2016 US Presidential election thread

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mapuc

After again been reading a post where someone was angry about the Voting machine had changed this person vote

I started to wonder-do these voting machine only change it from Trump to Clinton or does it also change to voting the other way around ?

Markus

I have not read or heard of any instance of a machine changing Democrat to a Republican vote. Perhaps somewhere but I know of no instance.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Donna Brazile (spelled wrong from quote)

Donna Brazile
Chair of the Democratic National Committee
Acting
Incumbent
Assumed office
July 28, 2016

Very important name to remember in the next coming weeks

When the democrats win November 8th they may be having to make a major decision by January 20th on who represents the party in the White House.

Is that too vague?

Oh you bet your sweet bippy ole Donna will be getting appointed to something under Hillary.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I was just reading that. Man, the main stream media,



No end to the corruption in this campaign. Did the Clinton campaign report this breech of etiquette? No, they used it to their advantage. Yes, the system is rigged.

.

That is a understatement. Another carefully orchestrated campaign of back room dealings. Obama's campaign had the same but more careful with emails. The country has truly become the working class against the ruling class. If Hillary wins, what we once had known will no longer be. I truly feel there is no "nation" or united state at all.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

That is a understatement. Another carefully orchestrated campaign of back room dealings. Obama's campaign had the same but more careful with emails. The country has truly become the working class against the ruling class. If Hillary wins, what we once had known will no longer be. I truly feel there is no "nation" or united state at all.

I don't think that it's any particular party that would make or break such a scenario. The system feeds itself, it doesn't matter the colour of the party in power, the system will always feed itself.
People state their love for Trump because he's not 'PC' or that he's not a 'Political insider', but he's not exactly working class either is he? He's still a member of that top 1%, and he's further into the political machine than people give him credit for, let's not forget that he had a vested interest to wine and dine politicians, to use his economic and social clout to smooth the road for his transactions. How different to a politician is that?
As for him being 'not-PC' well, that depends on which way the wind is blowing, doesn't it? I mean he's changed his position on so many things that it's not hard to believe that his un-PCness is just a deliberate act to appeal to the Alt-Right, and sure enough it's worked and they've taken it hook, line and sinker.

I think the problems don't lie so much at the heart of politics, although they do not help, I think the problems lie at the growing gap between people in different social and economic positions, and those extremes have lead to extremism. Politics only holds a mirror to this problem, it reflects what we have become. I don't think that there is any way to fix the problem in politics without also fixing the problem in society, because the two feed off each other. Some people have called for a revolution, and when I was a younger person I was one of them, but I've taken a look at revolutions and ultimately what they become. Let's not forget a revolution got America where it is today, ok it took over two hundred years to get there, but if there was to be a second revolution eventually down the line there would be calls for a third one and so on and so forth. Revolutions are rarely bloodless too, and it's usually the people who eventually suffer as one dictator is replaced by another and the freedom that the revolutionaries fought for slips through their hands.
I think in this particular instance, the US is probably an exception to the norm in that following its revolution a tyrannical power did not emerge, and for this I have to credit the very smart people who set up the checks and balances in place. That being said, an argument could (and no doubt would) be made that a tyrannical system eventually did emerge and it was the resistance to that system which sparked the civil war. Honestly though, as tyrannical systems go, I think that the American one is probably tyranny-lite zero.

To come back to the point at hand though, yes, things do need to change but I don't think that our society can keep up with the pace that it has set itself. The change that is needed will not happen fast enough to meet the demand for it, and that is going to lead to some ugly scenes. To use an example, our current social structure is completely unequipped to deal with the increasing automation of labour intensive employment. McDonalds is often used as an example of the lowest rung on the ladder, but when McDonalds becomes automated and only requires two or three people per store maximum then where do those workers on the lowest rung go? On to social security of course because there are not enough jobs for under-qualified people. We're seeing the very beginning of this now, but there's a LOT more to come and we're just not ready for it.

In short, yes the system is rigged, the whole system, not just politics, and honestly, I don't see how that is going to change, even with a revolution or mass social upheaval since those with money are always going to be able to protect themselves against those without money just because of the fact that they have money. Short of some colossal civilization collapsing event, the rich will always look after their own, and the fact that they have money will sway people to defend them.

[Onkel Neal]

I voted today, I'm done.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I voted today, I'm done.

Did you make sure to do it twice? To overcome the rigging?

[Jimbuna]

Regardless of the eventual winner I doubt either will have any credibility on the world stage regarding serious matters

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Nope, no political party zombies here, never voted in my entire and refuse to affiliate myself with any politcal party.

Though retired from military service I still take my oath of enlistment very seriously.

Thats respectable since political parties do not get mentioned at all in that oath, as far as I recall it from films. Regarding the loyalty it demands towards the president, I just point out that the importance lies in the institution - not the name. One can be a president - and still be an #######. Blind exaggerated loyalty for the leader in person is what led the Wehrmacht and its Prussian code of honour and obedience into desaster. Their sense of duty shouold have been to stand up against Hitler.

In the end, the loyalty has to be where your money comes from - the people. And that is not so much nationalism, but patriotism .

----

These days, and especially with candidates like these two horror clowns now, one should know what one gets when supporting parties or politicians. Thus, any vote you cast during elections, can and will and should be held against you, since you are responsible for the one you helped to bring into office and whom you authorized to rule over your life to some significant degree, and to speak in your name.

Therefore, if you vote, you have no right to complain afterwards. You must be expected these days to know that you were voting for liars, cheaters and narcissistic psychopaths. Voters are banned from criticising, since they made possible what they criticise afterwards. Voters only have the right to beg the others for pardon.

Boycot parties, politicians and elections. Have courage for civil disobedience. One cannot change the direction of a river by swimming in it.

That is far more exhausting and discomfortable a way to show you are serious with your political responsiblity, than to party and finally mark a cross on an election ballot. Voting means to have a fete, a feeling-well event. Better visit the Oktoberfest if you want drunk slogans and loud noise.

The only way to change politics is to bypass them, boycott them, and isolate those trying to make their living by "doing politics". You do not cure a desease by intentionally infecting yourself, but by establishing an isolation protocol.

"They" are only powerful because you accept to obey them.

Thats what I mean when in the past I said political parties should be forbidden, and political work, no matter rank and office, should be limited to two terms at best, for the highest alpha animal down to the simple delegate. I did not always see it like this, I once was a fallen victim to the usual propaganda myself. 8 years, and then your poltical engagement has to end. A life long membership in a party? A life long career in being a delegate? Look at the messy world around, and then tell me that is a good idea.

Also, political work should not be paid for, net receivers should be banned from voting and candidating and deciding, and there should be no private lobbyists allowed to participate in political decision making. Party-funding like it is in Germany, where the general pulbic has to fiannce existing parties on basis of eleciton results, via tax funds, should be banned and criminalised. No parties should be allowed. Political candidates and delegates must finance themselves. Donations must be made public, and must be fully transparent.

And again, 2 terms of poltical engaement on whatever a level, in whatever a function, are the limit. Then politics must be over in that indvidual'S life, forever.

The way we allow politicis ro be run today, brings out the worst in man, voter and elected alike. Too often, the most unscrupulous poser makes the race. The most shameless false prophet wins the masses. The most incompetent dilletante gets flushed to ranks and office.

---

And as I often said before: what we call democracy today, has nothign in common with what ancient Greece, the claime dcradle of democracy, understood to be demcoracy. What we call democracy today, to them was a mix of at least two of the three forms of tyranny they knew of. And what we label as social responsibility and human rights, all too often reads like the catalogue of demands of the socialist International (=ochlocracy in ancient Greek).

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Voters are banned from criticising, since they made possible what they criticise afterwards. Voters only have the right to beg the others for pardon.

That's just ridiculous. Last I heard we've never had an election where just one candidate took ALL the votes so at least some voters aren't to be blamed.

In this election we have 4 candidates so at very least those who vote for Gary Johnson (me!) and Jill Stein have every right to criticize all they want.

[MaDef]

Yeah, that should actually read, "if you DON'T vote, you can't criticize how the country is run."

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Therefore, if you vote, you have no right to complain afterwards. You must be expected these days to know that you were voting for liars, cheaters and narcissistic psychopaths. Voters are banned from criticising, since they made possible what they criticise afterwards. Voters only have the right to beg the others for pardon.
.

Wrong. You always have the right to criticize.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by MaDef

Yeah, that should actually read, "if you DON'T vote, you can't criticize how the country is run."

Nice thing about the constitution I spent 24 long years of my life guarding. It says I can praise or criticize agree or disagree any blasted time I want.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Wrong. You always have the right to criticize.

Veto. If you love to expose yourself in the public, you have no right to complain about other people exposing themselves in the public. If you help to give a burglar a free sentence and he leaves the court as a free man, although you know he breaks into appartments and steals things, you have no right to complain if he breaks into yours.

You got what you called for.

You cannot order a dish in a restaurant - and then refuse to pay for it.

Why is this so? Because not only have you a right to decide and to chose. There is also a right that you can be held accountable for your choice. And it should be that way, for it is only fair and just - even if most people try to ignore that, or dodge their share of responsibility. When you call for something, do not complain when you get it.

[Jimbuna]

Trump has just finished speaking at a rally in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.

He's started his remarks by thanking his running mate, Mike Pence, who is making a rare joint campaign appearance with him as they travel from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin.

Live feed here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/elect...-2016-37825671

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You cannot order a dish in a restaurant - and then refuse to pay for it.

Sure I can. I've done it.