U.S. Politics: The Biggest Trade in WNBA History

[lemoncatpower]

Eh, that's something individual to each and every person who voted Sanders.

Some are fine with Clinton. Some want to "protest vote". Some want to vote Trump the same reason they voted Bernie (anti-establishment).

It's just a matter of which type you're dealing with.

Okay thank-you for the reply!

 

[bobjr]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Csee9kVWYAEEKAy.jpg

It is funny Bernie supports will switch to Trump after Bernie has done everything he can to stop Trump.

 

[Mordent99]

Donald Trump Jr may have just given politicians the best lesson on what NOT to do:

http://www.serebiiforums.com/showth...-2016-Election-Thread&p=18193317#post18193317

If it was joke, it really isn't funny.

 

[Auraninja]

I think for what it is, I think Bernie Sanders would have had a better turnout than Hillary in the overall election. He was popular towards newer voters, and he wasn't given such a polarizing caricature as Hillary Clinton.

This is not to say that Sanders would be a better politician. I think Sanders has a more impressionable image than Hillary. That's odd to say since Hillary is often tied to "corruption" to would-be "liberals" and "criminality" to right wing politicians. The former tie is often used to explain that Hillary is too "corporate" (I hear that one a lot). As a politician who isn't too broke to create a campaign, I don't see the logic holding through. From what I know, she was an active politician and an lawyer in the past. "Politics make strange bedfellows." Being a politician and a lawyer both would lead to some dirty laundry.

The criminal nonsense is what gets me the most. Benghazi is a wash, or better known as the Republican Revenge Fantasy. Other ties to corruption are vague at best. Some alleged scandals are more due to a high level of out-of-proportion scrutiny. You can tie any given politician to any given "scandal", but Hillary has had an unfair amount of it. The fact that Benghazi was under investigation more than the Twin Towers attack is very frightening.

Because of this unfair labeling, she has that disadvantage.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

You literally just argued that women shouldn't have a louder voice in discussions

Ad hominem is way too soft for this. This is plain lying.

you still refuse to admit you'll never completely "get"

Admitted maybe a dozen times. You just don't want to quote them.

i'm not getting in a quote fest

Yeah, you never really point out where people have actually said these things. I sure wonder why...

 

[chess-z]

Ad hominem is way too soft for this. This is plain lying.

Admitted maybe a dozen times. You just don't want to quote them.

Yeah, you never really point out where people have actually said these things. I sure wonder why...

What do you, Aegiscalbur, think of the two candidates that have a chance of getting in the office in this election, and how they stack up when compared to each other? Which one are you voting for? Why? Has any of the discussion influenced why you think that?

 

[GhostAnime]

He's not American.

I think for what it is, I think Bernie Sanders would have had a better turnout than Hillary in the overall election. He was popular towards newer voters, and he wasn't given such a polarizing caricature as Hillary Clinton.

But he'd be trading in a lot of that appeal for minority voters if you ask me.

Minority voters had a hard time going for Bernie for one, and there's no question the Republicans would slander him with the rape essay, socialism, and age bs just as much. He has less scandals but negative coverage wouldn't be too hard to find on the guy.

Also have to consider how much worse he'd do in some southern states or states that have more "centrist" politicians. I feel like it's a stretch to say Bernie would improve turnout overall. If he can't beat Clinton one-on-one, you can't argue he'd have it easier against Trump either. Youth turnout was still sub-par in democratic primaries. They aren't a voting bloc you want to hang your hat on... hence why he lost.

 

[Auraninja]

He's not American.



But he'd be trading in a lot of that appeal for minority voters if you ask me.

Minority voters had a hard time going for Bernie for one, and there's no question the Republicans would slander him with the rape essay, socialism, and age bs just as much. He has less scandals but negative coverage wouldn't be too hard to find on the guy.

Well, when both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama get cast as the new "shady figure", then there isn't much hope for the next Democrat.
There is something I would like for you to go into more detail. Would Trump be able to get more minority voters than Trump? I don't think Trump would get a minority increase. Ultimately, Hillary won because of minority appeal, but would they not vote for Sanders?

Also have to consider how much worse he'd do in some southern states or states that have more "centrist" politicians. I feel like it's a stretch to say Bernie would improve turnout overall. If he can't beat Clinton one-on-one, you can't argue he'd have it easier against Trump either. Youth turnout was still sub-par in democratic primaries. They aren't a voting bloc you want to hang your hat on... hence why he lost.

This is a good point. Hillary can get "neutral" votes.

 

[GhostAnime]

Well, when both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama get cast as the new "shady figure", then there isn't much hope for the next Democrat.

Pardon?

There is something I would like for you to go into more detail. Would Trump be able to get more minority voters than Trump? I don't think Trump would get a minority increase. Ultimately, Hillary won because of minority appeal, but would they not vote for Sanders?

I think you mean Bernie in which case, no, he wouldn't.

But the question is turnout; not whether he'd get most minority support of the candidates remaining. Would he draw in the more minority voters than Clinton? I'm not convinced if he couldn't in a primary.

 

[Auraninja]

Pardon?

I was a bit vague on that. I was basically concurring with you, adding that Democrats will be labelled by right-wing opposition no matter who they are.

But the question is turnout; not whether he'd get most minority support of the candidates remaining. Would he draw in the more minority voters than Clinton? I'm not convinced if he couldn't in a primary.

This seems to be an effect on the electoral college. There are plenty of Hispanic voters in Texas, but conservative ideology would traditionally yield a Republican. With Trump, I am not completely sure. There are a lot of people in Texas that would vote for him without thinking twice, but in the meantime, he wipes out minority respect, and some conservative ideologists find him too separated with their ideals. I guess Pence could help Trump with that, with his anti-gay stance, Trump could win quite a few "homophobic votes". Although, I think Ann Richards became Texas governor (Democrat and a woman) because of how inappropriate the governor was when musing about rape. Although, Texas has a problem with quality control, and so they end up voting for the Republican nominee that doesn't quite represent "right wing conservatism".

Back on track, though, the elecoral college is a strange beast where states can turn over from different candidates. What I agreed most with your argument is that Sanders would have a different anti-voter base in certain areas.

On a personal level, though, I vote for the Democrat because it is the most practical way to voice my virtues.

 

[bobjr]

Sanders probably would be doing the same in the general honestly. People really did avoid his flaws, and while the socialist attack has been worn out on Obama who knows how Americans would take it.

 

[The Admiral]

so when did aegiscalibur lose his marbles or at least stop trying to pretend he's a serious poster with actual views

It's basically 25 years of propaganda. It's like how everyone calls her a centrist despite her being further left than Bill and Joe Biden, and her and Obama are back and forth. She's only Centrist if she's not your perfect candidate, and a lot of Bernie Supporters overlooked his flaws.

Setting aside any flaws the candidates may or may not have, let's talk about campaigns for a moment: Bernie had a serious issue with not talking about race and LGBT issues enough. And certainly, I think that Bernie talking about certain economic issues did urge Hillary to bring those up. Or, as Bernie bros put it, she was playing follow the leader.

Some want to vote Trump the same reason they voted Bernie (anti-establishment).

If they can't overlook Trump's politics and refuse to hold their nose on the "establishment" thing, as opposed to on policy, do not believe in anything that Bernie was pushing for. In fact, I would question if they believe in anything other than this magical, somehow-meaningful "establishment vs. not establishment" barrier.

I think for what it is, I think Bernie Sanders would have had a better turnout than Hillary in the overall election. He was popular towards newer voters, and he wasn't given such a polarizing caricature as Hillary Clinton.

This is also because I don't think there are many Hillary supporters who would be like "Yeah, Trump seems like a perfectly reasonable alternative to someone who's not ~MY CANDIDATE~" -- and if they would, they truly believe in nothing.

The criminal nonsense is what gets me the most. Benghazi is a wash, or better known as the Republican Revenge Fantasy. Other ties to corruption are vague at best. Some alleged scandals are more due to a high level of out-of-proportion scrutiny. You can tie any given politician to any given "scandal", but Hillary has had an unfair amount of it. The fact that Benghazi was under investigation more than the Twin Towers attack is very frightening.

Because of this unfair labeling, she has that disadvantage.

The Benghazi incident happened, straight-up, 100%, no ******** here, because of budget cuts spearheaded by Republicans.

Sanders probably would be doing the same in the general honestly. People really did avoid his flaws, and while the socialist attack has been worn out on Obama who knows how Americans would take it.

Along these lines, briefly: I kind of wonder what would happen if you sat the people who complain about ~socialism~ down for ten minutes to tell them about the wonderful socialist benefits they enjoy. Like, for example, public libraries. (Didn't that goober Glenn Beck -- who has to be a performance artist -- say something about socialism that he claimed he proved during a visit to his public library? Granted, I heard this from my mom and I don't think she has ever watched or listened to his show outside of clips from The Daily Show, so /shrug)

 

[GhostAnime]

so when did aegiscalibur lose his marbles or at least stop trying to pretend he's a serious poster with actual views

when sarah palin was used an argument in a discussion about understanding women.

 

[Mordent99]

I'm starting to wonder why nobody simply has enough spine to call for this guy's arrest:

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/09/...-bodyguards-should-disarm-let-s-see/21473804/

This isn't even the first time.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

What do you, Aegiscalbur, think of the two candidates that have a chance of getting in the office in this election, and how they stack up when compared to each other? Which one are you voting for? Why? Has any of the discussion influenced why you think that?

I'm sorry, but could you just dig through the thread? I already talked about those things a lot.

 

[SBaby]

What do you, Aegiscalbur, think of the two candidates that have a chance of getting in the office in this election, and how they stack up when compared to each other? Which one are you voting for? Why? Has any of the discussion influenced why you think that?

I'll answer this, because the last question you ask here is really interesting. I don't like either candidate. Why? Because they're both terrible and I think either of them getting in office would be absolutely devastating for the US (it's just that each of them will be devastating in different ways).

And no, the 'discussions' (it is you that calls them discussions) have not changed my mind. In fact, I would be surprised if a single person's mind has ever been changed by a debate topic that's ever been on this site. There are studies that have shown that when someone believes something, no amount of debating will change their minds and any evidence that is contrary to what they believe just makes them even more resistant. And that's really all I want to say about that, because I don't want to be the cause of the 'discussion' going off topic.

 

[chess-z]

I'll answer this, because the last question you ask here is really interesting. I don't like either candidate. Why? Because they're both terrible and I think either of them getting in office would be absolutely devastating for the US (it's just that each of them will be devastating in different ways).

And no, the 'discussions' (it is you that calls them discussions) have not changed my mind. In fact, I would be surprised if a single person's mind has ever been changed by a debate topic that's ever been on this site. There are studies that have shown that when someone believes something, no amount of debating will change their minds and any evidence that is contrary to what they believe just makes them even more resistant. And that's really all I want to say about that, because I don't want to be the cause of the 'discussion' going off topic.

Thank you. In what ways would Hillary damage the US? How would Trump damage the US? If they ways that they would devastate the US are different is it logically valid to equate them? Do you believe that any of the candidates would be good for the US? Are you dragging up that entirely relevant (no sarcasm) bit of psychology just so that you won't have to discuss with us? Please answer, I am legitimately curious.

 

[Aegiscalibur]

so when did aegiscalibur lose his marbles or at least stop trying to pretend he's a serious poster with actual views

Well, excuse me for laughing at people's expense sometimes. Or do you take offence at the original argument or something?

when sarah palin was used an argument in a discussion about understanding women.

There are 4 billion women, and they disagree on things. They don't have a shared understanding of each other or a shared idea about what they should do.

 

[SBaby]

Thank you. In what ways would Hillary damage the US? How would Trump damage the US? If they ways that they would devastate the US are different is it logically valid to equate them? Do you believe that any of the candidates would be good for the US? Are you dragging up that entirely relevant (no sarcasm) bit of psychology just so that you won't have to discuss with us? Please answer, I am legitimately curious.

Yes, it is valid to equate them (in that neither of them are good candidates), because on one hand you've got someone that's going to severely damage the economy, and on another hand someone who's potentially going to destroy national security. America has already reaped the costs of each of these things happening in the past, and they're both devastating. If you have two different things that are both devastating and you have one person that wants to do one devastating thing and the other person wants to do the other devastating thing, then it stands to reason that neither of them are good choices to be leaders.

I personally don't believe either of the two candidates would be good for the US. But I will say that as long as the status quo remains what it is in the government, it would be very difficult to find the right candidate for this era.

It's not a 'bit' of psychology. There were entire studies done on the subject. This is a known fundamental fact of the human thought process. People that believe strongly enough in something are not going to change their beliefs if presented with contrary evidence. I just don't want to get into too much discussion about it here, because I don't want the topic derailed as a result. I only mentioned it to answer your previous question. The short version of it though is that debates generally don't change people's minds.

 

[chess-z]

Yes, it is valid to equate them (in that neither of them are good candidates), because on one hand you've got someone that's going to severely damage the economy, and on another hand someone who's potentially going to destroy national security. America has already reaped the costs of each of these things happening in the past, and they're both devastating. If you have two different things that are both devastating and you have one person that wants to do one devastating thing and the other person wants to do the other devastating thing, then it stands to reason that neither of them are good choices to be leaders.

I personally don't believe either of the two candidates would be good for the US. But I will say that as long as the status quo remains what it is in the government, it would be very difficult to find the right candidate for this era.

It's not a 'bit' of psychology. There were entire studies done on the subject. This is a known fundamental fact of the human thought process. People that believe strongly enough in something are not going to change their beliefs if presented with contrary evidence. I just don't want to get into too much discussion about it here, because I don't want the topic derailed as a result. I only mentioned it to answer your previous question. The short version of it though is that debates generally don't change people's minds.

Thanks for the reply again. I don't mean to be insolent, but could I have sources on Hillary destroying the economy/national security (I couldn't tell which one you meant for Hillary)? I just want to understand how you're forming your opinions and what evidence you have to back them.

I understand that it's a well researched phenomenon, and I didn't mean to undercut its validity by using semi-casual language, but you didn't answer my question. Again, I almost never mean offence so tell me what you think.