2016 US Presidential Election

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Opus_723
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Opus_723 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:01 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:
Mutex wrote:The rhetoric from republican voters towards dems has been horrific for years, it's hardly one way. Apparently republicans are much thinner skinned though. They elected the right leader then...



Oh, please. Both sides do it, but don't pretend only one side gets scandalized when a simple phrase as "bad hombres" triggers a meltdown (and I say this as Latin American born and raised, not some pseudo "Latino" born in the US who can barely speak Spanish suddenly acting offended in behalf of a demographic he's only inherited by blood; the likes of Eva Longoria and Jennifer Lopez are about as Latina as a Bostonian is actually Irish -- not).

Reminds me when the museum did an exhibit that allowed the wearing of kimonos and its Japanese coordinator was yelled at by US born activists about its offensiveness while Japanese citizens questioned about it didn't find it remotely offensive.


I once took a class on Asian-American studies because I needed to at my liberal arts college. Now I did my fair share of eye-rolling in that class, but one thing that I remember really struck me, and I thought it explained a lot. Immigrants don't tend to report nearly the feelings of anxiety over racism and xenophobia that their American-born children do, and that's not a recent phenomenon. It seems like there's quite a difference between moving to a country and expecting to stick out somewhat vs. being born here, growing up with the expectation that you're as American as anyone else, and having that expectation constantly questioned, subtly or not subtly.

The incident with Tammy Duckworth in her Senate race is just a ridiculously good example. She bragged about her long military heritage, and her opponent inaccurately tried to call her out on it. The guy just couldn't even understand that she had ancestors here during the revolution because she looks East Asian. That's the kind of thing that couldn't even be an issue for a first generation immigrant, but was a deeply offensive thing to say to her.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7391
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:02 am UTC

Trump is talking about a literal wall that literally spans the entire length of Mexico's boundary with America.

And what was the Democratic objection to that? That concrete is needlessly expensive when fences will suffice? If that was truly the point, then they surely failed at communication...

The wall is a symbol. You know it, Trumps supporters know it, everyone knows it. Even when he builds a literal wall, it's still mostly a symbol. It's a symbol for a harsh stance on immigration, specifically unauthorized immigration from Latin America. The real bite will be in increased inspections and deportations, more checks on documents, no amnesties, etc. The wall is a visual symbol for all that.

And this is apparently popular. Arguably it's the big issue that propelled Trump to win the candidacy and now the presidency. If you say, haha, the guy wants to build a literal wall and his supporters believe him, that's exactly the denigration people talk about. It's ignoring them. Which works if you win, but you didn't.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:06 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:How do you even engage with that? How do you even begin?
Figure it out. Trump won. End of story. You had better ask yourself why Hillary couldn't win in places that were reliably Democratic in the past. She just got clocked on Democratic turf.

User avatar
svenman
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:09 pm UTC
Location: 680 km NNE of the Château d'If

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby svenman » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:09 am UTC

Dear Americans,

Refugees welcome.

Just sayin'.
- The people of Germany1


1Okay, in fact I'm just one German. But I believe I echo the sentiments of many of my fellow countrymen. Also, just to make that clear, I am not "Johan Franklin", though I agree with his recent messages.
Mostly active on the One True Thread.
If you need help understanding what's going on there, the xkcd Time Wiki may be useful.

Addams didn't die! But will Addams have a place to live? You can help!

Randallspeed to all blitzers on the One True Thread!

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6980
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:11 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:And what was the Democratic objection to that? That concrete is needlessly expensive when fences will suffice? If that was truly the point, then they surely failed at communication...
That was brought up. Also brought up was the fact that it's pretty much impossible to do because of how the border works.

And yes, it's a symbol he intends to actually build. He wants to expend millions of Mexico's dollars to construct a middle finger toward Mexico. This has been brought up. The fact that we're also laughing at how obscenely stupid and petty it is doesn't mean we're not talking about how obscenely stupid and petty it is (while also trying to have a real discussion about immigration policy).
Lucrece wrote:I grant Trump voters that they do what they do in good faith just as I do for those who voted Hillary. They each think they're doing right by their country and answering their interests appropriately.
But that is so trivially true it's not granting anything at all. Of *course* Trump supporters think they're doing right by themselves and their country. Who doesn't understand that? Is that really the sense you get from commentators like Stewart or Colbert?

You can still believe what you're doing is right even as you're advocating horrible things. That doesn't make those things not-horrible. What do you want me to do; pretend I'm not disgusted when a Trump supporter tells me we need to murder all Muslims? You want me to smile and shake hands with this person? "Agree to disagree"?

elasto
Posts: 3414
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:14 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:I don't even know how to parse this argument. Who really thinks the *comedians* are the problem with American politics? Or even *part* of the problem?


"Who even thinks a celebrity running for president is the problem with American politics? Or even part of the problem?"

Huh? Are you equating the skill set needed to be a leader vs that needed to be a commentator?

maybeagnostic
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:15 am UTC

Mutex wrote:
maybeagnostic wrote:
Mutex wrote:There you go then, both sides do it. So why did it lose the election for the liberals? Why is this a factor according to you? It just sounds like "stop being mean about me" while not caring what republicans say about dems.
And I've seen this so many times the last year- "We aren't being any worse than Trump so we get the moral high ground!" It really doesn't cut it.


Read the whole post, this is such a strawman. It's not about moral high-ground, it's about why would doing the same thing as the rep voters (in Lucrece's own words) would count against the dems and not reps.
Because they didn't do the same thing or at least that was my impression which is admittedly limited since I don't watch Fox News or know many people who publicly supported Trump. On the one hand I saw plenty of people accusing people of being men or white (technically, "sexist" and "racist" but they were used as shorthand for "agree with me completely or you are this bad thing because I say so") which covers 85% of the electorate. On the other hand Trump attacked Muslims (0.9% of the population) and immigrants (mostly can't vote), groups that don't decide US elections, or individual people.

But in end it counts against the Democrats because it is a contributing factor to why voter turn out was so low. This is possibly the most publicized election that ever was- do you really think 60% of voters couldn't make up their minds? No, 10 million fewer people voted now than in the last election because they didn't want to support either candidate.

The Great Hippo wrote:And whatever you think of Full Frontal, that vitriol is *well-earned*.
It is not but even beyond that vitriol drives away people who don't totally agree with you. It splits people into those with you and those against you- apparently those with Hilary only make up about 1/6th of the voters while those with Trump make up a slightly bigger ~1/6th.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:18 am UTC

elasto wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:I don't even know how to parse this argument. Who really thinks the *comedians* are the problem with American politics? Or even *part* of the problem?


"Who even thinks a celebrity running for president is the problem with American politics? Or even part of the problem?"

Huh? Are you equating the skill set needed to be a leader vs that needed to be a commentator?


No? I'm saying celebrities have infiltrated politics and the discourse around it to its detriment. If people place value on Trump as a readily indentifiable figure to vote for (as they did for Schwarzenegger in California), it's of little surprise people are also substituting the likes of Amanpour for hacks like Maher or Chelsea Handler as figures of moral and intellectual guidance.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6980
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:22 am UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:It is not but even beyond that vitriol drives away people who don't totally agree with you. It splits people into those with you and those against you- apparently those with Hilary only make up about 1/6th of the voters while those with Trump make up a slightly bigger ~1/6th.
It is, and I suspect if you don't understand how it is, this isn't a discussion we can really have. If you don't understand how a woman can be angry toward the anti-woman climate of American politics, I'm not sure I'm capable of bringing you up to speed.
Lucrece wrote:No? I'm saying celebrities have infiltrated politics and the discourse around it to its detriment.
Celebrities aren't comedians.

elasto
Posts: 3414
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:24 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:No? I'm saying celebrities have infiltrated politics and the discourse around it to its detriment.

But Colbert isn't a celebrity who infiltrated politics. His politics brought him celebrity - which is the horse leading the cart.

Trump on the other hand absolutely is a celebrity who parlayed that into political power.

If you don't appreciate why that's dangerous to democracy I don't know what you tell you.
Last edited by elasto on Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:26 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6980
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:26 am UTC

And he's not even good at it; he's a skilled celebrity in the same sense that a car wreck is skilled at drawing attention.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:27 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Lucrece wrote:I grant Trump voters that they do what they do in good faith just as I do for those who voted Hillary. They each think they're doing right by their country and answering their interests appropriately.
But that is so trivially true it's not granting anything at all. Of *course* Trump supporters think they're doing right by themselves and their country. Who doesn't understand that? Is that really the sense you get from commentators like Stewart or Colbert?

You can still believe what you're doing is right even as you're advocating horrible things. That doesn't make those things not-horrible. What do you want me to do; pretend I'm not disgusted when a Trump supporter tells me we need to murder all Muslims? You want me to smile and shake hands with this person? "Agree to disagree"?



It's not trivially true. People are being accused of actively being malicious, that the vote is a fraud because some evil racists voted for Racist in Chief, because white supremacy.

"Advocating horrible things" is exactly what frustrates me with having a conversation on this, because you pick the guy who says "bomb them to hell" and generalize that attitude to all the supporters.

You may generally feel their stance on immigration is advocating something horrible, but you certainly don't get to expect them to accept your interpretation as some indisputable evaluation of their position. It's actually what drives a lot of the conflict with immigration or gun control debates, for example. It always devolves to "Let them in or you you're a racist.", or "these scared white guys love their assault weapons, and now children will die because they refuse to give them up."

It's exhausting for people to constantly have to deflect character attacks when they want to talk policy, because the MO is the much easier route of flagging people as Bad Person to make sure their views are discarded.

This election would have been so much simpler if people had focused less on Trump and his orangutan hair and pussy grabbing comments, and instead people bothered to explain to voters why his position on anti-free trade is actually gonna harm working class whites more than it helps, or how the extra money he spends on immigration control will have to come from some other valuable service Americans enjoy (and will enjoy less).

The Great Hippo wrote:Celebrities aren't comedians.



In what world are George Carlin, Louis CK, Joan Rivers, or any other comedian not celebrities?

Image

Come on, man.

elasto wrote:
Lucrece wrote:No? I'm saying celebrities have infiltrated politics and the discourse around it to its detriment.

But Colbert isn't a celebrity who infiltrated politics. His politics brought him celebrity - which is the horse leading the cart.



His status of being a celebrity (he's actually been an established comedian in several comedic troupes) is what allowed him an audience and the granting of a show by Comedy Central to begin with, an idea that by the way he had to pitch to executives.

His comedy central show is just where he hit it big, but much like Louis CK (where he had an HBO show prior to his big breakout) he was already a presence in the entertainment industry.
Last edited by Lucrece on Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:35 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6980
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:33 am UTC

I don't think all Trump supporters want to kill all Muslims, but I've met ones who do. Aside from hoping they're not the majority, what is it you suggest we do about them? How should I treat them? Should I coddle their feelings? Should I shake their hands and try not to offend them?

Bill Maher does what you're complaining about, yes. Bill Maher is a hack, and I think he lowers the discourse. He's also not claiming to be *just* a comedian. Stewart, Oliver, Colbert, and Bee are all comedians doing political comedy. I think it's silly to blame them for any of this.

Edit: You don't understand how being a celebrity doesn't necessarily make you a comedian?

elasto
Posts: 3414
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:37 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:It's not trivially true. People are being accused of actively being malicious, that the vote is a fraud because some evil racists voted for Racist in Chief, because white supremacy.

Huh? Very very few people are evil in a self-aware way. Probably even Hitler thought he was doing good. If you think that's the accusation then you are completely missing the point.

The big worry from this election is that America has a lot more (unaware) evil racists than anyone thought would be the case in 2016.

The biggest worry for me personally is what it will mean for future elections and rhetoric. Trump most likely will lack the personal skills to follow through on his fascist and xenophobic platform with any competence. What happens when the next election has an actually competent fascist racist on the ticket..? We've seen the electorate has an appetite for it now...

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:45 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I don't think all Trump supporters want to kill all Muslims, but I've met ones who do. Aside from hoping they're not the majority, what is it you suggest we do about them? How should I treat them? Should I coddle their feelings? Should I shake their hands and try not to offend them?

Bill Maher does what you're complaining about, yes. Bill Maher is a hack, and I think he lowers the discourse. He's also not claiming to be *just* a comedian. Stewart, Oliver, Colbert, and Bee are all comedians doing political comedy. I think it's silly to blame them for any of this.

Edit: You don't understand how being a celebrity doesn't necessarily make you a comedian?



I suggest nothing about them, because people who argue to blow up people are past the point of discourse and any time wasted on such people is a distraction. You don't even need to care about feelings. You just need to understand that just with minorities, painting people with broad brushes based on who they support isn't going to win you any attentive ears. They'll happily keep their ears turned to Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh instead, who at least don't assume they're shit people.

I understand not all celebrities are comedians, but you said celebrities are not comedians. That's the distinction.

Stewart, Colbert, Bee, Oliver do political comedy that's virtually a guise for commentary and viewer influence. That's something comedians do, like any other brand of demagogue. I mean, take a look at Louis CK, he's made jokes about Trump; and then later he sends an e-mail to people to who bought his virtual tickets asking them to reconsider a vote for Trump -- bringing up a comparison to Hitler no less.

I just don't buy the idea that any of the above do comedic bits with specific targets in mind without wanting to share some commentary with their audience in order to influence opinion.

John Oliver in his show brought a gay activist from Uganda for an interview at the time of the controversial bill, only to float the idea that such a bill and homophobia was an export of Western standards to Africa. That's no longer a line of comedy. That's advocating (in my opinion deplorably ignorant/naive) views under a particularly persuasive relationship with his audience, because when you make people laugh you also make them more receptive to suggestion.
Last edited by Lucrece on Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:47 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1242
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:47 am UTC

From my point of view, the click-bait driven media has a whole lot to answer for this election. But the fundamental problem is that they almost completely abandoned covering actual policy and worked overtime in normalizing Trump. If the satirist were an issue, it was a far lesser one than the false equivalence that was fed in order to support the horse-race storyline.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:48 am UTC

JudeMorrigan wrote:From my point of view, the click-bait driven media has a whole lot to answer for this election. But the fundamental problem is that they almost completely abandoned covering actual policy and worked overtime in normalizing Trump. If the satirist were an issue, it was a far lesser one than the false equivalence that was fed in order to support the horse-race storyline.


I agree. Trump would have never grown to be where he is had people not made a big deal of him. The media loved the ratings, so they gave him air time he did not deserve.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7391
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:53 am UTC

That was brought up. Also brought up was the fact that it's pretty much impossible to do because of how the border works

But was it the real major disagreement between Clinton and Trump, on immigration ? That Clinton wants a good-enough fence and Trump wants a real wall? If that was honestly their only disagreement, then Clinton did a bad job of making that point.

But that's not true, is it? They disagree on many other immigration related issues, all of them more relevant than the material and extent of the barrier. At that point, discussing the wall itself is deliberately missing the point. It's laughing at the Soviets for using hammers and sickles instead of nailguns and combine harvesters.

And the anti-immigration people know it, they're not stupid. They don't care if Trump does or does not build a full ocean to ocean wall, as long as he does enough other things to stop migrants.

What I am trying to say is: what if the Trump voters are not conned, not misled by the media, and fully aware of his flaws. What if part of them wants a republican no matter what, another part wants the harsh immigration symbolised by the Wall, they are willing to overlook a lot of Trump's flaws to get there, and together they are enough to win.

elasto
Posts: 3414
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:05 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:What I am trying to say is: what if the Trump voters are not conned, not misled by the media, and fully aware of his flaws. What if part of them wants a republican no matter what, another part wants the harsh immigration symbolised by the Wall, they are willing to overlook a lot of Trump's flaws to get there, and together they are enough to win.

I think that's absolutely the case. And that's why it's so worrying for the future of liberal democracy.

What's the next set of horrific character flaws the electorate will be willing to overlook because 'the ends justify the means'? You have evangelical Christians turning out in droves for a liar, cheat and sex pest 'for the greater good'. How far down this road will we travel? History is not encouraging in this regard.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1242
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:25 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
JudeMorrigan wrote:From my point of view, the click-bait driven media has a whole lot to answer for this election. But the fundamental problem is that they almost completely abandoned covering actual policy and worked overtime in normalizing Trump. If the satirist were an issue, it was a far lesser one than the false equivalence that was fed in order to support the horse-race storyline.

I agree. Trump would have never grown to be where he is had people not made a big deal of him. The media loved the ratings, so they gave him air time he did not deserve.

Of course, I have to admit - given the scale of the Republican victory last night, I think one has to assume that the biggest difference a more responsible media could have plausibly made is giving us President Rubio rather than Trump. So while I absolutely feel that the media as a whole needs to get their shit together, I absolutely would agree with the idea that the democratic party has some serious soul-searching to do as well.

SineNomen
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 11:40 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SineNomen » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:29 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Trump most likely will lack the personal skills to follow through on his fascist and xenophobic platform with any competence. What happens when the next election has an actually competent fascist racist on the ticket..? We've seen the electorate has an appetite for it now...


So what is fascist about Trump's polices? As far as xenophobic, I'm guessing you are stating the fear of importing unfavorable elements from migrant populations is an irrational fear?

The use of these labels are not helpful with an actual discussion because they are loaded terms. Calling anything a "phobia" means it is an irrational fear. Fascist is vague enough nowadays to just mean "evil authoritarian". Using these terms to describe people's concerns is not a way of having meaningful discourse.

I don't want to get into the nitty gritty of a debate on substance, but people were obviously concerned with immigration from multiple angles. They are concerned with competition from cheap markets, of flooding America with unskilled labor, security risks that undocumented immigration poses, and changes in the dominant culture. Maybe these risks are overstated, or the benefits outweigh the risks in general. But to say the risks are non-existant to the extent that fearing them is a "phobia" is an insult.

Every policy has risks, benefits, and alternatives. So next time you condemn a position, take a look at your own and consider those three things. You might still disagree, but not with as much misunderstanding.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7391
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:35 pm UTC

@elasto, Berlusconi seems history's closest parallel. Up to the religious moral crusaders supporting the flashy adulterer. Italy survived as a democracy, they even sentenced him and his children for fraud. They don't seem to able to lock them up or get the money back though.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6980
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 12:48 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:What I am trying to say is: what if the Trump voters are not conned, not misled by the media, and fully aware of his flaws. What if part of them wants a republican no matter what, another part wants the harsh immigration symbolised by the Wall, they are willing to overlook a lot of Trump's flaws to get there, and together they are enough to win.
Then how do you respond to that? That was the point; Trump is so absurd that if you know who he is and still support him, constructive dialogue is all but impossible.

If you want to support a Republican no matter what -- if your immigration stance can be described as making Mexico pay to build a giant middle finger to themselves -- how can I engage with you in a way that *doesn't* come off as insulting? Am I really expected to treat that sort of perspective as if it's valid and reasonable?

SineNomen wrote:So what is fascist about Trump's polices? As far as xenophobic, I'm guessing you are stating the fear of importing unfavorable elements from migrant populations is an irrational fear?
His lack of concrete policies makes it hard to say, but he's advocated murdering the families of terrorists, doesn't seem to think concentration camps in America were an awful mistake, and basically made a huge stink about whether or not he'd accept election results. Those are all some pretty big red flags re: fascism, I think.

Like, his ban on *all* Muslim immigration? Mentioning his intention to push for special investigations against his political opponent? His weird friendliness toward totalitarian leaders?

He doesn't have any fascist policies, mostly because he doesn't seem to have any policies. But he's definitely got a fascist flavor.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7391
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:15 pm UTC

If you want to support a Republican no matter what -- if your immigration stance can be described as making Mexico pay to build a giant middle finger to themselves -- how can I engage with you in a way that *doesn't* come off as insulting? Am I really expected to treat that sort of perspective as if it's valid and reasonable?


Apparently, yes, whether you like it or not. That's my point: your position makes most sense if you win. Then you can ignore or insult as much as you want. Turns out that in hindsight, you didn't have that luxury. That sucks, and it was a surprise for almost everyone.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3683
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 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:30 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:You can still believe what you're doing is right even as you're advocating horrible things. That doesn't make those things not-horrible. What do you want me to do; pretend I'm not disgusted when a Trump supporter tells me we need to murder all Muslims? You want me to smile and shake hands with this person? "Agree to disagree"?
In most elections I would have been willing to shake hands and agree to disagree. Not this time. And the issue with that for me is that so many Trump supporters seemed to take pleasure in the fact that they could get me to the point where I can't actually respect them. How do you deal with that?
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
sardia
Posts: 6075
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:33 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
If you want to support a Republican no matter what -- if your immigration stance can be described as making Mexico pay to build a giant middle finger to themselves -- how can I engage with you in a way that *doesn't* come off as insulting? Am I really expected to treat that sort of perspective as if it's valid and reasonable?


Apparently, yes, whether you like it or not. That's my point: your position makes most sense if you win. Then you can ignore or insult as much as you want. Turns out that in hindsight, you didn't have that luxury. That sucks, and it was a surprise for almost everyone.

With the loss of the centrist politicians, by the same voters, how do you expect a politician to survive? Trump is the only exception with his initial positions but he quickly moved closer to generic Republican. It's not the politicians don't want to compromise, but there's voter pressure to be hyper partisan.

Trump will disappoint someone, since almost everyone voting for Trump told pollsters that he was being symbolic about other people's policies. Trump has all three branches of government, he should get a lot done.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:36 pm UTC

Trump's victory speech wrote:Thank you. Thank you very much, everyone. Sorry to keep you waiting. Complicated business, complicated. Thank you very much.

I've just received a call from Secretary Clinton. She congratulated us. It’s about us. On our victory, and I congratulated her and her family on a very, very hard-fought campaign.

I mean, she fought very hard. Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.

I mean that very sincerely. Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.

Who is this guy and what did he do with Donald Trump?

And it looks like he's not going to lock up Hillary. Is that a new record for the fastest broken campaign promise ever? :)
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

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5493
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:40 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Trump's victory speech wrote:Thank you. Thank you very much, everyone. Sorry to keep you waiting. Complicated business, complicated. Thank you very much.

I've just received a call from Secretary Clinton. She congratulated us. It’s about us. On our victory, and I congratulated her and her family on a very, very hard-fought campaign.

I mean, she fought very hard. Hillary has worked very long and very hard over a long period of time, and we owe her a major debt of gratitude for her service to our country.

I mean that very sincerely. Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, have to get together. To all Republicans and Democrats and independents across this nation, I say it is time for us to come together as one united people.

Who is this guy and what did he do with Donald Trump?

And it looks like he's not going to lock up Hillary. Is that a new record for the fastest broken campaign promise ever? :)


I figured he was going to break most of his campaign promises. He's a lot of bombast, bark without any bite. Even Trump's supporters don't really think he's going to build an actual wall and think its mostly rhetorical.

Here's to hoping for more broken campaign promises. America wanted a lying showman for President so... here's what we get.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6980
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:58 pm UTC

It's not a good place to be when you're *hoping* the president will break their campaign promises.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 593
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:59 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:It's not a good place to be when you're *hoping* the president will break their campaign promises.

Gives some hope for the future, at least... ?
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

maybeagnostic
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:07 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:It's not a good place to be when you're *hoping* the president will break their campaign promises.
How about if you never seriously expected him to keep to the promises but really wanted to show a middle finger to the establishment and prove they don't control you? Putting a wild card like Trump in the White House is a dangerous way to do that but I doubt many of the people who voted for him will regret their decision until he actually does something monumentally stupid.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6075
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:20 pm UTC

maybeagnostic wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:It's not a good place to be when you're *hoping* the president will break their campaign promises.
How about if you never seriously expected him to keep to the promises but really wanted to show a middle finger to the establishment and prove they don't control you? Putting a wild card like Trump in the White House is a dangerous way to do that but I doubt many of the people who voted for him will regret their decision until he actually does something monumentally stupid.

Test#1, Trump wants a trillion spent on infrastructure, not something popular for Paul Ryan Republicans. Does Trump rubber stamp whatever Congress gives him so long as it's titled infrastructure+ winning? Or does he fight for certain things or dollar amounts.
Alternatively, Trump signs off because it's Trump branded, and he will personally make money off of it? All three are possible.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:29 pm UTC

It's interesting that the Republicans have won the popular vote in only 1 out of the past 7 presidential elections - and that was with an incumbent still riding high on 9/11.

If a Trump presidency proofs to be impopular, there's a chance here. Take over state legislatures in 2018, then pass National Popular Vote bill in as many states as possible, and put it on the ballot in the rest. Imho this should be the absolute top priority for Democrats in the next 4 years.
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
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5092
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:39 pm UTC

I wonder if Electoral College reform becomes a (pretty close to impossible) plank in the Dem platform after two "Wins" of the popular vote, but losses of the college in less than 20 years.

Somewhat related to that, does anyone actually think progressives are going to come out ahead in this? I mean with Dems losing seats like Feingolds, who exactly was the champion of progressives that they could hold up as a winner? I see a lot of arguments that Sanders would have won because he took Michigan in the primary, but since he lost swing states like PA/FL/OH by a lot that argument doesn't seem to hold water. Also, if there really were a lot of people that swung from Sanders to Trump, it's clear they don't actually care about policy positions at all, so they don't seem like reliable voters to make concessions to (didn't turn out so well for the DNC even with its most progressive platform ever).

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1408
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mathmannix » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:40 pm UTC

I don't think I've said this before (here), but one of the weirdest things I've always found to be true about this election is this:

Bill Clinton was born in August 1946.
George W. Bush was born in July 1946.
Donald Trump was born in June 1946.

They're all almost exactly the same age. (And of course Bill Clinton was the third-youngest (second-youngest elected) President, and Trump will be the oldest President at initial inauguration.) Skipping Obama, the pattern is that each successive President is born slightly earlier.

Also, Clinton-Gore were the youngest President-Vice President team elected (combined age 91.2). If either Trump-Pence or Clinton-Kaine had won, they would have been the oldest pair elected together for the President's first term.

In this table, I listed the twelve oldest pairs of running mates, both successful and unsuccessful, from one of the major parties (including two notable third-party performances), with [what would have been] their combined ages upon inauguration:

Code: Select all

Rank  Total Age   Inauguration   Running Mates (Party)
1.        135.9    20 Jan 1949   Truman-Barkley (Democratic) (Truman's first full term, he having completed FDR's 4th term)
(lost)    135.0    20 Jan 1997   Dole-Kemp (Republican)
2.        134.6    21 Jan 1985   Reagan-Bush (Republican) (their second term)
(lost)    134.1     4 Mar 1905   Parker-Davis (Democratic)
(lost)    131.9     4 Mar 1861   Bell-Everett (Constitutional Union, a third party which won three states in 1860)
(lost)    131.7     4 Mar 1933   Hoover-Curtis (Republican) (their unsuccessful attempt at reelection)
(lost)    131.6    20 Jan 1993   Perot-Stockdale (Independent, won no states but received 18.9% of the popular vote)
3.        130.6     4 Mar 1813   Madison-Gerry (Democratic-Republican) (Madison's second term, but with a different VP)
4.        128.2    20 Jan 2017   Trump-Pence (Republican)
(lost)    128.1    20 Jan 2017   Clinton-Kaine (Democratic)
5.        127.6     4 Mar 1809   Madison-Clinton (Democratic-Republican) (Clinton's second term as VP)
6.        127.5     4 Mar 1805   Jefferson-Clinton (Democratic-Republican) (Jefferson's second term, but with a different VP)

(Reagan-Bush had a combined age of 126.6 at their first inauguration in 1981. This was the next oldest successful running team, after a few more unsuccessful ones.)
Last edited by mathmannix on Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:55 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

kiklion
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby kiklion » Wed Nov 09, 2016 2:52 pm UTC

Where'd the 30% turnout come from? This says 55% unless I'm reading it wrong.

http://www.electproject.org/home/voter- ... rnout-data

I'm really disappointed with the Democratic Party. There was massive evidence of anti-establishment sentiment between tea party, blm, and ows and then they nominated a party insider. Many republican voters were up for grabs but the democrats couldn't field a decent candidate. I solidly believe (no evidence) that not a single democrat voted for trump, so I guess their strategy was to rally the base but that just alienates the middle.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7391
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:13 pm UTC

Sardia wrote:With the loss of the centrist politicians, by the same voters, how do you expect a politician to survive?

Cinton didn't lose by a lot. And they thought they were winning. Those two together suggest that they could have gone further to win, if they thought it was necessary. But that's just guesswork.

As a thought experiment: suppose the Democratic party, godless as they are, has a perfect polling oracle. They sacrifice a goat in 2015, tell it their plans for the election, and the oracle predicts this outcome.

They get worried, sacrifice an ambassador, and ask the oracle "What is the most attractive strategy that still gives us victory?"

Perhaps the oracle says," sorry, with this level of partisanship there is nothing you can do". Or was there some alternative strategy that would have worked, and still vaguely palatable? Run as republican-lite, pull as much Trump-skeptic republicans as they could? Find some Democratic governor with immigrant-bashing credentials, who could just laugh at the Wall? Run a guy?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9707
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:27 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Sardia wrote:With the loss of the centrist politicians, by the same voters, how do you expect a politician to survive?

Cinton didn't lose by a lot. And they thought they were winning. Those two together suggest that they could have gone further to win, if they thought it was necessary. But that's just guesswork.

As a thought experiment: suppose the Democratic party, godless as they are, has a perfect polling oracle. They sacrifice a goat in 2015, tell it their plans for the election, and the oracle predicts this outcome.

They get worried, sacrifice an ambassador, and ask the oracle "What is the most attractive strategy that still gives us victory?"

Perhaps the oracle says," sorry, with this level of partisanship there is nothing you can do". Or was there some alternative strategy that would have worked, and still vaguely palatable? Run as republican-lite, pull as much Trump-skeptic republicans as they could? Find some Democratic governor with immigrant-bashing credentials, who could just laugh at the Wall? Run a guy?


*Nominate someone who could win the nomination without rigging the primary?
*Don't blatantly insult your primary opponents supporters by publicly announcing that you would hire Debbie Wasserman Schultz until after the election when it doesn't matter?
*Don't engage in identity politics with Sanders' supporters by calling them "Berniebros"?
*Pick a Veep that people actually have heard of and like, or at least one that gets attention? Clinton/Warren would've done better IMHO.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Wed Nov 09, 2016 3:33 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
If you want to support a Republican no matter what -- if your immigration stance can be described as making Mexico pay to build a giant middle finger to themselves -- how can I engage with you in a way that *doesn't* come off as insulting? Am I really expected to treat that sort of perspective as if it's valid and reasonable?


Apparently, yes, whether you like it or not. That's my point: your position makes most sense if you win. Then you can ignore or insult as much as you want. Turns out that in hindsight, you didn't have that luxury. That sucks, and it was a surprise for almost everyone.

That may mean it is politically expedient to at least pretend, but something being politically expedient is not quite the same as you should do that. It is: you should pretend if the chance that lying to smooth the discourse might help is enough for you to pretend you aren't having irreconcilable differences.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3103
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Wed Nov 09, 2016 4:06 pm UTC

EdgarJPublius wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin.

All these are states (by the figures so far available to me, at least) where Third Party votes exceeded the difference between the top two candidates. Either direction. Might be interesting to know.


The vast majority of those are for Johnson, who is generally more likely to be a spoiler for Trump than Clinton, though there are some number of Berners who defected to the libertarians when Bernie didn't get the nom. I doubt that 3rd party votes significantly impacted the outcome, but it'll take better data than we currently have to call it for sure.

So the spoiling didn't work then, did it. If these people didn't want Trump, they did the wrong thing to not get Trump.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric and 17 guests