Jump to content

U.S. Politics: 2016 Election Goes To Overtime


Noneofyourbusiness

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

We have an extensive set of conflict of interest laws applying to federal officials... they just don't apply to the President.

That's concerning.

As is the office of President holding immunity. It takes the parliament (or congress, in your lingo) to prosecute the President. Really, it should just be the normal courts that do it, since the President is the Head of Government... and is expected to be tried by the same government.

I know that the President also appoints the Supreme Court judges, but criminal cases are Supreme Court cases, they're usually Federal Court cases. In which case, it's not hard to find a judge with no vested interest in preserving a presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

What are you blithering about?

For a start, this 'right minded thought leaders of the board' stuff is nonsense, a straw man you've made up to fight. Who are these mythical people? Who do they 'lead'? What 'thought' do they uniformly represent? You've invented a bogeyman to rail against, in order to make your railing seem like a righteous cause. It's a cheap rhetorical trick and it fools nobody.Secondly, the idea that it's not enough not to support something: you have to actively condemn it or you lose all your moral standing. I'm sure that if more of these elected-solely-by-you 'thought leaders' were condemning it, we'd now be hearing how they aren't condemning it strongly enough. Because nothing is ever enough: just like when Muslim leaders condemn Muslim terrorism, the point is not what they have actually done or not done.

I'm specifically referring to conversations had on this board about whether or not the left would accept the results of the election, should Trump win.  I suggested that in many ways, they would not. Surely you would not deny a person a relatively mildly phrased 'I told you so', now would you?

Quote

You're looking at a person who has used this recount as an opportunity to publicly bash Clinton and saying that she's been suborned to act as a proxy. Again, all you care about here is the opening.

We have been through this before.  You seem to get some satisfaction about determining my hidden motives and exposing them to the board, rather than addressing any issues directly.  I find this odd.

If you are unwilling to entertain the notion that there is any reason to believe, as I do, that the Clinton camp is behind the recount efforts, then i really don't know what to tell you.

Likewise, if you have convinced yourself that this is not my actual belief, and that I'm simply taking the 'opening', than that is certainly your right.  However, rest assured I am more aware of my motivations than you are, and that we disagree.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Triskan said:

Trump is now claiming that he would have won the popular vote if not for illegal voting.  Also, we have always been at war with East Asia.

A prelude to a crackdown on voting rights?

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I'm specifically referring to conversations had on this board about whether or not the left would accept the results of the election, should Trump win.

No, you're not: your posts contain no such specific reference.

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 I suggested that in many ways, they would not. Surely you would not deny a person a relatively mildly phrased 'I told you so', now would you?

Again, this is not what you actually posted.

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

If you are unwilling to entertain the notion that there is any reason to believe, as I do, that the Clinton camp is behind the recount efforts, then i really don't know what to tell you.

I find that very understandable, as there is nothing to tell and nothing in the claim at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

A prelude to a crackdown on voting rights?

 

It could just be a spasm in reaction to the recount effort, but I sure wouldn't discount what you're suggesting.  Was already a GOP project before Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, mormont said:

A prelude to a crackdown on voting rights?

No, you're not: your posts contain no such specific reference.

Again, this is not what you actually posted.

I find that very understandable, as there is nothing to tell and nothing in the claim at all.

Again, as to my intentions, the simple fact is that i am aware of them and you are not.  I am, in fact, the foremost authority on them on this message board.

That appeal to authority will simply have to suffice in this case, since there is no way for me to convince you, as your mind seems to be made up, and you do not appear to be open to alternate considerations..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Again, as to my intentions, the simple fact is that i am aware of them and you are not.  I am, in fact, the foremost authority on them on this message board.

Well, to that I can only say: your post conveys a very clear message about your intentions, and nothing you've said since gainsays it. Your burbling about these supposed 'thought leaders', for example, is something you've not seen fit to elaborate on, so I'll file that term with 'right-think' and all those other imaginary sins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, mormont said:

A prelude to a crackdown on voting rights?

Possible, but difficult. The power of the Voting Rights Act has been somewhat diminished by a recent Supreme Court ruling, but it's hard to restrict voting in a way that doesn't run afoul of various disparate impact rules. Trump would need to appoint multiple Supreme Court justices who are willing to strike down the concept of disparate impact and hope that Thomas, Alito and Roberts are also willing (Kennedy is highly unlikely to go that far).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mormont said:

Well, to that I can only say: your post conveys a very clear message about your intentions, and nothing you've said since gainsays it. Your burbling about these supposed 'thought leaders', for example, is something you've not seen fit to elaborate on, so I'll file that term with 'right-think' and all those other imaginary sins.

You are certainly within your rights to do so.

I have explained to you what my intention was.  For whatever reason, you have deemed yourself able to identify some insincerity on my part here.  That's not something I'm particularly inclined to try and talk you out of. What you are demonstrating, like many on the left when it comes to the election results, is that acceptance can be difficult when it does not match up with our expectations and desires.  I empathize.  It's difficult indeed.

What can I say?  We must endeavor, none the less, to persevere.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole circle of outrage over the recount is precisely why it should be automatic, then its a procedural measure to confirm the result and uphold trust rather than something tied to one side and seen as challenging the results. Happy Ent was making this point perfectly yesterday and largely ignored (or insulted) for it, and I'm hardly in lock step with him on politics.

But then the confirming of provisional ballots and counting of their votes should also happen every time, but I think at least in some states they're only counted in a recount situation or something else again?

The EC is not the only problem with democracy here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Risto said:

I sincerely believe that EC preventing Trump from becoming the President would be far more catastrophic than him becoming the president. The chaos that would ensue would be difficult to control and with such divided society, it would be very close to civil war. And that is not something anyone, either in US or outside wants. Let we not kid ourselves, the 60 million people who voted Trump would not be silenced if EC decides to go rogue.

Actually, I think that the real catastrophe is giving the nuclear codes to a man constitutionally unable to resist responding to any slight, real or perceived. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great explanation of the problems with electronic voting. Obviously paper voting isn't flawless, but it is much harder to rig.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit rich for Trump to be criticising these recount attempts, especially since a NPV ECV mis-match in Hillary's favour would be having team Trump crying bloody murder and calling for armed revolt...which also makes Trump's reaction to the post-election protests equally hypocritical.

But, I guess no one expects Trump to behave in a consistent manner, especially on matters of principle. His only principle is if something works in his favour it is good and right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

Fabio and Don King are advising on who should be Secretary of State, because of course they are.

Trump spent Thanksgiving asking: Mitt or Rudy?

http://nypost.com/2016/11/26/trump-spent-thanksgiving-asking-mitt-or-rudy/

Fabio?    :rofl:  

I say Mitt, at least we know he's not crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

It's a bit rich for Trump to be criticising these recount attempts, especially since a NPV ECV mis-match in Hillary's favour would be having team Trump crying bloody murder and calling for armed revolt...which also makes Trump's reaction to the post-election protests equally hypocritical.

But, I guess no one expects Trump to behave in a consistent manner, especially on matters of principle. His only principle is if something works in his favour it is good and right.

Anyone who expects the majority of the population to react on a consistent matter has not been paying attention.

If it was not so tragic that we are now stuck with Trump, it would be amusing to see democrats dusting off a lot of the things they've scoffed at and ridiculed the right for for so long.

Fear of nuclear annihilation, revival of cold war fear of the russians,  voter fraud.  I mean, you have people openly advocating for the EC to throw out the legitimate result of the election process.

Sadly, it's difficult under the circumstances to really even get any schadenfreude out of this mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

I'm specifically referring to conversations had on this board about whether or not the left would accept the results of the election, should Trump win.  I suggested that in many ways, they would not. Surely you would not deny a person a relatively mildly phrased 'I told you so', now would you?

Except what's happening is not people not accepting the result. Calling for recounts in states whether the outcome is within 0.5% is not unreasonable, it is in fact a very reasonable part of the whole democratic process and all part of the elections. Once the recount is done, and confirms (no doubt) that Trump is president then any ongoing action to oppose Trump would fit with the left not accepting Trump.

Calling on electors to vote the NPV rather than the winner for their state, is a legitimate request. Highly unlikely to succeed, but again this is all part of the electoral process. Once the electors have cast their votes and Trump is, no doubt, elected president, then any continuing action on the part of the left can be regarded as not accepting the election.

People protesting "not my president" doesn't mean they won't accept the result. it just means they want the world to know that they don't want the USA to be viewed as largely endorsing the odious views of Trump, his surrogates and the racists organisations who openly supported Trump. And protest is a vain and forlorn attempt to perhaps get Trump to eliminate his associations with the deplorable segments of society. 

All efforts to keep Trump out of the White House will fail, of course, and once Trump is confirmed then we'll see whether the left by and large accepts the result of the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...