3,537
9,383
ali mi ne možeš pratit'
|
Post by Dominykas on Oct 25, 2016 16:13:49 GMT 1
Also,,if Trump would won, he won't save Baltics and other European countries no more :/
|
|
Eke
Technical Staff
they/them/any
6,640
30,747
but it's me who makes myself mad
|
Post by Eke on Oct 29, 2016 13:35:52 GMT 1
You want my opinion? I'll give you my opinion.As for Hillary R. Clinton: no. A corrupt, shady liar. There's a reason why Bernie didn't win the nomination, and the reason is right here: because HRC (and also the DNC) are corrupt and bought by large corporations who obviously prefer Hillary for president. Have you noticed all the high profile Republicans trying to get as far away from Trump as possible? Yeah, because Trump isn't a corporate shill like Hillary, they can feel safe with all their shady deals and corrupt money-laundering schemes if Hillary becomes president. Meanwhile with Trump, it's unsure, we don't know what he'll or whether he'll do what he says he'll do, and neither do they. Hillary is a safe bet. Trump is not a safe bet. For them, at least.Honestly I could rant on and on about how much I loathe Clinton, but here's what I'm instead going to take into account. I'm going to take into account several factors. If Clinton becomes president, it won't matter who wins the senate or who wins the house. I mean sure, the US would basically continue like it has for the last 4/2 years when the GOP has either maintained control of the house or both the house and senate, however, since Hillary is a centrist and corporatist, anything she proposes that benefits both her and her colleagues (doesn't even matter what party) in the house and senate, it will pass. On social issues though, it will stagnate. Gay marriage was legalised through the Supreme Court, but if it had been proposed to the house/senate, it wouldn't have passed. Ever. Before 2010 when both the house and senate were under the control of the Dems, the US was way too conservative to even think about legalising gay marriage (though some states had by then, it was still a big stretch), and it wouldn't have passed. Then once the GOP took control, I think it's obvious why it wouldn't have passed. If the Dems win senate and/or house, Hillary's proposals will pass easily, which could be good or could be bad. We don't know, but considering the Dems are just as corrupt as the GOP, probably not so good. There's another catch to this though. The supreme court seat is still open, and even though Hillary's nominee will be a centrist and corporatist, it will be better than what Trump would have to offer.As for Donald J. Trump: again, no. There are times when I'd like to say I prefer Trump because I'm heavily against all this new age PC and SJW bullshit, however, it's not the only thing he's "fighting" for. His comments about women have been...appalling to say the least, and although I seriously doubt any of the accusers coming forward now were actually assaulted by him, it doesn't justify what he has said. And considering what he said back in 2005, it's probably safe to assume that's not the only time he has made remarks like that. And I think we can assume that there is some truth to assault claims, I mean, he did say he was trying to do something with a married woman (and let's not forget that at the time he was engaged(?) to Melania as well). I don't know honestly, Trump is terrible, but I might just prefer him over Hillary sometimes. *shrug* don't kill me
Now, what I do want to discuss is all his plans for walls and Muslim bans and whatnot. That's a load of bullshit. Honestly, he can say whatever the fuck he wants, but the truth is: congress, senate, NO ONE will pass any of his proposals to build a wall, NO ONE will pass any of his proposals to ban Muslims from entering the country. Literally no one will do anything like this, sure I mean, it wouldn't be a 100% majority against him if it were to put to vote, but it wouldn't pass. That said, the rest of his proposals wouldn't pass through either, no matter if the GOP or Dems control the house/senate. I mean maybe if the GOP controls it and he proposes strict abortion restrictions or something, however when it comes to abortion, there's only so much he can do, because abortion has been ruled a constitutional right for women. As it goes about the Supreme Court nominee, technically whoever he nominated, the SCOTUS wouldn't change. Antonin Scalia was an ultra-conservative judge, and whether Trump nominates a conservative or ultra-conservative wouldn't matter because it would literally be a replacement for Scalia. Yes, it would be worse than whoever Hillary nominates, but consider this: with Trump's nominee, the SCOTUS would be rather balanced...at least unless another judge dies and Trump gets to nominate another...however, there's 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and 1 centrist who swings the vote. Tell me that's not balanced. Though, me being biased towards liberalism, yes, I would rather see a liberal SCOTUS. However ideally, I wouldn't want a corporatist in there either as we already have multiple, but at least a corporatist would be better than a conservative IMHO.
This is why I'm heavily split whether I want Clinton or Trump as the next president. It's going to be one of them, and I am trying to analyze this from a perspective that many people just won't take. Clinton generally has more pluses than Trump, however, her corruptness and corporatism brings her down a whole lot for me. I just don't know. But I'll accept whoever wins.
As for Gary Johnson: hahahahahahahahahaha. What a joke. Shall I even talk about him? The man who couldn't say what Aleppo is or name a foreign leader? Okay fine. Here's what I have to say about Gary Johnson: he's literally the worst candidate of this election. I don't care that he's an outsider and whatever, he is literally the worst. At least Clinton talks about splitting up the big banks and helping the poor. His only policy is to lower taxes to 0%. (okay that's an exaggeration but literally his policy is largely based on lowering taxes)
As for Jill Stein: Ah yes, Jill. You know what, even if she is a globalist and has literally advocated for getting rid of all borders and whatnot, I like her. There's stuff she has said that irks me, such as the aforementioned getting rid of borders or when she said that nuclear plants are the same as nuclear bombs and also her embracing into conspiracy theories to attract voters that believe all that crap, but really, she's not bad. Though, I did prefer Bernie over her, I must say that. Sadly, she doesn't really have any chances either.
What I need to say about 3rd parties is that it's NOT A WASTED VOTE. A vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson is not a vote for Trump. It's not a vote for Clinton. It's a vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, that's literally all it is. At this point in time, it looks like Hillary is going to win: the polls say that, the people say that. I can understand if you're living in a state like Florida which is likely to be contested, but in a solid blue state like California or a solid red state like Texas, you can literally vote whoever the fuck you want because it won't swing the election and it WILL HELP the third parties, as if they pass 5% they will receive federal funding next election. Which is a good thing.
Taking everything into account, if I was American I would vote for Jill Stein. But there is still no candidate I wholeheartedly support, I just prefer Jill miles over everyone else.
Also USA please sort out your parliamentary system. The electoral college sucks and you should really aim to a senate like the UK, based off peoples actual vote in a state. #AmericaGetYourShitTogether Implying the UK has a good voting system. Spoiler alert: you don't. First Past the Post voting systems are literally the cancer of voting systems and deserve to die in a fire.
|
|
Matt
FBA Reference Group
he/him
3,022
8,747
how bout i do, anyway
|
Post by Matt on Oct 29, 2016 14:26:58 GMT 1
Also USA please sort out your parliamentary system. The electoral college sucks and you should really aim to a senate like the UK, based off peoples actual vote in a state. #AmericaGetYourShitTogether Implying the UK has a good voting system. Spoiler alert: you don't. First Past the Post voting systems are literally the cancer of voting systems and deserve to die in a fire. Oh I completely agree with you there, the first past the post system is truly awful. I mean look at UKIP, they got 12% of the UK vote but only have 1 out of the 650 seats available in the House of Commons. (not that i am complaining though  ). However the electoral college is even worse as it comes down to only a few states to decide who is actually president, which is awful and can go against the actual popular vote (look at Al Gore in 2000). First past the post is awful, and there are many other ways to vote in representatives. (CGP Grey has a playlist Here) |
|
Eke
Technical Staff
they/them/any
6,640
30,747
but it's me who makes myself mad
|
Post by Eke on Oct 29, 2016 14:42:20 GMT 1
Implying the UK has a good voting system. Spoiler alert: you don't. First Past the Post voting systems are literally the cancer of voting systems and deserve to die in a fire. Oh I completely agree with you there, the first past the post system is truly awful. I mean look at UKIP, they got 12% of the UK vote but only have 1 out of the 650 seats available in the House of Commons. (not that i am complaining though ). However the electoral college is even worse as it comes down to only a few states to decide who is actually president, which is awful and can go against the actual popular vote (look at Al Gore in 2000). First past the post is awful, and there are many other ways to vote in representatives. (CGP Grey has a playlist Here) Yeah I love his explanations  And I agree anyway.  Though change in the US is really hard because of the constitution so, I can't see the Electoral College being abolished soon  |
|
Callum
Retired Administrator
he/him
3,404
10,411
ethno-jazz band iriao defender
|
Post by Callum on Oct 29, 2016 15:15:50 GMT 1
Or move to Scotland and become a Scottish citizen so you can vote in our parliament which has this beautiful proportionally representative voting system.   FPTP and the Electoral College are both pretty shit, but at least the leader is never really changed at all in FPTP. The Electoral System, on the other hand, is absolutely flawed - a prime example of this is the 2000 US presidential election where Al Gore technically won - a system intended to be proportionate but in reality is just a bloody mess. FPTP is also just simply not proportionate either - the SNP got 56 out of 59 Scottish seats in the UK general election but exactly 50% voted for them across Scotland - proportionally they should have only won around 29 or 30. There really is no perfect voting system in the world though  There are only better ones which less people will get pissed off about. ^^ |
|
|
|
Post by ʀօʏ on Oct 30, 2016 15:19:20 GMT 1
Clinton, who else  |
|
|
|
Post by sadiemydog on Oct 30, 2016 17:54:06 GMT 1
Neither of them. Trump is too far right winded. Hillary is to left wingded.
|
|
Sel
FBA Reference Group
6,775
12,154
They look at me at, like i'm in a crisis
|
Post by Sel on Oct 30, 2016 17:59:22 GMT 1
Neither of them. Trump is too far right winded. Hillary is to left wingded. Um don't you see Jill or Gary. |
|
|
|
Post by sadiemydog on Oct 30, 2016 18:05:57 GMT 1
Neither of them. Trump is too far right winded. Hillary is to left wingded. Um don't you see Jill or Gary. They were 2 candidates only. Bewaren |
|
|
|
Post by MaRtIn on Oct 31, 2016 8:52:06 GMT 1
There was a Trump rally in my university campus today! I was excited that something interesting was happening. www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2016/10/30/donald-trump-supporters-protesters-clash-greeley-colorado-rally/93024804/A few of my friends saw the Donald Trump himself. I'm jealous that they got to see a celebrity, even if it's Trump. I got there after the rally was over (I did homework during the rally)and only witnessed what happened after outside the arena that the rally was in. There were Clinton supporters who were protesting, chanting things like "Love is love" and "Love Trump's hate." There of course was an opposing crowd chanting statements like "Lock her up." I even saw an LGBT flag with "LGBT for Trump" written on it. The police was there to divide the two crowds before it got too heated. It was a lot of tension in the crowd and cacophony. I tried to eavesdrop into conversations of Trump supporters, but I found nothing constructive. What I'm most disappointed in is the irony/predicament of the liberals. Their message is to spread love and open-mindedness, but when they oppose the thoughts of conservatives, is it really open-minded thinking? I was there for 15 minutes and then walked away. I had hoped to get something out of the event, yet I'm still undecided. 
|
|
And I agree anyway. 
