U.S. Politics: 2016 Election Goes To Overtime

[Altherion]

42 minutes ago, Week said:

Derision while supporting the rise of the alt-right and nominations of no-nothings is an appropriate reaction. Makes way more sense than engaging and disagreeing - right? Do we need to find a safe space where you don't need to read millenial think-pieces?

Whether I read the think-pieces or not is completely irrelevant. The problem is that this kind of public complaint has been successfully used to drive policy, mostly in academia, but also to some extent in corporations and in the government. Nobody cares about somebody complaining regarding something utterly trivial, but they do care when good people are fired or forced to resign as a result of those complaints.

[Swordfish]

Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I have no way of knowing one way or the other. When you consider how Trump has already shown his intent of essentially denuding the EPA (by appointing a climate change denier as its' head) and talking about pulling out of the Paris Accords, I would think Stein has plenty of personal reasons to want to see the result changed.  

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?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Risto said:

And here I thought this kind of circus only happens in my corner of the world...

This entire election process has been a circus. Why would the final act be anything but?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute 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?

Is it a possibility? Sure. Frankly I don't give a fuck who files the injunction. The numbers are close enough to justify a second look. Honestly, given Trump's own language pre-election regarding the legitimacy of the results, Clinton would be well within her moral rights to challenge.

[Mladen]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

This entire election process has been a circus. Why would the final act be anything but?

People grew tired of this shitstorm? I mean, I don't like Trump, but he is President-Elect, end of deal. You can change the system for some other elections, but trying to change it after the result is hilarious. I understand it is not the result people wanted, but so much energy is wasted on this charade... That is not environmentalist's thinking, Ms Stein

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Risto said:

People grew tired of this shitstorm? I mean, I don't like Trump, but he is President-Elect, end of deal. You can change the system for some other elections, but trying to change it after the result is hilarious. I understand it is not the result people wanted, but so much energy is wasted on this charade... That is not environmentalist's thinking, Ms Stein

Again, I think equating this recount with a petition to have the electoral college flip are two very different things. This recount is part of the process. Am I tired of it? Sure. But I'm also interested in the numbers. This isn't an attempt to change the result, it is a request to affirm the result.

[Mladen]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Again, I think equating this recount with a petition to have the electoral college flip are two very different things. This recount is part of the process. Am I tired of it? Sure. But I'm also interested in the numbers. This isn't an attempt to change the result, it is a request to affirm the result.

I agree with you. But, do you really need another counting? Is people's faith in electoral process that low? I think that entire country would really benefit from moving on to tomorrow and making sure America is not so divided as it seems to be.

[Swordfish]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Is it a possibility? Sure. Frankly I don't give a fuck who files the injunction. The numbers are close enough to justify a second look. Honestly, given Trump's own language pre-election regarding the legitimacy of the results, Clinton would be well within her moral rights to challenge.

She may be within her rights, but it would be a PR disaster.

Quotes of her suggesting we need to accept the results, coupled with the fact that she didn't make a concession speech in a timely manner, and a complete 180 on the topic of legitimacy and acceptance of election results?

That would pretty much feed directly into a lot of the negative attitudes people already have of her. She says whats expedient, not what she believes, the rules don't apply to her (even her on in this case), etc... etc.. etc...

The problem i think we really have with recounts is, I don't know that they are more trustworthy than initial results, and I'm not convinced there is a WAY to know.

Which is obviously a big problem.

[Dr. Pepper]

7 minutes ago, Risto said:

People grew tired of this shitstorm? I mean, I don't like Trump, but he is President-Elect, end of deal. You can change the system for some other elections, but trying to change it after the result is hilarious. I understand it is not the result people wanted, but so much energy is wasted on this charade... That is not environmentalist's thinking, Ms Stein

The point of the petition is because the EC doesn't vote until next month and the petition asks that the EC perform their actual function instead of just doing what has become tradition. 

The recount is something different and also isn't trying to 'change the system' but to make certain the count was correct in states where the vote is extremely close or where there are questions about potential outside influence.  A recount isn't some crazy thing.  Several local and state elections are also going through a recount right now.  It happens all the time.  

[Yukle]

Just now, Dr. Pepper said:

The point of the petition is because the EC doesn't vote until next month and the petition asks that the EC perform their actual function instead of just doing what has become tradition.

It's interesting how few people realise that the purpose of the Electoral College is to override popular will if they feel it is necessary.

That said, it's unlikely. The electors who need to be convinced to change their minds are Republicans - and at least 37 of them need to be faithless. That's a tall order.

[Mladen]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The point of the petition is because the EC doesn't vote until next month and the petition asks that the EC perform their actual function instead of just doing what has become tradition. 

The recount is something different and also isn't trying to 'change the system' but to make certain the count was correct in states where the vote is extremely close or where there are questions about potential outside influence.  A recount isn't some crazy thing.  Several local and state elections are also going through a recount right now.  It happens all the time.  

But, too much fuss has been created around it. It seems as some circles are thinking it may change the result and the media reporting about that have gone wild. Simple recount in areas where the result is on the margin of error is natural, I agree. But this is like having a drunk guest on the party who just refuses to go.

As I understand the electoral system, them making Trump president is their duty. Nothing else. Anything else would start a catastrophic chain of events that would truly shaken America as nothing before.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 minute ago, Yukle said:

It's interesting how few people realise that the purpose of the Electoral College is to override popular will if they feel it is necessary.

That said, it's unlikely. The electors who need to be convinced to change their minds are Republicans - and at least 37 of them need to be faithless. That's a tall order.

What?  The EC already IS overriding popular will.  The petition is asking that the EC side with that popular will..

I agree it's unlikely.  I already pointed out that the petition is stupid.  Everyone who signed it is just going to forget about the EC until the next presidential election or the next time the popular will is overridden due to a system that makes some votes worth more than others.  

[TrackerNeil]

44 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I have to agree. I think we should take steps to abolish the system, but these are the rules by which this election was decided. We have to stand by the rules that were in place.

But the rules do allow for electors to choose the president; in fact, they require it. If you want to abolish the Electoral College, I am all for it, but until then I'm going to play the game the way it's laid out.

[Dr. Pepper]

9 minutes ago, Risto said:

But, too much fuss has been created around it. It seems as some circles are thinking it may change the result and the media reporting about that have gone wild. Simple recount in areas where the result is on the margin of error is natural, I agree. But this is like having a drunk guest on the party who just refuses to go.

As I understand the electoral system, them making Trump president is their duty. Nothing else. Anything else would start a catastrophic chain of events that would truly shaken America as nothing before.

Whether or not some think the results will change has nothing to do with whether or not their are valid reasons for a recount.  In one state, Trump's lead was just over 10k, or 0.2% of the vote.  That's well within any margin of error and should result in an automatic recount.  Recounts are intended to put to rest any potential conflicts, to ensure the result is valid where the vote is extremely close or where questions of potential fraud have arisen.  This is part of the system and the process.

I don't disagree that the way the media reports on it is problematic.  That's a separate issue to whether or not there should be a recount in certain locations.

The intent of the electoral college is to prevent people like Trump from becoming president.  That's no longer how it operates today due to tradition and/or state laws that prevent electors from voting their conscience less they pay a fine or jail time.  Today the the EC simply makes some people's votes count more than others.  I agree that a change in the expected EC vote would be catastrophic which is why it almost surely won't happen, but I'd point out that Trump's administration is going to be catastrophic for generations to come.  America and by extension much of the world is already going to be shaken.  It will just happen at a slightly slower pace than it would if the expected ECV were changed come December 19th when the Electoral College finally votes.  

[DaveSumm]

Recalling the episode of Bear Grylls where he wandered about with Obama, Obama tried taking a selfie but couldn't figure out how to use the phone......but then he pointed out he's not allowed a phone as it could be hacked, and would then be a beacon telling you where the President was at all times. 2008 - 2016 being a pretty critical time for smartphone evolution, he just didn't know how to use an iPhone.

So will Trump get his twitter account taken away for the same reason when he becomes President? Cos it's fucking embarrassing the stuff coming out of him. I can't decide whether it's worth following him as it's so depressing to see him act so irresponsibly with it. I mean, "Fidel Castro is dead!" That's your President right there.

[Mladen]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

The intent of the electoral college is to prevent people like Trump from becoming president.  That's no longer how it operates today due to tradition and/or state laws that prevent electors from voting their conscience less they pay a fine or jail time.  Today the the EC simply makes some people's votes count more than others.  I agree that a change in the expected EC vote would be catastrophic which is why it almost surely won't happen, but I'd point out that Trump's administration is going to be catastrophic for generations to come.  America and by extension much of the world is already going to be shaken.  It will just happen at a slightly slower pace than it would if the expected ECV were changed come December 19th when the Electoral College finally votes.  

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.

Clinton for me became the new Cameron. It is a failed project and I hope it won't be a set back in a dream of millions of women of having the woman as Commander in Chief in WH. That said, this time, please keep distance from Michelle Obama, Sasha Obama, Chelsea Clinton etc. 

[Dr. Pepper]

9 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Recalling the episode of Bear Grylls where he wandered about with Obama, Obama tried taking a selfie but couldn't figure out how to use the phone......but then he pointed out he's not allowed a phone as it could be hacked, and would then be a beacon telling you where the President was at all times. 2008 - 2016 being a pretty critical time for smartphone evolution, he just didn't know how to use an iPhone.

So will Trump get his twitter account taken away for the same reason when he becomes President? Cos it's fucking embarrassing the stuff coming out of him. I can't decide whether it's worth following him as it's so depressing to see him act so irresponsibly with it. I mean, "Fidel Castro is dead!" That's your President right there.

But dontcha know, it shows he's a manly man with manly strength like his bff Putin when he says stuff like that on his twitter account.

I don't think he's giving up his twitter.  He won't even separate himself from his personal business.  

[Yukle]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

I don't think he's giving up his twitter.  He won't even separate himself from his personal business.  

On that note, how come it has never occurred to the USA to have conflict of interest laws?

[mormont]

1 hour 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.

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.

It's almost like - no, exactly like - you don't care, since it gives you an opening to bash them.

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

I do wonder what the Clinton camp had to promise Stein in order to use her as their proxy though.

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.

[Altherion]

1 minute ago, Yukle said:

On that note, how come it has never occurred to the USA to have conflict of interest laws?

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