick Griffin, Nigel Farage or Donald Trump.

 

But we're gonna build a wall, deport those who steal our jobs, abolish abortion and buy big guns to err protect lives.

 

Freedom and Independence?

 

Hilary at least has a brain

 

Hilary has a brain all right, but not always for the good of others! Ask the poor families who lost kin in Bengazi because of her! You been/live in USA? Oh and her name is Hillary! Oh and i'm defo no Trump fan, just think people from the outside think Clinton is some God!

[Guest WarehamFox]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Hilary is dodgy, but she is a million times better than Trump in terms of capability and stability.  **** popularity.  Bieber is popular, wouldn't make him president.

Stable!! Have you not watched what she said about Russia and America's nuclear power then? She's as mad as a hatter!

[leicsmac]

39 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

Alot of people are so entrenched in their values that nothing else matters to them.

 

A vote for Hilary for example, will give you a more liberal president on matters like Abortion, gay marriage,  more freedom on immigration and a vote for donald will do the opposite. most other things are secondary to them

This is about right, for good or for bad. Most folks do tend to be single issue voters like this.

 

For me, social issues are more important than economic ones and I strongly believe that regardless of leader Republicans can and do use religion to legislate in several matters to inhibit the fundamental freedom of choice of both women and LGBT people, so that's my single issue that as a result I could never vote R, even if such voting habits probably goes against my demographic self interest. Of course, there are many who would disagree that they do this, but that's my take.

 

Perhaps that's short sighted of me, but who knows.

[Guest WarehamFox]

The media has a massive influence on voters, especially in the USA! It is so biased and voters can be so conned by the media. Look at the media here in the UK,  The Sun supports Labour when Blair is in charge and who wins? The Sun supports the Conservatives under Cameroon who wins? Sorry for bringing up The Sun, but they can change between parties and who they support win the election! That is the media influence for you. Don't believe what the media tell you, they lie!!!

[Darkon84]

14 hours ago, WarehamFox said:

The media has a massive influence on voters, especially in the USA! It is so biased and voters can be so conned by the media. Look at the media here in the UK,  The Sun supports Labour when Blair is in charge and who wins? The Sun supports the Conservatives under Cameroon who wins? Sorry for bringing up The Sun, but they can change between parties and who they support win the election! That is the media influence for you. Don't believe what the media tell you, they lie!!!

I shan't derail the thread, but some might find this interesting whilst half on the topic of papers backing parties, even though I'm positive it's been posted before.

 

 

And a list of which papers back which candidates in the nomination race in America. Such a split for the Republicans!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_primaries,_2016

[leicsmac]

37 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

I shan't derail the thread, but some might find this interesting whilst half on the topic of papers backing parties, even though I'm positive it's been posted before.

 

 

And a list of which papers back which candidates in the nomination race in America. Such a split for the Republicans!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_United_States_presidential_primaries,_2016

I remember this being thrown about on here a while back, it is very interesting. Shows how entrenched the Mail and Express and particularly the Torygraph are on one side, and the Mirror, Indy and the Grauniad on the other.

 

People either overstate or understate how much influence print media has on a populace come election day and I guess the real amount is difficult to tell, but surely presenting anything other than information and allowing the reader to make an informed choice based on that is wrong anyway?

 

That might be impossible because these papers are written by fallible, biased humans and that's always going to come out, though.

[Darkon84]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I remember this being thrown about on here a while back, it is very interesting. Shows how entrenched the Mail and Express and particularly the Torygraph are on one side, and the Mirror, Indy and the Grauniad on the other.

 

People either overstate or understate how much influence print media has on a populace come election day and I guess the real amount is difficult to tell, but surely presenting anything other than information and allowing the reader to make an informed choice based on that is wrong anyway?

 

That might be impossible because these papers are written by fallible, biased humans and that's always going to come out, though.

 

Yea I do like a nice little infographic like that, which is something the Guardian tend to be good for. I think the key is to know or at least have an idea which way certain papers and channels lean, so that you can take what they say with a pinch of salt, then see how a media channel which leans the other way reports the same thing, so you can make an informed decision for yourself. Unfortunately, I'd say most of the population either don't know or don't care enough about knowing, and are as entrenched in their views as the papers etc are.

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Darkon84 said:

 

Yea I do like a nice little infographic like that, which is something the Guardian tend to be good for. I think the key is to know or at least have an idea which way certain papers and channels lean, so that you can take what they say with a pinch of salt, then see how a media channel which leans the other way reports the same thing, so you can make an informed decision for yourself. Unfortunately, I'd say most of the population either don't know or don't care enough about knowing, and are as entrenched in their views as the papers etc are.

I think it's more "don't care" than "don't know". People like echo chambers and digesting media that reinforce their existing opinion. Think that comes back to the reassurance that you're thinking the "right" way, and good old fashioned self interest.

 

Definitely agree that looking at more than one media outlet and knowing which way they slant is a good thing and looking a few of them before coming to a decision is a good thing, and I wish people would do more of it. But that brings us back to the above.