***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[SC kid]

Im not posting stuff just for you lol

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Polls tightening, democratic butt holes tightening.



If Trump manages to pull this off with no field opp the Democratic parties recrimination will premium entertainment.


I would almost root for that outcome if Trump wasn't possibly a puppet of the Kremlin.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

If the Democrats lose, who is first up against the wall?


gotta be Sanders and the whole far left Elizabeth Warren wing party right?

Or will black people be blamed for not showing up?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Polls tightening, democratic butt holes tightening.



If Trump manages to pull this off with no field opp the Democratic parties recrimination will premium entertainment.


I would almost root for that outcome if Trump wasn't possibly a puppet of the Kremlin.

You're enjoying this way too much.

 

[ninjahood]

If the Democrats lose, who is first up against the wall?


gotta be Sanders and the whole far left Elizabeth Warren wing party right?

Or will black people be blamed for not showing up?

this is already happening.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You're enjoying this way too much.

It's one of those you can't cry so you laugh situations. It's obviously horrifying. Im just being a ***.



I mean there is a plausible pathway you could chart starting with the election of president Trump, to the destabilization of western Europe and the return of the cold war and the constand threat of nuclear war and the destruction of the planet.


living up here in my maple tower will not save me from a president trump.



but I can't do anything, other than make snide comments on internet forums...

 

[noskey]

If the Democrats lose, who is first up against the wall?


gotta be Sanders and the whole far left Elizabeth Warren wing party right?

Or will black people be blamed for not showing up?

this is already happening.

Strange things happen in the upside down.

 

[superblytrife]

 

 

If the Democrats lose, who is first up against the wall?


gotta be Sanders and the whole far left Elizabeth Warren wing party right?

Or will black people be blamed for not showing up?

this is already happening.

Strange things happen in the upside down.

ninja does indeed reside there, however on this he's absolutely right.  

Turn on the news.  Check Twitter.  All I'm seeing is how black folks aren't showing up at the polls like they did in 2008 and 2012.  

That said, anyone who realistically thought that would happen is a damn fool.  

 

[dacomeup]

There was never a chance of black people voting like they did in 2008 and 2012 for Hillary. 

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I think what we have learned for sure is that nothing will stand in the way of Republicans getting massive tax cuts for the rich.



its not that suprising that Republicans would accept a racist demagogue, moron.


But their willingness to accept a dude who CLEARLY has ties to Russia and factors pretty heavily in Putins plans to destabilize western democracies....that has shocked me.





man they REALLY want those tax cuts.

 

[noskey]

And they aren't being blamed for a perceived lack of support. ****, black people are the main reason we're looking at President Hilldawg instead of Sanders. Turnout may be down, but it's down from record highs, nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

And they aren't being blamed for a perceived lack of support. ****, black people are the main reason we're looking at President Hilldawg instead of Sanders. Turnout may be down, but it's down from record highs, nothing to be ashamed of.

I didn't say blaming black people would be right, I'm just saying we could be blamed.

 

[everysingletime]

And they aren't being blamed for a perceived lack of support. ****, black people are the main reason we're looking at President Hilldawg instead of Sanders. Turnout may be down, but it's down from record highs, nothing to be ashamed of.

Can you tell me how does the turnout of black voters compare so far to when Bush was voted in as president?

 

[Black Lotus]

 
How does Ninjahood feel about The Bigot donating $200,000 to the Clinton Foundation?

 

[everysingletime]

I can't believe Nate Silver is telling us that we can't trust what states he is calling light blue [emoji]128557[/emoji]

I thought all we had to worry about was the swing states lol

 

[noskey]

And they aren't being blamed for a perceived lack of support. ****, black people are the main reason we're looking at President Hilldawg instead of Sanders. Turnout may be down, but it's down from record highs, nothing to be ashamed of.

Can you tell me how does the turnout of black voters compare so far to when Bush was voted in as president?

No, I was just following that line of thinking, or possibility. I wasn't trying to imply that early turnout is down for a fact, because I haven't done any research into that.

Regarding turnout from prior elections, quick Googling gave me this chart.

That's for total turnout by race, and black turnout was at all time highs for the Obama administration as far as I could find. I don't think Hillary will gained that much support, but I do think that it'll eclipse the Bush years fairly easily.

 

[Nike Jordan]

I can't believe Nate Silver is telling us that we can't trust what states he is calling light blue [emoji]128557[/emoji]

I thought all we had to worry about was the swing states lol

Nate Silver is a terrible pundit. Dude needs dem hitz for his website so ESPN doesn't shut it down.

 

[noskey]

And they aren't being blamed for a perceived lack of support. ****, black people are the main reason we're looking at President Hilldawg instead of Sanders. Turnout may be down, but it's down from record highs, nothing to be ashamed of.

I didn't say blaming black people would be right, I'm just saying we could be blamed.

Sadly that's true. IMO, if the worst does happen, I agree with Rex in that the line of blame should start with young progressives that are in the Bernie or Die camp. Pride is a powerful thing, and if a large group is too prideful to vote for Hillary, or can't stomach the idea of a somewhat more centrist Democrat getting their vote, they'll get the candidate they deserve. Minority groups are voting strongly in favor of Clinton from the looks of it, so if there's any attempt at blaming them, it'd start pushing minorities away from Dems and into the independent circles. I would hope Democrat leadership aren't so stupid as to alienate a large swath of voters over misdirected blame. Hopefully we'll never have to find out.

 

[leavemeglazzies]

The black vote is down, but the Latino vote will be up. And we all know who they'll be voting for, that is against.

Unless someone can show me a picture of some lone Latino person at a pro-Drumpf rally that supports Drumpf. Then they'll prove me wrong.

 

[EddieDoyers]

This presidential election race is going to be very entertaining the next 5 days, can't imagine what shenanigans both sides going to pull next.

Just going to sit back and enjoy the entertainment while I hope the state propositions that I'm going to vote for actually pass

 

[Belgium]

Ideally I think the media should distinguish more clearly between news reporting and opinion pieces.

Our media isn't perfect but there is a very stark contrast between ours and US media. I've gotten used to it over time but I notice other people here who are trying to follow the US elections are annoyed with the overt bias and opinionating of certain US media.

Over here we have a much clearer distinction between the reporting of news and opinions about said news.

In Flanders we have 2 national news broadcasts. The anchors have to remain as neutral as possible, and to their credit they rarely slip up.

If they do it's usually just struggle to contain laughter or making certain facial expressions that hint towards their personal views.

I'll use a typical Trump segment as an example of how our national news reports on him.

"Donald Trump makes controversial claim", followed by a clip of what he said and then it's on to the next segment.

Occasionally they'll have our top US political expert speak on events or statements from Hillary or Trump but it's always a one-sided conversation. The anchors simply ask some basic questions like "what possible consequences does this have on the election" and don't engage in debating with the experts.

Of course our national news isn't 100% neutral, one leans left while the other is more conservative. But ultimately the two hardly differ from eachother.

They never offer criticism or their own opinion on what they're reporting so the bias is more in what they choose to report. Which still isn't really that significant. The idea is that national news should simply provide the news and the facts and allow the viewer to draw their own conclusions.

Our main news broadcast is also partially funded by government subsidies so they can deliver quality news reporting without having to lower quality to increase profits. The state has no say in anything the media does of course. Even if they did, the worst they could do is pick and choose what to report, which would be pretty obvious to viewers.

Actual opinionating and discussion of news is done by opinion pieces in newspapers or talkshows and other educative tv shows.

Those have no affiliation with our national news.

Newspapers are far less restricted in terms of neutral reporting but all the papers have a pretty clear reputation of overt bias or neutrality and high quality journalism.

With US media that distinction between reporting news and opinionating is far less distinguished. And the apparent media collusion is of course a slap in the face of press neutrality

 

[everysingletime]

This presidential election race is going to be very entertaining the next 5 days, can't imagine what shenanigans both sides going to pull next.

Just going to sit back and enjoy the entertainment while I hope the state propositions that I'm going to vote for actually pass

Doesn't make sense for you to blase about this like OKB cuz you actually an American citizen b LOL

Trump wins, he's your president

 

[sundoobie]

I think what we have learned for sure is that nothing will stand in the way of Republicans getting massive tax cuts for the rich.

its not that suprising that Republicans would accept a racist demagogue, moron.

But their willingness to accept a dude who CLEARLY has ties to Russia and factors pretty heavily in Putins plans to destabilize western democracies....that has shocked me.

man they REALLY want those tax cuts.

Republicans want...

-to end funding for Planned Parenthood

-want more military action against ISIS

-want to stop marriage equality

-want 'tax cuts'

-want to stop the constant trampling of their 2nd amendment rights

-want to end Govt subsidized health care for people in poverty

So how do they achieve a majority of this? Supreme Court nominees appointed by the President and Legislation by the Republican controlled Congress. So yeah why wouldn't Republicans support a "racist demagogue, moron"?

Look at that tool Paul Ryan... on television talking about he already voted early for their 'nominee' but can't even admit to voting for Donald. Then you have that coward Ted Cruz on his knees supporting Trump and boarding Trump's plane talking about there are no disagreements. These Politicians are nothing more than WWE personalities acting in front of the camera but in the real world, both Blue and Red candidates are dining and splurging on taxpayers dime.

 

[EddieDoyers]

This presidential election race is going to be very entertaining the next 5 days, can't imagine what shenanigans both sides going to pull next.

Just going to sit back and enjoy the entertainment while I hope the state propositions that I'm going to vote for actually pass

Doesn't make sense for you to blase about this like OKB cuz you actually an American citizen b LOL

Trump wins, he's your president

I live in California, even if Trump were to get elected, there's a high chance the state would ignore anything Republican pushed. Remember guys, state sovereignty can overrule federal laws. It's all Gucci.

 

[Belgium]

Republicans want...

-to end funding for Planned Parenthood

-want more military action against ISIS

-want to stop marriage equality

-want 'tax cuts'

-want to stop the constant trampling of their 2nd amendment rights

-want to end Govt subsidized health care for people in poverty

So how do they achieve a majority of this? Supreme Court nominees appointed by the President and Legislation by the Republican controlled Congress. So yeah why wouldn't Republicans support a "racist demagogue, moron"?

Look at that tool Paul Ryan... on television talking about he already voted early for their 'nominee' but can't even admit to voting for Donald. Then you have that coward Ted Cruz on his knees supporting Trump and boarding Trump's plane talking about there are no disagreements. These Politicians are nothing more than WWE personalities acting in front of the camera but in the real world, both Blue and Red candidates are dining and splurging on taxpayers dime.

Forgot this one

-Want to roll back LGBT civil rights protections past marriage equality; effectively legalizing businesses discriminating against the LGBT community under the guise of religious freedom. How anyone with the slightest bit of empathy can vote for these people is beyond me. The 2016 GOP platform literally advocated discrimination and not just one time either. Straight up obsession.

They have altered their platform in favor of more coded language recently, whereas the original was a lot more explicit in its bigotry

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

 We pledge to defend the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard religious institutions against government control. We endorse the First Amendment Defense Act, Republican legislation in the House and Senate which will bar government discrimination against individuals and businesses for acting on the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. 

The nerve of these clowns to relate marriage equality to government discrimination 

 

In contrast, the original platform had a full chapter focusing solely on marriage. Here's what they had to say about it:

 
Foremost among those institutions is the American family. It is the foundation of civil society, and the cornerstone of the family is natural marriage, the union of one man and one woman. Its daily lessons — cooperation, patience, mutual respect, responsibility, self-reliance — are fundamental to the order and progress of our Republic. Strong families, depending upon God and one another, advance the cause of liberty by lessening the need for government in their daily lives. Conversely, as we have learned over the last five decades, the loss of faith and family life leads to greater dependence upon government. That is why Republicans formulate public policy, from taxation to education, from healthcare to welfare, with attention to the needs and strengths of the family.

It is also why everyone should be concerned about the state of the American family today, not because of ideology or doctrine, but because of the overwhelming evidence of experience, social science, and common sense. All of which give us these truths about traditional marriage: Children raised in a two-parent household tend to be physically and emotionally healthier, more likely to do well in school, less likely to use drugs and alcohol, engage in crime or become pregnant outside of marriage. We oppose policies and laws that create a financial incentive for or encourage cohabitation. Moreover, marriage remains the greatest antidote to child poverty. The 40 percent of children who now are born outside of marriage are five times more likely to live in poverty than youngsters born and raised by a mother and father in the home. Nearly three-quarters of the $450 billion government annually spends on welfare goes to single-parent households. This is what it takes for a governmental village to raise a child, and the village is doing a tragically poor job of it.

The data and the facts lead to an inescapable conclusion: Every child deserves a married mom and dad. The reality remains that millions of American families do not have the advantages that come with that structure. We honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the burdens of parenting alone and embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with dignity and respect.  But respect is not enough. Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman  and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society. For that reason, as explained elsewhere in this platform, we do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states. We oppose government discrimination against businesses or entities which decline to sell items or services to individuals for activities that go against their religious views about such activities.

Some other gems from the original platform:

 
We the People

We are the party of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration sets forth the fundamental precepts of American government: That God bestows certain inalienable rights on every individual, thus producing human equality; that government exists first and foremost to protect those inalienable rights; that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”

In other words, LGBT rights don't count.

 We reaffirm the Constitution’s fundamental principles: limited government, separation of powers, individual liberty, and the rule of law. We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic prejudice, and religious intolerance.  Therefore, we oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion, creed, disability, or national origin and support statutes to end such discrimination. 

 Defending Marriage Against an Activist Judiciary
Traditional marriage and family, based on marriage between one man and one woman, is the foundation for a free society and has for millennia been entrusted with rearing children and instilling cultural values. We condemn the Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Windsor, which wrongly removed the ability of Congress to define marriage policy in federal law. We also condemn the Supreme Court’s lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, which in the words of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, was a “judicial Putsch” — full of “silly extravagances” — that reduced “the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Storey to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie.” In Obergefell, five unelected lawyers robbed 320 million Americans of their legitimate constitutional authority to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Court twisted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond recognition. To echo Scalia, we dissent. We, therefore, support the appointment of justices and judges who respect the constitutional limits on their power and respect the authority of the states to decide such fundamental social questions.

 
The First Amendment: Religious Liberty

We pledge to defend the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard religious institutions against government control. We endorse the First Amendment Defense Act, Republican legislation in the House and Senate which will bar government discrimination against individuals and businesses for acting on the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

 
 Honest Elections and the Right to Vote

Honest elections are the foundation of representative government. We pledge to protect the voting rights of every citizen, as well as their rights of conscience when they are harassed or denied a job because of their contributions to a candidate or a cause. We support state efforts to ensure ballot access  for the elderly, the handicapped, military personnel, and all legitimate voters. We urge state and local officials to take all appropriate steps to allow voters to cast their ballots in a timely manner. We are concerned, however, that some voting procedures may be open to abuse. For this reason, we support legislation to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote and secure photo ID when voting.

The nerve of da party of voter suppression to put this into their platform