Are American voters really stupid?

ligerdub

rossie1977 wrote: »

The media have given trump endless hours of free advertising over the past two years. When sanders and Clinton were giving speeches during the primaries the networks including the so called anti trump networks such as cnn would show an empty podium with trumps name on it..yeah really disgusting

Point out exactly the heinous attacks by the media. Reporting back what trump said is not an example of being heinous

Twisting his words and taking some things out of context and repeating them in an almost obsessional manner. I'm also quite fond of the voxpops they seem to insist on aswell, and their leading questions to the average punter on the street and taking their favourites.

I'm not debating on this though, usual red flags from the anti-Donald camp.

Discodog

bnt wrote: »

I have a friend in the USA: he's not American and isn't entitled to vote on Tuesday. He's not an idiot -highly intellig ent and qualified, working in a very technical field. Yet he's told me that he would probably vote for Trump if he could.

The way I see it, there is a lot wrong with the USA, economically, and Clinton doesn't seem to get that - not really. She represents "business as usual" or "Washington politics", with all its corruption and money-grubbing. Trump has positioned himself as a "man of the people", despite being absolutely nothing of the sort. He was born in to money, remember - he is the polar opposite of the "self-made man" he claims to be.

Look at healthcare: prices are soaring while what you get for the money is getting worse e.g. high "deductibles" (excesses) can mean that an emergency can bankrupt you even if you apparently have insurance. Is "Obamacare" to blame? Possibly, but everyone forgets that the "Affordable Care Act" was not what Obama wanted. He wanted at least a "public option" (with the government as an insurer), or ideally a "single payer" system more like Germany's. But neither of those were going to get past a hostile Republican majority Congress, whose members are taking campaign contributions from health industry lobbyists.

I've heard it said that Obama didn't push the "public option" hard enough. The problem with that idea is that the White House knows, well in advance, exactly how each person in Congress will vote on any part of a bill. If there's any doubt, they can just ask - and they do. The President is not going to submit a bill to Congress if s/he knows in advance that it will fail. So the Affordable Care Act, as submitted to Congress, had been watered down to make it acceptable to Congress, which means keeping the insurance companies in the money.

Now use the same concept to examine other parts of the USA economy, and ask yourself: what do you imagine a President Trump could do about any of them? He's as sure as heck not going to fix healthcare. Yes, I've seen this, don't see any of that happening - because it's up to Congress, not him.

I will never understand how, in a million years, anyone with half a brain could vote Trump. If Clinton really was the devil as some seriously suggest, she would still be a better option.

Michael Moore was right when he said that, if American wake up to Trump as president, it will be like the morning after brexit. Then, as the dust clears, people will start to say **** what have we just done.

Brexit & Trump are both fu's to the "establishment". People will feel good until they see the consequences.

VladamirP

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/

gosplan

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/

How is that connected to Clinton?

diograis

Their electoral process with college votes and all that craic means that the popular vote doesn't necessarily win someone the presidency. If they had a fair electoral process, this election wouldn't be decided by uneducated white men in Pennsylvania or Ohio.

It's frightening that nearly half the country see fit to elect someone like that, I mean the 3 presidential debates were so ridiculous they were almost beyond satire. Clinton was running circles around Trump, it's almost as if he's trolling.

diograis

gosplan wrote: »

How is that connected to Clinton?

Hilary for prison #lockherup

(never mind Trump's numerous fraud lawsuits, molestation accusations, bankruptcies, Trump university, the Trump charity which bought a massive painting of himself, his comments on Mexicans, women, muslims, disabled people, etc etc etc etc etc)

threeball

diograis wrote: »

Their electoral process with college votes and all that craic means that the popular vote doesn't necessarily win someone the presidency. If they had a fair electoral process, this election wouldn't be decided by uneducated white men in Pennsylvania or Ohio.

It's frightening that nearly half the country see fit to elect someone like that, I mean the 3 presidential debates were so ridiculous they were almost beyond satire. Clinton was running circles around Trump, it's almost as if he's trolling.

Is it anymore stupid than almost putting Fianna Fáil back into power almost the minute the recession they engineered was coming towards an end? The Americans don't have a monopoly on idiots.

Donald Trump

gosplan wrote: »

How is that connected to Clinton?

It's well known that she's the Keith Flinnt of the US


Oh, and in relation to the original question whether American voters are stupid enough - I think so and I feckin hope so!

ligerdub

diograis wrote: »

If they had a fair electoral process, this election wouldn't be decided by uneducated white men in Pennsylvania or Ohio.

Hilarious deduction, as if they had no say in the matter! I'd also love to see what the reaction would be if the "uneducated" black woman vote was an over the top move!

dresden8

Why would anyone vote for the status quo when they status quo is fncking you over.

The great and the good are determined to drive down incomes for the proles and keep all the money to themselves.

The "establishment" have forgotten the bread part of "bread and circuses".

Oldest political lesson right there.

Yggr of Asgard

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

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

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

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

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

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

gramar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Lt Dan

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The Irish elected Ahern as Taoiseach 3 times in a row.

We have no right to judge anyone elses stupidity.

We were not complaining before the burst. Cowen was Chief during the bail out

ligerdub

AlanG wrote: »

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.

With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, your list of reasons were all qualitative, and don't really go into specifics.

You've also seemed to have looked at the outcome and arbitrarily attributed this to how great their presidents are. I don't think that's a fair representation of the reality.

ligerdub

Sonics2k wrote: »

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.

Almost all of that is untrue, especially the last line I suspect.

AlanG

ligerdub wrote: »

With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely, your list of reasons were all qualitative, and don't really go into specifics.

You've also seemed to have looked at the outcome and arbitrarily attributed this to how great their presidents are. I don't think that's a fair representation of the reality.

I am not commenting on the quality of the presidents, just the system and how well I think it has served the USA.
That said I think the world was pretty lucky that Roosevelt and Truman were in place after WWII to keep Stalin and Churchill under control and rebuild Europe and Japan.

If the choice of president does not impact on the areas I mentioned then it really makes no difference whether HRC or Trump gets elected.

My list of reasons are qualitative but as said I am open to suggestions of any other large country where things have been better for the average person over the last 100 years.

pumpkin4life

I think American voters are no dumber/smarter than Irish voters tbh.

paralysed

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I think American voters are no dumber/smarter than Irish voters tbh.

Yep - the irish water situation for example highlights a lot about our stupidity.

VladamirP

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I think American voters are no dumber/smarter than Irish voters tbh.

So we're all thick?

pumpkin4life

VladamirP wrote: »

So we're all thick?

Certainly not up to the standard of your country Vlad!

Sonics2k

ligerdub wrote: »

Almost all of that is untrue, especially the last line I suspect.

Feel free to point out the parts that untrue. No, I personally wouldn't vote for Hilary as she is dodgy as hell. She's the lesser of the two evils in my opinion because she has actual experience, but I still wouldn't vote for her.

VladamirP

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Certainly not up to the standard of your country Vlad!

Спасибо, вы пизда.:cool::cool::cool:

edit
It's not the Soviet Union anymore, ты идиот.