Page 6 of 20
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 1:46 pm
by Leisher
Here's the problem with the polling numbers people keep quoting... They're asking people who won't vote in November.
They keep showing Sanders crushing Trump, but Sanders isn't going to win his party's nomination. Once Hillary gets the nod, the Democrats will lose the "young vote". All of the morons who embrace Bernie's socialist message will not be turning out to vote like they did for Barry.
Meanwhile, while the MSM keeps proudly writing articles about polls showing Hillary beating Trump, just as many other polls show Trump beating Hillary.
And the thing about Trump that people keep talking about, but not focusing on is that his supporters are angry. They're going to vote. Even the folks who backed Cruz and Rubio and whoever else are going to come out to vote for Trump because they will NOT vote for Hillary.
I could be wrong and maybe Hillary wins in a landslide, but she's not the better of two options. She's a crooked, unethical, elitist cunt and even the Dems know that. It's why they passed her over for Barry, and why they want to pass her over for Sanders, but being that he's a socialist many refuse to go that route.
Do NOT overlook Dems simply not showing up to vote, and thus, Trump wins.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:45 pm
by Malcolm
Even the folks who backed Cruz and Rubio and whoever else are going to come out to vote for Trump because they will NOT vote for Hillary.
I disagree entirely. Those votes, for the most part, just stay home.
She's a crooked, unethical, elitist cunt...
Except for "she," I'd say that's much like Trump.
Do NOT overlook Dems simply not showing up to vote...
If Rubio or Cruz wins the nomination, then maybe. But I expect the blues to get galvinized precisely because Trump's their opponent. Even I have to fight back the strong urge to go out and vote for the candidate running against him.
Edited By Malcolm on 1457034402
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:05 pm
by TheCatt
I probably would have voted for Rubio or Bush. I will not vote for Cruz or Trump. I would vote for Hillary if Trump wins the R nomination.
Edited By TheCatt on 1457035528
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:10 pm
by Leisher
I'm just saying that all I hear from "people who know" is that Trump will get crushed by Hillary. These same people said Trump's lead won't last.
I won't vote for Trump, but I also won't vote for Hillary. Third party vote for me!
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:16 pm
by TheCatt
Leisher wrote:I'm just saying that all I hear from "people who know" is that Trump will get crushed by Hillary. These same people said Trump's lead won't last.
I won't vote for Trump, but I also won't vote for Hillary. Third party vote for me!
If you want to put $ on it... and odds... lemme know 
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:20 pm
by Malcolm
TheCatt wrote:Leisher wrote:I'm just saying that all I hear from "people who know" is that Trump will get crushed by Hillary. These same people said Trump's lead won't last.
I won't vote for Trump, but I also won't vote for Hillary. Third party vote for me!
If you want to put $ on it... and odds... lemme know
I'll take a piece of that action.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:36 pm
by TPRJones
You know, if it really does come down to Hillary and Trump then this is the ideal year for a popular figure to jump in as a third-party candidate and maybe win the whole thing. It would have to be someone that isn't really aligned with either party and can appeal to a wide range of voters who will be willing to overlook the fact that they don't agree on all the issues but will do so because they like the individual and think he or she will make a good figurehead compared to the other shittier options.
Deadpool 2016.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:09 pm
by Malcolm
TPRJones wrote:You know, if it really does come down to Hillary and Trump then this is the ideal year for a popular figure to jump in as a third-party candidate and maybe win the whole thing. It would have to be someone that isn't really aligned with either party and can appeal to a wide range of voters who will be willing to overlook the fact that they don't agree on all the issues but will do so because they like the individual and think he or she will make a good figurehead compared to the other shittier options.
Not a chance.
1) Way, way, way too many single issue voters and morons swayed by misinformation. Had Trump run independent, Rubio and Cruz would be openly stealing his shit.
2) Any popular 3rd party candidate will have their most appealing ideas stolen and subverted by one or both major parties.
Edited By Malcolm on 1457043194
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:23 pm
by TheCatt
TPRJones wrote:You know, if it really does come down to Hillary and Trump then this is the ideal year for a popular figure to jump in as a third-party candidate and maybe win the whole thing. It would have to be someone that isn't really aligned with either party and can appeal to a wide range of voters who will be willing to overlook the fact that they don't agree on all the issues but will do so because they like the individual and think he or she will make a good figurehead compared to the other shittier options.
Deadpool 2016.
If it had been Sanders/Trump, I'd agree with you. Perhaps just cuz I would never vote for either of those people.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:35 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:2) Any popular 3rd party candidate will have their most appealing ideas stolen and subverted by one or both major parties.
Who, after the election, will ignore them.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:39 pm
by Malcolm
More I think about it, the more funding has to be cut to major candidates.
Hillary Clinton (D)
$57,748,407
$130,443,637
Ted Cruz ®
$46,726,605
$54,661,506
Bernie Sanders (D)
$45,234
$96,311,423
Marco Rubio ®
$34,313,903
$34,652,654
Donald Trump ®
$1,894,509
$25,526,319
Top number is outside funding, bottom is committee money. I'll attribute the Trump anomaly to the fact he has sizable personal wealth and is going for the nomination of a party that could kindly be called "a motherfucking joke" right now. Who's got $20M to test this "third party" theory?
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:43 pm
by GORDON
The best part is that a lot of that bribe money comes from overseas cuz gosh darn it, they just plum forget to track it.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:44 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:Who's got $20M to test this "third party" theory?
Doesn't matter, the networks aren't going to invite you to the debates because you aren't one of the two approved parties, and no one is ever going to hear of you.
As I keep saying, the system is unfixable, and it needs to burn so we can get back to something that works.
Edited By GORDON on 1457045120
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:51 pm
by Malcolm
the networks aren't going to invite you to the debates because you aren't one of the two approved parties, and no one is ever going to hear of you.
Really? If that retarded Korean rapper Psy can get a billion youtube hits, I'm sure some third-party dude could hit up 100M. You could simulcast during the debates, and inject your own wise-ass commentary into them, which seems to be the new thing these days. You could MST3K that shit. Did you see the last pachyderm debate? It was like 3 of the shittiest, least likable insult comics all on stage at the same time filming an episode of "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:57 pm
by TheCatt
Malcolm wrote:Who's got $20M to test this "third party" theory?
Someone has heard Malcolm's call
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:10 pm
by Malcolm
Optimistically, I hope he's more than a one-article-trick pony. Realistically, I think the best any 3P candidate could do is pull a Perot from '92 and be a 50/50 serious/comic sideshow.
The antivirus millionaire calls the election a "clown show" and describes the current candidates as "children."
1) Unless they are of the killer variety and hail from outer space, most people like clowns and the circus.
2) They are children. But then again, that describes exactly the voting sheep to whom they pander. Since 9/11, the American presidential race has been little more than which mouthpiece sounds and looks better and therefore can herd more brainless voters into their particular corral through lies, platitudes, and fear-mongering. I don't want a "better" candidate or player in that system, I want the game changed. The tradition needs to go out the fucking window.
Traditions that need to fucking die:
1) Two-party system: I wish I knew how. Maybe they'll cluelessly run their fund wells dry one day or the voting public will smarten up. Debates must include more options, period. Determining that "fairly" is a bitch without having 100 candidates in the mix all claiming equality. A popularity tally might work. Every citizen gets to vote for up to X parties to show at a debate, cap it at 5-6 parties max. Do that shit online.
2) Something must be done about the cash. The adverts themselves aren't the real issue. You can do a decent one with a grey background and YouTube that mofo. It's the money to buy off the right motherfuckers to endorse you. That goes back to that single issue thing again. Want the NRA endorsement? Better not vote for gun control in any way, shape, or form. Want the AARP endorsement? Better not even think about entitlement cuts. If only you could send their boards of directors on multi-week vacations to the Bahamas to see things your way.
3) Debates: FUCK live debates with all the corrupt bastards in the same room. The pachyderms looked like goddamn preschoolers bitching about which of them would make a better Batman. Do it online. Why? Because then you can 100% guarantee that only one puppet candidate is talking at a time. Mute button, motherfuckers, at the moderator's disposal.
Edited By Malcolm on 1457047835
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 6:54 pm
by TheCatt
You can't trash the 2 party system, the system is setup for it. Sure, there'll briefly be 3rd parties, but never for long.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:16 pm
by GORDON
TheCatt wrote:You can't trash the 2 party system, the system is setup for it. Sure, there'll briefly be 3rd parties, but never for long.
Unless they can make a earworm pop song while telling people to vote for them.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:48 pm
by TPRJones
GORDON wrote:Doesn't matter, the networks aren't going to invite you to the debates because you aren't one of the two approved parties, and no one is ever going to hear of you.
As I keep saying, the system is unfixable, and it needs to burn so we can get back to something that works.
Our two-parties-filled-with-extremists system is the inevitable result of our first-past-the-post voting system coupled to the primary system. It heavily punishes anyone that doesn't vote for the two main parties and because everything gets boiled down to two choices only the most extreme candidates get past the primaries.
If we switched to a single transferable vote that would fix most of the problems over time. There'd be more parties with more options and the extremists end up alone in their own crazy parties instead of being lumped in with - and basically taking over - their less-crazy ideological neighbors.
Posted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 7:54 pm
by TPRJones
Malcolm wrote:...most people like clowns...
Nope.
Edited By TPRJones on 1457052857