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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:02 pm UTC

The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.

If you didn't show up to vote, results are on you. And that's the case for Democrats who had abysmal turnout by previous standards in one of the more critical elections.

They don't get to blame the candidate. Obama was not much better than Hillary on policy, they're virtually clones. Close with Wallstreet, both pretty tight with establishment politics and filling their cabinets based on relationships with economic elites.

Doesn't even matter when the alternative is Trump getting elected.

Hell, they didn't even bother to show up to vote for House/Congress races. So they can congratulate themselves on the next few supreme court nominees being confirmed by a Republican controlled government.

When a guy like Michael Moore predicts that turn out in key blue dog Democrat states might be critical to keep them blue, and that Democrats simply don't turn out the vote, nobody else gets to make excuses for why Democrats lost.

The party's capacity to mobilize voters sucks.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:12 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.
What Obama didn't have was baggage. Hillary had too much. Hillary shouldn't have been the candidate.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:18 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.
What Obama didn't have was baggage. Hillary had too much. Hillary shouldn't have been the candidate.

How many points did she lose by being Hillary? Source? I don't disagree, but you need citations.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
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 1:26 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.
What Obama didn't have was baggage. Hillary had too much. Hillary shouldn't have been the candidate.

... are you kidding me? Do you NOT remember the rhetoric of 08? Obama was a waffler! He's a Muslim! He wasn't born in this country! I don't know where he stands on the issues!

This is just one of the things driving me absolutely nuts about this whole process - the Republicans have shown themselves to have severely selective and short term memory, and the Democrats can't get over their sexism regarding Hillary. She has, frankly, a FRACTION of the baggage other presidential candidates have brought to the circus, let alone compared to Trump, and we still got wall to wall horseshit about emails and the pandering false equivalency of the two candidates being equally bad.

I find this all disgusting and disgraceful. Frankly, America deserves Trump, and even though he BARELY lost the popular, I think he's a fair representation of at least a large portion of this country.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:29 pm UTC

There wasn't anything real and major against Hillary, but there was certainly the perception, and that perception is still baggage, whether it has any basis in reality or not. This had been known since the beginning.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:34 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.
What Obama didn't have was baggage. Hillary had too much. Hillary shouldn't have been the candidate.

How many points did she lose by being Hillary? Source? I don't disagree, but you need citations.


Anecdotally, this really resonates. Most of the time I was talking to Trump supporters, opposition to Clinton was their main talking point. Right-wing talk radio was mostly anti-Clinton talk, a lot less pro-trump.

But I can't exclude that this was simply the most rhetorically convenient talking point... not really the justification for their vote or support, but simply easier than getting into a debate about Trump's demeanor or policy.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:46 pm UTC

Diadem wrote: 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 didn't get to respond to your earlier post, which made good points. There's one thing I would like to add, when you compare the modern left to old school socialists. The old school socialist were not that popular with the masses either. PvdA and CPN in the 50s were only a tad larger than PvdA and SP today (not even counting G-L), and even then the PvdA was already morphing to a wider, less socialist party than the old SDAP. In the US, the Democratic party was never the party of labour - their unionist equivalents to European socialists were never more than one of its factions, never big enough to take over the party.

Not that you were claiming this. It's just that (in the US and in Europe), you often encounter a nostalgia for the good old days when the left understood the working guys, and got their votes in return. With the implication that the modern left should rediscover those roots again, and all will be well.

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 1:48 pm UTC

GodShapedBullet wrote:
sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.
What Obama didn't have was baggage. Hillary had too much. Hillary shouldn't have been the candidate.

How many points did she lose by being Hillary? Source? I don't disagree, but you need citations.


Anecdotally, this really resonates. Most of the time I was talking to Trump supporters, opposition to Clinton was their main talking point. Right-wing talk radio was mostly anti-Clinton talk, a lot less pro-trump.

But I can't exclude that this was simply the most rhetorically convenient talking point... not really the justification for their vote or support, but simply easier than getting into a debate about Trump's demeanor or policy.



And when I talked to Hillary supporters, opposition to Trump was their main talking point. You see how this plays?

This is democracy at work. The people motivated to vote won. Those who didn't show up, don't get to complain.

And by all accounts Democrats made good on their established shitty voter base. Hip and sooooo not bigoted, but moving your hip ass to the polls is too much to ask.

Must be Hillary's baggage, except for all the other Democrats who lost House/Senate races.

When a negligent scumbag like Marco Rubio can retain his seat in Florida despite being one of the senators with most absences in sessions, you know the Democrat turnout sucks.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:56 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:And when I talked to Hillary supporters, opposition to Trump was their main talking point. You see how this plays?

This is democracy at work. The people motivated to vote won. Those who didn't show up, don't get to complain.

And by all accounts Democrats made good on their established shitty voter base. Hip and sooooo not bigoted, but moving your hip ass to the polls is too much to ask.


And we could have just as easily questioned the wisdom of nominating Trump had the turnout been just a little bit different.

I wasn't critiquing Trump supporters for going negative here... I was trying to suggest that someone who didn't have a pre-established base of opposition might have fared better in the general election.

I was arguing for that anecdotally, though as Sardia pointed out, there could be better justification for the opinion.

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 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:07 pm UTC

One of the things I'm angriest about is the narrative the media fed that a Clinton presidency needed a Republican congress to act as a check on her, and now look what we have. If they had supermajorities, I would be much more terrified. Particularly for the environment.
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
Vahir
Posts: 456
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:20 pm UTC
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Vahir » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:20 pm UTC

What makes ME angriest is that this rewarded Republicans for their years long scummy behavior, especially throwing a tantrum and refusing to acknowledge the Supreme Court pick. Hard to believe in karma when this crap happens.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:00 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.
What Obama didn't have was baggage. Hillary had too much. Hillary shouldn't have been the candidate.

How many points did she lose by being Hillary? Source? I don't disagree, but you need citations.
Some of the issues that cost her.

Had she not felt the need to use a personal server while at State, Comey wouldn't have been a factor in the late election period. No need for a "We need to reopen the investigation" letter and no prior FBI investigation. In the emails from hacked from Podesta her staff questioned why she had done it. (baggage)

The Clinton Foundation. She started running in 99 and she wasn't able to see that the Foundation could be a liability. It gave the impression that the Sec State position was for sale, even if it wasn't.(baggage)

Republicans hated her for being a Clinton. Even when the polls showed her as the likely winner the Republicans were already talking investigations and impeachment. They had pounded her for Benghazi. And this has been part of the Clinton narrative since Bill's terms.(baggage)

Bill. What can I say. In the White House again. Even I worried about it. I mean Trump is a dick about women. But Bill had his own fucking Police lineup of women accusing him of this and that. And a cum stained dress to show that it wasn't bragging.(baggage)

Can I show how many points that cost her. No. But. She. Lost. Against. Donald fucking Trump.

cphite
Posts: 1370
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:06 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:There wasn't anything real and major against Hillary, but there was certainly the perception, and that perception is still baggage, whether it has any basis in reality or not. This had been known since the beginning.


She was under investigation for what, had it actually moved forward, would have been an espionage charge. She and her husband are still under investigation for corruption via the Clinton Foundation. These are both real and major things.

When you combine those things with the multiple times she was caught flagrantly lying about them, they did considerable damage to her credibility with a lot of voters.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:16 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Thesh wrote:There wasn't anything real and major against Hillary, but there was certainly the perception, and that perception is still baggage, whether it has any basis in reality or not. This had been known since the beginning.


She was under investigation for what, had it actually moved forward, would have been an espionage charge. She and her husband are still under investigation for corruption via the Clinton Foundation. These are both real and major things.

When you combine those things with the multiple times she was caught flagrantly lying about them, they did considerable damage to her credibility with a lot of voters.

Huh? No, there was never talk of espionage charges, and the Clinton Foundation is not under investigation for corruption. Those are lies.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:27 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
cphite wrote:
Thesh wrote:There wasn't anything real and major against Hillary, but there was certainly the perception, and that perception is still baggage, whether it has any basis in reality or not. This had been known since the beginning.


She was under investigation for what, had it actually moved forward, would have been an espionage charge. She and her husband are still under investigation for corruption via the Clinton Foundation. These are both real and major things.

When you combine those things with the multiple times she was caught flagrantly lying about them, they did considerable damage to her credibility with a lot of voters.

Huh? No, there was never talk of espionage charges, and the Clinton Foundation is not under investigation for corruption. Those are lies.

Yeah. Espionage and mishandling of classified materials are two entirely different charges. And anyone who thinks she should have actually been criminally charged under the latter is either ignorant of how security cases are treated in practice or has an axe to grind. Seriously, Comey's conclusion that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against her was really, *really* not because he was a liberal hack.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:32 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
GodShapedBullet wrote:
sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.
What Obama didn't have was baggage. Hillary had too much. Hillary shouldn't have been the candidate.

How many points did she lose by being Hillary? Source? I don't disagree, but you need citations.


Anecdotally, this really resonates. Most of the time I was talking to Trump supporters, opposition to Clinton was their main talking point. Right-wing talk radio was mostly anti-Clinton talk, a lot less pro-trump.

But I can't exclude that this was simply the most rhetorically convenient talking point... not really the justification for their vote or support, but simply easier than getting into a debate about Trump's demeanor or policy.



And when I talked to Hillary supporters, opposition to Trump was their main talking point. You see how this plays?

This is democracy at work. The people motivated to vote won. Those who didn't show up, don't get to complain.

And by all accounts Democrats made good on their established shitty voter base. Hip and sooooo not bigoted, but moving your hip ass to the polls is too much to ask.

Must be Hillary's baggage, except for all the other Democrats who lost House/Senate races.

When a negligent scumbag like Marco Rubio can retain his seat in Florida despite being one of the senators with most absences in sessions, you know the Democrat turnout sucks.

That's not true. Hillary voters wanted Hillary. You're making a false equivalence without data.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 9073,d.eWE
Democrats lost for a lot of reasons, don't make up false ones.

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 3:57 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Lucrece wrote:
GodShapedBullet wrote:
sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.
What Obama didn't have was baggage. Hillary had too much. Hillary shouldn't have been the candidate.

How many points did she lose by being Hillary? Source? I don't disagree, but you need citations.


Anecdotally, this really resonates. Most of the time I was talking to Trump supporters, opposition to Clinton was their main talking point. Right-wing talk radio was mostly anti-Clinton talk, a lot less pro-trump.

But I can't exclude that this was simply the most rhetorically convenient talking point... not really the justification for their vote or support, but simply easier than getting into a debate about Trump's demeanor or policy.



And when I talked to Hillary supporters, opposition to Trump was their main talking point. You see how this plays?

This is democracy at work. The people motivated to vote won. Those who didn't show up, don't get to complain.

And by all accounts Democrats made good on their established shitty voter base. Hip and sooooo not bigoted, but moving your hip ass to the polls is too much to ask.

Must be Hillary's baggage, except for all the other Democrats who lost House/Senate races.

When a negligent scumbag like Marco Rubio can retain his seat in Florida despite being one of the senators with most absences in sessions, you know the Democrat turnout sucks.

That's not true. Hillary voters wanted Hillary. You're making a false equivalence without data.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 9073,d.eWE
Democrats lost for a lot of reasons, don't make up false ones.


I take it you're read the graph you linked, right? The gap in likability between Clinton and Trump is around a 15% one for those who vote for them. Compared to the higher gap between Obama and Clinton.

You also seemed to miss the point I made in that post. That what I gleam from talking to opponents means little since I may get the impression most voted against Trump when it might not be the case.

Even reading at the end of that old post you linked, you have to chuckle at the "good news for Clinton".
Last edited by Lucrece on Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:05 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:00 pm UTC

The question running through my mind is "Am I naive for thinking that a different democrat would have done better related to Hillary Clinton's high disapproval ratings and a lifetime of, at least, negative attacks against her?"

On one hand, the right wing media machine is relentless and efficient, they would have brought up dirt and discredited whoever the Democrats nominated. They barely touched Bernie Sanders. What would they have turned him into? How many times would they have replayed that quote of Sanders saying that when you are white you don't know what it's like to be poor and live in a ghetto?

On the other hand, I think there are a lot of republicans who could have been turned but they just weren't ready to vote for Hillary Clinton after a lifetime of considering her a political opponent.

I suppose it stands mentioning as we look back on the election in hindsight: there weren't a lot of choices available. Just Bernie Sanders pretty much. And at the time, I don't know if democrats were unreasonable for seeing him as the more risky option.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:02 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:With the notable exception of his anti-immigration stance, his politics were quite left-wing, he often attacked Labour for undermining the welfare state.


Cesar Chavez was also vehemently against immigration. Because no matter how you crunch the numbers, immigration will squeeze wages downward. It's complicated, obviously; the economy virtually always grows by introducing immigrants so it does help if you have large national debt, and some immigrants will cause the economy to grow enough to in the long-run increase per worker GDP, but unless you have some seriously screwed up technology issues, the per-worker GDP always initially falls.

Immigration is an issue that's neither fully left nor right.

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 4:03 pm UTC

GodShapedBullet wrote:The question running through my mind is "Am I naive for thinking that a different democrat would have done better related to Hillary Clinton's high disapproval ratings and a lifetime of, at least, negative attacks against her?"

On one hand, the right wing media machine is relentless and efficient, they would have brought up dirt and discredited whoever the Democrats nominated. They barely touched Bernie Sanders. What would they have turned him into? How many times would they have replayed that quote of Sanders saying that when you are white you don't know what it's like to be poor and live in a ghetto?

On the other hand, I think there are a lot of republicans who could have been turned but they just weren't ready to vote for Hillary Clinton after a lifetime of considering her a political opponent.

I suppose it stands mentioning as we look back on the election in hindsight: there weren't a lot of choices available. Just Bernie Sanders pretty much. And at the time, I don't know if democrats were unreasonable for seeing him as the more risky option.



Democrats stepped on it when they didn't pick Warren instead.

More than anything these elections showed that a warchest will not get you elected, looking at Jeb Bush (total disaster) or Clinton.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:14 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:
GodShapedBullet wrote:The question running through my mind is "Am I naive for thinking that a different democrat would have done better related to Hillary Clinton's high disapproval ratings and a lifetime of, at least, negative attacks against her?"

On one hand, the right wing media machine is relentless and efficient, they would have brought up dirt and discredited whoever the Democrats nominated. They barely touched Bernie Sanders. What would they have turned him into? How many times would they have replayed that quote of Sanders saying that when you are white you don't know what it's like to be poor and live in a ghetto?

On the other hand, I think there are a lot of republicans who could have been turned but they just weren't ready to vote for Hillary Clinton after a lifetime of considering her a political opponent.

I suppose it stands mentioning as we look back on the election in hindsight: there weren't a lot of choices available. Just Bernie Sanders pretty much. And at the time, I don't know if democrats were unreasonable for seeing him as the more risky option.



Democrats stepped on it when they didn't pick Warren instead.


Makes sense...

You could probably argue that both Trump and Clinton could have benefited from someone who was a bigger distraction. Neither Clinton or Trump benefitted when the focus was on them. But while Trump gained conservative support with the Pence nomination*, Kaine didn't have that effect.

*My only source for this is anecdotal: hearing from reluctant Trump supporters and also people voting for him with the understanding that through a series of events Pence would eventually end up president.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:26 pm UTC

https://community.spiceworks.com/topic/ ... -elections

Hmm, maybe this "smarter than we thought" effect really has some teeth into it. Avinash Iragavarapu has begun to talk about how he helped Trump analyze the big-data to target the right voters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDNb3oihLMc

I don't speak... whatever India (subcontenent) language that is. But allegedly its an interview with Avinash Iragavarapu

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

If we assume that Donald Trump's analytic team was better than Clinton's... then the effect of Bernie Sanders would have been that Trump would have run simply a different campaign against him. We don't know how Trump vs Sanders would have gone down, but I bet you it would involve a lot of "Socialist" slurs.

It is said that Obama's 2008 rise was due to big-data and effective use of online mediums to communicate with the younger generation. But if Avinash Iragavarapu is right, then Trump's rise was because of Avinash's superior use of the technique.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:34 pm UTC

Dammit, I read up on Pence and like him less and less. And I get the impression that Trump is going to run around leaving Pence in charge.

*Denies climate change and opposes all renewable energies
*Supports charter schools, aka Segregation 2.0
*Thinks it should be legal to have guns on school
*Sponsored legislation that would make sexual orientation grounds for discrimination
*Eliminated funding for testing clinics while Southern Indiana currently has an AIDS epidemic
*"tough on drugs" even though that makes the drug problem worse


Trump may seriously have a Veep more horrific than he is.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:39 pm UTC

Pence has also supported "gay conversion therapy". He's pretty terrible in his own special way, yeah.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
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 10, 2016 4:44 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Dammit, I read up on Pence and like him less and less. And I get the impression that Trump is going to run around leaving Pence in charge.

*Denies climate change and opposes all renewable energies
*Supports charter schools, aka Segregation 2.0
*Thinks it should be legal to have guns on school
*Sponsored legislation that would make sexual orientation grounds for discrimination
*Eliminated funding for testing clinics while Southern Indiana currently has an AIDS epidemic
*"tough on drugs" even though that makes the drug problem worse


Trump may seriously have a Veep more horrific than he is.


Add to that list support for so-called 'conversion therapy', which has a suicide rate of something like 8 times the national average for LGBTQ youth, who have one of the highest rates of suicide anyways.

(ninja'd)
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:25 pm UTC

GodShapedBullet wrote:The question running through my mind is "Am I naive for thinking that a different democrat would have done better related to Hillary Clinton's high disapproval ratings and a lifetime of, at least, negative attacks against her?"

One thing I think we should keep in mind when looking back is that you can't evaluate a candidate only by their weaknesses. You can point at mistakes Clinton made, but you have to keep in mind that every candidate would have made mistakes. You can look at Clinton's weaknesses, but then you also have to look at her strengths.

She managed to build a huge coalition that supported her. That's no easy feat. She managed to raise a lot of funds, and was running what was by all accounts a very competent campaign. She is generally considered to have won all three debates. During the campaign she was often praised for how she handled Trump's antics.

Would a candidate that also did all of that, but without her baggage and mistakes, have done better. Well yes obviously. But how realistic is that. Every candidate has flaws and weaknesses.

"We would have won if we had ran a perfect campaign" is a very weak argument.

Not saying that one candidate can't be weaker than another. But you can't honestly evaluate that without looking at both the flaws and the strengths of both candidates.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
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 10, 2016 5:27 pm 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.
Oh, yeah? What about the country that used its military to prevent the Kurdish forces from cutting off the only land border between ISIS and Europe, effectively protecting the channel for new recruits going to join the nutters and trained recruits coming back to attack us? If you think Turkey's bad, what about ...

... oh, wait. That was Turkey. Okay. Never mind. Carry on.

They seem to be trying to take northern Iraq off the Kurds too, about which the government in Baghdad can't be at all happy. Just what ISIS need: resentment, distrust and squabbling among their enemies.

Well, at least we're not entirely SURE that Erdogan's an Islamist, so there's that crumb of ... no, wait. That wasn't a crumb of hope. That was a bit of peach pit. Okay. Never mind.

I've been to Turkey, twice. The Turks seemed alright to me, generally decent sorts, kinda relaxed about health and safety compared to here but in no way troublesome, awkward or unfriendly. I liked 'em. I'm not right keen on their current government, though. There have been stories in the papers these last few years ...

Similar situation with Iran, to a large extent. They seem to be getting better, though. The head of state told Ahemdinejad not to run for President again, so he's at least savvy and diplomatic enough not to ... well, not to Trump.

Did you hear about Turkish border patrols shooting Syrian refugees? Shame we can't welcome most of the people into Europe without letting their government come too.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 636
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:58 pm UTC

I'm honestly very proud to say I'm straight, I'm a Christian, I'm a conservative, I'm a Republican, and I supported Trump since the first debate of the Republican primary.

The Great Hippo wrote:Pence has also supported "gay conversion therapy". He's pretty terrible in his own special way, yeah.

I also find this horrifying. Conversion therapy for any reason is bullshit, and sexual orientation even more so. There is absolutely no justification for "helping" people become "normal." If someone is gay and doesn't want to be, help them. If someone is gay and wants to be, shut the fuck up and let them be gay.
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
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:01 pm UTC

It's even worse when it targets teenage kids -- pressured by their parents into something they probably don't want, already deeply confused about their sexuality, leading to a spike in suicide rates that are already disturbingly high.

Basically, fuck Pence.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1846
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 10, 2016 6:20 pm UTC

Yablo wrote:I'm honestly very proud to say I'm straight, I'm a Christian, I'm a conservative, I'm a Republican, and I supported Trump since the first debate of the Republican primary.



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 10166.html

I hope you're very proud of yourself that you're not going to be a victim of this.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

kiklion
Posts: 513
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 5:02 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby kiklion » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:22 pm UTC

When talking about baggage, it was ignored that their baggage was targeted at different groups.

The people who were bothered by her emails, by the preferential treatment she seemed to have received compared to other examples of mishandling information, and how she handled the situation by writing off the situation as unimportant (basically saying 'the things you care about don't really matter. Just drop it.') are a different set of people then those turned off because 'Obama is muslim' or 'Obama wasn't born here'.

Obama lost votes he wasn't going to get anyway, Clinton lost votes she could have gotten, especially because of how terrible Trump is.

User avatar
Quantized
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 4:38 pm UTC
Location: Unable to be measured accurately

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quantized » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:22 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Dammit, I read up on Pence and like him less and less. And I get the impression that Trump is going to run around leaving Pence in charge.

*Denies climate change and opposes all renewable energies
*Supports charter schools, aka Segregation 2.0
*Thinks it should be legal to have guns on school
*Sponsored legislation that would make sexual orientation grounds for discrimination
*Eliminated funding for testing clinics while Southern Indiana currently has an AIDS epidemic
*"tough on drugs" even though that makes the drug problem worse


Trump may seriously have a Veep more horrific than he is.


The problem is, Trump may not have the 'temperament' to be President- Sitting behind a desk all day reading briefings does not seem to be his cup of tea. Pence has a good chance to be running the show in the Trump administration, which is incredibly concerning for both America and the world, especially in terms of climate change.
Last edited by Quantized on Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26821
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 6:23 pm UTC

Yeah, Pence is the main reason I'm not wishing Trump a swift death. He says things almost as insane as Trump, and actually seems to believe them and be willing to stand by them.

Edit: of course, as mentioned Pence is mostly going to be rinning things anyway, it seems.
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)

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:33 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Yes, someone can totally have different priorities than you, personally, do, and yet not be a racist.

Oh yeah, of course! 100% agreement! I just don't think that's the case here.


I mean, there's some racists, sure.

But say, when you look at areas that formerly went for Obama, and then voted Trump...it seems likely that there's another factor responsible for that. The racist vote probably didn't support Obama.

cphite wrote:The point is, despite all of the rhetoric and charges of racism, Trump did extremely well (again, relatively speaking) with minority voters. I don't believe that'd be the case if those folks truly believed he was going against their interests.

You're assuming people who aren't white can't be racist, that's wrong, that's not true. People of color can be racist. Just as LGBTQ people can be homophobic, and women can be misogynist. "People of color voted for him so he can't be that racist" shows a misunderstanding of racism, frankly.


Sure. But when you have MORE minorities voting for Trump than for Romney, that's interesting. It doesn't support those communities as seeing him as exceptionally bad. Relative to other Republicans, at least. Sure, they can be mistaken, but I think you have to give the community voice some credit.

Fivethirtyeight has a breakdown of women voters: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-women/

Relative to other Republican candidates, Trump did excellent at appealing to minorities. Or, framed another way, Clinton lacked appeal. The latter is probably a more informative way to view it, I think. Another candidate matched against Trump might have done much better.

People are not racist merely because they voted for Trump. A better Democrat candidate who captured more of the vote wouldn't have immediately resulted in a less-racist America. Yes, Trump himself is lacking, but to frame the entire election as about this issue and no other is particularly blind.

Mutex wrote:I understand Zohar is saying that racism is a continuum, and the less you value fighting racism as a priority, the more racist you are.


I even disagree with this. Someone can value the crap out of fighting racism, and still be incredibly racist in practice. Lots of patronizing bullshit happens due to these sorts of views. Valuing something isn't exactly the same as being good at it. And having other values doesn't make you a racist.

Racism is discriminating against people on the grounds of race. If it's something like folks not voting for Obama 'cause of his race, bam, open and shut. If not voting for another reason, fine. You can calculate the aggregate effect, even if it's not a sole factor for everyone. But calling everyone who votes for/against a single person a racist is ridiculous.

LaserGuy wrote:[edit]One of the Wikileaks emails apparently shows that the Clinton campaigned wanted to intentionally elevate the extreme right candidates in the Republican field (identified and Trump, Cruz, and Carson) in order to drag the whole party further to the right and make it more unpalatable to the general electorate.


Some people here, even, expressed such views during the primary. Hoping for a horrible candidate so they would lose the general. It's a dangerous strategy.

Vahir wrote:
cphite wrote:Racism might well be a factor, probably is one. But frankly, I think the biggest reason he won is that people are sick of what's happening with the US government. There are a whole lot of people out there who no longer believe that their government represents them anymore, or even cares to.


Yes, which is why the Republican establishment was eradicated this election. Oh wait, those guys still got elected.

Dissatisfaction might be a reason but it's hardly the biggest one.


Trump ain't establishment. He was elected. Look at the races of the R. Senators who didn't endorse Trump. It didn't go well for them. There was a substantial anti-establishment factor.

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?


Not a trump supporter, but anyways, here goes.

Wouldn't stress about it overly much, that's unlikely to go anywhere. It's not even in his hundred day plan*, and if it was, it'd almost certainly get shut down. Also, Turkey isn't usually the country that gets brought up when people are concerned about Muslims. People usually mean Syria, Iran, etc. That said, read the newspapers, stay informed about proposals, write your congresspeople, etc. It doesn't hurt to keep an eye on things just in case, and to be involved in politics.

*a ban, at any rate, isn't.

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


Yeah. Denialism is irksome, but actual progress beats futile words. Hopefully something gets done on this.

sardia wrote: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.


Yeah. Those working class people got sold a lie. Coal industry's still gonna suck. Good politics to make that promise, I suppose, but it ain't happening. People overestimate a president's power, sometimes.

Adacore wrote: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?


Quite a lot. One popular meme that was going around was a link to an article that showed you how to quickly unfriend all friends who liked Trump. Given that "liking" something is essentially just a way to follow it(though I'd imagine it correlates heavily with support), it seems like people are deliberately crafting echo chambers. It's not an accidental occurrence.

Turns out I've got essentially equal numbers of both(off by one). Wildly high numbers of Libertarian friends as compared to the national breakdown, tho, so still a certain degree of echo chamber/herding happening, even among third party.

Apparently, there's some sort of "conservative twitter" that people are abuzz over, thanks to twitter censorship or something? Haven't really followed it since I despise twitter, but also seems like a valid example of what you're talking about.

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.


This is true. But Trump tends to view things extremely pragmatically. He'll totally work with someone he formerly bashed, the instant it's useful to him. So, he probably doesn't care at all about historical military difficulties. Too far from his interests.

sardia wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.
What Obama didn't have was baggage. Hillary had too much. Hillary shouldn't have been the candidate.

How many points did she lose by being Hillary? Source? I don't disagree, but you need citations.


Fortunately, we have a historical direct comparison of electoral appeal between Clinton and Obama. Was about 1% of the Democratic vote, during the primary. Close race. That said, Clinton was the establishment favorite, which does put a finger on the scales.

Still, even a single percentage point higher turnout among democrats would have helped her. A coupla percentage points better Democratic turnout, and we'd definitely have a different election story. Even 2% makes a vast difference.

Izawwlgood wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
Lucrece wrote:The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.
What Obama didn't have was baggage. Hillary had too much. Hillary shouldn't have been the candidate.

... are you kidding me? Do you NOT remember the rhetoric of 08? Obama was a waffler! He's a Muslim! He wasn't born in this country! I don't know where he stands on the issues!


Obama did not inspire Republicans to vote for him, but he *did* inspire Democrats. Good ground game, excellent turnout. I mean, sure Republicans hated him. That's irrelevant, though.

I believe Obama would have beaten Trump in a head to head race.

GodShapedBullet wrote:The question running through my mind is "Am I naive for thinking that a different democrat would have done better related to Hillary Clinton's high disapproval ratings and a lifetime of, at least, negative attacks against her?"

...
I suppose it stands mentioning as we look back on the election in hindsight: there weren't a lot of choices available. Just Bernie Sanders pretty much. And at the time, I don't know if democrats were unreasonable for seeing him as the more risky option.


Sanders was risky. He's far enough left to risk losing people in the middle. However, he looks much better when compared against Trump as a person, looking at factors such as credibility and likeability. I think the ideal candidate would have looked something like a more moderate Sanders.

I suspect the idea of Clinton as the de-facto candidate kept others out of the race. Thin bench is a factor, sure, but a presidential run is a big undertaking, and running against the establishment favorite is a tough call if you're pretty close to that person on issues.

Agreed w/regards to Pence being awful.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby duckshirt » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:45 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:The whole idea that Hillary just couldn't inspire like Obama is a load of shit, anyways. Trump was up for election, that simple.


No secret that people were less inspired to vote Hillary than Obama. However it's not entirely her fault. Gay Marriage for example may have motivated lots of Millennials to vote for her, but that's already been done.
lol everything matters
-Ed

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:59 pm UTC

People forget that Obama's rise was due to his "inexperience". He's the outside man who can change things.

Its hard to think of Obama as inexperienced today, but with only like one partial term in the Senate, he was basically a political neophyte. America clearly wants non-Politicians to go to Washington and disrupt it.

Right or Left, that's something that connects everybody together for the past decade.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:19 pm UTC

Don J. said, "No one knows how to 'Rig' the system like I do."
Why no congratulations on an openly 'Rigged' election?

What? Really?
It wasn't 'Rigged'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulOhoEpUTw8
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby EdgarJPublius » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:32 pm UTC

Honestly, I feel like Obama's inexperience showed, and cost him big, especially in the second term.

He just couldn't find a way to work with congress, and that's not entirely, or even mostly his fault, but instead of going back to congress when they rebuffed him and trying to find common ground for deals and compromises, he just tried to force what he wanted through with executive action that only served to entrench the republicans in congress against him even more than they already were.

I liked Obama at the start and had great hopes for his promises of 'Hope and Change' but in the end, he just wasn't that great of a president.

In a few months, after Trump's had his first 100 days, how much of Obama's 'legacy' will even be left? Even his supreme court picks are likely to be drowned out by the one he essentially forfeited plus whatever other spots Trump is going to get to fill.
Last edited by EdgarJPublius on Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

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

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8567
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

I apologize for not responding to previous messages - I became very tired and exhausted, and wasn't sure I'm explaining myself.

Yes, I still think voting for Trump is an indicator of some amount of racism on the part of the voter. However, I don't think that's a helpful distinction to make, it's not conducive to communication. I consider it a personal goal for myself to manage to develop empathy for his supporters. I find that very challenging, but it's a crucial step in acclimating to this new reality.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Thu Nov 10, 2016 8:01 pm UTC

sardia wrote:http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days
Trump releases his 100 day plan, then McConnell takes his favorites. Says "not on my watch" to the rest. Trump needs to realize who thinks is in charge here and who's in charge there. Is he gonna compromise? Start a fight? Nobody can trust Trump's words so nobody knows.
It will be very interesting to see how the conflict plays out between president Trump and prime minister McConnell.

A lot of the deltas seem to be really popular with the "change the broken system" crowd. McConnell's actual senate seat is completely secure for four years, but that's not really the source of most of his power.

I'm guessing that McConnell is going to try and take a passive-aggressive tact. I don't think Trump would react well to McConnell saying "Mr. President, you will not ____". I mean well for McConnel, I would love it if Trump attacks McConnel over term limits.

sardia wrote:It's hard to push a string.
That's what Melania said.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests