US Elections: FBI. F-B-I... (Comey turns the ID the right way up) FBI.

[Stannis is the man....nis]

5 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Are they wrong though? I mean, there are many ways in which if you are a Republican that Trump will simply be better then Clinton. It very much depends what you care about.

Like, there was a recent article in .. I think the Washington Post who's basic point was the Evangelicals voting for Trump aren't crazy or stupid or hypocritical. They are making the smart play because if what you care about is the culture war, fought mostly via the judiciary these days, then Trump is better in every way then the alternative for you.

There is nothing actually wrong with ideologically distinct and cohesive political parties. The problem is mostly that the US system is incapable of accommodating them and that one of the two parties in the US is out to exploit that while delegitimizing the opposition.

Yes......it.....is. The man is so opposite of everything that is suppose to be Christian that to support him just because of abortion is so over the top hypocritical it hurts 

[Altherion]

9 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Yes......it.....is. The man is so opposite of everything that is suppose to be Christian that to support him just because of abortion is so over the top hypocritical it hurts 

Welcome to the 21st century. A thrice-married man who cheated on his wife or whatever might have been unacceptable in the 1950s, but today, such things don't matter even to evangelical Christians. Also, avarice is not a sin -- it's the basis of our economy and thus all expressions of it are A-OK.

[A True Kaniggit]

Didn't someone mention earlier that it makes no sense for candidates to waste resources on states they have no chance of winning? I live in Louisiana and I've been seeing a lot of anti-Trump ads recently. I think we can all agree that there is no chance of my state going for Clinton, so what's the point of spending funds on these ads? Just to try to swing the popular vote more in Hillary's direction?

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Didn't someone mention earlier that it makes no sense for candidates to waste resources on states they have no chance of winning? I live in Louisiana and I've been seeing a lot of anti-Trump ads recently. I think we can all agree that there is no chance of my state going for Clinton, so what's the point of spending funds on these ads? Just to try to swing the popular vote more in Hillary's direction?

It affects downballot quite a bit, or at least that's the hope. 

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Are they wrong though? I mean, there are many ways in which if you are a Republican that Trump will simply be better then Clinton. It very much depends what you care about.

I guess I disagree. I do think that yes, for a whole bunch of Republicans voting for Trump is strongly against their specific stated interests. His policies are to raise taxes, destroy free trade, become more isolationist against Russia and China, oppose specific religious rights and is actually in favor of planned parenthood, more medicare, more entitlement programs and more spending. He is in short pretty much against every Reagan-era Republican that existed. I'm not surprised that some Republicans like what he's going for. I am surprised at how many people will rationalize his positions as 'oh, he won't REALLY do that' when pressed on it. 

Quote

Correct. No one cares, most likely because no one believes that any of these politicians will do even half the things that they've promised in the way that one would expect. On the one hand, there are Trump and Sanders and on the other, there is Clinton with her extremely well-crafted proposals... which everyone knows are part of her "public" persona and distinct from her "private" one. This is the price to be paid by the politicians for decades of policy which screwed over the middle and working classes as a means of enriching their donors.

Yeah, don't speak for me or most Clinton supporters about that, thanks. Most of Clinton supporters are pretty enthusiastic about her plans going forward, and hope that she can get them done. And many - like me - saw her 'private' persona and didn't see anything  that they didn't already hope was the case. I get that you absolutely hate her because reasons, but your cynicism is not fact.

[karaddin]

51 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Like, there was a recent article in .. I think the Washington Post who's basic point was the Evangelicals voting for Trump aren't crazy or stupid or hypocritical.

It may not be crazy or stupid, but its sure as fuck hypocritical. When your entire thing is about morals, taking the utilitarian approach is still hypocritical.

50 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The system is almost ripe for a demagogue. Imagine somebody like Trump, but 15-25 years younger, self-made (perhaps a tech billionaire with a middle or working class background or something of the sort) and a lot smarter. Somebody who is willing to say that the system is rigged and corrupt, but without Trump's baggage of offensive comments towards representatives of ~75% of the population or Trump's tendency to swing at practically any offense (even when the obvious course of action is to ignore it).

Yup, this is exactly the kind of scenario I was trying to paint. Given the aforementioned hypocrisy of the evangelicals perhaps it would wind up being someone like Peter Thiel. Being gay becomes a helpful shield to deflect certain lines of criticism under those circumstances, and apparently they'll be fine with it if he makes the right noises. Thiel himself wasn't born in the US, so I'm saying someone similar - rich, younger and with certain qualities to be used to deflect left wing criticism, clearly a lot smarter than Trump, and as someone from IT much more able to use the tools modern politics has to draw on.

@Kalbear fair point re: the same thing happening on the left. In terms of precedent for the Dems I was focusing on the positive - that you can get support running on an openly left wing platform - and not considered the negatives. In particular the fervour of Bernie or Bust positions etc don't need to be taken much further to be equivalent.

[TheKitttenGuard]

40 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Are they wrong though? I mean, there are many ways in which if you are a Republican that Trump will simply be better then Clinton. It very much depends what you care about.

Like, there was a recent article in .. I think the Washington Post who's basic point was the Evangelicals voting for Trump aren't crazy or stupid or hypocritical. They are making the smart play because if what you care about is the culture war, fought mostly via the judiciary these days, then Trump is better in every way then the alternative for you.

There is nothing actually wrong with ideologically distinct and cohesive political parties. The problem is mostly that the US system is incapable of accommodating them and that one of the two parties in the US is out to exploit that while delegitimizing the opposition.

Crazy and Hypocritical are perfectly valid.

The smart politics is to have a Republican House and Senate.  

You are also going just on the man's word in the end.  

[A True Kaniggit]

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It affects downballot quite a bit, or at least that's the hope. 

Oh, ok. Thanks for the info.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I mean, fuck. 

82% of Republican women support Trump. And this was a few weeks ago; chances are now it's closer to the standard 90%. This means that about 40% of all the women in the United States support Trump as President.

Or, like, 64 MILLION women. Maybe only 45 million women who can vote or so. But...45 million women support Trump as their president. Because none of what he said is as important to them as that he is a Republican. Even though he's not a particularly good Republican, either, mind you - he's running as their candidate, and they will support him. 

My mom is one of these women, and no matter how hard I tried to persuade her, I wasn't able to convince her not to vote for Trump. It's the damnedest thing. She was brought up as a Republican, and now it's like she just can't bring herself to vote for a different party, whatever the circumstances.

 

 

Edit: But hey, I have been making some inroads on my older brother. And though he's a lost cause for 2016, I think I'm going to make him competitive for 2020.

[Shryke]

56 minutes ago, Stannis is the man....nis said:

Yes......it.....is. The man is so opposite of everything that is suppose to be Christian that to support him just because of abortion is so over the top hypocritical it hurts 

Depends what you think matters. He is their best shot at filling the last spot on the SCOTUS with someone who will keep the balance of the court in their favour. If Obama or Clinton gets to fill that spot, the "culture war" the evangelical movement has been fighting will have lost hugely in a way they can never recover from. Doesn't matter what his personal conduct is, what matters is policy. And if what you care about is evangelical culture war policy, then Trump is your man cause Clinton will be worse for you.

It is very much the same thing as a really far left-wing voter going for Clinton because she's the better of the two candidates that will win. I mean, how many times have you heard the argument that SCOTUS seats are on the line and that's why you have to vote? It applies to both sides.

 

5 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Crazy and Hypocritical are perfectly valid.

The smart politics is to have a Republican House and Senate.  

You are also going just on the man's word in the end.  

The smart politics is to have all 3. Which if Trump wins the Presidency is going to happen.

And you can't trust Trump to honour his word but you can trust him to be lazy and ignorant and not care about the issue much because it doesn't concern him or anything he cares about. He'll probably nominate someone conservative enough for their needs from some list someone else draws up for him.

[Shryke]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I guess I disagree. I do think that yes, for a whole bunch of Republicans voting for Trump is strongly against their specific stated interests. His policies are to raise taxes, destroy free trade, become more isolationist against Russia and China, oppose specific religious rights and is actually in favor of planned parenthood, more medicare, more entitlement programs and more spending. He is in short pretty much against every Reagan-era Republican that existed. I'm not surprised that some Republicans like what he's going for. I am surprised at how many people will rationalize his positions as 'oh, he won't REALLY do that' when pressed on it. 

He's not really against Reagan-era Republican policy for the most part. He parrots alot of the important shit (like tax policy). Frankly, the only place he really diverges is on foreign policy and guess what, the GOP base either doesn't give a shit about that or likes his tough man act better then whatever bullshit conservative DC think tanks are dreaming up. And that's how it goes for most of that shit frankly. Anywhere he runs against Republican establishment orthodoxy is a place where his base agrees with him.

And none of it really matters since he'll rubber stamp basically anything coming out of the Republican House and Senate he'll be working with because why wouldn't he? Certainly the culture war shit he won't care about and the SCOTUS nominee will be palatable and he'll stick it to those non-whites.

 

I mean, a big part of this too is you have to give up the notion that the base, the actual voters, give a shit about alot of that stuff. Trump won the primary in large part because he showed that a huge section of the GOP base doesn't give a shit about establishment orthodoxy. Trump gave them what they really wanted. Certainly more then Hillary Clinton ever would.

[Shryke]

13 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

My mom is one of these women, and no matter how hard I tried to persuade her, I wasn't able to convince her not to vote for Trump. It's the damnedest thing. She was brought up as a Republican, and now it's like she just can't bring herself to vote for a different party, whatever the circumstances.

If you want to be deeply disturbed, you can read this account from 9 women voting for Trump and why.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/9-women-on-why-theyre-still-voting-for-trump.html

[TheKitttenGuard]

12 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The smart politics is to have all 3. And you can't trust Trump to honour his word but you can trust him to be lazy and ignorant and not care about the issue much. He'll probably nominate someone conservative enough for their needs.

I actually give Trump far more credit then that.

If that is the view they have after their Primary then Crazy will be the most valid.

 

[Shryke]

4 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

I actually give Trump far more credit then that.

If that is the view they have after their Primary then Crazy will be the most valid.

 

Why?

What has ever, in anything he's done, made you think he gives a shit about women's reproductive health?

[Altherion]

41 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, don't speak for me or most Clinton supporters about that, thanks. Most of Clinton supporters are pretty enthusiastic about her plans going forward, and hope that she can get them done. And many - like me - saw her 'private' persona and didn't see anything  that they didn't already hope was the case. I get that you absolutely hate her because reasons, but your cynicism is not fact.

Interesting. Do you share her neoliberal dream of "a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders"?

Also, I missed this comment earlier:

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

To be clear, this isn't just about Republicans. Democrats are going to look at the ideological purity tests that Sanders had with quite a bit of happiness too. The main reasons that Sanders failed where Trump succeeded is that the Democratic party consists of several groups, and at least a couple of them are not at all ideologically motivated aside from 'put the best Democrat in the white house', and Clinton was simply a better politician with better party support. But it doesn't take much for the next Trump-like thing to be a Democrat. Hell, people are talking about Kanye in 2020 as a legitimate candidate. Kanye. Seriously.

I think you underestimate the Democratic party by quite a bit. With the release of the Podesta emails, it has become pretty clear that the main reason Sanders failed is that Democratic primary was massively rigged in Clinton's favor. The very schedule of the state primaries was optimized by Clinton's campaign to be favorable to her back in 2014. Likewise, the number, timing and nature of the debates was coordinated with the Clinton campaign. Further, since that did not appear to be enough, a DNC member (sworn to neutrality!) affiliated with the media leaked debate questions to Clinton. And of course they didn't neglect the local stuff either (like the mysterious party affiliation switching in Arizona). The Democratic primary was designed to nominate Clinton and it served its purpose. In retrospect, it's pretty amazing that Sanders was able to do as well as he did.

[TheKitttenGuard]

Just now, Shryke said:

Why?

What has ever, in anything he's done, made you think he gives a shit about women's reproductive health?

He probability does not care about it as much as several other issues. Since he never held any elected office he is an absolute  clean slate.  

Trump know what he wants for himself extremely well.

He did not join the Republican Party out of ideology loyalty.  He did it for it is better to get to the White House than being a 3rd Party or Independent Candidate

Trump has won a nomination of Republican after doing things that you are not suppose to do.

He is some position to win the Presidency after doing things that are not suppose to be done.

Why will he bend to anything when everything is bending to him.

 

[mormont]

9 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

My guess would be that the RNC isn't as cozy with Trump as Hillary is with DNC.

That can't be the explanation, though, since the RNC's unhappiness about their nominee (if expressed in private emails) would in many ways be as damaging as anything that's come from the DNC.

6 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

We might be in a Brexit situation though

Can we please stop talking about Brexit as if it has any relevance to the US presidential election?

It's a different electorate, in a different country, participating in an election rather than a referendum, concerned with different issues, and the polling was conducted differently with different results. If people want to say that there could be a surprise, that's fine. But that surprise has SFA to do with Brexit.

[Inigima]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

To be clear, this isn't just about Republicans. Democrats are going to look at the ideological purity tests that Sanders had with quite a bit of happiness too. The main reasons that Sanders failed where Trump succeeded is that the Democratic party consists of several groups, and at least a couple of them are not at all ideologically motivated aside from 'put the best Democrat in the white house', and Clinton was simply a better politician with better party support. But it doesn't take much for the next Trump-like thing to be a Democrat. Hell, people are talking about Kanye in 2020 as a legitimate candidate. Kanye. Seriously.

What this election has shown is that there is no crossing the aisle to vote for the better candidate, because there is no way that any Democrat could be better than any Republican (and vice versa). And yes, there will be a few who say otherwise, but the vast majority of them will return to the fold - just like we've seen with Republican voters, and just like we've seen with Republican politicians. Chaffetz went out and said he could not vote for Trump and face his daughter - and then three weeks later voted for Trump. And he's going to be re-elected! Cruz caved. Ryan caved. McCain caved. And on the other side - Sanders caved! There is no value at all in being moderate. The only value is finding those few people who might choose differently and find what they care about, and then get out as much of your vote as possible. That's it.

Furthermore, you can do whatever you want and get away with it as long as your demographics are good. Unless it's literal corruption and actually being jailed. If you actively sexually assaulted women? Doesn't matter. If you pledge to block all nominations for the Supreme Court? The entire Republican strategy is based on this! Hold your breath and choose not to vote for a budget? Doesn't matter. Compromise and even doing your basic job doesn't matter, because people would rather vote for someone that they can ideologically believe in over someone who might get things done. Republicans have pledged to investigate Clinton from day one and potentially impeach her as soon as she comes into office. They've publicly said this. And this isn't mocked by republicans - this is actively lauded! Policy planning doesn't matter. No one cares. No one cares Trump has no fucking idea what he's doing, and no one cared that Sanders had no fucking idea how to do any of the things he wanted done. 

So yeah, I don't see how this is going to be healed. In other countries the party has a lot more actual power about things - they are the ones who nominate prime ministers, not the people, they are the ones who rank their desired party candidates in order of who they want to get in. As a result, the party can get rid of idiotic outliers and be somewhat strong. That's not what America has. 

This is where I am too. I just don't see how the system is viable when the electorate is so strongly polarized that literally nothing will change their vote. Remember when soliciting prostitutes was disqualifying? Remember when flying to Argentina to see your mistress and lying about it was disqualifying? David Vitter and Mark Sanford do, but it sure isn't anymore! Republicans have realized that there are no electoral consequences for bad behavior, there are only consequences for Not Being Conservative Enough and Not Yelling Enough At Womenfolk.

And it's not just Republicans, who are polarized because I will never vote for a Republican no matter what they say or do in the campaign -- although I think my reasons are valid and theirs are not. The most I will ever do is vote third-party, and even that's a tough sell because of how the Republicans have positioned themselves. The Democrats do not enforce monolithic party discipline -- Democratic voters have to look at their nominee and ask whether that person will do what they want. The Republicans do, and that means that a vote for any Republican is a vote against gay rights, for Islamophobic policy, for overturning Roe, for ignoring climate change, for suppressing minority voting. It doesn't matter who it is, the party will force them to vote as a bloc, and so I can't support any Republican. The Democratic nominee could pledge to go on a murder spree and my best option would still be to vote third-party. (I'm voting for Clinton in this election, obviously.) The Republicans are polarized because they are insane; the Democrats are polarized because they are terrified of Republicans. But either way there's no way someone strongly identified with one end of the spectrum could vote for the other.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 hours ago, Shryke said:

The american system of government is, all in all, not very well constructed and can't withstand ideologically coherent and partisan parties. It's straining like crazy these days and in many ways the only hope in the near future is one party controlling most of the big prizes because there's no real solution in the alternative.

Shryke,

Do you mean that after one party "takes all the prizes" they use law and regulation to reinforce their control of all parts of the National Government making the "one party system" perminant?  That really does sound frightening.  I can hear the "even if there is only one party it's your duty as a citizen to go out and vote" shaming now.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 hours ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Oh, ok. Thanks for the info.

My mom is one of these women, and no matter how hard I tried to persuade her, I wasn't able to convince her not to vote for Trump. It's the damnedest thing. She was brought up as a Republican, and now it's like she just can't bring herself to vote for a different party, whatever the circumstances.

 

 

Edit: But hey, I have been making some inroads on my older brother. And though he's a lost cause for 2016, I think I'm going to make him competitive for 2020.

Both my parents.

[Kalbear]

In vague rational news, this in depth piece on how crazy the Putin and Russia links are is pretty incredible. Especially the parts about the gold star family. The look into intelligence in Europe and the US is pretty neat.

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-hillary-clinton-united-states-europe-516895