What are you all arguing for?
- Thread starter hunkgolden
- Start date
Yeah I'd take it a step further, what would be appealing to me is a presidential candidate who recognizes that the U.S. has an immoral, embarrassing, and costly incarceration rate, not to mention a criminal justice system that tends to be racially discriminatory in its application. Between Nixon's War on Drugs and the Clintons' 1994 crime bill, this has been a decades-long bipartisan effort. It's tempting to credit the reduction in crime with tougher laws and sentences, but crime is falling globally, even in countries whose incarceration rate is falling, so it's unclear that correlation is causation.
This is just one reason why I will be voting libertarian. It's seemingly the only party that is interested in this issue, and the libertarian stance should be highly appealing to voters in those targeted groups (mainly blacks and hispanics, and just poor people). On the other hand I suspect Trump would like to double-down on our current criminal justice system, and for Hillary, it's just a really uncomfortable discussion to have, and I think she'd rather avoid the topic altogether if possible.
Didn't read the whole thing, but the issue is a sever lack of leadership. I mean leaders who sincerely are worried about the people, the nation. You think Weimar was bad, you think tsarist Russia was bad, when it comes to a lack of political leadership and vision, we are worse off.
We have strong leaders, don't get me wrong, leaders who know how to convince us of what's in our best interest and are paid handsomely by a handful of people to say it, paid by those people who also control the "media" boogie man.
That's the problem, the "media" and politicians only work for a segment of society few of us will ever be a part, funny how the media they control constantly tells us how inefficient government is, how liberal the media is yet that same government has made sure they suffered no losses for their foolish behavior and the media has done nothing but tell us about the poor.
News media makes us believe corporate America is our savior along with also making us believe that there is a real differance between the two parties, that they care about "us" dependent on which side we are on, while Hollywood and the continual noise of advertisements keeps us all believing America is still the home of Horatio Alger.
You obviously aren't watching CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN Headline News, Comedy Central, and etc. These stations rarely discuss government inefficiencies and never paint corporate America in a positive light.
Riiight, they play to the same nonsense, noise, that your beloved conservative media does. Let me ask, how many culpable banking/Wall Street excts has Fox spotlighted?
I don't see many of you Fox guys on here spouting much of anything other than Carter, CRA, as the reason behind the crisis. And before we have to rehash it, at the time CRA loans were performing on par with prime loans. and the Mae's weren't allowed to take subprime loans on their books.
Some thoughts on this post-
Fox Business news had people on their station right when they aired in 07 that discussed this topic about the leveraging(possibly an issue), packaging securities with bad debt/loans, cds, and derivatives, and the direction it was heading. Before FBN started I remember Brit Hume and another anchor I cannot remember covering it as well on FNC. This information allowed me to be set up really well and even more fortunate than I already was. And guess what? They were doing that with Bush, a Republican in office. Simply put, the other news stations simply do not seem tor critique a Democrat, and that is why they are worthless.
-As for Mae and Mac not diving into the subprime market not exactly true. They tried to expand in 06 and 07 after losing market share and ended up investing in it. They claim they did not know it was subprime or ALT-A or whatever term one wants to use. I call bs-if someone like me could figure some of this crap out, surely government insiders and industry experts knew.(In link third paragraph under #2)
https://www.americanprogress.org/is...eed-to-know-about-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/
-Not sure anyone really knows the complete culprit for what actually happened. I think it is mainly tied to deregulation under Clinton which Republicans voted for and and I fault Bush for not sticking to his guns/going more public about all the warning he sent to congress. The info was out there though for one to use to their advantage.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...rds-show-he-warned-congress-17-in-2008-alone/
And it all comes back to did Bush or Obama or any other politician go after bankers? The answer is no. And one does not have to be a genius to figure out why. They were all in on it.
Yeah, smart. Vote Libertarian and hand Trump the presidency who has no clue what the f he is doing.
Can hate Hilary all you want, but at least she has been apart of the government and knows what the hell is going on.
Interesting but certainly not a novel take. Perhaps you have heard of Ralph Nader and a presidential bid.
Nader hurt gore, wouldn't Johnson take votes away from trump more than Clinton?
I thought it was opposite of what was posted above.
Unclear as the far right and far left almost end up meeting together on some issues. I'd guess it would hurt trump more but it's not a guarantee.
New Reuters poll shows Hillary up 6 but tied when you add in Johnson and Stein, and Stein only gets 1 percent so clearly Johnson hurts her in that poll
Last edited:
Perhaps, however Stein has been polling higher lately and is a Greenie as was Nader.
(Earlier error corrected)
Last edited:
My point, not so artfully worded, was while Johnson may take votes from each, Stein will take far more proportionally from Clinton and her numbers have increased significantly from 2012.
Well Reuters makes clear in that poll it's almost all Johnson taking away from her not Stein.
FYI, RealClearPolitics is a good source of information on polls (usually with links to internals).
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
There's also a PPP poll out today that has Clinton up 5 points. When all 4 candidates are included, still up 5 - both candidates lose 4%. This poll was taken on just Friday and Saturday. I find PPP polls interesting because they cover a lot of issues in their polls. Interesting of note, a majority of Americans say they'd be less likely to vote for someone if they perceived Russia as trying to help them. This is obviously a very complicated issue though. 60%+ of independents think Trump needs to release his taxes, including 30% of his own supporters and 75% of undecideds. And of course, 33% of Trump supporters think Hillary Clinton has ties to lucifer! haha
I find the Reuters/Ipsos poll presents a somewhat confusing picture to me, and makes it clear why one has to take the margin of error seriously.
Their Clinton/Trump "One on One" poll and Clinton/Trump/Johnson/Stein "4 Candidate" poll were to different groups apparently, given the differing response sizes.
It seems that apart from margin of error considerations, one can't really reconcile the two as to Trump since the "One on One" model shows 35% of likely voters would vote for Trump, but the "Four Candidate" poll shows 37% of likely voters would vote for Trump.
Even more bizarrely, in the "One on One" poll 70% of Repubs would vote for Trump, but in the "4 Candidate" poll 72% of Republicans would vote Trump.
The Clinton figures make sense going from 40% to 37% of likely voter support and 75% to 72% of Dems as the field size widens.
Their Clinton/Trump "One on One" poll and Clinton/Trump/Johnson/Stein "4 Candidate" poll were to different groups apparently, given the differing response sizes.
It seems that apart from margin of error considerations, one can't really reconcile the two as to Trump since the "One on One" model shows 35% of likely voters would vote for Trump, but the "Four Candidate" poll shows 37% of likely voters would vote for Trump.
Even more bizarrely, in the "One on One" poll 70% of Repubs would vote for Trump, but in the "4 Candidate" poll 72% of Republicans would vote Trump.
The Clinton figures make sense going from 40% to 37% of likely voter support and 75% to 72% of Dems as the field size widens.
I would agree that in raw numbers that may be true, but I'm not sure that Stein doesn't hurt more since Johnson also takes many votes from Trump as well. Proportionately, it looks to me that Stein is far more negative for Clinton.
Stein isn't breaking more than 1-3 percent in nearly every poll...so how is she hurting Clinton? Most of those folks weren't ever going to vote for Clinton and almost never vote Dem anyways.
It's not a lost vote, it's a vote that would never be gotten. Johnson votes are more likely to be people who might vote for one side or the other but go for Johnson because their pet issue happens to fall in line with him either on the left or right of the issues.
Why do you believe that Johnson voters would be so much surer to vote in a 2 party race than Stein voters?
Why do you believe that Stein voters almost never vote Dem, particularly if there is no Green alternative?
Those positions just don't make sense to me.
Why do you believe that Stein voters almost never vote Dem, particularly if there is no Green alternative?
Those positions just don't make sense to me.
Because Green Party folks almost never vote Dem. Because Naderites almost never vote Dem. Stein voters are folks who think Obama is a "neoliberal" and a sell-out. No one is ever liberal enough for them. They are the hardcore left, just like the hardcore libertarian right almost never vote Rep.
It's not a difficult concept.
Similar threads
