U.S. Politics: 2016 Election Goes To Overtime

[Castel]

34 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I always hated the nuclear codes narrative. It suggests Trump is MORE unhinged than Kim Jong Un. And for all Trump's many and significant personal faults, I think his hinges are a little more tightly attached than Kim's. I might be wrong, but I never gave any credence to the whole can't be trusted with the nukes rhetoric. Of course if I'm wrong, then that will prove a very costly error of judgement by about 120K voters in 3 states. But the best thing now is to believe that all that blather about the nuclear codes is just hot air.

If people are genuinely afraid that nuclear consequences are a substantial risk, then I suggest they vote with their feet and find a place to go that will be minimally impacted by a nuclear exchange. Which might mean staying in or moving to the USA, ironically.

On the bright side, a nuclear winter puts an immediate and total halt to global warming.

I agree. Even if it were true, it's just such a massive statement that it just sort of...slides off the backs of anyone listening who isn't strongly against him already.The idea of a nuclear war is simply so unthinkable that the idea that Trump would start one over shits and giggles is too outlandish. 

You could make the argument that his comments on nuclear proliferation and NATO will make the world a more dangerous place, partly by undermining the deterrent factor of NATO which could be costly but then you're down in the weeds of inconvenient things like reasonable disagreements on policy which take more than a 15 minute panel on CNN or a pithy soundbite to sell. 

And of course, he'll lie and say he never said it.

[Inigima]

Re: Romney for State, he did cite Russia as the primary adversary for the US, a claim for which he was laughed at, near universally. (I'm not exempting myself here.) That's looking pretty prescient about now. Certainly he's looking like a better pick than Giuliani.

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, SkynJay said:

Hardly.  Trump won the election and is still calling fraud out in the media and to his base, stocking distrust of the entire process.  The state recount effort is based on the closeness of the election; and admittedly a hope and a prayer, but is working completely within the system. 

Trying to take down the system, working within the system.  In no way can these things be seen as alike.

 

Ha. Um... Ok?

Is it your assertion that nothing done 'within the system' can be considered to introduce mistrust of the overall process? 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Ha. Um... Ok?

Is it your assertion that nothing done 'within the system' can be considered to introduce mistrust of the overall process? 

15 yd penalty, moving the goalposts. Dude, no one agrees with you on this one. A recount is in no way comparable to the Electoral College flipping its' votes. Any candidate on the ballot has standing to call for a recount. 

[felice]

35 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

I'm not defending Trump here, so i have no idea why you think these tweets are really relevant, but since you brought it up, but I cna't help but point out your obvious double standard here.  Trump sends a couple dumb tweets based on no evidence of fraud.  OUTRAGE!!!  Stein and Clinton attempt to engineer a recount based on very scant evidence of fraud: >PArt fo the process. Should be done anyway. No big deal.'

You say "engineer" like there's something dubious about double checking incredibly important results; why?

There's a big difference between "we think there's a risk that fraud may have occurred, so we'd like to check to establish the truth one way or the other", and "I got more real votes because there was massive fraud, take my word for it"! Any sane President-elect would be supporting the recount to erase any doubt about their legitimacy. The most powerful person on the planet is delusional; this is a bit worrying.

[Swordfish]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

15 yd penalty, moving the goalposts. Dude, no one agrees with you on this one.

Thank you for speaking for everyone.   What were the vote totals on whether anyone agrees with me or not?  I may demand a recount.  There might have been fraud.

Quote

 

Quote

Any candidate on the ballot has standing to call for a recount. 

Indeed.  I'm aware of that.  And?

 

Quote

A recount is in no way comparable to the Electoral College flipping its' votes.

'In no way' is a pretty broad statement.

I don't really recall comparing the two, other than to point out that if the situation were reversed, there would be a lot of outrage on this board that the recount is undermining confidence in the system.

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Thank you for speaking for everyone.   What were the vote totals on whether anyone agrees with me or not?  I may demand a recount.  There might have been fraud.

Indeed.  I'm aware of that.  And?

 

'In no way' is a pretty broad statement.

I don't really recall comparing the two, other than to point out that if the situation were reversed, there would be a lot of outrage on this board that the recount is undermining confidence in the system.

 

1) Find me one post. Just one.

2) It is in no way dubious or questionable, it is written in as part of the process.

3) You made the leap in your very first post. You talked about the petition and then jumped to Stein's challenge which struck me as an implied comparison

[Swordfish]

12 minutes ago, felice said:

You say "engineer" like there's something dubious about double checking incredibly important results; why?

 

You're reading too much into it.

Quote

There's a big difference between "we think there's a risk that fraud may have occurred, so we'd like to check to establish the truth one way or the other", and "I got more real votes because there was massive fraud, take my word for it"! Any sane President-elect would be supporting the recount to erase any doubt about their legitimacy. The most powerful person on the planet is delusional; this is a bit worrying.

OK.  If you say so. There's very little evidence to believe there was any fraud here that I have seen.  We were told repeatedly before the election that even the allegations of fraud should be avoided unless there's proof because they udermine confidence in the process.

Apparently that has changed, now that the chad is on the other foot.

Either way, , I sincerely doubt the majority of the members of this board would be so supportive of the recount if the situation were reversed.

Again, I could really care less about the recount in and of itself.  I think the claims of 'erosion of confidence in the system' have always been overblown, and a recount is not going to make them go away for reasons that should be obvious (see also: 2000 election).

If it ultimately leads to a more auditable election result, I'm all for it, though I have my doubts.

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

1) Find me one post. Just one.

About what?  You lost me.

Quote

2) It is in no way dubious or questionable, it is written in as part of the process.

I haven't suggested it is not part of the process.

Quote

3) You made the leap in your very first post. You talked about the petition and then jumped to Stein's challenge which struck me as an implied comparison

My apologies for that.  I think I lost track of which thread I was in.  I was merely lumping them together in the 'accepting the results of the election' bucket.

[Martell Spy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-exit-pranks-twitter_us_583a8d2de4b000af95ee6a95

People Are Imagining The White House Exit Pranks Obama Could Play
“Have an actor pose as the Minister of Magic to explain the ongoing Voldemort war to Trump.”

[The Fallen]

9 hours ago, Altherion said:

The popular vote is irrelevant and the stuff you mention is not what is being repudiated. It's not about the issues as such, it's about conflict resolution and attitude. For example, take a look at this Washington Post article: titled "I haven’t slept in my room since the election"

Note that the issues range from the uncontroversial to the debatable, but, as you can see from the comments, even in a mainstream liberal newspaper, the reaction is overwhelmingly (> 95%) negative. The problem is with the entitlement ("I expect...", "I deserve..."), the cowardice, the blowing of tiny things out of all proportion and, above all, the use of all these things in an appeal to some authority to lobby for both related and unrelated issues. This has been a staple of the behavior of a variety of Democrat-aligned groups for the last few years and many people are really tired of it.

Honestly, what was so terrible about this post. What I read was a person who is asking that women's rights continue to be protected, something that the Republican party, and especially incoming VP Pence, have been fighting/pushing back against. There's also a demand that undocumented students also be protected from deportation, an issue that the majority of Americans want resolved without having to deport or split apart families. And there's the issue of islamophobia, and the writer wanting Muslim students to be able to study free of harassment. 

Now, maybe the reaction is over the top and the incoming administration will be a model of upholding the rights of all citizens (and in the case of undocumented immigrants will look to resolve the issue causing as little disruption as possible). In which case there should be nothing to worry about. But I doubt that will be the case.

And as I mentioned in my previous post, these are young people who thought that the ugliness we've seen during this past election was a thing of the past. So I can see why they're reacting this way.

Lastly, the popular vote may be irrelevant to selecting the president, but not when taking the temperature of the American public.

[Mladen]

5 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

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. 

Well, I think that some of those fears are a bit exaggerated. And TBH, given that my country enjoyed the generosity of Clinton's administration and their bombs, I am less fearful of Trump than of Clinton. He is yet to bomb someone. They have done so. 

[The Fallen]

8 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Maybe, maybe not.  But not as many as Clinton.

Let me ask the question a slightly different way.

Given the way the Clinton camp painted their way onto a corner, and given all we know about the campaign and how they operated, would it surprise you if we found out that Stein was working as Clinton's proxy?  Especially now that they appear to be openly backing her.

Or do you think they are simply morally incapable or totally uninterested in getting these recounts done?

Man, the Clinton campaign got it all wrong then. They should have been using all this influence over Jill Stein to have had her say nice things about Hillary and then announcing that she was dropping out and urge her followers to vote for Hillary. 

I guess that was too obvious.

[Altherion]

18 minutes ago, The Fallen said:

Honestly, what was so terrible about this post. What I read was a person who is asking that women's rights continue to be protected, something that the Republican party, and especially incoming VP Pence, have been fighting/pushing back against. There's also a demand that undocumented students also be protected from deportation, an issue that the majority of Americans want resolved without having to deport or split apart families. And there's the issue of islamophobia, and the writer wanting Muslim students to be able to study free of harassment.

As I said, the issues themselves range from the noncontroversial to the debatable. Had he merely written an open letter to Trump asking for these things, there would be nothing wrong with that (of course, there would also be nothing worth noting). The problem is with the entitlement ("I expect...", "I deserve..."), the cowardice, the blowing of tiny things out of all proportion and, above all, the use of all these things in an appeal to some authority to lobby for both related and unrelated issues.

Quote

Lastly, the popular vote may be irrelevant to selecting the president, but not when taking the temperature of the American public.

No, it is well and truly irrelevant. All nominees know that it does not matter and campaign accordingly. Trump did not bother investing any non-trivial campaign resources into California because he knew that it doesn't matter whether he loses there by 15 points or by 30 points -- but the latter gives Clinton a national popular vote victory whereas the former does not. In fact, Clinton's attempts to fight for "safe" Trump states and run up the score in California and New York now appear as hubris; she only did that because she thought she had the Electoral College sewn up.

[mormont]

10 hours ago, Swordfish said:

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. 

Well, let's see if we can find some other examples of people reading others' 'real' motives.

12 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Where are all our right minded thought leaders of the board decrying this lind of stuff as undermining the system, as they have so eloquently in the past when these kinds of questions arise?

It's almost like they don't care, since it aligns with the outcome they want.

 

7 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Oh, I know WHY it comes up.  Because that's the narrative that was fed to you by the campaign, and it hit you squarely in your bias.

It's just too irresistible to ignore.

 

7 hours ago, Swordfish said:

If the roles were reversed, the tenor of whether or not these activities are rejection of the result would be vastly different on this board, and in many liberal circles. 

 

6 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Either way, , I sincerely doubt the majority of the members of this board would be so supportive of the recount if the situation were reversed.

It does seem to be a common problem, to be fair.

3 hours ago, Risto said:

Well, I think that some of those fears are a bit exaggerated. And TBH, given that my country enjoyed the generosity of Clinton's administration and their bombs, I am less fearful of Trump than of Clinton. He is yet to bomb someone. They have done so. 

To be fair to Trump, it's a little difficult for a real estate developer and TV personality to bomb anyone.

ETA - I'm sure you won't have long to wait, though.

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

As I said, the issues themselves range from the noncontroversial to the debatable. Had he merely written an open letter to Trump asking for these things, there would be nothing wrong with that (of course, there would also be nothing worth noting). The problem is with the entitlement ("I expect...", "I deserve..."), the cowardice, the blowing of tiny things out of all proportion and, above all, the use of all these things in an appeal to some authority to lobby for both related and unrelated issues.

I'm curious as to which of the things mentioned you believe students do not deserve or are not entitled to expect, and why? And why you feel entitled to call this person a coward for speaking up for his beliefs in public?

[TrackerNeil]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I always hated the nuclear codes narrative. It suggests Trump is MORE unhinged than Kim Jong Un. And for all Trump's many and significant personal faults, I think his hinges are a little more tightly attached than Kim's. I might be wrong, but I never gave any credence to the whole can't be trusted with the nukes rhetoric. Of course if I'm wrong, then that will prove a very costly error of judgement by about 120K voters in 3 states. But the best thing now is to believe that all that blather about the nuclear codes is just hot air.

I guess I'm just antsy about putting the ability to destroy the world into the hands of a man who gets into Twitter wars with Cher and questions the validity of an election that put him in power.

There are two things we know about Donald Trump. First, he cannot resist the urge to respond disproportionately to any slight, real or imagined. Second, he is for the most part unrestrained by the Republican Party. Throw in the nuclear codes and IMO you've got a very dangerous man. If in four years the world still stands, feel free to say I told you so, because I will be relieved to be wrong about this.

[Gorn]

As someone from Balkans, I know where the "identity politics", rejection of middle ground and recounting of past historical slights "they" committed leads. Trust me, it does not lead to a good place.

If you radicalize the discussion to the point where no middle ground can be reached, even moderate, persuadable people will end up siding with "their" side because they will feel that they have no other choice. In political terms, if the major political issue is "whites vs. minorities", then whites will vote "white", and since they are the majority, they will win.

Here's an example from my part of the world: in 1990 Croatia, only 15% of Croats wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. Tuđman's nationalists won the elections with a 40% plurality, which due to electoral system weirdness translated to a 57% parliamentary majority - sound familiar? Also, most Serbs voted for unitarian or non-nationalist parties and the Serb nationalist party won only 2% of votes. But, as nationalists on both sides kept ramping up tensions, one year later 93% of Croats voted to secede, and almost 100% of Serbs boycotted the referendum, which lead to four years of bloody war.

To those who dismiss all Trump voters as deplorables, I recommend this link. It is about a black musician who befriended more than 20 members of KKK and convinced them to leave it.

Quote

Davis also became close with Robert White, a Grand Dragon in the KKK. “I respect someone’s right to air their views whether they are wrong or right,” Davis says. “Robert White was a Grand Dragon who had gone to prison numerous times. I said I wanted to interview him for my book. At first, he was very violent and very hateful but we talked for a long time. Over time, he began thinking about a lot of things he had done and said that were wrong. He quit the Klan. Toward the end he said he would follow me to hell and back. …and he gave me his robe and hood, and his police uniform.”

Quote

A lot of people have anti-racist groups. They get together and meet and have a diverse group and all they do and sit around and talk about how bad discrimination is. Then someone says ‘there’s a Klan group across town. Why don’t we invite them to come and talk to us?’ and the other person says ‘Oh no! We don’t want that guy here!’ Well, you’re doing the exact same thing they are. What’s the purpose of meeting with each other when we already agree? Find someone who disagrees and invite them to your table.

Invite your enemy to talk. Give them a platform to talk because then they will reciprocate. Invite your enemies to sit down and join you. You never know; some small thing you say might give them food for thought, and you will learn from them. Establish dialogue. It’s when the talking stops that the ground becomes fertile for fighting.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

As someone from Balkans, I know where the "identity politics", rejection of middle ground and recounting of past historical slights "they" committed leads. Trust me, it does not lead to a good place.

If you radicalize the discussion to the point where no middle ground can be reached, even moderate, persuadable people will end up siding with "their" side because they will feel that they have no other choice. In political terms, if the major political issue is "whites vs. minorities", then whites will vote "white", and since they are the majority, they will win.

Here's an example from my part of the world: in 1990 Croatia, only 15% of Croats wanted to secede from Yugoslavia. Tuđman's nationalists won the elections with a 40% plurality, which due to electoral system weirdness translated to a 57% parliamentary majority - sound familiar? Also, most Serbs voted for unitarian or non-nationalist parties and the Serb nationalist party won only 2% of votes. But, as nationalists on both sides kept ramping up tensions, one year later 93% of Croats voted to secede, and almost 100% of Serbs boycotted the referendum, which lead to four years of bloody war.

To those who dismiss all Trump voters as deplorables, I recommend this link. It is about a black musician who befriended more than 20 members of KKK and convinced them to leave it.

 

Gorn,

Sharp political divisions and dehumanization of political opponents has always concerned me for similar reasons.  If your opponents are truely "evil" how can you ever consider working with them?

That said it is, in part, Trump's willingness to demonize and vilify that make me profoundly uncomfortable with his likely eletion to the Presidency.

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

If you radicalize the discussion to the point where no middle ground can be reached, even moderate, persuadable people will end up siding with "their" side because they will feel that they have no other choice.

The problem here is the assumption that it is the American left that have created this situation. It is not. The American right have for many years utterly refused to contemplate co-operation and have treated the concept of 'middle ground' as treason. Anyone in the Republican party who so much as utters the word 'compromise' gets deselected by their own side.

The discussion has certainly been radicalised, but not by the left.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

11 minutes ago, mormont said:

The problem here is the assumption that it is the American left that have created this situation. It is not. The American right have for many years utterly refused to contemplate co-operation and have treated the concept of 'middle ground' as treason. Anyone in the Republican party who so much as utters the word 'compromise' gets deselected by their own side.

The discussion has certainly been radicalised, but not by the left.

If the discussion is radicalized does who radicalized it really matter?  Is it not important to get all parties to back off radicalized rhetoric?