2016 US Presidential Election

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:04 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I like how you cut out the part where I answer my own question. And then you imply as if you had insight into Trump's plans. We know Trump is in it for himself, that doesn't tell us shit. Will he declare a reign of terror, because it sells Trump? Will he be the best Republican president ever because it sells Trump? Will he be impeached like Nixon because he is selling Trump? It's a very meaningless statement.
It was certainly never meant to answer those questions. It wasn't insightful, it was a statement on Trumps mindset. IMO it doesn't outrun the facts and seems to be mildly predictive. Frame his change on Hillary in that light. There isn't any point to investigating Hillary. He doesn't get anything he needs by doing it himself. He can look magnanimous and know with a fair amount of certainty that someone will press the issue if the base needs it. However in the future I won't quote you.

And if I were Hillary I would ask Obama for the pardon.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6346
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 24, 2016 4:41 pm UTC

Morris, there's a lot of things wrong about "Clinton asks Obama for pardon" to me. Why would you think she needs one?

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -from-real
Young people can't tell the difference between fake news, sponsored content, and real news. If anything, the number one indicator is they prefer fake news more. :-(

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3490
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Nov 24, 2016 4:43 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Young people can't tell the difference between fake news, sponsored content, and real news. If anything, the number one indicator is they prefer fake news more. :-(

"Things that try to look like things look more like things than things."...

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Nov 24, 2016 5:30 pm UTC

The answer is within the post.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7459
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 24, 2016 5:46 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503129818/study-finds-students-have-dismaying-inability-to-tell-fake-news-from-real
Young people can't tell the difference between fake news, sponsored content, and real news. If anything, the number one indicator is they prefer fake news more. :-(

It's an internering study, though I wonder if it has much to do with young people as opposed to just people.

It's not like advertisement, product placements or think tanks are new phenomena of the social media age.

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:31 pm UTC

Another quiet little u-turn:

The president-elect this week credited General James Mattis for changing his mind about the value of waterboarding, which Trump previously said he supported.

“He [Mattis] said, ‘I’ve never found it to be useful,’” Trump told the New York Times. He went on to say Mattis found more value in building trust with terrorism suspects: “‘Give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers, and I’ll do better.’”

“I was very impressed by that answer,” Trump said.


I mean, it's good for us neutrals when he makes a u-turn we agree with, however the fact he takes so little persuasion does emphasise the lightweight nature of his intellect. It also validates those of us that said to Trump supporters that you can't trust a word that comes out of his mouth.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10001
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:39 pm UTC

Trump's appeal wasn't in what he said but how much everyone else hates him. People voted for Trump out of spite.

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:45 pm UTC

I disagree. There's a lot of anger and talk of betrayal on the alt-right.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10001
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:53 pm UTC

So the alt right is upset at trump? Hold on I'm grabbing some tiny sheet music to go with the world's smallest violin.

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:57 pm UTC

It doesn't cause me to lose sleep either. However it does make you wrong to think that people voted for Trump only out of spite. Some genuinely bought into his vision.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10001
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:59 pm UTC

Alright, some people bought into what he said, I'll grant you that.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

It's not like advertisement, product placements or think tanks are new phenomena of the social media age.
Social media is relatively new. Facebook launched in 2004. It takes time to learn how to use a tool.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6346
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:36 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Another quiet little u-turn:

The president-elect this week credited General James Mattis for changing his mind about the value of waterboarding, which Trump previously said he supported.

“He [Mattis] said, ‘I’ve never found it to be useful,’” Trump told the New York Times. He went on to say Mattis found more value in building trust with terrorism suspects: “‘Give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers, and I’ll do better.’”

“I was very impressed by that answer,” Trump said.


I mean, it's good for us neutrals when he makes a u-turn we agree with, however the fact he takes so little persuasion does emphasise the lightweight nature of his intellect. It also validates those of us that said to Trump supporters that you can't trust a word that comes out of his mouth.

For Democrats, we need to know if he's willing to fight for those white swing voters in the Midwest. If he caves out of carelessness, then Democrats have an opening. If he follows through, while being horrible on other things, Democrats, and the western order are in trouble.

Alternatively, Trump plus Republicans hash out a tax break giveaway, and call it infrastructure spending. Will swing voters fall for it?

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1075
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:38 pm UTC

elasto wrote:I mean, it's good for us neutrals when he makes a u-turn we agree with, however the fact he takes so little persuasion does emphasise the lightweight nature of his intellect.

I think it's more likely that he was planning on dropping support of waterboarding this whole time. You really can't trust that the promises he made while campaigning are representative of what his actual administration will do.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6346
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:41 pm UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:
elasto wrote:I mean, it's good for us neutrals when he makes a u-turn we agree with, however the fact he takes so little persuasion does emphasise the lightweight nature of his intellect.

I think it's more likely that he was planning on dropping support of waterboarding this whole time. You really can't trust that the promises he made while campaigning are representative of what his actual administration will do.

Try this theory,. Whoever is the last person to speak to Trump will be the view he takes for the day.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3490
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:48 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Whoever is the last person to speak to Trump will be the view he takes for the day.

Quick, get this guy on the phone!
Spoiler:
Image

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:54 pm UTC

Sheikh al-Majaneen wrote:You really can't trust that the promises he made while campaigning are representative of what his actual administration will do.

Well that goes without saying. There were a number of times he contradicted himself within hours or days. And in many instances he said things completely at odds to his public stance pre-primary.

All that seemed to be lost on his supporters though; They seemed to buy that he'd do what he said he would - that he was trustworthy - despite all evidence to the contrary...

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5161
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Felstaff » Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:59 pm UTC

Genuine question: do USAians give a shit about Nigel Farage? Do they even know who he is?
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

idonno
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby idonno » Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:04 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Morris, there's a lot of things wrong about "Clinton asks Obama for pardon" to me. Why would you think she needs one?

Her innocence or guilt don't really change the fact that a pardon would be beneficial. If there is a chance republicans will pursue her with prosecution for something it is just a lot less of a hassle to be protected by a pardon than to have to mount a legal defense against it. If she wants to stay in politics there may be a cost in optics but the same could be said of a legal battle and by the time she is running for something the pardon would be old news.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5097
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:14 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:Genuine question: do USAians give a shit about Nigel Farage? Do they even know who he is?
Americans don't care about anything that happens outside America mostly. I mean, our Lib party candidate couldn't name any major world leaders, and I'd at least hope he was above the curve (then again, we elected Trump so...)

There's a reasonable bit of propaganda going around for far-right candidates on sites like Reddit though, so I guess that could skew things.
idonno wrote:Her innocence or guilt don't really change the fact that a pardon would be beneficial. If there is a chance republicans will pursue her with prosecution for something it is just a lot less of a hassle to be protected by a pardon than to have to mount a legal defense against it. If she wants to stay in politics there may be a cost in optics but the same could be said of a legal battle and by the time she is running for something the pardon would be old news.
Republicans don't actually care about pursuing it, they just wanted to damage her campaign. Even Trump's campaign has already said they're not going to pursue anything with regard to Clinton.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:22 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Another quiet little u-turn.

I mean, it's good for us neutrals when he makes a u-turn we agree with, however the fact he takes so little persuasion does emphasise the lightweight nature of his intellect. It also validates those of us that said to Trump supporters that you can't trust a word that comes out of his mouth.


Considering where he was on election day, a random walk was going to look good to a lot of us, but he's been pretty consistently walking in good directions. From "Global Warming is a Chinese hoax to make American businesses less competitive" he's jumped to "human activity is affecting the climate and action to address that may be necessary," he's dropped the "Jail Hillary on Day 1" thing, now he's turning against waterboarding, ...

Did he cynically stir up the angry and the racist in order to ride their wave just far enough to ditch them, without ever meaning any of the things they were glad he said? I'd still call it immoral and dangerous, but ... better an egotistical, selfish, short-tempered, two-faced, centre-right, chauvinist pervert stirring up the misogynists, racists and xenophobes and the bitter overlooked to sieze power than an egotistical, selfish, short-tempered, racist, two-faced, far-right, misogynist pervert stirring up the misogynists, racists and xenophobes and the bitter overlooked to sieze power ... right?

Also, I am amused by the image of someone being released from Guantanamo Bay late in 2019 and telling the world that all the guards ever did was get him drunk, get him high, play video games with him and maybe record whatever he said between losing control of his tongue and losing the power of speech every week ... and half of ISIS surrendering the next day.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4540
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:44 pm UTC

idonno wrote:
sardia wrote:Morris, there's a lot of things wrong about "Clinton asks Obama for pardon" to me. Why would you think she needs one?


Her innocence or guilt don't really change the fact that a pardon would be beneficial. If there is a chance republicans will pursue her with prosecution for something it is just a lot less of a hassle to be protected by a pardon than to have to mount a legal defense against it. If she wants to stay in politics there may be a cost in optics but the same could be said of a legal battle and by the time she is running for something the pardon would be old news.


Can you be pardoned without being convicted of a crime (as a non-turkey)?

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:52 pm UTC

Yes. See Nixon.
Nixon's resignation had not put an end to the desire among many to see him punished. The Ford White House considered a pardon of Nixon, though it would be unpopular in the country. Nixon, contacted by Ford emissaries, was initially reluctant to accept the pardon, but then agreed to do so. Ford, however, insisted on a statement of contrition; Nixon felt he had not committed any crimes and should not have to issue such a document. Ford eventually agreed, and on September 8, 1974, he granted Nixon a "full, free, and absolute pardon", which ended any possibility of an indictment.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1787
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Nov 24, 2016 10:55 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
idonno wrote:
sardia wrote:Morris, there's a lot of things wrong about "Clinton asks Obama for pardon" to me. Why would you think she needs one?


Her innocence or guilt don't really change the fact that a pardon would be beneficial. If there is a chance republicans will pursue her with prosecution for something it is just a lot less of a hassle to be protected by a pardon than to have to mount a legal defense against it. If she wants to stay in politics there may be a cost in optics but the same could be said of a legal battle and by the time she is running for something the pardon would be old news.


Can you be pardoned without being convicted of a crime (as a non-turkey)?

Nixon was pardoned and never convicted.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:24 pm UTC

I think it'd be a terrible move for Obama to issue a pardon.

First off, I very much doubt Clinton will run again. She'll hardly fancy a Trump vs Clinton repeat in 4 years and in 8 years she'll be heading towards 80. So it's not going to be worth political capital for the Reps to pursue her.

Secondly, if Obama issues a pardon it'll play directly into the establishment corruption meme. People will reasonably ask why she needs a pardon if she didn't do anything wrong - what's she afraid of etc. 'Crooked Hillary' will turn into 'Crooked Dems'.

No, all sides are just going to let the matter die a death and move on.

----

Sableagle wrote:Considering where he was on election day, a random walk was going to look good to a lot of us, but he's been pretty consistently walking in good directions. From "Global Warming is a Chinese hoax to make American businesses less competitive" he's jumped to "human activity is affecting the climate and action to address that may be necessary," he's dropped the "Jail Hillary on Day 1" thing, now he's turning against waterboarding, ...

Given that almost all his policies were abhorrent to me, the more u-turns in tone the better; However, his appointments are pretty much bang in line with his election narrative. And he'll surely appoint a right-winger to the Supreme Court.

No, I still have very low hopes for how this will go...
Last edited by elasto on Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6166
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:31 pm UTC

I wouldn't trust Republicans or the FBI to stop pursuing it. A blanket pardon ends the issue and everyone forgets about it in a few months.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:37 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:I wouldn't trust Republicans or the FBI to stop pursuing it. A blanket pardon ends the issue and everyone forgets about it in a few months.

I dunno. I think there is a good deal of pragmatic bipartisanship over such things. I mean, Obama could easily have pursued Bush/Cheney for the horrors in Iraq but he didn't.

If Clinton was going to be in public office any time soon, I might agree with you. But she's going to retire away and never be heard of again.

If the FBI want to pursue her they will, but they haven't found anything yet, so it seems unlikely.

Likewise Trump will probably get a free pass by whoever comes next despite the far more serious corruption he's bound to get involved in...

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5161
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Felstaff » Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:45 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
A blanket pardon ends the issue and everyone forgets about it in a few months.

I dunno, people are still going on about Nixon's pardon, and that happened 42 years ago. See? See?
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3490
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Nov 24, 2016 11:49 pm UTC

I personally think that there was far more smoke surrounding her than there ought to have been for the actual amount of genuine fire even just coincidentally in her general locality, but then if Obama calls up the DCFD and gets them to spray her with retardent foam then even I'm going to start wondering if that's possibly more than a purely precautionary action...

If I were actually at the epicentre of this and knew hypothetical things that lowly old me can never have been expected to know, I might think differently, but I think that it'd be better to rely upon the fact that the worst of the post-primary, pre-polls-close partisan investigations came up with nothing and continue to tough it out by relying upon due process to do its job and amongst those not totally lost to the attack-lies get any such process to generate actual sympathy alongside the realisation of what happened by even considering siding (actively/passively) alongside those lies.

But it's a gamble.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 25, 2016 12:07 am UTC

Felstaff wrote:I dunno, people are still going on about Nixon's pardon, and that happened 42 years ago. See? See?
Going on about?

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 » Fri Nov 25, 2016 1:51 am UTC

Felstaff wrote:Genuine question: do USAians give a shit about Nigel Farage? Do they even know who he is?

The BBC is my primary news source so I keep up with UKian politicking, but I don't know how common that is. Probably not very.

Some might recognize him as the Brit who broadly grins at the slightest provocation.
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
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5773
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Fri Nov 25, 2016 1:58 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Felstaff wrote:I dunno, people are still going on about Nixon's pardon, and that happened 42 years ago. See? See?
Going on about?

Do you not have that expression in the US?

'Harping on about'
'Bitching about'
'Talking [in an aggravated manner] about'
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:01 am UTC

Yes, we use the phrase. I cited an example to answer LaserGuys question. The sum total of my response was Yes. And a citation. Is that an example of going on about? I took Felstaff's response as a cheap shot for humorous effect. However maybe I'm wrong and there is a point hiding out in their somewhere. Obviously I could be missing something./shrug

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 » Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:17 am UTC

I think it was just a funny.
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.

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:37 am UTC

Hmm.

So I was reminded of the contradiction between the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the allegations of Obama being a Muslim. ie. that not making sense since Jeremiah Wright was Obama's Christian minister.

It occurs to me that the current generation of social media devourers differs from 'our' generation in a crucial way: The 'someone is wrong on the internet' angle.

I, and I imagine many if not most here, am most often moved to post when I see something I disagree with in what someone has said before. They can have posted a wall of text, but if there's one single line I feel is incorrect - even if totally tangential and wrong only in a purely pedantic sense - well, I'll still post to point it out anyhow :)

Rarely do people post purely in agreement with a previous poster. (And when they do, eg. quoting a long post and writing '+1', it's slightly frowned upon)

It's strikes me that the modern echo chambers like facebook don't appear to work like that. If they did, there's no way a meme like 'Obama's a Muslim' would ever take hold, because there should be endless people replying 'Nah. He can't be. Remember how he defended Wright?'

In a place like ours, much ego is wrapped up in being 'right', and that produces an element of intellectual rigour. There, it seems like much ego is wrapped up in being part of the in-crowd - what gets commonly referred to as 'virtue signaling' (though I believe it's as prevalent on the right as the left, it just manifests differently.)

Don't have any answer for it. Just felt like an interesting observation... :/

Mutex
Posts: 1342
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Fri Nov 25, 2016 11:02 am UTC

+1

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7459
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Nov 25, 2016 11:43 am UTC

@Elasto, I get your point, but I am not fully convinced (how's that for waffling?). There's a reason you can still visit echochamber dot me . Debate on some points can hide strong, subtly enforced agreement on other points. Look at the low number of explicit pro-Trump posts in this gazillion-post thread.

Most of debate was "is Trump bad or double-plus bad", "is Trump's competently bad or incompetently bad ", "is Hillary also bad", " Since Trump is so bad, can you vote third party", "is every Trump supporter automatically bad", etc.

After his win, a few people showed up to defend their choice for Trump, but it appears they mostly left again.

elasto
Posts: 3516
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Nov 25, 2016 12:27 pm UTC

It can be both. Of course we are an echo chamber in our own way, but you can't tell me we don't have a level of debate and discourse that rises above the average facebook comment.

I'd like to think that the reason why we have very few 'this is why I think Trump is right' posts here is that his positions are intellectually indefensible - that his support is based on raw emotions like anger over flatlining wages and disillusionment with conventional political solutions.

We also rail against flatlining standards of living here, but we debate specifics like is a citizens wage affordable, how can we change healthcare to better serve the public, and how can we adapt to a future with increasing levels of automation and AI.

The few policy specifics that Trump comes out with - like building a wall and making Mexico pay for it - are so childish it's not even worth starting a thread over.

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 » Fri Nov 25, 2016 2:02 pm UTC

Elasto I totally agree. The "only posting when you have something to disagree with" line is something I've been thinking, too.

But, yeah, we can definitely better debate the best methods to achieve goals that there's a broader consensus for. Which is what the presidential election should be. If Sanders and Clinton were the two major general election candidates, we could have had a really solid choice between two good candidates. When one party refuses to even acknowledge what the problems themselves are, how can we have a legitimate election?
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6346
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:05 pm UTC

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/ar ... lt/508544/
Has anyone consisted mass relocation and paying them until they die quietly? It would work, but it wouldn't be very sexy.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests