So, with things heating up, I'll ask again: what are the chances of Clinton getting indicted or impeached and will you be taking that into consideration when you cast your vote?
So, with things heating up, I'll ask again: what are the chances of Clinton getting indicted or impeached and will you be taking that into consideration when you cast your vote?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Doubt she will get in any serious trouble and I won't need to take it into account since my vote is already determined to be against her.Originally Posted by Aimless
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Obama administration won't indict her. If she's already president regardless of guilt the senate will never get 2/3rd majority to impeach Clinton. No one doubts Clinton was guilty of perjury however the politics meant he was acquitted by the senate.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...dest-lead.html
Just in case anyone thinks that Trump supporters became more moderate or less nuts.
Hope is the denial of reality
"The polls" are suggesting the Trump vs Clinton race is tightening, closer than anyone predicted or expected. When given two 'undesirable' options, do people pick "the least worse" candidate, or just not vote?
And here's where I'll criticize the media --- for not informing/educating the voting public about anyone BUT Trump or Clinton, because they only cover the (R) and (D) parties, conventions, candidates! If Gary Johnson wins the Libertarian nomination.....he'd better be on the Presidential Debate stage, every damn time, AND get one-on-one interviews and "townhalls" with all the cable news networks, too.
Also, does anyone else have "poll fatigue"? I've been annoyed by the daily poll comparisons for a while now....and oh my god we have 6 more months to go.
Why should he? He's not going to be President.
Though in some ways that's a vicious circleMaybe not so much with third party candidates, but you could surely make that point about the primary candidates.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Why should he be on the Presidential Debate stage? Because he's running for the position, and voters should know they have another choice besides Clinton or Trump.
You don't know who's going to be President, no one does. That's a crappy standard to use.
Isn't the standard based on part at least opinion polling? Hence three candidates in 92?
This year no third party has justified appearing on the stage.
The "standard" is set by the host network, and they can invite whomever they want -- but the parties have a lot of influence over that. That's why the (R) primary debates were divided into two sets, and used "opinion polling" for who got on the main stage vs second string (which turned out to be controversial).
The only other "standard" would be FEC requirements for getting on the ballot in all 50 states. Since that process takes months of advance work, it's not like any candidate can just decide to run at this late stage, and expect to be on the debate stage. As far as I know, the Libertarian nominee will be on all state ballots, and that ought to be good enough to be part of the Presidential debates.
Yeah, let's put everyone on the debate stage, like the 19 candidates whose names were on at least one state's ballot in 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ndidates,_2012
Hope is the denial of reality
Crappy maybe but pragmatic. I think there are a dozen or so candidates right? Also from obscure parties. You have to have a cutoff at some point.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
We are discovering that right now with religious materials in government buildings and events. Church of Satan loves showing up to remind everyone of the separation of church and state. Last year we had a festivus pole made out of beer cans in the state capital. I could easily see some of the fringe candidates only showing up to fuck up the event. Hell, everyone thought that was why Trump was debating, look where that got us.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/ni...nd-he-likes-it
Another rich, old white dude endorses Trump because America was better for rich, old white dudes when no one else had any rights (back when America was originally great!).
Hope is the denial of reality
7 candidates met that criterion in 2012. Clearly we need to hear more from the Justice Party.
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't know how many candidates meet that criterion in 2016....but it should be considered a good thing to give voters more choices. The (R) and (D) parties would disagree, of course, because they benefit from the two-party dominant status-quo.
Voters have many choices. But they have limited time. And if you insist of forcing them to listen to also-rans, they'll be even less informed about the main candidates than usual.
Hope is the denial of reality
I see it another way: when it comes to voting for President, voters DO NOT have many choices. It's either vote for the (R) or (D) nominee, because that's all that's being offered. (No wonder so many eligible voters haven't actually voted?!)
Limited time is a crappy metric, and nobody is "forced" to watch the debates. In this social media era, whatever happens on network time is tweeted, re-tweeted, or posted on youtube or Facebook, etc. And since news media is driven by "clicks", they follow trends (and don't necessarily aim to inform). But that's just another reason why a third party candidate on the Presidential debate stage matters --- exposure.
Last edited by GGT; 05-27-2016 at 02:29 AM.
It's all that's being offered because it's all people are willing to vote for or expressing any preference for already. When third-party candidates have actually demonstrated any real following, they've been brought in to the process. But none of them have managed much success or momentum except when one of the major parties has literally fallen apart (and not just seen some splintering or disagreement which you grandly claim is tantamount to falling apart). And it's been like this since party factionalism first developed in the first six years of the US' existence after adopting the US Constitution.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? That dichotomy/dilemma has only gotten worse over time in the political arena. You may not agree with my assessment that the Republican Party is falling apart at the seems....but you should at least admit the challenge Republicans face when a guy like Trump is their party's nominee, and standard-bearer.
And when you say third party candidates with any following have been "brought into the process", I think that's the Tea Party co-opting the (R) party....and shutting down the government.
In this case, we do demonstrably have one of them coming first, being able to drum up any substantial support at all. That actually happens, GGT. Most recently in 1992 by Ross Perot. But even when they get media attention, it doesn't end up making a difference. Again, see Ross Perot in '92 and how Clinton carried a majority, not just a plurality, of the popular vote in addition to his lead in the electoral count. You can also see it regularly in other countries, even ones which have multiple parties and proportional voting, where there are frequently one or two major parties and then a bunch of small fry.Which came first, the chicken or the egg? That dichotomy/dilemma has only gotten worse over time in the political arena. You may not agree with my assessment that the Republican Party is falling apart at the seems....but you should at least admit the challenge Republicans face when a guy like Trump is their party's nominee, and standard-bearer.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I hate both nominees and I don't think they need to add additional people on the stage. Someone polls for over 10% give them a slot, if not, sorry.
Do you care who's doing the polls, who's paying for them, what metrics they use, or the margin of error?
If you hate both nominees, why wouldn't you want another candidate on the stage?
Well, how do candidates "drum up" support to begin with? Comparing today with 1992 isn't accurate or helpful. In fact, all the pundits and political experts were wrong when it came to Trump and Sanders.
Curious what state-by-state polling begins to look like in places like NY. Is Trump somehow going to have an edge because he's a New Yorker? I highly doubt it, but wondering if some swing-state tendencies will be scrambled after a few months of the media calling people pigs for supporting Trump.
After a while people start to say, "Yeah, I'm a pig, so what?"
If Trump has 'an edge' it's because he knows how to use social media....which then forces the news media to follow his narrative. Clicks and trends matter now more than ever, since serious journalism got co-opted by Twitter feeds.
Hey Dread, I have a vague memory from a few years back, where you said Twitter was a platform designed mostly for media/news professionals, and probably wouldn't become mainstream. It's almost quaint to remember Facebook's transition, too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b03ede4414187657-36% of Repubs back Trump’s call to raise min wage
52-43% or Repubs support Trump’s call to NOT raise min wage
Hope is the denial of reality
"Serious journalism' Heh. I'd love to see what you classify as 'serious journalism.'
Well, that's in dispute, right? I don't think any of the major TV networks have engaged in 'serious journalism'.....and it's debatable if people are relying on 'serious journalism' for information, or just their Twitter feed.
So you aren't going to give an example?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote