2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby DragonAtma » Sat Jun 25, 2016 5:28 am

Trump only has a connection with his wallet, as he views everyone else as beneath him and is more than willing to publicly insult them. Fortunately, Hillary will crush him this november.
Unless I specifically say otherwise, assume I am talking about historical Three Kingdoms, and not the novel.

In memory of my beloved cats, Anastasia (9/30/06-9/18/17, illness) and Josephine (1/19/06-9/23/17, cancer).
DragonAtma
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1032
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:19 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Kayzr » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:49 am

DragonAtma wrote:Trump only has a connection with his wallet, as he views everyone else as beneath him and is more than willing to publicly insult them. Fortunately, Hillary will crush him this november.


Sorry, Donald Trump has never hidden from the fact that he is a businessman; Hillary Clinton is a corrupt globalist who runs, alongside her husband, what amounts to an embezzlement agency called the 'Clinton Family Foundation' or summat. Clinton was, at some point, up for being investigated on RICO charges. :roll:
Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.
For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.
For we are indeed his offspring.
Kayzr
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:27 pm
Location: Rome.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Bush Leagues » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:43 am

I'll be voting Gary Johnson this November, making my vote unfortunately meaningless in a state I'm almost certain will go to Trump. He (Johnson) will actually be on the ballot in 49 states for certain, only Illinois is holding out. While I have no expectation of his winning, I'll be interested to see how he's doing. He's polled in the double digits in multiple states; easily the best third-party candidate since Ross Perot in '92, I think it was.

Also, the best analysis I've read regarding Trump's popularity and who he best compares to can be found here. The comparison is to Andrew Jackson, also a former president, who shares some of the same qualities in a time not too dissimilar to now.

I am not convinced on who will win or lose this election. I think it will be far closer than the more dedicated supporters - for either side - would like to admit it will be. I think there might be a fair bit of support for Trump that goes unsaid, because of the potential scorn some might see among their peers; particularly in communities that are traditionally Democrat.

Either way, I'm interested to see how things go this time around.
Currently playing: Android: Netrunner LCG , Shadowrun (tabletop), and Warhammer Ancient Battle.

Pan Feng can destroy this Hua Xiong! A Han Fu ROTK IX After-Action Report.
One of the best posts ever about Pan Feng.
Bush Leagues
Scholar
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:12 am
Location: New Iberia. LA

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby James » Fri Jul 01, 2016 11:51 pm

Kayzr wrote:Sorry, Donald Trump has never hidden from the fact that he is a businessman; Hillary Clinton is a corrupt globalist who runs, alongside her husband, what amounts to an embezzlement agency called the 'Clinton Family Foundation' or summat. Clinton was, at some point, up for being investigated on RICO charges. :roll:

Nothing wrong with being a businessman. But there is something wrong with being a dishonest businessman (e.g. Trump University) and with his business practices (extent of failed businesses, reliance on leveraging debt, reliance on leveraging bankruptcy). The primary problem with Trump, in my opinion, is the racism and xenophobia; the misogyny (if not assault and rape); the constant appeal to fear, anger, and hatred, and inciting violence; the constant lying; the lack of substance behind his proposed plans national and international alike.

In terms of Clinton, it seems to me you're reading some spin. RICO charges filed by a politically partisan litigation troll, with no basis (it could have been there in the emails thus it should exist for purposes of this case) and dismissed, rightly, by the court system. I do have some issues with the Clinton Foundation, but nothing like what you characterize here. Any evidence to support the claim? (It does serve in some capacity as a tax shelter, as is common for these organizations, but curious you'd level that concern in the context of Donald Trump who unabashedly avails himself to any means of avoiding taxation available.) I've seen some harm done in attempting to influence change in foreign governments. Not that I'm a big fan of Hillary—in my opinion far too strong a connection to Wall Street, a background of supporting negative international intervention and war, historically too eager to support pro-corporation legislation and trade agreements, favors surveillance programs of questionable constitutionality, not terribly likely to do much in terms of addressing the growing wealth divide. But all that said, she's been the target of a multi-year attack campaign from the Republican Party, now adopted to an extent by a portion of Democrats and Independents frustrated by the DNC's dog and pony show designed to work against independent-favored 'outsiders' like Bernie Sanders. Benghazi is the poster child example here. Most of the negativity against her is false or greatly exaggerated—FUD.

Bush Leagues wrote:I am not convinced on who will win or lose this election. I think it will be far closer than the more dedicated supporters - for either side - would like to admit it will be. I think there might be a fair bit of support for Trump that goes unsaid, because of the potential scorn some might see among their peers; particularly in communities that are traditionally Democrat.

It did appear, for a time, to be closing in. Neither candidate is popular, but Trump is far more unpopular. Recently he's started to suffer a pretty harsh setback in sentiment—but who knows, one or two of the right events and he might pull ahead for a shot at the presidency.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17956
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:48 am

James wrote:Nothing wrong with being a businessman. But there is something wrong with being a dishonest businessman (e.g. Trump University) and with his business practices (extent of failed businesses, reliance on leveraging debt, reliance on leveraging bankruptcy). The primary problem with Trump, in my opinion, is the racism and xenophobia; the misogyny (if not assault and rape); the constant appeal to fear, anger, and hatred, and inciting violence; the constant lying; the lack of substance behind his proposed plans national and international alike.


He's a con man. The more I watch him, the more I'm convinced of that. His virtue is that I think his nativism is basically all for show, for the benefit of his base (he has historically had no problem at all associating with black and Hispanic leadership even on the Democratic side). I wish I could say the same about his misogyny, but the fact that he has a long track record of treating women like crap unfortunately shows that is all too genuine.

James wrote:In terms of Clinton, it seems to me you're reading some spin. RICO charges filed by a politically partisan litigation troll, with no basis (it could have been there in the emails thus it should exist for purposes of this case) and dismissed, rightly, by the court system. I do have some issues with the Clinton Foundation, but nothing like what you characterize here. Any evidence to support the claim?

... [S]he's been the target of a multi-year attack campaign from the Republican Party, now adopted to an extent by a portion of Democrats and Independents frustrated by the DNC's dog and pony show designed to work against independent-favored 'outsiders' like Bernie Sanders. Benghazi is the poster child example here. Most of the negativity against her is false or greatly exaggerated—FUD.


I'm actually with Kayzr on this one. This Business Insider article actually showed up on my News Feed from someone who I know is voting for Clinton.

Josh Barro wrote:My biggest concern is not that anything illegal happened in any of these cases. It is that the Clintons have no apparent concern for appearances of impropriety, as long as they believe their actions cannot get them in trouble with the law. Given how fragile trust in elite politicians and institutions is today, I believe this blasé attitude about appearances stands to do much more damage than it did in the 1990s.

Some of the scandals that have surrounded the Clintons over the last 40 years have been invented from whole cloth by political opponents and a hostile media. But others have started from real wrongdoing — anything from pardoning the ex-husband of a major Democratic donor to carrying on a sexual affair with a White House intern — that a preponderance of the electorate decided to look past, judging that they weren't that important compared to the actual business of the government.


I think it's slightly disingenuous at this point in time to say that Hillary's record of scandal and dishonesty has been basically fabricated as a Republican complot. I am sure there is a great deal of falsehood going around about the Clintons, but to some extent Hillary brings it on herself by behaving as though she is above the law and above the rules of common propriety. (I mean, come on - when was the last time we had a presidential nominee who was the target of an active investigation by the FBI?) As for the other things you mention:

James wrote:I've seen some harm done in attempting to influence change in foreign governments. Not that I'm a big fan of Hillary—in my opinion far too strong a connection to Wall Street, a background of supporting negative international intervention and war, historically too eager to support pro-corporation legislation and trade agreements, favors surveillance programs of questionable constitutionality, not terribly likely to do much in terms of addressing the growing wealth divide.


I think these all add to the common perception of her as someone who is chronically and habitually corrupt.

As for my own opinion of Hillary, it hasn't changed. I think her foreign policy record, for all she likes to show it off on the campaign trail, shows that she's a psychotic, bloodthirsty, amoral monster, red in tooth and claw, who is supported by other psychotic, bloodthirsty, amoral monsters like Kissinger, Albright and Kagan, and the degree to which she's been backed by the Democratic party machine simply shows how marginal and expendable they believe the anti-war vote to be.

A con man and a psycho. Some choice, huh?

Bush Leagues wrote:I'll be voting Gary Johnson this November, making my vote unfortunately meaningless in a state I'm almost certain will go to Trump. He (Johnson) will actually be on the ballot in 49 states for certain, only Illinois is holding out. While I have no expectation of his winning, I'll be interested to see how he's doing. He's polled in the double digits in multiple states; easily the best third-party candidate since Ross Perot in '92, I think it was.


It's weird. According to the ISideWith quiz, Johnson's the candidate I supposedly support least. I suppose that should figure, given that I have some longstanding problems with libertarianism as an ideology, and with Johnson in particular. And yet, on foreign policy (a field which matters a great deal to me), I happen to think he's a solid choice - it's criminal that he isn't getting more of a hearing. I'd be in favour of a publicly-funded forum which places all the 'lesser-known' candidates and third-party candidates on a public debate stage together. At this point, though, when the two corporate parties control anything and everything that gets put on the air or in any broadcast or print media and the presence of corporate money in politics is practically ubiquitous (both states-of-affairs which Mr Johnson ironically supports), that's something of a pipe dream.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3833
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby DragonAtma » Sat Jul 02, 2016 9:14 am

So I retook the isidewith quiz.

Jill Stein, 98%.
Bernie Sanders, 98%.
Hillary Clinton, 96%.
Gary Johnson 69%.
Donald Trump, 20%.

Considering that I want someone who has a nontrivial chance of winning this november, you can probably guess who I'll be voting for. ;)
Unless I specifically say otherwise, assume I am talking about historical Three Kingdoms, and not the novel.

In memory of my beloved cats, Anastasia (9/30/06-9/18/17, illness) and Josephine (1/19/06-9/23/17, cancer).
DragonAtma
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1032
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:19 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Bush Leagues » Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:05 am

WeiWenDi wrote:I'm actually with Kayzr on this one. This Business Insider article actually showed up on my News Feed from someone who I know is voting for Clinton.


Giving a third on this opinion. It is not all a smear campaign by Republicans and others. I can basically second WWD's opinion of her, although maybe not quite as strongly as he puts it. :D

WeiWenDi wrote:It's weird. According to the ISideWith quiz, Johnson's the candidate I supposedly support least. I suppose that should figure, given that I have some longstanding problems with libertarianism as an ideology, and with Johnson in particular. And yet, on foreign policy (a field which matters a great deal to me), I happen to think he's a solid choice - it's criminal that he isn't getting more of a hearing. I'd be in favour of a publicly-funded forum which places all the 'lesser-known' candidates and third-party candidates on a public debate stage together. At this point, though, when the two corporate parties control anything and everything that gets put on the air or in any broadcast or print media and the presence of corporate money in politics is practically ubiquitous (both states-of-affairs which Mr Johnson ironically supports), that's something of a pipe dream.


Johnson is also not the ideal candidate for me, even among the libertarians who ran this year, but he is probably the most electable of the bunch, along with a successful stint as governor of New Mexico, so I don't mind having a slightly worse candidate in those terms for a superior chance of election. Even if that chance only moves from something like .01 to .02 (probably way lower than that in reality).

One thing about the ISideWith quiz that's interesting: Gary Johnson was on the Joe Rogan Podcast for a long interview (which can be found here) where he talked about his own results. "You know, outside of other Libertarians, the person I side with most is Bernie Sanders: about 75% of the time. Outside of economic issues, where we are vastly divergent, we tend to agree on most things." I think it's an interesting thing that their "outsiderness" (I know that's not a word) to the mainstream political movement are at least part of the popularity of people like Sanders and Trump - and in many regards, Gary Johnson and the Libertarian ideology has something to offer followers of both, although both would probably be outraged at the half that appeals to the opposite side. :lol:

C'est la vie. There's always 2020. :P
Currently playing: Android: Netrunner LCG , Shadowrun (tabletop), and Warhammer Ancient Battle.

Pan Feng can destroy this Hua Xiong! A Han Fu ROTK IX After-Action Report.
One of the best posts ever about Pan Feng.
Bush Leagues
Scholar
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:12 am
Location: New Iberia. LA

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby DragonAtma » Mon Jul 04, 2016 6:35 am

Remember this Liu Shan wannabe? Liu Shan, please forgive me for comparing her to you.
Image

Remember how, against all odds, someone vetted and approved her?

Well, trump is using the exact same person to vet and approve his eventual veep.
Unless I specifically say otherwise, assume I am talking about historical Three Kingdoms, and not the novel.

In memory of my beloved cats, Anastasia (9/30/06-9/18/17, illness) and Josephine (1/19/06-9/23/17, cancer).
DragonAtma
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1032
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 2:19 pm
Location: Long Island, NY

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shen Ai » Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:50 pm

It looks more and more like Hillary has the election locked down. Provided she performs well in the debates and isn't hit with a major scandal until then, she should win pretty comfortably.
I've a brave warrior in my army. Shen Ai is his name, and he can slay this Hua Xiong.

Wei has no more famous commanders, Shen Ai takes lead of the vanguard!

Even a commoner on the street knows what Shen Ai is thinking!
User avatar
Shen Ai
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:21 pm
Location: That Place You've Been Dreaming Of

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby WeiWenDi » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:20 pm

From the UK Politics thread:

Dong Zhou wrote:I see three possibilities for USA

1) Trump wins and carries out his promises, causing major problems to the entire world and leaving USA badly diminished before the world, setting back rights for a lot of people, so and so on.

2) Trump wins then breaks all his promises, a bumbling incompetent president who does better job then 1 but the anger from this betrayal will be huge.

3) Clinton wins, unicorns emerge, you are converted, Joss Whedon's promise delights the world :wink: Let us take best case scenario of this, Clinton does a good job domestically, passes one or two major reforms, important symbolism for females. It is a fine technocrat government... and it simply pushes the anger back for 8 years. We will see the Trump anger back again and stronger when the incumbent is gone


Dong Zhou, your scenario 1) is the scariest to me, but thankfully unlikely, particularly when compared with 2). Trump is a master of playing to whatever audience he's in front of, to the point of flat contradicting himself. My biggest worry is simply that he's the typical movement conservative writ large; as in - he's willing to toss out red meat by the truckload for the benefit of his most rabid supporters, but once he's in office he's going to govern like the opportunistic centrist plutocrat that he not-so-secretly is.

Option 3), as a best case scenario? TBH, Mark Ruffalo's full Marky probably isn't aimed at my demographic. ;)

Being realistic now, Clinton's domestic agenda is going to meet with massive roadblocks, same as Obama's. Except, she's probably more willing to use the offices of the executive branch to crack down on localised religious opposition to a reproductive healthcare-driven and LGBTQ-identitarian agenda than Obama was. I honestly don't think she's going to make much headway, and particularly not on any domestic reforms I personally would care about (like universal healthcare, nationalising rail, imposing a financial transactions tax).

On foreign policy, again, Clinton truly scares the bejeezus out of me. Her unbridled, bloodthirsty hawkishness has already gotten us into two needless wars; I think we can probably expect two more in the Middle East by the end of her first term, and World War III with Russia and China if (God forbid) she gets a second.

There's also an option 4), which you've overlooked: Clinton wins, but only by a very narrow margin, getting only, say, 271 or 272 electoral votes. The Sturmabtrumpung will say (perhaps with some justification) that the result was rigged, and they'll refuse to accept the outcome. And Trump will egg them on all the while, because he can't stand being seen as a 'loser'. We may run the risk of loosely or semi-organised armed insurrections in places where Clinton hasn't held strong sway.

At times like this, James, I have to apologise and say that you were completely right about Trump, and I was wrong. I thought, at first, that he would run as a relative centrist. But he's demonstrated a complete lack of respect for even the most basic of political standards and, hell, decency of behaviour. He's running a dangerously nihilistic campaign, and unfortunately he's encouraging some dangerously nihilistic attitudes in his portion of the electorate.
Some more blood, Chekov. The needle won't hurt, Chekov. Take off your shirt, Chekov. Roll over, Chekov. Breathe deeply, Chekov. Blood sample, Chekov! Marrow sample, Chekov! Skin sample, Chekov! If I live long enough... I'm going to run out of samples.
User avatar
WeiWenDi
Hedgehog Emperor
 
Posts: 3833
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:09 am
Location: L'Étoile du Nord

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved