 |
|
Looking at the posts here, looks like some people think that both the candidates are bad. So, is there an option to state "I vote for none of these" in US? If yes, do you think people are aware of it and will use it?
"You'd have to be a floating database guru clad in a white toga and ghandi level of sereneness to fix this goddamn clusterfuck.", BruceN[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
In Russia, they have a "none of the above" option to force a re-do of the election if that option wins.
To think Russia does democracy better than the USA
|
|
|
|
|
lw@zi wrote: both the candidates are bad
More like "two candidates are bad". The (politically controlled) media is trying to make it appear as if it's a 1:1 race and they seem to be getting what they wanted.
The poster below does mention a third option. I looked up Gary Johnson and his political views, and he seems like a better choice than two promoted by media - a lady tainted with allegations of corruption and a vaunter who knows nothing but to brag.
|
|
|
|
|
Wait a minute...there's a third candidate?! Haven't even seen him mentioned in any news.
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: a vaunter who knows nothing but to brag
Did you see John Oliver's last week tonight about their convention? I am amazed how in a fair system with intelligent people, this guy can go this far in a race.
"You'd have to be a floating database guru clad in a white toga and ghandi level of sereneness to fix this goddamn clusterfuck.", BruceN[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
lw@zi wrote: Wait a minute...there's a third candidate?! Haven't even seen him mentioned in any news.
Yup. See here: Re: More American politics for Europeans[^]
lw@zi wrote: Did you see John Oliver's last week tonight about their convention?
No, I didn't see that.
lw@zi wrote: I am amazed how in a fair system with intelligent people, this guy can go this far in a race.
What's even more amazing is that he has a possible chance to win. But it's democracy, so the people can vote for who they want with no regards to how revolting their political views are. 
|
|
|
|
|
In Oz the Australian Marijuana Party[^] was started in the 70's as a protest party, and probably still gets some votes. An excellent alternative to the pillocks we have to put up with in our politics.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Message Removed
modified 20hrs ago.
|
|
|
|
|
The Europeans still interested in American politics need to start protesting against Trump's opponent (Hillary Clinton). She deserves it more than anyone else.
As President Obama's Secretary of State (responsible for foreign relations), she mostly neglected her official responsibilities and used the position as a means to solicit bribes and political connections from foreign governments and corporations.
Her main accomplishments as Secretary of State include destabilizing governments in the Middle East and Africa, getting the U.S. Ambassador of Libya killed, causing the rise of ISIS, creating a dysfunctional policy of both allying with and fighting ISIS, and causing the migration crisis in Europe.
After barely surviving an email scandal where she accidentally leaked top-secret military information to the whole world when all she meant to do was receive bribes from foreign entities (and then got caught lying and destroying evidence), she gets into another scandal:
Apparently, she, her party leaders, and several media outlets illegally manipulated the primary election to get her elected above another member of her party (who was likely the legitimate winner of the election). Instead of denying these allegations, they accused Wikileaks of using Russian intelligence to obtain that data to disrupt the American political process (as if election fraud wasn't a disruption of the American political process in the first place). And then protests against the primary election results ended with peaceful protesters being thrown in jail to shut them up, and she continues to be the official party nominee (to be Trump's main opponent in the general election).
So we've hit a new low here in America politics, and the only thing that's missing is bewilderment and/or pity from the Europeans that such a thing could happen in a (supposedly) first-world country.
|
|
|
|
|
The real sad fact here in America is that the media is just as complicit. They keep pushing that the citizens only have a choice between the two, but there is a third party called the Libertarian party with a candidate on all 50 state ballots. Neither Trump nor Clinton will be a good choice for POTUS and the Libertarian Gary Johnson is a much better choice.
When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others.
Same thing when you are stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Why do we hear none of this on the media over here?
|
|
|
|
|
Because our media companies just forward what they want to?
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. What many of us in the States have come to realize is that what we see in the media is nothing more than political theater. They want us to chose between who they want us to vote for. In the end, both Democrat and Republican parties have the same agenda. An independent or libertarian candidate will not go with the standard establishment ways of doing things, so they deceive people into thinking that there are only two candidates. They also play down the fact that there are write-in votes, so you can vote for whom ever you wish. The other mind-set, that is pushed a lot, is that if you don't vote for one of the two major parties, your vote is wasted. I keep telling people that there is no such thing unless you are stupid and do a write-in vote for a fictional character (Mickey Mouse). Believe it or not, some actually do this to make a point, but all they are doing is showing their ignorance.
When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others.
Same thing when you are stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Our media is very intrusive in US politics, if it werent for Muslim attacks its all we would have on the TV!
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I don't watch TV. It sucks 
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donathan.Hutchings wrote: but there is a third party called the Libertarian party with a candidate on all 50 state ballots.
Actually there is also a fourth, Green which is nearly on all states. Will be by end of August most likely.
IMO, only a brainwashed fool would vote for either of the so called "two parties". They are both dead to me.
If you are a conservative you should consider voting for Libertarians.
If you are a liberal you should consider voting for the Green party.
Bring back respectful politics. Boot the good 'ol boys club, both DNC and GOP.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
|
|
|
|
|
That would be a fine choice. Unfortunately the libertarian won't won. It just won't happen.
|
|
|
|
|
Not that I doubt any of your claims (my opinion of Hilary is as low as it can get, Trump as well,) but do you have any sources you can cite? Should be some interesting reading...
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously? You need him to cite sources? Seriously?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Need? No. I already said I believe him.
I just wanted to know where he was getting his information. I don't pay much attention to the news, mostly due to them being biased, untrustworthy a***holes...
If by your comment you mean to say that had I bothered to Google the topic(s) I'd have had my answer, then fine, but knowing which of those sources he considers trustworthy is useful to me.
|
|
|
|
|
All the points I made can be verified by a variety of activists and bloggers from both liberal and conservative sources; I don't think any are disputed. The recent DNC protests and Wikileaks stuff is not being reported much by the major media sources, though (with the exception of CNN inventing conspiracy theories of Julian Assange of working with Russia despite zero evidence).
If you're interested, a 30-minute interview with a conservative activist who was at the DNC can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7SvB9qEpNQ
I think it bizarre that the Europeans flooded the soapbox with opinions when Trump ran a campaign on politically-incorrect statements, but when Clinton drags the country through the type of scandals usually done in third world dictatorships (and not in the USA) they don't seem to be paying much attention to American politics anymore, despite it being orders of magnitude more disturbing.
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like it could be interesting, at the very least (mudslinging not-withstanding.)
I'll have a watch, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
jesarg wrote: All the points I made can be verified by a variety of activists and bloggers
Activists and bloggers? Wow...now that is some impressive credentials right there, I mean if a blogger has said these things then damn, they must be true.
|
|
|
|
|
Major media outlets are also covering current political events, but if I post "CNN reported" or "NBC reported" or "The Washington Post reported", then people's response would be "Who cares what they reported? What did the reliable sources report?"
In the case of the recent Democratic National Convention (DNC), the most reliable sources are the political activists and bloggers who were present at the event and reported on their first-hand experiences (sometimes with video). If first-hand people from a variety of different political viewpoints and organizations independently agree on key points, then it's safe to call it an accurate representation of the events.
I stuck to writing only the easily verifiable information in the original post, so if you'd like to verify, you can.
|
|
|
|
|
jesarg wrote: Major media outlets are also covering current political events, but if I post "CNN reported" or "NBC reported" or "The Washington Post reported", then people's response would be "Who cares what they reported? What did the reliable sources report?"
True, people do have a rather annoying habit of adopting that ad hominem fallacy.
jesarg wrote: the most reliable sources are the political activists and bloggers who were present at the event and reported on their first-hand experiences
A common mistake in today's digital age where people have forgotten about quality of information and journalism, people today think that the only things you can trust are the things that are free and made by amateurs, not for any credible reason, simply because that is the only thing people are willing to consume so in the process convince themselves that it must be better. We see it with "open source" as much as "mainstream media" news.
Ask yourself this, how reliable were those bloggers and twitter users in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing? In case you can't remember...they were not accurate at all. The term "eye witness" is just an excuse to claim misinformation as fact.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
