2016 Election Thread

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

So my take on protesting is this...

 

For at least two generations, Americans have sat back and taken what the government gave them. They've trusted the government to take care of them and the elected representatives that they put in office to make the best decisions for them.

 

That has been very obviously changing in the last decade, and drastically so in the last few years, which is a lot of what led to the movement that spiked Trump and Sanders in primary season within their own parties.

 

Now Trump gets elected with a "first 100 days" platform that drastically scares minorities, women, and LGBTQ. There are many who are incredibly worried for themselves and/or their good friends who identify in those groups, and they want to make this known.

 

Right now, protest is the way they know. Violent protest is absolutely bull and shouldn't be acceptable at all, but the interviews initially out of Seattle and Chicago were from people who were protesting the things in Trumps 100 days policies, and that's a legitimate reason to protest.

 

Rather than "just" protesting, hopefully those same people find the next level, which is getting themselves involved with their local government, state government, and so on as a powerful voice. America lost the "by the people" part long ago, and hopefully this can be a call to bring it back...

 

Not to ask a silly question, but has anyone here even read Trump's 100 day plan? 

 

There's nothing in there about women and LGBTs....  The infamous wall is in there, but that's about it.  I posted something similar on facebook as what I've said here. A big problem with this entire discussion is the stereotyping and refusal to listen to what is actually being said.

[TheLeviathan]

The electoral college has bebefits too. It allows people to overcome the tyranny of the majority. Rural voters would be essentially voiceless in national elections without it.

 

You basically keep urban centers happy and you guarantee a win.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Jill Stein is a science, Vaccine denying idiot. She wasn't winning town crier, let alone president.

 

Gary Johnson just came across as an empty headed do nothing guy, with literally no plan for foreign policy at all, and who's idea of freedom is no taxes to fix our crumbling infrastructure.

 

There were terrible candidates. Terrible.

 

You show your true colors when you post crap like this. 

 

Jill Stein, by the way, was a medical doctor, and her opinion on vaccines mirrors that of a lot of people, namely that there are real questions not being answered with anything other than corporate lobbying of the government.  People have figured out that that when a big corporate entity lobbies the government in the best interests of the people, that in reality the end result is in the best interests of the people.

 

Johnson does have a foreign plan. It was "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."  (Jefferson said that originally by the way, but I suppose he was clueless too).  You just don't like it.

 

Regardless, that doesn't get around the real point I was making in regards to electioneering that is going on in this country. Both of those candidates were forcibly excluded from the process despite it being mathematically possible for them to win. They were on every single state ballot. Neither of those candidates got federal matching funds (Trump and Hillary did), and both were excluded from the debates by a committee that exists solely of Republicans and Democrats.  For all the complaints around here about gerrymandering, I would think that this would offend everyone here. This is nothing but a legal form of election fraud, and if you want to start fixing what is wrong with the system, it might be wise to start letting more voices be heard. 

 

One of the big reasons why Trump is President right now is that he had the money and name recognition to force his voice to the forefront; in spite, I might add, of a system that actively fought it.  Jill Stein, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Gary Johnson, had no such power.  When the system actively resisted them, there was little they could do.

 

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

Sorry, I don't give America the credit for being smart enough to have made this about solving some kind of problem. The problem remains, it will remain, it will divide the country even further.

 

Voting for Trump is the ultimate cut off your nose to spite your face move, a vote for him is a vote for everything he stands for, which is ignorance and hate. A vote for him was another example of the me vs we attitude that is pervasive in the US.

 

Donald Trump is your president........Jesus H Christ man.

 

America recognizes that the political system is broken.  The middle class is well aware of the war against it, and it is well aware that it's losing.  What they haven't figured out is that their problem is both Democrats and Republicans. All they've done in the last 8 years is vote for a perceived outsider within the two party system.

 

It very well may be cutting off the nose to spite the face, but until the two party system gets back in touch with the middle class or it collapses, you're going to see this.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

You're seriously misreading the results of this election.  It wasn't Trumps tax-plan, or his pro-capitalism stance that got him elected.  The election was about anti-establishment, not about endorsing conservative issues or rejecting liberal ones.  

 

I'm not sure if Socialism is viable, but Trump demonstrates that Sanders probably would have been more viable than you could have predicted.   

 

I really hope that other liberals here don't take what Dave has to take to heart.  We should not become a more centered, pro-capitalist party.  That's exactly what led to the demise here. Moderate, near-Republican Democrats (like Clinton, etc.) are losers from here on out. 

 

I really think that the nation as a whole needs to revisit what capitalism means now to what it meant several decades ago... just saying. Many of the problems relating to capitalism as it is presently implemented is due to corporate lobbying to reduce the competition it claims to employ. I'm not giving Republicans a pass here, we saw that under GWB in particular. But we don't have healthy competition in this country anymore. It's a big reason why many of our costs continue to rise while many jobs continue to head oversees to markets that aren't nearly as open to us as we are to them.

[ashbury]

I really think that the nation as a whole needs to revisit what capitalism means now to what it meant several decades ago...

While I found many things to disagree with in your flurry of messages this morning, which I won't take time to belabor, we're in sync on this one. Most of what gets spoken economically is basically recycled Adam Smith, and his world of small shopkeepers and blacksmiths, whose economic reach was basically how far they could walk, is gone.

 

I just want to clarify whether you equate capitalism with free enterprise. To me, free enterprise is a general principle that the law of supply and demand is all that you need. Capitalism is best exemplified by the TV show Shark Tank, where those already holding large amounts of capital decide which ideas are given a try and which ones wither on the vine for lack of funding.

 

I majored in Physics, so I was very influenced by learning about Relativistic Physics, which reduces to the normal case of Newtonian Physics (apples falling from trees, etc) when velocities are low, but produces surprising results that have been empirically validated when you start traveling really really fast.

 

I want a similar kind of economic theory. One that reduces to Adam Smith when you have a low velocity economy where pretty much everyone has to work all the time just to provide the necessities of life, but shows the way for a society we want to live in when the world is interconnected and abundance has started to look sustainable for the time being. The laws of supply and demand don't go away, and indeed are a great motivating force when scarcity is a fact of daily life; but it turns into Winner Take All in an interconnected world, and to still have poverty as a result seems dumb when overall there is abundance.

[Craig Arko]

I want a similar kind of economic theory. One that reduces to Adam Smith when you have a low velocity economy where pretty much everyone has to work all the time just to provide the necessities of life, but shows the way for a society we want to live in when the world is interconnected and abundance has started to look sustainable for the time being. The laws of supply and demand don't go away, and indeed are a great motivating force when scarcity is a fact of daily life; but it turns into Winner Take All in an interconnected world, and to still have poverty as a result seems dumb when overall there is abundance.

Try this. Probably best just to find a used copy of the book.

 

https://archive.org/stream/theoryofgamesand030098mbp/theoryofgamesand030098mbp_djvu.txt

[Mr. Brooks]

Not to ask a silly question, but has anyone here even read Trump's 100 day plan?

 

There's nothing in there about women and LGBTs.... The infamous wall is in there, but that's about it. I posted something similar on facebook as what I've said here. A big problem with this entire discussion is the stereotyping and refusal to listen to what is actually being said.

Well that depends on which of Obama's executive orders Trump considers unconstitutional.

There are specific orders that protect trans people and some that protect gay marriage rights.

 

Also, not on this list, but something he promised while campaigning, was that he would nominate only staunchly pro life judges.

 

I have seen some in here say that Roe v Wade will never be overturned. I don't know why you would assume that, but for argument let's assume that.

 

The Republican party has shown there are other ways to effectively make abortion illegal at the state level, only to be narrowly rebuked by the Supreme Court.

Now, Scalia's successor won't change that, but there is a good chance Trump gets to replace Ginsberg as well.

 

When you say, "listen to what is actually said", why does that not include the things Trump actually said while campaigning?

It's a genuine question, not a gotcha question, because I hear that a lot from people who voted Trump.

"We don't know if he actually means this stuff."

 

And yes, I realize that some is/was taken out of context. I thought the way the media cropped what he said about veterans with PTSD was absolutely despicable, and anyone who did that should never work in news again.

[stringer bell]

Agree on the Electoral College. I don't advocate any challenge to Trump's election--he won under the rules in place--but a campaign devoted to 7-10 swing states isn't fair to the other 40+.

On Trump's election and a Republican Congress--I am 62 years old. I don't think I'll live long enough to see the undoing of the inevitable excesses we are bound to see. Americans get what they deserve in elections. Perhaps we will see an upturn in interest in the political process.

[Mike Sixel]

The electoral college removes my ability to have an equal voice and vote. Just because you choose to live a rural lifestyle, you vote should not count more than mine. That is wrong. One person...one vote.

[Mike Sixel]

You show your true colors when you post crap like this.

 

Jill Stein, by the way, was a medical doctor, and her opinion on vaccines mirrors that of a lot of people, namely that there are real questions not being answered with anything other than corporate lobbying of the government. People have figured out that that when a big corporate entity lobbies the government in the best interests of the people, that in reality the end result is in the best interests of the people.

 

Johnson does have a foreign plan. It was "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." (Jefferson said that originally by the way, but I suppose he was clueless too). You just don't like it.

 

Regardless, that doesn't get around the real point I was making in regards to electioneering that is going on in this country. Both of those candidates were forcibly excluded from the process despite it being mathematically possible for them to win. They were on every single state ballot. Neither of those candidates got federal matching funds (Trump and Hillary did), and both were excluded from the debates by a committee that exists solely of Republicans and Democrats. For all the complaints around here about gerrymandering, I would think that this would offend everyone here. This is nothing but a legal form of election fraud, and if you want to start fixing what is wrong with the system, it might be wise to start letting more voices be heard.

 

One of the big reasons why Trump is President right now is that he had the money and name recognition to force his voice to the forefront; in spite, I might add, of a system that actively fought it. Jill Stein, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, and Gary Johnson, had no such power. When the system actively resisted them, there was little they could do.

Without vaccines, millions are dead right now. That is science. Not an opinion, science. Insulting me as not thinking about those candidates is a nice straw man.

[Mr. Brooks]

The electoral college removes my ability to have an equal voice and vote. Just because you choose to live a rural lifestyle, you vote should not count more than mine. That is wrong. One person...one vote.

I agree. And I live in a rural area.

One person, one vote.

 

In addition to the popular vote, we should have ranked choice voting. That would give people much more comfort voting third party.

We also need more voting precincts. I'm reading about precincts where people are waiting 2+ hours in line. That is unacceptable.

We also need to work towards making online voting secure, that will give more voters access.

All states should also allow mail in ballots.

All citizens should also be automatically registered upon turning 18. There was a lawmaker down south somewhere, who actually made the argument that Americans shouldn't just automatically have the right to vote just for turning 18! Think about that. He said that out loud. In real life, not an SNL skit. Amazing that people want to make voting harder.

Embarrassing.

 

There are so many improvements that we can make to the voting process.

[Bark's Lounge]

http://www.snopes.com/noam-chomsky-predicted-trumps-presidency/

[Craig Arko]

http://www.snopes.com/noam-chomsky-predicted-trumps-presidency/

Sharing.

[Mr. Brooks]

http://www.snopes.com/noam-chomsky-predicted-trumps-presidency/

We can only hope that prediction doesn't follow through to the end.

[TheLeviathan]

The electoral college removes my ability to have an equal voice and vote. Just because you choose to live a rural lifestyle, you vote should not count more than mine. That is wrong. One person...one vote.

You know, you could just move to a rural area if it bothers you. Your argument works both ways.

 

Allowing any handful of areas, regardless of their political leanings, to decide elections leaves huge geographic swaths just as disenfranchised, probably far more so. THE system isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

We can only hope that prediction doesn't follow through to the end.

Agreed.

[biggentleben]

 

The electoral college has bebefits too. It allows people to overcome the tyranny of the majority. Rural voters would be essentially voiceless in national elections without it.

You basically keep urban centers happy and you guarantee a win.

 

I'm not saying abolish it, but tying it to Congressional representatives is nuts. If South Dakota were down to 3 people living in the entire state, all 3 would have a position in Congress as every state is guaranteed 3 representatives, and therefore 3 electors. Take out the Senate tie, and then it would be still representative. Every state is guaranteed at least one elector, and you'd eliminate the imbalance of rural vs. urban right now.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not saying abolish it, but tying it to Congressional representatives is nuts. If South Dakota were down to 3 people living in the entire state, all 3 would have a position in Congress as every state is guaranteed 3 representatives, and therefore 3 electors. Take out the Senate tie, and then it would be still representative. Every state is guaranteed at least one elector, and you'd eliminate the imbalance of rural vs. urban right now.

 

I don't disagree it could be rebalanced, but it's still a good idea to have in place.  Strict popular vote opens up it's own host of imbalances.

[Bark's Lounge]

When America has elected a Reality TV Star, every citizen's credibility goes out the window. It's a mess, it's a sham, it is awful. Many smart people voted for the Orange one, we failed to see the protest of this election. Clinton was hated more than anyone could know.

 

The centrist model of the Democratic party is dead. Ellison should be the head of the DNC. Sanders and Warren are my beacons of hope.

 

Hopefully with Ellison, we can get some fresh new blood into this party and make some attractive candidates for the future.

 

The Democrats have failed at this the last ten years.

 

The progressiveness of the western world serves us well.

We will catch up to them, whether it be 8 - 12 years, it will happen.

 

The center is erased - only the Dems held onto that, and that is why the party fails. We live in an age of extremism.

 

[Mr. Brooks]

Not to ask a silly question, but has anyone here even read Trump's 100 day plan?

 

There's nothing in there about women and LGBTs.... The infamous wall is in there, but that's about it. I posted something similar on facebook as what I've said here. A big problem with this entire discussion is the stereotyping and refusal to listen to what is actually being said.

Looks like Trump has pegged Steve Bannon as his chief strategist.

This doesn't do much to quell the racist "stereotype" surrounding Trump.

Would you agree with that diehard?

[TheLeviathan]

I disagree Bark, I think this had almost nothing to do with the platform of the Democratic Party.

 

And, depending upon what you mean by "more progressive", you may only deepen the problem.

 

IMO, the party needs to do what the DFL Rep in the Star Trib said today: talk to the blue collar worker and farmer again.  Cut out the elitism and be a party of the every day person.  Identity politics and all the new wave nonsense of millenials grates against people.  You can fight for some of those principles (trans rights, gay marriage, etc.) but it needs to go hand in hand with respect for the blue collar worker too.  

 

This was not a vote against the platform of the Dems, it was a vote against their attitude and their super-establishment candidate.

[stringer bell]

 

I don't disagree it could be rebalanced, but it's still a good idea to have in place.  Strict popular vote opens up it's own host of imbalances.

Such as? I'm not sure what they might be. The only scary thing about popular vote election of a president is that if the race were really close, a nationwide recount would be long and arduous. How close? I would guess a margin of 100,000 or less nationally would be close enough. I wouldn't exactly classify that as an "imbalance".

 

BTW, I've said Clinton will win the popular vote by over a million and I'm sticking with that. According to CNN, 30% (about 4M votes) of California's vote has yet to be counted. Clinton is winning California by more than 25%, so if she increases her lead by 25% of the remaining California vote, she would increase her lead of almost 700,000 by another million. Her final margin may be more than one full percentage point. As I've noted before, you can add another 1% to Clinton's margin (+.5% for Clinton, and -.5% for Trump) and Trump still gets 270 electoral votes.

[Mike Sixel]

 

You know, you could just move to a rural area if it bothers you. Your argument works both ways.

Allowing any handful of areas, regardless of their political leanings, to decide elections leaves huge geographic swaths just as disenfranchised, probably far more so. THE system isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

 

It's not about areas, it's about people. One person, one vote.

 

Where I live should 100% not matter.

 

Why is it better than every vote counting the same, no matter where you live?

[TheLeviathan]

 

It's not about areas, it's about people. One person, one vote.

 

Where I live should 100% not matter.

 

Why is it better than every vote counting the same, no matter where you live?

 

Take Illinois as a small scale version of what you'd be suggesting.  Illinois is always blue, yet if you look at the way their map votes, there are only a handful of counties that actually vote blue while the rest of the state votes red.  So politicians running for national office know this and spend virtually no time in out-state Illinois and almost entirely in the Chicago area.  Money from outstate Illinois generally gets funneled through Chicago as well.  

 

For all intents and purposes, the geographic majority of Illinois is disenfranchised.  Get rid of the EC and you will do the same to the geographic majority of the country.  Hell, the massive population areas of the NE and southern California may be enough to override most of the rest of the country if they are want to do so.  Politicians will know this and pander to only that crowd.  Over time that can cause a host of issues.  

 

Essentially, it's tyranny of the majority.  And while it's easy for urbanites to scoff at that notion, that protection helps minorities of any kind be it political, geographic, racial, or gender.  If, for whatever reason, concentrated majorities started to force themselves on others in a different way (not urban vs. rural, but white vs. black for instance), the EC gives the minority a fighting chance.

 

It's the same reason why every state, regardless of population, has two Senators.  Could the EC be rebalanced a bit to make that a little less tilted towards rural areas?  Sure, but getting rid of the EC altogether is not a good idea.  

[Mike Sixel]

Bull. People don't vote for someone if they come to their county.

 

It isn't tyranny of the majority at all. We still have the senate, the house, the courts. 

 

And no, it isn't the same as the senate. We vote 1 person, 1 vote, for the senate. Not by county, not by congressional district.

 

You are arguing that since people who decide to live outside cities live in more spread out areas, that they should get more votes than me. I am arguing we should all count as the same vote.

 

If 90% of hte people live in CA and NE, why shouldn't those parts of the country get more sway in how the country is run? Why, because they choose to live there, should their vote count less than people that choose to live in the Dakotas?

[TheLeviathan]

 

Bull. People don't vote for someone if they come to their county.

 

It isn't tyranny of the majority at all. We still have the senate, the house, the courts. 

 

And no, it isn't the same as the senate. We vote 1 person, 1 vote, for the senate. Not by county, not by congressional district.

 

You are arguing that since people who decide to live outside cities live in more spread out areas, that they should get more votes than me. I am arguing we should all count as the same vote.

 

If 90% of hte people live in CA and NE, why shouldn't those parts of the country get more sway in how the country is run? Why, because they choose to live there, should their vote count less than people that choose to live in the Dakotas?

 

It's symbolic.  It's ignoring those voters.  And if you think it's bull I'll remind you what happened less than a week ago when millions of people who used to be Democrats just handed that same party a massive defeat.  Why?  Because the Dems focused all their attention on urban centers as the key to their victory.  Get rid of the EC and both parties will be fighting over the heavy population centers with nothing but scraps for the rural areas.

 

I'm arguing that those that choose to live in large urban centers should not end up being the deciding factor for Presidential elections.  If you allow heavily concentrated areas of the country to dominate the entire geographic region you invite disenfranchisement, revolt, and a host of other things.  The major population centers already get the majority of the money, attention, and focus.  Remove the EC and the rural areas will become a forgotten wasteland.

 

Your own dismissive tone about that pretty much confirms it.  Like it or not, the country needs those areas as well and the EC gives them a chance to be heard.

[Mike Sixel]

 

It's symbolic.  It's ignoring those voters.  And if you think it's bull I'll remind you what happened less than a week ago when millions of people who used to be Democrats just handed that same party a massive defeat.  Why?  Because the Dems focused all their attention on urban centers as the key to their victory.  Get rid of the EC and both parties will be fighting over the heavy population centers with nothing but scraps for the rural areas.

 

I'm arguing that those that choose to live in large urban centers should not end up being the deciding factor for Presidential elections.  If you allow heavily concentrated areas of the country to dominate the entire geographic region you invite disenfranchisement, revolt, and a host of other things.  The major population centers already get the majority of the money, attention, and focus.  Remove the EC and the rural areas will become a forgotten wasteland.

 

Your own dismissive tone about that pretty much confirms it.  Like it or not, the country needs those areas as well and the EC gives them a chance to be heard.

 

so, because I live in a city, my vote should count less? that's your argument.

 

And, they lost because they idiotically  chose to ignore those people, not because of the EC.....

 

I am not dismissive at all, I'm baffled that if you start over from scratch, you would argue that those that choose to live in less dense areas should have their vote count for more than my vote. 

 

Why should it? What is the logic? 

[TheLeviathan]

 

so, because I live in a city, my vote should count less? that's your argument.

 

And, they lost because they idiotically  chose to ignore those people, not because of the EC.....

 

I am not dismissive at all, I'm baffled that if you start over from scratch, you would argue that those that choose to live in less dense areas should have their vote count for more than my vote. 

 

Why should it? What is the logic? 

 

They idiotically chose to ignore those people because they didn't think there were enough of them to upset their chances of winning.  Without the EC they would have been right and would go on continuing to ignore those people.

 

I've already explained the logic.  Here's Slate defending the same things.  Here is Politico doing the same thing when, 4 years ago, the spilled milk crying of the losers were arguing the same thing you are now.  Both left-wing outlets that we decrying right-wing whining after 2012.  Now it's the left-wing's turn to whine apparently.  

 

So the better question is - what makes you, an urban voter, matter more than a rural voter?  Because if you undo the EC, no matter what else you say, it WILL make you matter more.  And if you think this uprising of forgotten voters was hard to take, imagine what it would be like when you disenfranchise everyone that isn't living in a major metro area.

[Mike Sixel]

Nothing makes me more at all......1 vote, 1 person. 

 

so, we put the future of the nation in the hands of less people, because they choose to live spread out. Does that even make sense, when you just think about it?

 

How far would you go? If 90% of us live in urban areas, should rural areas still get more votes than us? Where is the line?

 

And, I've been saying this for years and years. this has nothing to do with spilled milky whining. 

 

Let's look at the Slate argumet:

 

1. that's a terrible argument in 2016. With good voting machines, and open polling places, that argument is one of fear. It has nothing to do with right and wrong, but expediency.

 

2.No, he isn't "everyone's president". Turns out, that of those who voted, he isn't even all that close to a plurality when the vote counts are done, relatively speaking. this doesn't address at all the imbalance of votes per state / person counting more.

 

3. So, it is good that only 4-5 states actually decide the presidency most of the time? That seems very anti-democratic to me.

 

4. This is an interesting discussion. But it ignores that STATES should not matter. What should matter is one person, one vote. This is the ONE time that we vote across states. Why do the artificial lines on a map matter at all? I would argue that making a state matter should not be the issue, it should be about votes.

 

5. I don't even know what this means. MANY elections are decided by pluralities.

 

Look, this is the ONE TIME we get to vote across state lines. I don't understand why 1 vote, 1 person, is wrong. I just don't. And no, I'm not talking about direct democracy, I'm talking about how we vote for the people that represent us. They still make the decisions.