News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[jtbell]

However, it is a defacto two party system because the media won't give any coverage to the other parties.

We've been a defacto two-party system since the beginning, starting with the Federalists versus the Democratic-Republicans, long before "the media" had anything like its current form.

 

[Orodruin]

The US is not a two party system.

It is a de facto two party system. For practical purposes, I would equate this with a two party system - much like the British and previous Spanish (even though lots of smaller regional parties entered the parliament).

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Probably one of the most disturbing Trump supporters I've come across https://twitter.com/southern_mayers

Within the last 24 hours has tweeted:

I am personally donating $20,000 to Hurricane Matthew relief in South Carolina. I hope the white coastal homeowners can rebuild and prosper

Before any of the blacks can get emergency food stamps they should be required to perform hurricane clean up. That will stop them. Leeches

Let me be clear. I am a proud minority woman who will support President Trump until my dying breath! @realDonaldTrump stay strong!

Makes me sick. Such hate shouldn't be allowed on the internet.

 

[BillTre]

Makes me sick. Such hate shouldn't be allowed on the internet.

Its just the reprobates that have always been around, speaking out, because people like Donald Trump empower them with their media presence and support.

 

[vela]

However, it is a defacto two party system because the media won't give any coverage to the other parties. Any candidate without the blessings of the elite never gain any traction. Gov Kasich is a perfect example. He was the best candidate in the Rep primary field, but he never got a lick of support from the media.

Kasich isn't a good example of the media ignoring third-party candidates because he is a Republican and ran as a Republican.

I do agree with your point that the media play a major role in marginalizing third parties and even major party candidates, like Kasich. They're driven by what gets ratings, so Trump ends up getting a lot of attention while more qualified but boring candidates get ignored. Stories are spun to provoke outrage. Hillary's comment about Sanders supporters, for example, was taken out of context to make it sound like she was insulting them. While you might expect the candidates to distort and willfully misinterpret facts, that's exactly what you don't want journalists to do, yet they do.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Kasich isn't a good example of the media ignoring third-party candidates because he is a Republican and ran as a Republican.

I do agree with your point that the media play a major role in marginalizing third parties and even major party candidates, like Kasich. They're driven by what gets ratings, so Trump ends up getting a lot of attention while more qualified but boring candidates get ignored. Stories are spun to provoke outrage. Hillary's comment about Sanders supporters, for example, was taken out of context to make it sound like she was insulting them. While you might expect the candidates to distort and willfully misinterpret facts, that's exactly what you don't want journalists to do, yet they do.

Smaller parties often play a constructive role in parliamentary systems, but in a presidential system like the US they can bring about results contrary to the desires of those voting for these parties. The classic example is the 2000 election where votes for Ralph Nader diverted enough votes from Al Gore in Florida to create an ugly fight over the the final count in that state. After the Supreme Court ruling, Bush was ahead by 537 votes and captured Florida's electoral votes and victory in the general election. People have a right, but not necessarily a duty, to vote their conscience. It's very likely that most people who voted for Nader (over 90,000) would have voted for Gore or not voted at all if Nader wasn't on the ballot..

Whether it's the role of the media to marginalize third parties in US elections is another matter.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I think @StatGuy2000 posted something about us having a 2-party system last week that I never got around to replying to; near as I can tell, there is nothing about our "system" that makes it 2-party and it is only a de facto 2-party system because people choose to only vote for one of the two major parties. Despite not having a great 3rd party option right now, breaking the "system" would be a nice consolation prize for all of us in this mess. And it would be Hillaryous if two Clintons in four elections failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote!

russ, since you mentioned me in this particular thread, I do recall the thread about the US having a de facto 2-party system. You are partially correct that the US has a de facto 2-party system because people choose to vote only for one of the two major parties. But part of the reason why that is the case is that various institutions in place make it that much easier for the 2 major parties to dominate the political landscape.

At the congressional level, both the Democratic and Republican parties rely heavily on both fundraising and large donations to effectively campaign for the House of Representatives and the Senate, given the high expense of campaigning, and it is very difficult for 3rd or 4th parties to raise the level of capital to mount effective campaigns to get their voices heard.

Furthermore, political scientists such as Maurice Duverger have argued in a winner-takes-all electoral system as in the United States (48 states have a winner-takes-all system for the electoral college vote), there is a tendency (not absolute, but a tendency) to gravitate toward a two-party political system. See the following links below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system#Causes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

 

[Kevin McHugh]

It is a de facto two party system.

I said as much almost ver batum.

 

[Kevin McHugh]

Kasich isn't a good example of the media ignoring third-party candidates because he is a Republican and ran as a Republican.

I do agree with your point that the media play a major role in marginalizing third parties and even major party candidates, like Kasich. They're driven by what gets ratings, so Trump ends up getting a lot of attention while more qualified but boring candidates get ignored. Stories are spun to provoke outrage. Hillary's comment about Sanders supporters, for example, was taken out of context to make it sound like she was insulting them. While you might expect the candidates to distort and willfully misinterpret facts, that's exactly what you don't want journalists to do, yet they do.

You missed point about Kasich. My point was he wasn't blessed by the elites, so he was marginalized, even though he is a member of a mainstream party.

 

[phinds]

I said as much almost ver batum.

The word is "verbatim". It is not, as you seem to think, one of those Latin phrase things like "de facto".

 

[Vanadium 50]

one of those Latin phrase things.

It is Latin for "[towards a] Spring bath", though.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

Has this already been posted? From the BBC:

US election 2016: Trump and his Central Park Five defiance

I agree with the article that this deserves more attention, as it is about scientific fact and its role in justice.

Also, I give Senator McCain (see the bottom of the article) a lot of credit for his honest reaction.

 

[Astronuc]

Has this already been posted? From the BBC:

US election 2016: Trump and his Central Park Five defiance

I agree with the article that this deserves more attention, as it is about scientific fact and its role in justice.

Also, I give Senator McCain (see the bottom of the article) a lot of credit for his honest reaction.

I heard about his statements, so there was no surprise. His statement is further evidence that the guy is unfit to be president. It's hard to fathom that someone who brags about violating women would be seriously concerned about protecting the liberties of others.

At this point, I think the public is fatigued from Trump's vulgarity.

 

[mheslep]

I imagine the public is fatigued with being told what the public thinks.

 

[mheslep]

Other opinions on the the fitness of would be Presidents: (Oct 7)

Andrew Jackson unfit:

... establishment figures again wrung their hands during Andrew Jackson’s campaign. The former general became a hero for his stunning victory over the British at New Orleans in 1815, ... But Jackson’s rivals called him a “military chieftain” and warned that he would subvert the American republic as Caesar had subverted its Roman forerunner...In retirement, Jefferson shook his head in worry as Jackson appealed directly to voters. “I feel very much alarmed at the prospect of seeing General [Andrew] Jackson president,” he told Daniel Webster. “He is one of the most unfit men I know of for such a place. He has had very little respect for laws or constitutions…He is a dangerous man.”

Thomas Jefferson unfit:

... opponents [of Thomas Jefferson] branded him a mad Jacobin for his support of the French Revolution and warned that his election would place the country’s morals in grave peril. “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will all be openly taught and practiced,” an anti-Jefferson paper predicted in the fall of 1800. “The air will be rent with the cries of distress, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.”

2008 Campaign, Michelle Obama, speaking to women. Hillary Clinton unfit:

...one of the important aspects of this race is role modeling what good families should look like. Any my view is that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House

 

[mrspeedybob]

Neither one of these candidates is fit for the presidency because neither one seems to have much respect for the Constitution. Both of their agendas I think are going to be harmful to the long term health of the country. All the vulgarity and accusations of cover-up are beside that main point.

I see Trump as a vulgar buffoon, and Clinton as an evil genius.
Think Jabba the Hutt vs. Darth Sidious.

 

[OmCheeto]

It might be a challenge, but through positive and constructive engagement. If one wishes to change the hearts and minds of someone, then one has to find a positive way, knowing that it may not work in all cases. One can address the issues without denigrating the other.

Have you personally had any luck with that?
My sister, a Trump supporter, called me two days ago, and talked my ear off.
My head started spinning with all of the numbers she was throwing at me.
So I decided to try and capture their essence, typing one handed:

sanctuary cities
$75,000,000 to mexico for wall
$100,000,000 soros mexico isis
crime rates going up 93%
12 year old raped in idaho falls by immigrant
ss nazi police
$770,000,000 obama fix worlwide mosques
san bernardino isis
florida gay nightclub isis
$1.7 billion to iran
$400 million in cash to iran so it's untraceable

trump supporters
police
military

After my nap, I researched everything, and basically found it all to be numbers whipped up into hysterical conspiratorial nonsense.

Of course, I didn't use such words, in my very lengthy email response, but referenced numerous sites which refuted her allegations. I received the response I expected.

I don't trust snopes.
...
By the way, snopes is a left wing liberal site - "And of course emphasizing that very point is the popular myth-busting website Snopes, which apparently was caught with its biases exposed, or perhaps more to the point the author and fact checker describing herself as a liberal..."
Snopes is given too much credit in its objectivity to facts.
...
Which site do you want to believe? The pattern is there.
...
Bottom line - I just can't understand how adding this up does not paint a picture of corruption by following the events. It is a scary time. America having open borders, Clinton's email lies, Clinton ridiculous charity. She is crazy as far as I'm concerned.

Ok then...

Since the email thread got almost unreadable over the next 48 hours, I asked her what her sources of information were, and I was again not surprised.
And she probably was not amused when responded, after my "let's take this one topic at a time" comment, and shredding her "Sanctuary City" point to pieces, with multiple references;

But just for fun, I checked out your second reference. When doing that, I usually look at who’s running the place before reading the article:

"The Center for Immigration Studies is one of the network of anti-immigration groups founded by John Tanton, an activist with white nationalist leanings”

Ummmm….. I don’t usually accept anything from neo-Nazis as reference material.

Probably a "denigrating" remark, on my part. Ooops.
But, at least I shut her up.
Her final response:

It is interesting how different the views are between the east and the west coast. Conservatives vs liberals. I will leave you with your opinions.

 

[mheslep]

...found it all to be numbers whipped up into hysterical conspiratorial nonsense.

I gather that you don't mean everything you say to be taken literally Om, but that's still an odd summary of your response to the gay night club - ISIS and San Bernardino attacks, about the $1.7 billion the US paid to Iran, much of it in cash, which Obama acnowledges.

If you're actually interested in more constructive engagement as you say, it might help if you allow me to note what I see above in the summary of the response to your sibling. First, not a single word of actual evidence. Yes I gather you don't want to repeat it all here. But you do find room to say you shredded her, that you "shut her up", and the only detail you provide is that one of her references has racist connections.

 

[CalcNerd]

When I heard that commie pinko Iran enabling ISIS loving current President Odumbo gave Iran $1.4 billion, I decided to crunch the numbers myself. First, why did we give them thar Iranians anything at all. The right wingers suggested it was bribe to get our Navy sailors back, plain and simple. A payoff! Why that yellow belly Obama!
.
However, it takes time to gather up $1.4 billion and why was it $1.4 billion when President Odumbo /Oblamo or whatever derogatory name these SOS Hannity believers latch onto. Well, as I understand it. We (America) froze Iranian assets in the good ole US of A since 1979-1980 when their mobs attacked our embassy. Certainly not an unreasonable action considering any attack on an embassy can be considered a legitimate act of war. That we didn't declare war, nor did we actually sue for keeping this money, we owed it back to Iran at some point.
.
Well, just pay them the $400 million then. But is that fair? Actually the money sat in our banks (or was in our governments trust and out of circulation, so a loan to us of sorts). What is that worth? Well, if you think maybe let's just say, 3.5%. Well 3.5% compounded annually for 35 years = 333% growth on $400 million. Comes out to 1.3+ billion dollars. Regardless of our own beliefs, the Good ole US of A should kind of set the standard of world trade and NOT screw the other guy over, just because we can (especially if we just got a treaty agreement, whether fair or not). The numbers and the timing suggest that our military just happened to have an operation at an inopportune time for Presidential PR. On the flip side, though, the Iranians (and our own Military) probably knew that these sailors were bound to be released rather than tip over THAT apple cart.
.
Getting back to the US of A's good name. It doesn't get to keep that good name by raping and pillaging foreign countries for their oil, just because we can. One of our presidential candidates (who wasn't for the war, but since we were there) says we should take it as it is right and convenient to do so. I got to admit, it would help balance our budget due to some people who find a way to underpay their taxes.
.
While I am all in favor of a smaller and more money conscious government, I don't believe that reducing taxes for the top 1% will actually get us there as one of our candidates promises to do (don't know why, it sounds like he already has great tax rates!). As for the other candidate, I wish I could believe her, but I suspect she has promised one thing to wall street and then told us what we want to hear.
.
But getting back on track, the far right seems to be very weak with their math. I hear SOS Hannity tell me every night that 95 million Americans are out of work and on the welfare line. If he had an ounce of intelligence and could even use a four function calculator, it might help him develop a more credible set of numbers. But noooo, he goes for sensationalism, at the expense of everything else, including any claim of credibility. And as SOS Hannity seems to say so often... YOU OWN IT! Well, he seems such a loyal Donald Trump endorser, and his followers are, that they do NOT now have, nor could they get a real conservative to run. Donald is/was a RINO (that is another ironic thing, as I hear SOS Hannity bad mouth many real Republicans). I don't think that was so bad, it's just that he is also not quite as qualified on paper as any of his opponents. This other crap/news happens because he took his campaign into the crowded cow pasture of politicking. You're bound to step in somethin...
.
But I will have to pick one. No, I won't vote my conscious as I don't feel I can afford myself that pleasure. So, I will be voting for a scumbag. I just am not voting for a crazy scumbag.

 

[phinds]

Oh, @CalcNerd, here you are trying to bring facts and logic into the current political discussion when it's been clear for some time that that's not what it's about on either side and neither facts nor logic will get you anywhere. The other side isn't listening. I do agree w/ your conclusion.

By the way, Sleazy Sean is going to be the number 2 winner in this election no matter how it turns out. If Trump wins, he's now the White House's favorite reporter and if Clinton wins, he'll be top "news"caster on the new Trump/Ailes/Breitbart "news" channel that will likely be formed.

 

[mrspeedybob]

...So, I will be voting for a scumbag. I just am not voting for a crazy scumbag.

Crazy scumbag will never get enough cooperation from congress to get any of his scumbagging done.
Intelligent scumbag has some allies and will likely be able to coerce cooperation from others, hence, more scumbagging will get done.

Best case scenario I think for the next 4 years is going to be total governmental gridlock. I think Trump is more likely to achieve that.

 

[OmCheeto]

I gather that you don't mean everything you say to be taken literally Om, but that's still an odd summary of your response to the gay night club - ISIS and San Bernardino attacks, about the $1.7 billion the US paid to Iran, much of it in cash, which Obama acnowledges.

If you're actually interested in more constructive engagement as you say, it might help if you allow me to note what I see above in the summary of the response to your sibling. First, not a single word of actual evidence. Yes I gather you don't want to repeat it all here. But you do find room to say you shredded her, that you "shut her up", and the only detail you provide is that one of her references has racist connections.

I would have quoted her sources, but I'm pretty sure my post would have been deleted, with; "Those sources are banned at PF".

 

[OmCheeto]

Crazy scumbag will never get enough cooperation from congress to get any of his scumbagging done.
Intelligent scumbag has some allies and will likely be able to coerce cooperation from others, hence, more scumbagging will get done.

Best case scenario I think for the next 4 years is going to be total governmental gridlock. I think Trump is more likely to achieve that.

And that's why I'm seriously considering switching my vote away from Hillary.

Obummer seems to have done a lot with a totally obstructionist opposition. Imagine what Trump could do!

'Merka!

 

[RonL]

And that's why I'm seriously considering switching my vote away from Hillary.

Obummer seems to have done a lot with a totally obstructionist opposition. Imagine what Trump could do!

'Merka!

I would rather trust the impeachment process, than Hillary, at this point.

 

[OmCheeto]

I would rather trust the impeachment process, than Hillary, at this point.

What on god's green Earth is "impeachment"?
I've not heard that term since Nixon.
(google google google)

per wiki; Impeachment in the United States, is an expressed power of the legislature that allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed. Most impeachments have concerned alleged crimes committed while in office, though there have been a few cases in which Congress has impeached and convicted officials partly for prior crimes. The actual trial on such charges, and subsequent removal of an official upon conviction, is separate from the act of impeachment itself. Impeachment proceedings have been initiated against several presidents of the United States. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton are the only two presidents to have been successfully impeached by the House of Representatives, and both were later acquitted by the Senate. ​

So the only person within our lifetime, to be semi-impeached, was Bill. And what was that for?
(google google google)

Oh good god.

"The charges stemmed from his extramarital affair with former White House Intern Monica Lewinsky and his testimony about the affair during a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by Paula Jones."​

People need to get their own lives...

 

[OmCheeto]

In deference to Astro's "we should really try and talk this out" comment, I further responded to my sister with;

Glad to hear you acknowledge that these are just opinions.
Any idea, since we don’t agree on sources, where to get “the facts”?
I don’t like casting my vote, based on opinions, or feelings.
Hillary gives me the creeps too, but I read the wiki entry on her time as Secretary of State, and if I ignore her face, demeanor, and husband, she strikes me as someone quite capable of running the country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#U.S._Secretary_of_State​

Not sure if I'll get a response back, in this lifetime.

 

[olivermsun]

Best case scenario I think for the next 4 years is going to be total governmental gridlock. I think Trump is more likely to achieve that.

Why the heck would anyone want another 4 years of the government accomplishing very little to nothing?

 

[OmCheeto]

Why the heck would anyone want another 4 years of the government accomplishing very little to nothing?

Because it's better than two unpaid for, multi-trillion dollar wars?

As I mentioned earlier; "If he just sits on his hands for the next four years, he'll do much better than G.W."

[ref]

 

[olivermsun]

Because it's better than two unpaid for, multi-trillion dollar wars?

As I mentioned earlier; "If he just sits on his hands for the next four years, he'll do much better than G.W."

[ref]

Not to belabor the obvious, but there's much more that could be accomplished in the next 4 years than just waging wars.

 

[russ_watters]

Why the heck would anyone want another 4 years of the government accomplishing very little to nothing?

Hi, I'm a Republican. Have we not met?