The Medusa Fora

I've never been a fan of Trump, ever, but I had a feeling all along he'd win.

He's a businessman and knows how to wrap stupid people round his finger, so I'm not really all that surprised right now.

That is all.

soulfinger wrote:

DzM wrote:

firehazard wrote:Good luck today. Please do the right thing. The right thing, that is, not the extreme right thing.

My plan for the day involves a quart of moonshine and a half-gallon of orange juice. I'm not certain this is the Right Thing, but it sure as hell seems like the Correct Thing.

That sounds like the correct thing without a doubt. I sincerely hope that the voters of the USA show more sense than their counterparts in the UK did in the Brexit fiasco.

Memo to self: Stop thinking that it'll all be ok because the stupid thing you were worrying might happen, probably won't happen. For we seem to have moved into an age where the stupid thing you were worrying might happen, inevitably will happen.

Early results are that HIllary won the popular vote by a thin margin (rigged!), and that about 12 million less people voted than last time.

Let's plate the White House gold and "grab 'em by the pussy" ya'll.

Trash. Unadulterated trash.

Okay, since I started the thread and without NJR probably represent a more conservative view that most here, I am going to throw out my opinion-then feel free to fire away.

Again-this race was between two despicable people Hillary and Trump. I am a registered Democrat and voted for Bernie in the primary. Here is my thoughts why Hillary lost, in no uncertain order:

Hillary (and Bill) are probably two of the most corrupt politicians the world has seen. Wikileaks exposed the massive fraud of the Clinton Foundation
Hillary spent the weekend surrounded by Bruce, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Madonna, LeBron James-all 1% multi-millionaires-not exactly the common man.
Like the Brexit polls, the media was totally wrong again. No one trusts the media anymore-I believe 235 of the 250 top newspapers in the US endorsed HRC. The extent of the collusion between CNN and the DNC was staggering!
Trump's issues with women was dulled because Bill Clinton did the same (or worse).
The news that Obamacare rates are skyrocketing-plus the fact that the whole thing has been a disaster, especially for the self-employed. And, oh yea, Bill Clinton is on record saying it is the "craziest thing"!
Benghazi
Voting against both the Democratic and Republican Establishments-No more Bush or Clinton.
Millenials pissed off because the DNC screwed Bernie.
NAFTA-PA, WI, MI, Ohio-payback against the Clintons.


Will add more later.

Mike from Boston wrote:Again-this race was between two despicable people Hillary and Trump. Here is my thoughts why Hillary lost, in no uncertain order:

Hillary (and Bill) are probably two of the most corrupt politicians the world has seen. Wikileaks exposed the massive fraud of the Clinton Foundation
Hillary spent the weekend surrounded by Bruce, Jay-Z, Beyonce, Madonna, LeBron James-all 1% multi-millionaires-not exactly the common man.
Like the Brexit polls, the media was totally wrong again. No one trusts the media anymore-I believe 235 of the 250 top newspapers in the US endorsed HRC. The extent of the collusion between CNN and the DNC was staggering!
Trump's issues with women was dulled because Bill Clinton did the same (or worse).
The news that Obamacare rates are skyrocketing-plus the fact that the whole thing has been a disaster, especially for the self-employed. And, oh yea, Bill Clinton is on record saying it is the "craziest thing"!
Benghazi
Voting against both the Democratic and Republican Establishments-No more Bush or Clinton.
Millenials pissed off because the DNC screwed Bernie.
NAFTA-PA, WI, MI, Ohio-payback against the Clintons.

I understand that a lot of these are the points that have been hit over and over in various media. I don't consider myself much of a Clinton apologist, but I honestly believe that several of the issues you highlight here are unfortunate things that under other circumstances would go into a "well that sucked; let's learn from this and do better next time" bucket rather than a "this person clearly hates America and wants to kill us all" bucket. I'm not going to bother trying to re-litigate them. There's no point.

I believe that the core reason this went the way it did is that there is a strong current of disaffected voters that are pissed at the "the system." The more liberal minded of these voted Sanders, the more conservative minded of these voted Trump. Right or wrong, these people feel like they've been screwed over the last 10, 20, 30, or 40 years and want to burn everything to the ground. Trump prospered not by running against Clinton or the Democrats, but by running against everyone. His was, effectively, the "a pox on both their houses" campaign.

I believe very much that Trump directly appealed to the "fuck everyone" vote and that Clinton, rightly or wrongly, represented "everything wrong with the system."

I think it's interesting to compare Obama's campaign and the message he ran on with Trump's (and Sanders'): Change. What's there now doesn't work. Let's start over. He wasn't able to bring the change he promised, so the electorate went to someone even more out of the political system looking for that change.

It'll be interesting to see what the Republicans do over the next two years. They now own most State legislators, most Governorships, the majority of the House, a slim majority in the Senate, the Executive branch, and will have at least (and possibly more) Supreme Court appointments. They can no longer claim to be the opposition party whose only goal and message is "be the party of NO." They now have the ability to actually DO something. It'll be interesting to see if they can actually govern. It'll also be interesting to see if they overplay their hand ("We have a mandate!") given that Clinton narrowly won the popular vote.

This nation is divided right now. 50% of the voters don't want the guy that just got elected, and that guy has made some VERY big promises about what he's going to get done. He's going to have a tough time delivering.

Great points-I wonder now though is there really just two parties anymore? Have we seen the dawn of a real change in the two party system? In my very Blue state, the Dems only represent 36% of voters, Republicans 11% and Unenrolled 53% the majority. I only see the trend for Unenrolled (Indepedent) growing.

Mike from Boston wrote:Great points-I wonder now though is there really just two parties anymore? Have we seen the dawn of a real change in the two party system? In my very Blue state, the Dems only represent 36% of voters, Republicans 11% and Unenrolled 53% the majority. I only see the trend for Unenrolled (Indepedent) growing.

Interesting question.

Conventional wisdom for ages has been that a third (or fourth, etc) party can't exist in our system due to costs, etc. Sanders and Trump both proved that there is a hunger for choice outside of the Center-Right and Center-Left choices offered, respectively, by the Republican and Democrat parties. Trump also proved that it is possible to run a nationwide campaign on a relatively (as compared to what the Ds and Rs consider "normal") small budget. For the price of a summer blockbuster film he managed to defy all expectations.

Something that the Green Party and Libertarian Party should really look hard at is why their message consistently DOESN'T resonate with the electorate. Something the Ds and Rs both need to contemplate is whether their parties have irrevocably fractured.

Personally I think one simple change that would help our political process TREMENDOUSLY is instant runoff ballots. This would allow people to vote their conscience/preferred candidate/protest vote without it being a bullshit throwaway vote (did you know that, nationwide, "Harambe" the dead gorilla received 11000 votes?). In this system you would vote your preferred candidate and list your second (and possibly third) choice candidate on the same ballot. Votes are counted in the first round. If there is no conclusive winner then the bottom candidate gets dropped and all the ballots with that candidate get counted again with the second-choice as the "vote." Rinse and repeat until there is a clear winner. This system is used in a few local elections in the USofA (San Francisco, etc) and is used nationally in several countries (Australia being a notable one).

But that's a lot of hand-waviness. I really believe that you're right. A lot of the "fuck, let's burn it all down" comes from people feeling like they have no real choice and that both parties have screwed the individual. No matter who gets voted in the individual citizen feels like they're caught in the gears and that neither party seems to care. The Democrats claim to be the party of the working man, yet it was under a Democrat administration that NAFTA was passed. The Republicans claim to be the party of economic growth for all, yet most of their policies seem to revolve around tax breaks for rich people and "liberty" combined with more and more draconian rules about what individuals can (and can't) do with their own bodies.

One other point that just contrasts our government from many others is that we don't have a parliamentary system. Our government is not incentivized to have many parties with different views that have to form alliances to create a functional government. This means that our politicians aren't incentivized to try to find common ground. Combined with the gerrymandering that has created so many "safe" districts in every state and our politicians are further incentivized to pander to the most extremist natures of their districts and not provided any incentive to govern toward the middle. This (of course) leads to yet more gridlock and the perception of government dysfunction and, ultimately, to the "burn it all down" vote from people that feel like government doesn't work for them at all.

I believe that the country could very much benefit from more "fringe" parties that aren't jokes and can actually impact how our government runs.

Have to post something I saw. What would be the odds a few years ago, that the following three things would happen in a six month time period-I am guessing 10 Billion to 1!!

1. Guns and Roses reunite and show up on time.
2. Cubs wins World Series
3. Trump wins Presidency

Mike from Boston wrote:Have to post something I saw. What would be the odds a few years ago, that the following three things would happen in a six month time period-I am guessing 10 Billion to 1!!

1. Guns and Roses reunite and show up on time.
2. Cubs wins World Series
3. Trump wins Presidency

Yes, 2016 just keeps on delivering the gut-punches.

If it makes anybody feel better, at about 11:30pm pacific time last night, after the results were clear if not final (and after 1/2 a bottle of Tulamore Dew) somebody matching my description was seen putting a few arrows through the Tumpkin scarecrow on my front lawn.

Just a quick question from across the broad Atlantic: Do people think the result would have been any different if Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic candidate?

It's a resonant question over here, with Jeremy Corbyn (who would seem on the same wavelength as Sanders) having been overwhelmingly elected by the membership as leader of the Labour party and subsequently having survived a concerted leadership challenge from the party establishment. A party that's currently being slaughtered in the opinion polls. Not that the pollsters seem to know anything any more.

firehazard wrote:Just a quick question fve been any different if Bernie Sanders had been the Democratic candidate?

It's a resonant question over here, with Jeremy Corbyn (who would seem on the same wavelength as Sanders) having been overwhelmingly elected by the membership as leader of the Labour party and subsequently having survived a concerted leadership challenge from the party establishment. A party that's currently being slaughtered in the opinion polls. Not that the pollsters seem to know anything any more.

It's simple sexism. America hates powerful women and villifies them.

Sanders was as guilty of that as any of them.

Patton Oswalt got it right. America is more sexist than it is racist, and it's really racist.
https://mobile.twitter.com/pattonoswalt/status/796176331377516544?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

This result is a slap to women and minorities. If you aren't in either group (or both) you might be able to ignore it. Otherwise, you can't.

I will say that Trump would have been destroyed for his inability to articulate one meaningful sentence in any debate had he gone against Sanders. But Hillary Clinton had to endure Trump's bizarre conduct, because, ya' know, she had to seem... nice.

GTFO.

I can't argue that there isn't a lot of nascent sexism and racism in America, and I'm positive that played a role in Tuesday's outcome. I think, though, that Clinton had to deal with more than that - she had to deal with 30+ years of personal contempt that many people feel for her and Pres. Clinton. The personal animosity directed at both of them is palpable.

I suspect that Sen. Sanders or Sen. Warren would have fared better. But really - either one of them in the V.P. slot would have helped Clinton's chances a lot by exciting the liberal side of the "fuck it, burn it all down" electorate. Sen. Kaine was just blandness and did nothing to balance the ticket.

But yeah - sexism played a big part. And personal animus played a big part.

I was wondering about this massive wall Trump reckons he's having built..how exactly does he plan to make Mexico pay for it?