***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[PatRiley]

A multi-party system is always more ideal. And hopefully something that you country can eventually experience. You are right in saying that your third party vote shouldn't be worthless, but unfortunately that is what it is at this time. 
Ask yourself this then, do you prefer Hillary over Trump and whose policies do you think align more with your views and values? 

Do I prefer Hillary over Trump? Of course. I hate that ^%{%^ dude. I just see our only hope for our country being blowing up the republican and democrat parties and creating new parties that are forced to listen and respond to the people of this country, and not run by $$$$$$$. My hope is that more people keep voting third party, until it's not worthless anymore and they are forced to change the system that represents people not profits.

 

[RustyShackleford]

Cmon guys, I do appreciate the education on the subject because I know I'm not well versed. I am learning from this thread and I appreciate it. I'm not trying to tell you guys how to think or vote, but it seems like you are trying to tel me how I should vote. You say my vote as a third party is worthless, which you are right. My point is that it shouldn't be worthless, the system is flawed and I'm not ok with choosing "the better of the two options." The facts that I have brought up have been ignored: Hillary took significant payments from Wall Street before being elected and all I've read is how that somehow wouldn't influence her (I disagree). To me it's no different than all the corruption I've seen in South American countries, it's just more subtle here in the states.

I'm in Florida btw

-The system is flawed and will never get better by voting third party. Never.

The only way to get campaign finance reform is to get Dems in power. What fair districts and voting access that works against money in politics, voting Dems once again is the best way to go. What electoral reform to become a major issue, you gotta vote Dem. Voting third party, especially in a swing states not only doesn't help, it hurts. Even when Hillary Clinton is on the ballot

-Dude you are completely naive about South American politics to think that America is on that level. There are major grafting scandals in many of those countries, that is why people are freaking out about the Trump family because we could be crossing the line into that territory.

-The fact your point is being ignored about Clinton and Wall Street money is because you have made no argument as to why that should disqualify her, not one. You just state it thinking it is some major point. She gave speeches, which was a stupid move, but so what, what was the content or the speeches btw? All we have found out is that she said she is willing to compromise to pass legislation, and he wanting to help female entrepreneurs.

You complain about Wall Street money and Clinton, yet Clinton supports Wall Streets reforms. She had it in her platform, she supports keep Dodd Frank as well.

You keep pointing a few grey clouds and think we should seeing a 5 alarm fire.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

I understand we wanna change the world with one vote, but that isn't how it works. Sometimes you have to stay afloat and bide your time before you can make real change. Sometimes in life, you are forced to choose between two options that aren't ideal. That's an every day thing for each and every one of us.

Since when did people expect one of the options to fit them like a glove?

I think it's idealistic to think that one day we can get to a point where all people are satisfied with the system. The system definitely needs to change, but taking a vote away from the 'more of the same' candidate in favor of someone like Donald Trump is 17 steps backwards.

To each their own, though. I just think that in order to enact true change you have to get involved. Silent protests don't matter when people aren't paying attention to you personally anyway.

 

[RustyShackleford]

A multi-party system is always more ideal. And hopefully something that you country can eventually experience. You are right in saying that your third party vote shouldn't be worthless, but unfortunately that is what it is at this time. 
Ask yourself this then, do you prefer Hillary over Trump and whose policies do you think align more with your views and values? 

Do I prefer Hillary over Trump? Of course. I hate that ^%{%^ dude. I just see our only hope for our country being blowing up the republican and democrat parties and creating new parties that are forced to listen and respond to the people of this country, and not run by $$$$$$$. My hope is that more people keep voting third party, until it's not worthless anymore and they are forced to change the system that represents people not profits.

Please go look up the 12th amendment. We don't have multiple major political parties in America mainly because our electoral system, coalitions are made before elections through the two major parties, not afterwards. Also, groups that tend to vote constantly tend to get listened to more. Old people never get screwed but young voters do for example. When black turnout looked like it was trending to high, the GOP passed laws to beat it back.

If you're hoping that blowing up the system will cause two altruistic parties to form, no disrespect but you are deluding yourself.

There are laws on the books enforcing this system. Just voting third party will not fix it, the incentives don't line up.

People with similar ideologies will figure out if they can compromise and vote in unison, their party will sweep into power. The GOP has so much power because their base shows up and votes more consistently.

 

[Belgium]

Do I prefer Hillary over Trump? Of course. I hate that ^%{%^ dude. I just see our only hope for our country being blowing up the republican and democrat parties and creating new parties that are forced to listen and respond to the people of this country, and not run by $$$$$$$. My hope is that more people keep voting third party, until it's not worthless anymore and they are forced to change the system that represents people not profits.

Then the choice is clear is it not? At the end of the day it's your choice but you also have to take into account the reality of the current political system and climate. Third parties rising to actual power isn't gonna happen any time soon, certainly not with the big money involved in the two party system.

 

[PatRiley]

I understand we wanna change the world with one vote, but that isn't how it works. Sometimes you have to stay afloat and bide your time before you can make real change. Sometimes in life, you are forced to choose between two options that aren't ideal. That's an every day thing for each and every one of us.

Since when did people expect one of the options to fit them like a glove?

I think it's idealistic to think that one day we can get to a point where all people are satisfied with the system. The system definitely needs to change, but taking a vote away from the 'more of the same' candidate in favor of someone like Donald Trump is 17 steps backwards.

To each their own, though. I just think that in order to enact true change you have to get involved. Silent protests don't matter when people aren't paying attention to you personally anyway.

I am involved. I'm a business owner that hires people at a fair wage and fights for the growth of small scale sustainable farming. So far, even Obama (who I voted for), all politicians from republican and democrat sides have only perpetuated large scale industrial farming and subsidies to help prop up the biggest producers. What have they done for small farmers who are growing without pesticides and trying to make their individual communities a better place? Absolutely nothing.

 

[Mark Antony]

People fantasize about other countries political systems but they don't work as well either. They actually get quite violent in some instances.

 

[PatRiley]

Then the choice is clear is it not? At the end of the day it's your choice but you also have to take into account the reality of the current political system and climate. Third parties rising to actual power isn't gonna happen any time soon, certainly not with the big money involved in the two party system.

I guess I should just leave the country then. Not trying to argue with you guys here or say any of you are wrong. My ideals are just different and I'm fed up with the lack of support for small business owners (particularly in agriculture) compared to the big companies and all the golden parachutes they receive.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I voted and gave $2000 to Bernie Sanders and he wanted to raise my taxes by a good clip.

Hillary Clinton herself wanted to increase her own taxes a ton to fund anti poverty measures

Being a liberal often means voting against your short term and medium term financial interest for the greater.

So the "Dems do nothing for me directly" argument doesn't carry much weight with me usually.

Even though I am sympathetic to your given situation, the Dems should focus on helping smaller companies compete against large firms, in many sectors. Large farms already have economics of scale on their side, and it would help empower workers.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

 

Then the choice is clear is it not? At the end of the day it's your choice but you also have to take into account the reality of the current political system and climate. Third parties rising to actual power isn't gonna happen any time soon, certainly not with the big money involved in the two party system.

I guess I should just leave the country then. Not trying to argue with you guys here or say any of you are wrong. My ideals are just different and I'm fed up with the lack of support for small business owners (particularly in agriculture) compared to the big companies and all the golden parachutes they receive.

I don't want to offend, but do you consider all the other factors when deciding who you're voting for? I notice that, a lot of times, when people have very strong feelings about one specific issue that is personal to them that they want to see change, it's easy to make a decision without considering the millions of issues and people in this country in so many different situations.

So while I see your point, in casting a protest vote you not only ensure that you won't get what you want, but you help to put so many people in worse situations because of how little this administration cares about people.

 

[everysingletime]

This has become a circular argument. He admits he is not well versed in politics. He admits his vote was wasted. He admits that Hilary was the better of the two choices. But he is still arguing.

 

[RustyShackleford]

This has become a circular argument. He admits he is not well versed in politics. He admits his vote was wasted. He admits that Hilary was the better of the two choices. But he is still arguing.

Let's give him a break, he seems like a good due.

At least he is being respectful and not blowing around this thread like a gust of buffoonery like we are used to.

 

[everysingletime]

He threw his vote away in a swing state because he doesn't believe in a system as it exists. He admits he doesn't care that Hilary was the better of the two choices. He might as well move to Canada.

 

[Mark Antony]

I understand his plight though, voted for one side hoping they'd alleviate something that bothered him, didn't work out so he went the other way which also didn't work out. You can't just assume though, I wish more folks would research.

 

[RustyShackleford]

He threw his vote away in a swing state because he doesn't believe in a system as it exists. He admits he doesn't care that Hilary was the better of the two choices. He might as well move to Canada.

Dude stop. I disagree with his choice but I would prefer voters like him over Florida turning more red. Wouldn't you?

BTW, he raises a good point, Dems need to abandon big business. There is really little incentive to be pro big business. Big business have no interest in advancing the Dems social policy, they are damb near fapping at the thought of a Trump low regulation world.

To win elections we need to excite the base, I bet if Hillary said she would start subsidizing businesses like his, he would look at ole girl different because like Rex said you just raised the opportunity cost of not voting Dem.

You can't please everyone, and really you should try because that can't be done, but the Dems really need to shed their corporate friendly tendencies. If there is going to be bad economic outcomes from a certain policy, then those can be discussed on a case by case basis. Like fracking, I dislike the practice but I know the bad consequences to the economy if it banned.

 

[rolaholic]

^
Right on the money

Big business ties have hurt Dems for years now and I've yet to see many tangible benefits it's brought on when it comes to elections besides fundraising that could be still achieved through other avenues. It's alienated a lot of their theoretical base and even some Independents,Dems would do work nationwide if they were re-branded as a real working class party alternative to the GOP being the party of the wealthy

 

[RustyShackleford]

^
Right on the money

Big business ties have hurt Dems for years now and I've yet to see many tangible benefits it's brought on when it comes to elections besides fundraising that could be still achieved through other avenues. It's alienated a lot of their theoretical base and even some Independents,Dems would do work nationwide if they were re-branded as a real working class party alternative to the GOP being the party of the wealthy

Yeah. I mean decades ago the agreement between the Dems and big business was "Ok, we help you grow the pie, and in return you share it will the middle and lower classes". And sure in theory that could have worked but Dems have to realize that big business have completely broken the agreement

At the same time they buy off state and local officials, throw money at the GOP too, and have constantly tried to suppress wages. And like I said, they do nothing to help marginalized gorups. If anything, they plunder them right under the Dems noses.

The Dems should just say **** it. There are enough policy wonks, economist, and social scientist that have the ear of the left to stop bad policy from getting through. Compromises have to be made, but Dems need to realize their future is only of being pro labor, pro consumer, pro civil rights, pro economic rights, anti monopoly, and pro small business.

One thing I did not like about Obama is that he let too many mergers happen. He did block some important ones. The Administration was absolutely right about T-Mobile, look how well that turned out. But look how him blocking mergers in the health insurance industry lead to them trying to pay him back through pulling out of marketplaces.

I have no real problem with big business and corporations if they just wanted to innovate and compete. But they have to compete in well regulated markets, and don't indulge their rent seeking. After that, just let them cook.

Corporation will benefit from better infrastructure and a stronger consumer base too.

 

[RustyShackleford]

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/335283-alabama-moves-to-protect-confederate-monuments

GOP gonna GOP

 

[Belgium]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...plained-belgian-pm-difficulty-golf-resorts-eu

Trump 'complained to Belgian PM of difficulty setting up golf resorts in EU'

US president said his view of Europe was based on experiences trying to do business, according to account of Brussels meeting

Donald Trump  offered an insight into his approach to political life during his 30 hours in Belgium while munching “lots of” Belgian chocolates, it has been reported.

Le Soir, a Belgian daily newspaper, reported that the US president acclaimed the chocolates, which were a gift from the Belgian government, during a meeting with the country’s prime minister, Charles Michel.

“These are the best,” he said, before explaining that his ambivalent attitude towards the EU was a consequence of his experiences trying to set up businesses, notably golf resorts, on the continent.

“He made a lot of references to his personal journey. He explained, for example, the functioning of Europe  on the basis of his difficulties in doing business in Ireland,” one source told the Francophone paper.

A second source told the newspaper: “Every time we talk about a country, he remembered the things he had done. Scotland? He said he had opened a club. Ireland? He said it took him two and a half years to get a licence and that did not give him a very good image of the European Union. One feels that he wants a system where everything can be realised very quickly and without formalities.”

Sources further told the newspaper that while Trump was not afraid to interrupt Michel and others, he came with a “positive approach”.

The paper reports: “Donald Trump had no idea of the economic weight of Belgium  and even less of what the country represents for trade with the United States. Then he was introduced to the thing in a very visual way. But the president only gave vague attention to it.”

Trump left Brussels on Thursday for the G7 summit in Taormina, Sicily, after meetings with EU and Nato leaders. A French official said Trump, who had spoken favourably of Marine Le Pen, told the newly elected French leader, Emmanuel Macron: “You were my guy” in the presidential vote.

The official, who spoke anonymously to the Associated Press, said Trump told Macron he hadn’t endorsed Le Pen. Trump in April described Le Pen as “the strongest on what’s been going on in France” and said: “Whoever is the toughest on radical Islamic terrorism, and whoever is the toughest at the borders, will do well in the election.”

Trump never spoke publicly about Macron before the vote but called him after his victory and tweeted congratulations, saying he looked forward to working with him.

Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, had endorsed Macron.

Trump’s meeting with Macron was also notable for a long and awkward handshake. Pictures and video showed the two leaders gripping each other’s hands while grimacing slightly.

 

[EddieDoyers]

I honestly don't think the Dems problem is getting support from some big businesses
If that was the case, Repubs turnout would be low also

Problem with the voting base and the party is the image of "smugness" and "I'm morally better than you" type of brand
While of course I deeply support the moral high ground that Dems take, problem is that many voters aren't interested in that.
I don't know what's the solution in that tbh in getting more voters, because they will compromise the Democrat party if we decide to "lower our ethical standards" for the sake of votes

 

[EddieDoyers]

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/335283-alabama-moves-to-protect-confederate-monuments

GOP gonna GOP

They complain that liberals are crying over the election yet they are still butthurt over an L that happened almost two centuries ago

 

[Belgium]

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/335283-alabama-moves-to-protect-confederate-monuments

GOP gonna GOP

"

The measure’s lead sponsor, state Sen. Gerald Allen (R), said he hoped to end the “wave of political correctness” sweeping the nation.

“Where does it end? Are all parts of American history subject to purging, until every Ivy League professor is satisfied and the American story has been re-written as nothing but a complete fraud and a betrayal of our founding values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” Allen said."

Da founding values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which is exactly why da state need to keep these monuments honoring these fine slavery supporters who committed treason against the US (and lost, SAD!) because they wanted to keep black folks in chains. No better way to represent life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness*. *only applies to straight white men

 

[RustyShackleford]

I honestly don't think the Dems problem is getting support from some big businesses
If that was the case, Repubs turnout would be low also

Problem with the voting base and the party is the image of "smugness" and "I'm morally better than you" type of brand
While of course I deeply support the moral high ground that Dems take, problem is that many voters aren't interested in that.
I don't know what's the solution in that tbh in getting more voters, because they will compromise the Democrat party if we decide to "lower our ethical standards" for the sake of votes

-I didn't say it was just about big business. Dems won't win **** if they turn on marginalized groups

-I am talking and exciting the base. Dems do best in high turnout elections, especially on the state and local leave.

-Republicans voters will keep voting Republican and over look their big business ties. Tribalism and white supremacy will make sure of that

-And if you can excite your base and convince a few swing voters, then you will do work in elections.

People staying home (or even voting third party) are a huge problem for Dems. Dems do best when their base feel they have something to vote for, not against

 

[RustyShackleford]

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/335283-alabama-moves-to-protect-confederate-monuments

GOP gonna GOP

They complain that liberals are crying over the election yet they are still butthurt over an L that happened almost two centuries ago

I guess someone didn't tell dem clowns their ideology was regulated to the dustbin of history

 

[rolaholic]

Yea no need to even bother with outreach to the folks who are already of the mindset that "libbies" are "smug" by default due to certain basic principles imo

@thehill: Boehner: Almost everything Trump has done in office "has been a complete disaster" http://hill.cm/5FbKwEB

@thehill: Clinton compares Trump to Nixon's presidency that "would eventually end in disgrace" http://hill.cm/2oyXLov