Campaign 2016

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

My state, Louisiana, is going for Trump. No way will it go for Clinton. So it's settled already here. Trump's getting all the electoral votes*. A vote for anyone else in essence won't count. So I might as well vote my conscience.

[/b]


If more people had done that in the first place, we wouldn't be stuck with these two in the first place.

[NOLA BB Fan]

That's another issue. I'm a registered Independent and as such was ineligible to vote in the primaries in Louisiana.

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

That is so asinine to me...people should be able to vote for whomever the hell they want.

[Emily]

If I could, I'll be voting Stein in November..... People don't deserve to have to choose a lesser of two evils - a faux progressive militaristic oligarchist or a demagogue and an imbecile

If the Democrats do lose in November, it'll be their fault for choosing such an abysmal candidate. Ditto the Republicans.

It seems to me that, in some ways, people deserve what they vote for. So since they voted for Trump and Clinton, by that thinking, that's the choice they deserve.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

If I could, I'll be voting Stein in November..... People don't deserve to have to choose a lesser of two evils - a faux progressive militaristic oligarchist or a demagogue and an imbecile

If the Democrats do lose in November, it'll be their fault for choosing such an abysmal candidate. Ditto the Republicans.

Is Jill on the ballot where you live? She is in here in Texas, and I'll be voting for her.

Sorry Billy but I would argue there is too much at stake to waste your vote. Because Stein is, as of now, only on the ballot in 23 states. Even if she was on in all states, she has ZERO chance of winning, but she could get 10%. She only has a chance of electing Trump.

Bernie is no dummy, he knows what is at stake. He endorsed Clinton. The future of Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, women's rights, the EPA, gay marriage, and a million other things are at stake,

It was no coincidence that Stein appeared at the DNC escoorted by a Fox News crew. Republicans are throwing money at her campaign.

Texas is becoming less white and less Republican every year. Your states' Houston newspaper endorsed Clinton.

If you recall Nader took enough votes in two states to swing the election to Bush over Gore. This is not the election for protest votes!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

If I could, I'll be voting Stein in November..... People don't deserve to have to choose a lesser of two evils - a faux progressive militaristic oligarchist or a demagogue and an imbecile

If the Democrats do lose in November, it'll be their fault for choosing such an abysmal candidate. Ditto the Republicans.

Is Jill on the ballot where you live? She is in here in Texas, and I'll be voting for her.

Sorry Billy but I would argue there is too much at stake to waste your vote. Because Stein is, as of now, only on the ballot in 23 states. Even if she was on in all states, she has ZERO chance of winning, but she could get 10%. She only has a chance of electing Trump.

Bernie is no dummy, he knows what is at stake. He endorsed Clinton. The future of Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, women's rights, the EPA, gay marriage, and a million other things are at stake,

It was no coincidence that Stein appeared at the DNC escoorted by a Fox News crew. Republicans are throwing money at her campaign.

Texas is becoming less white and less Republican every year. Your states' Houston newspaper endorsed Clinton.

If you recall Nader took enough votes in two states to swing the election to Bush over Gore. This is not the election for protest votes!

Agree completely.

[HeyJude]

If I could, I'll be voting Stein in November..... People don't deserve to have to choose a lesser of two evils - a faux progressive militaristic oligarchist or a demagogue and an imbecile

If the Democrats do lose in November, it'll be their fault for choosing such an abysmal candidate. Ditto the Republicans.

Is Jill on the ballot where you live? She is in here in Texas, and I'll be voting for her.

Sorry Billy but I would argue there is too much at stake to waste your vote. Because Stein is, as of now, only on the ballot in 23 states. Even if she was on in all states, she has ZERO chance of winning, but she could get 10%. She only has a chance of electing Trump.

Bernie is no dummy, he knows what is at stake. He endorsed Clinton. The future of Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, women's rights, the EPA, gay marriage, and a million other things are at stake,

It was no coincidence that Stein appeared at the DNC escoorted by a Fox News crew. Republicans are throwing money at her campaign.

Texas is becoming less white and less Republican every year. Your states' Houston newspaper endorsed Clinton.

If you recall Nader took enough votes in two states to swing the election to Bush over Gore. This is not the election for protest votes!

Well put, and I have to agree with this.

Everyone should vote their conscience of course. For me, that means holding my nose and voting for someone who, because the electorate made the decisions they made, is the far, far, far less problematic candidate.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not "the same" and are not both "equally horrible." It's the difference between getting kicked in the nuts and getting beheaded.

I read the same "both candidates are awful" stuff in 2000, and as you point out, the Nader vote did swing the election. Many Nader supporters back then told us Gore and Bush were the same. They weren't, and aren't.

As voters, we're not directly responsible for the foreign policy and military decisions the president makes. But I have no problem telling a 2000 Nader supporter to try to tell the family of those killed as a result of military decisions that Al Gore *wouldn't* have made that "Gore and Bush are the same." For that *one reason* alone, that 2003 war decision, a decision I don't believe Al Gore would have made, that *one reason* alone puts Gore and Bush a million miles apart.

Further, as someone whose politics lean way more to the left than any viable Democratic party candidate probably ever has or ever will (since the 1930s or 40s anyway), I also find many of the supposed "far left" candidates that run to be rather spotty actual Presidential candidates. Nader had HUGE holes in his policy. He went on and on about his talking points, and ignored a SLEW of progressive issues and spent more of his time telling us why the *other two guys* were worse.

Many far left candidates gladly take Republican help. These far left candidates, who in theory have platforms that often sound AWESOME to me, ignore the reality that the sitting president has huge problems getting through even slightly progressive, watered-down liberal things through. And again, once you really start getting into the nuts and bolts of these outlier candidates, they have huge holes and gaps in their policy. They may seem like "the perfect candidate on paper", but they really aren't, and in practice may be far more disappointing.

An election like 2016 is not a year to be a protest candidate or a spoiler. We can't always and forever pick "the lesser of two evils", but sometimes you have to. I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but at certain key points (especially when a good hunk of the country goes extra nuts/crazy/racist/xenophobic, etc.) you have to hold your nose and chose the evil that is still FAR, FAR better. This isn't a "they're both the same" situation. This is the difference between getting punched lightly in the arm and getting both arms chopped off.

[bluesno1fann]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nadar fail to win a single electoral vote in 2000?

[Emily]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nadar fail to win a single electoral vote in 2000?

He didn't win any electoral votes, but Bush won New Hampshire by fewer than 7500 votes. Had 7500 of the 22000 Nader votes gone to Gore, Gore would've won the election.
There's no definitive answer regarding how many votes (if any) Bush beat Gore by in Florida, a final official count was never published, but the recount most generous to Bush was a win by 1665 votes. So had 1666 of the 97000 votes cast for Nader in Florida been for Gore, Gore would've won the election.

[HeyJude]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nadar fail to win a single electoral vote in 2000?

He didn't win any electoral votes, but Bush won New Hampshire by fewer than 7500 votes. Had 7500 of the 22000 Nader votes gone to Gore, Gore would've won the election.
There's no definitive answer regarding how many votes (if any) Bush beat Gore by in Florida, a final official count was never published, but the recount most generous to Bush was a win by 1665 votes. So had 1666 of the 97000 votes cast for Nader in Florida been for Gore, Gore would've won the election.

Exactly. If Nader had even just asked his supporters to swing for Gore in just one of those states, he could have saved the country from eight years of GW Bush. He didn't even have to just drop out. Just one state is all it would have taken.

Even Nader's own hypothetical numbers where he tried to make himself look as minimally culpable as possible, he mentioned in 2004 I believe that his stats showed his voters would have swung 38% in favor of Gore and 25% for Bush. Even using these numbers (which I think aren't very realistic), Gore would have taken Florida. Nader has arguably admitted he spoiled that 2000 election.

So if this happens again and a fringe left wing candidate who looks *great* on policy on paper (remember, the far left candidates in a given election typically *still* aren't as liberal as I'd personally like) but who has ZERO chance of even winning a single state does this again, and poaches enough votes from Clinton in a swing state to turn the election in a close electoral college race, I don't want to hear any complaining about Trump from those people. In a close swing state, a progressive/liberal person voting for someone other than Clinton is a vote for Trump.

Yes, one of the most commonly cited theories in these situations is that someone voting for a fringe candidate will, in the alternative, simply not vote for anyone. The idea is definitely that if you're of a progressive, liberal mindset, and you're in a close swing state, you do *need* to hold your nose and vote for Clinton.

2000 proved the "lesser of two evils" idea can be the difference between life and death for a lot of people.

[Emily]

Oh goody. He's going to continue trying to destroy the world even after he loses:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trumps-rigged-election-prediction/story?id=41073528

"I think we have widespread voter fraud, but the first thing that Trump needs to do is begin talking about it constantly," Stone said. "He needs to say, for example, today would be a perfect example, 'I am leading in Florida. The polls all show it. If I lose Florida, we will know that there's voter fraud. If there's voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government.'"

In an interview with ABC News, Stone, a longtime political consultant, said Trump's discussing voter fraud is "absolutely" a smart strategy.

"If you raise this question after you've been cheated, everybody will say you're only challenging the election because you lost. I think you have to get the American people used to the idea that this is a possibility," Stone said."

---------------
Stone added that if Clinton were to "steal" this and win, her inauguration would be a "bloodbath":

"If you can’t have an honest election, nothing else counts," he continued. "I think he’s gotta put them on notice that their inauguration will be a rhetorical, and when I mean civil disobedience, not violence, but it will be a bloodbath. The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in. No, we will not stand for it. We will not stand for it."


Roger Stone is a Roy Cohn protege as is Trump.

[Jim V.]

So after Donald Trump has attacked Khizr Khan and his wife I've noticed we don't hear anything from our favorite faux-outrage machine!

How odd that she's gone quiet. You can bet the if Hill had decided to pick a fight with Gold Star parents that our friend would be filling de pages with loads of invective against her.

But I guess once again, just like it's apparently okay in this person's eyes to insult a former POW like Senator John McCain, it is disparage the mother of a Gold Star general.

So what are we thinking she's gonna defend Donnie boy with? I'm personally thinking a random unsourced right wing site with stuff saying Mr. Khan is part of the Muslim Brotherhood or that he's bringing in Muslim immigrants in exchange for money.

Should be interesting.

[SMiLE Brian]

So what are we thinking she's gonna defend Donnie boy with? I'm personally thinking a random unsourced right wing site with stuff saying Mr. Khan is part of the Muslim Brotherhood or that he's bringing in Muslim immigrants in exchange for money.

Those websites write themselves!

[thorgil]

Though hailing from the backwoods of Europe, I guess the US president is important enough for everyone to give me a right to chime in.
To wit: if I could, I'd give Hillary my vote, though I like her as little as I like the World Anti-Doping Agency (and trust me, that's VERY little).
All the same, I'd support her against any republican candidate, not just Trump. Republicans mantain that global warming is a hoax, though they perfectly know the truth themselves. That's more than enough for me.
Who can vote, please don't waste it on hopeless candidates!
 

[Moon Dawg]

 Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have a fighting chance to qualify for the debates. Should this happen, many Americans will realize they needn't choose between a soulless liar and the biggest jackass in the United States. Johnson/Weld in 2016. The rational choice.

[Jim V.]

So after Donald Trump has attacked Khizr Khan and his wife I've noticed we don't hear anything from our favorite faux-outrage machine!

How odd that she's gone quiet. You can bet the if Hill had decided to pick a fight with Gold Star parents that our friend would be filling de pages with loads of invective against her.

But I guess once again, just like it's apparently okay in this person's eyes to insult a former POW like Senator John McCain, it is disparage the mother of a Gold Star general.

So what are we thinking she's gonna defend Donnie boy with? I'm personally thinking a random unsourced right wing site with stuff saying Mr. Khan is part of the Muslim Brotherhood or that he's bringing in Muslim immigrants in exchange for money.

Should be interesting.

Huh....guess filledthepagewithshit is no longer interested in the election. Maybe it's Hillary's 13 point lead in the national polls? Or her 7 point lead in Georgia?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

Gary Johnson and Bill Weld have a fighting chance to qualify for the debates. Should this happen, many Americans will realize they needn't choose between a soulless liar and the biggest jackass in the United States. Johnson/Weld in 2016. The rational choice.

Voting for Stein but no issue here with Johnson (I voted for him in 2012)

[Senator Blutarsky]

 I will never NEVER vote for Hillary. Trump isn't great, but I'd take him over her.

But thankfully we get more than 2 choices regardless of what the media tells you to the contrary.

With that said, Gary Johnson will likely get my vote. And he has a great sense of humor....

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I suppose a vote for Johnson is better than a vote for Trump. But ultimately I think that Johnson's position against Medicare, Medicaid, prescription medication for the elderly, subsidies for university students, and taxing corporations, demonstrates that he largely functions to support the small ownership class at the expense of the population of the country. The consequences of his corporate tax alone would be disastrous, in my view.

[B.E.]

Turned the TV on for a few minutes while eating lunch today and heard that a Net Operating Loss (NOL) is a loophole that is only available to and benefits the rich. Further speculation ensued about Trump's tax situation, but I was really surprised to hear the condemnation for NOLs and carryforwards/carrybacks. I understand that most people want to simplify the tax code, adopt a flat tax or eliminate income tax all together. That's fine. But in the context of the tax code as currently (and historically) written, I hadn't been aware of NOL carryforwards being viewed so negatively. It's not like its some new, obscure code that only a few people are aware of and in the position to benefit from.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I thought I would re-open this thread because there seems to be some interest in the discussion still.

I have a question for people on the right and, maybe, Trump supporters. As a critic of Clinton, I notice that the right tends to not criticize Clinton on key issues, such as her support for the military dictatorship in Honduras, her support for the intervention in Libya, her pledge to intensify Obama's air-strike program, etc. Now significant left-wing critics will bring up these issues but neither Trump nor most mainstream voices on the right discuss them. Instead, I see far less significant critiques against Clinton for Benghazi, corruption, etc. I have my own feelings as to why the right neglects to discuss these more important concerns, but I would be curious to hear from those on here as to why they think that is.

[Robbie Mac]

I think an SNL skit from 2008 with Amy Poehler as Hillary said it best as to why the right attacks her differently than the far left. "I supported the Iraq War, but I wasn't actually sincere about it."

[Emily]

I've got to say, I'm a little frustrated by the whole take on the Iraq war by voters this year. In 2002-2003, I was apoplectic arguing with people at work and at home during the run-up to that war. The signs in front of restaurants announced "freedom fries," that they'd dumped their French wine and all kinds of other stupid things because the French didn't back it.
Just about EVERY DAMNED PERSON IN THIS DAMNED COUNTRY supported that stupid, stupid war. I left the country for 4 years expressly because I wanted to get away from the disgusting war fever that took over. Democrats and Republicans were all gung-ho. Now there's a witch hunt for the politicians who supported it. WTF? If you can blankety-blank change your mind, make mistakes, rethink, why can't they? Constituents DROVE lots of politicians to support the war. And lots of politicians and constituents believe that representatives should do what their constituents want them to do - that representatives' will should be overridden by their constituents' will.
Frankly, I'm really really really sick of the hypocritical and ignorant population of this country.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I've got to say, I'm a little frustrated by the whole take on the Iraq war by voters this year. In 2002-2003, I was apoplectic arguing with people at work and at home during the run-up to that war. The signs in front of restaurants announced "freedom fries," that they'd dumped their French wine and all kinds of other stupid things because the French didn't back it.
Just about EVERY DAMNED PERSON IN THIS DAMNED COUNTRY supported that stupid, stupid war. I left the country for 4 years expressly because I wanted to get away from the disgusting war fever that took over. Democrats and Republicans were all gung-ho. Now there's a witch hunt for the politicians who supported it. WTF? If you can blankety-blank change your mind, make mistakes, rethink, why can't they? Constituents DROVE lots of politicians to support the war. And lots of politicians and constituents believe that representatives should do what their constituents want them to do - that representatives' will should be overridden by their constituents' will.
Frankly, I'm really really really sick of the hypocritical and ignorant population of this country.

I agree. I was an active participant in the activism against the Iraq invasion before the invasion took place on the grounds that it violated international law. Indeed even back then I was participating on another Beach Boys forum where I expressed precisely these views. In my memory, there was an enormous demonstration against the war at the time, though maybe outside the country the opposition was larger. At any rate, because of my active participation in that discussion, the whole "we were innocent lambs misled by the brilliant, conniving Bush Administration" argument has never washed with me. That said, I am more sympathetic to ordinary citizens who were bombarded non-stop with distortions, propaganda, and misinformation. I'm less sympathetic to people who were in positions of power and actively participated in those distortions. Where I get frustrated is when the people who now see their support of the Iraq invasion as a mistake are nevertheless just as happy to support the next fiasco of a policy borne out of the exact same propaganda machine.

[18thofMay]

I've got to say, I'm a little frustrated by the whole take on the Iraq war by voters this year. In 2002-2003, I was apoplectic arguing with people at work and at home during the run-up to that war. The signs in front of restaurants announced "freedom fries," that they'd dumped their French wine and all kinds of other stupid things because the French didn't back it.
Just about EVERY DAMNED PERSON IN THIS DAMNED COUNTRY supported that stupid, stupid war. I left the country for 4 years expressly because I wanted to get away from the disgusting war fever that took over. Democrats and Republicans were all gung-ho. Now there's a witch hunt for the politicians who supported it. WTF? If you can blankety-blank change your mind, make mistakes, rethink, why can't they? Constituents DROVE lots of politicians to support the war. And lots of politicians and constituents believe that representatives should do what their constituents want them to do - that representatives' will should be overridden by their constituents' will.
Frankly, I'm really really really sick of the hypocritical and ignorant population of this country.

I agree, from Australia.