US Election 2016

[LigH]

... destroying people's reputations by claiming that they are working with the Russians ...

No, it's less about blaming people to promote communism (a concept most Americans fear but don't understand), but blaming Russia to abuse propaganda to destroy the whole political system of the USA.

But in an era of founded mistrust against the mighty (conservative politics has only one goal, conserving the might of the mighty), condemning the revelation of the crime is so much more common than condemning the crime as such.

Our own government already reached a threshold of "fear of communism", or in this case, transparency. Some notoriously conservative members blame a promoted act to reveal lobbyism in the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) as a risk to denounce "normal citizen talking with politicians in their offices" in public. Completely false, of course. But after stopping the handout of ID cards for stakeholders to enter the Bundestag via faction offices, they appear to get more nervous. Germany is still among the last few countries not yet ratifying laws against bribery of parlamentarians.

Recently I saw one of many crime series in the TV, and I remember one quote:

"Do you know the story of the honest politician entering the government? ... Me neither."

By the way, the mud-wrestling enters the nuclear phase now, pulling child abuse accusations. Boy must they be desperate.

[Thoss]

One of the problems that I see now is that there's a steep curve to understanding politics, and an even steeper one once you realize that there's no single source of information that is *correct*. Learning to research, question, and piece together biased information and to reorganize it into a coherent story that you *think* makes sense is a skill in itself.

This I struggle with... I think I have given up out of pure exhaustion... i try to look into different issues and form a real consensus, and it is nearly impossible to just figure out. There are so many scenarios and what-ifs and buts... And then there is the problem with really having no idea which candidate will be best to handle future situations that we don't even know about. Something could happen that clinton would be better, or trump, or johnson, or stein... who knows!

It's just easier to follow the consensus from your family... your church... your peer group... or just a party and be done with it.

That's what I am going to do... decide which party sounds the best to me... then vote party line, and if they put up a shitty candidate, or don't campaign enough... well they should try harder.

Unless it is like my local rep and I know that person is a jackass from interacting directly with them... otherwise it's all hearsay or bullshit.

[LigH]

Because it was just even posted @Fefe:

Twitter #1

This will always be remembered as the presidential election in which the KKK, the KGB and the FBI all supported the same candidate.

Twitter #2

FBI launches internal investigation into its own Twitter account
An FBI tweet may have crossed the line.

Suddenly I remember criminal TV series where FBI agents seem to rush into a building for the only purpose to compete in the volume of their voice shouting "F - B - I !!!!"

[Rigwyn]

Twitter #1

This will always be remembered as the presidential election in which the KKK, the KGB and the FBI all supported the same candidate.

So then hypothetically speaking, if Putin or Hitler votes for a given candidate, then that makes the candidate a bad choice? This is something that I sharply disagree with. The candidates have no control over who votes for or voices support for them.In the case of David Duke, the guy knows damn well that his endorsement is poisonous given the amount of hatred people have for the KKK. If he really wanted Trump to succeed, he would not endorse him openly. It would make more sense for him to secretly encourage others to vote for him. The same with Putin. He's probably a lot smarter than David Duke and far more aware of how politically poisonous his verbal endorsement is.

The claim that "the Russians" hacked the DNC / Clinton email was fabricated by Hillary in order to divert attention away from the crimes that her email reveals. She claimed this several times and even claimed that our 15 Intel agencies agreed with her. If I recall correctly, a statement was release afterwards that this was not true. I'll try to dig it up if requested. The other problem with her claim is that it's not specific.

Why did she blame an entire country? Why didn't she claim that it was the RFB or KGB or some specific group. The answer is simple. She didn't know who did it. It was easer to just stoke cold war fears and take a gamble with a made up story. If it turned out to be some Russian agency, then she gets to claim that she knew it all the time. If it turns out to be someone not from Russia, then she just needs to make up another story. You can see this kind of pattern of lying if you look at her history. It's very typical for her and is one of the things that many Americans dislike about her.

[LigH]

Different supporters support the same candidate vor very different reasons. This could be a hint how blurry their position or reputation is. No surprise that a large part of the population feels forced to vote for "the lesser evil". Yet they still see only two candidates. Who would want to vote for a minority in such an election system where "the winner takes it all"?

[Rigwyn]

The other candidates - Jill Stine and Garry Johnson are so unpopular at this point, that voting for either of them is a wasted vote. Unless things change dramatically ( ie, if Hillary is charged with a felony ), neither of them will come close to winning. In this case a vote is better spent either electing a candidate or stopping the other.

Curious, what did you mean by this? I'm not sure I follow what you were saying. How would Russia's abuse of propaganda destroy the whole political system?

"No, it's less about blaming people to promote communism (a concept most Americans fear but don't understand), but blaming Russia to abuse propaganda to destroy the whole political system of the USA."

[LigH]

Both candidates are already so unpopular that either victory could cause riots. No matter which kind of government will be established, a large percentage of the population won't accept it. There are no more political "heroes" (like Obama was able to promote himself); too many scandals have been revealed on both sides. Conspiracies against co-candidates in the own party, campaign donations from dubious partners, manipulation of the opposite camp via insiders... a lot more subtle than public mud wrestling. And international media (also from Russia, but not only), possibly even IT hacks and revelation of secrets, took their part in this whole pushing and shifting of opinions.

[Thoss]

I still don't understand the view that voting for johnson or stein is a wasted vote... will they win. No. Is picking the winner the only point of voting?

I say no. Let's assume 1,000,000 voters like a third party, but vote clinton and trump cause they believe they are forced to.

If clinton gets a million more votes than trump, or vice versa... and those million votes were the people who didn't really like either, then those votes were wasted because they were unnecessary. 999,999 of those votes could have voted third party but the winner would have been the same...

The value in those 999,999 third party voters would be twofold.. one they vote for who they like (yes wer are assuming here)... and two their votes send a message.

If the greens or libertarians get just 5% of the vote... that would send a huge message and has never happened before... especially if they would get 10%.

If Gary wins his home state of New Mexico... there are senarios where that would throw the vote to the House... which would at least be interesting.

Also, unless you live in a swing state... you are basically free to vote for any thrid party without much concern of changing the outcome for your state.

To me, if I don't like the two main candidates... my vote has the most value if I vote third party. Just to use my vote as a voice and message.

[LigH]

That's just one of the most important points about elections, Thoss. There is an important difference between voting for a minor party, or not voting at all: If you don't vote, you will partially support the winning party just by reducing the amount of opposition. (Apart from the impact limit of percentage thresholds, which is being debated already in Germany, since the EU parliament does not have them, allowing minor parties to enter with only one seat.)

In Germany, during the last federal election, the Christian Union parties got about half of the given votes, which is instead just about a quarter of the possible votes, because only about half of the allowed people gave their vote at all. In this year, a right populist party (AfD) was able to win many of previous non-voters in local and state elections and suddenly became the second strongest in some areas.

I doubt that any third or fourth party in the USA would have such an impact, because there are too many habitual voters, I guess... I wonder how many US citizen do not even know there are any more parties.

P.S.: The Democrats recently made one of the worst possible mistakes during an election battle ... telling the truth: Hillary Clinton announced to need to close coal mines. Fear of employment loss in an area of habit and tradition costs more voters than hope for progress in new areas could possibly win.

[Volki]

I still don't understand the view that voting for johnson or stein is a wasted vote... will they win. No. Is picking the winner the only point of voting?

It's what people say when they have no idea how politics work. That's why you don't understand it.

[Rigwyn]

Let me put the wasted vote argument this way:

Assume that %49 are voting for A, and 49% are voting for B, and you vote for C

The effect your C vote has:

1. It shows your dissatisfaction with A and B 
2. It makes the pool of votes smaller for the main candidates
3. It does not support or negate either of the eligible candidates ( given the percentages above)
4. It concentrates the voting power of those who vote for A and B ( this happens also if you don't vote )

Regarding #4, the amount of power you have as a voter is 1 in (number of people voting )
[ it's actually more complicated than that]

If on the other hand, people were to ditch the main candidates, then yes, C could become viable.
[ and I really thought that this would be the year that the greens or libertarians would shine ]

This leads to the problem of knowing whether or not a candidate is viable or popular enough. As much as I dislike the use of unscientific polls, they seem to indicate that currently the smaller candidates have a tiny following despite how much people trash talk the main candidates. My guess is that most people don't want to take a chance voting for an unproven or less popular candidate. They would rather vote against or for one of the main candidates.

Now this completely overlooks our electoral college system which basically says that each state votes for the candidates, so as Thoss indicated, if you live in a states that heavily supports A or B, then that's how your state is going to vote.

But people still need to vote for whoever they feel should be elected despite all this. Polls are not fortune tellers. People's sentiments are subject to change, and entire states do flip from A to B or C now and then. If you don't vote because you live in an A or B state, then you forfeit your power to flip your state in your favor.

[MishkaL1138]

[Thoss]

Pretty sure I agree with what  you are saying Rigwyn

Another reason I am game for voting 3rd party if I don't like one of the mains is that everyone complains about a two party system... winner takes all favors a two party system... I don't like it, you probably don't like it, others probably don't like it... unless you are in Congress.

But, how does that change? Complain too our representatives that we want them to overhaul this system that gives them a lot of power? Not gonna happen... Only way I see is... stick it to those who like things as they are... by voting for a spoiler... if a 3rd party screws up the elections often enough... say every time, every two years local and up... one of the major parties will get pissed... and then we can start talking about amending our voting system...

but, if we all fall in our proper line as good little piggies... they win, and things continue as is.

Not that I vote every single time, but willfully choosing not to vote seems silly, I certainly agree with that Rigwyn.

[Rigwyn]

I agree with you there. I guess for the individual, the choice is 1. try to influence candidates A and B, or 2. try to push for third party. For me personally, I'm choosing to vote against a particular candidate this year.

An interesting question is why didn't the third party candidates get a strong following this year given all the hatred towards the popular candidates. For me, I looked at Jill's website and just felt that she didn't really match the things the I feel are most important. Likewise, neither Jill or Gary seemed to be aggressive enough to "take" the votes they needed. Both seem to be very passive which for me, does not sit well.

Regarding Ligh's comment about the democrats telling the truth, that was one of the few times that Hillary did tell the truth and yes, it bit her in the ass, hard. The main problem with Hillary is that she has an astounding record for lying and deceiving people, AND getting caught. Because of this, she struggles with being branded as dishonest and untrustworthy. Even her supporters will tell you this, but they'll say they would rather vote for her than for Trump....

I think like the last few elections, more people are probably voting "against" a candidate instead of voting "for" a candidate.

For anyone who's really interested in seeing the Democrat's dirty side, take a look at wikileaks.org or log onto twitter and check out @wikileaks or #PodestaEmails. You'll be shocked at some of the crap that has been uncovered.

[MishkaL1138]

Not that I vote every single time, but willfully choosing not to vote seems silly, I certainly agree with that Rigwyn.

It doesn't matter what they all tell you: "not voting means you're just content with whatever happens, not voting means you're not a patriot" etc etc.

Not voting means you don't endorse any of the candidates. And that's fine. You can not vote and still be critical of what you get. That's one of the perks of democracy: you're as free to vote as you're not to. Voting blindly for family solidarity is okay. Voting out of spite is okay. Not voting is okay. Screwing up your vote so it's null is okay. Just don't vote blank, because in that case, the candidate with the most votes will get those, and it'll mean you didn't care who gets elected, you'll support them regardless.

Vote, or vote not. There is no try.