|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Nov 8, 2016 0:30:04 GMT -5
Haven't looked to see if anyone else has hoyed this up already but it's been in my head since I woke up and fairly relevant for the next 24 hours or so...
|
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Nov 8, 2016 2:10:20 GMT -5
I've been reading about Trump and he sounds much better option compared to Clinton. Bernie looked the best option a while ago but now I feel like USA would be better with Trump since Bernie's out of the game. E: I dunno... They're both horrible. A sexist xenophobe with no legislative or foreign policy experience would be better? I've heard everything. Put it in this way, there's a level of horrible. Will Clinton make a good president? Eh. She might be decent. Would Trump make a good president? No. Not a chance. Not even close to a decent president. Trump couldn't lick Ronney's shoes, and I'm not a Romney fan. He's so bottom of the barrel. There's not one coherent policy stance that he has. There is not a single shred of experience. Worse yet, he lacks the temperment for such a high position. If he can't go a whole debate without going on a temper tantrum and threatening to jail his enemies, what do people think he's going to do when he has to interact with other foreign leaders who outrank him in experience and aptitude for their position. It's honestly insane that 45% of the country will look past someone who wouldn't respect their mother and wouldn't respect the tenants of American existence, coupled with being a racist and xenophobe. |
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Nov 8, 2016 2:39:38 GMT -5
I've been reading about Trump and he sounds much better option compared to Clinton. Bernie looked the best option a while ago but now I feel like USA would be better with Trump since Bernie's out of the game. E: I dunno... They're both horrible. A sexist xenophobe with no legislative or foreign policy experience would be better? I've heard everything. Put it in this way, there's a level of horrible. Will Clinton make a good president? Eh. She might be decent. Would Trump make a good president? No. Not a chance. Not even close to a decent president. Trump couldn't lick Ronney's shoes, and I'm not a Romney fan. He's so bottom of the barrel. There's not one coherent policy stance that he has. There is not a single shred of experience. Worse yet, he lacks the temperment for such a high position. If he can't go a whole debate without going on a temper tantrum and threatening to jail his enemies, what do people think he's going to do when he has to interact with other foreign leaders who outrank him in experience and aptitude for their position. It's honestly insane that 45% of the country will look past someone who wouldn't respect their mother and wouldn't respect the tenants of American existence, coupled with being a racist and xenophobe. Agreed with most of this bar Hillary making a decent President, although in light of her opponent I think she is the best choice open to US voters. I actually hope she turns out to be the nadir of US democracy and it improves from hereon in, as I can't actually picture Donald Trump being anything then a disaster not only abroad (which FWIW I think Hillary Clinton will be) but also domestically which is why I can't fathom voting for him if I was an American citizen. |
|
|
|
Post by bastardnumber1 on Nov 8, 2016 2:40:36 GMT -5
At what time (Europe) should we get the first interesting results? Around 2-3 in the morning I guess?
|
|
|
|
Post by oasisserbia on Nov 8, 2016 2:42:15 GMT -5
TODAY IS GONNA BE THE DAY!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Nov 8, 2016 2:43:52 GMT -5
At what time (Europe) should we get the first interesting results? Around 2-3 in the morning I guess? NY Times saying results should come in properly between 9pm and 1am, so using GMT I think that's around 2am to 6am Wednesday for Europe- NY Times- Polls Closing Times |
|
|
|
Post by guigsysEstring on Nov 8, 2016 2:46:43 GMT -5
TODAY IS GONNA BE THE DAY!!! Stranger things have happened* * Albeit I can't think of a single one off the top of my head  |
|
|
|
Post by bastardnumber1 on Nov 8, 2016 2:57:15 GMT -5
a 269 - 269 draw would be nice |
|
|
|
Post by jakob61907 on Nov 8, 2016 3:26:01 GMT -5
a 269 - 269 draw would be nice What happens then? In Australia we've had that fairly recently and it was utter chaos! |
|
|
|
Post by bastardnumber1 on Nov 8, 2016 3:33:14 GMT -5
a 269 - 269 draw would be nice What happens then? In Australia we've had that fairly recently and it was utter chaos! As far as I know then it´s up to the Congress which would be in favour of Trump apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Nov 8, 2016 3:39:51 GMT -5
What happens then? In Australia we've had that fairly recently and it was utter chaos! As far as I know then it´s up to the Congress which would be in favour of Trump apparently. The newly elected House of representatives would vote for the new president. The House will most likely be controlled by Republicans. I could see some vulnerable Republicans in left leaning districts voting for Clinton. However, for most representatives it would be political suicide (though, one could make the case that voting for Trump would be political suicide too). No one wants a tie. There's not a single person in Congress who wants to be put in that position. It's a no-win scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by spaneli on Nov 8, 2016 3:56:30 GMT -5
A sexist xenophobe with no legislative or foreign policy experience would be better? I've heard everything. Put it in this way, there's a level of horrible. Will Clinton make a good president? Eh. She might be decent. Would Trump make a good president? No. Not a chance. Not even close to a decent president. Trump couldn't lick Ronney's shoes, and I'm not a Romney fan. He's so bottom of the barrel. There's not one coherent policy stance that he has. There is not a single shred of experience. Worse yet, he lacks the temperment for such a high position. If he can't go a whole debate without going on a temper tantrum and threatening to jail his enemies, what do people think he's going to do when he has to interact with other foreign leaders who outrank him in experience and aptitude for their position. It's honestly insane that 45% of the country will look past someone who wouldn't respect their mother and wouldn't respect the tenants of American existence, coupled with being a racist and xenophobe. Agreed with most of this bar Hillary making a decent President, although in light of her opponent I think she is the best choice open to US voters. I actually hope she turns out to be the nadir of US democracy and it improves from hereon in, as I can't actually picture Donald Trump being anything then a disaster not only abroad (which FWIW I think Hillary Clinton will be) but also domestically which is why I can't fathom voting for him if I was an American citizen. I wasn't very strong in my endorsement of Clinton being decent.  But could she be better than W. Bush? Certainly. Definitely, not as good as Obama, but certainly better than Bush. Her and John Kerry are fairly similar in terms of stances, and are both fairly Hawk-ish. I believe her "deficiencies" in foreign policy is significantly overplayed. If anything, Clinton is a highly practical politician. She most likely won't accomplish anything of note, but she most likely won't drive America into WWIII. Clinton's major weakness is her inability to be liked. Sometimes, being liked has their advantages (ask Obama). Some of this inability stems partly from arrogance, and her lack of being a "team player." Honestly, the e-mail "scandal" has mostly been a scandal that was self inflicted by Clinton. Through multiple investigations it has become abundantly clear that Clinton's use of e-mail were relatively minor infractions. Her arrogance affects her honestly, which affects how people perceive her (though, that being her greatest fault pales in comparison to Trump's greater faults). If Clinton had admitted a mistake from the beginning, this would have blown over months ago. Instead, she took the arrogant approach and figured she could avoid it. Bad mistake that nearly cost her this election. Her arrogance is what also cost her 2008 to Obama. If she had taken the early states, especially caucuses more seriously, she would have beaten Obama. Instead, Obama got the jump and won Iowa and South Carolina, and began his run of runs. She has the tendency to be caught flat-footed. I think these drawback affect her far more domestically than they do abroad. American foreign policy does not change greatly from president to president. It stays relatively the same. Obama is a bit of an exception. He has certainly been less Hawk-ish and has shifted America more toward Asia and Central America than the Middle East. Clinton would most likely shift toward a middle ground between Bush's Hawk-ish policies and Obama's relatively less-Hawkish policies. Lastly, Clinton has been endorsed by Obama/Biden/Reid/and every high ranking Democrat out there. Trump could not secure the endorsement of the two previous nominees for the Republican party. He could score an endorsement from the two previous Republican Presidents. The Republican speak of the House and Senate Majority leader have only been tepid of their "support" for Trump. There have been almost no other cases with a nominee having so little support from the establishment of his party. It's outlandish, honestly. These are people who are almost required to like Trump, who don't like Trump. If these guys are only tepid in their endorsement then what should that say for anyone voting for him? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 3:57:31 GMT -5
Umm Probably most of them are not truly "left", no? I mean, there are tons of "newspreading" media(s?) considered left here while they're obviously not, as they show "opinions" in a sarcastic undertone (and that funny enough some leftists believe it's serious); it's more of a "left parody" than anything else. *The Guardian. *shivers* Don't you ever remind me of that thing. I was forced to do an essay using informations FROM IT last year. I mean, everyone in the politics here is a prick, and that thing was treating the """"left"""" party of here as heroes being misjudged. Yeah, 'm not right wing, but THAT THING WAS JUST CRINGEWORTHY. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 8:13:34 GMT -5
No amount of lipstick on a pig will make it anything other than a pig.
God bless.
|
|
|
|
Post by theyknowwhatimean on Nov 8, 2016 8:23:35 GMT -5
TODAY IS GONNA BE THE DAY!!! That better not be an oasis reference you just made, in that pro-Trump post of yours!! |
|
|
|
Post by bastardnumber1 on Nov 8, 2016 9:09:50 GMT -5
Out of interest what is there all to write on your election papers? It´s a pretty boring day at work so we checked for US TV streams what they have to say and found ABC news who have streams from a few voting places and people sit infront of those papers for ages...
|
|
|
|
Post by Let It🩸 on Nov 8, 2016 9:33:52 GMT -5
Just voted again....
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by batfink30 on Nov 8, 2016 10:14:37 GMT -5
a 269 - 269 draw would be nice It would go to extra time then penalties. I don't think anyone would want that! |
|
|
|
Post by Jessica on Nov 8, 2016 10:19:57 GMT -5
Out of interest what is there all to write on your election papers? It´s a pretty boring day at work so we checked for US TV streams what they have to say and found ABC news who have streams from a few voting places and people sit infront of those papers for ages... They're just boxes you color in completely. You can either do a straight vote of a party, or you can go down and fill in boxes for all the various things like your county's constable, railroad commissioner, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 8, 2016 11:08:31 GMT -5
a 269 - 269 draw would be nice It would go to extra time then penalties. I don't think anyone would want that! And England would somehow conspire to lose, even though they aren't involved. |
|
|
|
Post by batfink30 on Nov 8, 2016 11:19:54 GMT -5
It would go to extra time then penalties. I don't think anyone would want that! And England would somehow conspire to lose, even though they aren't involved. The ball wasn't over the line! |
|
|
|
Post by Cast on Nov 8, 2016 11:49:52 GMT -5
been pretty crazy down here in NC this past week. both parties are hungry for voters. i have talked to and I am friends with decent amount people on both sides, who have been vying for their candidate. i try to understand both sides as come to my own conclusions with of course, a healthy dose of skepticism towards nearly all federal politicians.
glad i voted early, but all of NC elections are looking pretty tight.
simply put one's qualified and one isn't, no matter my feelings toward the qualified one; the fact is her rival just isn't fit to hold one of the most powerful positions in the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Nov 8, 2016 11:50:31 GMT -5
The hysteria and panic over the likely prospect of a Clinton presidency is beyond belief, even here in the UK. 'Evil', 'tyrannical' 'despotic' - get a grip.
She's not going to destroy the planet or America. In fact, she will be a relatively competent President if we are to rate competency on the basis of who has gone before. For all the media narrative of the last year that she is some tyrannical mad woman, it really doesn't take much effort to look into her past record, of which has barely been mentioned in this mudslinging election and that seems to have gone over peoples heads. The facts are all over the internet, and use that to make your mind up rather than pathetic innuendo concerning her kicking off WWIII or being crooked.
For sure, a woman who has been in the public eye for so long and have a long public record like herself is immediately going to draw questions over the aspects of her career that she has failed on. But her Senate record is impressive on health care, immigration, teachers, veterans, or as First Lady, providing poor women and children with Health Insurance.
It's absolutely infantile to paint broad brushstrokes for Clinton as if everything about her is terrible. There has been absolutely no nuance in any debate involving her capabilities or qualifications to run for President, and instead we've been subjected to immature and student-like sanctimonious posturing from those who are quick to despise everything about the USA, which has been complicit in allowing wankers like Trump off the hook. Her Senate record has also been more effective at securing amendments to Republican bills than even Bernie Sanders whose influence was negligible. She has voted the way big labour unions wanted 95% of the time, and on social liberal policies 90% of the time. All in all, a very capable Democrat which is why Sanders, Obama, Biden and co are all endorsing for her.
It's an insult to common decency that anyone would think 'Trump is better' or that Clinton is as bad. She has a record to run on and promote (and defend from its mistakes inevitably) and that is far more than can be said of her genuinely disturbed opponent.
|
|
|
|
Post by batfink30 on Nov 8, 2016 12:23:04 GMT -5
The hysteria and panic over the likely prospect of a Clinton presidency is beyond belief, even here in the UK. 'Evil', 'tyrannical' 'despotic' - get a grip. She's not going to destroy the planet or America. In fact, she will be a relatively competent President if we are to rate competency on the basis of who has gone before. For all the media narrative of the last year that she is some tyrannical mad woman, it really doesn't take much effort to look into her past record, of which has barely been mentioned in this mudslinging election and that seems to have gone over peoples heads. The facts are all over the internet, and use that to make your mind up rather than pathetic innuendo concerning her kicking off WWIII or being crooked. For sure, a woman who has been in the public eye for so long and have a long public record like herself is immediately going to draw questions over the aspects of her career that she has failed on. But her Senate record is impressive on health care, immigration, teachers, veterans, or as First Lady, providing poor women and children with Health Insurance. It's absolutely infantile to paint broad brushstrokes for Clinton as if everything about her is terrible. There has been absolutely no nuance in any debate involving her capabilities or qualifications to run for President, and instead we've been subjected to immature and student-like sanctimonious posturing from those who are quick to despise everything about the USA, which has been complicit in allowing wankers like Trump off the hook. Her Senate record has also been more effective at securing amendments to Republican bills than even Bernie Sanders whose influence was negligible. She has voted the way big labour unions wanted 95% of the time, and on social liberal policies 90% of the time. All in all, a very capable Democrat which is why Sanders, Obama, Biden and co are all endorsing for her. It's an insult to common decency that anyone would think 'Trump is better' or that Clinton is as bad. She has a record to run on and promote (and defend from its mistakes inevitably) and that is far more than can be said of her genuinely disturbed opponent. It would almost be funny to watch the US mess from afar if it wasn't for the fact the UK is heading for financial oblivion with Brexit. There's no chance Clinton would be as bad as Theresa May, a complete shambles of a PM in a time the country needs a steady hand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 12:26:13 GMT -5
The hysteria and panic over the likely prospect of a Clinton presidency is beyond belief, even here in the UK. 'Evil', 'tyrannical' 'despotic' - get a grip. She's not going to destroy the planet or America. In fact, she will be a relatively competent President if we are to rate competency on the basis of who has gone before. For all the media narrative of the last year that she is some tyrannical mad woman, it really doesn't take much effort to look into her past record, of which has barely been mentioned in this mudslinging election and that seems to have gone over peoples heads. The facts are all over the internet, and use that to make your mind up rather than pathetic innuendo concerning her kicking off WWIII or being crooked. For sure, a woman who has been in the public eye for so long and have a long public record like herself is immediately going to draw questions over the aspects of her career that she has failed on. But her Senate record is impressive on health care, immigration, teachers, veterans, or as First Lady, providing poor women and children with Health Insurance.It's absolutely infantile to paint broad brushstrokes for Clinton as if everything about her is terrible. There has been absolutely no nuance in any debate involving her capabilities or qualifications to run for President, and instead we've been subjected to immature and student-like sanctimonious posturing from those who are quick to despise everything about the USA, which has been complicit in allowing wankers like Trump off the hook. Her Senate record has also been more effective at securing amendments to Republican bills than even Bernie Sanders whose influence was negligible. She has voted the way big labour unions wanted 95% of the time, and on social liberal policies 90% of the time. All in all, a very capable Democrat which is why Sanders, Obama, Biden and co are all endorsing for her. It's an insult to common decency that anyone would think 'Trump is better' or that Clinton is as bad. She has a record to run on and promote (and defend from its mistakes inevitably) and that is far more than can be said of her genuinely disturbed opponent. This is hardly the pro-Clinton argument that should be made. Like you, I don't believe she will drive us to WWIII or anything. That said, her political record is the whole reason why she hasn't blown The Donald out of the race. Aside from her less-than-favorable Senate record... she absolutely failed as Sec. of State. Even Dems think she tanked that position badly. I'm not a Trump apologist, and I don't hate Hillary like most people. In the end, someone WILL be elected, but NO one is winning here. ----- Out of curiosity, being a Brit, why do you feel so passionately about this election? |
|
But could she be better than W. Bush? Certainly. Definitely, not as good as Obama, but certainly better than Bush. Her and John Kerry are fairly similar in terms of stances, and are both fairly Hawk-ish. I believe her "deficiencies" in foreign policy is significantly overplayed. If anything, Clinton is a highly practical politician. She most likely won't accomplish anything of note, but she most likely won't drive America into WWIII. Clinton's major weakness is her inability to be liked. Sometimes, being liked has their advantages (ask Obama). Some of this inability stems partly from arrogance, and her lack of being a "team player." Honestly, the e-mail "scandal" has mostly been a scandal that was self inflicted by Clinton. Through multiple investigations it has become abundantly clear that Clinton's use of e-mail were relatively minor infractions. Her arrogance affects her honestly, which affects how people perceive her (though, that being her greatest fault pales in comparison to Trump's greater faults). If Clinton had admitted a mistake from the beginning, this would have blown over months ago. Instead, she took the arrogant approach and figured she could avoid it. Bad mistake that nearly cost her this election. Her arrogance is what also cost her 2008 to Obama. If she had taken the early states, especially caucuses more seriously, she would have beaten Obama. Instead, Obama got the jump and won Iowa and South Carolina, and began his run of runs. She has the tendency to be caught flat-footed.
Nov 4, 2024 5:04:30 GMT -5