Whether it be Trump for the meme value

I hope to satan there isn't a significant block of voters who make their decision based on "Meme value." I'll take people voting for Clinton because she's a woman or Trump because he speaks his mind way before I take "Meme value" as a legit reason.

Let's be frank, voting Trump/other GOP POTUS potentials (including republican front runner HRC) will actually permanently damage our nation.

^ Yes, that would be the view of a Clinton Democrat, you're correct. With all of the Sanders supporters storming the internet, folks like yourself are really starting to stick out.

"Haha, these jokes you're all making sure are funny, haha, but you're actually gonna vote for Hillary right!?!"

I predict really high voter turnout in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Probably over 50%, maybe even up near 60%.

^ Yes, that would be the view of a Clinton Democrat, you're correct. With all of the Sanders supporters storming the internet, folks like yourself are really starting to stick out.

"Haha, these jokes you're all making sure are funny, haha, but you're actually gonna vote for Hillary right!?!"

I predict really high voter turnout in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Probably over 50%, maybe even up near 60%.

Let's make political involvement hip again.

...of course, we said that'd happen in 2008, but then people forgot by 2012. I suppose the difference this time is that, while 2008 was a guaranteed Dem win, 2016 is an interesting year where both mainstream parties seem to be losing control of the conversation and the election can legitimately go either way.

#GreenParty2016

"We still have a chance guys, right?"

#GreenParty2016

"We still have a chance guys, right?"

They can't win, but a third party stealing significant chunks of the vote is the sort of thing party analysts pay attention to.

They can't win, but a third party stealing significant chunks of the vote is the sort of thing party analysts pay attention to.

Is it, though? I'd bet that a majority of American voters wouldn't recognize the name Ross Perot, and he had an order of magnitude more support than the Greens and Libertarians combined. Free trade is also still supported by all mainstream candidates in both parties.

I've been following the race but, especially after seeing the Super Tuesday results, I'm just left questioning why we even bother. The two-party system has failed and it is very evident in the fact that you can hardly tell the difference between a moderate democrat and a moderate republican. If anything the Democrats have become even more conservative over the last two decades. Not to mention the evident and rampant corruption from both political parties. So I can honestly understand the political apathy many, especially young, Americans feel when we look at voter turn-out.

... Oh yea I forgot I'm supposed to also spam Maoist propaganda so yea no war but class war btw.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Is it, though? I'd bet that a majority of American voters wouldn't recognize the name Ross Perot, and he had an order of magnitude more support than the Greens and Libertarians combined. Free trade is also still supported by all mainstream candidates in both parties.

Perot was a sort of singular event to be fair; his movement really orbited his personality. If every election consistently produced a Perot-like figure, I'd bet the major parties would take notice.

Let's be frank, voting Trump/other GOP POTUS potentials (including republican front runner HRC) will actually permanently damage our nation.

The problem is, voting democrat will also permanently damage our nation. You just can't win.

We really need to destroy the office of POTUS and kick as much power as possible back to state/local elected bodies. I have no fucking idea what a state comptroller's value is to my daily life -- let's give that some value, and then I'll care about that election enough to cast a vote, and it won't impact all you west coast hippies, AND I won't have to put up with all your weird policies either. Everybody wins. But it'll never happen because it breaks up the consolidated power of the establishments.

<Snipped quote by The>

The problem is, voting democrat will also permanently damage our nation. You just can't win.

We really need to destroy the office of POTUS and kick as much power as possible back to state/local elected bodies. I have no fucking idea what a state comptroller's value is to my daily life -- let's give that some value, and then I'll care about that election enough to cast a vote, and it won't impact all you west coast hippies, AND I won't have to put up with all your weird policies either. Everybody wins. But it'll never happen because it breaks up the consolidated power of the establishments.

Personally, I don't think that solves the problem. It isn't the concept of federal government that is corrupt; it isn't even the idea of government itself that is corrupt, but the idea that one group of people are more powerful than another, And you can never get rid of that later thing. You'll still have corrupt officials in a confederated system, and those local governments will still act as the vessel of powerful people to take from powerless people (see the history of political bosses in the United States). But now, having weakened the federal government, we have the bonus of being an indefensible country of city states purposely undercutting each other for individual gain. The American Confederacy was broken out of the gate; the majority of founding fathers noticed that and banded together to create the federal government because they knew how broken the confederation was. Virtually every other government in history that has pretended to be a union of equal or near-equal parts, whether it was the early United States, the early Roman Republic, the Holy Roman Empire, the Greek Leagues, yatta yatta, either fell apart entirely after a short time, got embroiled into civil wars, or was absorbed into a central government. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that didn't fall apart was the Iroquois, but I know they did occasionally fight with each other in wars involving Europeans, so I don't think they can be counted as a functional confederacy either.

So really, harmonious local governments as the seats of national power is just as pie-in-the-sky dreamy as a communist utopia of workers collectives as that seat of power, or anarcho-capitalist idea of the market as being that seat of power. There always has to be even a small shadow of monarchy in a government for it to work.

<Snipped quote by mdk>

Personally, I don't think that solves the problem. It isn't the concept of federal government that is corrupt; it isn't even the idea of government itself that is corrupt, but the idea that one group of people are more powerful than another, And you can never get rid of that later thing. You'll still have corrupt officials in a confederated system, and those local governments will still act as the vessel of powerful people to take from powerless people (see the history of political bosses in the United States). But now, having weakened the federal government, we have the bonus of being an indefensible country of city states purposely undercutting each other for individual gain. The American Confederacy was broken out of the gate; the majority of founding fathers noticed that and banded together to create the federal government because they knew how broken the confederation was. Virtually every other government in history that has pretended to be a union of equal or near-equal parts, whether it was the early United States, the early Roman Republic, the Holy Roman Empire, the Greek Leagues, yatta yatta, either fell apart entirely after a short time, got embroiled into civil wars, or was absorbed into a central government. The only one I can think of off the top of my head that didn't fall apart was the Iroquois, but I know they did occasionally fight with each other in wars involving Europeans, so I don't think they can be counted as a functional confederacy either.

So really, harmonious local governments as the seats of national power is just as pie-in-the-sky dreamy as a communist utopia of workers collectives as that seat of power, or anarcho-capitalist idea of the market as being that seat of power. There always has to be even a small shadow of monarchy in a government for it to work.

I mean I don't for a second believe we can cut the corruption out of any system of government, in a permanent sense.... but as long as the senator from Nevada can generate wealth by selling his influence to New Yorkers, the people in Nevada are worse off. We obviously still need the feds to perform certain functions, and I'm okay with a powerful national republic -- it's the democratically-elected king that I want to abolish. Like.... my goal, if I got a single term as president, would be to deliberately sabotage that specific office, and train the legislature on how to keep presidential authority away from future presidents. We don't need a president who can declare war, unilaterally sign immigration reform, and sue states for enforcing federal laws. These are not building blocks of a healthy republic. It's time to trade one tyrant 2000 miles away for a hundred tyrants 10 miles away. IMO.

You're right though -- pie in the sky, never happening.

Oh dear god, politics. Run, save yourselves. Before the misinformation spreads like cancer. *hides in bomb shelter*

To really be honest, I already know most people are beyond low informed voters, when a video showed only 30 percent of people could identify the vice president of the united states. No one cares about their policies, its the D and R in front of their names like it always has been. I mean why are most people voting for Hillary? Women. Why did most people vote Obama? (I lived in the ghetto and went to a predominantly black highschool, it's exactly what you think it is.) Why are most people a fan of sanders and trump? It's purely because they believe "they are anti-establishment."

Ignoring the fact Trump ran as a democrat previously, so him being an actual republican is a little rich, and Sanders has yet to be lambasted over being too old, when that's the only thing, most people/the media had against John MCCain, (another once democrat putting an R in front of his name.) It's honestly really tiring to have to listen to people call Sanders evil or Trump evil. When it's just hyperbolic nonsense.

Politics has only become more of a popularity contest, it's never been so shallow and aggressive. Our first president said, political parties will do nothing but divide us, and he was right. I know how deeply corrupted politicians are on both sides and I really don't think people should hate one another for having different opinions, but the internet has almost become a landmine field. It's so toxic. I'm already sick of it, being on my twitter and facebook etc. (and it hasn't even really started yet.) and I have to be dragged to go vote tomorrow, even though I'm already 90% percent sure about the outcome.

Sanders has yet to be lambasted over being too old, when that's the only thing, most people/the media had against John MCCain

That had more to do with McCains health if I recall right. He still suffers publicly known effects from the torture he endured in Vietnam, and there were rumors that his swollen thyroid meant even more serious health issues. Sanders doesn't seem to show any signs of poor health right now. There is also comparative ages to consider. Clinton is only six years younger, and Trump five years. McCain ran against Obama, who was in his late forties, so the age difference was noticeable. If Sanders becomes the Dem candidate and runs against a Rubio or a Cruz, I have no doubt age will enter the conversation.

But here is a fun fact about ages in this election. Ronald Reagan, thus far the oldest president at election and at retirement, was 69 when he took office. McCain would have been 72 if he had took office in 2008. Sanders, if he takes office in 2016, will be 75 when he enters the white house, becoming not only the eldest president at election, but if he wins reelection and survives his presidency, he'd be the first to still be in office when he is eighty.

But he's not the only one poised to break Records. If Trump becomes president, he would also become the oldest President ever elected, entering office at age 70. That would put him 1 year ahead of Reagan. Clinton would be just 9 months younger than Reagan was when he took office.

<Snipped quote by SleepingSilence>

That had more to do with McCains health if I recall right. He still suffers publicly known effects from the torture he endured in Vietnam, and there were rumors that his swollen thyroid meant even more serious health issues. Sanders doesn't seem to show any signs of poor health right now. There is also comparative ages to consider. Clinton is only six years younger, and Trump five years. McCain ran against Obama, who was in his late forties, so the age difference was noticeable. If Sanders becomes the Dem candidate and runs against a Rubio or a Cruz, I have no doubt age will enter the conversation.

But here is a fun fact about ages in this election. Ronald Reagan, thus far the oldest president at election and at retirement, was 69 when he took office. McCain would have been 72 if he had took office in 2008. Sanders, if he takes office in 2016, will be 75 when he enters the white house, becoming not only the eldest president at election, but if he wins reelection and survives his presidency, he'd be the first to still be in office when he is eighty.

But he's not the only one poised to break Records. If Trump becomes president, he would also become the oldest President ever elected, entering office at age 70. That would put him 1 year ahead of Reagan. Clinton would be just 9 months younger than Reagan was when he took office.

I see then. Well, I'm sure your right that age and many other things that haven't will eventually be brought up. Honestly no matter who is picked, all the collective debt and problems from the past decades. Can't possibly be all fixed.

I just wish politics wasn't that kind of mud slinging competition that it has devolved into. Which whether you disagree with Sanders or not, he's probably one of the few candidates to try to run, a clean campaign. And at the same time Trump has been the most bombastic in an age where censoring others has almost become a cult in online circles, with very similar results of popularity. And I've seen a couple interviews/not biased debates, and there's a couple of smart people running.

So, it's really sad then that it's almost guaranteed that Hillary is going to probably win. Literally no matter what anyone says or does. Because the internet, as loud as it is, is still the minority of people in america. (Well, not sadly if you want her to win.)

I just don't like people hating each other because of politics, its really kind of depressing how many friendships I've seen broken over something honestly not worth it.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>
I just wish politics wasn't that kind of mud slinging competition that it has devolved into.

You haven't looked at the Democratic race then, have you? The present campaign - while dominated by the soap-opera that is the Republican race - hasn't been entirely negative drama. And despite some lite criticism the democratic race as been a lot more modest and humble, with only Clinton's Emails being brought up a couple times, but Bernie and Clinton both decided publicly they were done with making the Emails the only focus.

It'll change when the General race comes around, especially if Trump wins because the Democratic party will have mountains of allegations against him and won't hesitate to use it.

@Dinh AaronMk

Incorrect. Their is still mud slinging, just not that at each other. I think I mentioned in this forum already Bernie is running a moderately clean campaign, against a pretty easy target. But I also don't think for a second, once its down to the final two, that their wont be more ads attacking the other side then just explaining their own policies...

And despite some lite criticism the democratic race as been a lot more modest and humble, with only Clinton's Emails being brought up a couple times, but Bernie and Clinton both decided publicly they were done with making the Emails the only focus.

I feel like that whole situation was blown over way too easily. A Secretary of Defence casually e-mailing state secrets to her pen pals is a pretty big deal. Obviously the personal incompetence of Obama's heir apparent isn't something the Democratic Party, including Sanders, would want to talk about, but on the whole it's definitely an important discussion.

@Dinh AaronMk

Incorrect. Their is still mud slinging, just not that at each other. I think I mentioned in this forum already Bernie is running a moderately clean campaign, against a pretty easy target. But I also don't think for a second, once its down to the final two, that their wont be more ads attacking the other side then just explaining their own policies...

The Clinton vs Trump line-up seems to be the one we're going to get. That'll mean Trump's bombastic mudslinging personality vs the claws-out attack mode the Clintons like to practice. With the primaries having already turned over some juicy stones, that fight will be a knock-down drag-out. People are already cynical and disgusted with politics, so it'll be interesting to see what the general response is. Though, I suppose, the viciousness of the thing might force people to take sides, curing what damage Sanders has done to Clinton's viability among progressives, and what damage the Republican party's tepid response to Trump may cause for his viability among conservatives who don't already support him.

Seriously doe.