2016 Presidential Election Thread Archive

[Donward]

We got it remote to the press room, involuntarily.

It was a fucking hilarious speech.

 

Trump did say that is in favor of water boarding, and a whole lot worse.

[Vanagandr]

So I've come to the conclusion that this election is a parody and not worth voting in

[Sturgeon]

So have a lot of people, to whom I ask "what took you so damn long?"

[Walter_Sobchak]

So have a lot of people, to whom I ask "what took you so damn long?"

I am not quite that jaded yet.  In fact, I would say that this election there is a more marked difference between the candidates compared to most previous elections.  The problem is that both candidates kinda suck, just in very different ways.  With Hillary, we pretty much know what we are getting.  We lived through one Clinton presidency, I doubt a second one would be all that different, although hopefully with fewer blowjobs in the oval office. With Trump, it's pretty hard to tell what we will get.  Twice before have the Republican party nominated someone with no experience holding political office, US Grant and Dwight Eisenhower.  Ike is generally considered a successful president, Grant not so much.  

 

There is no doubt that a Trump presidency would be more entertaining than another Clinton administration.  Although, who knows what mischief First Husband Bill might get up to?  There might be some good entertainment value there as well.  

[Brick Fight]

I am not quite that jaded yet.  In fact, I would say that this election there is a more marked difference between the candidates compared to most previous elections.  The problem is that both candidates kinda suck, just in very different ways.  With Hillary, we pretty much know what we are getting.  We lived through one Clinton presidency, I doubt a second one would be all that different, although hopefully with fewer blowjobs in the oval office. With Trump, it's pretty hard to tell what we will get.  Twice before have the Republican party nominated someone with no experience holding political office, US Grant and Dwight Eisenhower.  Ike is generally considered a successful president, Grant not so much.  

 

There is no doubt that a Trump presidency would be more entertaining than another Clinton administration.  Although, who knows what mischief First Husband Bill might get up to?  There might be some good entertainment value there as well.  

 

To be fair, the modern Republican party would despise Ike.

[T___A]

To be fair, the modern Republican party would despise Ike.

That statement is meaningless, the Democrats of course would hate Adlai Stevenson.

[Sturgeon]

I am not quite that jaded yet.  In fact, I would say that this election there is a more marked difference between the candidates compared to most previous elections.  The problem is that both candidates kinda suck, just in very different ways.  With Hillary, we pretty much know what we are getting.  We lived through one Clinton presidency, I doubt a second one would be all that different, although hopefully with fewer blowjobs in the oval office. With Trump, it's pretty hard to tell what we will get.  Twice before have the Republican party nominated someone with no experience holding political office, US Grant and Dwight Eisenhower.  Ike is generally considered a successful president, Grant not so much.  

 

There is no doubt that a Trump presidency would be more entertaining than another Clinton administration.  Although, who knows what mischief First Husband Bill might get up to?  There might be some good entertainment value there as well.  

 

Oh I disagree so very much. I think Hillary is a completely different person than Bill (Bill was sort of fun in a 1980s liberals run amok kind of way). I think Hillary is spiteful and vindictive and petty, and I think she cannot effectively hide that and therefore stands little chance of the presidency. In fact, I think the Democrats have so thoroughly dropped the ball this election that it wouldn't even be funny except that I find it hilarious. They had the chance to crush with someone like Jim Webb (a legitimate war hero who wants 80% of what all Democrats want, including drug legalization and increased workers' rights), but instead they quickly downselected to Hillary and Sanders, sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Neither of those candidates could win a general election in my opinion. This indicates to me that the Democratic Party has a problem with navel-gazing: Both Clinton and Sanders score well at appealing to party leadership and radical party members (more or less respectively, but with lots of overlap), but I am convinced they are shit general election candidates.

Trump is Democratic Republic Incarnate. He's the Hindu Avatar of populist politics. Now that we've recovered from the threat of communism, and reality TV has established itself as the primary media of the masses, Donald Trump can only win. He embodies the shallow, simple populism and startstruck attitude of the masses. Trump isn't running as a politician, he's running as a celebrity, and that's why he not only embraces negative press, but fucking mines it. None of the other candidates could hope to match him in doing this, either, because they are not stars. For those of us who don't watch reality TV, Trump baffles and confuses. He did the same to me, I didn't think he had a chance. Now I see differently.

Consider: Does Kim Kardashian hate it when People Magazine talk about her latest gaffe, or nude video or whatever? No, of course not. In fact, she embraces it (although sometimes clumsily) and encourages it. That is how Donald Trump is running.

Consider, too: Voter turnout in 2012 was 57.5%. Voting age population (VAP) was about 235 million. So the number of voters was about 135 million. That means 100 million people were too lazy to vote, with a tiny handful of conscientious objectors like myself.

In 2012, Obama received 51% of the vote, or 68.9 million votes. Romney received 47% of the vote, or 63.5 million votes. McCain in 2008, one of the weakest Republican candidates in the past quarter century, won 45.7% of 225 million votes (59.9 million votes).

 

If Trump is running the 2012 election over again, that means that he needs to sway just 7.2% of the "too lazy to vote" camp to be assured a victory, assuming that he receives at least as much backing from the core as McCain got in 2008. So it makes perfect sense for Trump to play the campaign just like a reality TV star, which is precisely what he has done. It's not about consistency, or decency, or rationality, or argument, it's about appeal. Trump has realized that even if he's the "love to hate him" character in this reality TV show election, he'll still win on appeal alone.

That is why he will win; and given Hillary as the presumptive Democratic candidate, he'll not just win, but kill.

Does that make him a "good" candidate? Well, it doesn't matter. He'll win, and he'll prove in the process that winning is all that matters, and that promising to actually govern is obsolete for winning elections.

[Sturgeon]

Behold this debate from late January, and how paralyzed by "politicianese" the language of all the participants is:

It almost makes you appreciate Trump, doesn't it?

 

In particular, cringe your dick up into your own rectum as Rick Santorum tackles the ISIS Caliphate at 12:32.

[Donward]

The Ted Cruz suicide cult is still going strong up here in Washington State. We had our GOP State Convention in Pasco (it's by the Hanford Nuclear Reservation for those unfamiliar with our geography). So the 700 or so Cruz supporters who showed up (out of about 1,300 people) were able to vote in an entire slate of 40 out of 41 Cruz delegates who will represent our state in Cleveland.

 

Which is funny since they will be bound by party rules to vote for Trump based on how this Tuesday's primary results turn out. There are already more than 600,000 Vote-by-Mail ballots turned into our Secretary of State. I imagine Trump will win by similar margins as that of Oregon with somewhere between 55 and 65 percent of the vote going to him.

 

It looks like the Cruz folks are hoping to magic up some sort of nonsense in Cleveland where they will toss out the Convention rules and bylaws and unbind all of the delegates before the first ballot is cast. And then - once unbound - all of them will somehow magically vote for Cruz.

[Donward]

Oh yeah, one more thing. Per Brickfight's Sovereign Citizen thread, Graham Hunt, the former State Rep who was forced to resign because he's a miserable valor thief and who pals around with the Yee-Hawdists who took over the Malheur Refuge in Oregon? Yeah. He was elected as a delegate for Cruz.

 

And you wonder why I don't take part in the dog-and-pony shows with our local GOP.

[Bronezhilet]

[Bronezhilet]

[Scolopax]

This reminds me of a little thing going around social media earlier where the Queen of England was said was supposedly going to take back the United States should Trump somehow get elected.

[Donward]

IT

 

IS

 

DONE

 

 

 

Oh, yeah. Also, the precinct where I vote is called "Twin Peaks". Which is kind of cool.

[Meplat]

Hillary is everything I find disgusting about U.S. politicians, made incarnate.

 

She is, evil incarnate in my eyes.

[ApplesauceBandit]

Hillary is everything I find disgusting about U.S. politicians, made incarnate.

 

She is, evil incarnate in my eyes.

On the subject of Hillary

 

 

I wish this were real

[Donward]

Hillary is everything I find disgusting about U.S. politicians, made incarnate.

She is, evil incarnate in my eyes.

Trying to be neutral here...

I am amazed every day that the Democrats hitched their wagon to this old harridan. Her own party isn't excited about her. At least with Trump he entered a cage fight with 16 opponents who represented every shade and faction of the GOP and came out on top.

Hillary? She has Crazy Bernie who is giving her a run for the money by pointing out the fucking obvious that corporations are buying politicians in order to pad their bottom line and Clinton is the dirtiest one of the lot.

Why they didn't go Elizabeth Warren or even Uncle Joe Biden or whoever I don't know.

[Toxn]

That's an astounding talent for being wrong even when your central statement is correct (the majority of casualties in war are often women, children and the elderly. They die of starvation or disease rather than combat).

[Walter_Sobchak]

Oh I disagree so very much. I think Hillary is a completely different person than Bill (Bill was sort of fun in a 1980s liberals run amok kind of way). I think Hillary is spiteful and vindictive and petty, and I think she cannot effectively hide that and therefore stands little chance of the presidency.

 

 

Since when has being spiteful vindictive and petty kept someone from being President?  Hell, this country elected Richard Nixon to the Oval Office twice. 

[Donward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z5-qQU8KnY

[LostCosmonaut]

On the subject of Hillary

 

 

I wish this were real

 

Gee, Hillary, maybe if you'd thought of this back in the 90s Bill wouldn't have gotten impeached for porking an intern.

[Collimatrix]

Depends.  The American Civil War had a remarkably low percentage of civilian casualties.

[Donward]

Scoreboard Bitches.

 

http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Federal-All.html

 

Trump is winning by 76 percent of the GOP vote here in Washington state. Ted Cruz has 10 percent.

 

What's funny is that if it were a 3-way race, he'd be beating Crooked Hillary and Crazy Bernie.

 

Even though Democrat primary is a popularity contest, it seems Hillary is beating Bernie Sanders 53 percent to 46. 

[Toxn]

Depends.  The American Civil War had a remarkably low percentage of civilian casualties.

It was pretty atypical for a civil war in that regard.

[Bronezhilet]