who would you have voted for if you could re-cast a vote for the US 2016 election

[Guest]

On 4/21/2017 at 10:57 PM, servo75 said:

I'd definitely consider Libertarian in 2020, if they put up someone like Austin Petersen or Rand Paul.

I liked Petersen in the Libertarian primaries. I watched the first televised debate live - that's what caused me to go from lukewarm interest in Johnson to supporting Petersen. I don't agree with all of his views. But Petersen was articulate, smart, and knew what he was talking about. (PI attributes for him are pretty much a joke.) I think Petersen would have started off with less support than Johnson, but unlike Johnson, Petersen's support would have grown the more people heard about him. Johnson was a complete embarrassment for the LP and squandered the perfect chance at getting 5% or even getting into the debates.

[jvikings1 40]

43 minutes ago, SirLagsalott said:

I liked Petersen in the Libertarian primaries. I watched the first televised debate live - that's what caused me to go from lukewarm interest in Johnson to supporting Petersen. I don't agree with all of his views. But Petersen was articulate, smart, and knew what he was talking about. (PI attributes for him are pretty much a joke.) I think Petersen would have started off with less support than Johnson, but unlike Johnson, Petersen's support would have grown the more people heard about him. Johnson was a complete embarrassment for the LP and squandered the perfect chance at getting 5% or even getting into the debates.

What is Aleppo?

[pilight 237]

18 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

What is Aleppo?

I bet $1 if you ask Donald Trump the same question he wouldn't know the answer either

[servo75 30]

On 4/21/2017 at 9:25 PM, pilight said:

Rand Paul would be even more of a LINO than Johnson.

I'm not a huge Johnson fan, but he was the best of a slate of bad options IMO.

That's what I thought for much of the campaign until around Labor Day, but at the last minute I did decide Trump.

[servo75 30]

5 hours ago, pilight said:

I bet $1 if you ask Donald Trump the same question he wouldn't know the answer either

I didn't know before that, I must admit

[servo75 30]

6 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

I liked Petersen in the Libertarian primaries. I watched the first televised debate live - that's what caused me to go from lukewarm interest in Johnson to supporting Petersen. I don't agree with all of his views. But Petersen was articulate, smart, and knew what he was talking about. (PI attributes for him are pretty much a joke.) I think Petersen would have started off with less support than Johnson, but unlike Johnson, Petersen's support would have grown the more people heard about him. Johnson was a complete embarrassment for the LP and squandered the perfect chance at getting 5% or even getting into the debates.

My favorite Petersen quote: "I want same-sex married couples to defend their marijuana fields with automatic rifles."  I've tried to update Petersen's attributes for my 2020 campaign, but I may have overdone it.  I think that if the Libertarian Party plays its card right, it can get Reps in 2018 and maybe even a state or two in 2020.

The death stoke for Johnson, in my opinion, is when he started appearing more angry, at times snapping at reporters, and insulting Trump.  So I started to think, "Ok your whole point was that you are an outsider and presented a positive alternative, and now you're becoming the very thing you've accused the Dems and GOP of."

[Bruce Fischer 1]

6 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

What is Aleppo?

[Guest]

9 hours ago, servo75 said:

The death stoke for Johnson, in my opinion, is when he started appearing more angry, at times snapping at reporters, and insulting Trump.  So I started to think, "Ok your whole point was that you are an outsider and presented a positive alternative, and now you're becoming the very thing you've accused the Dems and GOP of."

That was ridiculous. Didn't seem to be much logic behind that strategy. Especially when he snapped at a reporter who said "illegal immigrants".

Interviewer: "...decided he was going to issue work visas unilaterally to millions of adult illegal immigrants who are here in the country--"

Johnson: "Undocumented, by the way. If you use the term 'illegal immigrants' that is very incendiary to our Hispanic population here in this country."

Interviewer: "Why is that?"

Johnson: "It just is."

Interviewer: "But isn't the term accurate, in the sense that they entered the country, they immigrated to the country illegally--"

Johnson: "THEY CAME INTO THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T COME IN LEGALLY!"

[pilight 237]

"Illegal immigrants" is a terrible term.  The people themselves are not illegal.  You wouldn't call someone driving over the speed limit an "illegal driver".

[lok1999 0]

Clinton in the actual election, but I would have no clue now. I'd probably end up writing in someone if there was a revote, probably someone along the lines of Biden.

(This is coming from a 17 year old from Australia, so this is in the context of who I would have voted)

[jvikings1 40]

They illegally immigrated, therefore the term illegal immigrant fits.

[Patine 468]

8 hours ago, SirLagsalott said:

That was ridiculous. Didn't seem to be much logic behind that strategy. Especially when he snapped at a reporter who said "illegal immigrants".

Interviewer: "...decided he was going to issue work visas unilaterally to millions of adult illegal immigrants who are here in the country--"

Johnson: "Undocumented, by the way. If you use the term 'illegal immigrants' that is very incendiary to our Hispanic population here in this country."

Interviewer: "Why is that?"

Johnson: "It just is."

Interviewer: "But isn't the term accurate, in the sense that they entered the country, they immigrated to the country illegally--"

Johnson: "THEY CAME INTO THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T COME IN LEGALLY!"

Johnson was the Governor of New Mexico, the only US State to date to legally add Spanish along with English as a Constitutional State official language for all State government, justice, business, etc., dealings, and one of only two legally bilingual US States in terms of official language, along with Hawaii, which itself also recognizes the Hawaiian language in such a sense. Whether you're Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, or anything else, you can't get elected as Governor of New Mexico nowadays without courting at least a large chunk of the Hispanic population there in some way or other.

[Guest]

Just now, Patine said:

Johnson was the Governor of New Mexico, the only US State to date to legally add Spanish along with English as a Constitutional State official language for all State government, justice, business, etc., dealings, and one of only two legally bilingual US States in terms of official language, along with Hawaii, which itself also recognizes the Hawaiian language in such a sense. Whether you're Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, or anything else, you can't get elected as Governor of New Mexico nowadays without courting at least a large chunk of the Hispanic population there in some way or other.

I know. But that's a very desperate way to do it.

[pilight 237]

4 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

They illegally immigrated, therefore the term illegal immigrant fits.

There's no other crime in which we label the person who commits it as illegal.

[pilight 237]

2 minutes ago, SirLagsalott said:

I know. But that's a very desperate way to do it.

Johnson was right.  The vast majority of illegal immigrants would come here legally if they could.  We should go back to system when there was no quota on immigration from the Americas and illegal immigration was a non-issue.

[Bruce Fischer 1]

2 minutes ago, pilight said:

There's no other crime in which we label the person who commits it as illegal.

That's true, isn't the whole "illegal immigrant" term something that Frank Luntz pushed to make Republicans seem less racist to Latino voters (they'd been using "illegals" which is even worse)? While I wouldn't call "illegal immigrant" racist, I'd say it's in line with using the word "the" before talking about a people group (e.g. how Trump often said "the blacks," "the gays," "the Latinos" etc.); dehumanizing and something that makes me shift uncomfortably in my metaphorical seat.

"Undocumented immigrant" is on the other extreme, as it just makes it seem like they misplaced their visas or something. I prefer "unauthorized migrant," as they're unauthorized and there's some debate over whether the word "immigrant" inherently means someone who comes here "the right way," plus in any case "immigrant" only covers a permanent settler, so "migrant" also covers seasonal workers who cross the border illegally, refugees who don't follow the process (if there are any of those), etc.

[Patine 468]

1 hour ago, Bruce Fischer said:

That's true, isn't the whole "illegal immigrant" term something that Frank Luntz pushed to make Republicans seem less racist to Latino voters (they'd been using "illegals" which is even worse)? While I wouldn't call "illegal immigrant" racist, I'd say it's in line with using the word "the" before talking about a people group (e.g. how Trump often said "the blacks," "the gays," "the Latinos" etc.); dehumanizing and something that makes me shift uncomfortably in my metaphorical seat.

"Undocumented immigrant" is on the other extreme, as it just makes it seem like they misplaced their visas or something. I prefer "unauthorized migrant," as they're unauthorized and there's some debate over whether the word "immigrant" inherently means someone who comes here "the right way," plus in any case "immigrant" only covers a permanent settler, so "migrant" also covers seasonal workers who cross the border illegally, refugees who don't follow the process (if there are any of those), etc.

By definition of the word, "migrant" is one who travels to change their location of residence (though not necessarily constantly and repeatedly as a lifestyle - that's a nomad), but the prefixes only inherently indicate, by definition, movement of migration - an "immigrant" is migrating FROM elsewhere, and "emigrant" is migrating TO elsewhere. That's by proper definition of the words all they inherently and intrinsically mean.

[Bruce Fischer 1]

23 minutes ago, Patine said:

By definition of the word, "migrant" is one who travels to change their location of residence (though not necessarily constantly and repeatedly as a lifestyle - that's a nomad), but the prefixes only inherently indicate, by definition, movement of migration - an "immigrant" is migrating FROM elsewhere, and "emigrant" is migrating TO elsewhere. That's by proper definition of the words all they inherently and intrinsically mean.

I'm basing my argument off the literal dictionary definitions of these words.

Migrant, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

Does not specify any residence length, and indeed specifies that they are not a permanent resident of the area they migrate to.

vs the definition of "immigrant:"

[servo75 30]

Apparently most of Americans  wouldn't have changed their mind either

 

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/23/new-poll-shows-utterly-demoralizing-news-for-democrats-and-clinton-supporters/

[pilight 237]

6 hours ago, servo75 said:

Apparently most of Americans  wouldn't have changed their mind either

 

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/23/new-poll-shows-utterly-demoralizing-news-for-democrats-and-clinton-supporters/

It shows how little attention people pay to what politicians say and do.  Trump has reversed quite a bit of what he campaigned on (NATO is obsolete, or not; China is a currency manipulator, or not; Intervening in Syria is bad, or not; We should have universal health care, or not; etc.) but people still love/hate him just as much as when he was saying the exact opposite.

[Patine 468]

5 hours ago, pilight said:

It shows how little attention people pay to what politicians say and do.  Trump has reversed quite a bit of what he campaigned on (NATO is obsolete, or not; China is a currency manipulator, or not; Intervening in Syria is bad, or not; We should have universal health care, or not; etc.) but people still love/hate him just as much as when he was saying the exact opposite.

He's a populist who campaigns with is personality and charisma, like Teddy Roosevelt. It doesn't so much matter what he's saying specifically, thus, but how he presents it. Populists do NOT rely on rational, well-thought-out, well-worded, articulate, or even always sensible rhetoric to promote their message, which may not always be consistent. Since JohnnyK has departed, I think it's safe to make this oblique and tangential comparative analogy, although of a more extreme example - follow what Hitler said (or ranted and shouted angrily, moreso), in his Weimar Republic election campaigns, and then look at what he actually ended doing. The Nazi regime was not quite what was promised, on the package, in Hitler's Weimar electoral harangs. Teddy Roosevelt was actually fairly moderate as populists went, but his first electoral opponent, William Jennings Bryan, was a bit more extreme in that regard.

[Guest]

I have great respect for Americans because they have to keep up with a two party system.

- however what do the geeks on here think about that ?

[servo75 30]

12 hours ago, pilight said:

It shows how little attention people pay to what politicians say and do.  Trump has reversed quite a bit of what he campaigned on (NATO is obsolete, or not; China is a currency manipulator, or not; Intervening in Syria is bad, or not; We should have universal health care, or not; etc.) but people still love/hate him just as much as when he was saying the exact opposite.

Believe me, I WISH people paid more attention to what politicians say and do, or else Barack Obama would have been a one-term President. I do agree with what you said about changing his mind on several things, but what you need to realize also is that this is not a referendum on Trump alone.  Those voters, while they might not be thrilled with Trump (as am I), they still believe (as do I) that he's a much better alternative than Hillary.

[Patine 468]

21 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Believe me, I WISH people paid more attention to what politicians say and do, or else Barack Obama would have been a one-term President. I do agree with what you said about changing his mind on several things, but what you need to realize also is that this is not a referendum on Trump alone.  Those voters, while they might not be thrilled with Trump (as am I), they still believe (as do I) that he's a much better alternative than Hillary.

Personally, I believe that two atrocious, unethical, hypocritical, detached, lying, elitist, and corrupt candidates like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton ending up as the ONLY two realistically viable candidates who had any real chance of winning by Summer of 2016 was another example of how I often say the US electoral system has failed and become broken and in need of real, fundamental reform. I consider the 2016 Presidential Election a case study in this, and not JUST for the popular vote vs. electoral vote issue.

[servo75 30]

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Personally, I believe that two atrocious, unethical, hypocritical, detached, lying, elitist, and corrupt candidates like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton ending up as the ONLY two realistically viable candidates who had any real chance of winning by Summer of 2016 was another example of how I often say the US electoral system has failed and become broken and in need of real, fundamental reform. I consider the 2016 Presidential Election a case study in this, and not JUST for the popular vote vs. electoral vote issue.

Agreed.  I did not support Trump in the primaries, and I would have liked to see Austin Petersen for a viable Libertarian party.  The only issue is that I wonder what you mean by "reform."  This is not a reason for removing the Electoral College because our decision had nothing to do with the EC.  There are several reasons why we always (not just 2016) wind up with bad choices.  I'd like to see the voting mechanics change but it would have to be at the primaries level (instant runoff voting or some other method), because among other things, the electoral college only applies to the general election when we already had the bad choices.  Fewer than 60 million people voted in the primaries and even there, Trump and Hillary combined for fewer than half those votes.  They were supported by a COMBINED of 30 million votes, out of 231 million eligible voters.  87% of eligible primary voters either chose someone else or couldn't bother to take 10 minutes away from complaining about all our problems to even cast a ballot.  You get the government  you deserve, so we can talk all about reform, but until we start valuing civic education and duty in  the USA, nothing will change.