Author Topic: ISideWith 2016 US President Election  (Read 29894 times)

Well you're lucky to live so close to law enforcement. Not everyone is as fortunate.
ye i'm Super Fortunate

might as well call me Ms. Fortune for how fortunate i am


No. It's because they're willing to vote for a candidate who is clearly dishonest and manipulative. You literally took something I didn't say, claimed I said it, and then refuted said false statement. Look at her tenure as Secretary of State for examples of said unethical behavior.
Well you called people uninformed solely because they are voting for Clinton. And although I'm an America-hating socialist who's voting for Bernie sanders, I'd pick Hillary over any republican: The party that once championed market-based healthcare reform, but equated it to slavery when a democrat suggested it.
That plus her pandering to gays means that we won't have minority rights set back decades, like if someone like Santorum took office.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 02:14:35 PM by Narkro555 »

Well you called people uninformed solely because they are voting for Clinton. And although I'm an America-hating socialist who's voting for Bernie sanders, I'd pick Hillary over any republican: The party that once championed market-based healthcare reform, but equated it to slavery when a democrat suggested it.
That plus her pandering to gays means that we won't have minority rights set back decades, like if someone like Santorum took office.
You're just assuming I'm a republican. I'm not. I just don't like Hillary because deleting tens of thousands of emails the second an inquiry was launched pertaining to their contents is unethical. I believe politicians should be transparent, and I believe that demonstrates a lack of transparency on her part.

also for the sake of it


filthy socialist hippy confirmed

also for the sake of it

filthy socialist hippy confirmed

gross

You're just assuming I'm a republican. I'm not. I just don't like Hillary because deleting tens of thousands of emails the second an inquiry was launched pertaining to their contents is unethical. I believe politicians should be transparent, and I believe that demonstrates a lack of transparency on her part.
Using private email could be considered shady, but I don't see exactly what she could be hiding that is so bad. She probably is just over sensitive about privacy. Not a good excuse I know, but not a big deal either, also considering she's releasing thousands of them.

Using private email could be considered shady, but I don't see exactly what she could be hiding that is so bad. She probably is just over sensitive about privacy. Not a good excuse I know, but not a big deal either, also considering she's releasing thousands of them.
I'm not trying to say it automatically discredits her as a good candidate, but it certainly doesn't help when she's made claims like being the "most transparent person [she] knows" in the past.


Don't really have much say in this since I'm not American, but oh well.

I'm not trying to say it automatically discredits her as a good candidate, but it certainly doesn't help when she's made claims like being the "most transparent person [she] knows" in the past.
That's true, and I hope she's learned her lesson about all this. I really don't want to imagine what would happen to our country if someone like Annoying Orange or Santorum took office, and I know her opponents will be trying to ride this out as an earth-shattering scandal throughout the entire election. See: Benghazi.

That's true, and I hope she's learned her lesson about all this. I really don't want to imagine what would happen to our country if someone like Annoying Orange or Santorum took office, and I know her opponents will be trying to ride this out as an earth-shattering scandal throughout the entire election. See: Benghazi.
That's the nature of politics in this country, sadly. People are going to be stuffheads and blow things out of proportion. What makes me even more upset is that other parties get very little recognition in debates, which is really annoying because that's the only exposure a lot of voters get to the views and speaking ability of the candidates. It's sad but true that there are A LOT of people in this country that go out to vote with very little actual information.

That's the nature of politics in this country, sadly. People are going to be stuffheads and blow things out of proportion. What makes me even more upset is that other parties get very little recognition in debates, which is really annoying because that's the only exposure a lot of voters get to the views and speaking ability of the candidates. It's sad but true that there are A LOT of people in this country that go out to vote with very little actual information.
I haven't voted in a presidential election yet, but I have for local elections. And here's what I think we should do to make it better.

I vote by mail, and my county includes a Voter Information booklet. For laws, it gives an executive summary, and then it's supporters get to write their own supportive essay for it. Then an opposing party gets to write their own page giving reasons NOT to vote for it. Then each party gets to write a short rebuttal to each of those pages, giving voters tons of information towards making an educated decision.

For local and state candidates, the Voter Information booklet lets them write a paragraph summing up their policies and why you should vote for them. This in itself is immensely handy, because it points out who's dog-whistling and who's actually running honestly. For example, one candidate wrote something along the lines of "I stand with freedom. I'm pro-god, pro-gun, pro-life, and pro-family." Some might not recognize those as dog whistles for theocracy, anti-abortion, and anti-gay. But when other candidates elaborated on their policies, it gives people a much clearer look and honesty very often Annoying Oranges rhetoric.

I'm not sure if Presidential Elections do this; like I said I haven't voted. But a packet like what my county gave me would immensely help people make educated decisions.

I haven't voted in a presidential election yet, but I have for local elections. And here's what I think we should do to make it better.

I vote by mail, and my county includes a Voter Information booklet. For laws, it gives an executive summary, and then it's supporters get to write their own supportive essay for it. Then an opposing party gets to write their own page giving reasons NOT to vote for it. Then each party gets to write a short rebuttal to each of those pages, giving voters tons of information towards making an educated decision.

For local and state candidates, the Voter Information booklet lets them write a paragraph summing up their policies and why you should vote for them. This in itself is immensely handy, because it points out who's dog-whistling and who's actually running honestly. For example, one candidate wrote something along the lines of "I stand with freedom. I'm pro-god, pro-gun, pro-life, and pro-family." Some might not recognize those as dog whistles for theocracy, anti-abortion, and anti-gay. But when other candidates elaborated on their policies, it gives people a much clearer look and honesty very often Annoying Oranges rhetoric.

I'm not sure if Presidential Elections do this; like I said I haven't voted. But a packet like what my county gave me would immensely help people make educated decisions.
I don't believe they do. This is going to be the first time I vote in the presidential election as well. I just think it's a responsibility to be educated on the candidates. People in my town basically just pick the candidate that gives them more free stuff, which is wrong in my opinion. They don't care about other issues at all, as long as they're getting more "programs"

I don't believe they do. This is going to be the first time I vote in the presidential election as well. I just think it's a responsibility to be educated on the candidates. People in my town basically just pick the candidate that gives them more free stuff, which is wrong in my opinion. They don't care about other issues at all, as long as they're getting more "programs"
That's frequently the issue in many cases. Although sometimes it's less "free stuff" but more so initiatives to actually improve people's lives and make them self-sufficient, one frequently misunderstood example of this being California's upcoming high-speed rail.