2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:29 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Bush wanted his plan. Obama followed Bush's plan. There really isn't a big difference here.


Bush was in charge of the first Iraq surge, and would have likely led a second Iraq surge when things weren't working out. Obama was anti-surge from the start. He pulled back troop numbers severely, and when the Republicans were gunning for more troops, Obama pulled more troops out.

And mind you, it wasn't Bush vs Obama. It was Obama vs McCain. McCain has remained a figure in national politics for these past 8 years, so we know his opinion on virtually everything. He's disagreed with a lot of Obama's policies, and it is very easy to see what McCain would have done differently.


Well, yes, Republicans and Democrats disagree endlessly. This is what they say.

But go back, and watch some of those debates. They boil down to "and I would do this BETTER" a great deal of the time. At the time, there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm for more war, but a lot of caring about the economy. So...at the end of the day, it's not as if things were likely to turn out very differently.

What, would more republican policy have resulted in conflict in Syria and drone strikes?


I'd imagine that McCain would have approved a 2nd surge of troops, double-downed on Mosul and Ramadi. Probably hundreds or thousands of US casualties when ISIS attacked those cities, but then the US regains control and weathers the attack. McCain was staunchly against pulling the troops out of Iraq.

We probably would have had a separate set of issues (even more War weariness than we have now), but that's how I'd imagine McCain handling that situation.


Nonsense. McCain said that if HE'd been prez at the time, there probably wouldn't have even been an Iraq War.

Your imagination is simply fueled by "republicans go punch things, democrats don't" talking points.

Obama has, by any measure, not really been much of a pacifist.


He has been a very "not my problem" president with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. He's been trying to push Iraq and Afghanis to handle the situation by themselves.


He has said many words to those effects. He also has not been overly hesitant to fire the missiles.

I imagine that a Republican, too, would have fired many missiles. Perhaps different words would have been spoken, but who cares?

Yes, yes. I'm aware of the narrative. I gave you actual statistics. In actual practice, Obama has deported a ridiculous amount of people, and the trend rose to a record level under him. The fact that it's now regressing towards the mean is...well, unsurprising. That happens eventually. It isn't strong support for him changing things away from the status quo.


Yeah. Obama did that. Mostly because he didn't actually change the policy until November 2014. Keep up with the new policies. I don't care about old statistics. Give me statistics only after Nov 2014. Hell, some of these policies have only been present for a few months.

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/file ... ull_En.pdf

I guarantee you that this policy decision will be reversed by a Republican President. You really can't close your eyes to real change that is occurring right now.


If it's less than a year old, you can't reasonably expect the government to have comprehensive data on it yet. Most stuff is year by year, and there's some delay inherent in preparing data.

The fact that he didn't find the policy important to change until now, after the record breaking numbers were accomplished, should be enlightening regarding his priorities. I doubt it would have ever arisen had the deportation level stayed constant. I expect that, republican or democrat, it'll continue to revert toward the mean.

A republican will merely make words regarding deporting all lawbreakers, blah, blah, blah...but he'll still prioritize deporting felons first, as both parties always have in modern history. Nobody's gonna stand up there and speak out on behalf of illegal immigrant felons. Haha, no.

What actual change do you expect from republicans? Building a wall? Nah. That costs ridiculous money. The Mexican government is not going to pay for it, no matter what Trump says. No incentive. Lobbying for rights for immigrants and/or felons? Hah. Nope, they're gonna say "deport them all, but ESPECIALLY deport those felons". The democrats will say the same thing, but with a sad, sympathetic face instead of a self-righteous one.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:35 pm UTC

leady wrote:Government spending the UK has increased YoY under the current government. British austerity is merely the slowing of the rate of growth of government spending with department budget changes.


Well, in absolute dollars, we would expect spending to increase year-over-year due to inflation and population growth if nothing else.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:27 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
leady wrote:Government spending the UK has increased YoY under the current government. British austerity is merely the slowing of the rate of growth of government spending with department budget changes.


Well, in absolute dollars, we would expect spending to increase year-over-year due to inflation and population growth if nothing else.


According to this: http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/total_2015UKpt_15pc5n

The UK's total spending as a percentage of GDP has been:

2010 - 45%
2011 - 45%
2012 - 44%
2013 - 44%
2014 - 42%
2015 - 41%
2016 - 40%

So spending has been dropping by that metric (which seems like the only sensible one to me) over the Conservative rule, although it wasn't as dramatic as I'd expected for 2016. Osborne said he wants it around 37% by 2020 I seem to remember. Which so far is just words, but looking at that data it seems pretty reasonable he'll manage that.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:21 pm UTC

You do realize that the world is not based off linear regression right?There are diminishing returns, or in this case, rising costs, to further cuts to services.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:25 pm UTC

sardia wrote:You do realize that the world is not based off linear regression right?There are diminishing returns, or in this case, rising costs, to further cuts to services.


It's as a percentage of GDP, so framing it all as cuts is not quite right.

Having done 5% in 6 years, getting the remaining 3 by decade's end seems doable. Well, barring major wars, recessions, or other things that throw a wrench in the works. Just gotta keep a lid on spending while keeping the economy humming along nicely.

It'd be nice if the US lot could manage at least one of those things.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:06 am UTC

All that percentage of GDP is showing is the "recovery" (which has been taxless because its all low paid work, primarily it appears through population growth) from a very tanked GDP starting point :) I'd also be curious as to whether the effects of debt financing are covered in those numbers.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sat Nov 28, 2015 5:45 pm UTC

Looking at the figures for 2007 - 2009, that does actually seem to be the case. There was a huge jump in absolute spending from 2008 to 2009, and spending increases from year to year have reduced since then as the economy grew.

But as GDP goes up, so should tax receipts, so the yearly budget deficit should be dropping, and according to this it is:
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05745.pdf

Page 6 has public sector net borrowing which dropped in 2013/14 and 2014/15 and is projected to drop further until we're in surplus. If the economy keeps steady our total debt as a percentage of GDP should drop.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 01, 2015 5:26 pm UTC

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/stump-speech/

The perfect GOP, or any speech, with comments explaining why each line is said. Think that over next time you think a politician is super bright.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:59 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/stump-speech/

The perfect GOP, or any speech, with comments explaining why each line is said. Think that over next time you think a politician is super bright.


Too much parody, not enough analysis.

The comparison to the postal service, for instance...eh. Republicans are not especially focused on hating the postal service. A snipe at The Affordable Care Act would be much more apropriate. You don't need a full argument against The Affordable Care Act. Your audience is already on board for that. You just snipe at it on the way to other things.

Also, the geographical constraint on intelligentsia isn't quite right. Use "Ivory Tower" instead. The theme isn't about where they're from, but about the disconnect from good, honest, ordinary folk.

There's also a reason the Republicans tend to use "needy" instead of poor. It implies a focus to aid on those who need it, whereas democrats are routinely characterized as giving out aid to those who don't need/are exploint it. Describing his preferred usage as "more honest" is...kind of a basic failure to understand politics.

Shit, Trump is bright, in a certain way. This is very different from being good. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he's using a very calculated and clever approach to perform well. That isn't really my issue with him.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:19 pm UTC

Mambrino wrote:
duckshirt wrote:I trust Nate Silver more than any other commentator... He was right (and I was wrong) about Biden, I hope he's right again. However it is funny how the conversations I hear have gone from "Trump won't make it to the debates" to "Trump won't last" to "Trump will get murdered in the general election" to "a Trump presidency would be a disaster."


...surely he couldn't win a second term in office, at least?

I may be going out on a limb here, but I'll go so far as to say that when Trump nears the end of his second term, he won't be so overwhelmingly popular that the states caucus to amend the Constitution to allow him (and him only) to serve more terms.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11129
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:24 pm UTC

Trump definitely won't be allowed to pass his presidency-for-life on to Trump Jr. without at least a pro-forma election.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:26 pm UTC

The rebellion will clearly crush the Galactic Imperial reign of Trump Sidious.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:32 pm UTC

The big question is who he will choose for a running mate. Gordon Ramsay and Simon Cowell are probably not eligible. Maybe Ryan Secrest?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:33 pm UTC

Did you get the highlighted parts to pop out? I thought there was plenty of analysis. Or are you saying they're too much parody (even though the speech is fairly serious) when you included the analytical parts?.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 01, 2015 8:37 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:Trump definitely won't be allowed to pass his presidency-for-life on to Trump Jr. without at least a pro-forma election.


I am unable to picture a Trump Jr without a mini-toupee. This is awful.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Dec 01, 2015 11:22 pm UTC

Sigh. Fine, let's talk about Trump.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... umps-fate/
But these two polls are emblematic of a deep divide this year first noted by Jonathan Robinson: The Bloomberg poll was conducted over the phone with live interviewers; the Ipsos poll was conducted online.
The problem

Trump has averaged 23.4 percent in live-interview polls since entering the race in mid-June. That’s 5.9 percentage points lower than his standing according to automated phone polls (29.3 percent) and 5.7 percentage points lower than his support in Internet polls (29.1 percent).
Why we can’t be sure who is right

Who might have a better handle on Trump? It’s difficult to say because there are pollsters I trust on both sides of the divide. There are a lot of smart people at SurveyMonkey and YouGov. SurveyMonkey, especially, has done ridiculously well recently. We can’t test anything until the voting starts, so at this point, it’s probably best to take both live-interview and non-live-interview polls into consideration.
But if forced, I’d go with live-interview polls
1. Internet polling is mostly untested in primaries.
2. We saw gaps between live-interview and non-live-interview polls in 2012, and the live-interview polls tended to be more predictive.
3. Internet polls may be picking up nonvoters.
4. Arguments against the accuracy of live-interview polls don’t make much sense.

Why is it that Trump is winning more in internet polls than traditional in person polls? It's not like these polls are divded between good and bad pollsters, it's divided evenly between them and the divide is concentrated between online vs phone called polls.

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/stump-speech/

The perfect GOP, or any speech, with comments explaining why each line is said. Think that over next time you think a politician is super bright.


Too much parody, not enough analysis.

The comparison to the postal service, for instance...eh. Republicans are not especially focused on hating the postal service. A snipe at The Affordable Care Act would be much more apropriate. You don't need a full argument against The Affordable Care Act. Your audience is already on board for that. You just snipe at it on the way to other things.

Also, the geographical constraint on intelligentsia isn't quite right. Use "Ivory Tower" instead. The theme isn't about where they're from, but about the disconnect from good, honest, ordinary folk.

There's also a reason the Republicans tend to use "needy" instead of poor. It implies a focus to aid on those who need it, whereas democrats are routinely characterized as giving out aid to those who don't need/are exploint it. Describing his preferred usage as "more honest" is...kind of a basic failure to understand politics.

Shit, Trump is bright, in a certain way. This is very different from being good. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he's using a very calculated and clever approach to perform well. That isn't really my issue with him.

Now that I'm at a desktop, I can give a fuller response.
I liked the speechwriter's commentary on his select phrasings like
the minimum wage
Spoiler:
"The difficulty here is that, although there’s evidence that minimum-wage increases slow job growth and thus hurt the people they’re intended to help — low-end job seekers — it’s almost impossible to express opposition to minimum-wage increases without sounding either (a) wonkish and indecipherable or (b) unsympathetic to low-income workers, many of them potential GOP voters. A commentator can speak clearly on the topic; a politician cannot. Better to stick with the generalized “job-killer” language."

the implicit assumption of corporate america
Spoiler:
Don’t say “business owners” or “company executives.” Make it more familiar, and pretend that every business is a small mom-and-pop struggling to keep the lights on.

Trade policy
Spoiler:
Trade policy is a serious problem in a speech like this. The GOP is divided almost down the middle: 51 percent say free-trade agreements lead to job losses in the U.S., and 40 percent think they help or make no difference. The best thing to do here is (a) make quick rhetorical gestures in both directions, (b) blame the whole thing on unions, and (c) pretend the question is about whether the U.S. “can compete” with other countries. Also, instead of saying “protect” the American economy, say “safeguard.”

Budgeting
Spoiler:
A “realistic approach” to government spending — and who can be against a realistic approach to anything? — will sound to many people like budget-cutting, small-government fiscal conservatism. But of course, it doesn’t have to be. You can, of course, “take a hard look” at anything.

especially the part about cutting special interests deductions/line items
Spoiler:
it won’t happen. Every politician — even President Obama — comes into office promising to cut needless programs. It never happens. But a Republican seeking the presidency would be a fool not to make this promise.

I especially love the foreign policy 1 liners
Spoiler:
Declaring an intention to speak and act with clarity or resoluteness is a nice way to criticize the present occupier of the office (in this case President Obama) — thus capitalizing on people’s suspicions that he isn’t decisive or doesn’t take principled stands — without obligating yourself to pursue specific policies once in office. Here we have a legitimate criticism of the president’s incoherent foreign policy, seemingly contrasted with a clearer, more decisive alternative. Only the alternative is actually a statement of the obvious: We have to accept legitimate refugees but not terrorists. Saying you’re certain what the wrong policy is — namely, the policy of those presently in charge — is a reliable way to sound clear and confident when you have no idea what the right course is.

Check out how he easily shifts from the confusing vagarities of immigration to Obama is an imperialist
Spoiler:
We have quickly shifted the question from the tangled topic of immigration policy (border enforcement? deportation? some form of amnesty?) to Barack Obama’s imperial presidency.

The way he plays with abortion is a work of art.
Spoiler:
In some respects that pro-life movement has been revivified by the exposure of Planned Parenthood’s ghoulish practices. But there is a danger, too. Politicians can easily claim pro-life credentials not by taking definable stances on the issue of abortion itself, but merely by opposing a line item in the federal budget. That’s why, following poll numbers, we go from the hazy language of “moral clarity” and “remembering” to denouncing a single (though admittedly large and powerful) nonprofit organization. What about the legality of abortion? What about Roe v. Wade? No need to get that specific.


The parts about data points is boring, but I found the parts elaborating on the deficiencies of politicians illuminating, especially how a speech can cover up a crappy platform.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 02, 2015 4:07 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Why is it that Trump is winning more in internet polls than traditional in person polls? It's not like these polls are divded between good and bad pollsters, it's divided evenly between them and the divide is concentrated between online vs phone called polls.


Internet polls often diverge from regular polls. See also the Ronpaul, who had a heavily internet-based fanbase, and often would post very good numbers regarding internet centric stuff that didn't carry over into the population at large.

So, it's not really much of a mystery.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:19 am UTC

Donald Trump calls for complete ban on Muslims entering the US:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-rele ... mmigration

(New York, NY) December 7th, 2015, -- Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population. Most recently, a poll from the Center for Security Policy released data showing "25% of those polled agreed that violence against Americans here in the United States is justified as a part of the global jihad" and 51% of those polled, "agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to Shariah." Shariah authorizes such atrocities as murder against non-believers who won't convert, beheadings and more unthinkable acts that pose great harm to Americans, especially women.

Mr. Trump stated, "Without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. If I win the election for President, we are going to Make America Great Again." - Donald J. Trump


This should get him a few more points in the polls.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:36 am UTC

Was he ever even serious? I'm starting to wonder if Trump is actually a deep cover Democrat; infiltrate the Republicans, appeal the absolute worst parts of them, disgust everyone that isn't about 1/4 of the Republicans, cause Democrats to win in landslide.

Really, Oompa Loompa Fuckface has undone ANY goodwill that the Republicans have tried to build up towards Hispanic Americans. So far, he's all but ensured that we will have Democrats for the next decade.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:38 am UTC

Conspiracy Theory is that Bill Clinton got Trump to run in the first place:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
Summum ius, summa iniuria.


User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:41 am UTC

Oompa Loompa Fuckface has undone ANY goodwill that the Republicans have tried to build up towards Hispanic Americans.

He couldn't do that alone, though. It's the lacklustre pushback from the rest of the party that hurts. Not to mention the support he does get from some quarters.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:12 pm UTC

Give Trump his due (assuming this is deliberate), its a steel balls move to shift the scope of reasonable debate to the right.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1453
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Tue Dec 08, 2015 1:29 pm UTC

I don't see any reason to doubt Trump's sincerity, and there are a lot of Americans who agree with him. But I don't... any time I hear such strong anti-Muslim rhetoric, I think about this poem. It would be a horrible precedent to set if we could exclude people based on religion. Which is not to say that we shouldn't be tougher on immigration, get rid of any "anchor babies" loopholes, and maybe even have people sign an affidavit to support the United States Constitution, like in the enlistment oaths. Or of course we could just close the borders to all immigrants, temporarily of course, but that probably wouldn't be a good idea in the long run.

In the end it doesn't really matter, I guess, because a ban on all (and only) Muslim immigrants would be completely un-American, and the Supreme Court would never allow it. Our country was founded by people escaping religious persecution, and has never been a Christian theocracy since the Revolutionary War - although it certainly was (hypocritically!) in some places during the colonial era - despite what some politicians may think.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:31 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:In the end it doesn't really matter, I guess, because a ban on all (and only) Muslim immigrants would be completely un-American, and the Supreme Court would never allow it. Our country was founded by people escaping religious persecution, and has never been a Christian theocracy since the Revolutionary War - although it certainly was (hypocritically!) in some places during the colonial era - despite what some politicians may think.


I don't see what the Supreme Court could do about it. Except for the even more ridiculous aspect of including Muslim's who are actually American citizens, which is clearly unconstitutional. The constitution doesn't protect foreigners trying to get into the US though. I mean not allowing any Muslim in probably goes against a whole bunch of international treaties or agreements, but it's not a violation of the constitution. Don't get me wrong, it's an absurd idea and one that is practically unenforceable anyways (I've not seen "Religion" on any passports), but I'm not sure how illegal it would actually be.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:35 pm UTC

Has the US ever previously restricted immigration based on ideology ? I suspect it has, so this may have some precedent. It definitely fine constitutionally

User avatar
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:42 pm UTC

>Nobody's talking about Trump
>Trump says crazy thing
>Everybody's talking about Trump
>Vahir facepalms

It's the same thing every time; everyone is tripping over themselves to call out Trump, but that's exactly what he wants.

Spoiler:
Image

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 08, 2015 3:51 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Was he ever even serious? I'm starting to wonder if Trump is actually a deep cover Democrat; infiltrate the Republicans, appeal the absolute worst parts of them, disgust everyone that isn't about 1/4 of the Republicans, cause Democrats to win in landslide.

Really, Oompa Loompa Fuckface has undone ANY goodwill that the Republicans have tried to build up towards Hispanic Americans. So far, he's all but ensured that we will have Democrats for the next decade.


I've seen that idea tossed about before.

It seems implausibly competent for a party that's relying on Hillary to carry this.

If I doubt Trump's sincerity, it's because I think his self interest is stronger than any genuine anti-immigrant sentiment. After all, he's certainly married enough of them. Nah, I think self interest is the strongest of his motivations by far, and he'll cheerfully throw whoever under the bus because it's convenient, not because he necessarily has any antipathy towards them in particular.

As for exclusionary rules...we've had tons of them. Race. Nationality. Political Views. The 1917 immigration act has a particularly interesting set of rules, discriminating by all kinds of factors that would be generally decried if used for any internal decision making. The 1907 act was much worse, but a lot of that stuff got axed reasonably quickly. If we're just describing "ideology", then yeah, a shitload of laws have discriminated based on that for immigration. Going purely off religion would be a touch unusual, though.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mosc » Tue Dec 08, 2015 5:59 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:I don't see any reason to doubt Trump's sincerity, and there are a lot of Americans who agree with him. But I don't... any time I hear such strong anti-Muslim rhetoric, I think about this poem. It would be a horrible precedent to set if we could exclude people based on religion.


As an American Jew, this has been at the tip of my tongue all day too. It's infuriating to here cheers from bigotry. I felt like, growing up in the post-jim crow era, that this stuff was just a relic of the past but it's like Trump is letting bigotry back out of the closet.

I feel like saying "The KKK is a Christian group so lets block all Christians from traveling to the US too".
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:15 pm UTC

The thing of course is that Trump is nothing new. It may be new in America, but over here in Europe we have plenty of politicians like him. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump has studied and learned from right-wing European populists like Wilders or Le Pen.

Over here in Netherlands Wilders has been around for a long time now. He started out pretty mild, as MP for the right wing moderate VVD (liberal in the European meaning of the word), making a name for himself with hawkish stances on immigration. Eventually he broke off and formed his own party. Back then he still said a lot of reasonable things, and only occasionally made headlines with 'extreme' opinions. Over the years he has grown increasingly more extreme. Part of that is deliberate populism (I have spoken to several members of parliament who told he he's much more mild-mannered and reasonable in person, away from the cameras. Apparently he even has a pretty good sense of humor), but I think most of is genuine. If you surround yourself with people who agree with you, and insulate yourself from criticism by creating a strong us vs. them mentality, well, then you are bound to drift away from reasonableness over time. Being under constant threat by extremists probably doesn't help either. He's the most well-guarded politicians in the Netherlands, his security is more expansive than what the prime minister gets. That has to be stressful.

Trump seems similar in many ways. Years ago he was much more reasonable, but has become more extreme over time. And like with Wilders, I think this is partly deliberate calculation, and partly the result of surrounding himself with sycophants.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:42 pm UTC

Donald Trump attended a Sinn Féin fundraising dinner in New York just months before the party’s allies in the Provisional IRA ended its ceasefire with a massive terror attack in London’s Canary Wharf district [causing deaths and a billion pounds worth of property damage].

As controversy rages over the Republican presidential candidate’s demand that Muslims be barred from the United States to prevent Islamist terror attacks, footage has emerged of the tycoon shaking hands with Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams.


Not that it matters, but it made me chuckle at least a little at the absurdity of the juxtaposition. link

I do think Trump has finally jumped the shark here; Not sure why it feels much worse than the 'Mexicans are rapists' thing but it does; I guess it goes much further than that: he never suggested that Mexicans should no longer be allowed to even visit the US after all.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mosc » Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:23 am UTC

Diadem wrote:The thing of course is that Trump is nothing new. It may be new in America, but over here in Europe we have plenty of politicians like him. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Trump has studied and learned from right-wing European populists like Wilders or Le Pen.

I agree. I think with our two-party system we tend to push smaller groups to the side. This is generally viewed as a "non-democratic" weakness of our system but it does tend to take away the spotlight from the ever-present lunatic fringe. Neither party wants to associate itself with Bigotry lest the center move to the other side (with only one other choice) and cost it the election.

My family constantly compares Trump to Hitler circa 1930. Trumps criticisms of politicians with ad-hominem attacks and a penchant for positions so extreme others wouldn't even consider them let alone voice them in public discourse ring familiar. Trump does not seem to express any belief in value of the democratic system, rule of law, or protection of minority rights. All important pillars of a country run as a Democracy. Instead he voices himself as an outsider, smarter and inherently more capable than any bureaucratic government entity, stopping just short of describing his policy as dictatorial. It is deeply terrifying. Democracy is only as permanent as the voters that demand it's continuance. Electing a dictator is essentially what resulted in Germany at the end of 1932. Hitler's final step to power was his supporters denouncing the very concept of political parties and any resulting parliamentary government. Trump doesn't seem very far behind that position attacking his own party just as directly as the democrats.

It's easy for me to say only an idiot thinks we have "a country run by idiots" but to hear the cheers in the background at the thought of blocking all Muslims at our border was more than just 'a cold chill'. It was 6 million screams of "always remember, never forget" deafening my ears. I get that it's too easy to villainize by comparing people to Hitler but I'm not using it as a metaphor for dislike. I'm talking about tangible similarities in their speeches, rhetoric, personalities, etc.
Last edited by mosc on Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:31 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:28 am UTC

Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mosc » Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:34 am UTC

You're not making it any easier for me to sleep soundly tonight.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:02 am UTC

I think you may need a little perspective, Trump is no more going to (or indeed is able to) turn the US into a "fascist state" than Obama was or did going to create a communist country

User avatar
krogoth
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby krogoth » Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:32 pm UTC

Maybe, but I really worry for the usa if a GOP goes president, if you survive, it doesn't matter who leads, if you don't well...
R3sistance - I don't care at all for the ignorance spreading done by many and to the best of my abilities I try to correct this as much as I can, but I know and understand that even I can not be completely honest, truthful and factual all of the time.

Rodion Raskolnikov
Alyona Ivanovna knows what you did last summer
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:01 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Rodion Raskolnikov » Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:42 pm UTC


Yo Rodja's kind of a dick, those are the facts / He murdered a pawnbroker with an axe
Now Dosoyevsky is here to teach you / About his problems with the philosophy of Nietzsche


~ ahammel

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:55 pm UTC

You need to have pub conversations to get opinions that aren't pure virtue signalling. The average right wing press reader in the UK probably has far less of an emotional reaction to Trumps actual statement of "lets stop letting more in until we have a solution for ghettoization that breeds radicalisation"

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:26 pm UTC

leady wrote:You need to have pub conversations to get opinions that aren't pure virtue signalling. The average right wing press reader in the UK probably has far less of an emotional reaction to Trumps actual statement of "lets stop letting more in until we have a solution for ghettoization that breeds radicalisation"

In what way is treating Muslims more like an Untouchable Caste going to solve ghettoization?

In what way does it make it more likely a solution will be found?

In what way is this not "let's stop letting more in, indefinitely"?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby leady » Thu Dec 10, 2015 2:42 pm UTC

all good arguments to discuss! I suggest you have them over there alongside the opposite positions of how doing nothing but maintaining open freedoms achieves anything either.

you never know you might find a sensible position agreeable to both sides of the house.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CorruptUser, measure and 16 guests