US Presidential Race 2016

Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueDeadHead said:
Yep every four years the demographics get worse and worse for Republicans in a national race. More Hispanics voting every 4 years. Younger (new) voters skew Democratic and Older (dying) voters skew Republican. In the post mortem they did in 2012 the party said they have to change their approach to Latinos. Then 4 years later they nominate Trump. Its basically a case of the party knowing how to win but not having a voting base that will do what it takes to win.
Click to expand...

You have to remember that very few people vote in primaries which is what Trump won, general elections get much higher turnout. I like to believe that most republicans are smart enough to see how horrible Donald Trump is.

Also, the state of Virginia is what makes the difference now. Back in 2000 and 2004 it was solid red and now it's true blue. All democrats have to do is hold on to their stalwarts and they will win every national election unless the republicans decide to shut up the tea baggers.
 
Scottyboi said:
You're not far off at all, but people are wilfully blind and it's why they get away with what they do. The Brexit was a proper spanner in their works and they are trying their best to stop it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's hard for us at this level to say for sure about their long-term agendas/intentions and how they implement them but I think I'm pretty effin' close if not bang on with the crux of what I said, the details might be different. People who haven't learnt enough detail of how various things work together might call these people illuminati and make claims of shadow or one-world governments (unnecessary/too far-fetched in my view); the things they're questioning is very valuable to society in the public acting as a "check and balance" in the system but it's become socially conscious for many to just laugh at them (of course there are many nut jobs and eccentrics too). What they refer to as illuminati - (I hope) is an outdated group that oversimplifies the elite exercising political influence, I think is actually a loose collective of elites who may share business dealings from time to time or socialise.

Of course the freemasons and such secret societies do exist where people can help further each others' interests without public appearance - there are many that are freemasons at the lower levels that laugh at the conspiracy claims, but all I'll say is there are many clever tactics used by people in positions of power to ensure the security of their aims - people have to think intelligently to get to that level and to make moves to improve their lot (human nature for most regardless of current situation). If I shared interests with a particular group of people that most people can't relate to (i.e. are significantly poorer and uneducated whereby they may be angered by things if public), having a publicly known group is vulnerable to losing the privacy of what is intended to be kept private from the public if everyone in it is the same (i.e. elites with shared interests). By creating lower levels that discuss other subjects/aims within the organisation, you dilute the information within the group that you need to remain private and at the same time, if you ever come under suspicion, there are thousands of average working people that will defend the organisation (and deflect the suspicion of the higher private dealings) because they have a different image of the organisation (not knowing the full extent of it as you do). Similarly, having a society where people simply questioning things (that might be shocking to the public if they were proven to be true) are dismissed as conspiracy theorists, also does a lot to protect the people in question (though I doubt this was ever instigated by anyone and just simply happened over time because of mass naivety). Too much is written off as conspiracy theorist when it's a legitimate thing to question (for that check and balance effect to prevent corruption), but when people don't explain things like I did there it's because they're lacking the realism of information to support their point. For the people on the flip side, it's not just about burying their head in the sand, it's just their reality is so different and mundane in comparison to the elites they don't think about such things unless prompted by someone they might dismiss as a conspiracy theorist, and of course they haven't done the research to see any insight into those other realities (besides aspiring to get to that level because of a materialistic and celebrity culture).

Anyway off-tangent to the thread but still very important context to raise behind it all.
 
karen7 said:
Sky have the exit poll about half 12,none of the other uk outlets are getting it, then the result about 4am
Click to expand...
Russia Today have coverage from 20:00

Larry king and Jesse Ventura anchoring it.

Worth watching for the entertainment value.
 
ChicagoBlue said:
No, I mean that the DM's repetition of bullshit isn't journalism, it is just bullshit printed in a tabloid. Indeed, the bullshit being regularly spouted by Trump, and in turn the media, was recanted by the actual person who initially made the claim that Clinton was to be placed under a criminal indictment. In fact, he was forced to do it on TV, but it didn't stop Trump and his cohorts continuing to lie about it after the apology.

As for anything negative about Hillary, Im not so stupid as to think that there are not negatives, but they pale in comparison to what we have heard and seen from Trump. The false equivalency is nauseating, especially when it isn't repeatedly regurgitated by a lazy media. Trump has almost no policy ideas, and the ideas he does have are ridiculous. The cornerstone of his economic policy is massive tax cuts ($14 TRILLION) that he believes will create great economic wealth. What it really is is a withholding of normal government revenues by corporations and the wealthy, providing especially large tax breaks to himself!

As a U.S. voter, I have already proudly voted for CLINTON. I'm not in a swing state, as I live 10 miles from her ancestral home in Park Ridge, Illinois, and this state is solidly blue, so my vote will not effect any change. The voters in FL, NC, OH, MI and PA will decide this election, with CO and AZ possibly adding to the victory of whomever wins. I'm heading to an election party on Tuesday night, so I hope that by about midnight I am ready to head home with a big smile on my face!
Click to expand...
i just get the feeling that this false equivalency your talking of, is regarding their personality and less impactful political behaviour. I said to another US voter on here: your thinking from the perspective of a US voter so domestic issues are probably more important to you, whereas as an outsider, international matters are more important to me. I haven't thought enough about what i would do if I was a US voter, because I have enough to think about already from my perspective. Domestically, Clinton is much more stabile (it's more or less a guarantee of stability), Trump does pose a risk and it's hard to put a reliable estimate range of how risky this may be economically. I'll say this, if I was an African-American in an area susceptible to police brutality, I'd have to vote Trump because of the comments he's made about bringing respect back to the police (officers that love to abuse people will have loved that). So yeah, personality/general behavioural differences are of less significant concern to me, it's the potential of their international impact (Clinton will undoubtedly be more negatives with raised tensions with Russia; Trump will build US-Rus relations but the result of that for others like Ukraine is hard to predict) and will be more to you because they will be the face of your country which will impact on international negotiations etc. This difference in perspective is why most likely the root of why we're finding it so hard to share posts in agreement. I don't mind someone with the right passion and positive ideas but without the widespread experience/knowledge someone like Clinton or Obama may have politically, because they have a cabinet with the necessary level of expertise to reliably advise him in each area (they will challenge him if needed and he should trust them since he'd hire them) - of course, like I said, the domestic risk isn't a risk to me.
 
RandomJ said:
What time will the results start?
Click to expand...

Polls close in some East Coast states as soon as 7 pm eastern time. Many of those states (e.g. Maryland and Massachusetts) they will call for Clinton immediately. I expect we will know the result by 10 pm eastern time (assuming Clinton wins).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.