PKMN.NET Forums

Misc => Debate => Topic started by: Laprabi on December 18, 2016, 19:40

Title: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Laprabi on December 18, 2016, 19:40
Let's revive this board shall we?

President Trump. I know it's a month or so after the election, but I'm interested to see how people feel about this prospect. Where do you fall on the spectrum? And I'm interested in opinions such as "HE'LL START WW3!" and "HE'S GONNA MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" and everywhere in between these rather polarized viewpoints.

I personally am interested to see how it's all going to go as a nuanced observer. Personally I doubt WW3 will happen, but making America great again is a rather vague statement. What do you think?
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Petzbreeder on December 18, 2016, 20:40
"HE'S GONNA MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN"

Yeah, for himself!

I personally think America is just going to fall apart. He's a sexist, self-obsessed, obnoxious scumbag that I'm not sure anyone really respects. Well, I don't respect him.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Kerou 犠牲 on December 18, 2016, 20:57
I think it trumps Brexit
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: The Hooded Trainer on December 18, 2016, 21:05
I think its silly to say itll be the end of the world, but I think its even sillier to say itll all blow over and he wont have an impact on anything. Basically I think the world four years from now will either be totally different from the one were in now, or will be on its way to becoming totally different, but it will happen so subtly that well bearly register that its happening at all until its too late.

I also think that whether the world will end up in a better or worse state depends entirely on how foreceful the oppositon are in stopping him from doing the stuff he wants to.

To really sum it up though, I think hes a poopy-head with really silly hair, and the idea of him having the nuclear codes terrifies me.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Shaymin on December 18, 2016, 21:16
the sheer fact a man didn't get the popular vote and yet still ended up in the white house is baffling to me. america needs to sort out its voting system cause the collegiate system looks like garbage
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SaRo|Rapidash on December 18, 2016, 21:31
the sheer fact a man didn't get the popular vote and yet still ended up in the white house is baffling to me. america needs to sort out its voting system cause the collegiate system looks like garbage

Yeah I really don't understand why it's a thing for presidential races - like you're only electing one person, unlike say UK elections where each region elects an MP, which contributes to party - here it's literally the whole country voting so may as well just be most-votes-wins? I guess it's got historical reasons or something, but from a pure fairness perspective it's kind of dumb.

Re: Trump tho, I feel like he would be a lot less scary if it weren't a republican dominated Congress too - I don't think he'll be as bad as the media makes out tho, he can't act on a lot of his extreme policy (e.g. making Mexico pay for a wall - that's just not going to happen). I think he'll be fantastic for the UK, however, in that he's already mentioned he wants to return the special relationship back to the Reagan(?)/Thatcher era. Plus given his business skills he will probably be good economically. I guess we just have to hope is questionable humanitarian policies are blocked by congress, or at least the more extreme ones.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: lets all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes on December 18, 2016, 21:51
hes probably going to be your average centre right president and stifled by his own congress in trying to do anything cos they're all petty and selfish. and he'll probably be elected for a second term for more of the same (bush got two terms and so did reagan). or maybe he'll go all Nixon in his second term, the possibility and mental illness is there at least. 

every time he actually has to go through with his promises (see his pre-election talk with the mexican head of state re: The Wall where he was all demure and stim-induced post-manic comedown) he ends up not delivering like so many politicians anyway, so he'll end up being completely toothless, possibly. if he actually puts up The Wall and Banning All Muslims etc. he can enjoy watching unemployment spike and GDP go down cos it turns out fat racists are also lazy and dont want to do factory work or agricultural work and want high payin jobs driving monster trucks/bein bald & pathetic IT people instead and will hypocritically sponge off employment rather than do something "beneath them", so to speak. 

I could be wrong tho. if nothing else it paves the way for a landslide to the dems in 2024?????????????????? hopefully they can put forward a more appealing candidate this time



p.s. we also ended up with Thatcher 2.0 in office our side of the atlantic because our previous Leader decided to gamble the fate of our economic future for a laff, so anyone who was excited by "Thatchgen" (my "shipping" term for reagan/thatcher) better line their underwear with a good few layers of kitchen roll

p.p.s and also edit: electoral college vote is tommorow so its Not Official yet but seein how all the republicans fell in line the minute he destroyed them all its hard to be optimistic

Quote from: everyone
Elections Are A Mess

welcome to the joys and wonder of FPTP where Safe Seats and Gerrymandering etc mean entire prefectures votes can mean about 0.4 of another prefectures votes. idk the generalised term for State or Town or County so im going with the weeaboo japanese option i guess

we got a single attempt to get AV in the uk (not as good as AV+ or STV) but that was quashed heavily by a tory-led and funded NO2AV campaign (remember that?) so i guess we can all enjoy the rich n crafty bein in power for another 99999999999 years i guess
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Laprabi on December 18, 2016, 22:38
To really sum it up though, I think hes a poopy-head with really silly hair, and the idea of him having the nuclear codes terrifies me.

So Trump is going to start a nuclear war? Interesting. Any particular reason you think this?

the sheer fact a man didn't get the popular vote and yet still ended up in the white house is baffling to me. america needs to sort out its voting system cause the collegiate system looks like garbage

Hillary won the popular vote against Obama in '08. Guess who has been President for the past 8 years?

The reason the US has the electoral college is so that the most populous areas don't dominate US politics. If the vote was conducted simply by population, it wouldn't be representative of all areas of America and a few highly populous cities would decide the election. Does this sound fair?

Re: Trump tho, I feel like he would be a lot less scary if it weren't a republican dominated Congress too - I don't think he'll be as bad as the media makes out tho, he can't act on a lot of his extreme policy (e.g. making Mexico pay for a wall - that's just not going to happen). I think he'll be fantastic for the UK, however, in that he's already mentioned he wants to return the special relationship back to the Reagan(?)/Thatcher era. Plus given his business skills he will probably be good economically. I guess we just have to hope is questionable humanitarian policies are blocked by congress, or at least the more extreme ones.

He won't be anywhere near as bad as the media have told everyone he will be. Apart from the fact they were bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign, they spent the better part of a year demonizing Trump, throwing any journalistic integrity out the window in the process. There's a reason fewer than 10% of Americans trust MSM these days, and now they're calling any dissenting news 'Fake News'. Their backpedaling is a great source of amusement for me.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: The Hooded Trainer on December 18, 2016, 23:30
So Drumpf is going to start a nuclear war? Interesting. Any particular reason you think this?

I dont remember saying that. I just think that someone who clearly has no idea how to run a country and who has a lot of issues with people of other countries should not have his hands on those codes. Whether or not hell use them is irrelevant - giving that kind of responsibility to a man like trump shows a great disregard for the safety of the country and the rest of the world.

Also if he does start nuclear war, itll be because of a mean tweet sent to one of americas enemies, probably.


The reason the US has the electoral college is so that the most populous areas don't dominate US politics. If the vote was conducted simply by population, it wouldn't be representative of all areas of America and a few highly populous cities would decide the election. Does this sound fair?


No, thats pretty much how the uk works and its not exactly fair either, given that most of the decisions end up being made by central parts of england with scotland, wales and ireland having pretty much no say in anything whatsoever. I do feel there has to be some kind of middle ground, though. Then again, americas so huge and diverse that i honestly cant think of a fair way of collecting a vote from the whole country at once.

He won't be anywhere near as bad as the media have told everyone he will be. Apart from the fact they were bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign, they spent the better part of a year demonizing Drumpf, throwing any journalistic integrity out the window in the process. There's a reason fewer than 10% of Americans trust MSM these days, and now they're calling any dissenting news 'Fake News'. Their backpedaling is a great source of amusement for me.

Im totally with you on not trusting the media, and its almost entirely their fault that trump was elected in the first place. Well, them, the democratic party (for pushing for hillary despite all her baggage) and the republican party (for pushing for trump, obviously, although tbf the other candidates werent that much better).

On the other hand, i dont think its a good idea to underestimate how much power hell have. Like i said in my previous post, theres not going to be anything world-ending, but i do think there will be lots of small things we probably wont even notice happening. Just looking at the people hes putting into positions of power, and all the awful things they represent, gives me chills. Seriously, weve got people who believe in gay conversation therapy, people who are all for stop-and-frisk, people who dont believe in global warming, etc. At the very least, its not a great look for america.

Whatever, well see what happens over the next 4-8 years. I mean, i hope youre right and this all blows over without anything changing, but after this nightmare of a year im just not sure i have that kind of confidence or faith anymore.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SaRo|Rapidash on December 19, 2016, 00:41
The reason the US has the electoral college is so that the most populous areas don't dominate US politics. If the vote was conducted simply by population, it wouldn't be representative of all areas of America and a few highly populous cities would decide the election. Does this sound fair?

Honestly, yes it does sound fair. Why should someone have their vote count for less because they live in a more populous area? (I.e. If EC votes aren't directly proportional to.population, then denser states will have more people per vote, therefore a person has less say) Surely it is fairest to do what the majority of people want in such an election than what the largest amount of area wants? Why should the president represent more areas if those areas have less people than the ones (s)he does not represent?
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Captain Jigglypuff on December 19, 2016, 19:13
I pretty much accepted it was fate that Trump won. I don't see the point of protesting or even having a recount. I don't like the fact he's now President but I'm not going to fight it or deny the fact he won. My main issue is his lack of a political background and wonder if he thinks this is some sort of game where he can control us? He's not stupid enough to mess with civil rights laws because then there would be revolts and riots which is something he wouldn't want. And I consider his talk of keeping illegal immigrants a joke because a wall won't stop them from getting in. When you are desperate to get something, you become so determined that you won't let anything stand in your way. As for terrorists, banning Middle Easterners from coming over is really stupid. Not all are Muslims and also there are American born terrorists who are white such as the Unibomber or even KKK members. What Trump going to about them? This is what I want to know.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on December 19, 2016, 20:35
So Trump is going to start a nuclear war? Interesting. Any particular reason you think this?

There's many sources for this, but in a foreign policy meeting with Paul Ryan, Trump repeatedly asked "why can't we use nukes?" I'm not sure if he'll actually be serious on this, because he has called out Clinton for things that he should rightfully call her out for (which is everything to do with the middle east over the past decade and a half) but the fact is that the worst part of a Trump presidency is a nuke.

Quote
Hillary won the popular vote against Obama in '08. Guess who has been President for the past 8 years?
Probably because the DNC in general has a really broken system with the superdelegate crap. The DNC primaries are a formality and I wish they would at least stop pretending that our vote matters, or reform the system entirely.

Having that said, a lot of stuff I'm seeing shows that 4 states didn't count in this and the official popular vote had Obama winning. It was kind of surreal, I just remember wanting Obama to win as a 15-16 year old and my whole family went for Clinton. Was the same with Bernie, though I actually voted for Bernie out of protest more than anything, but voted Clinton in the election.

Quote
The reason the US has the electoral college is so that the most populous areas don't dominate US politics. If the vote was conducted simply by population, it wouldn't be representative of all areas of America and a few highly populous cities would decide the election. Does this sound fair?
No, because it actually heavily skews voting. A number of people in California, New York, Maryland, or Texas for instance don't vote at all because they feel that their vote is useless and it's inevitable that their respective states will turn blue or red. Meanwhile, that also means all campaigning goings to key swing states and not historically red states, so instead of California or New York deciding our president, we have to rely on places like Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin. So it ends up being a rule of a bunch of random people in the middle of the country. There is nothing here that suggests that smaller states have a say because those four are medium sized states that determine the president.

It's really a different poison, and the reason why we have a "cities vs rural" difference is a result of the fact that people promise rural areas that their way of life will be preserved when it's not realistic (even though it won Trump the election to do so).

Quote
He won't be anywhere near as bad as the media have told everyone he will be. Apart from the fact they were bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign, they spent the better part of a year demonizing Trump, throwing any journalistic integrity out the window in the process. There's a reason fewer than 10% of Americans trust MSM these days, and now they're calling any dissenting news 'Fake News'. Their backpedaling is a great source of amusement for me.

It's not him I'm worried about, it's his Congress and his VP. Trump himself doesn't succumb to any sense of ideology or political viewpoint. He's pretty much a loud talking idiot. His VP and his Congress will be the primary issue in terms of domestic issues, and fyi the Trump camp is not good at taking dissenting opinions either. Let's not pretend that Trump hates all sources of criticism as well, and not just the MSM for being crappy.

He went off on the actors of Hamilton for waiting until the end to tell Mike Pence how they felt about him, and they did it in an extremely tactful manner and Pence himself didn't mind.

Also, his choice of cabinet is very worrying. One of them said he's drafting a Muslim registry. A few are "climate change deniers" (in quotes because I highly doubt they deny it, so much as are against it purely for business interests, given that American businesses have done a hell of a job spreading propaganda inciting what amounts to science denial). Only one guy is hopeful because he believes in clean energy.

Furthermore, this remains to be seen over the next four years, but a lot of white supremacy groups have come out of the woodworks on the eve of his election. There's been news of a KKK march in North Carolina, the UPenn lynching GroupMe, and various white supremacy groups congregating and saying "Heil Trump." Trump's response to all this was a milquetoast "stop it" which was before much of this had happened, as well as willful ignorance to the harassment that minorities have felt as a result of this (I have anecdotes from many of my friends as well but what I just listed were major events). Having that said, the uncertainty of a Trump presidency is the issue more than anything, and there's a lot that can go wrong and very little which can go right.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on December 20, 2016, 22:34
Just so you know, the Electoral College voted Trump instead of defecting to Clinton like many people hoped they would. I also heard that EC voters may've defected towards Trump, but I seriously doubt that's true.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SaRo|Rapidash on December 20, 2016, 22:48
Just so you know, the Electoral College voted Trump instead of defecting to Clinton like many people hoped they would. I also heard that EC voters may've defected towards Trump, but I seriously doubt that's true.

Someone in Maine voted for Trump despite Clinton winning that state, but that's the only person to completely flip sides afaik. Quite a few defections overall, mostly from Clinton to other democrats, likely in protest re: establishment getting elected to be democrat candidate.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Shaymin on December 20, 2016, 23:20
Someone in Maine voted for Trump despite Clinton winning that state, but that's the only person to completely flip sides afaik. Quite a few defections overall, mostly from Clinton to other democrats, likely in protest re: establishment getting elected to be democrat candidate.
that's because wrongly, democrats believe voting is to make a statement and republicans rightly believe its to gain power.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on December 21, 2016, 01:27
^The Democratic side seems to think it's to either make a statement or it doesn't really matter and voting is a waste of time from what i've seen. Of course there will be some people who don't fit that.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on December 21, 2016, 02:08
that's because wrongly, democrats believe voting is to make a statement and republicans rightly believe its to gain power.
"democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line"

would also like to note that Trump won because of disgruntled voters that want their job back in the rust belt. With an all republican congress and presidency, they're completely screwed in the ass if they don't pull that off, which they won't because those jobs are as good as gone

in reality, i'm crying discrimination and all that crap, but the rust belt is a seriously depressing place to live and ideally the 2020 democratic nomination can at least preach an actual solution to fix their issue. I would suggest more training in technology and the sciences, like IT training or things to that effect, rather than continue to trick them into believing their jobs will come back.

but in all reality, the democrat and republican party are both idiots and I am only a registered democrat because the people that align with my views (Bernie Sanders) emerge from there more often than not. The democrats are weak, perpetually fractured, and incompetent whereas the Republicans are purely corrupt. Both parties are a slave to their corporate interests. There's a nice Lewis Black bit on this that ends up saying "The Democrats are a party of no ideas, and the Republicans are the party of bad ideas, and when they get together they produce even worse ideas."
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: The Hooded Trainer on December 21, 2016, 02:16
^Reminds me of something a friend pointed out the other day; trump won because promised to "make america great again" by dialling the country back to the ideal version of america (that of course never actually existed, but thats besides the point). Hillary, on the other hand, was a vote for the system to stay the same, because it sort of works anyway and, hey, its how the people in power got the power they have, so why would they want to change it?

Personally, id have said a vote for things to stay the same is better than a vote to move things backwards, but obviously if the democrats want to win the next election they need someone who will actually offer to move forwards. The idea of it training and the like sounds really sensible; the world you lived in is gone, so accept that and well help you adapt to the new world.

Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on December 21, 2016, 02:40
I think in a lot of ways, the only way America can truly move forward is when our elderly die and the pervasive fear of the Red Scare dies down. The baby boomers have lived too long and dictated the world of the millennial generation, as well as actively made our lives worse, because of their outdated policies which should exist anymore. Generation X is kind of screwed because they couldn't live up to the baby boomers and they had to basically live through stuff like the Challenger Explosion and many had to live through the fallout of watergate, and millennials basically aren't given much of a future because we're swimming in debt and we were promised that we can pursue our dreams and be successful when this was not true.

I'm hoping this fake news story doesn't drown out the noise that the democratic party highly screwed up this election. Don't get me wrong, I still believe even in retrospect that Clinton had a better chance of winning than Bernie Sanders (remember, the biggest voting demographic are baby boomers and generation X, and those guys lived through McCarthyism and the Red Scare) but the idea of isolating Sanders supporters as well as the truth of our political system coming to light was a shame.

I -- by the way -- in no means believe that this DNC leak was exclusive to this election or this party. In fact, I'm pretty sure the deck was stacked against Barack Obama in the same way, but let's be real that Barack Obama was a much stronger candidate than Sanders, even if my views align with Sanders. This whole thing came to light in the mainstream rather than people speculating through internet debate. People are also voting Republican despite the Republicans trying to do something similar with Kasich - but in all honesty, the media gave too much attention to Trump's rhetoric and it was painful to keep watching. I would actually not be completely pissed off with a Kasich presidency given his stance on climate change, though he is a dirty dirty corrupt Republican (more dirty and corrupt than any Democrat). But as it stands, the Republicans weren't successful with it because Cruz dropped out and they couldn't have a whatever the hell the term is called between them and go with Kasich.

As it stands, the only silver linings is that Trump beat Cruz. I'm pretty sure a Cruz presidency would cause an even more significant freakout, if not now then in the very long term. God how I wish Kasich sucked it up and became the veep instead of Mike Pence, who is probably an even greater example of white privilege than Trump himself.

If this means a proper democratic and proper leftist rally from the Democrats in 2020, then I would look at the Trump-Pence presidency as a small price to pay for a long-term change in our establishment. At the same time, I do wish the third party choices were stronger (god dammit Gary Johnson and Jill Stein? Christ, what were those parties smoking? They're even worse than Clinton) so maybe I could throw a protest vote in my home state which would go Blue no matter what.

Quote
because it sort of works anyway

When wages have historically increased 4x (idk the exact number) slower than inflation, people have to deal with a neutered healthcare system that is still pro-corporate (but managed to slow the increase in premiums), and the wage gap between the poor and the rich is growing immensely, the system doesn't "sort of work." The system has always been broken. But I'm a staunch leftist, first-generation American and son of legal immigrants who wanted to escape the Wahhabis taking over the culture of the middle east and Pakistan, and grown up poor for the majority of my life, so I'm obviously biased.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: The Hooded Trainer on December 21, 2016, 11:06
Oh yeah, im fully aware the system is broken. By "sort of works" I meant that most people are generally allowed to live out something resembling a normal life, some lucky people can achieve wealth and the number of homeless is just low enough that we can pretend to ourselves that its not an issue. The system works in that it could be a lot worse, which makes people scared to try anything different that could potentially make it better.

Who knows, though, maybe the way forward is trump burning the system to the ground with terrible decisions, so we can build a new system from the old ones ashes.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on December 22, 2016, 18:51
in reality, i'm crying discrimination and all that crap, but the rust belt is a seriously depressing place to live

Preach.

ideally the 2020 democratic nomination can at least preach an actual solution to fix their issue. I would suggest more training in technology and the sciences, like IT training or things to that effect

Maybe if people in our area would stop thinking that college is a waste of time and getting a factory job is the great, big thing then we could start moving forward. Until then, nothing will get done even if the government would push us forward. This is coming from someone who lives in the shadow of Timken Steel.

Who knows, though, maybe the way forward is trump burning the system to the ground with terrible decisions, so we can build a new system from the old ones ashes.

I mean what if that's his plan all along. Probably isn't, because he isn't THAT smart.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on December 22, 2016, 20:03
Maybe if people in our area would stop thinking that college is a waste of time and getting a factory job is the great, big thing then we could start moving forward. Until then, nothing will get done even if the government would push us forward. This is coming from someone who lives in the shadow of Timken Steel.

how is the state of education in Ohio? Is it crappy or is it "better than the average school"? Because if it's the former, then it makes sense why people would view college as a waste of time.

I went to two different high schools and I think my first one had like 50-60% people who went off to college (it was a partially rural area) and my second one had like 90% of people who went off to college (suburban where the majority of people's parents had some sort of government or engineering job). It's kind of insane how much of a bubble both sides live in, and it's so stupid to continue to lie to people about their jobs coming back, because they're not coming back and you're pretty much deluding them and keeping them out of work and education until they basically die.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on December 23, 2016, 14:09
It depends on where you're at. If it's Columbus or Cincinnati, then there's a good chance you're going to college. If it's the bottom half (moneywise) Stark county (like where I live) or inner city Cleveland or somewhere in the northwest, college is generally laughed at (we're on the bottom half moneywise in stark county, and there's a good amount of well off people fyi). Ironically enough, a lot of good universities are in the northwest.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on December 25, 2016, 23:20
Quote
There's a reason fewer than 10% of Americans trust MSM these days, and now they're calling any dissenting news 'Fake News'. Their backpedaling is a great source of amusement for me.

I would also like to show you a few things about this point.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/01/14/fake-news-sites/

This has gone beyond "dissenting opinions" and into "conspiracy theories with no basis in reality."
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on December 27, 2016, 03:51
Lemme just say that whenever something bad in the US happens, the democrats get rabid and blame trump and the republicans get rabid and blame ISIS or mexicans. Meanwhile, no one's even attempting to fix the problem because everyone's too busy pointing fingers and standing in front of cameras. At this point, I wouldn't care if my kindergarten teacher or a high school lacrosse coach from Maine, or hell even *insert name of random person here* became president as long as they did a better job than the loons we ended up having to vote for.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Milsap on January 10, 2017, 13:35
It looks like too many people bought the stuff shouted by the Republicans louder over the stuff said by the Democrats in the same way that Brexit happened. "Obama's a Muslim!" "Obama wants our guns!" "Obama wants a Commie healthcare system!"

"Socialism" of any kind equates to Communism for some reason, and that's a paranoia that for some reason still resonates.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on January 11, 2017, 06:12
https://twitter.com/YESsteveYES/status/818984109271818240

If anyone is curious. tl;dr a huge investigation of Trump has lead to tons and tons of connections to bribing the Russians to sabotage the election. Insanity.

Tomorrow is going to be interesting.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SaRo|Rapidash on January 11, 2017, 09:28
What actually happens in the event the Russian hack happened? I'm assuming the election would be recalled or something, or is it just a sort of 'suck it up, we'll have better security next time' type deal?

(Also I find it interesting they managed to pull off the hack - idk about the US but in the UK all voting is done by ballot, not digitally, so they must've only had a few windows to hack it (like during communication between regional counting facility things and the statewide results (again, not sure how it works in the US, we have many counting places that send their individual results somewhere, where they're tallied to get the state results), or between the statewide result and the national media, but that seems unlikely because someone would notice "hang on, I counted more for Hillary so why is the media saying we're Trump"? Not saying the hacks didn't happen, I think they're pretty likely, just going to find it interesting if they discover how they were executed.)
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on January 11, 2017, 10:01
What are you defining as Russian hacks?


EDIT: I should be clearer - Russia did not hack the electronic ballot boxes. This is a hoax that is being pushed by fake news outlets, in favor of a narrative of the Jill Stein donation-funded recount (fyi, the remaining funds are to fund another Green Party campaign in 2020, so don't be mislead by that). The election was won by Trump.

Whether or it was fairly or within rules is a different story. What I am posting is actually not relevant to hacking ballot boxes - it deals with Trump involvement in Russia to hack DNC emails and push a misleading narrative (no, Bernie was not screwed over; he was a weak candidate). Active encouragement, potential bribery towards Republican politicians, and some weird sexual stuff in there. This is, as it stands, unverified and every source is stating that it's unverified, but it has been lurking around media circles for around 6 months. There is a good deal of stuff that may obviously be untrue, and there is a good deal that may be true. Or somewhere in between.

There's a cliffnotes version on twitter (https://twitter.com/YESsteveYES/status/818984109271818240).

Russian involvement was at best (meaning at least) the systematic spread of fake news through social media outlets, the kind of stuff that buzzfeed news (not buzzfeed!) has talked about in detail in the past (https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/partisan-fb-pages-analysis).


also btw: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-to-meet-with-proponent-of-debunked-tie-between-vaccines-and-autism/2017/01/10/4a5d03c0-d752-11e6-9f9f-5cdb4b7f8dd7_story.html?utm_term=.a4ab5d3fcdfb

This is a career ender in other countries. I sincerely believe that the Republicans cut education funding to keep in control of a less educated populace, while they profit and leave none for the rest. In this case, it's a pro-plague policy; at any rate, if/when I have kids, they're getting vaccines ASAP.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SaRo|Rapidash on January 11, 2017, 10:08
I thought they'd allegedly hacked the vote count? I've only briefly heard about it, I just assumed that was the only way you could really hack an election. Although some googling shows it may have just been hacking Clinton's emails, which I'm guessing whilst unethical and probably illegal, doesn't constitute election misconduct?
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on January 11, 2017, 17:27
In terms of international relations, it's why Obama evacuated Russian diplomats and is holding sanctions on Russia. The hacks of the emails (unverified) and funding propaganda overseas. This document is also a probable cause that shows that those were a more than symbolic gesture. If Trump is paying people to hack the email of his political opponents (as alleged in the document) then that is far beyond enough to get him impeached.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on January 12, 2017, 00:17
I hope that Trump didn't pay Russia to do that, because the thought of a Mike Pence presidency scares me even more than a Trump presidency (for some weird reason).
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: The Hooded Trainer on January 12, 2017, 00:34
Is it because donald trump feels like a cartoon villain while mike pence feels like an actual real life villain? Because thats the way i feel and im not sure if thats fair. I mean, mike pence is a terrifying person with really frightening beliefs and who knows how much damage he could do? But then, so is trump, except hes more ridiculous and it makes people forget how awful he really is.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on January 12, 2017, 01:46
I feel like that Trump is honestly just a puppet for Mike Pence and that Pence is the one pulling the strings all along. I mean Trump was definitely more liberal than most democrats, yet all of a sudden he's going hyper conservative. Now who does that sound like to you here?
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SaRo|Rapidash on January 12, 2017, 11:57
In terms of international relations, it's why Obama evacuated Russian diplomats and is holding sanctions on Russia. The hacks of the emails (unverified) and funding propaganda overseas. This document is also a probable cause that shows that those were a more than symbolic gesture. If Trump is paying people to hack the email of his political opponents (as alleged in the document) then that is far beyond enough to get him impeached.

Right, so the only consequences election wise occur if Trump were responsible?

Seems insane for it to go to Vice President, given that's going from an unfairly elected president to a not elected president, and I feel that's significantly worse, but I guess short of a new vote there's no better way to do it =/

Part of me wants to say republicans planned this all along and new Mike Pence would struggle to get elected, but using Trump it'd be easier. But then I keep remembering if that were the case, Trump could've just stepped down on getting elected, doesn't need to get kicked out unless it's for theatrics I suppose.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Milsap on January 12, 2017, 15:52
What's also funny is that there are loads of people going "Aw, poor liberal snowflakes, Trump won- Deal with it" when it's Trump supporters that get triggered whenever anyone slags him off.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on January 12, 2017, 21:17
Is it because donald trump feels like a cartoon villain while mike pence feels like an actual real life villain? Because thats the way i feel and im not sure if thats fair. I mean, mike pence is a terrifying person with really frightening beliefs and who knows how much damage he could do? But then, so is trump, except hes more ridiculous and it makes people forget how awful he really is.

The difference between Pence and Trump is that none of the alt-right care about Pence. We also at least know where Pence stands on things - he's nothing if not honest. It's just he's also a scumbag, and it's not just because of his views on homosexuality, but because despite his (unironically) stellar education which taught these things, he denies evolution/climate change. His policies have led to Indiana's debt which resulted in an outbreak of AIDs due to a bad needles program, and abstinence based sex ed. Also, mothers of aborted and miscarried fetuses have to pay for cremation and funeral of those fetuses, which is being passed in Texas right now.

We don't know anything about Trump, but we know what we're getting with Pence and Pence won't inspire votes in 2020.

I feel like that Trump is honestly just a puppet for Mike Pence and that Pence is the one pulling the strings all along. I mean Trump was definitely more liberal than most democrats, yet all of a sudden he's going hyper conservative. Now who does that sound like to you here?
Absolutely not true. Pence was only there for the evangelical vote, and he's not as crazy as his brethren in the party, nor was he their preferred candidate. Kasich is someone they prefer. It sounds like Pence is just kinda there, because Kasich is an American Moderate (which is still crazy right wing in every other country).

Right, so the only consequences election wise occur if Trump were responsible?

Seems insane for it to go to Vice President, given that's going from an unfairly elected president to a not elected president, and I feel that's significantly worse, but I guess short of a new vote there's no better way to do it =/

Part of me wants to say republicans planned this all along and new Mike Pence would struggle to get elected, but using Trump it'd be easier. But then I keep remembering if that were the case, Trump could've just stepped down on getting elected, doesn't need to get kicked out unless it's for theatrics I suppose.

Republicans have no grand plan. They already tried to rig the primaries with John Kasich and contested conventions, but Ted Cruz dropped out - and Cruz is more dangerous than Trump and Pence, although Trump is liable to censor media and Kasich wouldn't. Cruz is just creepy.

As it stands, it's grounds for impeachment and potential jailing, but not reversing the results of the election. I have no doubt he is petty enough to take Pence with him, though, so we may have Paul Ryan as president if this comes to fruition.

What's also funny is that there are loads of people going "Aw, poor liberal snowflakes, Trump won- Deal with it" when it's Trump supporters that get triggered whenever anyone slags him off.

No, they are terrible. Donald Trump in his press conference yesterday was pissed off as a CNN reporter for asking a question, and said YOURE FAKE NEWS then proceeded to take a question from Breitbart. Even Fox News called him out on it and defended CNN which is insane. Otherwise, the alt-right are a bunch of trolls that project qualities onto liberals that they as a community possess. They are Neo-Nazi fascists, that accuse the left of being fascists which is far from the truth.

I've argued with people who border on alt-right for the past year and their views are insane. I also believe there's a difference between people who voted for Trump for promising hope (despite him being a huge conman and inspiring people to vote against their interests) and the alt-right, because the former have them and their families in mind and the latter are awful people.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: The Hooded Trainer on January 12, 2017, 22:23
The difference between Pence and Drumpf is that none of the alt-right care about Pence. We also at least know where Pence stands on things - he's nothing if not honest. It's just he's also a scumbag, and it's not just because of his views on homosexuality, but because despite his (unironically) stellar education which taught these things, he denies evolution/climate change. His policies have led to Indiana's debt which resulted in an outbreak of AIDs due to a bad needles program, and abstinence based sex ed. Also, mothers of aborted and miscarried fetuses have to pay for cremation and funeral of those fetuses, which is being passed in Texas right now.

We don't know anything about Drumpf, but we know what we're getting with Pence and Pence won't inspire votes in 2020.


Mmm, thats fair. Id still rather... anyone else though. Literally anyone else. I mean, the other republican candidates were pretty awful too, but awful in the standard "im not crazy about gay people, women and non-christians, and climate change isnt real" rather than "we should electrocute the gay out of people and women need to hold funerals for their dead fetuses".

Also, while im sure youre right about the alt-right, they are at least pretending to support him (although i suspect thats mainly because of his connection to trump). I mean, they did kick up a fair bit of noise after that whole hamilton thing. Not that it had any impact on anything, of course, but still.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on January 13, 2017, 01:51
They kicked up noise because Trump kicked up noise. As for any other Republican - would've loved Kasich and McCain's bridges were burned.

On the subject of McCain, there's an alternate reality where he's president in 2000. He lost the primaries due to this:

Quote
"An unidentified party began a semi-underground smear campaign against McCain, delivered by push polls, faxes, e-mails, flyers, audience plants, and the like.[14][54] These claimed most famously that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock (the McCains' dark-skinned daughter Bridget was adopted from Bangladesh; this misrepresentation was thought to be an especially effective slur in a Deep South state where race was still central[49]), but also that his wife Cindy was a drug addict, that he was a homosexual, and that he was a "Manchurian Candidate" traitor or mentally unstable from his North Vietnam POW days."

Awful.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Milsap on January 15, 2017, 15:52
I might go down Paddy Power tomorrow and see what the odds are of Trump being assassinated or impeached are going to be.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on January 15, 2017, 16:33
^Probably about as much if Clinton was president. I've heard 25-1 odds around here.

Edit: And in the republican controlled house, they just passed the notion of removing many parts of the ACA, including the repealing of the law that requires health insurance companies to allow parents to keep their children on their healthcare plan until age 26 and can remove people with pre-existing conditions (i.e. my brother) at any time they wish.

Paul Ryan also said that high risk customers (people with pre-existing conditions such as cancer) are too expensive and should be put on a separate part of insurance that would in essence allow insurance companies to raise the prices to their hearts content to in theory lower healthcare prices for everyone else. I know they need to make a profit, but damn, they're making out like bandits already, they don't need much help tbh.

However, many people know that republicans screwed the ACA in the first place by vetoing it until the part about companies being required to sign up (therefore making it competitive) was removed. That's one of the many ways ACA ended up failing. Now, republicans are promising to fix the healthcare system, but their first step was to allow companies to jack the prices up as they please.

Already seeing this should be an interesting 4 years.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on January 15, 2017, 22:51
Well, the ACA didn't "fail" depending on your definition. It got around 20 million Americans insurance and overall slowed the rate of increase, but it gave too much power to private insurance companies even still, so it was kind of destined to fail like our closer-to-capitalism system would allow it.

I mean, the ACA greatly lowered my parents' monthly premiums at any rate, but throwing poor families with bad health out into the dust is an awful thing and the Republican party should be ashamed. They're a bunch of sociopaths and I have no idea how they sleep at night.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on January 15, 2017, 23:09
The tax on people who didn't have healthcare was the huge thing, because from what I saw many of the people who get taxed were poorer families. Do you think it was a lack of caring by those families or the fact that too much power was given to private insurance companies that did this?
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on January 16, 2017, 00:42
The fine for lacking insurance is no different from previous fines for lacking insurance. The idea is that the fine should be more expensive than actually having insurance, and if more people have insurance that decreases premiums (or at least keeps them from increasing as fast). It's supposed to be an incentive and the issue in the end is that the fine costs less than the insurance so people only get insurance when they need it, then pay the fine the rest of the way.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on January 16, 2017, 00:52
If the fine is less than the insurance, then wouldn't more people would be inclined to just take the fine because it hurts their budget less?
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on January 16, 2017, 20:42
I'm not actually sure about the fines and the insurance rates; all I know is that people would rather pay the fine because it ends up being cheaper. I'll look up more details on why the fine was so "low" and get back to you later, but the entire point was to make this the closest thing we can get to single-payer in a free market health insurance, even though the idea of free market health insurance makes me wretch.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on January 16, 2017, 22:54
Please post the details as soon as you find them because i'm curious about that.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on January 18, 2017, 19:18
If I am recalling right, they kept the fines relatively low early on so people could find a good healthcare plan and they're subject to increase, which is why short term it's not working, but again I'd have to look more things up. This is just something I remember off-hand.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on January 18, 2017, 22:01
If that's the case we won't get to see it do better because from the looks of things, the ACA won't get a longterm.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Shaymin on January 22, 2017, 22:19
dump and bump's team is trying to claim they had the biggest attendance to his inaugration ever. when quite clearly they didn't.

among other things i've forgotten he seems to be going full fascist and it's barely been three days
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on January 23, 2017, 07:20
Absolutely, but let's focus on the real issues like the repeal of the ACA (stripping 30+ million people of insurance and raising premiums significantly more). They're also planning on defunding planned parenthood and repealing an act which makes it much more difficult for poor people to get a mortgage.

The Republican Party has honestly always been fascist and this is their candidate to go full fascist with. It's quite a fearful time, but the key thing is to ALWAYS stay on point, and never worry about this petty crap - that's where fascism gets you and sneaks up on you.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Shaymin on January 23, 2017, 23:55
media has been banned from the white house. several official government twitter accounts are no longer allowed to post cause they retweeted the trump vs obama inaugration pictures. the tpp is essentially finished now cause trump's pulled out. trump used another EO to reinstate the global gag rule - essentially an anti-abortion bill that's the first step towards abortion likely becoming fully illegal in america.

people are still arguing that trump should be given a chance but honestly he's already shown that he's willing to drive his country into the ground all to please some neo-nazis and fascists
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SaRo|Rapidash on January 24, 2017, 00:24
people are still arguing that trump should be given a chance but honestly he's already shown that he's willing to drive his country into the ground all to please some neo-nazis and fascists

Yeah, I'd really hoped he wouldn't be as bad as was being made out, but unfortunately he seems to be living up to expectations so far =/ Made even worse by a friendly congress and Supreme Court (iirc). Hopefully the next congressional elections manage to overturn republican majorities to just gridlock everything Trump tries, but until then he's free to pass all but the most insane legislation =/
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Shaymin on January 24, 2017, 21:11
Spoiler: show
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/3f34d2992b06304b44ca6efbc48cf4f9/tumblr_okavz9Ri5d1qcpxapo1_1280.jpg)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/90f5b66f8079beda722a566344386057/tumblr_okavz9Ri5d1qcpxapo2_1280.jpg)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/22bb7056d237f21bfd62ef1ed956ceca/tumblr_okavz9Ri5d1qcpxapo3_1280.jpg)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/554b7dc71ae4eea918c8110b0e5f0055/tumblr_okavz9Ri5d1qcpxapo4_1280.jpg)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/7942c320c0c94d7faf69cbad35a37103/tumblr_okavz9Ri5d1qcpxapo5_1280.jpg)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/e88a6c058b8fadd7e8321e9d8aaae3cf/tumblr_okavz9Ri5d1qcpxapo6_1280.jpg)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/0d244309062b7696ea2a9ade78ddf227/tumblr_okavz9Ri5d1qcpxapo7_1280.jpg)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/9041c0867ef9c3f85de350da242c8930/tumblr_okavz9Ri5d1qcpxapo8_1280.jpg)
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/7c7e7d13f34bfc1738f30aabd43c601f/tumblr_okavz9Ri5d1qcpxapo9_1280.jpg)


just in case any of yall still think we should be giving bump and dump a chance

edit: guess republicans wanna "take america back" just like we stupid brits did (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/193/text)
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: The Hooded Trainer on January 24, 2017, 21:53
You know, it feels weird to be so quickly proven right about something and yet not feel at all good about it. For the past few months (probably closer to the past year, actually) ive been feeling generally scared and worried about the world, and now it seems like those feelings will either stay or get worse over the next 4 years. And good god, I hope its only 4 years.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on January 25, 2017, 04:45
Oh I am absolutely sick to my stomach about the Trump presidency and everything to come.

I've heard accounts of a number of people that really voted for him and thinking he was full of crap... and they're also completely sick now that reality is coming down hard on them.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: lets all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes on January 25, 2017, 14:10
look on the bright side at least the dystopian cyberpunk/underground satire scenes are gonna enter another Golden Age and at least we'll have some laffs to help us along this difficult age if nothing else. things have been p boring lately and maybe the centre/centre-left/left will regroup and rethink now the Bad Guys won this time round


(spoiler: wishful thinking, maybe 2020 is the death of neoliberalism for the democrat party as a Platform and as a general Campaign Ground for anything left of the conservative right????????????? we can only hope)


edit: i have memory problems so if i posted this earlier on (not sure) then i do apologise
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Shaymin on January 25, 2017, 18:10
Oh I am absolutely sick to my stomach about the Trump presidency and everything to come.

I've heard accounts of a number of people that really voted for him and thinking he was full of crap... and they're also completely sick now that reality is coming down hard on them.

this + people after brexit saying "weeehh i only voted leave as a joke" are why the vast majority of people should just not be allowed to vote

like if you're going to vote for something as a joke... why not go for the throwaway, not the republican candidate? why not write in harambe. why not just punch yourself in the face
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Laprabi on April 04, 2017, 16:11
this + people after brexit saying "weeehh i only voted leave as a joke" are why the vast majority of people should just not be allowed to vote

Heh. I agree but for different reasons. Although the fundamental problem with democracy is how it allows the ignorant masses to outvote the so-called 'intelligent' classes. Yet believe it or not those who go to universities and consider themselves intelligent are also the most likely to be propagandized. The average citizen only cares about the survival of themselves and their family because it's most important to them.

Although it's kinda funny seeing everyone call Trump a 'fascist'. It's almost as if 'fascist' has become a term to describe people you don't like. Oh wait, it has;
Quote
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism)

Y'all might not like to hear this, but all this name calling (fascist, racist, bigot, misogynist, etc, etc.) is why Trump got elected in the first place; people were sick of being called things they obviously weren't just because they disagree with the 'flavour of the month', whatever that may be. Now the solution is to continue calling people racists, fascists, bigots, etc? I hope you've started to like Trump because if you keep doing that, he'll only get re-elected in 2020. What you reap is what you sow.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on April 05, 2017, 06:51
Quote
Heh. I agree but for different reasons. Although the fundamental problem with democracy is how it allows the ignorant masses to outvote the so-called 'intelligent' classes. Yet believe it or not those who go to universities and consider themselves intelligent are also the most likely to be propagandized. The average citizen only cares about the survival of themselves and their family because it's most important to them.
[citation needed]

fyi the average person who goes to university also cares about stuff like that in the near future - but how are they more likely to be propagandized? Learning how to properly analyze statistics and facts is propaganda now?

Although it's kinda funny seeing everyone call Trump a 'fascist'. It's almost as if 'fascist' has become a term to describe people you don't like. Oh wait, it has;
He gained power through nationalism and has authoritarian tendencies. This is pretty much textbook fascist; he is very Mussolini like as well. He's just ineffective.

Quote
Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

The first sentence.

Quote
Y'all might not like to hear this, but all this name calling (fascist, racist, bigot, misogynist, etc, etc.) is why Trump got elected in the first place; people were sick of being called things they obviously weren't just because they disagree with the 'flavour of the month', whatever that may be.
So they elected a racist/bigot/fascist/misogynist to prove them right? I don't understand this line of reasoning. Trump got elected because he promised coal jobs back throughout the rust belt, and to some he promised to tear down the establishment (which is...  exactly what he's pandering to). Otherwise, he made a bunch of lies up, talked really loud, etc so he got elected. Also, party lines are generally kept the same, so Republicans only voted him in cause he had an R next to his name.

A very small minority of people were pissed about being called bigots, and even then they decided to vote to prove themselves right. This is not why Trump won.

Quote
Now the solution is to continue calling people racists, fascists, bigots, etc? I hope you've started to like Trump because if you keep doing that, he'll only get re-elected in 2020. What you reap is what you sow.
Ah, so you're saying I shouldn't call people as they are? Because that hurts their feelings too much?

Your general point is correct, it's not healthy to just call someone a bigot, but you're arguing a point that is pretty vague and untrue and pretty much had overall very little to do with the election. The voter turnout was horrible as well (less than half of the eligible voters voted this past election, and there's plenty of voter suppression and there's plenty of issues with our two party system). As it stands, Trump's 35% approval rating and the constant failures of the Republican Party to do anything correct more or less indicates a shift the other way in 2020, not calling a bunch of people bigots for being bigots.

If you're arguing against an "SJW pro-politically correct" that probably hates Trump, you're arguing against a boogeyman that's very little in number and has zero influence on the electorate. I'm not sure what your point is here, but you're not really making a coherent point, because Trump seriously only won due to the rust belt and voting along party lines. He lost the popular vote by 3 million.

I like how you didn't even argue about the fake news stuff; you just came in and went on a tirade.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Captain Jigglypuff on April 05, 2017, 13:30
How about all the shootings still going on in public places in the US? Still think that they aren't forms of terroism NOT caused by Middle Easterners, Mr. Trump? What will you do about THOSE terrorists? Can't kick them out of the country if they are born citizens.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Laprabi on April 05, 2017, 15:37
[citation needed]

fyi the average person who goes to university also cares about stuff like that in the near future - but how are they more likely to be propagandized? Learning how to properly analyze statistics and facts is propaganda now?

Here's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/eight-ten-british-university-lecturers-left-wing-survey-finds/) one for you. Judging by some of the stuff I've seen US universities do (accepting a kid into Stanford who's application was literally '#blacklivesmatter' 100 times, although it probably had more to do with the fact he interned on Hillary's campaign), I'd say it's even worse there. It also heavily depends upon the subject you study, but you're ignorant if you think these left-wing professors aren't expressing their views to their students, and often only giving one side of the argument. In fact it very aptly explains why a lot of the UK students that actually bothered to vote (lol) in the EU Ref. voted to Remain. Thankfully at my university I'm only taught by one left-leaning professor and for not even a term (economics at my uni seems fairly apolitical thankfully, I don't like being told what to think) and she's a laughing stock for her warped views.

Quote
He gained power through nationalism and has authoritarian tendencies. This is pretty much textbook fascist; he is very Mussolini like as well. He's just ineffective.

Pick one of 'fascist' and 'ineffective'; you can't have both. Or maybe 'impotent' is a better word. The notion of being a fascist leader (Franco, Mussolini, Hirohito, but not Hitler, NatSoc is different to fascism) implies that if you want something done it gets done, leading into one of fascism's criticisms of democracy, which is how it favours talk over action. An example of this is how a couple of years ago the US Congress couldn't even agree on setting a national budget, meaning they had to roll over last year's one.

Quote
So they elected a racist/bigot/fascist/misogynist to prove them right? I don't understand this line of reasoning. Trump got elected because he promised coal jobs back throughout the rust belt, and to some he promised to tear down the establishment (which is...  exactly what he's pandering to). Otherwise, he made a bunch of lies up, talked really loud, etc so he got elected. Also, party lines are generally kept the same, so Republicans only voted him in cause he had an R next to his name.

A very small minority of people were pissed about being called bigots, and even then they decided to vote to prove themselves right. This is not why Trump won.

No, they elected a 'racist/bigot/fascist/misogynist' as you describe him as simply to give the middle finger to all these Democrats whose modus operandi was to pander to minorities and name call and strawman everyone who has the audacity to disagree with them. I guess if you want to get to the truth of the matter, maybe Trump won because Hillary spent all her time pandering to minorities and neglected to even think about the biggest voting block in the US, white men? I remember reading she didn't even visit one state she thought was a sure win, well guess what, that state turned red. I guess the Dems thought that their name calling would scare white people into voting for their candidate. Ignore the fact that Hillary has a history of screw ups (Benghazi, those damned emails) and is pretty much a mouthpiece for Wall Street, as well as one of the richest people in the world with her husband. But no, Trump said something mean about someone of a different race/gender therefore he's a racist/sexist and you're also a racist/sexist if you vote for him.

Quote
Ah, so you're saying I shouldn't call people as they are? Because that hurts their feelings too much?

To use the terms of the day, that's a problematic line of thinking, if we were all allowed to call people 'what they are', does that extend to 'hate speech' as well? If it's what they are then it must be fine, surely? /s

Quote
Your general point is correct, it's not healthy to just call someone a bigot, but you're arguing a point that is pretty vague and untrue and pretty much had overall very little to do with the election. The voter turnout was horrible as well (less than half of the eligible voters voted this past election, and there's plenty of voter suppression and there's plenty of issues with our two party system). As it stands, Trump's 35% approval rating and the constant failures of the Republican Party to do anything correct more or less indicates a shift the other way in 2020, not calling a bunch of people bigots for being bigots.

Take an example that I've literally seen happen; guy and girl in relationship, everything is going great until the girl starts accusing the guy of cheating, even though he hasn't, but she doesn't stop. She keeps going, eventually the guy gets sick of it and cheats on her. Who's fault is it? Is it the guy's fault for cheating, or the girl's fault for constantly accusing the guy of cheating? Thought experiment, the answer doesn't matter. But maybe, just maybe, if the girl hadn't accused the guy of cheating, then he wouldn't have even thought about it?

Also where does that approval rating come from? Don't tell me it comes from the media, you know, the same media who said Trump would never run, Trump was a joke candidate, Trump would never win the election, Trump has ties to Russia (with literally zero proof lol), etc, etc? The same media who have been proven and admitted to oversampling Democrats in their polls? The same media who predicted a 99% chance of Hillary to win? The same media who, time and time and time again, have been proven wrong?

Quote
If you're arguing against an "SJW pro-politically correct" that probably hates Trump, you're arguing against a boogeyman that's very little in number and has zero influence on the electorate. I'm not sure what your point is here, but you're not really making a coherent point, because Trump seriously only won due to the rust belt and voting along party lines. He lost the popular vote by 3 million.

An estimated (they'll never know the true figure) 3 million illegal immigrants voted in California. Obviously they would vote for the candidate who offers them a 'path to citizenship' rather than the one that will deport them for being illegal immigrants. That on its own invalidates the popular vote, and think how many more non citizens voted in other states? They discovered non citizens on the electoral roll in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the only thing they have to stop illegals voting is a tick box on the ballot saying 'are you a US citizen?' which, of course, does nothing. I also heard that a lot of Democrat votes came from dead people, which is about as blatant as you can get with regards to electoral fraud.

Quote
I like how you didn't even argue about the fake news stuff; you just came in and went on a tirade.

Fake News was a term coined by Hillary and her ilk to explain why they lost the election. Notice how the term only entered common usage after Nov 8. It's funny because they are more guilty of that than Trump ever was. They're now saying 'alternative facts' too, whatever that means. Although I do find it rather humorous that there are only 5 or 6 'real' news outlets and everything else is deemed 'fake news', despite the fact these media outlets are all owned by the same people.

How about all the shootings still going on in public places in the US? Still think that they aren't forms of terroism NOT caused by Middle Easterners, Mr. Trump? What will you do about THOSE terrorists? Can't kick them out of the country if they are born citizens.

They pretty much all happen in 'gun-free' zones. Think, would a potential spree killer start shooting in an area where they're likely to be killed before they've even killed anyone, or an area where they can go ham and the police will have to be called to stop them? And nah they don't kick them out of the country if they are citizens, they just put them in jail where they belong.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on April 05, 2017, 17:38
Here's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/eight-ten-british-university-lecturers-left-wing-survey-finds/) one for you. Judging by some of the stuff I've seen US universities do (accepting a kid into Stanford who's application was literally '#blacklivesmatter' 100 times, although it probably had more to do with the fact he interned on Hillary's campaign), I'd say it's even worse there. It also heavily depends upon the subject you study, but you're ignorant if you think these left-wing professors aren't expressing their views to their students, and often only giving one side of the argument. In fact it very aptly explains why a lot of the UK students that actually bothered to vote (lol) in the EU Ref. voted to Remain. Thankfully at my university I'm only taught by one left-leaning professor and for not even a term (economics at my uni seems fairly apolitical thankfully, I don't like being told what to think) and she's a laughing stock for her warped views.
How is this propaganda? Is it because you're right leaning that anything vaguely left leaning is propaganda? Calling me ignorant because professors are "left-wing" is not doing yourself favors. Didn't you already complain about labeling?

Most university professors - from my understanding, since I'm in my 3rd year of graduate school - so I've been through university for 7 years (and granted it's been in physics but let's not pretend that politics hasn't been a topic for the last 7 years in most fields) are fine with contrary views. They're not the single-minded propaganda places that you think they are, especially not based on my experiences in non-STEM courses in the US.

Quote
(accepting a kid into Stanford who's application was literally '#blacklivesmatter' 100 times, although it probably had more to do with the fact he interned on Hillary's campaign)
Cherry picked and probably out of context. What are you even talking about? This isn't even an argument.

Quote
Pick one of 'fascist' and 'ineffective'; you can't have both. Or maybe 'impotent' is a better word. The notion of being a fascist leader (Franco, Mussolini, Hirohito, but not Hitler, NatSoc is different to fascism) implies that if you want something done it gets done, leading into one of fascism's criticisms of democracy, which is how it favours talk over action. An example of this is how a couple of years ago the US Congress couldn't even agree on setting a national budget, meaning they had to roll over last year's one.
I can pick both. He's completely ineffective, but it doesn't mean his views don't lean towards fascism. You don't have to be effective at being a fascist to be a fascist. I'm not sure how these words are mutually exclusive.

Quote
No, they elected a 'racist/bigot/fascist/misogynist' as you describe him as simply to give the middle finger to all these Democrats whose modus operandi was to pander to minorities and name call and strawman everyone who has the audacity to disagree with them.
You are invoking a strawman then complaining when I do the same. Again, this is not why trump one; this is a minority of voters, and Clinton won the popular vote. You've yet to show me any compelling argument that what you describe is not a boogeyman.

Quote
I guess if you want to get to the truth of the matter, maybe Trump won because Hillary spent all her time pandering to minorities and neglected to even think about the biggest voting block in the US, white men? I remember reading she didn't even visit one state she thought was a sure win, well guess what, that state turned red. I guess the Dems thought that their name calling would scare white people into voting for their candidate.
What name calling? Are you talking about the "basket of deplorables" speech where people didn't even bother reading after the first line? The rest of the democrats didn't even name call - that was pretty much the only instance of name calling. Besides, Clinton's campaign was a failure because she didn't appease a particular subset of states, not white men - white men have gone Republican for a long ass time, and she's not winning a good chunk of them over.

Quote
Ignore the fact that Hillary has a history of screw ups (Benghazi, those damned emails) and is pretty much a mouthpiece for Wall Street, as well as one of the richest people in the world with her husband. But no, Trump said something mean about someone of a different race/gender therefore he's a racist/sexist and you're also a racist/sexist if you vote for him.
a) Bill Clinton is one of the richest men in the world?
b) those damn emails? that scandal was pennies in comparison to what Trump may or may not be pulling off with Russia
c) You clearly haven't looked into Trump's history of sexism and racism. He has actively been sued for discrimination in housing, he's raped his first wife before marital rape was illegal, he's actively admitted to sexual assault, he constantly sexualizes his daughter, wants to restrict rights on women (namely with respect to abortion + reproduction) he's said that all Muslims should be banned from the US + build a wall around Mexico because only rapists and things come around the border. He also claims he's a great businessman when he's went bankrupt many, many times -- and if nothing else, he's gone bankrupt for corrupt reasons (so he can borrow money from a bank, declare bankruptcy, and sell it for pennies on the dollar so he makes money). He's also known as a scumbag in New York due to incidents like buying out senior citizen homes and kicking them all out leaving them with nowhere else to go so he can polish it into his own personal golden turd. Trump's years in the public have been full of incompetence, scandal, and corruption or some combination of the three.

Much of this is actual policy. Are you intentionally being ignorant of his own personal history or is "but Hillary" a valid argument? The emails were not properly marked which is what made her careless, and Benghazi was investigated to hell and back with a Republican committee and they found no intentional wrong-doing on her part.

He also didn't know anything about the ACA, but kept wanting to repeal it; when he met with Obama, he said "I like these things about the ACA that I just realized it had" like some sort of idiot. They pulled the AHCA because they knew they would get destroyed in 2018 and 2020 if they let it pass because of how much of a disaster it was.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on April 05, 2017, 17:38
Quote
To use the terms of the day, that's a problematic line of thinking, if we were all allowed to call people 'what they are', does that extend to 'hate speech' as well? If it's what they are then it must be fine, surely? /s
You are equating calling someone racist - which means that they have a fault where they see people and treat them like crap for external reasons - to calling someone, say, an n word - which is historically used to tell someone they are inferior because of the color of their skin. The difference is that the n word is pejorative, whereas racist lacks the historical connotation and that there hasn't been a history of oppression towards racists that lends much weight to the word. Besides, the only time most people have been called racist in their lives is by saying legitimately racist stuff, not SJW-cherrypicking-boogeyman racists.

Quote
Take an example that I've literally seen happen; guy and girl in relationship, everything is going great until the girl starts accusing the guy of cheating, even though he hasn't, but she doesn't stop. She keeps going, eventually the guy gets sick of it and cheats on her. Who's fault is it? Is it the guy's fault for cheating, or the girl's fault for constantly accusing the guy of cheating? Thought experiment, the answer doesn't matter. But maybe, just maybe, if the girl hadn't accused the guy of cheating, then he wouldn't have even thought about it?
Okay, so the guy does the idiot thing and proves her right instead of breaking up with her. They're both stupid and their relationship is meaningless. This is not comparable to "Oh you're gonna call me a racist you stupid n word?" The guy is ultimately the one at a greater fault because he did cheat in the end - and cheating is worse than being accused of cheating according to many people.

Besides, you've yet to link me anything that shows the campaign was saying "every Trump supporter is a racist" or "people voted the other way because they were called a racist." And again, whether or not you agree with it or not, people are actually racist in this country and throughout the world, and showing you're okay with a Muslim ban or a wall around Mexico for a Mexican rapist boogeyman shows that you somehow believe the racist crap he spews.

So no, that's a girl who accuses a dude of cheating on her, and then the guy cheated before the accusation, but then he cheats some more because he's pissed at his girlfriend. Or she accuses him of cheating on her because he flirts with every girl around him and he doesn't object to other women sending nudes.

Quote
Also where does that approval rating come from? Don't tell me it comes from the media, you know, the same media who said Trump would never run, Trump was a joke candidate, Trump would never win the election, Trump has ties to Russia (with literally zero proof lol), etc, etc?
"Literally zero proof" lol someone hasn't been following the news. There's a lot of currently circumstantial evidence, and there was definitely election interference from Russia. The collusion with Russia is something that is not to be discounted.

It comes from a Gallup poll, and it's closer to 39% than 35%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx Look at their methodology and criticize the methodology rather than single-mindedly saying "it's the media so it must be false." Just because they're wrong on predictions doesn't mean they're wrong on news.

Trump is a joke and Trump will continue to be a joke. He's done nothing successful except screw over some more poor people and mess with some minority families, deporting some dudes with actual visas and actively waste funds on golf trips.
Quote
The same media who have been proven and admitted to oversampling Democrats in their polls?
[citation needed] (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/the-clinton-polling-conspiracy-that-doesnt-exist/505211/)

(fyi - more people did vote Democrat than Republican in this election)

Quote
The same media who predicted a 99% chance of Hillary to win
Nate Silver gave her a 70% chance to win much closer to election time, and he was actively saying "you need to go out and vote and not take your state for granted if you actively do not agree with Trump." It's not the media's fault you don't pay attention to multiple different sources.

Quote
The same media who, time and time and time again, have been proven wrong?
[citation needed]

Quote
An estimated (they'll never know the true figure) 3 million illegal immigrants voted in California. Obviously they would vote for the candidate who offers them a 'path to citizenship' rather than the one that will deport them for being illegal immigrants. That on its own invalidates the popular vote, and think how many more non citizens voted in other states?
[citation needed]

You know how hard it is to vote in the US and register to vote in the US right? What in the hell makes you think there was voter fraud in any capacity? The evidence doesn't even exist - and I've heard stories of people who voted Trump stuffing the ballot box in a few places, but that kind of thing is exceedingly rare. If you think 3 million illegal immigrants voted, then give me whatever you're on.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/nov/18/blog-posting/no-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/

If you want to make a claim that lacks substance in every conceivable way, why are you so quick to shoot down everything that you don't like? It's fascinating to me, because I really don't care if Russia did influence our election and sanctions were enough of a punishment for it, I care more about Trump's collusion - but I pray that he did not collude with Russia, because that's the worst possible outcome.

Quote
They discovered non citizens on the electoral roll in Pennsylvania and Virginia, and the only thing they have to stop illegals voting is a tick box on the ballot saying 'are you a US citizen?' which, of course, does nothing. I also heard that a lot of Democrat votes came from dead people, which is about as blatant as you can get with regards to electoral fraud.
[citation needed]

I'm assuming you cited the same set of statistics that Donald Trump did - basically, stuff that doesn't exist. Even the Republicans don't think there was any voter fraud.

The spread of fake news - which is propaganda, a term you were so fond of accusing anything left wing with (or so I assume) - was definitely an issue in this election, but it's always been an issue during Obama's presidency. Remember the birther conspiracy? Plenty of fake news about that, and the entirety of pizzagate was making its way around with absolutely zero proof.

Quote
Fake News was a term coined by Hillary and her ilk to explain why they lost the election. Notice how the term only entered common usage after Nov 8.
You clearly don't live in America. Fake news was literally news that wasn't real, and news shows that satirized news shows. It entered the conservative lexicon after Clinton became president, but it was a real term used during the election. And it was a very real phenomena, which I talked about in great detail earlier, as did an article I posted.

Quote
It's funny because they are more guilty of that than Trump ever was. They're now saying 'alternative facts' too, whatever that means.
Alternative facts is a term coined by Trump's own campaign manager, what the hell? She said that Sean Spicer's claim that there were more people at Trump's inauguration (a blatant lie if you look at every conceivable way of proving this possible) was an "alternative fact" as opposed to a "lie." It's more or less making fun of Kellyanne Conway.

Quote
Although I do find it rather humorous that there are only 5 or 6 'real' news outlets and everything else is deemed 'fake news', despite the fact these media outlets are all owned by the same people.
[citation needed]

Quote
They pretty much all happen in 'gun-free' zones. Think, would a potential spree killer start shooting in an area where they're likely to be killed before they've even killed anyone, or an area where they can go ham and the police will have to be called to stop them? And nah they don't kick them out of the country if they are citizens, they just put them in jail where they belong.
What are you talking about?



Anyway, Steve Bannon removed from the NSC - thank god.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: SirBlaziken on April 05, 2017, 19:49
The guy is ultimately the one at a greater fault because he did cheat in the end - and cheating is worse than being accused of cheating according to many people.

Anyway, Steve Bannon removed from the NSC - thank god.

I'll just address both parts in one quote.

Part 1: I agree the guy is more at fault. Though accusing him is a really crappy thing to do and he may not have thought of it before being accused, should he have honestly done it? I could be accused of shooting some random guy on the street and not have, then go and shoot someone. That doesn't mean i'm not at fault because 'I didn't have the thought until you accused me'. So I agree wholeheartedly here

Part 2: Faith in humanity TEMPORARILY restored.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: The Hooded Trainer on April 05, 2017, 20:15
To throw in my argument against all this "dont call people racist" thing, making that point really only covers the actual racists. Its racist right wingers adopting a left wing tactic and twisting it to help them: youve been arguing that we need to treat everyone with respect and its not okay to judge character based on skin colour or gender or sexuality or whatever, so now im saying its also not okay to judge character based on "opinions" or "political stances" either. And the ground of what actually counts as a racist opinion is quickly shrinking, thanks to this. So you get:

-its not racist to say black people are more likely to commit crimes, thats just a fact
-its not racist to say we need to stop the refugees coming into our country, thats just good sense
-its not racist to say islam is at its heart awful and violent and that all muslims are dangerous, thats statistically accurate, and besides, islam isnt a race anyway so how could it be racist?

Do people not realise this is where evil spreads from? Its not like hitler came out and said, "lets kill all the jews, i dont like them because im prejudiced against them and am a massive racist". He hid his bigotry under thick layers of nonsensical but, at the time and to the people who followed him, reasonable sounding arguments.

I dont know if that made any sense but basically, what im saying is that, while we shouldnt throw the race card around willy nilly, its more important to ensure that we dont let racists define the idea of racism.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on April 05, 2017, 21:03
I'll just address both parts in one quote.

Part 1: I agree the guy is more at fault. Though accusing him is a really crappy thing to do and he may not have thought of it before being accused, should he have honestly done it? I could be accused of shooting some random guy on the street and not have, then go and shoot someone. That doesn't mean i'm not at fault because 'I didn't have the thought until you accused me'. So I agree wholeheartedly here

Part 2: Faith in humanity TEMPORARILY restored.

His argument hinges on playing to emotions that people are innocent until proven guilty, and yet it forgets the part where people are called racist because they're proven guilty of such a thing. He's also making the point that people are too sensitive in his own veiled way, even though racism these days is more about dogwhistles, even though much of it is blatant and combative even still.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: lets all go out for some frosty chocolate milkshakes on April 07, 2017, 13:07
while i dunno why people even entertained laprabi's weirdly specific ">accuse le gf of cheating >be le epic cucked by gf >mfw" thought experiment, on what side do you reckon steve bannon stood regarding the very recent Bomb Strikes on syria and whether that played into his sudden loss of job




personally i wanted trump to make the idiotic mistake of trying to invade iran instead cos that would have been his operation barbarossa (iran is strategic suicide to invade) but fingers crossed maybe syria will be his undoing instead. you would have thought both russia and the usa would have learned about quagmire invasions in the middle east in the last 20 odd years but oh well,
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Captain Jigglypuff on April 07, 2017, 14:15
I'm having a schadenfreude high right now watching the idiot's voters and supporters realizing the horrible mistake they made of letting a crazy sexist racist egotistical loudmouth become President. I'll enjoy looking at their faces as they walk down the street thinking, "Good lord, what have I done?!" and laughing silently at them. And the best part is that they can't blame me because I didn't vote for the guy! But I also refuse to protest because I know that is a lost cause because it won't change a thing and I know when I have lost and accept it.
Title: Re: US Election Results (Late)
Post by: Lord Raven on April 07, 2017, 16:07
I'm having a schadenfreude high right now watching the idiot's voters and supporters realizing the horrible mistake they made of letting a crazy sexist racist egotistical loudmouth become President. I'll enjoy looking at their faces as they walk down the street thinking, "Good lord, what have I done?!" and laughing silently at them. And the best part is that they can't blame me because I didn't vote for the guy! But I also refuse to protest because I know that is a lost cause because it won't change a thing and I know when I have lost and accept it.
Protests are making the Republicans feel helpless. They pulled the healthcare bill, they realize now they don't drive the debate.

while i dunno why people even entertained laprabi's weirdly specific ">accuse le gf of cheating >be le epic cucked by gf >mfw" thought experiment, on what side do you reckon steve bannon stood regarding the very recent Bomb Strikes on syria and whether that played into his sudden loss of job
Steve Bannon stood on his own side and possibly told him to do the strike. At any rate, the point isn't to convince him, that was never the point of debate.