2016 US Presidential Election

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:40 pm UTC

hollow wrote:My choice was "vote in support of people I'll never meet" or "vote in support of myself".
So you wouldn't give 50p to save a child in Africa from being blinded by an infection, then?

hollow wrote:Whether or not you personally agree with magazine limits or bans on mostly aesthetic attachments, ...
Actually, I hate those.
Spoiler:
Those are insane. Those are bullshit "do something" laws that don't achieve their purpose.

2 x 15 in 20.64s, 3 x 10 in 18.05s, 5 x 6 in 21.45s;
2 x 15 in 22.9s, 3 x 10 in 25.51s, 5 x 6 in 26.93s;
1 x 20 in 12.16, 2 x 10 in 10.73s;
1 x 20 in 12.26s, 2 x 10 in 14.63s


What else was there? A barrel shroud aka heat shield? A thing to stop you burning your thumb if you shoot thumb-over-bore. The horror, the horror. A "shoulder thing that goes up?" Yeah, there is such a thing. You can see it on the L86, particularly in this view. It's there to make a rifle more accurate. A ban on a rarely-used add-on that makes rifles more accurate. Pistol grip extending further from bore axis than butt? Seriously? Bunch o' guys with AKs and the issue is whether the pistol grip extends further from the bore axis than the butt? Let me just check that.
grip_butt_bore.jpg

Oh no! It does! That's an assault weapon! He's totally going to assault someone with that! Be afraid.
The gang member in front of this, though? It ain't painted black, it only holds 8 rounds (fun fact: it's one rifle you really do load with a clip), it doesn't have a scope on it, it doesn't have a barrel shroud or a shoulder thing that goes up, its pistol grip does not extend as far down as its butt and it is, all-round, totally not a Sniper Assault Weapon (whatever the **** one of those is), so he's got no reason at all to be concerned about having a live 7.62x57mm ball round aimed at his head. If that Spetsnaz team had those, we could all be totally cool about them being there, because those aren't the scary kind that people use to kill other people.

Obviously, sarcasm aside, they don't need to be. The "Washington Sniper" ... frickin' amateur ... didn't need a high-magnification scope or a thermal imager or a laser or a 30-round magazine or a barrel shroud or a thingawhatsit. I could make him look "relatively benign" with a single-shot L81 if I really wanted to get executed for my crimes. Someone who wants to shoot up a school can do it with a bunch of 15-round magazines, a bunch of 10-round magazines, a bunch of 5-round magazines or a satchel full of revolvers. A nutter over here killed 12 and injured 11 with a double-barrel shotgun and a .22 bolt-action rifle.

There have been some mad suggestions that one school shooting could have been prevented if the school had employed armed guards like the ones who didn't stop another school shooting, or if the teachers all carried guns (and had to keep kids' hands away from them all the tiem until the day someone started the spree by shooting the teacher).

A country that has a statistic for the average number of people killed by bullets falling out of the sky every year is a country with a gun problem. 0.17 to 0.25 justifiable out of 3.43 to 4.29 gun homicides per 100,000 people per year is, crudely, 3.18 to 4.12 unjustifiable gun homicides per 100,000 people per year, which adds up to more dead Americans every year than 9/11 and occupying Iraq achieved put together. Since 9/11 there've been that many deaths from "Oh shit that was loaded," and then you've got 20-27 per 100,000 per year non-fatally injured with guns, which is more than your death rate from diabetes mellitus.

All of that means I agree that there are problems there, but in every unjustifiable homicide the problem wasn't the barrel shroud or the magazine size. The problem was that that individual had a gun, so that's where any intervention should be. If you're going to regulate something, regulate who has access to guns and when and where, not what guns (or magazines or accessories) are available.

Maybe actually do something about the bullies before their victims give up on you and defend themselves like that, too, in at least one school's case?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:19 pm UTC

Mambrino wrote:NYTimes on Trump transition team, they also have list of possible candidates for cabinet positions, but most of this seems to be rumors, not hard facts.

However:

NYTimes wrote:One of the influences on Mr. Trump could come from an unlikely quarter: President Obama. Meeting in the Oval Office on Thursday, Mr. Trump said he looked forward “to dealing with the president in the future, including counsel.” A day later, in interviews with The Wall Street Journal and “60 Minutes,’’ he said he had decided to retain elements of Mr. Obama’s landmark health care law after their conversation — a hint, at least, that he might govern less radically than he had campaigned.

...

Mr. Trump is drawing mainly from a pool of trusted aides and supporters, according to people familiar with the campaign. On Friday, he named three of his grown children — Ivanka, Donald Jr. and Eric — as well as his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to his transition team, an arrangement that rang alarm bells in Washington because they will also manage his businesses. The Trump family, it is clear, will wield unusual power in the composition of an administration that is already shaping up as remarkable for its clannishness.


The first quoted [90 min chat with Obama, and he is changing his mind!?] The second, too, but in a different way. I'm not too familiar with American political clans that probably would be a more apt comparison, but I'm suddenly reminded of Napoleon, who was famous of appointing his various family members as kings of European countries.

You're reading it wrong. Republicans like the individual parts of the aca because the aca was a mixture of Republican and Democratic issues. The key parts where Trump is bad is he'll gut subsidies, or let Medicaid expansion money get diverted other projects, like welfare money is.
Think of it as a return to the Bush years, but with factory work as his pet project.

For example, the federal government lost a lower court ruling, that would cut subsidies. Instead of appealing, Trump could order the attorney, to not appeal. Same applies at the EPA. This is BAD, like Bush era bad.
What Obama and Trump are doing is trying to transfer power peacefully. That's means no insurgency by Democrats, and no witch hunts by republicans. (and I'm sorry to say, Muslims and Hispanics don't count when I said no witch hunts).

User avatar
Jumble
Posts: 1184
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 6:48 am UTC
Location: London(ish), UK.
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Jumble » Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:55 pm UTC

I am enjoying the growing belief in the UK that the US election works quite well for us. The UK press, obviously renowned for its balance and careful research, has concluded that a Trump executive will be our friend, will strike trade deals with us in preference to the EU, will preserve the ‘special relationship’. Trump talks of Theresa May as his Maggie Thatcher. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson believes we should get over ourselves and stop the ‘whingeathon’.

Funny thing is that FS BoJo is a pathetic, pale reflection of the US president-elect. Serial adulterer, media-whore, demonstrably (thanks to Brexit) happy to sell out his friends, colleagues and supporters for any shot at power and utterly, hopelessly unqualified and unsuited for the role into which he has been appointed.

I don’t think the Donald will show any loyalty to the UK, any more than he will the US or those who supported him. We are, post Brexit, tiny and insignificant. He hopes that claiming May is his Maggie will give him the legitimacy he totally lacks. He hopes that a weakened and self-isolated UK can be pushed around on trade deals. He will cease to show any interest in us once he realises that we have nothing to offer.

It’s too late to ask my country to grow up and act like adults. However, sucking up to Trump is a new low, even for you.
Spoiler:
Giant Speck wrote:You're a demon! DEMON!!!!

Oregonaut wrote:CURSE YOU VILLAIN!!
PhoenixEnigma wrote:Jumble is either the best or worst Santa ever, and I can't figure out which. Possibly both.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:31 pm UTC

addams wrote:What about the Electoral College.
What a weird system.

This explains a little.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz- ... .289817558
It ends with "It's time to get rid of the electoral college, and have a real discussion about what a modern government and election system should look like." This discussion can go on for a long time, and with no electoral college, there will be no elections while this happens. Guess who'll be president in the mean time.

Perhaps we should do it the other way around.

addams wrote:Some Policy Wonks talking about the Electoral College.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN2ESsXPUwE
This one is promoting the idea of a national popular vote; the details are that states would adopt legislation saying that that state's electors shall cast their votes for the winner of the national popular vote. Among the points made are that only 12 states matter in elections; the candidates can ignore the other states and only hold events in those "important" states. Well, in the age of radio, tv, and internet, I doubt that physical events are all that important any more (though it's true that "being there" allows one to get a firsthand non-photoshopped version of what happened). And being in an "ignored" state doesn't mean your vote doesn't matter, it means your vote has already been counted. Subtle difference.

In any case, I don't think we should elect the president by popular vote. Most people are too easily swayed by repetition and emotional appeals. This is not a good way to make decisions. Whatever you think of Trump as a candidate, the arguments he made to support him were horrifying. "Not even wrong" doesn't even come close. And yet half the country bought in; even if we discount those who were "never Hillary", there's a lot of agreement with the "not even wrong" things he's said. Also, the present method of appealing to the lowest denominator tends to produce polarizing candidates in order to have ammunition to fire towards the general public.

I like the idea of indirect elections. The Electoral College is a vestige of an attempt to do this (which ultimately did not work), but it doesn't mean that some other indirect system, where we elect people who [...] elect the president. I'm not sure how to set this up so it's not easily gamed, but it's worth discussing.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-comey-letters-defeat-231280
Interesting apparently the second comey letter did damage too , I guess just by bringing it into the media again. (Which is weird people, can't be that fickle or pay so little attention that 1 week matter, can they?)

---------
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/fresh-start Link for others who like people ranting about stuff that annoys them (in this case the clean slate stuff). Though, I wish twitter would die and be replaced by something where you don't have to split a small rant into many tweets.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7517
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:53 pm UTC

Though, I wish twitter would die and be replaced by something where you don't have to split a small rant into many tweets.

Hmm, good point. I think we should keep the hyperlinks in tweets, those are the most useful part. Also, the part where you can link directly to a tweet. The part where they spam you whenever something appears is annoying, that goes. If we allow longer tweets, it should be possible to edit them later on. And as those long tweets become more valuable for the long term, we don't want them all hosted by one company.

We could call it the twirl tight tweet.

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 » Sat Nov 12, 2016 7:58 pm UTC

ucim wrote:In any case, I don't think we should elect the president by popular vote. Most people are too easily swayed by repetition and emotional appeals. This is not a good way to make decisions. Whatever you think of Trump as a candidate, the arguments he made to support him were horrifying. "Not even wrong" doesn't even come close. And yet half the country bought in; even if we discount those who were "never Hillary", there's a lot of agreement with the "not even wrong" things he's said. Also, the present method of appealing to the lowest denominator tends to produce polarizing candidates in order to have ammunition to fire towards the general public.

Well, in this case the electoral college rewarded those horrible arguments and gave us a disruptive demagogue over the will of the plurality of voters, who favored a bland status quo candidate. It basically did the opposite of what it was supposed to.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:06 pm UTC

To be fair that was the "states get x vote and winner takes all of these votes part" the actual electors didn't matter for that.
Zamfir wrote:
Though, I wish twitter would die and be replaced by something where you don't have to split a small rant into many tweets.

Hmm, good point. I think we should keep the hyperlinks in tweets, those are the most useful part. Also, the part where you can link directly to a tweet. The part where they spam you whenever something appears is annoying, that goes. If we allow longer tweets, it should be possible to edit them later on. And as those long tweets become more valuable for the long term, we don't want them all hosted by one company.

We could call it the twirl tight tweet.
Heh, but I meant more in regards to its apparent popularity as a tool to make your thoughts public.

Edit: Btw wp says exit polls where shit at accurately reflecting the latino vote and have some numbers that should be more accurate. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/11/in-record-numbers-latinos-voted-overwhelmingly-against-trump-we-did-the-research/

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:09 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:Well, in this case the electoral college rewarded those horrible arguments and gave us a disruptive demagogue over the will of the plurality of voters, who favored a bland status quo candidate. It basically did the opposite of what it was supposed to.
No, because the electoral college no longer functions the way I proposed would be an improvement. Pre-promising votes did it in; the electoral college no longer is composed of people who will chose; they are composed of people who have chosen. Yeah, that happened early on, which is why I'm musing about how to implement it in a manner that would not degenerate.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7517
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Sat Nov 12, 2016 8:36 pm UTC


I like the idea of indirect elections. The Electoral College is a vestige of an attempt to do this (which ultimately did not work), but it doesn't mean that some other indirect system, where we elect people who [...] elect the president. I'm not sure how to set this up so it's not easily gamed, but it's worth discussing.

No need to reinvent the wheel here, it's already the standard system in most democracies. Have the house of representatives elect the cabinet. Keep calling the head of the cabinet 'president' if you want to, but give them the effecftve job of a prime minister. To prevent concentration of power, add some P-Rish features to elections to break up the two party system

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:30 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:

I like the idea of indirect elections. The Electoral College is a vestige of an attempt to do this (which ultimately did not work), but it doesn't mean that some other indirect system, where we elect people who [...] elect the president. I'm not sure how to set this up so it's not easily gamed, but it's worth discussing.

No need to reinvent the wheel here, it's already the standard system in most democracies. Have the house of representatives elect the cabinet. Keep calling the head of the cabinet 'president' if you want to, but give them the effecftve job of a prime minister. To prevent concentration of power, add some P-Rish features to elections to break up the two party system

That goes against separating the three branches of governance, hence your line about P-Rish features to elections to break up the two party system. How important is having 3 branches of government? Like if you do majority rule, it's really important, but if you have Proportional parliament, then it's not important at all?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:33 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Zamfir wrote:

I like the idea of indirect elections. The Electoral College is a vestige of an attempt to do this (which ultimately did not work), but it doesn't mean that some other indirect system, where we elect people who [...] elect the president. I'm not sure how to set this up so it's not easily gamed, but it's worth discussing.

No need to reinvent the wheel here, it's already the standard system in most democracies. Have the house of representatives elect the cabinet. Keep calling the head of the cabinet 'president' if you want to, but give them the effecftve job of a prime minister. To prevent concentration of power, add some P-Rish features to elections to break up the two party system

That goes against separating the three branches of governance, hence your line about P-Rish features to elections to break up the two party system. How important is having 3 branches of government? Like if you do majority rule, it's really important, but if you have Proportional parliament, then it's not important at all?


Except the parliamentary process to use the House of Representatives to elect the President is kind of the design of the American Constitution.

Don't forget, the founding fathers didn't know about Political Parties until after the Constitution was written. By design, the writers of the constitution expected the House of Representatives to elect the President in the majority of cases.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:38 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:
Zamfir wrote:

I like the idea of indirect elections. The Electoral College is a vestige of an attempt to do this (which ultimately did not work), but it doesn't mean that some other indirect system, where we elect people who [...] elect the president. I'm not sure how to set this up so it's not easily gamed, but it's worth discussing.

No need to reinvent the wheel here, it's already the standard system in most democracies. Have the house of representatives elect the cabinet. Keep calling the head of the cabinet 'president' if you want to, but give them the effecftve job of a prime minister. To prevent concentration of power, add some P-Rish features to elections to break up the two party system

That goes against separating the three branches of governance, hence your line about P-Rish features to elections to break up the two party system. How important is having 3 branches of government? Like if you do majority rule, it's really important, but if you have Proportional parliament, then it's not important at all?


Except the parliamentary process to use the House of Representatives to elect the President is kind of the design of the American Constitution.

Don't forget, the founding fathers didn't know about Political Parties until after the Constitution was written. By design, the writers of the constitution expected the House of Representatives to elect the President in the majority of cases.

And the importance of separating the three branches of government? I assume you're ok with combining them into 2 branches?

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:40 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:
Zamfir wrote:

I like the idea of indirect elections. The Electoral College is a vestige of an attempt to do this (which ultimately did not work), but it doesn't mean that some other indirect system, where we elect people who [...] elect the president. I'm not sure how to set this up so it's not easily gamed, but it's worth discussing.

No need to reinvent the wheel here, it's already the standard system in most democracies. Have the house of representatives elect the cabinet. Keep calling the head of the cabinet 'president' if you want to, but give them the effecftve job of a prime minister. To prevent concentration of power, add some P-Rish features to elections to break up the two party system

That goes against separating the three branches of governance, hence your line about P-Rish features to elections to break up the two party system. How important is having 3 branches of government? Like if you do majority rule, it's really important, but if you have Proportional parliament, then it's not important at all?


Except the parliamentary process to use the House of Representatives to elect the President is kind of the design of the American Constitution.

Don't forget, the founding fathers didn't know about Political Parties until after the Constitution was written. By design, the writers of the constitution expected the House of Representatives to elect the President in the majority of cases.

And the importance of separating the three branches of government? I assume you're ok with combining them into 2 branches?


How is making the House of Representatives elect the President "combining" the branches?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:12 pm UTC

That involves someone writing and amendment or having another Constitutional Convention. And changing the Federal model might imply changing the State model since they are set up more or less the same. Doing it in an era of partisanship like we see today opens up the possibility of writing the division into the document. It also implies rewriting a lot of existing precedent about who does what to whom between the three branches. Simple it would not be, and even the attempt might be dangerous. A runaway convention could rewrite the whole document and enshrine discrimination into the document. Consider as well that any change at this point could put the present party in a power position for any amendment that might be given to the states for consideration. And currently the state level is much more conservative than the Federal level.

@Hippo

You already know the answer to your question. In a nutshell they don't see the same candidate that you do. Their fears and moral base are different than yours. Think of it as a separate dialect. Much as the dialect of English seen in Louisville, Kentucky is truly different than the dialect spoken in London. It's the same way that Christians can believe so many different things about the world and God. Whats worse, Politicians always speak with filters. They've learned how to be elected. They filter everything you see and hear about them, never trying to offend anyone. They control their message. It's constructed so you see exactly what they want you to see. If Trump has filters I haven't seem them, and that's scary to anyone in our era.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:35 pm UTC

Hey, remember when I warned about all of this, explained exactly what was happening, explained what needed to be done to stop it, and you all told me to shut the fuck up and be a good sycophantic minority for your limousine liberal asses?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Nov 12, 2016 11:32 pm UTC

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:Hey, remember when I warned about all of this, explained exactly what was happening, explained what needed to be done to stop it, and you all told me to shut the fuck up and be a good sycophantic minority for your limousine liberal asses?

Remember when I said that the electoral college makes tiny margins look like land slides? You're reading too much from the results.

Think of the Bush years, how did you feel then? That's what it's like now.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Sat Nov 12, 2016 11:34 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:Hey, remember when I warned about all of this, explained exactly what was happening, explained what needed to be done to stop it, and you all told me to shut the fuck up and be a good sycophantic minority for your limousine liberal asses?

Remember when I said that the electoral college makes tiny margins look like land slides? You're reading too much from the results.


Hitler had less of the popular vote. It's not just about how much hatred there is, it's about how much complacency there is. This is a generation of people who think posting memes about their hurt feelings on twitter is activism, going up against people who will and literally do kill over their ideology routinely, even on video in the case of black shootings. Which is really the perfect demonstration of what's to come, now that I think about it.

Leaving the country. Good luck.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:12 am UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:For all the talk analyzing of Trump's appeal, does it matter? 2016's ultimate outsider, tell-it-like-it-is demagogue got the same number of votes as 2008's war hero/Washington insider and 2012's embodyment of blandness. It looks like the Republicans could nominate anyone and get 60 million votes.

That's a little misleading... yes they all got 60 million votes but Trump's was a significantly different 60 million
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:41 am UTC

duckshirt wrote:
Isaac Hill wrote:For all the talk analyzing of Trump's appeal, does it matter? 2016's ultimate outsider, tell-it-like-it-is demagogue got the same number of votes as 2008's war hero/Washington insider and 2012's embodyment of blandness. It looks like the Republicans could nominate anyone and get 60 million votes.

That's a little misleading... yes they all got 60 million votes but Trump's was a significantly different 60 million

This is also misleading because you aren't accounting for population growth. At the beginning of human time, a leader had majority vote of 500 people.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:59 am UTC

Human history has never seen a population of less than 10,000, and that was due to massive climate shifts which nearly wiped us out (part of why we REALLY need better history education).

PEDANTMAN AWAY!!!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Nov 13, 2016 1:04 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Human history has never seen a population of less than 10,000, and that was due to massive climate shifts which nearly wiped us out (part of why we REALLY need better history education).

PEDANTMAN AWAY!!!

http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/20 ... 70-000-b-c
I'm not completely making it up.

Anyone know a voting bloc that likes to swing but doesn't know it yet? Must be comfortable with interracial, minorities, and southern states.

hollow
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:24 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby hollow » Sun Nov 13, 2016 4:02 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I still don't think I get the obsession with the right to bare arms; it seems like a lot of passion poured into what -- to me -- appears to be just a fun hobby. Maybe it's an identity thing? It's weird (for me) to think of guns as an integral part of one's identity -- even to the point of becoming identity politics? But while I don't understand why guns are so deeply important, I can at least understand why you assessed it as being of greater importance than Trump's presidency -- because however terrible he is, you're confident that the system is capable of holding back the brunt of that terrible. Is that a fair summary?


Pretty much. A lot of what he'd like to do requires congressional support. And even if they're all in the same party, many Republicans have voiced their dislike for the man. They still have to answer to voters, and there's no doubt in my mind that the next four years will be heavily scrutinized just because of who won.

A lot of my obsession probably comes from my ideal that people should be mostly left alone. This hits both sides of the isle, with examples like gun rights on the right side, and gay marriage on the left. It just so happens that gun rights affect me personally, so I find myself resistant to the change there the most.

Sableagle wrote:So you wouldn't give 50p to save a child in Africa from being blinded by an infection, then?

There is a clear difference between giving money and giving up part of the second ammendment. I can always make more money, but I can't just give myself exemption from a magazine ban.

Spoiler:
I'd support restrictions of gun ownership for people with mental issues under two conditions. The first would be actual, solid definitions of which issues should result in restricted rights. The second would be some sort of actual path a restricted person could take to restore their rights. Far too many people, on all sides, resort to a vague message of "restricting mentally ill from acquiring firearms", with little more given. Then many on the left use this as a cover to push more, while many on the right use it as a cover to do nothing.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1935
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:25 pm UTC

Had the "conversation with a Trump supporter" today. He said the better candidate won. Seemed to like Bernie more than Hillary, or at least consider him a better choice of nominee for a party wanting to win the election. Said Hillary is a criminal and she'll be investigated more, that Bill's a rapist, that Dubya's another cirminal, said that the American people are either very brave or very stupid, said that Trump'll be good for the economy because he's a businessman and the government is a money-making business, repeated Trump's own line about not paying taxes meaning he's smart, said Hillary robbed her own Foundation, doesn't care about Trump's scams and, when I brought up the "grab them by the pussy" line, he said that every man talks degradingly about women in private and that Trump has enough money to pay them off. The furthest I've gone is that when someone said (years ago, in reference to BtVS) "You would bang Willow round the room, wouldn't you?" I nodded and replied: "Twice." I meant "Twice, but only if she wanted me to," of course, whereas "I don't even wait" implies Trump didn't even wait for permission. I also pointed out that I prefer consensual prostitution where the actions and prices are agreed beforehand to the non-consensual kind where some guy makes the decision for her, and he responded that Trump knows contracts because he's a businessman. He's gone to bed, presumably to dream of being rich enough to get away with walking into the changing rooms at Miss Teen USA without knocking.

No, really.

He doesn't know I know he's got a conviction for something kinda related to that.

I didn't get to bring up the "wave of hate crimes" thing.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:09 pm UTC

If Trump is smart for avoiding tax, can't you argue that any politician is smart for doing anything? Take huge amounts of campaign donations from a shady group and coincidentally alter policies is now genius!

Chen
Posts: 5487
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:18 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:If Trump is smart for avoiding tax, can't you argue that any politician is smart for doing anything? Take huge amounts of campaign donations from a shady group and coincidentally alter policies is now genius!


I presume the only way the avoiding taxes thing would be seen as smart is if you're finding how to do it within the existing rules. Not really sure what that has to do with campaign donations...

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:21 pm UTC

Chen wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:If Trump is smart for avoiding tax, can't you argue that any politician is smart for doing anything? Take huge amounts of campaign donations from a shady group and coincidentally alter policies is now genius!


I presume the only way the avoiding taxes thing would be seen as smart is if you're finding how to do it within the existing rules. Not really sure what that has to do with campaign donations...


As long as the campaign donations followed the rules of the system...
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Nov 13, 2016 5:08 pm UTC

You could argue that if you get away with a crime and it massively benefits you, you were smart for doing it.

Trump should be glad I'm not dictator of earth. You see, I'd be a eumemicist, like a eugenicist but for ideas instead of genes; I'd have him castrated so that no children are born into families that think avoiding my CU-Taxes are a "good" thing.

Then I'd use golden bullets on any executive that tries to hide behind golden parachutes when screwing up their companies. This would result in every businessman fleeing, and rather than admit my own mistakes I'd invade Monaco. This would cause France and NATO to invade me, and well, it'd end badly for everyone. Don't let me be dictator.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Nov 13, 2016 5:47 pm UTC

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2 ... s-advisers
Save for his pet issue on trade and manufacturing workers, Trump's adminstration is shaping to be very familiar Republican orthodoxy.

I think Trump can get away with this. The deficits aren't ok the public mind anymore, even before GOP took control. And with up to 1 trillion to be spent on infrastructure, the swing voters may not care that Trump is giving away the farm to the rich. At least, not until later, when all the money has already been spent and taxes not collected.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mambrino » Sun Nov 13, 2016 6:21 pm UTC

BBC: US President-elect Donald Trump has said he will deport or jail up to three million illegal migrants initially.

Those targeted would be migrants with criminal records, such as gang members and drug dealers, he told US broadcaster CBS in an interview.

He also confirmed that another election promise, to build a wall with Mexico, still stood but could include fencing.


edit. Link to the CBS article

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Nov 13, 2016 7:52 pm UTC

Mambrino wrote:BBC: US President-elect Donald Trump has said he will deport or jail up to three million illegal migrants initially.
Those targeted would be migrants with criminal records, such as gang members and drug dealers, he told US broadcaster CBS in an interview.
He also confirmed that another election promise, to build a wall with Mexico, still stood but could include fencing.

edit. Link to the CBS article

Not to be cold, but there's nothing unconstitutional about that, and not a terrible waste of money. It doesn't make white swing voters hate him and it only makes Hispanics hate him more, at best. Or the legal Hispanics all shrug their shoulders, and vote for him 30% of the time instead of 34%. Might be useful in 8 years to see if Texas is ready to swing.

We should put all his awful initiatives into different buckets.
A. Swings whites back to Democrats.
B. Boosts Democrat's base.
C. Neutral. (This includes stuff that is horrible for the planet/economy, but none of the swing voters care).

We need something emotionally gripping, like a uniformed border cop savagely beating a mother/daughter to deport them while shouting epithets, on tape. In short, the bar needs to be really high(or low) to trigger a shift in voters.

Wonderbolt
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Sun Nov 13, 2016 8:43 pm UTC

President-elect Trump's Sunday morning tweetstorm at the New York Times - CNN

Well, there go my hopes that once elected he would start at least pretending to be a little more... president-y.

Mutex
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:39 pm UTC

He worked out what his advisers had changed his Twitter password to then?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:02 pm UTC

Perhaps Trump himself could be on video murdering a pregnant Mexican in front of her husband. It's somehow involve Dabby Trejo, and end with Trump becoming mexicanized, only to be killed by border patrol.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Mon Nov 14, 2016 12:39 am UTC

Wonderbolt wrote:President-elect Drumpf's Sunday morning tweetstorm at the New York Times - CNN

Well, there go my hopes that once elected he would start at least pretending to be a little more... president-y.

Apparently he also wants to continue to hold the big rallies. It's too simplistic to reduce him to a kid who never got that much affection from his father, right?
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 14, 2016 2:33 am UTC

Liri wrote:
Wonderbolt wrote:President-elect Drumpf's Sunday morning tweetstorm at the New York Times - CNN

Well, there go my hopes that once elected he would start at least pretending to be a little more... president-y.

Apparently he also wants to continue to hold the big rallies. It's too simplistic to reduce him to a kid who never got that much affection from his father, right?

Yes, it's too simplistic. Remember how they think we make fun of rural whites? That's how they think of the media, a group still ok to ostracize and insult.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10270
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Nov 14, 2016 5:08 am UTC

Trump chooses party insider (RNC Chairman Reince Priebus) as chief of staff, and the CEO (Stephan Bannon) of the largest rightwing propaganda mill (Breitbart) as his chief strategist.

Source (Beeb)

Wonderbolt
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Wonderbolt » Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:27 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Trump chooses party insider (RNC Chairman Reince Priebus) as chief of staff, and the CEO (Stephan Bannon) of the largest rightwing propaganda mill (Breitbart) as his chief strategist.

Source (Beeb)

More Breitbart. Joy.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6563
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Nov 14, 2016 7:16 am UTC

Wonderbolt wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Trump chooses party insider (RNC Chairman Reince Priebus) as chief of staff, and the CEO (Stephan Bannon) of the largest rightwing propaganda mill (Breitbart) as his chief strategist.

Source (Beeb)

More Breitbart. Joy.

He's rewarding success. Nothing wrong with that...
It seems we know what's a Trump administration is gonna look like, the figurehead, and the ultra conservatives running the show. * The best we can hope for is that whites find out how terrible they actually are. What I actually expect to happen is the money is gonna run out (twin tax cuts + unwilling to spend on poor), and they might get mad they were betrayed yet again.

*How far off are Trump's advisors from the average republican politician? Aren't they equally conservative?

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:59 am UTC

I've pretty much resigned this is gonna be a Bush 2.0

If the partisans who couldn't admit Iraq was a disaster (just as Democrats like to pretend Obama/Clinton's disastrous destabilization of Libya), I doubt any downturn will be honestly attributed to those in charge.

Maybe after this shitfest, lazy Democrats will bother to turn out the vote at all levels and not just because they want to make history with the first x-category president. Their obsession with identity politics cost them the election. Money talk always wins over race talk for the average voter.

What good was Obama's election when he got blackballed during his entire presidency by a Republican house and a narrowly Democrat controlled senate.

Less facebook/twitter posturing, more driving to the polls for local/state/federal elections.

I read somewhere that Democrats were 1 state away from being unable to block a constitutional amendment. That's fucking scary considering the transition team's composition. Ben Carson, A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe, Reince make it a horror show at what could be a constitutional amendment to repeal/limit gay marriage or abortion rights.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 15 guests