the image is nice, but I'm honestly disgusted by the fact that both ISIS and China are using trump as an example to explain what all Americans are like and are pretty much using that as a rallying call

Zero_00 said:

the image is nice, but I'm honestly disgusted by the fact that both ISIS and China are using trump as an example to explain what all Americans are like and are pretty much using that as a rallying call

Well... the fact that he seems to be getting so many voters and support is... troubling sign for many countries and people outside of the US. Sure, he promises jobs, but a lot of the things he says are "somewhat" disagreeable.

Ironically I do actually agree with some of his extreme opinions, just not the way he plans to execute them.

But still, the fact that there are so many in the US that are voting for him makes it very easy for the outside world to say "Here we can literally see how big percentage of the US are idiots."

Not saying that it is true, a lot of his votes comes due to him promising stable jobs for people. But still, the fact that he is the likeliest candidate to win is a strong statement to the outside world that the US has some serious issues.

Zero_00 said:

the image is nice, but I'm honestly disgusted by the fact that both ISIS and China are using trump as an example to explain what all Americans are like and are pretty much using that as a rallying call

You're truly daft if you think only terrorist cells and America's international superpower rivals are using him to laugh at the US. Here in Britain, there's no end to the astonished commentary on the dimness of some Americans to choose a buffoon like that.

sleath56 said:

You're truly daft if you think only terrorist cells and America's international superpower rivals are using him to laugh at the US. Here in Britain, there's no end to the astonished commentary on the dimness of some Americans to choose a buffoon like that.

A lot of us here are now resigned to the fact that we're going to be stuck with either the Trump Bombpop or Clinton Shitcicle, and of the two choices, Trump is, unfortunately, the better option. I'm rather disturbed that we have THOSE two as our only viable options, and don't really want to vote come November.

Gundaago said:

A lot of us here are now resigned to the fact that we're going to be stuck with either the Trump Bombpop or Clinton Shitcicle, and of the two choices, Trump is, unfortunately, the better option. I'm rather disturbed that we have THOSE two as our only viable options, and don't really want to vote come November.

I'm genuinely curious - if you have to choose between awful and awful, aren't there any independent candidates worth considering? I don't really follow US politics, but some time ago I heard Bloomberg will run as an independent, and he probably won't be the only one to.

Type-kun said:
I'm genuinely curious - if you have to choose between awful and awful, aren't there any independent candidates worth considering? I don't really follow US politics, but some time ago I heard Bloomberg will run as an independent, and he probably won't be the only one to.

The problem is that independents will just NEVER WIN. Because the Political system has always been a "2 man"(or in this case 2 person now) system. "That third guy" just never wins. And old habits are hard to break, especially on a national level.

Another thing to think about is advertisement. The Independents just don't have as much money to throw around on smeer campaings as the 2 Juggernauts do every election year.

Tetsamaru said:

Another thing to think about is advertisement. The Independents just don't have as much money to throw around on smeer campaings as the 2 Juggernauts do every election year.

Well, I was under impression than independents are usually quite wealthy. Also, everything this third one will need to do is to emphasize "just look at the other two options, and choose a normal one instead" in his campaign :3

Type-kun said:

Well, I was under impression than independents are usually quite wealthy. Also, everything this third one will need to do is to emphasize "just look at the other two options, and choose a normal one instead" in his campaign :3

Independents tend to swing things not by trying to secure a nomination, but taking enough voters in key areas to deny a candidate victory when things are extremely tight. It was why Pierot ran his campaign.

as far as Trump goes, this is the most on the fence I've been. You have The absolute corruption of the democrats with their super-delegates, and the complete disconnect in the republican party between the leadership and the base. Bbetween the two, Trump getting elected at least is such a shock to the system that it will force something.

Also an independent isn't able to rely on the infastructure set in place to the two parties. Especially in the 1800s, the political machines are what got people elected.

Zero_00 said:

the image is nice, but I'm honestly disgusted by the fact that both ISIS and China are using trump as an example to explain what all Americans are like and are pretty much using that as a rallying call

>ISIS

I am pretty sure ISIS is so out of touch with reality that them conflating americans with trump is the closest to being accurate statement they have made about america.

Saladofstones said:

You have The absolute corruption of the democrats with their super-delegates [...]

Given that since its inception they have always sided with who led in pledge candidates, I don't see how this anything but an unsubstantiated claim at this current point in time. Although they really should shut up about who they're supporting until the actual convention, since they're just going to side with the popular vote anyway.

If anything is corrupt it seems quite clear it's allowing states to use caucuses instead of primaries. Any system where voting is not private is a poor system to use.

Type-kun said:

I'm genuinely curious - if you have to choose between awful and awful, aren't there any independent candidates worth considering? I don't really follow US politics, but some time ago I heard Bloomberg will run as an independent, and he probably won't be the only one to.

The big two parties tend to absorb issues from Third Parties once they reach a certain mainstream threshold, as the big two try and stay relevant to voters. This tends to deflate the power of third parties as well as make third parties more narrowly focused on just a few issues, and usually composed of less mainstream or less popular stances on those issues. As such they tend to be less appealing to the majority at large, which in turn means they get a lot less money to standout and raise their issues.

There are also other issues at play here that may encourage people to vote for one of the big two as opposed to a third party, such as filling the Supreme Court vacancy. Whoever becomes President gets to nominate who fills that vacancy and will likely impact issues for decades to come (Supreme Court Justices are in for life), choosing to prevent a President you know will put someone that will hinder efforts you support becomes that much more important than voting on who you want to be President.

NWF_Renim said:

There are also other issues at play here that may encourage people to vote for one of the big two as opposed to a third party, such as filling the Supreme Court vacancy. Whoever becomes President gets to nominate who fills that vacancy and will likely impact issues for decades to come (Supreme Court Justices are in for life), choosing to prevent a President you know will put someone that will hinder efforts you support becomes that much more important than voting on who you want to be President.

Oh, that explains some things. So people will vote to protect their party of choice rather than to elect a president as a person. Unusual for me, but if things are generally controlled by two parties rather than a president himself, it makes sense.

Also, is that Ea in Trump's hand?

Type-kun said:

Also, is that Ea in Trump's hand?

Yup. The Pacific crew have basically drawn Trump as Gilgamesh (Fate)

NWF_Renim said:
Given that since its inception they have always sided with who led in pledge candidates, I don't see how this anything but an unsubstantiated claim at this current point in time. Although they really should shut up about who they're supporting until the actual convention, since they're just going to side with the popular vote anyway.

If anything is corrupt it seems quite clear it's allowing states to use caucuses instead of primaries. Any system where voting is not private is a poor system to use.

I am still bothered by the "keeping populist movements" out line, especially considering its already admist issues regarding the system.

The whole idea of super-delegates is something I am against

Actually, the biggest blockade to a true independent candidate in American presidential politics is the state election rules. Each state has their own rules with registration deadlines usually several months in advance of the general election. This makes it hard to create a new ticket, forcing people that want to run as a 3rd party to either have the money and political machinery going way ahead of the general election, or to hop on another existing ticket each with their own set of baggage (e.g. Libertarian Party, Green Party, etc).

http://usuncut.com/politics/dnc-email-leak-exposes-bias/

Well, while the DNC leaks are still ongoing, does seem to indicate that the system was being stacked against the Bern

Nice i wish that was real.

frak you commies.

MAGA COUNTRY, BITCHES!!!