U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[matias93 7,535]

Well guys, you know, Chile has some lazy migratory regulations, specially for people from developed countries, there are jobs for immigrants, variety of climates and first of all, most simulations show nuclear debris doesn't reach this part of the world. Maybe the only problem is that we talk too fast and no one understands us. If moving to Canada doesn't work on time, you are more than invited.

[Sabretooth78 808]

6 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

I am so proud of America right now, Tonight we chose ethics over shady politics,  Onward to the new realm of American polices, One that does not involve FBI investigations.

IIRC, the FBI said they weren't going to investigate her further anyway - as I had previously expected.  What remains to be seen now - who else out there thinks that Hillary might land a plum position somewhere in Washington?  Especially considering that behind the scenes, she and Trump are BFFs?  I'm not so certain it would be Cabinet-level (that would be too awkward even for Trump), but it would certainly create an interesting reaction.

2 hours ago, Delta 88 said:

Aaaand the protests have begun, namely in my state, California. Some fires too, in Oakland. There's that "progressive left" doing exactly what they accused the republicans would do if they lost. Glad I ditched that sinking ship of a party five years ago - biggest hypocrites in the world. Apparently the "NotMyPresident" hashtag is already trending. Interesting, since these are the same people who ridiculed right-wingers for using the exact same slogan against Obama in 2008 and 2012. "But it's okay when I do it because I'm right!"

Supporters of the republican party (I can't in good conscience call them conservatives) do the same thing.  It's the pabulum of the masses for the followers of those "two" wayward ships.  One need only look at the similarities between the Bush and Obama presidencies, and the relationship between the reactions of the opposing factions.  Born followers.

1 hour ago, matias93 said:

Well guys, you know, Chile has some lazy migratory regulations, specially for people from developed countries, there are jobs for immigrants, variety of climates and first of all, most simulations show nuclear debris doesn't reach this part of the world. Maybe the only problem is that we talk too fast and no one understands us. If moving to Canada doesn't work on time, you are more than invited.

I've flown to Chile - in a flight simulator :).  I'll keep that option open but right now I'm wondering if it's the right time to attempt that jump to Anguilla.  Well, not seriously yet, but closer every day.  I knew months ago it would jump a bit this particular morning.

 

"Hey, don't blame me - I voted for the green M&M."

[MushyMushy 3,618]

I think something that might be worth discussing is the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by around ~140,000 people but lost by such a big margin in the Electoral College. Why do people still argue that the EC is a fair and just system? It places unfair favorability on low-population states like Wyoming or Vermont...

[matias93 7,535]

17 minutes ago, MushyMushy said:

I think something that might be worth discussing is the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by around ~140,000 people but lost by such a big margin in the Electoral College. Why do people still argue that the EC is a fair and just system? It places unfair favorability on low-population states like Wyoming or Vermont...

Has someone on the DNC or the Clinton campaign said something about this? Having knowledge of the voter supersession and this small margin, there could be a case for reaching the supreme court, like in 2000. Obviously, it would be terribly ironic and would feed Trump with much more legitimacy: 'liberals accusing him of non compromising to recognise the results and then is she whom tries to thwart the outcome' and so. 

As bad as it sounds, maybe the best chance for democrats now is simply to keep organised and begin the 2020 campaign now... Even maybe the 2024 one, provided Trump won't change reelection rules in the meantime

[LivingInThePast 364]

53 minutes ago, MushyMushy said:

I think something that might be worth discussing is the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by around ~140,000 people but lost by such a big margin in the Electoral College. Why do people still argue that the EC is a fair and just system? It places unfair favorability on low-population states like Wyoming or Vermont...

Didn't those votes come from mostly California though? The popular vote isn't the best system in case there's election fraud going on in a few states (which is what I expect may have happened).

[GMT 389]

Just what I expected to happen.

Guess it takes more than "Don't vote Trump, he's an idiot" to get people to vote for Hillariousy.

Been there done that in Germany throught the last elections in several federal states. A rightwing-ish party scored quite good percentages at first try and everybody lost their mind because they thought ranting and calling them out as a rightwing idiots would be enough to keep people from voting for this party.

At least Trump is a narcissist fool w/o any real political ambitions besides scratching "President of the United States" from his personal bucket list...

[MushyMushy 3,618]

1 hour ago, LivingInThePast said:

Didn't those votes come from mostly California though? The popular vote isn't the best system in case there's election fraud going on in a few states (which is what I expect may have happened).

If we don't use popular votes for stuff, we aren't a democracy, we're a republic. The US sure does love to throw around its status as the world's best democracy for some reason though.

Why does it matter if they come from California though? Should people's votes in states like Wyoming, Vermont, and Montana be worth more than votes in Texas and California because they live in an empty state instead of a populous one? I find that concept horrendously undemocratic.

I hear the idea all the time about how we have to protect small states from being overpowered by big states. What does that even mean? Of course they should be overruled. A state of 33m should overrule 10 states with 1m. Democracy is based on majority rule and 33m is still greater than 10m even if the 10m comes from 10 states.

[matias93 7,535]

44 minutes ago, MushyMushy said:

If we don't use popular votes for stuff, we aren't a democracy, we're a republic. The US sure does love to throw around its status as the world's best democracy for some reason though.

Why does it matter if they come from California though? Should people's votes in states like Wyoming, Vermont, and Montana be worth more than votes in Texas and California because they live in an empty state instead of a populous one? I find that concept horrendously undemocratic.

I hear the idea all the time about how we have to protect small states from being overpowered by big states. What does that even mean? Of course they should be overruled. A state of 33m should overrule 10 states with 1m. Democracy is based on majority rule and 33m is still greater than 10m even if the 10m comes from 10 states.

Popular vote is by no means an insurance against populism: dozens of popular elections have ended with populists in power in all the world; the fact that the college system in the US favours rural interests just casually aligns with populism now, but it can be otherwise.

The background issue is: if Trump was decided to insist on the presidency, he would eventually win it, and on this base and campaign. One could blame Clinton on her corruption, secrecy, or even femaleness as the reason for losing, but a result like the current one is much more determined on previous facts, like the way the 2008 crisis impacted the population or the way racial conflict was thematised during Obama governments (by himself in certain measure, but mainly by the opposition)

[Sabretooth78 808]

3 hours ago, matias93 said:

As bad as it sounds, maybe the best chance for democrats now is simply to keep organised and begin the 2020 campaign now... Even maybe the 2024 one, provided Trump won't change reelection rules in the meantime

Expect to hear more from/about Andrew Cuomo.  He's currently governor of New York State, and while I don't care for him, so far he's gotten things done.  Well, we're still last or near last in most state rankings of economic freedom and business friendliness and we're still the only state with a Wall Street that can't figure out how to balance a budget without said Wall Street bonuses.  So he gets some things done.  He's good at putting lipstick on a pig.  He's got a famous Daddy and he's padding his resume.  All that said i would have taken him in a heartbeat over Hilarity.

 

1 hour ago, MushyMushy said:

If we don't use popular votes for stuff, we aren't a democracy, we're a republic. The US sure does love to throw around its status as the world's best democracy for some reason though.

When you get right down to it, we really are a very backwards country.  And I don't mean that as an entirely bad thing, either.  At the close of the 18th century we were quite backwards in the sense that we thought bottom-up governance worked, being the first colonial possession anywhere to achieve independence, etc.; you know, America as an idea was a very backwards one at the time.  But when you're the leader, is backwards really backwards or is it forwards?

It'll be interesting to see when once one of the causes of yesterday's events, our convulsive and reactionary fear of a world where we are no longer the leading superpower, comes to pass.  Being backwards might not be so...popular...anymore.  Let's hope Trump is a better president than he is a businessman, because that record isn't very promising.

[matias93 7,535]

49 minutes ago, Sabretooth78 said:

Let's hope Trump is a better president than he is a businessman, because that record isn't very promising.

Just look at the stock markets, particularly the sovereign bonds: China is rocketing, and is not casual.

[Larks2242 251]

Now we keep our fingers crossed for poor health among the supreme court, Trump has the oppertunity to replace possibly 4 justices if they all die or retire within his term, With the senate and house held by republican, His nominations should be a breeze.

[Odainsaker 2,137]

Already wishing for sickness and even death upon others?  Hate really does trump love!

Wasn't it also being promised that, along immediate impeachment hearings, Supreme Court nominees would be filibustered for four or even eight years if Clinton had won or the Republicans became a minority in the Senate?  Watch how fast that obstructionist talk now gets disavowed.  Actually, given that Republicans will control all three branches of government, the majority of governorships, and the majority of state legislatures, it will be scarily interesting to see how they lash out and against whom when things inevitably still don't go their way due to the inherently messy complexities of a federal, representative government.  The system is indeed rigged, but not necessarily in the way they claim, and that may ironically drive them to make it even more rigged.

That reminds me...Trump had his own trial scheduled after the election and now coming later this month involving his Trump University scam, and it will be presided over by a judge who Trump accused of being too Mexican to try him.  Though Trump was expected to have to testify, that is unlikely now, and, if he really wants to challenge the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which he has vowed to do, he is going to get to pack his ultimate judges!  Nominee choices even included his own relatives...

 

The popcorn industry will surely do well the next four years.  So too will Alec Baldwin and his perfectly honed impersonation shtick!

 

  Edited November 9, 2016 by Odainsaker  

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 2016-05-25 at 11:02 AM, MilitantRadical said:

Corporate left-wing media so deliciously out of touch. If Trump wins, this will be the reason why.

 

Feels good.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Rumor has it American health will soon deteriorate

Rumor has it several major technology companies are planning to completely offshore everything, only selling to the US market as foreign companies

Rumor has it the draft will return

Rumor has it China is preparing for WWIII

Rumor has it the USA will be the main instigator and will have no allies

 

Donald Trump won the presidency with fewer than 10% of the popular vote going 3rd party or write-in. I hate breaking promises.

 

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt are good ways to make markets volatile; volatile markets can crash and crashes can lead to permanent changes.

Making mountains out of molehills also works.

The rise in the price of gold already shows a panic.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 2016-04-12 at 7:15 PM, igotthis said:

Anyway, I look forward to November, whether it is slimeball Cruz or egomaniac Trump against Clinton or Sanders. Dems will wipe the floor with any candidate they can put up. The disarry in their Party gives me great joy and laughter.

IGT

 

On 2016-04-13 at 10:08 AM, MilitantRadical said:

Clinton would get destroyed by Trump, or at least they'd destroy each other. The Clintons are so dirty only reason they're still in the game is because the media is generally afraid to expose them, even Fox News because Rupert Murdoch has money on Hilary. You think the "super predators" comment was bad? Wait 'till the fact that Bill Clinton helped smuggle the very drugs that caused the crack epidemic comes out again. Bill Clinton has sexually harassed and possibly even raped women. Hilary used the FBI to intimidate Bill's victims. She has a lot of weaknesses and Trump will exploit them.

The world cannot be understood from an ivory tower.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

5 hours ago, MushyMushy said:

If we don't use popular votes for stuff, we aren't a democracy, we're a republic. The US sure does love to throw around its status as the world's best democracy for some reason though.

Why does it matter if they come from California though? Should people's votes in states like Wyoming, Vermont, and Montana be worth more than votes in Texas and California because they live in an empty state instead of a populous one? I find that concept horrendously undemocratic.

I hear the idea all the time about how we have to protect small states from being overpowered by big states. What does that even mean? Of course they should be overruled. A state of 33m should overrule 10 states with 1m. Democracy is based on majority rule and 33m is still greater than 10m even if the 10m comes from 10 states.

But it is a republic...

[Larks2242 251]

1 hour ago, OcramsRzr said:

Rumor has it several major technology companies are planning to completely offshore everything, only selling to the US market as foreign companies

Who creates these rumors? Trump's policy would make jobs leaving less lucrative then staying as opposed to the Clinton business without boarders idea.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

7 minutes ago, Larks2242 said:

Who creates these rumors? Trump's policy would make jobs leaving less lucrative then staying as opposed to the Clinton business without boarders idea.

Nothing is preventing them from completely exiting the US Market. Apple is officially shored in Ireland (with a 2% tax rate it will have to pay). The world is big enough that Silicon Valley is no longer necessary.

[LexusInfernus 908]

10 minutes ago, Larks2242 said:

Who creates these rumors? Trump's policy would make jobs leaving less lucrative then staying as opposed to the Clinton business without boarders idea.

Only if you think America can change the rules of the game and expect everyone else to not react to it. If Trump's gonna do what he promised and start a trade war by raising tariffs and what not, China is just gonna do the same. Yes, you protect your own domestic industry, but at the cost of your own export markets. On top of that, if you raise the cost production, you raise the price of the final product getting sold. So enjoy your price hikes on nearly every commodity you buy.   

[krbe 193]

12 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

If Trump's gonna do what he promised and start a trade war by raising tariffs and what not, China is just gonna do the same. Yes, you protect your own domestic industry, but at the cost of your own export markets.

The US trade balance with China is in excess of -$365 billion dollar. Clearly not the most lucerative export market.

15 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

So enjoy your price hikes on nearly every commodity you buy.  

For some people, politics does not equal an ever growing wallet. Some may value a society where most people have a job and a good life, over the opportunity to fill their ever shrinking homes with more plastic crap bought for by unemployment benefits.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

On 04/05/2016 at 10:28 PM, Ln X said:

I don't think Trump is as extreme as people are making him out to be. He does have a gift for oration and publicity, but so did Obama with the "hope and change" slogan. Rhetoric and slogans do not usually translate into actual political change. So if Trump is elected president I doubt he will do a quarter, even a tenth, of what he is claiming to do.

...

The US's greatest asset is its economic freedom and the petrodollar which protects against inflation. This economic freedom translates into personal freedom. Flirting with a bankruptcy which could happen in the future could mean a real nasty tough spot for the US which could last ten or twenty years. Maybe Trump will show some sense and try to stem the constant rise in government debt. He's the only person who may just come close to doing that. So having a businessman, a tycoon, for president may just make some sense. I think Trump, more than anybody, understands the value of this economic freedom.

At worst Trump will just mean four years of political deadlock and plenty of hot air and venomous rhetoric. At best he may just be a blessing in disguise.

Finally my money is on Clinton winning, simply because she's a woman and it would be setting a precedent. But there is no guarantee of Clinton monoplising the female vote, the black vote, the hispanic vote and all the other minorities' votes. If Trump talks far more economic sense then he will win the presidential election. Money talks. Trump may just be the US' Maggie Thatcher. And believe me during that '79 election all kinds of bollocks were spoken about Thatcher- the rights of ethnic minorities would be curbed, the LGBT community would lose all the progress it had fought so hard to achieve and etc... The exact opposite happened.

 

Just my two cents.

And half a year ago I mentioned Trump could win if he had the better economic arguments. Well it sure convinced most of the rust belt states: Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Though I take back what I said about the political deadlock, Trump is going in with a full house and he is more like a Ronald Raegan figure.

Kudos to MilitantRadical for predicting Trump would win.

[krbe 193]

23 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

Nothing is preventing them from completely exiting the US Market. Apple is officially shored in Ireland (with a 2% tax rate it will have to pay). The world is big enough that Silicon Valley is no longer necessary.

We've been taught to believe that nations are relative and borders irrelevant. They're not. Apple's unusually low tax rate is the product of old tax agreements and boneheaded Irish corporate wooing. No matter; those money will never go to the US anyway, so that's not really a loss. Considering the engineers and researchers in Silicon Valley though, they're not really replaceable. There is no way a similar ecosystem will miraculously pop up in Hyderabad, Shanghai or London just because Mr Trump becomes president.

[MushyMushy 3,618]

34 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

But it is a republic...

I'm not claiming that it's not a republic, I'm talking about how the EC doesn't give people the same voting power. I'm not even looking at this from a partisan point of view - I'm just here for fairness. I don't think that Vermont voters (most of whom I agree with) should have more voting power than Texas voters (the state generally votes for policies and candidates I disagree with), much in the same way I don't think that Wyoming voters should have any more say per capita than Californians get. If a Democrat won a presidential race because of the EC but not the popular vote, sure, I'd be happy they won, but I'd still think it was unfair. Despite my feelings on this, I personally doubt the EC will get dismantled any time soon - if ever.

I also saw something up there in the replies about the "corporate left-wing media." Big surprise - both sides are corporate. Clinton is best buds with the corporations in the same vein that Trump is - plus Trump owns one (shouldn't that theoretically make him worse?). He's not going to make some sweeping change that will save upset rural voters from the corporations any more than Obama was supposed to save disgruntled urban voters from them. Almost all politicians on both sides of the divide either own a business or have close ties with one. If a politician isn't already closely linked with some corporation when they take whatever office they're elected to, they'll probably be by the time they leave office or get reelected. Someone I know has a saying that it's really just a pseudo One Party State that serves businesses and simply throws around opposing buzzwords and talking points that matter to voters (but are irrelevant to business owners and politicians) so there can be two parties - so in the end, it seems like (big) businesses always make it out fine regardless of which party is in power. Maybe it's an overly pessimistic and negative take on things (and of course there are politicians who are "genuine" in both parties) but I have yet to see anything that makes me believe it's not true overall.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

58 minutes ago, Ln X said:

And half a year ago I mentioned Trump could win if he had the better economic arguments. Well it sure convinced most of the rust belt states: Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Though I take back what I said about the political deadlock, Trump is going in with a full house and he is more like a Ronald Raegan figure.

Kudos to MilitantRadical for predicting Trump would win.

I remember reading that comment. it was spot on.

57 minutes ago, MushyMushy said:

I'm not claiming that it's not a republic, I'm talking about how the EC doesn't give people the same voting power. I'm not even looking at this from a partisan point of view - I'm just here for fairness. I don't think that Vermont voters (most of whom I agree with) should have more voting power than Texas voters (the state generally votes for policies and candidates I disagree with), much in the same way I don't think that Wyoming voters should have any more say per capita than Californians get. If a Democrat won a presidential race because of the EC but not the popular vote, sure, I'd be happy they won, but I'd still think it was unfair. Despite my feelings on this, I personally doubt the EC will get dismantled any time soon - if ever.

I also saw something up there in the replies about the "corporate left-wing media." Big surprise - both sides are corporate. Clinton is best buds with the corporations in the same vein that Trump is - plus Trump owns one (shouldn't that theoretically make him worse?). He's not going to make some sweeping change that will save upset rural voters from the corporations any more than Obama was supposed to save disgruntled urban voters from them. Almost all politicians on both sides of the divide either own a business or have close ties with one. If a politician isn't already closely linked with some corporation when they take whatever office they're elected to, they'll probably be by the time they leave office or get reelected. Someone I know has a saying that it's really just a pseudo One Party State that serves businesses and simply throws around opposing buzzwords and talking points that matter to voters (but are irrelevant to business owners and politicians) so there can be two parties - so in the end, it seems like (big) businesses always make it out fine regardless of which party is in power. Maybe it's an overly pessimistic and negative take on things (and of course there are politicians who are "genuine" in both parties) but I have yet to see anything that makes me believe it's not true overall.

I wasn't implying there is no corporate right wing. Don't think you understood my comment if that's what stood out.

Clinton is owned by corporations, Trump owns a corporation. 

[metarvo 711]

Now, here we go!  The establishment has spiraled down in a cloud of smoke, primarily because of unlikely PA.  Those CNN polls were pure bologna, weren't they?

[dc'smycity 30]

Well, they weren't right. Most of that has something to do with the "stigma" of supporting such a cantakerous candidate.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

1 hour ago, metarvo said:

Now, here we go!  The establishment has spiraled down in a cloud of smoke, primarily because of unlikely PA.  Those CNN polls were pure bologna, weren't they?

I banged on about it long enough but the US Presidental polls had a whiff of Brexit error in them, my spidey senses were extra tingled with the never-ending negative news coverage of Trump and the free passes Hillary got. Just like in the run-up to Brexit. Talk about apologist behaviour and double-think.

Anyway, that WTF feeling will last for about several days. It felt like that after Brexit and those were surreal days: David Cameron resigned, the Labour Party revolted against Jeremy Corbyn and Scotland seemed set to cast another independence referendum. Scotland possibly leaving was the most surreal, especially if you live up north in England; the thought of a border where Hadrian's wall used to be boggled my mind.

Now I hear social media suggestions that California should consider leaving the Union; Calexit. I kid you not.

Or to paraphrase Steely Dan's My Old School:

California tumbles into the sea.

That will be the day when Donald Trump wins.

[krbe 193]

1 hour ago, metarvo said:

Those CNN polls were pure bologna, weren't they?

As they all were, with the exception of LA Times. But they're quite shady, those guys.

Seeing the election from Europe, it is safe to say that Mr Trump had no political position, just gaffes -- both recent and vintage -- while Mrs Clinton was only facts, figures and carefully considered positions. From what I've heard from the media and the office today, we're talking about four years of pussygrabbing, the reintroduction of segregation, and the spirit of the MS St Louis in foreign policy matters.

Baroness Warnock on Mrs Thatcher: '[She has a] patronising elocution voice [and] neat well-groomed clothes and hair, packaged together in a way that's not exactly vulgar, just low. [It fills me with] a kind of rage.' The progressive left can team up with the nobility now.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I'm all in favor of California leaving! Western Oregon and Western Washington should leave with them! I'd rather live in Ecotopia than Trump Land! Perhaps, Trump will become kind of Greater Apalachia, with Clinton President of BosWash? Sanders might make a good president of Ecotopia/Left Coast.

  Edited November 9, 2016 by OcramsRzr  

[Odainsaker 2,137]

Has the establishment really "spiraled down in a cloud of smoke"?  The Congressional incumbency was largely reelected and the civil service will always remain.  The same powerbrokers and interests are all still there.  Obama may be going and Trump coming in, but his handlers have already assured their party behind closed doors that he will be what they want despite the public campaign acting.  All that talk about the insidious evils of Wall Street magically whitewashed Trump's own ties to Wall Street and the elite class, but they are still there.  Hey, the markets are back up...our masters know they are safe regardless.

 

Ah well, as a pragmatist I was never interested in somehow spitefully sticking it to the nebulous establishment or cheering impossibly rigid ideological principles.  However, I now have this conundrum:

"We need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power”.

"We're going to open up libel laws, and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

"You're going to have a deportation force"  "They all gotta go...they're gone."

"When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it.  Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength.  That shows you the power of strength."

"Torture works...we should go much stronger than water boarding."

"You have to take out their families!"

"They're not going to refuse me.  If I say do it, they are going to do it."

"And when you're a star, they let you do it.  You can do anything.  Grab them by the..."

 

Which I must now somehow reconcile with:

"Now it’s time for America to bind the wounds of division; have to get together...  I pledge to every citizen of our land that I will be president for all Americans, and this is so important to me."

Embracing unity with self-styled authoritarian power grabbers who want to muzzle, deport, fondle, and torture us and our kids, and we now have to bank on the re-elected Republican establishment to temper it like von Papen.  This is definitely the Year of Cognitive Dissonance.