[POLL] U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[DJPlace]

i sided with trump go me...

 

[Lacius]

As much as I see Trump as a joke, I really doubt he's a fascist. He's a narcisist; of that, I have no doubt. For the most part, though, I'm not so sure he believes even a tenth of what he says.

I think that's called demagoguery.

 

[Foxi4]

Ignoring the fact that Donald Trump is a fascist.

Please, do tell when exactly did Trump endorse a one-party system of government with militarized citizens under total authoritarian rule. As far as I can see, he's taking part in a democratic election, not staging a coup d'etat. "Fascist" has a very specific definition - if you throw the term around, first make sure to know what it actually means.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Please, do tell when exactly did Trump endorse a one-party system of government with militarized citizens under total authoritarian rule. As far as I can see, he's taking part in a democratic election, not staging a coup d'etat. "Fascist" has a very specific definition - if you throw the term around, first make sure to know what it actually means.

Did you see the Trevor Noah piece I linked earlier? (I agree, and it's mostly humor, but it IS thought provoking)

 

[MsMidnight]

http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential/2370284729

My candidate

 

[TrapperKeeperX]

Senator Sanders doesn't still have a shot. Secretary Clinton is the presumptive nominee.

It looks like Bernie Sanders still has a shot never underestimate Bernie Sanders despite what the corrupted controlled media says about Bernie. Look at California over 2 million uncounted votes I would still consider adding Bernie Sanders. If not I will post another 2016 Thread and please add Bernie Sanders to the polls. Your call @Lacius please add Bernie Sanders.

 

[Lacius]

It looks like Bernie Sanders still has a shot never underestimate Bernie Sanders despite what the corrupted controlled media says about Bernie. Look at California over 2 million uncounted votes I would still consider adding Bernie Sanders. If not I will post another 2016 Thread and please add Bernie Sanders to the polls. Your call @Lacius please add Bernie Sanders.

1. Uncounted votes in California are very unlikely to change the result of the race in California.
2. Even if Senator Sanders had won California by a landslide, Secretary Clinton would still be the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee. Senator Sanders is likely to drop out of the race and endorse Secretary Clinton within the next few days or weeks. Ignoring the delegate math for a second, Senator Sanders' campaign is showing all of the signs of shutting down.
3. There is no need to post an unnecessary duplicate thread. If you refuse to vote for anyone other than Senator Sanders, despite him not being a candidate in the general election, you can vote Other in the poll. If by some miracle Senator Sanders becomes the Democratic Party's nominee for president, I will add him to the poll. If other political parties get ballot access to 270 electoral votes or more, I will add them to the poll, too.

I understand your frustration. I voted for Senator Sanders in the primary. However, Secretary Clinton won a majority of the popular vote (56%), she won a majority of the pledged delegates (54%), and she won a majority of the total delegates (58%). By every measure, she won fair and square. In order for Senator Sanders to get the nomination, he would have to convince 71% of the total unpledged superdelegates to subvert the will of the voters and switch to him, and that's both unprecedented and not going to happen. Secretary Clinton is the presumptive nominee.

If one likes Senator Sanders because of his policy positions, it is important to keep in mind that he and Secretary Clinton are in alignment roughly 95% of the time. In a general election race between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump, the choice should be obvious for a Senator Sanders supporter.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

1. Uncounted votes in California are very unlikely to change the result of the race in California.
2. Even if Senator Sanders had won California by a landslide, Secretary Clinton would still be the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee. Senator Sanders is likely to drop out of the race and endorse Secretary Clinton within the next few days or weeks. Ignoring the delegate math for a second, Senator Sanders' campaign is showing all of the signs of shutting down.
3. There is no need to post an unnecessary duplicate thread. If you refuse to vote for anyone other than Senator Sanders, despite him not being a candidate in the general election, you can vote Other in the poll. If by some miracle Senator Sanders becomes the Democratic Party's nominee for president, I will add him to the poll. If other political parties get ballot access to 270 electoral votes or more, I will add them to the poll, too.

I understand your frustration. I voted for Senator Sanders in the primary. However, Secretary Clinton won a majority of the popular vote (56%), she won a majority of the pledged delegates (54%), and she won a majority of the total delegates (58%). By every measure, she won fair and square. In order for Senator Sanders to get the nomination, he would have to convince 71% of the total unpledged superdelegates to subvert the will of the voters and switch to him, and that's both unprecedented and not going to happen. Secretary Clinton is the presumptive nominee.

If one likes Senator Sanders because of his policy positions, it is important to keep in mind that he and Secretary Clinton are in alignment roughly 95% of the time. In a general election race between Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump, the choice should be obvious for a Senator Sanders supporter.

He could still go third party

 

[Lacius]

He could still go third party

Senator Sanders has expressed no interest in running as a third party candidate, and he has also said in the past that he would endorse the Secretary Clinton if she won the primary. In addition, running as a third party candidate and splitting the Democratic vote is contrary to what Senator Sanders has said very recently on the subject:

"I look forward to meeting with (Secretary Clinton) in the near future to see how we can work together to defeat Donald Trump and create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent."

If Senator Sanders does run as a third party candidate, I will add him to the poll. It's not going to happen, however.

 

[YamiHoshi.nl]

Also, I won't vote for anyone, since I'm not an American, and have no rights to vote for an American President.

 

[Foxi4]

Did you see the Trevor Noah piece I linked earlier? (I agree, and it's mostly humor, but it IS thought provoking)

The only thing that's thought provoking is that the regressive left will readily call just about any conservative a fascist, but they'll baaawww their eyes out and call the whhaaambulance if you call them commies, all the while asking whether you know the difference between social democrats and socialists when functionally there is none. ;O;

 

[sarkwalvein]

Also, I won't vote for anyone, since I'm not an American, and have no rights to vote for an American President.

Great analogy.
No matter which one you buy, in the end it will be the same shit.

 

[FAST6191]

On electronic voting the following says most of what I would

Generally I would agree it would be nice if a button popped up wherever I might be and I could vote once anonymously (or not as I probably still would not vote more than randomly, which is to say not at all). However it seems to suffer major faults in implementation and I am not seeing the road to the land of milk and honey there.

Most fraud seems to be proxy/postal, when various ID checks were being considered/pushed it came up for anybody that looked at stats


On being a lawyer and doing the abstract lawyer thing of defend your client to the best of your abilities and without regard for their guilt or innocence then I have no problem whatsoever; it is the logic behind would rather have 1000 guilty people go free than a single innocent. The extent of what was found coming up in evidence rules (if a case was not dismissed with prejudice there are all sorts of rules about what evidence can come back up in appeals, retrials, further cases and such), background checks, continued surveillance and such is very much up for debate. Being able to divorce yourself from visceral feelings is a stunningly good thing in a leader from where I sit -- visceral reactions are an awful thing to use outside of small tribes in an African savannah 10000 years ago. I reckon you could probably make a similar case for any profession worthy of being called such.
If nothing else because that would mean you have to kick all the lawyers out of politics and at least law is a partway logical exercise as opposed to straight politics training which is the other main avenue into high level politics in much of the world.

 

[Foxi4]

On being a lawyer and doing the abstract lawyer thing of defend your client to the best of your abilities and without regard for their guilt or innocence then I have no problem whatsoever; it is the logic behind would rather have 1000 guilty people go free than a single innocent. The extent of what was found coming up in evidence rules (if a case was not dismissed with prejudice there are all sorts of rules about what evidence can come back up in appeals, retrials, further cases and such), background checks, continued surveillance and such is very much up for debate. Being able to divorce yourself from visceral feelings is a stunningly good thing in a leader from where I sit -- visceral reactions are an awful thing to use outside of small tribes in an African savannah 10000 years ago. I reckon you could probably make a similar case for any profession worthy of being called such. If nothing else because that would mean you have to kick all the lawyers out of politics and at least law is a partway logical exercise as opposed to straight politics training which is the other main avenue into high level politics in much of the world.

There's a difference between "divorcing visceral feelings to focus on the evidence and draw a logical conclusion from it" and "bending the truth despite the evidence in order to prove that a guilty man is in fact innocent or, conversely, that an innocent man is guilty", but to be fair, the lawyer in this scenario is just a cog in a system that was designed poorly from the start. The problem here is the human element, the jury, which can be sweet-talked and swayed by both the defense and the prosecution when properly approached. If anything, that's the "visceral emotion" element that you despise so much, as no matter what evidence you present, the jury is capable of so-called "nullification" and can in fact come to a verdict that goes against everything the law says on a whim. It's the jury that has the power to make a guilty man go free or an innocent man go to jail, and that's textbook tribalism. If you asked a computer whether a man is guilty or not based on the fact that he's covered in the victim's blood, I feel that you'd have a wholely different result, but alas, we cannot remove the human element from the equation, thus there is an emotion-based loophole that we cannot avoid. At present the jury is not obligated to follow the letter of the law in any way and there are no legal provisions to punish jurors who ignore it, so in essence you have a bunch of jurors deciding which laws we abide by, which laws we ignore, who is "equal" and who is "equaler" based entirely on their gut feeling and whatever story they're sold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

On the subject of electronic voting, I feel that the people who worry about it are misinformed. Like you say, it is the infrastructure of the system that's faulty, and it could be made more secure. Military orders aren't sent by pidgeon post, they're sent electronically. Political correspondence is sent this way also. The whole banking system and the stockmarket rely on electronic communication as well. Only voting is stuck in the past, and I have a problem with that.

 

[FAST6191]

On voting is seems like a rather different problem -- one party going to many/a chain, none of which are especially anonymous at the levels which are necessary for voting (the stock market theoretically is but the broker to the client does not need to be)

I am familiar with jury nullification, and continuing the theme of videos rather than reading I will go with the following for the others in the crowd.

A judge can overturn a jury verdict, though it is a fairly major thing to have happen, and you can also do a bench trial (not that it is often advised) with the deciders being a judge or a group thereof. Also how big a problem is it and was it a factor in this case? I almost want to look up the case in question but I still not sure it is relevant here.
"If I asked a computer" then that computer ought to be about 20 steps closer to AI than anything that exists today. Equally I would still want rules of evidence in play.
Otherwise I think I will still go with "don't hate the player", granted that would probably come back to trouble me when profit is something you are duty bound to get for your shareholders comes up. Maybe I will have a kind of double standard.

 

[Foxi4]

On voting is seems like a rather different problem -- one party going to many/a chain, none of which are especially anonymous at the levels which are necessary for voting (the stock market theoretically is but the broker to the client does not need to be)

I am familiar with jury nullification, and continuing the theme of videos rather than reading I will go with the following for the others in the crowd.

A judge can overturn a jury verdict, though it is a fairly major thing to have happen, and you can also do a bench trial (not that it is often advised) with the deciders being a judge or a group thereof. Also how big a problem is it and was it a factor in this case? I almost want to look up the case in question but I still not sure it is relevant here.
"If I asked a computer" then that computer ought to be about 20 steps closer to AI than anything that exists today. Equally I would still want rules of evidence in play.
Otherwise I think I will still go with "don't hate the player", granted that would probably come back to trouble me when profit is something you are duty bound to get for your shareholders comes up. Maybe I will have a kind of double standard.

My point was not to say that jury nullification is a bad thing - it's important for a jury to be able to nullify unjust law if the defendant caught him or herself in a loophole that was not considered when the legislation was written. Me "asking a computer" for an opinion was a figure of speech, what I meant to say is that a cold machine would be 100% logical wheras a human can be swayed because being emotional is in our nature. Jury nullification has nothing to do with the case, however, misleading the jury or playing on their heartstrings to minimize the value of the evidence or overblow it out of proportion often times is a major factor in court, and it shouldn't be. Think back to the OJ Simpson trial - he got off the hook because the jury bought a ridiculous story, the presented evidence was at that point irrelevant, only the gut feelings mattered - that's tribalism. There's a reason why, say, black people from the ghetto go straight to jail for posession of illicit substances while white kids from private schools get community service. The law should be identical to all individuals, but with the human element in place you cannot eliminate bias - that was my issue.

 

[brickmii82]

My point was not to say that jury nullification is a bad thing - it's important for a jury to be able to nullify unjust law if the defendant caught him or herself in a loophole that was not considered when the legislation was written. Me "asking a computer" for an opinion was a figure of speech, what I meant to say is that a cold machine would be 100% logical wheras a human can be swayed because being emotional is in our nature. Jury nullification has nothing to do with the case, however, misleading the jury or playing on their heartstrings to minimize the value of the evidence or overblow it out of proportion often times is a major factor in court, and it shouldn't be. Think back to the OJ Simpson trial - he got off the hook because the jury bought a ridiculous story, the presented evidence was at that point irrelevant, only the gut feelings mattered - that's tribalism. There's a reason why, say, black people from the ghetto go straight to jail for posession of illicit substances while white kids from private schools get community service. The law should be identical to all individuals, but with the human element in place you cannot eliminate bias - that was my issue.

I agree with your point, but I think using the OJ trial is a bad example. His defense team did their job by providing reasonable doubt. It may have been outlandish, but it was still somewhat logical/feasible. Rodney King would be a better example imho, because bias played a much larger role in that trial for sure.

 

[XDel]

Bill Lind appearing on C-SPAN in 1998, discussing the spread of Political Correctness in America during it's infancy. (30 min)

 

[Lacius]

Considering the high number of votes for Other, I think this poll is a good lesson on what could possibly happen if the #BernieOrBust people don't vote for Secretary Clinton (i.e. Donald Trump wins).

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Bill Lind appearing on C-SPAN in 1998, discussing the spread of Political Correctness in America during it's infancy. (30 min)

Good lord I couldn't even get through 3 minutes of that without cringing. I don't even care about "Political Correctness," just be polite to people and respect them as human beings. "Anti-political correctness" is a term that a lot of people hide behind as an excuse to be rude to others