Is #ClintonTrain even a thing?

It is now :)

But no, in general Clinton supporters keep a lower profile than Bern victims and Trumptards, especially online. For one, we know our candidate is going to be the next President, so there is on reason to make a huge display of it. We're just enjoying the theatrics until November. And second, most vocal supporters of other candidates hate Clinton so even revealing that we support her opens us up to all manner of trolls attacking her about emails and speeches and shit. Once again, better to just lay low and enjoy the show, knowing she's going to be the next President. Let me say that one more time, the next President of the United States will be Hillary Clinton. Doesn't matter how much you don't like her.

Hillary tries to keep it quiet because her history offer so many legitimate reasons to attack her. Case in point, she attacked Trump, calling him a sexist. Trump said she was an enabler. She shut up about the whole thing after that because continuing to talk about that would only emphasize her weak track record when it comes to women's rights. At the same time, the worst thing they can truthfully say about Trump and sexism is that he once told a woman she shouldn't eat too much cake to not get fat.

Edited 6/13/2016 06:00:35

It would really make sense to campaign for preferential voting at this point; libertarians and other political groups are getting especially shafted.
Something that should be heavily pursued, we also wouldn't have gotten bush 43, Gore would've won without a doubt, as the Ralph Nader votes most likely shift to Gore. Gore technically won anyway with full recount of all votes in florida(http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/) We should get rid of the electoral college.

I agree with what you both say, the system is bad, but this is the least of the problems. Voters aren't informed, and an easy way to fix this would be like so: have the candidates all put frains that they make, which can highlight what they support, and redflag what the other candidates support, and it wouldn't be biased since all candidates would be making it. This kind of thing would discourage casual voting, or voting on charisma (something that drives many Trump supporters, and I can see why, I agree that Trump has the most likeable attitude of them all. But what he says, and more weightily, what he plans to do, are full crap. And you'd assign weight to each frain, and then your 1 vote would be split into decims amongst each candidate by how much you agree with their policies.

I did a small analysis on Warlight, after several folk took an American presidential candidate quiz and posted what % matches they got. Results: (http://imgh.us/politchart_3.png). Though it's evidently a pretty small and biased sample size, Gary Johnson was on average most liked based on data of who posted their match. But if everyone voted the one they liked the most, Sanders would get the most votes, winning even though he has less of an average match than Johnson.

Trump actually inspires enthusiasm in a lot of people, where those voting Clinton do it because they have always voted Democrat, or because they've been lied to by the media that Trump is a racist misogynist homophobe shitlord.

This is irrevelant. His charisma is irrelevant (and he is against gay marriage, so I guess homophobic is a right word to say - and he is a shitlord, you'd be daft if you didn't think all the mainstream candidates were).

You do realize that candidates actually do that, right? You can literally go to any one of their websites and they all have an Issues section. If they've served in public office, you can also easily find their voting records- and they bring them up regularly in debates.

This is irrevelant. His charisma is irrelevant (and he is against gay marriage, so I guess homophobic is a right word to say - and he is a shitlord, you'd be daft if you didn't think all the mainstream candidates were).

He doesn't inspire enthusiasm because of his charisma but because he brings political stances on the table that were deliberately ignored by the establishment, like ending political correctness and stopping radical islamic terrorism.

Even Sanders inspires a lot more enthusiasm than Crooked Hillary, and he's a bore.

Trump isn't against gay marriage, he's for states deciding it for themselves.

Edited 6/13/2016 06:23:16

stopping radical islamic terrorism.

The entire war on terror was trying to do that, and nothing Trump proposes would actually stop a terrorist from going to Mexico, and going to the US that way.

You don't think reducing illegal immigration helps?

Given that second-generation immigrants are significantly more likely to commit terrorist acts than first-generation immigrants? Trump's Muslim ban + wall proposals won't have a big enough effect to justify their negatives.

You do realize that candidates actually do that, right? You can literally go to any one of their websites and they all have an Issues section. If they've served in public office, you can also easily find their voting records- and they bring them up regularly in debates.

I'm saying for them to make a quiz instead of a ballot, and this quiz would pick the candidate you really wanted, not the one you just liked the most.

He doesn't inspire enthusiasm because of his charisma but because he brings political stances on the table that were deliberately ignored by the establishment, like ending political correctness and stopping radical islamic terrorism.

My points still stands: don't vote any politician in just since they're charismatic and have an enthousiastic supportbase.

Also, really? Something that's not really weighty (and the way he plans to solve it is slashing speech freedom), and something that he didn't at at all bring up...you really think that Obama and the mythic conspiracy of "establishment" didn't talk about Islamic violent extremism? I wish this was the case, since all that's happening is fearmongering and ignoring of more pressing issues like environment, but no, I highly highly doubt that Trump brought up the talk of radic Islamic dreadknighthood in American policy. That crown more likely goes to the lovable wonderful fellow, George Bush.

You know how you can tell Clinton is the best candidate? The best thing anybody else can say about their candidate is an attack on Clinton. They have nothing good to say about their own guy other than 'but her emails'

Trump's the best candidate because he will slash political correctness, curb illegal immigration, and waterboard radical Islamic terrorists. But if you don't think these are important issues, then at least keep in mind that while Trump is a question mark who could be good or bad, we already know that Hillary will be bad.

If you think he will do all of those things, you don't know very much about the role of the President of the United States.

Hint: they are not a dictator who gets to make whatever changes they want. If other people want to be politically correct, they will be. He cannot force them to say brash, inflammatory, racist, retarded things like he does. If congress and/or the military do not agree with him about waterboarding, we will not waterboard suspected or accused terrorists. If the states and congress and a lot of other people don't agree with his immigration ideas then the changes he wants will not take place. He does not have sole authority to build his wall, for instance.

Even if Congress manages to block some of his reforms, he's still a step in the right direction. And if someone tries to block everything he's doing, he knows how to bully them into obedience.

Have you not been paying attention the last 8 years? Congress tells Obama to fuck himself if he asks for more toilet paper. Congress can certainly block everything he wants to do. But you are correct that if you want racism and vulgar speech and torture, he is a step in the right direction.

Trump has little chance in getting much of his crap through. He'd only realistically do this all if he expanded the power of the executive branch by a lot. That's not too unrealistic though.

Also Knyte is a much better Clinton supporter than WB.

Edited 6/13/2016 09:31:35

Have you not been paying attention the last 8 years? Congress tells Obama to fuck himself if he asks for more toilet paper. Congress can certainly block everything he wants to do.

You are absolutely right that Obama is a weak president. Nobody likes him, nobody respects him. And that's why we need someone like Trump. He can get things done, unlike that token vagina on the other side.

But you are correct that if you want racism and vulgar speech and torture, he is a step in the right direction.

Well your skill at Warlight is shitty, but not quite as bad as your understanding of politics. Just because someone is not politically correct and the media doesn't like them doesn't mean that they are a racist.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-great-spirits-have-always-encountered-violent-opposition-from-mediocre-minds-the-mediocre-mind-is-albert-einstein-226507.jpg

*watches thread from #HillaryForPrison2016 train*

The only train worth being on pertaining to being critical of Clinton is the train that involves her being treated like one of the people that were bombed and/or attacked by Foriegn policy she supported. If you're not on that train, you're attacking her for the wrong reasons.

Edited 6/13/2016 11:23:33

#HillaryForTargetPracticeTrain?

Hint: they are not a dictator who gets to make whatever changes they want.

Executive Orders. That nifty abuse that Obama has gotten away with pretty cleanly, something Democrats haven't really complained about, but are horrified of the idea of Trump using. All the increased Presidential power that Obama accumulated will potentially be passed down to Trump, just think about that.