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
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:21 am UTC

Less superficial language policing and snotty elitism, less false bourgeois values mingling with bourgeois guilt, more substantive socioeconomic solutions.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:21 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Left towards Sanders, with a strong economic message, while focusing heavily on rural areas as well as urban.


Sanders is a better person as a rep than Clinton, I think, but is there that much support far enough left to rebase the party there?

Fivethirtyeight noted that people saw Trump overall as *far* closer to their views than Clinton. And frankly, Clinton's not that far left. Almost centrist, really.

KnightExemplar wrote:Both parties are weak. For Trump to overtake the Republican party demonstrates the weakness of Republicans as well.


While I think this is true, I do not expect the Republicans to learn the correct lessons from overwelming success.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:25 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:It's looking a lot like Clinton will win the popular vote. That at least gives me some tiny shred of hope that the country isn't irrevocably broken. Just large parts of it.

That doesn't matter because think of the corollary, 40%of the country was willing to take Trump over the Democratic nominee. The wildcard is what percent of the country is extreme white rights. I'm assuming it's much smaller than it seems. It's gonna be hard teasing apart how much was Clinton's fault and how much was partisanship.

Tyndmyr, There's no data for this anywhere. The losses for Democrats are too great. Assuming that the next 4 years really suck, maybe rerun with the same coalition, but only defend the bare 270 minimum of midwest + coastal states? Essentially bet rising demographics carry you. The other alternative is to spend money in coastal states protecting and paying poor people. But doing that without the help of the Federal (GOP) government?

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:25 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:Left towards Sanders, with a strong economic message, while focusing heavily on rural areas as well as urban.


Sanders is a better person as a rep than Clinton, I think, but is there that much support far enough left to rebase the party there?

Fivethirtyeight noted that people saw Trump overall as *far* closer to their views than Clinton. And frankly, Clinton's not that far left. Almost centrist, really.

I think voters are just stupid and sexist and racist. They didn't give a shit about determining the actual beliefs of Hillary Clinton, they just believed the drivel fed to them by right-wing media.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:26 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Sanders is a better person as a rep than Clinton, I think, but is there that much support far enough left to rebase the party there?


Two things:

1. Voter turnout is so low that the people who are engaged with the party currently don't represent the people who would vote in the event of Sanders running.

2. The left/right dichotomy is completely useless here. People want solutions, which mostly just means they're willing to gamble on any coherent idea that isn't the status quo. Trump proves that.

We could have had a real election if it weren't for fucking bourgeois democrats.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1254
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:28 am UTC

Liri wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:Left towards Sanders, with a strong economic message, while focusing heavily on rural areas as well as urban.


Sanders is a better person as a rep than Clinton, I think, but is there that much support far enough left to rebase the party there?

Fivethirtyeight noted that people saw Trump overall as *far* closer to their views than Clinton. And frankly, Clinton's not that far left. Almost centrist, really.

I think voters are just stupid and sexist and racist. They didn't give a shit about determining the actual beliefs of Hillary Clinton, they just believed the drivel fed to them by right-wing media.

I mean, for example - Feingold lost. Portman won. Did voters *actually* care about trade?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:28 am UTC

Liri wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:Left towards Sanders, with a strong economic message, while focusing heavily on rural areas as well as urban.


Sanders is a better person as a rep than Clinton, I think, but is there that much support far enough left to rebase the party there?

Fivethirtyeight noted that people saw Trump overall as *far* closer to their views than Clinton. And frankly, Clinton's not that far left. Almost centrist, really.

I think voters are just stupid and sexist and racist. They didn't give a shit about determining the actual beliefs of Hillary Clinton, they just believed the drivel fed to them by right-wing media.

We told them they were dumb, it doesn't really work. This odd use of symbolic politics while Congress runs the nuts and bolts is a really strange situation.

What about the polling errors, those damn institutions better get their shit together for the midterms.

PS It's only recently that the democrats have gained the favor of the ultra rich.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10268
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:29 am UTC

Liri wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:Left towards Sanders, with a strong economic message, while focusing heavily on rural areas as well as urban.


Sanders is a better person as a rep than Clinton, I think, but is there that much support far enough left to rebase the party there?

Fivethirtyeight noted that people saw Trump overall as *far* closer to their views than Clinton. And frankly, Clinton's not that far left. Almost centrist, really.

I think voters are just stupid and sexist and racist. They didn't give a shit about determining the actual beliefs of Hillary Clinton, they just believed the drivel fed to them by right-wing media.


There is only one right wing mainstream media station, and those people were lost long before Murdoch showed up. Stop blaming the right-wing media. If you must blame the media, blame the people at CNN who decided that rather than, yaknow, ignoring Trump they should just have nothing but 24/7 Trumpvision. Hey, at least they shut up about that Malaysian plane.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:29 am UTC

HEY, HERE'S A NOTION. IF YOU NEED TO RIG A PRIMARY JUST TO WIN THE NOMINATION, HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO WIN A GENERAL ELECTION IN A FAIR CONTEST?

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:30 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Both parties are weak. For Trump to overtake the Republican party demonstrates the weakness of Republicans as well.


While I think this is true, I do not expect the Republicans to learn the correct lessons from overwelming success.


Agreed.

I expected the Republican's day of reckoning to come first however. It seems like it will be the Democrats first at this rate however.

EDIT: Holy shit, this thread is moving fast. I'm going to sleep now guys, been a good run though. I got a meeting tomorrow morning though so I better get some sleep.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:30 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6326
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:30 am UTC

Maybe not all the way left, but they don't have a choice. They lost mostly on the economic message, as the people responded positively to nationalism, and I feel Sanders-style populism is the only thing that will counter it (remember, they just need to get enough people over to their side to get those margins). They shouldn't abandon social issues, but they should make economics their forefront and really try to take that away from the Republicans, because Republicans have nothing else if they don't have Nationalism.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby K-R » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:31 am UTC

sardia wrote:They just called Wisconsin for Trump, it's over.
Who is 'they'? Is there actually an official tally anywhere, or do media outlets all just call states independently of one another until they all eventually agree?

538 still doesn't have Wisconsin, AFAICT, leaving Trump at 77% chance to win.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:34 am UTC

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:HEY, HERE'S A NOTION. IF YOU NEED TO RIG A PRIMARY JUST TO WIN THE NOMINATION, HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO WIN A GENERAL ELECTION IN A FAIR CONTEST?

Trump rigging the primaries isn't that big of a deal. In Indiana, the GOP voters decided this is the nominee, and that was it. He still won the general election because the Democrats packed themselves into rigged(aka wasted votes) districts. *

* Yes I know you meant Clinton, you're still wrong. Democratic primaries are less rigged and more fair than GOP ones.

PS Didn't you have another account? That had a squirrel or something. Not a lot of multi-degree holding homeless LGBTQ people on this forum.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:35 am UTC

Fuck you I'm a dragon

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:35 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Xeio wrote:Dow futures are currently halted at -800 points.

Whelp.


Happened with Brexit, which ended up being a whole bunch of nothing for the markets.

This. I'm buying. It's uncanny how closely this election mirrored Brexit - the same 'warning signs' were all there.
lol everything matters
-Ed

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby omgryebread » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:36 am UTC

I think, and as a person I hate to say this, but Democrats need to give up guns. To me, that's fucking terrible to do, but all their work hasn't accomplished anything, and it doesn't seem to be a big driver for Dems. I don't know that many people will stay home, but I think it could definitely break down a wall to attracting some libertarian-bent Republicans.

I don't think Republicans as a party are weak. The old guard was, but they'll quickly be replaced. Ryan will fall into line, and if not, he'll be replaced soon enough, the House will quickly convert to Trumpism. Everyone thought the Republican party was the one in the wilderness and that they'd need to rethink gay rights and immigration to come out. Trump brought them out of the wilderness in a whole new direction, and I'm not sure anyone knows quite what that direction is yet.

I think the Democrats have a solid 12 years of suffering to look forward to. Unless we get someone like a Trump for the left. Bernie's not it. Trump's going to lock up the anti-trade vote for the middle-aged blue collars. I think Democrats need to court corporate money, especially since money is just going to get more and more important in politics. Democrats need a astroturfing game like the Republicans have to start winning statehouses and legislatures. An outsider to bring the Democrats some new perspective, some Trump-like fervor? Maybe that's it. I don't know who though.

I'm going to try and get some sleep now. Tonight was a hard night for me.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Deva
Has suggestions for the murderers out there.
Posts: 2019
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 5:18 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Deva » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:37 am UTC

Appears to be mostly over. May not be the desired outcome here (or nationally, based on popular vote). Must learn to live with it (or escape). Breathe in. Breathe out.

Brings up an immediate concern: hate crimes. Predicts parallels between this and Brexit. Spiked afterwards. Who will be the biggest targets in the United States? Found a graph. Depicts the change between 2014 and 2015.
Hate Crimes Chart.jpg

May not be limited to those groups, of course. Rallied against immigrants in general. Cannot guess how people envision an illegal immigrant. (Probably varies by location.) Mistakes other religions (such as Sikhism) for Islam too.

Urges caution for those at risk. Fails to know what that entails, unfortunately. Doubts any reasonable, effective plan. Suppresses only so much. Comes at a cost, also.
Changes its form depending on the observer.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:37 am UTC

K-R wrote:
sardia wrote:They just called Wisconsin for Trump, it's over.
Who is 'they'? Is there actually an official tally anywhere, or do media outlets all just call states independently of one another until they all eventually agree?

538 still doesn't have Wisconsin, AFAICT, leaving Trump at 77% chance to win.

You're right. It's not technically over since only Fox News called Wisconsin, but it's pretty damn bad.

omgryebread wrote:I think, and as a person I hate to say this, but Democrats need to give up guns. To me, that's fucking terrible to do, but all their work hasn't accomplished anything, and it doesn't seem to be a big driver for Dems. I don't know that many people will stay home, but I think it could definitely break down a wall to attracting some libertarian-bent Republicans.

I don't think Republicans as a party are weak. The old guard was, but they'll quickly be replaced. Ryan will fall into line, and if not, he'll be replaced soon enough, the House will quickly convert to Trumpism. Everyone thought the Republican party was the one in the wilderness and that they'd need to rethink gay rights and immigration to come out. Trump brought them out of the wilderness in a whole new direction, and I'm not sure anyone knows quite what that direction is yet.

I think the Democrats have a solid 12 years of suffering to look forward to. Unless we get someone like a Trump for the left. Bernie's not it. Trump's going to lock up the anti-trade vote for the middle-aged blue collars. I think Democrats need to court corporate money, especially since money is just going to get more and more important in politics. Democrats need a astroturfing game like the Republicans have to start winning statehouses and legislatures. An outsider to bring the Democrats some new perspective, some Trump-like fervor? Maybe that's it. I don't know who though.

I'm going to try and get some sleep now. Tonight was a hard night for me.

Democrats can probably roll over on guns, but what does that get you? Libertarians? I'd take a green voter over a libertarian any day. It's worth twice as much, aligns closely with Democrats, and much more relevant to the national discussion. You need either a crap ton of minorities, a la Obama + Jesus, or white people. There's just no way around it...*

*Mandatory voting might get you Democratic victory, but that's a chicken and egg problem. Totally Obama's fault for not predicting Trump and passing mandatory insurance/voting mandate.
Last edited by sardia on Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:40 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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 6:38 am UTC

Now, to play the game of taking a shot whenever you read "I'm moving to Canada" or "Democracy has failed!".

Maybe Democrats will stop taking white voters for granted. Trump didn't just win white men; he won white women and white college educated men.

This is what people get when they dismissed Bernie via Bernie Bros identity politics rhetoric. Clinton planted accusations of racism against Bernie, and it bit her in the ass.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10268
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:38 am UTC

Elizabeth Warren? Warren 2020!

User avatar
Envelope Generator
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:07 am UTC
Location: pareidolia

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Envelope Generator » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:40 am UTC

My condolences.
I'm going to step off the LEM now... here we are, Pismo Beach and all the clams we can eat

eSOANEM wrote:If Fonzie's on the order of 100 zeptokelvin, I think he has bigger problems than difracting through doors.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:43 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Elizabeth Warren? Warren 2020!

No, she's old, a woman*, and better used as an attack dog. She be VP at best. You need young blood. Start combing the cities for anyone charismatic who's willing to be a total shill for your party but still sounds authentic. Raw numbers will provide the best lifetime esque growing up storyline.

*prior to election day, data shows women who run, have the same election rates as men. Same approval ratings too. Post election? I dunno anymore.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:44 am UTC

It's not quite over yet, is it? Clinton still wins if she takes Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, unless I'm getting my math wrong? (I'm assuming she also takes Maine and Minnesota, which look pretty likely to go her way). Granted, there's probably a >50% chance Trump wins at least one of those, but people are acting like it's over and done.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:45 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:It's not quite over yet, is it? Clinton still wins if she takes Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire, unless I'm getting my math wrong? (I'm assuming she also takes Maine and Minnesota, which look pretty likely to go her way). Granted, there's probably a >50% chance Trump wins at least one of those, but people are acting like it's over and done.


Trump is projected to take Pennsylvania

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:46 am UTC

sardia wrote:Tyndmyr, There's no data for this anywhere. The losses for Democrats are too great. Assuming that the next 4 years really suck, maybe rerun with the same coalition, but only defend the bare 270 minimum of midwest + coastal states? Essentially bet rising demographics carry you. The other alternative is to spend money in coastal states protecting and paying poor people. But doing that without the help of the Federal (GOP) government?


Odds on Trump doing his best to tamp down those rising demographics? Or at least, deprive them of voting?

Thesh wrote:Maybe not all the way left, but they don't have a choice. They lost mostly on the economic message, as the people responded positively to nationalism, and I feel Sanders-style populism is the only thing that will counter it (remember, they just need to get enough people over to their side to get those margins). They shouldn't abandon social issues, but they should make economics their forefront and really try to take that away from the Republicans, because Republicans have nothing else if they don't have Nationalism.


Retaking nationalism in some fashion would help, I think. That gets back into the earlier conversation about usage of American symbols and cheers in speeches and stuff, I think. I mean, issues matter too, but presentation counts for a good bit.

omgryebread wrote:I think, and as a person I hate to say this, but Democrats need to give up guns. To me, that's fucking terrible to do, but all their work hasn't accomplished anything, and it doesn't seem to be a big driver for Dems. I don't know that many people will stay home, but I think it could definitely break down a wall to attracting some libertarian-bent Republicans.


Probably. It's a major factor for me. I buy and shoot guns the left consider to be "assault". So, any candidate that starts off by telling me I shouldn't be allowed to pursue my hobby isn't getting support. In fairness, not *all* democrats do this, even now. But a lot of people don't look beyond the broader national tendencies.

The sarcastic side of me thinks we should immediately spend all of tomorrow playing Trump quotes of how the election is unfair and rigged interspersed in his acceptance speech.

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:47 am UTC

WAIT. THERE'S STILL HOPE. TRUMP COULD TURN DOWN THE POSITION.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:48 am UTC

Penn and either Wisconsin or Arizona and that's the night done. Hillary basically needs to take every state left to stay in the race, and she's behind in most of them, some by as much as 5pts.

Stargazer71
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Stargazer71 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:50 am UTC

Liri wrote:I think voters are just stupid and sexist and racist.


Eventually, you're going to need to find a new adjective for people you disagree with.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:53 am UTC

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:Trump is projected to take Pennsylvania

Who's projecting that? CNN still has it as being counted.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:53 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:
Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:Trump is projected to take Pennsylvania

Who's projecting that? CNN still has it as being counted.


Associated Press

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10268
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:56 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:
Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:Trump is projected to take Pennsylvania

Who's projecting that? CNN still has it as being counted.


He's up by 80,000 votes and it's 97% counted. He can't lose it now.

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby MartianInvader » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:05 am UTC

Well... I guess Russia and China are the new world superpowers now, and America and Britain are the laughable has-beens.
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:06 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:Well... I guess Russia and China are the new world superpowers now, and America and Britain are the laughable has-beens.


And it happened while you were in control! So it's your fault!

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:08 am UTC

sardia wrote: Democrats can probably roll over on guns, but what does that get you? Libertarians? I'd take a green voter over a libertarian any day. It's worth twice as much, aligns closely with Democrats, and much more relevant to the national discussion. You need either a crap ton of minorities, a la Obama + Jesus, or white people. There's just no way around it...*


Johnson's pulling a lot more votes than Stein. Probably more relevant.

Not that I think appealing to Libertarians is enough. It might be a start, but there's honestly not that many of us, really. Not when pedal hits the metal for voting.

User avatar
Samik
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:14 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Samik » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:14 am UTC

Honest question from someone who is, as yet, mostly politically uninformed: as an atheist, should I be concerned? If so, how concerned?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6326
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:18 am UTC

Religion has barely come up this year, and Donald is hardly a devout Christian.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Samik
Posts: 511
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:14 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Samik » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:20 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Religion has barely come up this year, and Donald is hardly a devout Christian.

Thanks.
Last edited by Samik on Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:21 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10268
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:20 am UTC

I'd like the Dems to clean house of the anti-science crowd. The anti-vaxxers, the anti-gmos, the anti-nukes. Let the Republicans have the monopoly on the stupid.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4558
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:24 am UTC

Samik wrote:Honest question from someone who is, as yet, mostly politically uninformed: as an atheist, should I be concerned? If so, how concerned?


Probably not a huge problem any more than it already is. Trump is not a particularly religious candidate, especially for a Republican. He's giving the religious right the abortion issue, and depending on who gets appointed to the Supreme Court, it's possible there might be some fallout in other decisions (eg. at worst, maybe there will be movement on teaching creationism in schools, say). But unlike some other candidates that have run previously, or that have even won (eg. Bush), I don't think that faith is a great motivator for Trump.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Wed Nov 09, 2016 7:28 am UTC

Maybe he'll own up to not actually meaning to win and concede.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests