American Politics the 2016 edition

IVNORD wrote: [QUOTE=JJLehto] I feel confident in saying Sanders would've won this election. [QUOTE=INVORD]The former is nonsense, how can you be so confident. The latter resembles the truth a bit more but then this election would have turned into a competition between two fools instead of just one fool and a lying corrupt scumbag

It amazes that so few felt that Trump could win more than 160 electoral votes can so easily dismiss the idea that Bernie could have won in Hillary's place. Bernie had exactly what it took to win. He was charismatic, he connected with voters, especially millennials, and was an outsider in his political stance. He could have trumped that fool. No pun intended. And it was probably the failure of his base to fully embrace Hilary that helped to sink her.

Edited by SteveG - November 10 2016 at 11:18

I don't know that I would have voted for Bernie.  He is too far left for my tastes, although in the end I probably would have been a dutiful Democrat and voted for him.  I can't recall the exact facts, but they once compared Bernie and Hilary's votes while she was Senator and they both voted the exact same yes or no on every single vote but one.  I believe that Bernie voted no on the invasion on Iraq, and Hilary voted yes...and afterwards claimed to regret it.

I never thought Sanders had a chance of winning but I didn't pay much attention to his campaign. I never got past the free college and free health care because I didn't believe that either one was possible and I still don't. Aside from that, what was his foreign policy? What was his position on a strong military? What did he plan on doing about ISIS? Where did he stand on the southern border problem? 

Bernie Sanders was a DNC/Clinton plant from day 1, his only job was supposed to be to drum up millenial votes for the democrats, it's a testament to how disastrous Hillary Clinton is that she had to cheat in the primary to beat him

IVNORD wrote: I dismissed your idea since history in general and politics in particular don't allow subjunctive mood to be applied to them so freely.

Really? Then how do you explain Trump winning?

For the next elections you'll have, if not Bernie Sanders, someone like him for a dem candidate; and since you still are pursuing "social justice", you'll find it.
Now, there are two kinds of justice: justice for the individuals and justice for "society". The first one is quite clear, the second one ...well, not so much, since you'll have to establish who is "society" / "the people" and who isn't. What is crystal clear is this: Mob >>>> individual

In my country, one of the worst ten in the world when it comes to economic freedom (we were one of the Top 10 countries back in the 90's) we have the following since we were pioneers of "social justice" and "progress":

1- "Free" healthcare
2- "Free" schooling. Grade, high school and even universities.
3- An income for jobless people. Extra money for every kid they have, and a plus if a family member is a criminal on jail (yes, you heard that right)
4- "Free" laptops for every student and "free" maternity kits for mothers.
5- Open borders for everyone
6- A majority working for the state or depending on it (almost 60% of people)

Now. Let me say this. I'm 35 years old and I can't own a house. Why? 50% of my income goes straight to the govt. and 21% is taken as value-added tax for every good and service. The State takes 71% of our income straight away.
It goes without saying, the costs for opening a small business are crazy and every foreign product we buy costs five or six times what it costs in the US. Taxation is heavy, but it still can't cover the costs of every "free" stuff we get, so the govt. prints fiat money like crazy devaluating the currency every month (bye bye savings).
If you need good healthcare (aka. don't want a public hospital full of rats and criminals shot by the police) you'll have to pay THREE times what you used to pay for it back in the 90's, so we have to pay for the "free" healthcare plus the private healthcare. What I said about hospitals is the same for schools.

Also, since we block foreign goods in order to "help the local industries", we pay a lot more for poorly made national products that aren't our specialty.

The third point is quite interesting. Since the populist govt. needs votes, they give money to those who don't have a job, and an extra income for every kid they have. The govt. NEEDS us to be poor in order to be more powerful and stay in power. It also accepts people from neighboring countries, makes them have lots of kids, and "rigs democracy". Now, since we have to provide for everyone, we get poorer by the day, business close, and new jobless people join the ranks of the previously poor. =)
BTW, I'm pretty sure you can understand who benefits with the laptops, maternity kits and where they come from.

If you are against this rigged system, then you don't want to help the poor and you're an a****le and an enemy of society.
In reality, there's no solidarity, since no one has a dime to spare, there aren't people opening bussinesses and hiring people, since no one has money. Most of argentinians are slaves to the "kindness" of the State.
Is that what you want? for real? Do you guys really want to "feel the Bern"?
We were the most european country in America with one of the best universities in the world. We were pioneers, we were the intellectuals of this continent, the ones who would surpass the US...look at us now, and look closely, because Argentina might be your future. We just arrived there earlier.

Catcher10 wrote: If this statistic is true Steve then WOW, shame on those that did not vote, although why did the Dems not show up is another question? All the analysis will start coming out on what happened both good and bad, that is what I have lots of interest in because you are looking at facts and not some media hyped poll that for the most part means absolutely nothing.

My mistake Jose. The eight million were crossover votes. (Democrats who actually voted Republican.)  Eight million is the number being bandied about on both sides, but this is from repub website RedState. Most political sites say something similar, unless that changes tomorrow. 

Edited by SteveG - November 10 2016 at 13:25

^...........

Edited by SteveG - November 10 2016 at 13:17

As Hillary said, 1/2 of Trump's supporters are deplorable.  Of course, the non-deplorable supporters took offense to that and it may have been an overestimation, but probably not by much.

Mike Portnoy ✔ @MikePortnoy