Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

[caveman1917]

The US should have a two-round voting system lik in France. First vote for the candidate you like and, if they don't make it to the second round, vote for the lesser evil.

The US shouldn't have liberal capitalism at all, nor should any other place.

 

[The Don]

I checked turnout figures against this, seems that turnout for elections is at around 60%, so it's probably more likely that people self-identifying as independents don't vote. Which is interesting, I'd have thought that independents having internalized the claims by partisan "realists" would actually change their vote but it seems they just don't bother voting at all. It still leads to the same results of course, as those who don't vote don't get counted in anyway.

I see that you either didn't read my post or didn't understand it. There are lots of people out there with no declared party affiliation - i.e. independents - who either always vote for the same party or swap between the two main parties.

I cannot easily find any kind of breakdown of turnout rate by declared party affiliation so I have no idea how you've come to the conclusion that independents don't turn out to vote (with the exception of my parents-in-law or my wife who always vote in Presidential elections) or that those with a party affiliation turn out at, or close to 100% rate.

It seems to me that you've started with a conclusion and then worked backwards to try and justify it.

 

[wareyin]

But, dude, what if, like, everyone actually didn't withdraw their money from the bank? That would be so awesome! Wait, are you telling me that the bank is insolvent and we should all go withdraw our money? That's just, like, a self-fulfilling prophecy, man! You don't know that the bank is insolvent!

</actual understanding of how self-fulfilling prophecies work>

You can keep claiming that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy all you want, it's not going to change anything. Similarly, you can choose to keep your money in the bank, but you will lose that money.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I checked turnout figures against this, seems that turnout for elections is at around 60%, so it's probably more likely that people self-identifying as independents don't vote. Which is interesting, I'd have thought that independents having internalized the claims by partisan "realists" would actually change their vote but it seems they just don't bother voting at all. It still leads to the same results of course, as those who don't vote don't get counted in anyway.

Your understanding of US politics is about as clear as your grasp on figures of speech. In the last General Election, nearly as many self-identified "Independents" as Republicans voted.

"Independents" are simply people who don't choose to register with a party - in those states where there is party registration, that is. Any number of states have no party registration at all, so it's a question of self-identification. About thirty-seven million people in 2012 identified themselves as "Independent".... after they voted.

 

[pgwenthold]

Your understanding of US politics is about as clear as your grasp on figures of speech. In the last General Election, nearly as many self-identified "Independents" as Republicans voted.

"Independents" are simply people who don't choose to register with a party - in those states where there is party registration, that is. Any number of states have no party registration at all, so it's a question of self-identification. About thirty-seven million people in 2012 identified themselves as "Independent".... after they voted.

Even assuming that ALL the "independents" voted for an independent candidate, even if they all voted for the same one, the net result is that basically no candidate would get a majority of electoral votes, which means that the choice of president would go to the house of representatives, who are going to vote for...either the republican or democrat.

Which means that it will be either Clinton or Trump. And that is assuming that all the independent voters vote for the same independent candidate.

It's a nonsensical discussion. As I said, this is Bernie Bro math. It has no bearing on reality.

 

[Foolmewunz]

But, dude, what if, like, everyone actually didn't withdraw their money from the bank? That would be so awesome! Wait, are you telling me that the bank is insolvent and we should all go withdraw our money? That's just, like, a self-fulfilling prophecy, man! You don't know that the bank is insolvent!

</actual understanding of how self-fulfilling prophecies work>

But what if, like, the bank isn't just cash-poor, but is actually insolvent, e.g. due to say, like, bad mortgages and loans, man. Since you're all hip to the self-fulfilling prophecy gig, you leave your money in there? Better yet, you do your chicken-little-was-wrong routine and convince widows and orphans to leave their money in there and they lose everything. Gasp! Won't someone think of the children?

Just as someone just like you was standing at Speaker's Corner in Orlando in 2000 and convinced four hundred voters that "The Man" was selling them on a self-fulfilling prophesy so it was cool and noble to vote for Nader. "I mean, c'mon, man. What election's ever been decided by a handful of protest votes."

 

[caveman1917]

I see that you either didn't read my post or didn't understand it. There are lots of people out there with no declared party affiliation - i.e. independents - who either always vote for the same party or swap between the two main parties.

I cannot easily find any kind of breakdown of turnout rate by declared party affiliation so I have no idea how you've come to the conclusion that independents don't turn out to vote (with the exception of my parents-in-law or my wife who always vote in Presidential elections) or that those with a party affiliation turn out at, or close to 100% rate.

It seems to me that you've started with a conclusion and then worked backwards to try and justify it.

Because it would seem odd for someone to declare themselves affiliated with either democrats or republicans yet not actually be a voter in the first place. Especially if we go by registration rather than self-identification.

 

[caveman1917]

About thirty-seven million people in 2012 identified themselves as "Independent".... after they voted.

Which is, what, about 10% of voters? That still leaves you the other 30% of independents to account for.

 

[The Don]

Because it would seem odd for someone to declare themselves affiliated with either democrats or republicans yet not actually be a voter in the first place. Especially if we go by registration rather than self-identification.

....and yet you have no evidence to support this assertion.

If indeed voter turnout is close to 100% for those who have a party affiliation and close to 0% for those who do not, you may have a case but I cannot find any evidence to suggest that voter turnout among independents is markedly different to those with a party identification - do you ?

 

[Darat]

Whether or not the allegations are persuasive, I'm not making anything up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-stands-by-her-defense-of-1975-rape-suspect/


http://www.factcheck.org/2016/06/clintons-1975-rape-case/

None of which supports the stuff you made up in your original post.

 

[Darat]

Actually, lawyers are required to accept a code of ethics that prescribes how they will treat clients, adversaries, juries, colleagues and the courts. They are not permitted, for example, to knowingly permit false testimony or present false evidence. As to opposing witnesses:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/cpr/mrpc/Canons_Ethics.authcheckdam.pdf

And?

 

[The Don]

Which is, what, about 10% of voters? That still leaves you the other 30% of independents to account for.

Not even close....

218 million voters who are eligible

146 million who registered to vote

126 million voted last time

37 million is what percentage of the numbers above ?

(Hint: it's not 10)

 

[caveman1917]

But what if, like, the bank isn't just cash-poor, but is actually insolvent, e.g. due to say, like, bad mortgages and loans, man. Since you're all hip to the self-fulfilling prophecy gig, you leave your money in there? Better yet, you do your chicken-little-was-wrong routine and convince widows and orphans to leave their money in there and they lose everything.

Except, of course, that the analogy quite breaks down at that point. People don't lose by not voting for either Clinton or Trump.

Gasp! Won't someone think of the children?

It won't be the liberals, that's for sure. Clinton had already supported the killing of half a million children in Iraq in the 1990's, long before her support for the Iraq war.

Just as someone just like you was standing at Speaker's Corner in Orlando in 2000 and convinced four hundred voters that "The Man" was selling them on a self-fulfilling prophesy so it was cool and noble to vote for Nader. "I mean, c'mon, man. What election's ever been decided by a handful of protest votes."

And? They can vote for Nader as much as they want, can't they?

 

[The Don]

It won't be the liberals, that's for sure. Clinton had already supported the killing of half a million children in Iraq in the 1990's, long before her support for the Iraq war.

Just her ? Or was this the political orthodoxy at the time ?

 

[caveman1917]

Not even close....

218 million voters who are eligible

146 million who registered to vote

126 million voted last time

37 million is what percentage of the numbers above ?

(Hint: it's not 10)

Hey don't blame me, it was Foolmewunz who, earlier in the thread, presented a figure of 330 million.

Can you register with a party affiliation even though you don't register to vote? If not, something's quite not adding up here.

 

[caveman1917]

Just her ? Or was this the political orthodoxy at the time ?

It was political orthodoxy at the time to implement the Final Solution. Therefor "Hitler for president!" because we must think of the Jews.

Are you leading into something like the argument above here?

 

[The Don]

Hey don't blame me, it was Foolmewunz who, earlier in the thread, presented a figure of 330 million.

Where has Foolmewunz said that there are 330 million registered voters in the US ?

Can you register with a party affiliation even though you don't register to vote? If not, something's quite not adding up here.

Why ?

 

[The Don]

It was political orthodoxy at the time to implement the Final Solution. Therefor "Hitler for president!" because we must think of the Jews.

Are you leading into something like the argument above here?

Godwinning the thread yet again - good job

 

[Belz...]

True, an individual vote makes no difference. But then why are people voting in the first place?

To have a voice in the outcome, and because as a mass of people they do make a difference, which is why campaigns are so important.

The US shouldn't have liberal capitalism at all, nor should any other place.

Would you prefer an autocracy or a communist state?

 

[caveman1917]

Where has Foolmewunz said that there are 330 million registered voters in the US ?

Here:

The "well, we can't win if you keep putting us down" is all just fantasy; sort of a counter-culture version of "every man a king - you, too could grow up to be President". Well, yeah.... it's about 330,000,000:6 against you, so let's consider it a realistic possibility? No.

Why ?

If, in states with party registration, 30% registers as Democrat and 30% as Republican then we've already filled out our 60% turnout without even getting to the independents yet.