Are American voters really stupid?

Yggr of Asgard · 06-11-2016 06:34PM

The best that can happen is that that 3rd party candidates get enough electors to stop either of them getting 270 with the house than electing someone.

Wompa1 · 06-11-2016 09:08PM

Yggr of Asgard wrote: »

The best that can happen is that that 3rd party candidates get enough electors to stop either of them getting 270 with the house than electing someone.

As someone over here and who does have a vote, that's been my thinking for the last couple of elections. I've voted third party just so they could break 5% of the vote. I don't particularly like Gary Johnson or the libertarian horsesh1t.

This year I think I will begrudgingly vote for Clinton. The media may be blowing smoke about the poll numbers but can't risk it.

This is a pretty f*cked up country.

Yggr of Asgard · 06-11-2016 09:42PM

Wompa1 wrote: »

As someone over here and who does have a vote, that's been my thinking for the last couple of elections. I've voted third party just so they could break 5% of the vote. I don't particularly like Gary Johnson or the libertarian horsesh1t.

This year I think I will begrudgingly vote for Clinton. The media may be blowing smoke about the poll numbers but can't risk it.

This is a pretty f*cked up country.

Giving that beside Maine and Nebraska all states electors will go to the candidate with the most votes the only hope is that at least in one state people vote for Johnson or Stein in enough numbers to beat Trump/Clinton as unrealistic as that is.

The media does have an interest to make this as tight of a race as possible so that they can get maximum ad revenue on election night. This is why they are so happy about the late breaking news about either candidate and try to avoid giving the impression that it's done and dusted.

The problem is that these days most of the media has no interest in reporting news but only wants to sell ads via infotainment and that the last remaining outposts of real journalism are fighting a loosing battle.

The best one can do is to actually buy a newspaper subscription to help actually investigative journalism which will be needed even more independent if Trump or Clinton wins.

However I maintain the position that most American's don't actually care about the facts when it comes to the election, they vote what they feel like and in this case for the lesser of two evils. Facts have no place in this election.

In addition most people don't even understand the election system, they think they vote for a president on Tuesday, which they don't. I bet if you go and ask most of them don't even know that they vote electors for the electoral college.

The only hope is that none of the candidates get's 270 and we get someone elected by the house (in what ever shape it comes back).

BalcombeSt4 · 06-11-2016 09:58PM

VladamirP wrote: »

With a few days to go in the presidential race for the USA, I'm thinking to myself are yankee's really that thick to be cattle herded into a 2 vote system (I know theres more canditates,but!), a country with 300+ million people, and they get to choose between donald and hillary, 2 azzholes.

I don't know if it's intentional or not but US politics has turned upside down, it was always corrupt, but now it's taken a stranger twist, CNN V's Fox, all establishment establishment's but are they doing a Freud on the dumb people of America, which is a good proportion of the non natives.

I don't this agree with this but were not much better. When was the last time a non Irish civil war party in the South formed either a majority or a coalition government? Same in Britain with Labour & Tories, I think it was 1918 the Liberals were able to form a coalition governmen. Up North even with all the GFA reforms it's still basically a 1 party state a Unionist party has never been out of government since the formation of the Northern Ireland statelet just the DUP has replaced the UUP, there will likely never be a Nationalist majority party up North in gov.

BorneTobyWilde · 06-11-2016 10:27PM

Looking like a huge cover up as we were told this investigation would take months. This is what the experts said. Could take months and months.
The fact she hid this device is enough for me. Must have been huge revelations in these emails, stuff that tied in people right at the top.
The Comey letter with his use of many big words used where there was no need, reads like a letter wrote by a man with something to lose if he did not write it.

Discodog · 07-11-2016 10:17AM

FBI now say that Clinton will face no charges. Hopefully the FBI will.

gramar · 07-11-2016 10:23AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I thought this would be the election where a third party candidate could enter the ring as a legitimate contender.

There is so much division and strife in the two establishment parties, it's obvious that sizeable sections of each dislike their nominated candidate.

Didn't happen though.

If you saw the other 'candidates' you'd realise why they aren't contenders. Just take a look at this fella....... .

Yggr of Asgard · 07-11-2016 10:52AM

Discodog wrote: »

FBI now say that Clinton will face no charges. Hopefully the FBI will.

For what attempting to do their job?

The FBI is not saying she will not face charges (until hopefully some grand jury somewhere shows her what people power is), they are saying that the newly discovered e-mails will not change the original (controversial) decision.

How they reviewed the e-mails found on Mr. Wieners laptop so quickly beside possible a quick key word search is beyond me, but it's what they claim.

The FBI director just covered his bases when he informed congress, giving how congress in the past help people in contempt and went after people they perceived to have lied under oath. I would have done the same. The guy served his masters (be it republican or democratic) for years, any suggestion he has done it to help Trump is stupid. He is intelligent enough to understand that the average American does not care and no undecided voter is going to vote Trump just because there are some new e-mails.

The average American voter has made up their mind long ago and it's either Trump or Hillary or "nobody". And nobody is bad because it might result in the down ballot races (be it house/senate or ballet initiatives) because those will be effected by the die hard voters only and might lead into a shift that is bad for the country.

The big unknown this time around is the religious voter because for the first time during the cycle the religion of candidates beside some minor questions has not really been that of a big player like in the past. And both of them don't really hold positions that are sitting well with the southern Baptists or other faith groups. If they fail to show up, than the republican's in congress will have a hard time to retain house/senate.

Most American voters don't really care much about politics anyhow, they go elect who they think is best for them even if in reality the candidates policy might not do that or it's clear that the candidate will flip flop once the election is done.

The vote on Tuesday will not be the final word in the election cycle, not only with either side having trouble to accept the possible outcome, but also it not being clear if all of the electors actually going to vote for the candidate their local result says they should.

Fact is who ever will be elected on 19 December will have a difficult job overcoming the now more than ever divide, satisfy their own fractured base and at the same time try to manage the challenges of an ever failing infrastructure and a police state.

Discodog · 07-11-2016 11:15AM

Yggr of Asgard wrote: »

For what attempting to do their job?

The FBI is not saying she will not face charges (until hopefully some grand jury somewhere shows her what people power is), they are saying that the newly discovered e-mails will not change the original (controversial) decision.

How they reviewed the e-mails found on Mr. Wieners laptop so quickly beside possible a quick key word search is beyond me, but it's what they claim.

The FBI director just covered his bases when he informed congress, giving how congress in the past help people in contempt and went after people they perceived to have lied under oath. I would have done the same. The guy served his masters (be it republican or democratic) for years, any suggestion he has done it to help Trump is stupid. He is intelligent enough to understand that the average American does not care and no undecided voter is going to vote Trump just because there are some new e-mails.

The average American voter has made up their mind long ago and it's either Trump or Hillary or "nobody". And nobody is bad because it might result in the down ballot races (be it house/senate or ballet initiatives) because those will be effected by the die hard voters only and might lead into a shift that is bad for the country.

The big unknown this time around is the religious voter because for the first time during the cycle the religion of candidates beside some minor questions has not really been that of a big player like in the past. And both of them don't really hold positions that are sitting well with the southern Baptists or other faith groups. If they fail to show up, than the republican's in congress will have a hard time to retain house/senate.

Most American voters don't really care much about politics anyhow, they go elect who they think is best for them even if in reality the candidates policy might not do that or it's clear that the candidate will flip flop once the election is done.

The vote on Tuesday will not be the final word in the election cycle, not only with either side having trouble to accept the possible outcome, but also it not being clear if all of the electors actually going to vote for the candidate their local result says they should.

Fact is who ever will be elected on 19 December will have a difficult job overcoming the now more than ever divide, satisfy their own fractured base and at the same time try to manage the challenges of an ever failing infrastructure and a police state.

The FBI blatantly tried to influence a Presidential election. That is streets ahead of anything that Clinton has ever done. Trump has torn American apart.

Yggr of Asgard · 07-11-2016 11:27AM

Discodog wrote: »

The FBI blatantly tried to influence a Presidential election. That is streets ahead of anything that Clinton has ever done. Trump has torn American apart.

I disagree, if the FBI would have tried to influence the election really than they would have found a republican leaning us attorney, went for a grand jury and attempted to get her indicted, if possible even under seal due to the fact that classified information is involved. That would not only being doing their job, that would have been influencing the election.

Simply informing congress about the fact that they have found additional new e-mails of her on a laptop of a person that should have not had access to those e-mails in the first place is doing their job. The FBI for month now has told congress, that their investigation was above board and the outcome is justified. When getting new information it's their job to tell them.

As quick as they told congress they told than that their decision has not changed and that storm in a tea cup was over.

Do you really believe that the FBI director is a fan of Trump and is stupid enough to think that so short to election day people are going to run to Trump because of HRC e-mails?

Plus the e-mails recently released clearly show that HRC was the one trying to influence presidential elections by colluding with the DNC to cheat Senator Sanders out of his chances to run. So to accuse the FBI of manipulation from a HRC fan is really funny to see.

ligerdub · 07-11-2016 11:42AM

Discodog wrote: »

The FBI blatantly tried to influence a Presidential election. That is streets ahead of anything that Clinton has ever done. Trump has torn American apart.

Donald is being blamed for pretty much everything these days. This tops it off for me, hilarious!

AlanG · 07-11-2016 11:50AM

The US 2 party system has a lot of flaws but it does produce decisive leadership where everyone knows who is responsible for things. As a result they have been by far the most successful large country of the past 100 years.
We have an extremely representative political system and everyone give out about the local nature of it and how we cant get anything done.

Yggr of Asgard · 07-11-2016 11:51AM

ligerdub wrote: »

Donald is being blamed for pretty much everything these days. This tops it off for me, hilarious!

This is the problem with American politics and the average American voter, both sides are entrenched and either side is blaming the other for anything that remotely could negatively influence the election in the most minute part.

Unfortunately American politics is a personality cult these days (on both sides) and no longer about the issues. If it would be about the issues (and there are plenty) than other candidates would have been chosen and the election would have been better.

Yes it always was more a person than platform choice but this year is extreme with 2 completely polarizing candidates running on a platform they nobody believes they have an interest in actually implementing.

And there we come back to the original question, are American voters really that stupid and the answer is yes.

America has big challenges (infrastructure, debt, jobs, education to name a few) and because it's about personality not platform framed in 2 side battle there will be no real change ever unless we get a consensus candidate who can work with the center of both parties.

The best that can happen is for the center of both parties to split off the existing parties and form a new party that represents what is still good about America and get's the job done.

ligerdub · 07-11-2016 12:02PM

AlanG wrote: »

The US 2 party system has a lot of flaws but it does produce decisive leadership where everyone knows who is responsible for things. As a result they have been by far the most successful large country of the past 100 years.

We have an extremely representative political system and everyone give out about the local nature of it and how we cant get anything done.

I don't think the success of their economy has much to do with their head of state.

Yggr of Asgard · 07-11-2016 12:11PM

AlanG wrote: »

The US 2 party system has a lot of flaws but it does produce decisive leadership where everyone knows who is responsible for things. As a result they have been by far the most successful large country of the past 100 years.
We have an extremely representative political system and everyone give out about the local nature of it and how we cant get anything done.

How do you measure successful?

Believing to be number 1 in everything while in reality, bridges are crumbling, the education system is producing one of the worst educated people in the world, an overprized healthcare system in crisis or an ever growing empire that nobody can afford anymore?

The president does not create jobs (well beside the jobs program and Ponzi scheme that is national security) jobs are created by private business while all 3 branches of government setting standards and guidelines that allow that businesses to grow and create jobs.

The president should set policy based on their parties platform with the help of congress to set the standards for the country and work to the common good of everybody.

ligerdub · 07-11-2016 12:18PM

Yggr of Asgard wrote: »

How do you measure successful?

Believing to be number 1 in everything while in reality, bridges are crumbling, the education system is producing one of the worst educated people in the world, an overprized healthcare system in crisis or an ever growing empire that nobody can afford anymore?

The president does not create jobs (well beside the jobs program and Ponzi scheme that is national security) jobs are created by private business while all 3 branches of government setting standards and guidelines that allow that businesses to grow and create jobs.

The president should set policy based on their parties platform with the help of congress to set the standards for the country and work to the common good of everybody.

Exactly. The States are #1 in marketing and bluster.

Discodog · 07-11-2016 02:33PM

ligerdub wrote: »

Donald is being blamed for pretty much everything these days. This tops it off for me, hilarious!

Wait until one of the women that he molested agrees to give evidence. Lock him up.

Yggr of Asgard · 07-11-2016 02:43PM

Discodog wrote: »

Wait until one of the women that he molested agrees to give evidence. Lock him up.

And than I'm sure the judicial system will work just fine. A jury will for sure determine his guilt or innocent. That is because this will see than either a civil or criminal trial.

Unlike HRC where it was a political decision not to pursue what other went to jail for.

ligerdub · 07-11-2016 02:55PM

Discodog wrote: »

Wait until one of the women that he molested agrees to give evidence. Lock him up.

Funnily enough we are all waiting on that one, waiting indeed. It seems the standard bearer to disrupt a man's career is to throw a rape accusation at him, not a conviction, an accusation.

Assumption of guilt there, excellent.

osarusan · 07-11-2016 03:12PM

VladamirP wrote: »

Another murder/suicide connected to Clinton.

FBI AGENT SUSPECTED IN HILLARY EMAIL LEAKS FOUND DEAD IN APPARENT MURDER-SUICIDE
http://denverguardian.com/2016/11/05/fbi-agent-suspected-hillary-email-leaks-found-dead-apparent-murder-suicide/

http://www.snopes.com/fbi-agent-murder-suicide/

There was no truth to this story. The Denver Guardian is simply a fake news web site masquerading as the online arm of a (non-existent) big city newspaper. Like the Baltimore Gazette, the Denver Guardian is nothing more than a hastily thrown together web site with a bunch of non-working links and a fake street address, all created for the sole purpose of disseminating fabricated clickbait news stories.

sesswhat · 07-11-2016 03:16PM

VladamirP wrote: »

they get to choose between donald and hillary, 2 azzholes.

Why choose, bring in a system like in NI, where you get two numpys for the price of one.

AlanG · 07-11-2016 03:20PM

Yggr of Asgard wrote: »

How do you measure successful?

Success, In the last 100 years :

They got most benefit from two wars that destroyed large parts of the population and infrastructure in all other developed countries on earth while the US lost relatively few men .
They implemented the Marshall plan and the rebuilding of Japan after WWII. no other victor in a major war ever did such a thing and the US voluntarily gave up the occupation of the land they defeated.
Unlike most major countries they have had no major famines in the last 200 years.
Unlike most major countries they have had only very limited internment (without trial)of citizens over the past 100 years.
It is the country most emigrants from less developed countries would go to if they had a chance.
They have protected massive parts of their nation as nature reserves.
For most of the last 100 years they have led the world in technology and science
For most of the last 100 years they have created the most popular cultural products on earth.
Many states have very good medical facilities available to all residents.
The people of Puerto Rico have requested to be made the 51st state.

It's not a perfect country but their balance of democracy and a decisive political system has given them a distinct advantage over most other countries in recent history.
I am not saying i agree with it but it has served them well and I see why American voters support the system.

AlanG · 07-11-2016 03:27PM

Yggr of Asgard wrote: »

How do you measure successful?

Believing to be number 1 in everything while in reality, bridges are crumbling, the education system is producing one of the worst educated people in the world, an overprized healthcare system in crisis or an ever growing empire that nobody can afford anymore?

Can you name a more successful large country in the past 100 years, by any criteria that voters care about?

Canada and Australia come close but neither have had large populations and both have sought the military protection of the US.

ligerdub · 07-11-2016 03:39PM

None of your points make reference to the lives of people living in the United States and how it is for them there, or indeed how they rank compared to other nations of the world?

It also does not consider the reasons for it, or perhaps if they achieved this in an ethical manner.

As a final point, it does not give a reason why it is the head of state that is responsible for it.

Yggr of Asgard · 07-11-2016 03:41PM

AlanG wrote: »

Can you name a more successful large country in the past 100 years, by any criteria that voters care about?

Canada and Australia come close but neither have had large populations and both have sought the military protection of the US.

I am not disputing that the US has been successful in the past but if you look at the current state of play you can't argue that the US has severe problems and other countries have way better records in several other areas.

And you are nailing it with "by any criteria that voters care about?" because due to the current condition of the 2 party system, money in politics and more important media the voters are not getting the full picture.

The average voter is voting how they feel, even if it's going against their own interest because the choice is limited to 2 candidates rather than looking at the policies. Most people vote for the candidate they believe in with it currently being a freak show with a personality cult.

Do you really believe that HRC is going to try to implement the democratic platform she is supposed to implement, even if the dems get house/senate. She is not, she just said those things to get elected.

Do you believe that Trump is going to be able to push his agenda (what ever that is) through house/senate if it stays republican? He is going to become brand US ambassador and leave the work to his VP.

Yggr of Asgard · 07-11-2016 03:49PM

AlanG wrote: »

Unlike most major countries they have had only very limited internment of citizens over the past 100 years.

Managed to privatize prisons with now 698 of 100,000 people in jail and you call that very limited?

Sonics2k · 07-11-2016 03:55PM

So, this is a very real and actual question for those who would vote for Trump, or even those who actually will vote for Trump if they are American.

Do you actually believe that this man has your interests in mind at all? A man who actively been making things up, has claimed bankruptcy numerous times and refused to release his tax records.

Do you really and truly believe, that Donald Trump actually gives a flying toss about the American people. A man who so far has not said any of his policies, his foreign plans, his economic plans. He just keeps saying "Trust me, it's gonna be great."

I'm no fan of Hilary either mind.

AlanG · 07-11-2016 04:00PM

ligerdub wrote: »

None of your points make reference to the lives of people living in the United States and how it is for them there, or indeed how they rank compared to other nations of the world?
As a final point, it does not give a reason why it is the head of state that is responsible for it.

Lots of the points impact on the peoples lives within the USA - food supply, technology, political stability etc.

My point is that while the choice this time is really poor their system has been remarkably successful. This is one of the most ethnically, physically and culturally diverse countries in the world and yet they have not had a crises that presented a major threat to their nation since the civil war.
(with the possible exception of the last Trump like president - JFK who brought on the Cuban missile crises for no good reason, a topic for another thread)

The OP asked if American voters are dumb - I know a lot of middle Americans and most see things like you - the country has been very successful but not so much lately. The middle class is being eroded and Trump offers hope, HRC offers more of the same. I don't support Trump but I see why smart people vote for him. Voting for him is a middle aged Occupy Wall Street movement, may not have an alternative but they know they don't want more of the same.

paralysed · 07-11-2016 04:02PM

Made my first trip to paddy power today to put down €40 on Hillary. I've been thinking to myself, "I know Americans headstrong and easily manipulated, but they're unlikely to be this stupid". There's simply not enough uneducated white men - or "angry white men" as I've been hearing the Irish media say!

The lady behind the counter said something about some republican house having approve the voter's decision, and that since it's republican, they won't let Clinton in, and that therefore Gary Johnson could actually win. Her saying this confused me a bit, but I put my €40 on Hill nonetheless. Odds for Gary Johnson were 500/1 though!

AlanG · 07-11-2016 04:02PM

Yggr of Asgard wrote: »

Managed to privatize prisons with now 698 of 100,000 people in jail and you call that very limited?

Sorry, i meant internment without trial like has occurred on a large scale over the last 100 years in British, Russian, Japanese, German, Chinese lands and several other areas.

Are American voters really stupid?

Comments