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
duckshirt
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:20 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Another deeply disappointing aspect is that apparently Trump believes that climate change is a hoax (a hoax devised by the Chinese, bizarrely enough).

If America says 'f*ck it' to any attempt to reduce greenhouse emissions, and causes other major polluters like China to throw their hands up in the air as well, it could conceivably set humanity back a decade or more, which could be pretty catastrophic over the medium term.

It's all very well saying that much of politics and economics is just opinion, but climate change is about as established a science as anything is.

It's appalling just how fashionable it is to be anti-science these days, especially amongst Americans who really ought to know better.


If Trump supports nuclear as much as he claims then he will be objectively better for climate change than Obama or Gore.
lol everything matters
-Ed

elasto
Posts: 3104
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:26 pm UTC

He has promised to 'end the war on coal and the war on miners', as well as expanding drilling for gas.

Doesn't really matter how many nuclear power stations he gives the go-ahead to - especially given the huge lead-time for building them - if he's going to reboot the dirtiest industry imaginable.

(Yes, carbon-capture coal-fired designs exist, but given that he's promised to withdraw from the Paris climate deal it's unlikely they will be a priority)

Here's the full analysis from here

At a pivotal time when greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically shrunk in order to prevent climate breakdown, the world’s largest economy is now headed by a man who believes climate change is a hoax, perhaps perpetrated by the Chinese.

The doomsday moment for a livable climate could well be a step closer with the election of Trump, environmentalists fear.

One of Trump’s first tasks is likely to be withdrawing the US from the Paris climate deal, making it an outlier among the planet’s functioning governments, which have all signed up to the accord. The exit process will take around four years, so the US would be on its own in time for Trump’s second term or a new president’s first.

The US quitting the Paris deal could bring the whole edifice down, making the steep challenge of keeping the global temperature increase to 2C close to impossible. This would result in a sea level rise that would inundate millions of Americans’ homes, cause punishing heatwaves, trigger the spread of disease and disastrous extreme weather events, and threaten America’s national security.

But the worst of these consequences would unfold after Trump’s presidency, so he could concentrate on his other environmental policies. He’s hinted at scrapping the Environmental Protection Agency, tasking Myron Ebell, a leading climate change denier, to head his EPA transition team.

Trump has also promised to cut all federal climate spending, which would encompass billions of dollars spent on clean energy development and hundreds of millions of dollars in aid to countries at greatest risk from climate change.

Trump has said he will “end the war on coal and the war on miners” in order to reboot the industry, while also expanding drilling for natural gas. He has not explained how these contradictory policies will be achieved, given that the advance of gas has caused the decline in coal, but has insisted upon an “America first” stance on energy.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:28 pm UTC

elasto wrote:He has promised to 'end the war on coal and the war on miners', as well as expanding drilling for gas.

Doesn't really matter how many nuclear power stations he gives the go-ahead to - especially given the huge lead-time for building them - if he's going to reboot the dirtiest industry imaginable.

(Yes, carbon-capture coal-fired designs exist, but given that he's promised to withdraw from the Paris climate deal it's unlikely they will be a priority)

It's hard to push a string. Natural gas is so cheap, and now you want to shove more coal mines into production? No market would accept it without subsidies.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:34 pm UTC

My guess is they give energy block-grants to the states, so the red states can subsidize coal (after eliminating emissions regulations, of course).
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:38 pm UTC

The question is if Solar / Batteries have had enough runway to fly. I'd expect that electric-vehicle subsidies would be at risk with a Trump Presidency + Republican House / Senate.

Expect Net-metering to start dying around the country IMO.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:42 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

elasto
Posts: 3104
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Wed Nov 09, 2016 11:42 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:My guess is they give energy block-grants to the states, so the red states can subsidize coal (after eliminating emissions regulations, of course).

Yup. Seems very plausible that switching subsidies from green tech to dirty would be a bigger vote-winner than eliminating them altogether.

Hopefully Sardia's right though and Trump was either ignorant or lying when he made his promise.

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 11:45 pm UTC

Wow your turnouts for the presidential+senate is horrible and not just for this, one I mean under 60% for the most important election and that over decades? Wow. (Okay that was a bit random as a comment, I just didn't pay attention to that number before.)

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:00 am UTC

elasto wrote:He has promised to 'end the war on coal and the war on miners', as well as expanding drilling for gas.

Doesn't really matter how many nuclear power stations he gives the go-ahead to - especially given the huge lead-time for building them - if he's going to reboot the dirtiest industry imaginable.

(Yes, carbon-capture coal-fired designs exist, but given that he's promised to withdraw from the Paris climate deal it's unlikely they will be a priority)


Not so sure about that. A huge chunk of our power still comes from coal. One reason the USA is the only country to really reduce our CO2 emissions in recent years is because of fracing/natural gas displacing some of that. Only 22% of our power comes from nuclear so there's plenty potential there, yet for some reason many environmentalists oppose this. Furthermore I think environmental regulations often backfire, making it harder to repair inefficient infrastructure and sending factories elsewhere where they pollute more than they did here, but make it look like we reduced 'our' emissions.
lol everything matters
-Ed

elasto
Posts: 3104
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:16 am UTC

Well, credit where it's due: Endorsing nuclear is one of the very few policies I've seen Trump espouse that I can wholeheartedly support. I hope he doesn't merely commission new power stations but pours money into next-gen tech like Thorium.

Gotta live in hope, right?

---

Meanwhile, a far more pressing matter is what the hell are the House of Cards writers going to do next? Trump has said and done things to gain power that make the Underwoods look like rank amateurs.

Even in this post-truth world, truth remains much stranger than fiction...

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Adacore » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:36 am UTC

elasto wrote:That chart is a poster child for how to deliberately mislead, also. Note how the y-axis doesn't start at zero...

Most people wont notice and will think Dem voting is down by 1/2 or even 2/3rds when in fact it's down by about 1/7 - which is explained much more simply by how inspirational Obama was than how 'lazy' 2016 Dem voters are...

While the chart is misleading, I think the core point is very significant. At least insofar as it fits my personal interpretation of the result, and why the polling missed the result. Most people were expecting Obama's phenomenal ground game to transfer more significantly to Clinton, or to the post-Obama Democratic party in general, and built likely-voter models based on that. But the Democrats failed to get out the vote, or build enthusiasm for this election, while Trump had zealous support in rural areas of the Midwest.

On a completely different line of thought, another thing I wonder about is how much modern social media has shaped the politics of society in general. Perhaps I just never realized it before, but it really feels to me that political groups are becoming more distinct and separate. For example, of the many Americans I know, none of them are Trump supporters, much as with Brexit I knew only one person among my hundreds of British friends who was pro-Brexit. And I've seen comments that suggest that there are similar quasi-isolated groups of people with near-complete Trump (or Brexit) support. Does social media encourage a kind of group-think, where people are so heavily exposed to the consensus view of their social group that they are extremely likely to move to support that view, even if they initially held another?

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:48 am UTC

Mutex wrote:EDIT: You're ok with the idea of racism being a continuum though, surely? Aren't "being slightly less likely to buy something from a black salesman" and "advocating genocide against all non-whites" different things?

Oh, absolutely, they are. They may stem from the same place, but there are so many orders of magnitude between them that they may as well be completely different.

I honestly don't truly understand either approach, but I would guess I have a better handle on the first. I have plenty of people I dislike or actively avoid, and while I'm much less angry now that I'm older, there have been people in the past I'd have been happy to have take a swing at me just so I'd have an excuse to put them down, but never has any of that been based on anything other than how that individual has behaved or treated me and those I care about. A person's skin color or gender may make certain traits more likely, but until they show me that they deserve my distrust or animosity, they are simply another person.

If two out of every three times I go downtown, I get assaulted, and every single time, it's by someone over the age of 90, I may be much more wary around the elderly while I'm downtown, but by no means will I ever treat them like I believe they'll attack me.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4384
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:07 am UTC

Adacore wrote:
elasto wrote:That chart is a poster child for how to deliberately mislead, also. Note how the y-axis doesn't start at zero...

Most people wont notice and will think Dem voting is down by 1/2 or even 2/3rds when in fact it's down by about 1/7 - which is explained much more simply by how inspirational Obama was than how 'lazy' 2016 Dem voters are...

While the chart is misleading, I think the core point is very significant. At least insofar as it fits my personal interpretation of the result, and why the polling missed the result. Most people were expecting Obama's phenomenal ground game to transfer more significantly to Clinton, or to the post-Obama Democratic party in general, and built likely-voter models based on that. But the Democrats failed to get out the vote, or build enthusiasm for this election, while Trump had zealous support in rural areas of the Midwest.

On a completely different line of thought, another thing I wonder about is how much modern social media has shaped the politics of society in general. Perhaps I just never realized it before, but it really feels to me that political groups are becoming more distinct and separate. For example, of the many Americans I know, none of them are Trump supporters, much as with Brexit I knew only one person among my hundreds of British friends who was pro-Brexit. And I've seen comments that suggest that there are similar quasi-isolated groups of people with near-complete Trump (or Brexit) support. Does social media encourage a kind of group-think, where people are so heavily exposed to the consensus view of their social group that they are extremely likely to move to support that view, even if they initially held another?


Here's a long, but relevant article that talks about this phenomenon in some detail. It's not even social media, really. The combination of places you go, the music you listen to, who and when you marry, religion, etc. are all strong enough "tribal" indicators that a typical liberal triber probably doesn't personally know a typical conservative triber, and vice-versa. They co-exist side-by-side, but live in completely different universes.

elasto
Posts: 3104
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:08 am UTC

Adacore wrote:While the chart is misleading, I think the core point is very significant. At least insofar as it fits my personal interpretation of the result, and why the polling missed the result. Most people were expecting Obama's phenomenal ground game to transfer more significantly to Clinton, or to the post-Obama Democratic party in general, and built likely-voter models based on that. But the Democrats failed to get out the vote, or build enthusiasm for this election, while Trump had zealous support in rural areas of the Midwest.

Wat?

It was hardly a secret that Clinton was highly unpopular even amongst Dem supporters - to the extent of conspiracy theories that she stole the primary from Sanders.

It's actually pretty amazing that she managed to get 6/7th of the vote that Obama got given how uniquely inspirational and hopeful his first campaign was.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 383
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:11 am UTC

MartianInvader wrote:I have an honest question for Trump supporters.

My wife is Turkish, we're expecting our second daughter in March, and as with our last daughter, we were planning on having her parents come and stay with us for a few months after the baby's born and a few months out of the next couple years to help out. Now that we've elected a president who has proposed a ban on all Muslims entering the country, do you think I should be worried that my in-laws won't be able to visit their granddaughter? Why or why not?

I truly don't think there's anything for you to worry about there. His proposed ban was early on, he walked it back quite a bit, and it was primarily aimed at massive waves of refugees. In the case of your in-laws, I would be surprised if they encountered anything beyond an additional screening (which is still unfortunate but much better than an outright denial). Also, I think Turkey is pretty low on the "watch" list anyway.

It might help you to note that, previously, when I've rationalized Trump's comments or put them in a more realistic light, The Great Hippo jumped on it as an opportunity to show (respectfully) how misinformed and politically naïve I supposedly am. Time will tell there, I suppose, but please do let us know how your in-laws fare in regards to visiting.

Also, congratulations on the new little one. My son was born 17 months ago today, and I couldn't be happier or prouder. Becoming a parent scared me far more than the prospect of a Clinton presidency, and I'm getting the hang of it. I hope it's the same for Clinton supporters and a Trump presidency. I don't expect them to ever be proud of him as our president, but I do pray everyone will get the hang of it.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:15 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Adacore wrote:
elasto wrote:That chart is a poster child for how to deliberately mislead, also. Note how the y-axis doesn't start at zero...

Most people wont notice and will think Dem voting is down by 1/2 or even 2/3rds when in fact it's down by about 1/7 - which is explained much more simply by how inspirational Obama was than how 'lazy' 2016 Dem voters are...

While the chart is misleading, I think the core point is very significant. At least insofar as it fits my personal interpretation of the result, and why the polling missed the result. Most people were expecting Obama's phenomenal ground game to transfer more significantly to Clinton, or to the post-Obama Democratic party in general, and built likely-voter models based on that. But the Democrats failed to get out the vote, or build enthusiasm for this election, while Trump had zealous support in rural areas of the Midwest.

On a completely different line of thought, another thing I wonder about is how much modern social media has shaped the politics of society in general. Perhaps I just never realized it before, but it really feels to me that political groups are becoming more distinct and separate. For example, of the many Americans I know, none of them are Trump supporters, much as with Brexit I knew only one person among my hundreds of British friends who was pro-Brexit. And I've seen comments that suggest that there are similar quasi-isolated groups of people with near-complete Trump (or Brexit) support. Does social media encourage a kind of group-think, where people are so heavily exposed to the consensus view of their social group that they are extremely likely to move to support that view, even if they initially held another?


Here's a long, but relevant article that talks about this phenomenon in some detail. It's not even social media, really. The combination of places you go, the music you listen to, who and when you marry, religion, etc. are all strong enough "tribal" indicators that a typical liberal triber probably doesn't personally know a typical conservative triber, and vice-versa. They co-exist side-by-side, but live in completely different universes.


Sorry for including full quote, on my phone. Social media and the internet are definitely a large part of the growing divide. We have always gravitated towards like minded people in our short history. But, in the past we were always like minded with people in our near reaches. Over the years that reach has slowly grown from just a few miles of influence to towns, counties, whole states and eventually the internet allowed us to reach globally to other like minded individuals. This, imo, is both good and bad. We are no longer forced to reconcile with our neighbor's political and social views. Now we just thumb our noses in the air and head back to our internet enclave.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:23 am UTC

elasto wrote:
Adacore wrote:While the chart is misleading, I think the core point is very significant. At least insofar as it fits my personal interpretation of the result, and why the polling missed the result. Most people were expecting Obama's phenomenal ground game to transfer more significantly to Clinton, or to the post-Obama Democratic party in general, and built likely-voter models based on that. But the Democrats failed to get out the vote, or build enthusiasm for this election, while Trump had zealous support in rural areas of the Midwest.

Wat?

It was hardly a secret that Clinton was highly unpopular even amongst Dem supporters - to the extent of conspiracy theories that she stole the primary from Sanders.

It's actually pretty amazing that she managed to get 6/7th of the vote that Obama got given how uniquely inspirational and hopeful his first campaign was.


Conspiracy theories? Did you read the wikileaks emails? He never had a chance. Clinton had debate questions in advance for pete's sake.
The DNC was stacked with clinton surrogates long before the primaries even started. Why ndo you think Tim Kaine was picked as VP? He offered nothing politically. She was always going to win virginia.. why not pick someone more viable. Because the Clinton's owed him that is why.

User avatar
Adacore
Posts: 2755
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:35 pm UTC
Location: 한국 창원

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Adacore » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:25 am UTC

elasto wrote:
Adacore wrote:While the chart is misleading, I think the core point is very significant. At least insofar as it fits my personal interpretation of the result, and why the polling missed the result. Most people were expecting Obama's phenomenal ground game to transfer more significantly to Clinton, or to the post-Obama Democratic party in general, and built likely-voter models based on that. But the Democrats failed to get out the vote, or build enthusiasm for this election, while Trump had zealous support in rural areas of the Midwest.

Wat?

It was hardly a secret that Clinton was highly unpopular even amongst Dem supporters - to the extent of conspiracy theories that she stole the primary from Sanders.

It's actually pretty amazing that she managed to get 6/7th of the vote that Obama got given how uniquely inspirational and hopeful his first campaign was.

Maybe it was built into the likely voter models, but I still have my doubts. I just have the feeling that pollsters and analysts underestimated how much of the democratic vote in the last 8 years was energized specifically by Obama. Clinton was generally unpopular, but so was Trump (even moreso, if you believe the favorability numbers), and he maintained the relative level of overall Republican support.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25789
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:26 am UTC

Yablo wrote:His proposed ban was early on, he walked it back quite a bit, and it was primarily aimed at massive waves of refugees.
He now says he'll "suspend immigration from terror-prone regions" and that "all vetting of people coming into our country will be considered 'extreme vetting'."

That is not "quite a bit" walked back, given what his idea of "terror-prone regions" is.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 772
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby MartianInvader » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:37 am UTC

Yablo wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:I have an honest question for Trump supporters.

My wife is Turkish, we're expecting our second daughter in March, and as with our last daughter, we were planning on having her parents come and stay with us for a few months after the baby's born and a few months out of the next couple years to help out. Now that we've elected a president who has proposed a ban on all Muslims entering the country, do you think I should be worried that my in-laws won't be able to visit their granddaughter? Why or why not?

I truly don't think there's anything for you to worry about there. His proposed ban was early on, he walked it back quite a bit, and it was primarily aimed at massive waves of refugees. In the case of your in-laws, I would be surprised if they encountered anything beyond an additional screening (which is still unfortunate but much better than an outright denial). Also, I think Turkey is pretty low on the "watch" list anyway.

It might help you to note that, previously, when I've rationalized Trump's comments or put them in a more realistic light, The Great Hippo jumped on it as an opportunity to show (respectfully) how misinformed and politically naïve I supposedly am. Time will tell there, I suppose, but please do let us know how your in-laws fare in regards to visiting.

Also, congratulations on the new little one. My son was born 17 months ago today, and I couldn't be happier or prouder. Becoming a parent scared me far more than the prospect of a Clinton presidency, and I'm getting the hang of it. I hope it's the same for Clinton supporters and a Trump presidency. I don't expect them to ever be proud of him as our president, but I do pray everyone will get the hang of it.

Thank you for a genuine answer. I know it may sound paranoid, and my first thought on this was that Trump would never do something like this, but I realized the whole story of this election as basically been "Trump would never..."
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

elasto
Posts: 3104
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:52 am UTC

I'm no fan of Trump, but while I could see blanket bans for some nationalities, I see no way he'd do this to a NATO ally either.

Extra screening is the most I'd envisage too.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:57 am UTC

elasto wrote:I'm no fan of Trump, but while I could see blanket bans for some nationalities, I see no way he'd do this to a NATO ally either.

Extra screening is the most I'd envisage too.

McConnel warned Trump not to let it get to his head. Mitch McConnel runs congress, not Trump, and his coalition of establishment Senators control DC. So long as Trump plays along, he can be the always winning Donald. Or he can be as cutoff as Obama or Bush was.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368 ... t-100-days

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:57 am UTC

Trump has shown nothing but contempt for NATO - this is not a rational person.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:19 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Trump has shown nothing but contempt for NATO - this is not a rational person.


Then lets hope that the Trumpkins are right: that Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can hold him back. (seriously, that's a major wtf?? I keep hearing from a bunch of pro-Trump supporters)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:25 am UTC

Make The City Great Again
Spoiler:
Image
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
duckshirt
Posts: 558
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:41 am UTC
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:27 am UTC

I don't think it will ever actually get proposed, but I would count on Supreme Court more than congress to shoot down a ban on Muslims entering the US. I would think both "liberal" and "conservative" justices would rule against it.
lol everything matters
-Ed

elasto
Posts: 3104
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:30 am UTC

sardia wrote:McConnel warned Trump not to let it get to his head. Mitch McConnel runs congress, not Trump, and his coalition of establishment Senators control DC. So long as Trump plays along, he can be the always winning Donald. Or he can be as cutoff as Obama or Bush was.

I'm not convinced.

Take Ryan's honest admiration for a start:

“This is the most incredible political feat I have seen in my lifetime,” acknowledged Ryan, who credited the Trump effect with saving many vulnerable congressmen by their “coat-tails”. “Many American citizens have lost faith and feel alienated by our core institutions,” he said. “But Donald Trump heard a voice out in the country that no one else heard.


I think Republicans will think twice before crossing Trump again. He can quite credibly threaten that 'what Trump gives, Trump can take away.'

Trump has less party loyalty than any president I know of; He could quite credibly threaten to send a few disparaging tweets and get the unsupportive legislators voted out. They know he'd happily bring the whole party crashing down rather than humbly be their lapdog - just like he absolutely would not reign himself in throughout both the primaries and the election proper.

To that extent Trump very much isn't an establishment insider; He has loyalty to only one thing: Trump. And if his ego was the size of a planet before, now it has reached galactic proportions...

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:06 am UTC

Thesh wrote:Trump has shown nothing but contempt for NATO - this is not a rational person.

As he should. Only the USA and Poland uphold their ends of the defense spending portion of NATO's treaty. We send our troops and protect their countries but they do not reciprocate. Perhaps we should pull out and let Russia have Europe. We should leave south east asia while we are at it and let china control the south china sea. Closing major shipping lanes we utilize for cheap goods from vietnam et. al.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:28 am UTC

elasto wrote:
sardia wrote:McConnel warned Trump not to let it get to his head. Mitch McConnel runs congress, not Trump, and his coalition of establishment Senators control DC. So long as Trump plays along, he can be the always winning Donald. Or he can be as cutoff as Obama or Bush was.

I'm not convinced.

Take Ryan's honest admiration for a start:

“This is the most incredible political feat I have seen in my lifetime,” acknowledged Ryan, who credited the Trump effect with saving many vulnerable congressmen by their “coat-tails”. “Many American citizens have lost faith and feel alienated by our core institutions,” he said. “But Donald Trump heard a voice out in the country that no one else heard.


I think Republicans will think twice before crossing Trump again. He can quite credibly threaten that 'what Trump gives, Trump can take away.'

Trump has less party loyalty than any president I know of; He could quite credibly threaten to send a few disparaging tweets and get the unsupportive legislators voted out. They know he'd happily bring the whole party crashing down rather than humbly be their lapdog - just like he absolutely would not reign himself in throughout both the primaries and the election proper.

To that extent Trump very much isn't an establishment insider; He has loyalty to only one thing: Trump. And if his ego was the size of a planet before, now it has reached galactic proportions...

Ryan runs the House, McConnel runs the Senate, they're different people. Ryan wants to build bridges, McConnel wants Trump to know that team players are wanted, hint hint wink wink *I'm gonna stab you if you don't play along*.

elasto
Posts: 3104
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:38 am UTC

sardia wrote:Ryan runs the House, McConnel runs the Senate, they're different people. Ryan wants to build bridges, McConnel wants Trump to know that team players are wanted, hint hint wink wink *I'm gonna stab you if you don't play along*.

McConnel can play that game if he wishes; And you may feel that we've reached 'peak Trump'. I for one am not comfortable with assuming that given how many times Trump has proved us wrong to date.

Underestimating him is so very tempting given how deeply flawed he is. But underestimate him we have. And you may be underestimating him once again. For example, are you absolutely certain Trump couldn't organise McConnel's overthrow should he so desire..?

User avatar
MartianInvader
Posts: 772
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby MartianInvader » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:00 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
Thesh wrote:Trump has shown nothing but contempt for NATO - this is not a rational person.

As he should. Only the USA and Poland uphold their ends of the defense spending portion of NATO's treaty. We send our troops and protect their countries but they do not reciprocate. Perhaps we should pull out and let Russia have Europe. We should leave south east asia while we are at it and let china control the south china sea. Closing major shipping lanes we utilize for cheap goods from vietnam et. al.

So do you think Trump would be willing to cancel and/or restrict visitor visas from Turkey, despite them being a NATO ally?
Let's have a fervent argument, mostly over semantics, where we all claim the burden of proof is on the other side!

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8741
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:05 am UTC

Turkey has been like, the worst ally in NATO. Didn't let NATO use the airbases during Iraq, then pushed the US to get involved in Syria, and has been fucking things up badly over there.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2476
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:21 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:As he should. Only the USA and Poland uphold their ends of the defense spending portion of NATO's treaty.
It's generally accepted that the list is US, Greece, Poland, Estonia and the U.K. France and Turkey fall a tad short.

Not that it's at all equal. It's GDP-based, so a badly run/stressed economy needs less actual spending to achieve the 2% 'promise', and figures can be twisted easily. The US justs spends a fuckton on its military (the imperial fuckton, naturally, not the metric fucktonne) so is guaranteed to top the list, even given the economy dwarfing all other members'...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5808
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:24 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Turkey has been like, the worst ally in NATO. Didn't let NATO use the airbases during Iraq, then pushed the US to get involved in Syria, and has been fucking things up badly over there.

You have a point, but you're like the worst person to ever offer an opinion on Middle East policies.

elasto wrote:
sardia wrote:Ryan runs the House, McConnel runs the Senate, they're different people. Ryan wants to build bridges, McConnel wants Trump to know that team players are wanted, hint hint wink wink *I'm gonna stab you if you don't play along*.

McConnel can play that game if he wishes; And you may feel that we've reached 'peak Trump'. I for one am not comfortable with assuming that given how many times Trump has proved us wrong to date.

Underestimating him is so very tempting given how deeply flawed he is. But underestimate him we have. And you may be underestimating him once again. For example, are you absolutely certain Trump couldn't organise McConnel's overthrow should he so desire..?
Don't conflate me fishing surprising quotes with my opinion. McConnel is hedging on Trump, which doesn't square with Ryan's bridgebuilding. That's interesting, and backed up by Trump's nonconventional GOP first 100 days speech. Nobody knows how Trump will react to McConnel. Everyone knows nice Trump and mean Trump. Is Trump still high off his win? Or is he straight back to thinskinned counterpunching? Will he ignore McConnell? Trump has a lot of unknowns, so anything is possible from him.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8741
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:54 am UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Turkey has been like, the worst ally in NATO. Didn't let NATO use the airbases during Iraq, then pushed the US to get involved in Syria, and has been fucking things up badly over there.

You have a point, but you're like the worst person to ever offer an opinion on Middle East policies.



And why is that, exactly? Or is this related to that other thing, and should we take this to private?

elasto
Posts: 3104
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:36 am UTC

<deleting post as I had got the wrong end of the stick - apologies to sardia!>
Last edited by elasto on Thu Nov 10, 2016 9:19 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7302
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:16 am UTC


If Trump supports nuclear as much as he claims then he will be objectively better for climate change than Obama or Gore.

Despite what you might have heard, both the Bush and Obama administration had nuclear friendly policies. The federal government would loan, cheaply, an operator about 80% of planned construction costs and give a subsidy on every kWh produced. They approved three projects in 2012, one to finish a old reactor and two times two new ones. There is also a program to support new technology. It pays a out a few million to two small projects, there are no big projects.

That's it. After that, no one applied for more. Gas is too cheap, the reactors too expensive, and the current projects have delays that scare new projects.

If Trump wants to do better than that, he'll have to start a federal building project. Reactors built and run by the feds, cost be damned. I am skeptical that he'll get congress along for that.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8741
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:16 am UTC

Zamfir wrote:Despite what you might have heard, both the Bush and Obama administration had nuclear friendly policies. The federal government would loan, cheaply, on operator about 80% of planned construction costs and give a subsidy on every kWh produced. They approved three projects in 2012, one to finish a old reactor and two times two new ones. There is also a program to support new technology. It pays a out a few million to two small projects, there are no big projects.


It's funny, I want to find reasons to hate Obama's domestic policies, but most of what he's done I either agree with or at least grudgingly respect, none moreso than his energy policies. If you've ever been on a highway in southern Illinois, the first thing you'll notice is all the wind farms everywhere. Works of beauty, those, and it makes sense that they'd be close to the Windy City. Really, as the only country on Earth (besides Canada) to have such a problem with tornadoes that we literally have a season dedicated to them, wind farms are just common sense. What we need to do next is get all tractors in the Midwest to be electric and have the farms charge them from the turbines...

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:54 am UTC

Adacore wrote:
elasto wrote:That chart is a poster child for how to deliberately mislead, also. Note how the y-axis doesn't start at zero...

Most people wont notice and will think Dem voting is down by 1/2 or even 2/3rds when in fact it's down by about 1/7 - which is explained much more simply by how inspirational Obama was than how 'lazy' 2016 Dem voters are...

While the chart is misleading, I think the core point is very significant. At least insofar as it fits my personal interpretation of the result, and why the polling missed the result. Most people were expecting Obama's phenomenal ground game to transfer more significantly to Clinton, or to the post-Obama Democratic party in general, and built likely-voter models based on that. But the Democrats failed to get out the vote, or build enthusiasm for this election, while Trump had zealous support in rural areas of the Midwest.

On a completely different line of thought, another thing I wonder about is how much modern social media has shaped the politics of society in general. Perhaps I just never realized it before, but it really feels to me that political groups are becoming more distinct and separate. For example, of the many Americans I know, none of them are Trump supporters, much as with Brexit I knew only one person among my hundreds of British friends who was pro-Brexit. And I've seen comments that suggest that there are similar quasi-isolated groups of people with near-complete Trump (or Brexit) support. Does social media encourage a kind of group-think, where people are so heavily exposed to the consensus view of their social group that they are extremely likely to move to support that view, even if they initially held another?



The unpopular opinion closets itself. Trump supporters become social pariahs among millennials and and other urban middle class young adults. Looking at family (old vanguard Cubans in Miami), they either get branded as racists or face some other open disapproval/scorn from college students in the family.

Conversely, if you live in more rural settings in the bible belt, you are not having a happy existence as a Hillary supporter. Crooked supporter of babykillers.

Polarization in politics has gotten pretty bad with the rise of the political pundit industry and media's happy love affair with the Rachel Maddows and Bill O Reilly's.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5649
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:04 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Diadem wrote:Marx famously said that religion is opium for the masses. That's not very kind to religion, but it's not very kind to the masses either. He's basically calling them addicts whose brains are too addled to know what's good for them.


That quote requires a lot of context for the modern reader. In Marx's day, Opium was the extra-strength painkiller that was used for surgery rather than a recreational drug. He wasn't referring to the religious as junkies and religion as an addiction, but rather that the proletariat's lot in life was filled with so much pain that they had to turn to strong painkillers in order to keep their sanity.

I stand corrected.

I don't think that undermines my overall point though. That voting is more about identity than policy, and that while evaluated on their merits the left's policies may be better for the working class, their identity politics are aimed solidly against them, and this costs them.

I'm guilty of this myself. I'm angry, furious even, at all the assholes who voted for Trump. And I have every right to be. They have made a terrible decision that is going to be disastrous for hundreds of millions of people all over the world. But my ranting about it is never going to change anyone's mind, and being called an asshole is only going to drive Trump voters more solidly into his camp.

It helps to remember that these people aren't inherently evil. They genuinely think that what they are doing is right. They are misled. Yes, some of them are horribly racist, but that too is part identity politics, and part being misled.

The Dutch version of Trump is called Geert Wilders. And Wilders and Trump are quite similar in many, many ways. But before Wilders, back in 2002, we had a different politician who attracted this group of voters. His name was Pim Fortuyn. He was not a politician, and came seemingly out of nowhere to win a huge share of the electorate, riding a wave of anti-establishment sentiment. Sounds familiar? But the interesting part is that he was a completely different person. He styled himself as a dandy, he even employed an actual butler. He was flamboyantly and openly gay, to the point where if he started talking about his sex life journalists were all "That's nice Mr Fortuyn, but can we go back to policy now?". With the notable exception of his anti-immigration stance, his politics were quite left-wing, he often attacked Labour for undermining the welfare state.

So we have someone with a completely different personality, and a completely different set of ideals, attracting the exact same group of voters.

It's not about the minutiae of Trump's persona, and it's certainly not about any of his proposals. It's about identity.
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

D-503
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 11:35 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby D-503 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:05 pm UTC

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016 ... today.html

Based on the way corrections corp's stock responded to the Trump's election, it looks like investors expect him to support the use of for-profit prisons.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Pfhorrest, ucim and 21 guests