AmberCutie's Forum
An adult community for cam models and members to discuss all the things!
  • ** WARNING - ACF CONTAINS ADULT CONTENT **
    Only persons aged 18 or over may read or post to the forums, without regard to whether an adult actually owns the registration or parental/guardian permission. AmberCutie's Forum (ACF) is for use by adults only and contains adult content. By continuing to use this site you are confirming that you are at least 18 years of age.

Who would you vote for?

  • Donald Trump

  • Hillary Clinton

  • Bernie Sanders

  • Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party)

  • Jill Stein (Green Party)

  • Other

  • None


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
If these stats are accurate, I'd argue that it wasn't so much people showing up in overwhelming numbers for Trump, but moreso underwhelming numbers for Hillary. So he did average/expected, she did under average/expected.



Then again I use the word "expected" loosely because I think nobody actually expected The Donald to pull average republican vote numbers.

I think you are right and the data supports it. My social media has just exploded with "how could 50 million Americans vote for this sexist, racist, stupid pig" Every election is a combination of support for your candidate and opposing the other guy. But these were the two most unpopular candidates in history. Of my Republican friends who voted for Trump, only two were voting for him. All of the rest voted for him because they thought Hillary was worse. It was definitely not a pro-Trump but an anti-Hillary. My vote for Hillary wasn't a pro-Hillary vote but an Anti-Trump vote.

Even among active Trump supporters like Kitsune, there was an acknowledgement that Trump was a deeply flawed candidate. I saw some Democrats acknowledge that Hillary was flawed, but a hell of a lot seemed to think she was just fine because she was "experienced"
Faced with bad choices it is no surprised lots of Americans choose to not vote.
So let's not read to much into the election. Fifty million American don't approve of a sexual predator, who tweets mean thing, not do fifty million American approve of a corrupt serial liar.
 
How the hell is being against Citizens United against free speech? Free speech is given to HUMANS by the first amendment, not corporations....and money is not speech. As far as I'm concerned, giving billionaires more rights to affect the outcome of an election than average citizens...that is anti-free speech.
You realize that virtual all the concern about Citizen United turned out to be wrong this election.
The evil oil, big pharma, telecom companies, did not give tens of millions of dollars to campaigns.
The Koch brothers spent less money after Citizen United than before.
In fact, the whole story about you can buy elections with enough money was shown to be one big lie
Trump spent less than 1/2 of Hillary and won. He got almost no money from PACs and didn't even really spend that much of his own money.
In the Republican primary the candidate who raised the most PAC money Jeb Bush did awful, 4 delegates. Ben Carson who raised even money (from smaller donors) got only 7 delegates. Trump raised and spent very little and won.
In the Democratic primary, Bernie took no PAC money, but raised plenty of money from small donors. He did ultimately lose to Hillary, but it wasn't because of lack of money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mila_
I think that the only reason the election was as close as it was is because so many women voted for Clinton simply because she is a woman. It is just like the last two elections with Obama and the black votes.
James

Lol wtf is this stupid shit
 
 
SO many people voted for Hilary because she is a woman. SO MANY. People were willing to look past and ignore so much because they wanted to vote for a woman, because it was such a feminist act. I understand that when people say things like this, it feels like they're saying you all voted with your vaginas. No, I don't think that. I think she had countless supporters who supported her as a person regardless of her gender. She also had countless people following her simply because she is a woman, don't deny that just because plenty of douchebags are saying it. Douches say things that are true sometimes. If you genuinely don't think that's true, that a woman would vote for a woman just because, then I'm really jealous that you don't know what so many radical new age feminist liberals are like.

Yeah. Plenty of idiots voted for Hillary simply because she is a woman. Plenty of idiots didn't vote for her for the same reason. Doubt it made much difference. Can only hope that those with this mindset aren't capable of having a significant impact on anything.
 
You realize that virtual all the concern about Citizen United turned out to be wrong this election.
The evil oil, big pharma, telecom companies, did not give tens of millions of dollars to campaigns.
The Koch brothers spent less money after Citizen United than before.
In fact, the whole story about you can buy elections with enough money was shown to be one big lie
Trump spent less than 1/2 of Hillary and won. He got almost no money from PACs and didn't even really spend that much of his own money.
In the Republican primary the candidate who raised the most PAC money Jeb Bush did awful, 4 delegates. Ben Carson who raised even money (from smaller donors) got only 7 delegates. Trump raised and spent very little and won.
In the Democratic primary, Bernie took no PAC money, but raised plenty of money from small donors. He did ultimately lose to Hillary, but it wasn't because of lack of money.
I don't buy it. Maybe I have faulty info, but I think the link between money and policy is clear.

I don't so much go by who won the election, but what happens afterwards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: weirdbr
How the hell is being against Citizens United against free speech? Free speech is given to HUMANS by the first amendment, not corporations....and money is not speech.

That's the crux of it. The Supreme Court ruled spending money is a form of free speech. You're seeing corporations an artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights. But the ruling says they are. All those corporations, all run by people who have the right of free speech to spend their corporations money as they see fit.

Corporations are legally a person, afforded all rights thereof. Legal definition: "a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law." That corporation is one person who has the same rights as anyone else (except voting and some other limitations of course). It doesn't matter how big the corporation either.

"The Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government."

If they hadn't done that, yes, the NRA could be limited in their spending. But at the same time, so could Planned Parenthood. And then you've opened the door to Government deciding who or what has the right to free speech. Once that happens, they can move that threshhold. The threshold they tried for was already too far.

Again, you're thinking large NRA type corporations. But this would also ban small corporations from doing it as well. Picture a veterinarian who owns a few clinics and has incorporated for tax reasons. Suppose there was a law being proposed that would force all pit bulls in a town to be euthanized instead of being adopted out. (like they really did in Montreal) It would be illegal for him spend money in political support of anyone who could get that law shut down.

That law also mentions unions. So unions have no right to place any ads or spend any money on any political views or in support of any political party. Imagine a small union of hotel housekeeping workers wanting to place an ad in support of a candidate who promises to push for better working environments for hotel workers. Well, that law would have prevented them from doing that. Why is that not free speech? Every member of that union is hard working individuals who collectively voted to try to influence the political arena to help themselves. Don't they have that right?

Once you say the NRA doesn't have that right, you also deny it to laundry cleaners at your local Drury Inn, and the vet who takes care of your dog.

That law also prevented even a non-profit group from distributing a film or even a book that criticized a candidate. That was actually brought up about Hillary Clinton during her run for presidency in 2008. Yeah, that idiotic law gave the government direct power to ban films and books.

Any constitutional amendment that limits free speech should be opposed, no matter what form. Hillary flat out saying she'd get that ruling overturned so the government then has to power to decide who has the right of free speech is an affront to the constitution. That's one of the issues over which I'm ecstatic she lost. She tried to twist it around so it looked like just the big evil corporations would be stopped from spending billions to influence all us simple minded folk and get their bad ways in place. But no, it was a direct power grab designed to strip away constitutional rights from everyday citizens and give more power to the government.

F THAT! When the ACLU is even against a liberal democrat trying to do something you know it's messed up.
 
I'm not sure how calling someone far right is bigoted. People should own where they stand. I'm just assessing what the middle ground is differently than you are. You're assessing by what you think the average person believes I think? Feel free to correct me. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm putting middle ground as expecting other citizens to have the same rights as I do whether I like their choices or not. I think this is a more steadfast way to choose middle ground because what the average person believes/what is socially acceptable bias changes. For instance, interracial marriage wasn't Federally mandated as legal until 1967. So, if you and I were having this conversation at that time, your quote could be putting someone who feels interracial couples are a problem in the middle ground, but they certainly wouldn't be today. Either way, I don't think you can throw around the word "liberal" like it's a dirty word then get upset about my use of the phrase "far right".

I am not upset about your use of the phrase "far right" you can be as bigoted as you want. My problem is you are being inaccurate, which is what I am pointing out. "Far right" is a term that designates the extreme end of the spectrum. When you take this term and apply it to half of it, it no longer means anything. "Far right" becomes "anyone who disagrees with me" and that is a distortion that tries to paint anyone who deviates from what you deem correct as a radical and this is why you are being a bigot here.

I have never used the word liberal on this forum because it is confusing. I use "communist", "socialist" and "progressive" where it applies. I also don't use it as "a dirty word" I use it with their right meaning. Which is dirty considering leftists and showers don't often mix haha, but what I am trying to get at is I don't label most progressives as "communists" or "radical left" or "deplorables" because that would be bigotry. If I put someone who wants socialized healthcare in the same bag as someone who wants to take away all your private property, and a candidate that considers that bread lines are great, the bag wouldn't mean anything at all.

But that is the thing with the left, isn't it? It isn't about logic, reason, or facts. It is about twisting language, pointing fingers, and shaming people into submission so only the right kind of opinions are publicly allowed.
 
Even among active Trump supporters like Kitsune, there was an acknowledgement that Trump was a deeply flawed candidate. I saw some Democrats acknowledge that Hillary was flawed, but a hell of a lot seemed to think she was just fine because she was "experienced"
Faced with bad choices it is no surprised lots of Americans choose to not vote.
So let's not read to much into the election. Fifty million American don't approve of a sexual predator, who tweets mean thing, not do fifty million American approve of a corrupt serial liar.

The Republican party is divided but I am not a republican, I never have been. And I think Trump is baller.

I will tell you who I was referring to when I said people voted overwhelmingly for Trump. It was the white working class. White families, and white men, who are fed up of being vilified and pushed aside in their own country by both parties and the attack the establishment unleashes against the institutions. I am not talking about goodwhites here, of course, gender studies brainwashed coast city manlets who love Louis CK and kiss ass to BLM and Bernie are allies! they are good even though they are white and they are eager to prove it! Same with white liberated child-free women with 5 abortions and a 3 digit sex partner list. These all voted Hillary, of course.

I am talking about the backbone of the country. White traditional families of the working class. For the first time whites went out to vote like they were a minority because someone finally said to them that their needs matter, that the country their ancestors built matters, that the future of their children matters, that their values are good and worth fighting for. That was Trump, and he was the first person to speak to them in a very long time. So they went out and voted like they were blacks or latinos, only whites are >40% of the population.

if-only-x-voted.jpg

These people voted en masse for Trump and gave him the election. If whites vote in block for a candidate it doesn't matter what the minorities vote for.
 
Last edited:
It is not about the people who voted, it's about the people who did not vote.

The Republican candidate did get 1 million votes less then 4 years ago, the Democratic candidate did get 6 million votes less.

You there, yes you, who did vote 8 & 4 years ago for Obama and did not vote now, you are the real fucking problem !
 
It is not about the people who voted, it's about the people who did not vote.

The Republican candidate did get 1 million votes less then 4 years ago, the Democratic candidate did get 6 million votes less.

You there, yes you, who did vote 8 & 4 years ago for Obama and did not vote now, you are the real fucking problem !


That's largely due to a significant percentage of them being in jail, or recently released from jail. Most states do not allow felons to vote even years after being released or finishing their parole.

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2015.html

"Over 11 million people cycle through local jails each year."
"There are 1.6 million drug arrests each year."
"There are another 850,000 people on parole and a staggering — and growing — 3.9 million people on probation"

Most of those people lose their right to vote. It's up to individual states to assess voter rights for various levels of convictions. So you'd have to look it up for your state specifically. Far too many to cite here.
pie2015.jpg
 
I can't help but wonder how many involved in the protests tonight voted. A little misguided imo.

Two major protests I could have taken part in. First was the 2003 Iraq war protests. I didn't because I trusted my government. Second was the Occupy movement, and I am still not 100% sure how I feel about that movement. But this protesting Trump strikes me as a protest against the election.

Couple of months ago, I watched Obama at the veteran's town hall. Hard to disagree with him. He makes sense. But I did not view him the same as in 2008, not by a long shot.

http://time.com/4565149/obama-trump-nsa-surveillance/
This article touches on something I have been wondering about a lot. Who would I trust less with our surveillance state? The communists, or the fascists?
Tonight was not the time to protest. I don't think an election being won is nearly as important as the policies both parties have adopted. I suspect the author of this article is kidding himself if he believes Obama can (or would) undo this.
But that is the thing with the left, isn't it? It isn't about logic, reason, or facts. It is about twisting language, pointing fingers, and shaming people into submission so only the right kind of opinions are publicly allowed.
No. It's not. It is the thing with the left and the right.
You there, yes you, who did vote 8 & 4 years ago for Obama and did not vote now, you are the real fucking problem !
I agree with you on the numbers, but this part I disagree with.
 
I voted for Jill. Now all but a few can hate me for "throwing away my vote".

It was the only rational option left to me. Now I back the choice of the nation.

I hope for a good four years, same as I did when George W Bush was elected, same as Barack Obama was elected. Hoping for the person in charge to fail is hoping for we all to fail. We like ourselves more than that, yeah?
 
I heard Hillary was crying when she lost. I believe in it because when she gave her speech she looked like she been crying literally moping and she talked about pain. It was very off putting to me. Am even more glad she did not win because of that.
I feel We need a president who is strong and can hold emotions in check.

There are moments when there is split second to make an important decision like during war time and is not the time for emotional mambo jumbo beeee meee baby cry. That could cost a country everything.

Therefore I thought that the president should be a man - they have it in their DNA to shut off emotions anytime. Is nature. I wonder why no one ever discusses that - is that discrimination?

I think a woman can be president eventually but it takes a very special woman going against nature (there were some British queens in the past I guess who were good ) but in general I think is a mans job. Sorry - this is a mans job and don't need a moping president. I can cry but the president has to keep me and the country safe.
So what would Hillary do if country got attacked ? Would she cry???
 
Please excuse me if I offended anyone by this. But many of you say you do not feel safe with trump being president yet is ok to have someone who cannot handle a loss withouth moping crying and stuff and that to me would be dangerous in a moment when war decisions need to be made.
 
I wonder why no one ever discusses that - is that discrimination?

Among the Left's more pernicious accomplishments are the dulling of people's perception of the stark difference in nature between men and women, and the denigration—practically criminalization—of traditional male strengths and virtues. ("Discrimination" is among the words they have either invented or weaponized to achieve these sorts of goals.)

My great hope is that with Trump now elected, it will start to become acceptable again to notice these common-sense things and to comment on them publicly.
 
I heard Hillary was crying when she lost. I believe in it because when she gave her speech she looked like she been crying literally moping and she talked about pain. It was very off putting to me. Am even more glad she did not win because of that.
I feel We need a president who is strong and can hold emotions in check.

There are moments when there is split second to make an important decision like during war time and is not the time for emotional mambo jumbo beeee meee baby cry. That could cost a country everything.

Therefore I thought that the president should be a man - they have it in their DNA to shut off emotions anytime. Is nature. I wonder why no one ever discusses that - is that discrimination?

I think a woman can be president eventually but it takes a very special woman going against nature (there were some British queens in the past I guess who were good ) but in general I think is a mans job. Sorry - this is a mans job and don't need a moping president. I can cry but the president has to keep me and the country safe.
So what would Hillary do if country got attacked ? Would she cry???

Seriously? You sound ridiculous. You got what you wanted (your male president), and now you're complaining about Hillary crying when she lost? She is HUMAN. I bet that, in previous elections, other losing candidates shed some tears also...they just may have been able to disguise it better. I'm certain that if I was running for something this huge (or shall I say...YUUUGE...) and lost, I would've been crying too.

I love how some of these Trump supporters...instead of just being happy that their candidate won...still love to complain, and are on social media posting 'middle finger' memes to Hillary voters...5 minutes after they swear they're such decent "Christian people." LOL. Keepin' it classy...
 
I love how some of these Trump supporters...instead of just being happy that their candidate won...still love to complain, and are on social media posting 'middle finger' memes to Hillary voters...5 minutes after they swear they're such decent "Christian people." LOL.

To be fair, the Hillary supporters are doing just as much complaining. No, they're doing more with all the riots, flag burning, and proclaiming 'not my president' bullshit.
 
To be fair, the Hillary supporters are doing just as much complaining. No, they're doing more with all the riots, flag burning, and proclaiming 'not my president' bullshit.

Interesting how you chose to nitpick at that particular part of my post...despite the fact that I emphasized the word 'some'. Care to actually speak on the rest of what I said? Or you just wanna co-sign the foolishness that Lili_Loves just posted?
 
Interesting how you chose to nitpick at that particular part of my post...despite the fact that I emphasized the word 'some'. Care to actually speak on the rest of what I said? Or you just wanna co-sign the foolishness that Lili_Loves just posted?

No, I pretty much liked what she said. Spot on. Summed it up nicely.
 
Please excuse me if I offended anyone by this. But many of you say you do not feel safe with trump being president yet is ok to have someone who cannot handle a loss withouth moping crying and stuff and that to me would be dangerous in a moment when war decisions need to be made.

There's a big difference between mourning a loss like a human being and making a big decision in the moment. In survival situations or times where quick thinking is needed, most people act first, process emotionally later.

(Not defending HRC at all, and if you genuinely believe women are too emotional to govern, that's your belief. But your justification I quoted has a faulty premise.)

Plus side, Maine has voted in favor of Ranked Choice voting- where it's easier to elect a candidate that more people agree with. Hopefully this takes off in other states and maybe down the road is implemented with presidential elections.
 
To be fair, the Hillary supporters are doing just as much complaining. No, they're doing more with all the riots, flag burning, and proclaiming 'not my president' bullshit.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trump-Victory-Sees-Spike-in-Hate-Crimes-20161109-0037.html

And yeah, I actually saw Ashley Boyer's Facebook post for myself before it had been taken down. Poor girl can't even fill up her car with gas without being harassed by good 'ole "God-fearing" Trump supporters.

RgJxylx.jpg


Glad to hear the scumbags were caught, and she manages to keep her head up. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nordling
Sportsman cry when they win or lose a big event, it's labelled as passion and they're celebrated for it
.
If Obama cries when he leaves the White House he will be celebrated for it

There's nothing wrong with crying over such things

Sportsman (after a game If at all) is not observed by everyone out there in the world all kinda creepos in desert barracks waitin looking for any sign of weakness in new president.

Obama as a man is not emotional. His rare attempt at tears conveniently inserted as photo opportunity timing (to push his gun control agenda) looked fake- no puffy face nothing not even changed emotion look.
As much as I don't like Obama policies I gotta give it to him - not much gets to him.

Hillary could not control herself obviously cause probably the last thing she wanted is puffy mopin look knowing she will have to give speech. But she could not stop the stream...then no makeup helped her.
 
Among the Left's more pernicious accomplishments are the dulling of people's perception of the stark difference in nature between men and women, and the denigration—practically criminalization—of traditional male strengths and virtues. ("Discrimination" is among the words they have either invented or weaponized to achieve these sorts of goals.)

My great hope is that with Trump now elected, it will start to become acceptable again to notice these common-sense things and to comment on them publicly.

Traditional male strengths and virtues? Like what, pray tell?

Because honestly, the idea that men and women are THAT different is sheer ludicrousness. And the idea that women are meek, emotional, and better nurturers is a trained skill, through decades of cultural treatment as pure chattel, as children, and being told to "step back and let the man handle it". And plenty of women have been amazing fucking leaders.

Crying and sadness isn't weakness. And denying the healing power of sorrow is blindness.
 
Men and women ARE different . There was this experiment they did -I remember reading about sorry if a bit vague but it illustrates...
Ok
They put two kids - boy and girl toddler behind glass and mother on the other side. When girl saw momma she started cry and extended her hands. The boy acted differently. He run to momma and tried to find a way to her.

Anyway - there are very strong women out there and stuff exceptions ok but you cannot fight nature. Nature is much stronger than any political views or things we learn etc. you cannot fight the DNA lol
 
The only difference between men and women is physical. For every mentally weak woman I know, I know a strong one who will fight. And for every strong man I know, I know a weak one who will use empty words to defend a weak puny ego instead of taking action to work and improve upon his flaws.

If you have only known weak women, I guarantee that behind at least %50 of them was a family telling that woman that she was weak and not letting her do "boys" things so she never learned the "traditional male strengths" ya'll are banging on about.

I know plenty of female fighters. I mean that literally.
 
Traditional male strengths and virtues? Like what, pray tell?

Because honestly, the idea that men and women are THAT different is sheer ludicrousness. And the idea that women are meek, emotional, and better nurturers is a trained skill, through decades of cultural treatment as pure chattel, as children, and being told to "step back and let the man handle it". And plenty of women have been amazing fucking leaders.

Crying and sadness isn't weakness. And denying the healing power of sorrow is blindness.

Traditional male virtues: action, reason, determination, strength, courage, practicality, long term thinking.

Traditional female virtues: repose, sensitivity, constancy, devotion, sensuality, persuasiveness.

You can't really be a camgirl and say with a straight face that men and women aren't different. Have you ever paid a man to jerk on cam for you? Would you ever?

It is rooted in biology because the survival of our species depends on reproduction and sex is the determining factor. So one sex does the attracting and the other sex does the pursuing and that keeps things in motion. Even gametes act according to their sex, sperm being active and determined, while eggs attract and wait.

On top of it women evolved to respond to their nature which is mediated by pregnancy, 9 months in which she will be undisposed to provide for herself.
 
I am not upset about your use of the phrase "far right" you can be as bigoted as you want. My problem is you are being inaccurate, which is what I am pointing out. "Far right" is a term that designates the extreme end of the spectrum. When you take this term and apply it to half of it, it no longer means anything. "Far right" becomes "anyone who disagrees with me" and that is a distortion that tries to paint anyone who deviates from what you deem correct as a radical and this is why you are being a bigot here.
Nope. You misunderstood what I said and jumped on it. I went back and checked what I wrote to make sure I didn't lump the KKK in with the far right. The KKK are not the far right. They're extremists. What I wrote is that I'm not sure how people who voted for Trump aren't made uncomfortable by the fact that the KKK are celebrating. Maybe I should have just said extremists to include the gangs and folks outside of the KKK because they aren't the only ones. Ignored my actual question and weasled around in my words to turn it around.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.