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
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:35 pm UTC

as ridiculous as imagining that Stein actually stands a chance of becoming president, in which case I could criticize you for not voting for her.

If Stein could actually win, would she still be a defendable vote? She doesn't strike me as a promising president - more like the eccentrics that serious Green parties harbour on the inside, but keep away from the ballot.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:43 pm UTC

A few years back, the Green Party made complete nutjob, conspiracy wacko, and horrible anti-semite Cynthia McKinney as its nominee. The Green Party can go fuck itself with a cactus.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 623
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby pogrmman » Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:59 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Lazar wrote:So what you're asking me to do is to throw away my ability to do something that I consider useful and meaningful with my vote (expressing my dissatisfaction with the two-party system in one of the least competitive states), based on the mind-bogglingly infinitesimal chance that Massachusetts will be a swing state.

I'm not asking you to do anything. Vote your conscience. I'm saying that if enough people who believe as you do, in aggregate, stay home or vote a third party ticket, you could effectively depress Democratic turnout. And in any other election that I have participated in, I would say your faith in your state wasn't misplaced. This election I no longer have any idea what people in general are thinking. Currently I am thinking in terms of practicing saying President Trump, and not gagging.


If people do this in heavily red states, they effectively depress Republican turnout. Theoretically, if equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats vote third party, it should have no net effect. That's quesstionable though.

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 Jul 30, 2016 6:12 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:If Stein could actually win, would she still be a defendable vote? She doesn't strike me as a promising president - more like the eccentrics that serious Green parties harbour on the inside, but keep away from the ballot.

Sorry, I was just trying to point out a logical absurdity there – but no, I don't think she would be, nor am I a fan of the Green Party. As I said in an earlier post, I'm doing this not as an endorsement of Stein but as an act of protest: a Green vote tells the Democrats that there are progressive voters who don't like the way they do business and don't trust them, and as such it might help move the party in a more honest and progressive direction. I think this is more useful than adding an unneeded vote to Hillary's total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:16 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Zamfir wrote:If Stein could actually win, would she still be a defendable vote? She doesn't strike me as a promising president - more like the eccentrics that serious Green parties harbour on the inside, but keep away from the ballot.

Sorry, I was just trying to point out a logical absurdity there – but no, I don't think she would be, nor am I a fan of the Green Party. As I said in an earlier comment, I'm doing this not as an endorsement of Stein but as an act of protest: a Green vote tells the Democrats that there are progressive voters who don't like the way they do business and don't trust them, and as such it might help move the party in a more honest and progressive direction. I think this is more useful than adding an unneeded vote to Hillary's total.

Isn't that what Primary votes are for? They have their own debates and everything.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Sat Jul 30, 2016 6:17 pm UTC

This two party system in the US is made more horrendous by the choices we've had this election. If anything it should serve as a model for why we need reform.

I mean, we have a petty clown, and a woman who laughed about Gadaffi dying (sodomized by a bayonet) who's handed to us one of the biggest foreign policy blunders in recent history after Bush's. Probably winning over Bernie because " AMG FIRST WOMENZ PRESIDENTS GUIZ!". Don't know whether to be more annoyed by the Republican party's reality show or the left's identity politics handing us yet another triangulating Clinton.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Jul 31, 2016 12:37 am UTC

There is nothing stopping you from reforming the party but votes in elections.
Lucrece wrote:Probably winning over Bernie because " AMG FIRST WOMENZ PRESIDENTS GUIZ!".
Bernie waltzed in at the last minute so to speak. Clinton had him out organized, out funded and out planned. She's been running since Bill left the White house. Bernie wanted to be a socialist candidate, but he couldn't get elected nationally as that. So he ran as a Democrat. How is that not being calculating?

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Jul 31, 2016 1:30 pm UTC

To be honest: I didn't find the Khizr Khan speech very special. It was basically a Muslim Father who was morning the loss of his son in the Iraq War plus a little bit of political rhetoric (as expected with a DNC speech).

Spoiler:
In particular, the pocket constitution thing was a little bit over the top for me. But apparently it worked well as a rhetorical device, so... my opinion on this issue probably doesn't matter.


I'm curious to see how the pro-Trumpers will defend Trump's insane attack vs Khizr Khan however. Khan's speech was typical, but his family's sacrifice is supposed to be considered sacred. Its not like anyone in Trump's family served in the military. However, due to Khan's thick accent and clearly Muslim religion I'm worried that anti-Muslim sentiment will cause people to ignore the spat between Khan and Trump.

As has been noted by a number of people: there truly is only one "correct" way to respond to Khizr Khan: We thank you for your son's service and your family's sacrifice. That's it. He's a man who lost his son at war, there really isn't anything else you're supposed to say about him or his wife.

And you certainly shouldn't be criticizing the wife's silence on that night. As the reports have indicated today: Mrs. Khan was tearing up that night and didn't feel like talking. Its perfectly acceptable for her to stand next to her husband without contributing any words of her own, especially when its a deeply personal subject (like the loss of their son)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby EdgarJPublius » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:00 pm UTC

Even if they don't win the election, third parties can unlock public campaign funds and other advantages for future elections if they meet modest vote thresholds in national elections.

A vote for a third party candidate might help the greater of two evils get elected this time around, but it can also help make future elections not be between two evils.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:35 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:
as ridiculous as imagining that Stein actually stands a chance of becoming president, in which case I could criticize you for not voting for her.

If Stein could actually win, would she still be a defendable vote? She doesn't strike me as a promising president - more like the eccentrics that serious Green parties harbour on the inside, but keep away from the ballot.
She panders to Anti-vaxxers, wants to put a moratorium on GMO food, ban pesticides, print away everyone's college debt, ditch fractional reserve banking, not raise the debt ceiling and doesn't actually seem to understand how the Federal Reserve works. Those are all on some spectrum of what I would consider "crazy eccentric hippy".
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:28 am UTC

If Stein could actually win, would she still be a defendable vote?
Why does it need to be defended? What is questionable IMO is assuming in this election cycle that every vote doesn't count. Lazar seems to think that it isn't true. But we vote secretly, so we don't have to defend our vote, or be punished for it. Anyway I should have left him alone about it.

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3726
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:20 am UTC

The hard truth is that not every vote does count. There are only 538 votes that 'count' in a Presidential election.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

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 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:38 am UTC

That's not really true, since the electoral college vote depends on actual voters. The number of votes that *count* would be equal to the largest set of voters who could not affect the outcome if every voter in the set or any subset of voters changed their vote. In 2012, voters in any state in which Obama lost is counted in this set of voters, as well as any voter in a state which Obama didn't need to carry to win the electoral vote, as well as every non-Obama voter in a state Obama needed to carry and held a majority of votes, and a portion of Obama voters in excess of what he needed for a majority, and a portion of Obama voters in states he needed to carry, but didn't have an absolute majority, and a set of Romney and Third party voters less than the total number of Obama voters. It's possible that as many as 25% of votes mattered in 2012.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:41 am UTC

So according to you if in a very tight election 49% people vote for candidate A and 51% for candidate B, then 49 votes didn't count? That is an absurd definition of what votes count.

The fact is that every vote does count. Even in America, with your broken voting system. Some votes count much more than others, because of your aforementioned broken system, but all votes count at least a little bit. Non-swing-states wouldn't be non-swing-states if not for people voting for the party that usually wins that state.

Margin of victory also matters. A president who wins in a landslide will have a stronger mandate, and an easier time realising his goals. Again that mechanic is somewhat broken in the US, but it is not entirely absent. And voting doesn't just matter for this election, it matters for the next one. Parties move in the direction of where they think the votes are1, and one of the things they look at to see where the votes are is, well, where the votes are.

Finally, a US specific thing is the effect of presidential elections on down ballot votes. This can make even votes in non-swing-states hugely important. Though I suppose one could argue that's a different vote.

1I'd argue that generally parties spend much more energy moving the vote towards where they are (with e.g. advertising), but they certainly also move themselves towards the voters.
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

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 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 9:02 am UTC

It's an artifact of the voting system, but yes if you cannot possibly change the outcome of the election, then it doesn't matter who you vote for and your vote doesn't count. Any single-winner voting system that meets the majority criterion has the problem you describe, it's just that the US system makes it significantly worse. For single-winner elections, approval voting is probably the best at making the most votes count, but still has the same issue if a majority approve of only a single candidate. It's why multi-winner elections exist: because they can significantly increase the number of votes that count. This is a real and serious problem with democracy, and it is why it is ideal for a democracy to minimize the amount of power placed in the hands of any individual.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:06 am UTC

If you choose to believe that your vote doesn't count if your candidate doesn't win then there is no real argument. But in aggregate, if sufficient numbers make excuses as to why voting doesn't matter, you get turnouts that are abysmal. This is best demonstrated in why new organizations don't report results anymore until the polls close in California. I have a second reservation in this cycle, which is, are there any truly safe states?
Last edited by morriswalters on Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:58 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Mon Aug 01, 2016 10:10 am UTC

It's akin to saying if you remove a grain of sand from a heap, it's still a heap, so that grain 'didn't matter'. (However, if you keep removing grains...)

It's an artefact of both the electoral system and the accuracy of polling. You can be sure ahead of time that your vote won't matter.

However, if everyone uses that logic and the polls are incorrect, it can change the result of an election.

I have half a suspicion that the UK Brexit referendum was affected by horrific rainfall in Remain strongholds coupled with polling that suggested Remain had it in the bag: Many Remain voters just stayed at home thinking 'their vote didn't matter'. They might be regretting their lack of vote today...

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:25 pm UTC

If people vote Stein and then have #Bregret except for Donald Trump, that would be their own damn fault.

This election is far more competitive than it really should be. Honestly, if you think the Democrats were corrupt and you want to change how they work, your best shot at that was voting for a delegate that would have reformed the rules at the DNC.

You know, just like how the Democrat Delegates literally just removed a bunch of Superdelegates for 2020. The DNC is when these rules are discussed, debated and changed. If you want to change the rules, the time to do so was in the primaries.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Trebla » Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:27 pm UTC

The Paradox of Voting and Altruism Theory of Voting are interesting concepts that a lot of people in this thread recently seem to be flirting with. Whether through familiarity with the concepts or just a common sense approach that leads them to the same conclusion, I don't know. Interesting (and fairly short) on topic articles at any rate for those not familiar with them.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:15 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:So, I'm trying to understand the last two weeks of American politics.

The 2016 Democratic party just became the 1981 Republican party, and the 2016 Republican party just became Ayn Rand fanfiction? Am I close?

Was Ayn Rand a authoritarian ass hole? I thought she was just a selfish ass hole.
The GOP just went for the darker side of politics, Europeans know them right wing nationalists except Trump is also not very knowledgeable. He knows just enough to be extremely dangerous.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/201 ... xxers.html
In other news, candidate Jill Stein panders to antivaccine groups.


Agreed. Rand and Trump are both assholes, but they're different kinds of assholes, and thus, would not get along at all, and neither would likely claim to follow the other if they were contemporaries. It's not so much that Trump is extreme right wing or anything...he's really not. He's taken distinctly leftist positions in the past before. It's that he's an unreliable person who doesn't so much hold positions as uses them.

Dammit, Stein. The anti-science bent of the green party is why I end up voting libertarian. Well, when the main two parties fail this badly at putting up reasonable candidates, anyway.

Zamfir wrote:
as ridiculous as imagining that Stein actually stands a chance of becoming president, in which case I could criticize you for not voting for her.

If Stein could actually win, would she still be a defendable vote? She doesn't strike me as a promising president - more like the eccentrics that serious Green parties harbour on the inside, but keep away from the ballot.


All minor parties tend to field somewhat less credible candidates, because, well, if you're a credible candidate, you end up at least joining with a major party for the presidential run, as Bernie did. They're all running doomed races, just to show the colors or whatever. If through some mishap they actually won, well...it'd probably be a mediocre presidency, with the odder positions mostly being tamped down by the need to work with congress. Johnson, while probably better in that he's more moderate, is still not ideal in many respects. He's still in essentially the same position, and a pretty similar outcome would happen if he were elected, and he's also deeply unlikely to be elected. Voting for either is essentially a protest vote to convey information.

KnightExemplar wrote:I'm curious to see how the pro-Trumpers will defend Trump's insane attack vs Khizr Khan however. Khan's speech was typical, but his family's sacrifice is supposed to be considered sacred. Its not like anyone in Trump's family served in the military. However, due to Khan's thick accent and clearly Muslim religion I'm worried that anti-Muslim sentiment will cause people to ignore the spat between Khan and Trump.

As has been noted by a number of people: there truly is only one "correct" way to respond to Khizr Khan: We thank you for your son's service and your family's sacrifice. That's it. He's a man who lost his son at war, there really isn't anything else you're supposed to say about him or his wife.


Yeah...definitely a blunder on his part. Trump should be much more careful to avoid coming across as insensitive/uncaring regarding the military. He's vulnerable there, I think. Mostly because he keeps making arrogant, stupid statements regarding conflicts and stuff he knows nothing about. The military and it's supporters are entirely okay with arrogance so long as it's justified/accurate, but when you're obviously wrong, bombast works against you. He's gotten off fairly easily so far, I think, solely because Dems traditionally have problems with appealing to the military, and Hillary is a particularly hated candidate among the military. Against a better candidate, he'd be shredded over it.

morriswalters wrote:If you choose to believe that your vote doesn't count if your candidate doesn't win then there is no real argument. But in aggregate, if sufficient numbers make excuses as to why voting doesn't matter, you get turnouts that are abysmal. This is best demonstrated in why new organizations don't report results anymore until the polls close in California. I have a second reservation in this cycle, which is, are there any truly safe states?


I can, in advance, determine that my state, Maryland, will vote democrat in the general. Yes, yes, there's some micro-chance that it could go red, but the odds of MD going red are not independent from every other state race. If we go red, it's because Trump is somehow doing implausibly well. If he is doing that well, he already is winning all the swing states by stupid margins.

There are safe states. It's incredibly predictable. If I can, beforehand, predict with essentially perfect certainty what my vote will actually do(nothing), then finding a way to utilize my vote better is completely rational.

Yes, if *everyone* thought the way I did, it'd cause interesting outcomes. GOOD. Then we'd finally get a shot at fixing the broken-ass system. Let's do that.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:31 pm UTC

Tyndmyr, are you equally aware how safe, by margin of victory, down ballot candidates are? Nobody lives in a100 percent safe state district location for every election. At the higher level, swing States migrate and shift around. At the lower level, the tea party and Obama 08 races show how even safe seats can be upset.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:33 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:There are safe states. It's incredibly predictable. If I can, beforehand, predict with essentially perfect certainty what my vote will actually do(nothing), then finding a way to utilize my vote better is completely rational.
Then find a bookie and place a wager. You'll get a better return on your investment.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:37 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, are you equally aware how safe, by margin of victory, down ballot candidates are? Nobody lives in a100 percent safe state district location for every election. At the higher level, swing States migrate and shift around. At the lower level, the tea party and Obama 08 races show how even safe seats can be upset.


Just because I'm voting third party for the presidential election doesn't mean my down-ballot votes have to be(and probably won't all be, depends on available candidates, the actual people involved, demographics, etc).

But yeah, arguments for voting third party do not necessarily extend to arguments for staying home and not voting at all. The two are different.

morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:There are safe states. It's incredibly predictable. If I can, beforehand, predict with essentially perfect certainty what my vote will actually do(nothing), then finding a way to utilize my vote better is completely rational.
Then find a bookie and place a wager. You'll get a better return on your investment.


As noted before in this thread, I have long ago placed money on events such as Clinton winning the primary and losing the general. Yes, the actual dollars and cents RoI on voting may be fairly weak, but gambling is not a substitute for voting. I can do both.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:40 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Then find a bookie and place a wager. You'll get a better return on your investment.
Not really. If he can find a bookie that gives him individual states, Maryland's odd I am sure would be something like 1:200 for HRC or a 00.5% return. Oddsmakers are not stupid.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Aug 01, 2016 3:58 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
morriswalters wrote:If you choose to believe that your vote doesn't count if your candidate doesn't win then there is no real argument. But in aggregate, if sufficient numbers make excuses as to why voting doesn't matter, you get turnouts that are abysmal. This is best demonstrated in why new organizations don't report results anymore until the polls close in California. I have a second reservation in this cycle, which is, are there any truly safe states?


I can, in advance, determine that my state, Maryland, will vote democrat in the general. Yes, yes, there's some micro-chance that it could go red, but the odds of MD going red are not independent from every other state race. If we go red, it's because Trump is somehow doing implausibly well. If he is doing that well, he already is winning all the swing states by stupid margins.

There are safe states. It's incredibly predictable. If I can, beforehand, predict with essentially perfect certainty what my vote will actually do(nothing), then finding a way to utilize my vote better is completely rational.

Yes, if *everyone* thought the way I did, it'd cause interesting outcomes. GOOD. Then we'd finally get a shot at fixing the broken-ass system. Let's do that.


The issue with that manner of speaking is that the majority of "sane" Trump voters I know are voting for Trump to "cause an interesting outcome".

Except voting for Trump does literally fucking nothing towards fixing our system. Similarly, voting for Jill Stein doesn't seem like it'd be more effective at fixing anything either. I understand the emotional response of "fuck things up"... but rationally I just don't see how protest votes actually change anything.

Aside from #Brexit and #Bregret of course.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:05 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Except voting for Trump does literally fucking nothing towards fixing our system. Similarly, voting for Jill Stein doesn't seem like it'd be more effective at fixing anything either. I understand the emotional response of "fuck things up"... but rationally I just don't see how protest votes actually change anything.

Aside from #Brexit and #Bregret of course.
I think people vastly underestimate how bad things can get. I hear a lot of Trump supporters with the attitude of "I want to shake things up, things are already broken so something else has to be better and things can't get much worse right?". The truth is that thing can get a whole hell of a lot worse and dramatic changes to the status quo in the US are generally more likely to result in a worse outcome than a better, in a sort of a regression to the mean. The US is still probably one of the top 15 countries in the world to live in, there is a lot of room to do worse.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:42 pm UTC

I just chalk up Trump votes to rather uninformed people or people with business interests in getting Trump elected (such as people like Peter Thiel...bless his heart).

It's really pointless anyways, most people vote emotionally. Really naive Democrat voters who lap it up when Hillary says she will make Wall Street pay their fair share (lol) or force colleges to go tuition free and help student debt (universities are a predatory financial empire, she'll have a hard time accomplishing much as most of her fellow Democrats are in bed with universities and their slave labor market).

Difference is Hillary is not a total clown who will embarras this country in the world stage in a worse way than Bush did.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:46 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Then find a bookie and place a wager. You'll get a better return on your investment.
Not really. If he can find a bookie that gives him individual states, Maryland's odd I am sure would be something like 1:200 for HRC or a 00.5% return. Oddsmakers are not stupid.
So put down 2000 and get 10. That kind of return would make me happy if it was with no risk. It's better than what you can get at the bank over the same term. However I wasn't really serious. Gamblers are optimists, I'm not.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:55 pm UTC

Prominent Republicans have condemned Donald Trump over his comments about Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of an American soldier who was killed in Iraq.

John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee in 2008, challenged Trump on Monday “to set an example” and said: “I cannot emphasize how deeply I disagree with Mr Trump’s statement. I hope Americans understand that the remarks do not represent the views of our Republican party, its officers, or candidates.”

Like other leading Republicans, however, McCain did not rescind his endorsement of Trump for the presidency. The Arizona senator faces a tough re-election battle of his own in November.

Army captain Humayun Khan died in a suicide bombing in 2004. Last Thursday, at the Democratic national convention in Philadelphia, his father, Khizr, spoke about his opposition to Trump’s proposed ban on Muslim immigration.

This weekend, in an interview with ABC and on Twitter, Trump questioned the authorship of the speech, asked why Ghazala Khan had appeared on stage but said nothing, insisted he had made sacrifices for his country comparable to those of the Khans, and complained of being “viciously attacked”.

On Monday, McCain, a decorated Vietnam veteran, thanked the Khans for coming to the US and said their son’s death “was a shining example of the valor and bravery inculcated into our military”.

The Khans again appeared on national television, Khizr having said in a CNN interview on Sunday that Trump had a “black soul”. In answer to Trump having insinuated that she did not speak at the convention because she was oppressed by her religion, Ghazala Khan told NBC, as she wrote in the Washington Post a day before, that she was too overcome by grief over her son’s death to speak about it.

“I didn’t talk because I don’t have the heart when it comes to Humayun. I can’t,” she said. “I can’t talk – my words will be not that strong or I will start crying.”

McCain fell short of renouncing his endorsement for Trump, who last summer mocked him for having been a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

“It is time for Donald Trump to set the example for our country and the future of the Republican party,” McCain said. “While our party has bestowed upon him the nomination, it is not accompanied by unfettered license to defame those who are the best among us.”

Roy Blunt, a Republican senator from Missouri who has also said he supports Trump, commended the Khans in a statement. He said: “My advice to Donald Trump has been and will continue to be to focus on jobs and national security and stop responding to every criticism whether it’s from a grieving family or Hillary Clinton.”

Mac Thornberry, Republican chair of the House armed services committee, said he was “dismayed” by Trump’s attack on the Khans. He has not endorsed Trump, however, and he did not mention him in his statement.

“There is never enough honor we can show to the families of those whose loved ones have made the ultimate sacrifice to our country,” he said.

Trump, who as a young man obtained deferments and did not serve in Vietnam, also faced criticism from the families of 17 Americans who died in war, who in an open letter asked Trump to apologize to the Khans and other families of fallen soldiers for comments they said were “repugnant, and personally offensive”.

The Gold Star families – the term for those who have lost a loved one in service – said Trump’s statements minimized the risks people take by going to war.

“When you question a mother’s pain, by implying that her religion, not her grief, kept her from addressing an arena of people, you are attacking us,” the families wrote in a letter to Trump. “When you say your job building buildings is akin to our sacrifice, you are attacking our sacrifice.

“You are not just attacking us, you are cheapening the sacrifice made by those we lost.”


Still plenty of time for voters to forget this one. Teflon Trump remains as dangerous as ever.

link

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:59 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The issue with that manner of speaking is that the majority of "sane" Trump voters I know are voting for Trump to "cause an interesting outcome".

Except voting for Trump does literally fucking nothing towards fixing our system. Similarly, voting for Jill Stein doesn't seem like it'd be more effective at fixing anything either. I understand the emotional response of "fuck things up"... but rationally I just don't see how protest votes actually change anything.

Aside from #Brexit and #Bregret of course.


Protest voting for Trump will of course not fix anything. Trump's still one of the main two parties, for all his outsider schtick. If he wins, well, either the republican party decides being trumplike is awesome, and we get even shittier options, or people get sick of Trump and select more mainstream candidates. But regardless, it's still a "within the two main parties" option, which are throwing up crappy candidates. Picking one of those crappy candidates does not change that system.

You can work on procedure within the party. The Dem changes to electors are probably good, though it's likely they wouldn't really do much. I suspect Hillary would have won regardless. But, it's at least a small step in the right direction.

Voting third party indicates dissatisfaction with the primary parties, and WHAT third party conveys some information about what you want. As the third party share grows bigger, the need of the main parties to recapture that leads them to pay attention to what people want. It is implausible that both parties would ignore third parties long enough to allow them to actually WIN(which, in the US, would result in the demise of one of the primary parties as a result), but they do shift the needle. It wasn't long ago that libertarians advocating for legal pot were derided by both parties, after all.

morriswalters wrote:
Dark567 wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Then find a bookie and place a wager. You'll get a better return on your investment.
Not really. If he can find a bookie that gives him individual states, Maryland's odd I am sure would be something like 1:200 for HRC or a 00.5% return. Oddsmakers are not stupid.
So put down 2000 and get 10. That kind of return would make me happy if it was with no risk. It's better than what you can get at the bank over the same term. However I wasn't really serious. Gamblers are optimists, I'm not.


Depends on how long you have to have your money in for. I routinely pass up sure thing bets with a really, really marginal payoff because the amount of time the money is tied up for makes the rate of return miserable. .5% isn't very good if you have to wait until the general for a payoff, right now.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:59 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:I just chalk up Trump votes to rather uninformed people or people with business interests in getting Trump elected (such as people like Peter Thiel...bless his heart).

It's really pointless anyways, most people vote emotionally. Really naive Democrat voters who lap it up when Hillary says she will make Wall Street pay their fair share (lol) or force colleges to go tuition free and help student debt (universities are a predatory financial empire, she'll have a hard time accomplishing much as most of her fellow Democrats are in bed with universities and their slave labor market).

Difference is Hillary is not a total clown who will embarras this country in the world stage in a worse way than Bush did.

Politicians are a reflection of who votes. Young people, and minorities don't vote every primary. The voter turnout is abysmal. It's very hypocritical to complain about how corrupt the system is when you don't engage the politicians who actually respond to demands from the majority of their voters. When was the last time you attended a school district meeting or town hall?

Has Trump said anything that made less people vote for him? The Muslim soldier business hasn't made Paul Ryan budge yet. Even McCain still endorses Trump.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:08 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
This weekend, in an interview with ABC and on Twitter, Trump questioned the authorship of the speech, asked why Ghazala Khan had appeared on stage but said nothing, insisted he had made sacrifices for his country comparable to those of the Khans, and complained of being “viciously attacked”.
McCain fell short of renouncing his endorsement for Trump, who last summer mocked him for having been a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Jesus Harold Christ almighty and all his tap-dancing cousins...
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:16 pm UTC

The most important thing I noticed in Trump's comments was that he said "that Khan didn't have the right to claim in front of millions, that I did not read the constitution".

Yes, he does.

You live in a country of free speech. A country where that is one of the highest values. As https://xkcd.com/1357/ says, it doesn't shield him from your response, but he's perfectly allowed to criticize you, even if he is inaccurate.

Trump is inaccurate more often than not (at least the coverage I receive gives me that impression). Suddenly someone else is not allowed to do that? :roll:

I don't think there's any better way to dig your own grave but given the speed at which the popular opinion can turn in the US, especially with social media etc, and the fact that all of Trumps gaffes got him to skyrocket instead of plummet during the primaries, I'm still concerned at what will happen next. You'd think that this would finally get him to crash but that's still unknown...

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:23 pm UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:The most important thing I noticed in Trump's comments was that he said "that Khan didn't have the right to claim in front of millions, that I did not read the constitution".

Yes, he does.


Trump might know that if he, yknow, read the constitution.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:The issue with that manner of speaking is that the majority of "sane" Trump voters I know are voting for Trump to "cause an interesting outcome".

Except voting for Trump does literally fucking nothing towards fixing our system. Similarly, voting for Jill Stein doesn't seem like it'd be more effective at fixing anything either. I understand the emotional response of "fuck things up"... but rationally I just don't see how protest votes actually change anything.

Aside from #Brexit and #Bregret of course.


Protest voting for Trump will of course not fix anything. Trump's still one of the main two parties, for all his outsider schtick. If he wins, well, either the republican party decides being trumplike is awesome, and we get even shittier options, or people get sick of Trump and select more mainstream candidates. But regardless, it's still a "within the two main parties" option, which are throwing up crappy candidates. Picking one of those crappy candidates does not change that system.

You can work on procedure within the party. The Dem changes to electors are probably good, though it's likely they wouldn't really do much. I suspect Hillary would have won regardless. But, it's at least a small step in the right direction.


Well yeah. Hillary won the popular vote and no one else even came close. (Bernie was down by like, 10 points by the end). And that was a 1-for-1 race between Bernie vs Hillary. You really can't get a better poll of establishment vs insurgent than what just happened with the Democrats.

Voting third party indicates dissatisfaction with the primary parties, and WHAT third party conveys some information about what you want. As the third party share grows bigger, the need of the main parties to recapture that leads them to pay attention to what people want.


Interesting in theory, but Ross Perot in 1992 changed nothing... aside from getting Bill Clinton elected instead of Bush Sr. Similarly, voting for Nader in 2000 (in Florida) got Bush Elected instead of Al Gore. And nothing of note from the Green Party came out as a result.

Ignore history at your peril. The 3rd party candidates like to pretend that they're changing things, but even Ross Perot's 18.9% of the popular vote as a 3rd party candidate changed nothing, and only solidified the importance of voting for one of the two major parties.

------------------

EDIT: Basically, history is already written. If Clinton wins in November, Republicans will blame Gary Johnson for "stealing" votes. If Trump wins in November, Democrats will blame Stein for "stealing" votes. And that will be the end of it. No policy changes, no nothing. Its literally a wasted vote.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Trebla
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Trebla » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:The most important thing I noticed in Trump's comments was that he said "that Khan didn't have the right to claim in front of millions, that I did not read the constitution".

Yes, he does.


Technically it could be slander on the assumption that it's both false and damages Trump's reputation, right? At that point it's probably splitting hairs over whether he "has the right to say it" or it's just "a civil tort to do so." The former could easily be meant to convey the latter.

But I don't think either of those assumptions are givens.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:46 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:
Plasma_Wolf wrote:The most important thing I noticed in Trump's comments was that he said "that Khan didn't have the right to claim in front of millions, that I did not read the constitution".

Yes, he does.


Technically it could be slander on the assumption that it's both false and damages Trump's reputation, right? At that point it's probably splitting hairs over whether he "has the right to say it" or it's just "a civil tort to do so." The former could easily be meant to convey the latter.

But I don't think either of those assumptions are givens.


The Republicans sent the mother who lost her child in Bengahzi to literally say that Clinton murdered her child during the RNC. Sooo....

For the most part, we let grieving mothers say what they want to the political parties. Because they're in mourning and have made an ultimate sacrifice. And I think I respect that. The families who have been directly affected by a casualty of war deserve a few minutes to say what they want on these stages.

That Trump violates this unspoken rule just shows how callous he is.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:54 pm UTC


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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:
Plasma_Wolf wrote:The most important thing I noticed in Trump's comments was that he said "that Khan didn't have the right to claim in front of millions, that I did not read the constitution".

Yes, he does.


Technically it could be slander on the assumption that it's both false and damages Trump's reputation, right? At that point it's probably splitting hairs over whether he "has the right to say it" or it's just "a civil tort to do so." The former could easily be meant to convey the latter.

But I don't think either of those assumptions are givens.


Yeah, I think this was just Trump mouthing off because he really can't handle criticism. He's never learned how to lose. It's his weakness, and in the right circumstance, might doom him.

I don't think it will, here, but it's mostly luck on Trump's part, not master planning or being technically correct. But it's a pretty obvious gaffe, and on a topic that bothers Republicans. One would hope that people would take him to task for this, but I'm not sure if I have faith that anyone will do so effectively.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

Trebla wrote:Technically it could be slander on the assumption that it's both false and damages Trump's reputation, right?
That would be interesting at trial, don't you think? I'd pay money for a seat.:lol:


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chen and 17 guests