Who won the debate?

[downhill]

I don't really blame either party for the outcome of this election, or even the candidates themselves. Instead I think this is simply one of the limits of a two party system. If we had more options, then the chances of a quality candidate becoming President would increase.

As the tides ebb and flow so do the mindsets of nations.. what is popular today might not be tomorrow. The Republicans and Democrats generally reflect the mindsets of the usa even if they both have changed seats in the social spectrum in what they believe over the years .

You do have other choices for your vote.

Libertarians Gary Johnson I'm guessing with Trump loosing votes some are going to Johnson for sure.

The Green Party Jill Stein and I'm guessing that those in the court of Saunders, of might think of voting for her although I know Johnson will pick up some of them too.

The Constitution Party Darrel Castle

Party of Socialism and Liberation Gloria LaRiva

of course the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (communist) dunno who's running I could look it up but hey..

The point being that we do have other parties..

[jeremyboycool]

As the tides ebb and flow so do the mindsets of nations.. what is popular today might not be tomorrow. The Republicans and Democrats generally reflect the mindsets of the usa even if they both have changed seats in the social spectrum in what they believe over the years .

You do have other choices for your vote.

Libertarians Gary Johnson I'm guessing with Trump loosing votes some are going to Johnson for sure.

The Green Party Jill Stein and I'm guessing that those in the court of Saunders, of might think of voting for her although I know Johnson will pick up some of them too.

The Constitution Party Darrel Castle

Party of Socialism and Liberation Gloria LaRiva

of course the Socialist Party and the Socialist Workers Party (communist) dunno who's running I could look it up but hey..

The point being that we do have other parties..

"The Republicans and Democrats generally reflect the mindsets of the usa "

Personally, I don't think we should be putting all our eggs in only those two baskets, as it allows too much leeway for mob rule, but that's a whole another ball of wax.

"You do have other choices for your vote."

Technically, yes. Realistically; however, there are only two contenders for the next President of the United States. And that is just as much the fault of the voters, as it is our system of government. I believe though, that people will get fed up enough with the Republicans and Democrats that that may change in the future.

[jeremyboycool]

Americans need to stop looking at the presidential election as voting for the lesser of two evils, and just vote for the person they actually want in office.

How a single person votes, whether that is Trump or Hillary, will have no impact on the outcome of this election. I don't care what a person thinks about the voting process, mathematically, the difference a single vote makes is so small we can consider it zero. However, if enough people started voting for a 3rd party, it would at least send a message to the two major parties that they need to change.

The American people, need to change their mindset about the presidential election, instead engaging in the practice of voting for someone they don't like, they need to vote for someone they do like.

[YeOldeStonecat]

I was speaking more in terms to why the Republicans picked Trump, and in relation to those three points. I am sorry if my text in that matter was not clear enough for you. .

Your "text in the matter" is easily understood...no need to think it was complicated with rare insight that some people might miss. But if you take the time to look deeper (my whole point).

[jeremyboycool]

Your "text in the matter" is easily understood...no need to think it was complicated with rare insight that some people might miss. But if you take the time to look deeper (my whole point).

You're just upset because I didn't buckle in the presence of your great brilliance.

[Philip]

This thread is heading in a direction that is just too... brilliant. Personal attacks wont bring anything good to the discussion, let's just calm down a bit.

[Camryn64]

in my opinion clinton is the winner

[BMED]

I know they are already declaring Clinton the winner, but what do you think?

Personally, I think they both were losers, and I struggled to take them as serious competitors for the President of the United States.

Trump, surprisingly had a few good points, it a shame that is a 70 year old child. At this point, to me, it does not really matter much what Clinton looks like, as that man clearly is not fit to be president.

IMHO there were no winners in the debate, including the voters! This election has turned into a three-ring circus with these two clowns and the debate did not change my outlook or opinion with either candidate. I'm not going to argue or debate my thoughts in this forum, although the preceding post did trigger a slight flashback of SG during the early years (good old days)!

I can only encourage everyone I know to get out there on election day and give it all you have and vote!

PS, I do have audio of YOS degrading a Denny's waitress in Michigan over a decade ago...parental advisory, explicit content!

[YeOldeStonecat]

IMHO there were no winners in the debate, including the voters! This election has turned into a three-ring circus with these two clowns and the debate did not change my outlook or opinion with either candidate. I'm not going to argue or debate my thoughts in this forum, although the preceding post did trigger a slight flashback of SG during the early years (good old days)!

I can only encourage everyone I know to get out there on election day and give it all you have and vote!

PS, I do have audio of YOS degrading a Denny's waitress in Michigan over a decade ago...parental advisory, explicit content!

LOL..what a night!
Wonder how Noevo is doing?

Over the weekend, a TV station was playing a re-run of the '92 presidential debate between Bill Clinton, Bush Sr, and Ross Perot.
I remember that election well, and the debate. Watching it again....it was amazing to see how well behaved they were, how intelligently they all answered the questions from the mods, I was sitting there watching it thinking ..."I'd not be terribly unhappy with any one of them as prez."

It was sad...realizing those days of having qualified candidates, and good debates, are gone!

[Ken]

I don't believe that a responsible citizen could vote for either one of the front runners. What a shame the others couldn't be a part of the debates. We have done it to ourselves.

[cybotron r_9]

[jeremyboycool]

The Republican Party is jumping ship, so many have declared a withdrawal of support. Of course a withdrawal of, implies the presence of initially, but whatever. Regardless, it will not reflect well on the party, and it will likely have effects greater than the loss of the election (the likely outcome).

I think part of the problem is how opinionated people have become in this country. It is enhanced by that sense of self-entitlement so many Americans have. Over confidante and lazy, Americans have lost touch with applying serious critical and analytical thought. The Internet, probably, has a lot do to with it, as it has numbed us to proper social graces (which facilitates fruitful debate and compromise), and has lowered the standards for what passes as sound judgment and what is considered a reliable source of information. A random news link or blog on the net, is not a source of information, sure they can be interesting, but no faith can be put in anything printed in those mediums, but since we are lovers of opinion, we seek out sources that appeal to what we want to believe rather than seeking the truth.

[downhill]

More silliness.. from the typical bunch here. Keep drinking the kool aide Tax payers have spent over 500 million dollars on Republican witch hunts on the Clintons ............................. What have the tax payers got out of all this? Nothing..... Makes you wonder who the real criminals are.


No I didn't support Hilliary I was and am a Bernie fan but lets suppose he got the nomination over Clinton? IMHO all the Clinton witch hunts would end and would shift to Bernie.. He's coming after your guns, your ammo, on and on and on.. oh and he wasn't born here.. Really the only way either one could possibly end what's been going on for the last 8 years is to have congress swing too and maybe the Senate will but the House I doubt.

Thank you Faux News and talk radio for all the hate you've generated and to Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and John Boehner . You've managed to get a full blown narcissistic lying demigod nominated for the Republican party. It was only a matter of time. You have only yourselves to blame.

[YeOldeStonecat]

[jeremyboycool]

Trump is a freaking sociopath, and this notion that Hillary is as bad as him is just thoughtless. Trump makes Hillary look like a golden ticket to Charlie Wonka's Chocolate Factory.

His claims of a rigged election is just stupid. I hear that nonsense all the time, and never, I mean never, is it ever backed by anything substantial. Same with the claim of voter fraud, all the evidence clearly shows that voter fraud, on a scale that would any significance influence, just does not happen, and would be extraordinarily hard to pull off. But making wild claims without any proof has become the norm, and that is why someone like Trump can stand up there and make these crazy claims. People don't care about truth anymore; instead they care about being right, so much that they will rally and cheer for madness, and disregard anything that may prove them wrong.

[Philip]

voter fraud, on a scale that would any significance influence, just does not happen, and would be extraordinarily hard to pull off

Even if it can't all clearly be defined as "fraud", there are many strong forces on both sides of the fence that affect elections, the country has become very polarized.

In 2000, the presidential elections were decided by 537 Florida votes (along with the Secretary of State Katherine Harris choice to stop recounts and a Supreme Court decision)
Just watch the movie "Recount" if you haven't, it may change your mind on that, every elected and appointed official matters. It is also available on HBO Go it seems:

http://www.hbo.com/movies/recount

[jeremyboycool]

Even if it can't all clearly be defined as "fraud", there are many strong forces on both sides of the fence that affect elections, the country has become very polarized.

In 2000, the presidential elections were decided by 537 Florida votes (along with the Secretary of State Katherine Harris choice to stop recounts and a Supreme Court decision)
Just watch the movie "Recount" if you haven't, it may change your mind on that, every elected and appointed official matters. It is also available on HBO Go it seems:

http://www.hbo.com/movies/recount

I remember that election, and it hardly proves the type of voter fraud I am referring to is a real problem. Show me an academic article giving proof of significant statistical influence of voter fraud; that is all I'll accept. Hard scientific evidence. The truth is, overly restrictive voter fraud laws often discourage more lawful voter than prevent any real voter fraud, which has a stronger influence on the outcome of an election than the voter fraud. Also, the level at which it happens is so insignificant that it can't possibly be the work of any serious political candidates, as the risk vs. reward is just not there. It just does not follow to think the dems or the reps are engaged in wide spread voter fraud.

Sorry, I am not looking for a movie, as I am tried of beating around the bush and playing the what-if game; I am looking for something of a scientific nature.

[Philip]

I don't want to limit myself to a particular flavor of fraud you are referring to in the current partisan polarizing political efforts to disenfranchise voters. I also don't plan on digging for potential academic articles that prove "significant statistical influence"...

All I was trying to illustrate is that "significant" is a very subjective term, based on the following simple proven facts from the 2000 Presidential election:

1. The Florida election was decided by less than 1,000 votes. (so less than 1000 votes is still a significant figure on a national scale)
2. 57,700 people (mostly Democrats of African-American and Hispanic descent) were incorrectly included in a felons list and barred from voting.
3. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris set the parameters for inclusions to that list of felons (real-life example of a single person influencing the Presidential Elections. Fraud ? Alleged, but unproven of course)


Alleging or proving fraud on any level simply disenfranchises more voters and plays on their fears that the system is rigged. It is sad that politicians are resorting to this, rather than rallying people to believe they do matter and can make a "statistical" difference. Of course this is just my personal opinion, whatever that's worth.

[jeremyboycool]

I don't want to limit myself to a particular flavor of fraud you are referring to in the current partisan polarizing political efforts to disenfranchise voters. I also don't plan on digging for potential academic articles that prove "significant statistical influence"...

All I was trying to illustrate is that "significant" is a very subjective term, based on the following simple proven facts from the 2000 Presidential election:

1. The Florida election was decided by less than 1,000 votes. (so less than 1000 votes is still a significant figure on a national scale)
2. 57,700 people (mostly Democrats of African-American and Hispanic descent) were incorrectly included in a felons list and barred from voting.
3. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris set the parameters for inclusions to that list of felons (real-life example of a single person influencing the Presidential Elections. Fraud ? Alleged, but unproven of course)


Alleging or proving fraud on any level simply disenfranchises more voters and plays on their fears that the system is rigged. It is sad that politicians are resorting to this, rather than rallying people to believe they do matter and can make a "statistical" difference. Of course this is just my personal opinion, whatever that's worth.

I am sorry, but given the nature of the subject, I need to see some sources. Please try to understand that I don't care what it is; I am just always asking for sources when data is given. I am just tired of shifting fact from fiction whenever someone says something, and I need good creditable articles I can read.

" incorrectly included in a felons list and barred from voting."

You think that is the 1st time something like that has happened? The paranoia over voter fraud is what allows politician to engage in such activity; it is the very reason they push the notion voter fraud. They know that the voters will give up more power if they think their is a real threat. That is how it works; the more people embrace fear; the more they are willing to give up to the government. The real fraud in voter fraud is the myth of voter fraud.

I couldn't find the article I wanted, as I didn't pack it, but if you want I am more than happy to get suitable replacements when I have some time.

To determine if voter fraud really does have an impact you'd need to start crunching the numbers, and a close election does not prove it has an impact. It is that type of fear that allows them to start messing with our voting process, and that has a greater negative influence on how the votes turn out, because now we are allowing politicians more control over voting.

[YeOldeStonecat]

Alleging or proving fraud on any level simply disenfranchises more voters and plays on their fears that the system is rigged. It is sad that politicians are resorting to this, rather than rallying people to believe they do matter and can make a "statistical" difference. Of course this is just my personal opinion, whatever that's worth.

Not to mention the e-mails leaked yesterday, one of which showing the DNC vowing only to support hillery early on during the process. Poor Bernie had no chance....even though masses of people were for him. The whole superdelegate thing made sure he was thwarted.

THAT...is where the corruption was, and that's the only place it had to be. Once she was secured as Demo candidate....the deed was done, she was all set. The only real competition she had was Bernie, and a few of possible Republican candidates...and somehow Trump buried them. It was easily foreseen that Trump would...slowly slide downhill...repeatedly shoot himself in the foot over time, scandals come out, just...steadily spiral down the toilet. Just like he has been recently.

Another example of "the establishment" keeping outsiders out.

As usual, the DNC is playing the media well...and they have massive ammo trucks for distraction....Trump. Notice the timing of "Trump horror stories" overshadowing Wiki-leaks of Hillerys email? A potentially damaging e-mail of Hillerys past is leaked by Wiki...and immediately....the news is swamped with another Trump scandal story. Hmmmmm.

It's nearly unbelievable how this election is playing out....much of the population of the US is completely tired of the "status quo" of politics. We are tired of career politicians who line their pockets from deals to shove law through, not in the best interest of the people, but in the best interest of their bank accounts. Hillery is a text book example of that....x 1000! She'll tell lies catered to a specific audience..just to get that money rolling through her foundation washing machine. We've already seen proof of that, just last week Wiki leaked an e-mail of her admitting she two faces based on audience.

And that frustration by us citizens is the only reason Trump had a chance. Not because of his brains. Not because of his class. Not because of his credibility. But because he can look at the landscape and realize the people are tired of "status quo", and he has a chance, since he's an outsider. He is opposite of status quo. He took what Ross Perot did in '92 and (but didn't call it reform like Perot did)...and ran with it.