The Winner of Our Discontent — 2016 U.S. Election Results Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Strangelove

AI Researcher
AKA
hitoshura
Well on the somewhat plus side:

Trump tells supporters committing violence: ‘Stop it’


Did Hitler do that too? I'm asking cause I honestly don't know. If he did, holy shit :monster:


Oh and some of the really GOOD news from here:

Trump said he's "fine" with same-sex marriage remaining legal across the country, and wouldn't appoint Supreme Court judges with the goal of reversing that ruling.
He says abortion might go back to the states decision so I'm hoping most of them just keep it. But at least for now, same sex marriage is safe. I hope he keeps that promise. ^_^
the problem isn't solely what donald trump believes or feels. iirc one of reagan's kids said he spoke favourably, or at least not hatefully, about gay people (i don't know if he knew about rock hudson's personal life pre-aids diagnosis when they were spending time together). but that didn't mean reagan's presidency was a good thing for gay people.

trump isn't just bringing himself to the white house. for one, there's mike pence who is heading up the transition. there's his promises about selecting conservative judges for the supreme court, who are probably not going to be centre-right and probably aren't going to be blocked for a year like obama's pick has been. his promises to overturn all of obama's 'unconstitutional' executive orders, which i think has transformed into 'all of his e.o.'s' by some surrogates. former goldman sachs banker (remember when they were the bad guys) steve bannon from 'platform for the alt-right (read: anti-semitic white nationalists)' breitbart being appointed to a top position which seems to have made anti-semitic white nationalists happy for some strange reason.

he said the case for same-sex marriage was settled by the supreme court, but doesn't seem to think the same about roe v. wade and abortion. saying he's 'fine' isn't a very strong signal of support and willingness to defend it from attacks to overturn it and 'leave it to the states to decide'. (which is what he said months ago when he said he disagreed with the court's marriage equality ruling and it should be a matter for each state.) even just upholding the marriage equality ruling doesn't do anything about anti-discrimination laws that struggle to get passed. so you could get married, but then get fired for it because your employer thinks god doesn't like it. it doesn't help discrimination against trans people.

this will be the most mind numbing part of all the far-right anti-establishment movements so far. the people leading the claim that this is about the common people standing up and the silent majority standing up to the elites (even though in terms of actual votes they end up about half or less)... are rich elites from privileged backgrounds. getting a picture taken with a pint glass in your hand or talking next to a tracker doesn't make you a regular guy.
 
AKA
Jason Tandro, Doc Brown, Santa Christ, FearAddict, Thibault Stormrunner, RN: Micah Rodney
 

Strangelove

AI Researcher
AKA
hitoshura




so does that mean he's going to concede or is he fine with a rigged system if it benefits him

'cause that doesn't sound like even he thinks he should be president
 

Flintlock

Pro Adventurer
As I've said before, using the popular vote count from an election which was not decided by the popular vote is not particularly meaningful because people vote differently depending on the system in place. I don't think it's particularly contradictory for Trump to say he'd like to change the system that elected him. In fact, considering he was vocally against it in 2012, it shows consistency.

I'd have to take my hat off to Trump if he managed to abolish the electoral college. Using a straight vote would still protect the two-party system (unless something like preferential voting was used) but it would be a step in the right direction.
 
AKA
Sonique, Quexinos, Pinkie Pie, Derpy Hooves




so does that mean he's going to concede or is he fine with a rigged system if it benefits him

'cause that doesn't sound like even he thinks he should be president
These pics aren't showing for me....


IMO I feel they should just rework the electoral college. The problem with going to popular vote is

A. The candidates would only campaign in big cities
B. California, Texas and Florida would decide everything.


So I like the idea... but I agree it IS broken :closedmonster:

But I mean realistically in 45 elections, the popular vote only lost 4 times. That's not too bad. Clinton only won the popular vote because she won so big in California. Without California he would have won by 2,123,143. (As the numbers are now anyway) And honestly that would piss me off if all night the candidate I picked was winning and winning... then suddenly ONE state comes in and the other is way the hell in the lead and wins :monster:


EDIT
also, a lot of people don't talk about this, but one of the reasons we have the electoral college is because they didn't trust the people to not vote in some imbecile... WELP

 
Last edited:

Flintlock

Pro Adventurer
IMO I feel they should just rework the electoral college. The problem with going to popular vote is

A. The candidates would only campaign in big cities
B. California, Texas and Florida would decide everything.
I disagree on both counts, but even if you're right, that's no worse than the current system, where candidates only campaign in swing states which end up deciding everything anyway.

The very simple premise is this: one person, one vote. The electoral college distorts that premise. You worry about the big states, but why should their residents' votes matter less than everyone else's?

Even if people in Wyoming feel like they wouldn't matter in a popular vote (which I also disagree with; I think their votes would matter more than they do now), they'd still have two senators and at least one representative, as would every other state.
 
Neo-Nazi groups see Trump as an opportunity, and are apparently banning the swastika and replacing it with the odal rune, in an effort to rebrand and get rid of the stigma. "That mass murder thing? No... We're just misunderstood!" Of course holocaust denial is common among these groups. Conspiratorial thinking is a characteristic also. There's a lot of crossover with the tin foil hat people because everything is apparently orchestrated by 18th century Jewish banking families. "*Stubs toe* Fucking false flag operation!"

The Nazi ideology hasn't changed though. What I find disturbing is that they're arguing they aren't racist. Them, of all people. That's why I view with suspicion anyone claiming they aren't racist when they smell and look like a racist fish.

It goes back to Bannon as chief strategist. Folks all over the spectrum has criticised Trump for that. He might not be specifically a Nazi, but surely a white supremacist in some form. If Breitbart is a news source you take seriously with its flagrant anti-semitic and anti-feminist slant (among other things), we got issues. Explain how the fuck you can read it when it broadbrushes Jews in a derogatory fashion, and says women shouldn't be doing X, Y, and Z? Go to fucking Saudi Arabia you illiberal piece of shit. It is not in the liberal tradition. Nazis and fascists in general were not fucking liberals. They did however preach peace and freedom, like their modern day ultra-authoritarian incarnates. Yet I see supposed libertarians voting for and reading all this shit.

It has nothing to do with "PC policing" or "freedom of speech". If you're not a racist and sexist organisation, you do not become a platform for it, unless it is in a critical fashion. Let those groups make their own platform. Vilification is not free speech anyway. It is essentially harmful, like violence inciting and child pornography. You can actually communicate ideas found in vilification in non-harmful ways, so it is completely unnecessary unless you wish to impose yourself on others freedoms, ie: intimidation, which would be seen as such in the eyes of the law (from the perspective of the reasonable person). People who wish to use this language are not liberals of either left or right wing persuasion. They are authoritarian. "I'm a liberal racist and sexist" is simply not a thing.

The modern day racist is not like that of the 1930s, because back then absurd amounts of racism was common because Scientific Racism was the widely held belief, even in allied countries. Now racists all dog whistle, or simply don't know what the fuck racism is. The systemic nature of it, etc. They turn a blind eye to systemic inequality, and then go apeshit if they see various forms of retaliation to it, and then mischaracterise and misunderstand arguments that follow. Utter ignorance. Stop attacking intellectualism and actually get educated and become an intellectual yourself.

Also... why is this in general? Did we have high hopes for this topic before the election? Lol.
 
Last edited:
One of the crticisms of labelling racist and sexist things for what they are is that people with these beliefs do not come forward. As with anything else (eg: economics, etc), I'm happy to explain why something is what it is and why it is bad, if it is bad. If you shut yourself off from debate, you close yourself off from potential truths. "What if you're wrong?" Argue it out.
 

The Twilight Mexican

Ex-SeeD-ingly good
AKA
TresDias
This thread is in General because it's more of a "mass audience" kind of thread than the campaign discussion thread was, and also because several folks who frequented the campaign thread wanted/requested they be able to post more casually and cathartically as the results came in than was meant to be the case in the News, Politics, Religion & Debate area in general, or the Blind Debate section in particular.
IMO I feel they should just rework the electoral college. The problem with going to popular vote is

A. The candidates would only campaign in big cities
B. California, Texas and Florida would decide everything.
I disagree on both counts, but even if you're right, that's no worse than the current system, where candidates only campaign in swing states which end up deciding everything anyway.
For real. The whole last month of the campaign, right up to Election Day, I was thinking "Jeez, there are 49 other states aside from this one, you guys." North Carolina was a key state this go round, and the Clintons, the Obamas, the VPs and/or Trump were speaking here somewhere every day. Hillary even ended her campaign at a campus in our state capital.
 

Flintlock

Pro Adventurer
I just wanted to be able to post memes and comics and shit. :P I guess there will come a time to move or close this thread. Still not really sure what's the best solution in the long run for political debate, but that's another story.
 
AKA
Sonique, Quexinos, Pinkie Pie, Derpy Hooves
This thread is in General because it's more of a "mass audience" kind of thread than the campaign discussion thread was, and also because several folks who frequented the campaign thread wanted/requested they be able to post more casually and cathartically as the results came in than was meant to be the case in the News, Politics, Religion & Debate area in general, or the Blind Debate section in particular.
IMO I feel they should just rework the electoral college. The problem with going to popular vote is

A. The candidates would only campaign in big cities
B. California, Texas and Florida would decide everything.
I disagree on both counts, but even if you're right, that's no worse than the current system, where candidates only campaign in swing states which end up deciding everything anyway.
For real. The whole last month of the campaign, right up to Election Day, I was thinking "Jeez, there are 49 other states aside from this one, you guys." North Carolina was a key state this go round, and the Clintons, the Obamas, the VPs and/or Trump were speaking here somewhere every day. Hillary even ended her campaign at a campus in our state capital.
Right but with no electoral college they'd be campaigning in big cities in only like 5 states :monster:


At least that's my guess... I'll be honest guys, you make good points and I don't have a solution :awesomonster: I understand why we have the electoral college but it's clearly broken. As much as I dislike Hillary, no one should win the popular vote by over half a million votes and lose the election. I'll be curious to see what they come up with but I highly doubt they'll just do away with it
 
In this urbanised world, where most people live in urban centres, you're going to have disproportionate representation in the cities. I always hear the criticism from the country that inner city liberals just do not understand the needs of the country folk, and there's got to be some truth to this. However, farmers who vote for conspiratorial-thinking politicians who don't believe in climate change don't seem to care about the long term future of their business. Given this job is traditionally handed from one generation to another, they're fucking up their kids livelihoods.

Political views correlates fairly well with geography. I forgot the specifics, but conservatives generally live out in rural regions and are very isolated, where as left-wingers concentrate in urban areas where there is the cultural melting pot. You also have privileged rich folk living in mansion-filled bubbles of ego where they lack interaction with the commoners, etc. Racists generally do not live in the multicultural areas. In Australia, the far-right parties got the most votes in the most culturally homogeneous regions :P. ("I don't like dem brown people... 1,000 kms away!") The only interaction they might have with a minority is a boss-slaveexploited employee relationship out on some farm somewhere. Not only do I know this from personal experience, exploitation from these places is often reported in the news :P. Not all these voters are racists, they just feel left out and think that these politicians speak for them (sound familiar), but they also do not understand the impact of far-right policy on minorities. There is a lack of empathy.

You need a movement that broadly appeals to everyone, which -- and this was just something I was thinking about the other day, so haven't really researched the consequences -- may include what I call "policy zones". After all, policies that may be good for people in the city may not be good for people in the country. If one party recognised that, maybe this is a way forward. I can imagine gaping holes in this very basic idea though :P.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom