Who Are You Voting For?

[amasarac]

Democracy is so broken, the system is massively corrupt. I am not going to take the 'you have a vote' pill, medicine that doesn't work is just poison.

[MagicManICT]

Although, drug dealers and cartel workers, while not "terrorists" strictly speaking, are not good for us

I think it would be safe to say, with the tactics the cartels use, that they are terrorists of another kind from the radical jihadists, but still much the same. Certain groups seek power and will use force of any kind to hold what they do get. I'd love to see them brought to their knees, too, but stupid shit like a wall just won't cut it. Legalizing marijuana nationally will do it. Decreasing the penalties on heroin and cocaine so that we're not clogging our prisons with petty drug offenders that are more afraid of their dealers than of a few years in prison. Take the money out of the cartel pockets, and suddenly that's a huge problem that is gone. Just to note so that it's on topic, I find a rare candidate that actually wants to do this. Obama is trying for this in his last year, but otherwise it's a Libertarian ideal that the Tea Party, who are supposed to be the Libertarians of the Republican Party*, ignore.

<Ted == Alien>

Haha!! For the most part I've liked him as a sensible person, not necessarily as a politician, but boy does this take the cake.

Thank you Bernie supporters for helping ruin any chance Killary had. She is evil incarnate, and absolutely should be in prison. /s I certainly want a commander in chief that will sleep rather than take care of his soldiers. /ends

Funny story.... John Oliver brought exactly this kind of attitude up on this weeks show. I'd link it, but HBO (the cable channel it airs on) is behind a paywall.

[jordancoles]

Hahah oh man

[GenghisKhan44]

That wasn't an insult, that's the official term for independent voters. AKA Swing Voters.
Idiot voters, or low information voters, are categorized as being less likely to vote, being more likely to be swing voters, and tend to vote for candidates they find personally appealing rather than voting for a party specifically.

I was mostly pointing out the fallacy of assuming that that categorical voter would be loyal to a party. Many Sanders supporters weren't voting Democrat, they were voting Sanders. They would have voted for him regardless of what party he ran under, Dem, Rep, Independent, or other.

Oh, OK. I see what you mean. Although you do make me wonder why hardline Democrats and hardline Republicans might not also be considered "low information" voters. In fact, I would say, more likely to be low info, since they vote the party line, regardless. So that if you are hardline, it's not exactly important to know much about your candidate, aside from what line they tow, am I wrong?

In any case this election has been chaotic, and I'm hoping "idiot" voters of all grades, kinds, and parties are finally beginning to do a bit of research. Maybe we will see more informed, "high information" Independents in the coming cycle.

[avros008]

hahahaha

[MagicManICT]

In fact, I would say, more likely to be low info, since they vote the party line, regardless.

This. Independent voters, swing voters, whatever you want to call them, tend to be a bit more selective in candidates than those that only vote their party. At least, that's been my experience, anyway, even if there's research showing otherwise. It's the only reason an idiot like Sam Brownback is still governor in Kansas. (I'll hold my rant and save you from reading about things you can look up online if you actually care.)

[TeckXKnight]

Oh, OK. I see what you mean. Although you do make me wonder why hardline Democrats and hardline Republicans might not also be considered "low information" voters. In fact, I would say, more likely to be low info, since they vote the party line, regardless. So that if you are hardline, it's not exactly important to know much about your candidate, aside from what line they tow, am I wrong?

In any case this election has been chaotic, and I'm hoping "idiot" voters of all grades, kinds, and parties are finally beginning to do a bit of research. Maybe we will see more informed, "high information" Independents in the coming cycle.

Honestly I've never looked up the statistics to back it up, so you could be entirely correct. I'd like to believe people were doing their research on their candidates, but it's exhausting. I do my best to read up on current events but it's infuriating to keep up with political news. I can't blame people for not always being in the know when they've got so much going on otherwise that they can't invest themselves emotionally and academically in following the candidates.

[dageir]

So how will the foreign policy turn out under president Trump?

[Glorthan]

I can't blame people for not always being in the know when they've got so much going on otherwise that they can't invest themselves emotionally and academically in following the candidates.

Emotional investment and appeal (from the voters and candidates, respectively) rather than critical analysis and appeal through policies/experience alone is one of the many issues with modern democracy imo, a problem vastly amplified by the hyperactive media of today. But asking the common people to approach things in an emotionally detached, logical manner is frankly likely beyond the current ability of most of them anyway.

I don't understand why you'd think independent or swing voters to be less likely to be informed than people that vote a party/system/member regardless of their policies (hardliners).

[MagicManICT]

So how will the foreign policy turn out under president Trump?

This is assuming Trump can win. There's a huge call by a lot of groups that normally side with the GOP to not vote for Trump. Just don't vote if you can't vote for Clinton. This includes a lot of folks in the Catholic church and other religious organizations. There are a lot of registered Republicans who are talking like they'll just refuse to vote. Another group talking about just keeping Clinton to one term. Shall I go on?

All Trump did was pull all the rants off Twitter and start blasting them. Don't get me wrong, the masses want what the masses want. Doesn't mean what we (the masses) want the right things. Doesn't help you have all these ultra-conservative pundits blasting all this crap on talk radio and such for the last 10 years that has been, appropriately I might add, ignored by the legislation. Now there's a candidate that's either smart enough to listen to it and talk it up (and eventually ignore it when elected) or dumb enough to listen to it and actually act on it.

Otherwise, Trump wouldn't be the first president to be mostly ignorant of foreign policy. Carter was an expert on foreign policy, and look at what his legacy has been.