POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by VPI97

So that's your answer? Because no one that runs for President is a decent person?

They tend not to be. Politics tends to create people who stretch the truth as part of the game. If that's your line in the sand, you aren't going to get very far. Even the so-called good guys are somewhat morally corrupt. And you know what, sometimes they kind of have to be to do the job.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Exactly. Which is why I'm not voting for Trump either.

I guess what I'm really asking is how intelligent Americans continue to put up with these crap elections. Liar vs. Liar. Horrible person vs Horrible person. I came here to ask that because in 20 years on online message boards, FOFC is the place I've posted that typically contains level headed, intelligent people. So, how can anyone here justify a vote for either of these people? Is it solely because they are the only two options and the system forces us to choose a lesser evil? I'm seriously asking because, to me, choosing to vote for Trump vs Hillary is a no-win choice. They're both despicable people. At my age, I just don't think I can justify casting a vote for these types of individuals anymore...it's just not worth the time and effort to keep up with all the nonsense leading up to election day. Part of me has just come to the conclusion that I should bury my head in the sand and leave elections up to the idiots, but I'm still curious as to how intelligent people can justify voting for either of these candidates. Is it solely to see your "side" win? Is it because you choose to ignore a candidates personality flaws for a supposed "greater good" as indicated by their party's platform? or it it willful ignorance of your side's flaws? I'm genuinely curious.

I strongly believe in participation in the two party system. I don't necessarily like it, but it isn't going to change by voting for third party candidates that get less than 5% of the vote.

Hillary isn't my ideal candidate, but unless I want to run, I likely won't get to vote for my ideal candidate. I try to push some in the primaries when the option is there, and I push some with my congressional rep. But by the time the general roles around I vote for my best choice within the two major parties. Some years it's mostly about winning, some years it's mostly about making sure the other person loses.

There's a lot I like about Obama, and a fair portion I dislike. The things I like I want to see continue. For that reason alone I'll vote Hillary.

[SirFozzie]

"He was a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what? He did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism," So, to deal with Terrorism, Trump wants to turn the USA into Iraq. Ok. glad we know where we stand.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

That seems somewhat tainted by nostalgia to me. Aside from Obama, finding a 'decent' person who has run for President (not even been a nominee for his or her party, mind) in the 21st Century is difficult.

And if you expand that further, aside from Obama, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush (debatable), and Jimmy Carter (& possibly Gerald Ford) the Presidential nominees in the last 40 years have been morally questionable people at best.

Given that list, it's pretty questionable whether relatively "morally upright" (pick a phrase if that one doesn't suit, I'm phrasing broadly) people even make good presidents.

It might very well be that it's a job that requires a fair bit of bastard in you to actually do reasonably well.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Exactly. Which is why I'm not voting for Trump either.

I guess what I'm really asking is how intelligent Americans continue to put up with these crap elections. Liar vs. Liar. Horrible person vs Horrible person. I came here to ask that because in 20 years on online message boards, FOFC is the place I've posted that typically contains level headed, intelligent people. So, how can anyone here justify a vote for either of these people? Is it solely because they are the only two options and the system forces us to choose a lesser evil? I'm seriously asking because, to me, choosing to vote for Trump vs Hillary is a no-win choice. They're both despicable people. At my age, I just don't think I can justify casting a vote for these types of individuals anymore...it's just not worth the time and effort to keep up with all the nonsense leading up to election day. Part of me has just come to the conclusion that I should bury my head in the sand and leave elections up to the idiots, but I'm still curious as to how intelligent people can justify voting for either of these candidates. Is it solely to see your "side" win? Is it because you choose to ignore a candidates personality flaws for a supposed "greater good" as indicated by their party's platform? or it it willful ignorance of your side's flaws? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm not voting for either of them. I don't care if my vote "doesn't count." It counts to me.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

"He was a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what? He did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism," So, to deal with Terrorism, Trump wants to turn the USA into Iraq. Ok. glad we know where we stand.

Saddam paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers for blowing up Israeli citizens.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by VPI97

Is it solely because they are the only two options and the system forces us to choose a lesser evil?

I think that's probably part of it. Not necessarily the "only two options" thing so much as that politics writ large is kind of a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everybody votes for a third party candidate instead of a Republican or a Democrat, maybe things change (though "change" doesn't necessarily imply that it's a beneficial change). If, on the other hand, some people vote their self-interest - vote the "laundry," if you will - then their "team" wins while everybody else is left wondering wtf just happened.

Without a third party viable as a going concern without that sort of electioneering, people maybe feel trapped. If we had proportional representation in Congress instead of the system we have, maybe a third party could establish itself well enough to change the dynamic at the Presidential level.

On the matter of "choosing a lesser evil," that probably depends on how you want to parse it.

Even as I'm adamant that Trump needs to lose, I can't really say I'm excited about Hillary Clinton, either. But you know what? Neither Trump qua Trump nor Hillary are what's ultimately making my November decision for me.

That would be the behavior of Congressional Republicans for the last six years, and I refuse to reward that. Any of it. I'm not going to be happy about voting for Hillary Clinton, but I'm not going to lose one second's sleep should she be elected President.

The reaction from contemporary Republicans over watching their bogeywoman of the last 20 years enter the White House just as there's a Supreme Court vacancy waiting to be filled will sustain me just fine over the next four years.

Hopefully by 2020 the insanity which has gripped the GOP since 2001 will have abated, and maybe I'll have an actual choice again instead of having to metaphorically slap the hands of impertinent children.

[digamma]

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

This is the money paragraph of the Comey presser that is in direct contribution to Clinton's statements that she never sent or received an e-mail that was classified at the time of transmission.

I've worked on investigations (on the wrong side, unfortunately) where there are massive amounts of e-mails reviewed by teams of lawyers over a period of years. Quite frankly, they're a mess. But the thing I found is that the problem e-mails bubble up. They show up again and again because they're forwarded or replied to or whatever else. So, even when you see a small number 110/30,000 seems really small, it seems really unlikely to me that no one in the Clinton camp knew about this small group of e-mails.

I have very little doubt that prior to her interview last week, HRC's lawyers showed her every single one of those 110 e-mails in order to prep her for the questions.

The question then becomes whether it is incompetence in handling that knowledge (who told whom? who ok'd the party line statement that no e-mails were marked classified at the time of transmission? was HRC told and when?) or whether it was more brazen untruthfulness. I'm not sure which is the worse answer.

There is a benign explanation, but it has to do with timing of HRC internal review and when the e-mails were turned over. Given the consistency of statements from the Clinton camp and that they haven't changed over the time period, I don't think this is the case, but could certainly be proven wrong. I don't think there's been a public statement by the Clinton camp to address this, has there?

I'm not sure where it leaves us. Trump is content to rant about fairness and how corrupt the investigation was.

I do think this is a big deal. It's a big deal personally for me as a voter. I have no disillusion as to who HRC is. As noted, she's been in the very public eye for all of my adult life. But I've been impressed by her transformation as a candidate in 2016 and she hits a number of issues very important to me right on the mark. I will be watching to see the response.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by VPI97

I'm no fan of Trump nor Hillary, but after seeing Comey's press conference and remembering all of her denials, I can't understand how anyone can vote for Hillary. Trump may be a buffoon, but I prefer a buffoon to be in charge over an out and out liar like Hillary.

Trump's a buffoon, serially failed businessman and liar.

Clinton's an accomplished public servant with a penchant for stretching the truth.

If those are the only two options available, the choice is pretty obvious.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I strongly believe in participation in the two party system. I don't necessarily like it, but it isn't going to change by voting for third party candidates that get less than 5% of the vote.

Hillary isn't my ideal candidate, but unless I want to run, I likely won't get to vote for my ideal candidate. I try to push some in the primaries when the option is there, and I push some with my congressional rep. But by the time the general roles around I vote for my best choice within the two major parties. Some years it's mostly about winning, some years it's mostly about making sure the other person loses.

There's a lot I like about Obama, and a fair portion I dislike. The things I like I want to see continue. For that reason alone I'll vote Hillary.

If your profile is up to date you are the perfect 3rd party voter. Your vote means nothing in New York why not give it to a 3rd party?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If those are the only two options available, the choice is pretty obvious.

They aren't and the great thing about these two candidates (especially Trump) is maybe, just maybe, people will realize that.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by panerd

If your profile is up to date you are the perfect 3rd party voter. Your vote means nothing in New York why not give it to a 3rd party?

People thought Brexit wasn't going to pass. Why take a risk?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Given that list, it's pretty questionable whether relatively "morally upright" (pick a phrase if that one doesn't suit, I'm phrasing broadly) people even make good presidents.

It might very well be that it's a job that requires a fair bit of bastard in you to actually do reasonably well.

I left that unsaid, but that may indeed a reasonable inference.

[ISiddiqui]

There was plenty in Comey's statement that intelligent Republicans could have used as an attack against Clinton... but it looks like they just want to blow their opportunity...

Republicans may be blowing it on Clinton’s emails. They have only themselves to blame. - The Washington Post

So, yes, Trump is already overreaching. But some Very Serious Republicans may be doing the same. Now Paul Ryan’s House Republicans will hold hearings into Comey’s recommendation, and he is calling on the FBI to release all of the information that went into that decision, because it “underscores the belief that the Clintons live above the law.” Interestingly, Ryan appears somewhat uncomfortable with the implications of his criticism. In his statement, Ryan carefully highlighted his “respect for the law enforcement professionals at the FBI,” but no matter: He essentially suggested that the bureau had placed Clinton “above the law.” Many other Republicans, including others of the Very Serious variety, are making similar suggestions while calling for a special prosecutor.

The hearings seem like a really dumb political idea. Comey is known to be a Republican appointee and highly respected by the GOP prior to the statement. He said quite a few harsh things about Clinton while saying there wasn't enough there for a criminal indictment. By putting him "on the stand" the Republicans are basically putting Comey in a position where he'll be reiterating his defense of not indicting Clinton. Instead of his words saying she acted careless, the image we'll be left with is Comey saying there wasn't enough proof she intentionally acted to circumvent the law. And with the short attention spans of the American people... what do you think people will remember?

[flere-imsaho]

Ken Starr mk.2.

[SirFozzie]

The Republicans are wading through the vast amount of horseshit they spewed, in the belief that there must be a pony somewhere in here..

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Ken Starr mk.2.

Well, he is free again .

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

what do you think people will remember?

The same thing they "remember" before any dog-and-pony ... whether it happened or not.

(i.e. we're at the point where people on either side will just invent whatever form of "memory" they want/need to suit their narrative)

[PilotMan]

I will be voting for Clinton.

I don't particularly like her. However, I can cut her slack because she has literally been in the cross hairs of the republican party since 1992. After 24 years of a group doing everything they can to destroy you, you're not going to be looking any better.

On top of that, she is clearly a strong fighter. Her persistence and resolve are impressive. She's gone from a loud mouth first lady, to a Senator, and Sec of State. She's been around big decision and big decision makers. Her handle on international politics is worlds better than either Sanders or Trump.

Even bigger than all of that? The Supreme Court. For me, it's all about this. No matter what, the Dems have to win so that the Court can change after decades as a right based court. There's a good chance that in addition to the one vacant seat, that another may open up. So voting for the Dem option is the only choice here.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Well, he is free again .

But he probably wouldn't do it: Log In - The New York Times

That's OK, there's a million and one GOP politicians who would be happy to embark on an all-expenses-paid 4 or 8-year crusade.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for spending millions on another special investigator. It's a sign of the relative backbone of both parties that the same can't be said for Trump.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by VPI97

So that's your answer? Because no one that runs for President is a decent person?

Edit: That's a fair answer. It's the kind of response I'm looking for. I've just had enough of the morally corrupt people that are put forth as candidates. Maybe I'm late to the party in realizing this...maybe this is just a part of a mid life crisis...I don't know. I just can't stand either of these candidates at all. I find this to be the worst election in my lifetime in that there is nothing redeemable about either of them. At least in the past, I've thought that there was more good than bad. Not the case in this election.

+1 (and my lifetime is a long time, with 1972 coming the closest). As I typically do not vote for any presidential candidates, despite not believing in the lesser-of-two-evils, I cannot separate the two evils this year...except for one thing:

There is one thing worse than either winning - Congress being the same party as the Executive. If Congress turns Democrat, than Clinton winning would be worse than Trump. Also, the converse would be equally true. So if Congress remains Republican, than Clinton winning would be better.

[digamma]

HRC's social media team is killing it...

Do you want to build a strawman? https://t.co/AoeNTJOGpo

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 7, 2016

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I will be voting for Clinton.

I don't particularly like her. However, I can cut her slack because she has literally been in the cross hairs of the republican party since 1992. After 24 years of a group doing everything they can to destroy you, you're not going to be looking any better.

On top of that, she is clearly a strong fighter. Her persistence and resolve are impressive. She's gone from a loud mouth first lady, to a Senator, and Sec of State. She's been around big decision and big decision makers. Her handle on international politics is worlds better than either Sanders or Trump.

Even bigger than all of that? The Supreme Court. For me, it's all about this. No matter what, the Dems have to win so that the Court can change after decades as a right based court. There's a good chance that in addition to the one vacant seat, that another may open up. So voting for the Dem option is the only choice here.

Same. I don't like her. I think she's a liar. But Trump is such a colossal disaster that I couldn't possibly vote for him.

Plus things like net neutrality are important to me and my business.

[Galaxy]

Am I alone feeling that Parliamentary systems are better than our system? While you still have dominant parties, the systems aren't duopolies, and allow for the rise and fall of new parties and candidates. They also seem to foster for more working together of government instead of two-party, walk-the-party-line/platform crap we got now. Or maybe third parties and non-duopoly candidates should focus more on congressional races instead of the billion-dollar race that, due to the electoral college system set-up, seems to be a waste?

[stevew]

Parliamentary type systems would have guys that like to watch boys shower from their Lay-Z-Boy recliner as our prime minister.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Am I alone feeling that Parliamentary systems are better than our system? While you still have dominant parties, the systems aren't duopolies, and allow for the rise and fall of new parties and candidates. They also seem to foster for more working together of government instead of two-party, walk-the-party-line/platform crap we got now. Or maybe third parties and non-duopoly candidates should focus more on congressional races instead of the billion-dollar race that, due to the electoral college system set-up, seems to be a waste?

I like the concept of Parliamentary democracies, and the fact that they allow for a greater range of voices in the government than the two-party system.

But it also means that the functional head of the executive is typically always from the same party as that which runs the legislative, with all the pitfalls inherent to that.

They're also going to be more unstable because of the need for multi-party coalitions and the fact that the party in power can call for new elections at any time.

It's a trade-off.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I like the concept of Parliamentary democracies, and the fact that they allow for a greater range of voices in the government than the two-party system.

But it also means that the functional head of the executive is typically always from the same party as that which runs the legislative, with all the pitfalls inherent to that.

They're also going to be more unstable because of the need for multi-party coalitions and the fact that the party in power can call for new elections at any time.

It's a trade-off.

Maybe a focus for third parties and independent candidates on Congressional seats than the Presidency would provide more pressure on the duopoly that parliamentary systems? Races would be more local (state/district), winner-take-all instead of the electoral system, and less money than the war chest for Presidency needed? Winning seats in the House, and even the Senate, would give you enough of a different voice (not having to to stand on one side or another; maybe you lean socially liberal on social issues, but fiscally conservative of spending/taxes, ect.) and "deal-making" coalition. I suppose campaign finance reform would really help in this debate.

[Edward64]

It doesn't seem that the Hillary campaign has gone negative on Trump yet other than for what Trump has been voluntarily offering up.

Guess they are waiting for after the convention. My thoughts are that business dealings expose isn't going to do much. Going bankrupt, laying off people, exaggerating selling messages etc. are all part of the business game. Ultimately, he is a successful businessman.

They're going to have attack him on the racial, religious, women (btw - I can't believe there's been no dirt on any Trump affairs yet), foreign policy etc.

Trump has been blunted with Benghazi and the email scandal. He seems to be left with old rehashed stuff promising to dive more into Bill and Vince Foster. Not going to do much there to get new supporters.

It should be entertaining.

[Ben E Lou]

Live video of Republicans who have endorsed Trump pic.twitter.com/t41lCsLjuT

— Daniel Lin (@DLin71) July 7, 2016

[Thomkal]

lol Ben

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Guess they are waiting for after the convention.

I think so. Whether they are right or wrong, they would clearly rather run against Trump than another Republican. So they want to save their strongest dirt for after he officially has the nomination so that they don't energize #NeverTrump.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

lol Ben

I giggled for a solid 15 seconds when I saw it.

[Neuqua]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I will be voting for Clinton.

I don't particularly like her. However, I can cut her slack because she has literally been in the cross hairs of the republican party since 1992. After 24 years of a group doing everything they can to destroy you, you're not going to be looking any better.

On top of that, she is clearly a strong fighter. Her persistence and resolve are impressive. She's gone from a loud mouth first lady, to a Senator, and Sec of State. She's been around big decision and big decision makers. Her handle on international politics is worlds better than either Sanders or Trump.

Even bigger than all of that? The Supreme Court. For me, it's all about this. No matter what, the Dems have to win so that the Court can change after decades as a right based court. There's a good chance that in addition to the one vacant seat, that another may open up. So voting for the Dem option is the only choice here.

This is exactly how I feel. I'm not exactly excited about voting for Clinton but this is based more on the Supreme Court than anything else.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Neuqua

This is exactly how I feel. I'm not exactly excited about voting for Clinton but this is based more on the Supreme Court than anything else.

And conversely the USSC is precisely the reason I'll vote for Trump while I pinch my nose shut.

[larrymcg421]

I would love a system that allowed for strong third parties, but we do not have that system. We have a system where if the results were 34 - 33 - 32, the 34% percent person wins outright. That's an absurd result and I'm still bewildered that many states and localities that won't do a runoff for those situations. Obviously a standard runoff for a Presidential election isn't practical, which is why we'd need a system revamp if we want this dream scenario of the Libertarians, Greens, etc. all having a shot at getting attention during the campaign. Until then, a two party system is all that makes sense in our format.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

The Republicans are wading through the vast amount of horseshit they spewed, in the belief that there must be a pony somewhere in here.

Irrespective of the politics, this line is the funniest thing I've read all day. Well done.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I would love a system that allowed for strong third parties, but we do not have that system. We have a system where if the results were 34 - 33 - 32, the 34% percent person wins outright. That's an absurd result and I'm still bewildered that many states and localities that won't do a runoff for those situations. Obviously a standard runoff for a Presidential election isn't practical, which is why we'd need a system revamp if we want this dream scenario of the Libertarians, Greens, etc. all having a shot at getting attention during the campaign. Until then, a two party system is all that makes sense in our format.

Agreed. A 3 or more way split opens us up to even more disgruntled-ness. I think the illusion of a majority helps keep things calm.

[SirFozzie]

McCain was +9 over Obama with white college male graduates.

Romney was +5 in the same demographic.

Now, Trump is -12.

Matt McDermott on Twitter: "Pew poll among white college voters:
McCain '08: +9
Romney '12: +5
Trump '16: -12
https://t.co/rGw37FtbuN"

And this Republican hearing was basically the Republicans demanding of Comey "If you're not going to give us a Hillary Clinton perp walk, give us a soundbite that we can play out of context" and him deflecting the attacks for five hours.

[JPhillips]

NE Senator Sasse really dislikes Trump.

“Sen. Sasse will not be attending the convention and will instead take his kids to watch some dumpster fires across the state, all of which enjoy more popularity than the current front-runners.”

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

NE Senator Sasse really dislikes Trump.

He is killing it this cycle. He is going to have a lot of people talking.

[Edward64]

Need to see the details but I'm all for the public option but do not like the college assistance if its Bernie's "free" college.

Clinton Reaffirms Support For Public Option In Bid For Sanders Supporters

Hillary Clinton reaffirmed her support on Saturday for creating a “public option” within Obamacare and allowing people to enroll in Medicare at age 55.

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee also called for a substantial increase in funding in medical clinics that serve low-income Americans, fully embracing a proposal from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

While Clinton has long supported the creation of new government-run insurance options and reiterated that support several times this year, Saturday’s statement comes three days before she is scheduled to make her first joint campaign appearance with Sanders ― who has championed government-run insurance and federally financed clinics throughout his career and during his own bid for the presidency.

Sanders, who ran a surprisingly strong but ultimately unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination, is expected to endorse Clinton at that Tuesday event. Saturday’s announcement on health policy follows a similar one from Clinton earlier in the week, that she was enhancing her own proposal on college tuition assistance to match the considerably more generous version Sanders had sketched out.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Need to see the details but I'm all for the public option but do not like the college assistance if its Bernie's "free" college.

Yeah, on the one hand, it sounds like a noble enough idea to offer everybody higher education, but on the other it seems like even with the best intentions pouring a bunch of public money into "free college" could potentially serve to enable some of the crucial current problems with too many unfocused/under-prepared college grads, and industrializing education.

[mckerney]

‘Secretary Clinton Is A Different Person Than Donald Trump,’ Says Bernie Sanders In Ringing Endorsement - The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[albionmoonlight]

Some really good recent polls for Trump from Quinnipiac in FL, PA, and OH.

[JPhillips]

If you're planning on protesting at the RNC, remember squirt guns are banned, but real guns are permitted!

[Dutch]

Yep, New Black Panther Party got the memo and has upgraded from Super Soakers to rifles, shotguns, and....a favorite of theirs...hand-guns.

[Izulde]

Pence the VP pick for Trump. Are there really that many social conservatives who were planning on sitting out rather than vote Trump?

[Kodos]

Indiana governor Pence for Trump's VP candidate?

#PenceWatch: Trump to choose Pence as his running mate, reports say - TheIndyChannel.com

[JPhillips]

VP picks really don't matter, but it is disappointing that Trump picked possibly the least interesting man in America.

[Subby]

"I'm solid on hating Mexicans and Muslims, but could be better on hating gays and women."
"Mike Pence is available."
"Lock it up."

— Ken Tremendous (@KenTremendous) July 14, 2016