News 2016 U.S. Presidential election - the highs and lows

robert99 said:
"She waited in line for five hours ..." I remember reading before about the long queues to vote. Is this some ploy?
Click to expand...

Yes, the Republicans can't get a sufficient number of minority and poor votes , so they try to prevent those people from voting. Their perennial excuse is to" prevent voter fraud". But in reality, voter fraud is so minimal as to not make a difference.
 
beancounter said:
Yes, the Republicans can't get a sufficient number of minority and poor votes , so they try to prevent those people from voting. Their perennial excuse is to" prevent voter fraud". But in reality, voter fraud is so minimal as to not make a difference.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's the Democrats who fouled up big time in Arizona. The Arizona House Of Representatives has scheduled a special public hearing for Monday the 28th, to look into voting procedures, because of this. If the Democrats are starting to mimic the Republicans' use of election fraud, then democracy indeed is in danger of going down the toilet. It's well understood, on the Democrat side, that high voter turnout favors Bernie Sanders, whereas a low vote count favors Hillary Clinton. Reducing the number of polling places by 70%, which forced people to wait unreasonable amounts of time to cast their votes, plus the mysterious failure to properly record new voters' registration status, which impeded their ability to vote, raises the possibility of voter suppression. The writing is on the wall. It brings up questions about the motivation of the Democratic party's administrators, and bears looking into. There have already been reports from Pennsylvania, New York, and California- which haven't voted yet- of new voters' registration status somehow "disappearing" from the Democratic party's files. As already mentioned, there has been at least one call for a federal investigation into what happened in Arizona.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mischief and Calliegirl
Ceb_W07WIAAZW7W.jpg
CebXh5qUEAA7wc0.jpg:large
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
Calliegirl said:
Hmmm...whenever Bernie wins, it's because he's wonderful, but when Hillary wins, it's because she cheated. :hmm:
Click to expand...
Clinton is the favoured candidate of the Democratic establishment, and she scores low on people's perception of her trustworthiness, so I'm not surprised that some will arrive at this conclusion.
 
Correction: the bird has been identified as a female Lesser Goldfinch, a state bird of Washington.
 
Bernie's doing it again.

Washington- 100% reporting. Bernie, 72.72%. Hillary, 27.1%

Alaska- 100% reporting. Bernie, 81.63%. Hillary, 18.37%.

Hawaii- 59.92% reporting (unofficial.) Bernie, 69.42%. Hillary, 30.58%.

Don't have a delegate count yet, but this should substantially lessen Clinton's lead over Sanders.

Next- April 5th, my own state, Wisconsin. Yep, I'll vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadamSarcastra
Capstan said:
Bernie's doing it again.

Washington- 100% reporting. Bernie, 72.72%. Hillary, 27.1%

Alaska- 100% reporting. Bernie, 81.63%. Hillary, 18.37%.

Hawaii- 59.92% reporting (unofficial.) Bernie, 69.42%. Hillary, 30.58%.

Don't have a delegate count yet, but this should substantially lessen Clinton's lead over Sanders.

Next- April 5th, my own state, Wisconsin. Yep, I'll vote.
Click to expand...

I'm at a loss.:pout:
 
Capstan said:
What do you mean? Are you for Hillary?
Click to expand...

What I meant is that the campagne is very hard to understand, for someone who is not a US citizen.

I'm definitely not for Hilary. I'm not voting so my opinion has no importance !
She doesn't seem like someone who is trustworthy and seems manipulative.
 
shyvas said:
What I meant is that the campagne is very hard to understand, for someone who is not a US citizen.

I'm definitely not for Hilary. I'm not voting so my opinion has no importance !
She doesn't seem like someone who is trustworthy and seems manipulative.
Click to expand...

It is hard to understand. A very convoluted process, IMO.

Hillary's strong suite was the states in the deep south, which tend to vote very conservatively. Most of those states voted before the others, so Hillary took an early lead in the delegate count. (The delegates decide who is nominated at the convention in July.) Now that the other states are voting, Bernie is starting to catch up. I expected this, but it appears he's doing even better than I hoped. If he keeps going like this, I think he has a very good chance of winning the nomination.

This whole election cycle is turning into an education for me, because it's the first time a candidate (Sanders) has come along that I feel will actually represent my interests in the government.
 
"I feel will actually represent my interests in the government." I know it's Easter and it's supposed to be a time of hope, etc but, I would n't get your hopes up. Just look at the current President's record ... Also the Clinton's are not the average white, married couple.
 
robert99 said:
"I feel will actually represent my interests in the government." I know it's Easter and it's supposed to be a time of hope, etc but, I would n't get your hopes up. Just look at the current President's record ... Also the Clinton's are not the average white, married couple.
Click to expand...

I never had particularly high hopes about Obama. I was for him, simply because he was such an improvement over that piece of ****, Bush, Jr. But it doesn't surprise me Obama has moved steadily, since being elected, farther right and toward authoritarianism- has essentially "sold out" to the power-mongers. I fully understand that, if elected, Sanders may prove to be a disappointment; still, at least he's expressing some of the right ideas. His basic platform seems to be based on the idea of dismantling the so-called "military/industrial complex" that President Eisenhower warned us against in his farewell address, over 50-years ago. (Maybe a better term would be "military/industrial/ governmental complex.") I remember very clearly, as a teenager during the Vietnam War era, seeing my economic future literally blown up overseas by the armed forces, my chances destroyed. Ever since then, there hasn't been a single presidential candidate come along that seemed to understand what was happening, or was worth looking at twice. Bernie at least is speaking specifically about what the problems are, and offering specific ideas, about how to fix things. And, perhaps more importantly, his numbers add up. I know of no other candidate, past or present, that's been able to do that. I also understand that, if elected, he can't do things alone, and the changes we need may not happen within a single administration. But he also offers something the other candidates don't: the potential for leadership. I think that's what's been missing in our presidents. The last one we had who had that quality was probably Franklin Roosevelt. A little before my time. Yes, Bernie could turn out to be a bust, but he could also turn out to be a truly great president. The bottom line is, if he weren't involved, I wouldn't give a rat's *** about this election, because it would just be more of the same old, dirty claptrap I've endured my whole adult life.

__

Final count for Hawaii- Bernie, 69.79%. Hillary, 30.03%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MadamSarcastra
Top Bottom