2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Sat Aug 13, 2016 8:11 pm UTC

So a group of Republicans want the party to stop financing the campaign of Trump and instead be used to keep the majority in the house of representatives and get it in the senate.

https://medium.com/@r4c16/open-letter-to-rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-9c5377f79060#.nm16qe4qe

Given the hate for Trump and how badly he's doing, this would be the proper approach to keep some influence.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Aug 14, 2016 4:08 am UTC

Plasma_Wolf wrote:So a group of Republicans want the party to stop financing the campaign of Trump and instead be used to keep the majority in the house of representatives and get it in the senate.
https://medium.com/@r4c16/open-letter-to-rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-9c5377f79060#.nm16qe4qe
Given the hate for Trump and how badly he's doing, this would be the proper approach to keep some influence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/14/us/po ... n-gop.html
I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP party did dump Trump, but maybe it's still snowballing. I haven't seen leadership drop their support yet. Maybe if Trump drops more in the polls this week, or his polls are steady a couple weeks later, then they might drop him.

There's no surprises about Trump's behavior, but the NYtimes just posted a summation of every single failing of Trump's campaign and himself. It reads as if Palin was running for office, only dumber and more erratic.
With donors, Mr. Trump has been an indifferent . He resisted making fund-raising calls and, during at least two major events in July, in New York and Chicago, burned valuable hours with contributors by asking them to go around the room, one by one, giving him their thoughts on who he should pick as his running mate.
That left little time for the donors to query Mr. Trump about policy or strategy, or for him to reassure them about his campaign. Jay Bergman, an Illinois oil executive who attended the event in Chicago, wondered if Mr. Trump had taken that approach “to avoid answering questions.”

Mr. Rove told associates he was stunned by Mr. Trump’s poor grasp of campaign basics, including how to map out a schedule and use data to reach voters. Mr. Rove later told people he believed Mr. Trump was confused and scared in anticipation of the general election, according to people who have heard Mr. Rove’s account.

in interviews with more than 20 Republicans who are close to Mr. Trump or in communication with his campaign, many of whom insisted on anonymity to avoid clashing with him, they described their nominee as exhausted, frustrated and still bewildered by fine points of the political process and why his incendiary approach seems to be sputtering.

He is routinely preoccupied with perceived slights, for example raging to aides after Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, in his re-election announcement, said he would stand up to the next president regardless of party. In a visit to Capitol Hill in early July, Mr. Trump bickered with two Republican senators who had not endorsed him; he needled Representative Peter T. King of New York for having taken donations from him over the years only to criticize him on television now.
Basic takeaways, so is this a liberal hit piece, or reality finally hitting home to Republicans? Secondly, I'd call it a dumpster fire, but that's an insult to dumpster fires.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1197
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Sun Aug 14, 2016 7:46 am UTC

If they're gonna dump him they better fucking get on with it - more than one state has deadlines on this shit, and Trump isn't doing them any favors in the PR department.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Sun Aug 14, 2016 9:19 am UTC

They can't and won't dump him. There are no good legal methods to officially un-nominate him, and attempting to do so will certainly split the party. Down ballot candidates will lose the votes of Trump supporters, unless they support Trump themselves, in which case they lose the support of the rest of the party. It'd be a mess.

What the Republican party can do is quietly move their focus to down ballot races. That's kind of like dumping him, except they don't tell us, and they don't tell Trump either. Try to persuade the Republicans who dislike Trump to at least come to the polls to vote down ballot. That'll be a difficult strategy, and won't completely mitigate the damage Trump is doing, but it's the best they got.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Aug 14, 2016 1:34 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:If they're gonna dump him they better fucking get on with it - more than one state has deadlines on this shit, and Trump isn't doing them any favors in the PR department.


As I stated before: there is literally no reason to Dump Trump right now. The time to do so has passed.

Diadem wrote:What the Republican party can do is quietly move their focus to down ballot races. That's kind of like dumping him, except they don't tell us, and they don't tell Trump either. Try to persuade the Republicans who dislike Trump to at least come to the polls to vote down ballot. That'll be a difficult strategy, and won't completely mitigate the damage Trump is doing, but it's the best they got.


Of all the shit that Trump decides to finally be competent about, Trump is distinctly aware of this possibility and his latest string of threats and stupid crap addresses this possibility.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /88609592/
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:50 pm UTC

Honestly, if I was the Republican leadership, I wouldn't even want Trump to win. What does it get them? A President who's not very Republican in his policies, doesn't listen to and often clashes with GOP party and congressional leaders, and who's repeatedly prone to gaffes. Even if he wins, he has a high chance of losing them the White House the next time around if he doesn't get himself impeached first (this is what I look forward to the most in the event of a theoretical Trump win).

If I was the Republican Party, I'd focus on letting Trump suffer a huge and borderline humiliating defeat, and otherwise work on stomping out traces of Trumpist politics in the Party with that defeat. I'd work on putting every effort in to preserving the Congressional majorities. And I'd prepare to do all in my power to amplify the negative attitudes against Hillary Clinton over the next four years while finding just the right young, optimistic, experienced, leadership-caliber red-blooded Republican candidate to run against her in four years, all the while focusing on eliminating any threats of a 2016 repeat.

The Republicans, barring something huge and chaotic, probably will not win the 2016 Presidential Election; and if they win, the victory will be Pyrrhic. But if they rally their focus, they have a fighting chance at dominating the 2020s.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:57 pm UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:just the right young, optimistic, experienced, leadership-caliber red-blooded Republican
Found under a bush grown from hens' teeth planted in unicorn shit, possibly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Sun Aug 14, 2016 10:09 pm UTC

British show "The Last Leg" has Australian comedian Adam Hills as host and pretty much every episode includes a rant. So he's had plenty to rant about in spring and summer. He'll have plenty to rant about just before the elections (I think there will be some episodes then as well).

Anyway, in addition to rants, he also speech in the persona of Trump. I thought about it again because I read about you discussing dumping Trump. Only Trump will be able to dump Trump, otherwise it's just not going to happen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bs9t13XkLo

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Mon Aug 15, 2016 1:51 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:Honestly, if I was the Republican leadership, I wouldn't even want Trump to win. What does it get them? A President who's not very Republican in his policies, doesn't listen to and often clashes with GOP party and congressional leaders, and who's repeatedly prone to gaffes.
(...)
The Republicans, barring something huge and chaotic, probably will not win the 2016 Presidential Election; and if they win, the victory will be Pyrrhic. But if they rally their focus, they have a fighting chance at dominating the 2020s.

This is all true. But there are two problems (for Republicans) with this approach
1) Down ballpt races. If Trump really crashes the Republicans could lose their majorities in the senate and house. They do not want that.
2) Supreme Court nominations. The next president will make at least one, probably two and maybe even more supreme Court appointments. And this is one area where Trump will most likely follow the main party line.

If Republicans lose both the house and senate, Clinton will be free to appoint whoever she pleases, and we might and up with 4 or even 5 relatively young, liberal judges.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Aug 15, 2016 2:28 am UTC

On the other hand, redistricting is coming up after the 2020. Hillary as President could help Republicans win in state elections in 2018 and 2020, giving them more power to draw district lines and ensure Republican control of the house for most of the following decade.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:04 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:And I'd prepare to do all in my power to amplify the negative attitudes against Hillary Clinton over the next four years while finding...
But you see, this is exactly what brought us Trump. Amplifying negative attitudes is what has torn the country apart, what is preventing any sort of progress (such as even examining the supreme court nominee), and encouraging the American people to have no faith whatsoever in its leadership, whomever it may be. It goes so far as to strike at the heart of democracy, which itself is based on the idea that people can make a difference.

No. Amplifying negative attitudes towards the leader of the most powerful country in the (once) free world is extremely destructive politics and is completely the wrong thing to do. Doing so pretty much guarantees another Trump lookalike (and that is terrifying enough), who will feed on the untapped hatred.

The Republican Party has to first decide what it really stands for. No.... I take that back. The Republican party has to first decide that it does not stand for destruction, hatred, bigotry, and ignorance, and instead stands for... well... that's for the Republicans to decide.

Once they decide that, they can then compare what they stand for and what they will actually do, with what Clinton actually does, in the context in which she does it. They can then make their arguments with intelligence, respect, and everything it takes to get America out of the rut of hatred it's in now. Only then can it recover the respect it once had.

Diadem wrote: The next president will make at least one, probably two and maybe even more supreme Court appointments. [...]
If Republicans lose both the house and senate, [...] we might and up with 4 or even 5 relatively young, liberal judges.
Why the difference between "one, probably two" and "4 or even 5"? Yeah, "up to three, or more" includes everything, but the emphasis seems disingenuously different.

Jose
Last edited by ucim on Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:06 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:06 am UTC

Thesh wrote:On the other hand, redistricting is coming up after the 2020. Hillary as President could help Republicans win in state elections in 2018 and 2020, giving them more power to draw district lines and ensure Republican control of the house for most of the following decade.

Redistricting only helps around the margins, and all the easy gerrymandering was done a while back. It only affects control of the House, not the Senate. It still sucks and eats up a substantial amount of seats though.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:08 am UTC

It doesn't matter what they are today, redistricting will be done again after the 2020 census.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:03 am UTC

Thesh wrote:It doesn't matter what they are today, redistricting will be done again after the 2020 census.

Saying that does not constitute evidence. Scientific studies constitute evidence. Redistricting affected 9 seats. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less. Either way, it alone does not cost the Democrats their House majority. Democrats cost Democrats their House majority. Look at where they live. They redistricted themselves into super concentrated districts.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... the-house/
it’s important to calibrate our expectations about what redistricting can accomplish. There is a lot more than redistricting to House elections. Democrats are concentrated in urban areas. Incumbents still outperform their party’s presidential candidate. And the electorate can still change its mind, as the turmoil of the last decade has made clear. A party can want to gerrymander, but the best laid plans can still go awry.
Honestly the Democrats should sneak in voting laws that maximize turnout(using whatever options their majority can force between new holiday to constitutional amendment.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:05 am UTC

sardia wrote:
Thesh wrote:It doesn't matter what they are today, redistricting will be done again after the 2020 census.

Saying that does not constitute evidence.


Huh? It's an indisputable fact that redistricting will be done after the 2020 census.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:14 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
sardia wrote:
Thesh wrote:It doesn't matter what they are today, redistricting will be done again after the 2020 census.

Saying that does not constitute evidence.


Huh? It's an indisputable fact that redistricting will be done after the 2020 census.

Thesh wrote:On the other hand, redistricting is coming up after the 2020. Hillary as President could help Republicans win in state elections in 2018 and 2020, giving them more power to draw district lines and ensure Republican control of the house for most of the following decade.

That is not what you were claiming when I told you the redistricting is only a marginally helpful tool for the controlling party. I'm not sure why you changed the conversation on me from "Redistricting matters!" to "redistricting will happen". If you want to go full Trump on me, and deny ever claiming that redistricting matters, then whatever. I'm probably right, you aren't denying it, end of story.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:30 am UTC

sardia wrote:That is not what you were claiming when I told you the redistricting is only a marginally helpful tool for the controlling party.


Don't be a jackass and tell me what I was claiming when you obviously did not read what I wrote - I know what I was claiming, and my comment was quite direct. If you want to carry on a conversation with voices in your head, then don't quote me when you do it.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
thunk
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:29 am UTC
Location: Arguably Exiled

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby thunk » Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:55 am UTC

Thesh wrote:
sardia wrote:
Thesh wrote:It doesn't matter what they are today, redistricting will be done again after the 2020 census.

Saying that does not constitute evidence.


Huh? It's an indisputable fact that redistricting will be done after the 2020 census.


Actually, after the size of the House was fixed at 435 in 1911, they forgot to reapportion following the 1920 census, after disagreeing on how to do it.
Though after the passage of the 1929 Permanent Apportionment Act, this has been solved. Anyway, such a system wouldn't fly in the age of strict "one person, one vote".
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:18 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Diadem wrote: The next president will make at least one, probably two and maybe even more supreme Court appointments. [...]
If Republicans lose both the house and senate, [...] we might and up with 4 or even 5 relatively young, liberal judges.
Why the difference between "one, probably two" and "4 or even 5"? Yeah, "up to three, or more" includes everything, but the emphasis seems disingenuously different.

I was counting Obama's appointments (Sotomayor and Kagan) in the second statement. Those two count as "relatively young, liberal judges", wouldn't you say?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:25 am UTC

[Edit: Never mind.]

I think it might be nice if we applied Canada's rule of mandatory retirement at 75, because it would at least slightly lower the stakes of any potential nomination.
Last edited by Lazar on Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:42 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:39 am UTC

Does Scalia have a twin who's also a SCOTUS justice, or do you expect him to make a comeback as a zombie? :)
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:43 am UTC

Yes, I do expect him to do that.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Mon Aug 15, 2016 2:36 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:I was counting Obama's appointments (Sotomayor and Kagan) in the second statement. Those two count as "relatively young, liberal judges", wouldn't you say?
Got it. It just wasn't clear to me that that's what you were doing.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:01 pm UTC

So Trump's campaign chairman may have direct monetary ties to Russia.

You know, I'm sort of impressed that we can keep getting juicer information out of the Trump campaign. Like you wouldn't think they could dig a deeper hole at this point... and yet... I'll watch for news tomorrow.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:16 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Diadem wrote: The next president will make at least one, probably two and maybe even more supreme Court appointments. [...]
If Republicans lose both the house and senate, [...] we might and up with 4 or even 5 relatively young, liberal judges.
Why the difference between "one, probably two" and "4 or even 5"? Yeah, "up to three, or more" includes everything, but the emphasis seems disingenuously different.

Jose


Probability. Fivethirtyeight helpfully broke down the odds, given ages and mortality. 1 is guaranteed. 2 is extremely likely, anything above grows increasingly unlikely. But, it could happen. And it'll make a big difference to the balance. Right now, we've got a pretty even split, but either side getting a significant majority could really skew the decisions coming out. So, that matters a great deal for the country on a long term basis.

sardia wrote:
Thesh wrote:On the other hand, redistricting is coming up after the 2020. Hillary as President could help Republicans win in state elections in 2018 and 2020, giving them more power to draw district lines and ensure Republican control of the house for most of the following decade.

Redistricting only helps around the margins, and all the easy gerrymandering was done a while back. It only affects control of the House, not the Senate. It still sucks and eats up a substantial amount of seats though.


Agreed. Gerrymandering is pretty much a foregone conclusion at the moment. It's not a large factor compared to down ballot effects and supreme court nominations.

Lazar wrote:[Edit: Never mind.]

I think it might be nice if we applied Canada's rule of mandatory retirement at 75, because it would at least slightly lower the stakes of any potential nomination.


I think it'd be nice in order to allow justices to retire, without feeling like they ought to stick it out for the good of partisanship or whatever.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Aug 15, 2016 3:18 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:Like you wouldn't think they could dig a deeper hole at this point... and yet... I'll watch for news tomorrow.
I'd think this is worse than money ties to China.

Even Bugs bunny couldn't dig a hole deeper than China.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 15, 2016 5:09 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:So Trump's campaign chairman may have direct monetary ties to Russia.

You know, I'm sort of impressed that we can keep getting juicer information out of the Trump campaign. Like you wouldn't think they could dig a deeper hole at this point... and yet... I'll watch for news tomorrow.
Everybody has a past. Clinton and the Dems have the money to research it. If it can be found it will be found.

edit
LMAO!!!!!!!

Politico writing about New York wrote:One other finding from the poll that may be worthy of note: Members of both parties agree about who would do a better job as first spouse. Bill Clinton enjoys the support of 87 percent of Democrats to Melania Trump’s 7 percent; Republicans chose Clinton by a margin of 46-42.

mcd001
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mcd001 » Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:06 pm UTC

ucim wrote:But you see, this is exactly what brought us Trump. Amplifying negative attitudes is what has torn the country apart, what is preventing any sort of progress (such as even examining the supreme court nominee), and encouraging the American people to have no faith whatsoever in its leadership, whomever it may be. It goes so far as to strike at the heart of democracy, which itself is based on the idea that people can make a difference.

Not really. Trump's rise is entirely a result of decades of Republican candidates who campaigned as limited-government, free-market conservatives, but governed as big-government crony capitalists once elected.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... story.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... k-leaders/

Eventually, rank-and-file voters figured out that the Republican party was much more interested in preserving the status quo and protecting their power and perks than in actually furthering a conservative agenda. The single factor most responsible for the rise of Donald Trump is the Republican Party's betrayal of its conservative base.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:18 pm UTC

Republicans preach the evils of big government, and once elected, proceed to demonstrate them.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8565
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Mon Aug 15, 2016 7:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Republicans preach the evils of big government, and once elected, proceed to demonstrate them.

Well yeah - they're all about freedom, until it comes to reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 15, 2016 8:00 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Republicans preach the evils of big government, and once elected, proceed to demonstrate them.

Well yeah - they're all about freedom, until it comes to reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights.

Hating gays and abortion isn't entirely inconsistent. The big evil government thing is the inconsistent part. Using government to beat up gays and women's rights is sorta inconsistent.

What's the deal with Trump's advisor taking dirty corruption money? Does that matter to anyone on the GOP? Maybe Paul Ryan face palm some more? This campaign is so awful that I'm losing my bearings to what counts as outrageous.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 15, 2016 8:04 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Zohar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Republicans preach the evils of big government, and once elected, proceed to demonstrate them.

Well yeah - they're all about freedom, until it comes to reproductive rights and LGBTQ rights.

Hating gays and abortion isn't entirely inconsistent. The big evil government thing is the inconsistent part. Using government to beat up gays and women's rights is sorta inconsistent.


It's enough of an inconsistency to result in the libertarian faction, anyway. All the "big government bad" talk sorta rankles whenever they cheerfully embrace government programs to tell people what to do in other areas.

What's the deal with Trump's advisor taking dirty corruption money? Does that matter to anyone on the GOP? Maybe Paul Ryan face palm some more? This campaign is so awful that I'm losing my bearings to what counts as outrageous.


Probably not. I imagine it'll result in "Hillary is MORE corrupt" talk. It's that kind of an election. Anything is justified so long as you can paint the other candidate as slightly worse.

And frankly, PAC issues and such haven't really bothered republicans in the past. Money in elections just isn't a hot button issue for them. It's small potatoes compared to some of Trump's other errors.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Mon Aug 15, 2016 8:27 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:And frankly, PAC issues and such haven't really bothered republicans in the past. Money in elections just isn't a hot button issue for them. It's small potatoes compared to some of Trump's other errors.
I mean, there's a bit of a difference between accepting campaign donations from a PAC and accepting $13M in cash bribes from a foreign government, though.

EDIT: messed up the quotes
Last edited by ahammel on Mon Aug 15, 2016 8:38 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Aug 15, 2016 8:31 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:And frankly, PAC issues and such haven't really bothered republicans in the past. Money in elections just isn't a hot button issue for them. It's small potatoes compared to some of Trump's other errors.
I mean, there's a bit of a difference between accepting campaign donations from a PAC and accepting $13M in cash bribes from a foreign government, though.

WE know it's a big deal. But the real question is, will more GOP voters raise issue with it to Trump? It doesn't really matter if it only outrages the Republicans who are already not voting Trump.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:11 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Anything is justified so long as you can paint the other candidate as slightly worse
... at least to the people who reckon it's alright to use electric shocks, waterboarding and blowtorches to get information from hundreds of Middle Easterners because some of them may be members of an organisation that actually burns people to death.

Bill and Ted's mission was not successful. "Be excellent to one another" is not humanity's motto.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Aug 16, 2016 5:15 pm UTC

First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 16, 2016 6:19 pm UTC


Sure he could. A subgroup of a sample will have a couple hundred people at most in these kinds of polls. Don't make up fake trumps failings, we have plenty of real ones to choose from.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 16, 2016 6:48 pm UTC

There's also a substantial subset that either declined to answer, or had not made up their mind yet.

If they swap over to Clinton, that's definitely negative for Trump.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3995
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Tue Aug 16, 2016 6:51 pm UTC

Alternately the "Declined to answer" group contains people who are going to vote for Trump but don't want to have to explain themselves to someone.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Tue Aug 16, 2016 6:59 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Sure he could. A subgroup of a sample will have a couple hundred people at most in these kinds of polls. Don't make up fake trumps failings, we have plenty of real ones to choose from.

A statistically significant sample of black voters in OH and PA gave Trump 0%, which is the lowest that they could at the given level of analysis. There's nothing fake about this. (Note that they declined to report a number in Iowa because the sample was too small.) Whatever his true level of support among the black population in those states is, it's probably not very different from 0%.

And there have been many other polls reporting similar results. For example, a recent Fox News poll (rated B by Fivethirtyeight) found Trump at 1% among black voters nationwide. An NBC/WSJ poll (rated A−) also found him at 1%. Are these results fake too?
Last edited by Lazar on Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:02 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests