2016 US Presidential Election

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:28 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I don't think Trump has the power to get rid of democracy. Split powers and all that.

I do think he has the potential to be a quite bad president.

It would depend on how much our institutions failed. Trump is just as much the symptom of institutional failure. Based off his low polling numbers, there's danger but the country hasn't crumbled into the fourth Reich just yet.


That's fair. It's certainly safe to say that he's not a GOOD sign. I just worry that delving too far into "he's literally Hitler" hyperbole results in people just ignoring criticisms. I see an awful lot of that around.

Institutionally, though, I don't think the US is in danger of crumbling. Most things are working pretty much the same as they usually do.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10341
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
No. This is something that a lot of people seem to worry about but it really doesn't work that way. There are no circumstances under which any president can launch nukes simply by saying so; and there isn't even a "button" in the sense that most people seem to think. The president can authorize a nuclear strike, yes - but in the absence of a known threat, an order to do so would never be carried out. There is protocol in place to prevent that, and frankly even if there wasn't there is no way that the chain of command is going to kick-start the end the world just because Donald Trump says so on a whim.
Yes. That is true.
Yet, ...Can you imagine Mr. Trump with the Bully Pulpit?
That man may be making important policy speeches, everyday.

If one or more Congress Member crosses the Chief Executive, ...
Those people may have Hell to pay. Publicly? No Secret Deals?

Who is preventing us from being Great??!
No one dare keep us from being Great??!

I have No Idea what might happen.
Is he much worse than Teddy Roosevelt?

oh, Teddy, really, was one of the Rough Riders.
Politics.... I know nothing about the subject.

That doesn't stop anyone else from posting.

I know. I know.
Two wrongs do not make a Right.
Three Lefts make a Right.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby mosc » Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:30 pm UTC

Goldwater's fitness for holding the nuclear trigger was attacked by the Democrats with this ad.

A pretty false equivalence. The cold war is long over so referencing that stuff without context is troubling. There was a real feal of mutually assured destruction seen throughout the politics of the time and the culture at large. Goldwater, like all candidates, was evauluated more directly than today on his temperment in a nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union. It wasn't idle speculation either, they had the recent Cuban Missle Crisis to theorize from.

Trump's not being questioned on his tempermant alone. He's being questioned directly on things he's said. The equivalence to Goldwater would be comments condemning his atual comments regarding nuclear war as reckless and dangerous, not some more general fear being played up.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:34 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I don't think Trump has the power to get rid of democracy. Split powers and all that.

I do think he has the potential to be a quite bad president.

It would depend on how much our institutions failed. Trump is just as much the symptom of institutional failure. Based off his low polling numbers, there's danger but the country hasn't crumbled into the fourth Reich just yet.


That's fair. It's certainly safe to say that he's not a GOOD sign. I just worry that delving too far into "he's literally Hitler" hyperbole results in people just ignoring criticisms. I see an awful lot of that around.

Institutionally, though, I don't think the US is in danger of crumbling. Most things are working pretty much the same as they usually do.


I realistically expect Trump to be like Nixon. He'll fire bureaucrats until he gets the "right ones" in power, and we might see something like the Watergate scandal except with the NSA / FBI / whatever against Trump's political enemies. We'll finally get to test those anti-Nixon measures placed in the lawbooks during the 1980s. Basically, gross abuse of power by Trump but mostly internal to the US. We'd survive but we'll probably get some anti-corruption laws 8 years from now to try and stop the next narcissistic President from pulling a Nixon / Trump again.

Trump would be boisterous, but the US has a strong-as-hell military so the world will still "respect" us. I don't think Trump vs Clinton would change foreign affairs too much actually: Clinton would make Europeans like us a bit more and we'll probably play nicer with some trade agreements. But I can't really imagine Trump starting a nuclear-war like a lot of people insinuate.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:54 pm UTC

cphite wrote: The president can authorize a nuclear strike, yes - but in the absence of a known threat, an order to do so would never be carried out. There is protocol in place to prevent that
Citation please.

The only person who can legally interfere is the secretary of defense. The president picks the secretary and can fire them at will. I have seen nothing at all to support the claim that any part of the procedure has anything to do with why the missiles are being fired.
Major Harold Hering wrote:How can I know that an order I receive to launch my missiles came from a sane president?
Major Hering was dishonorably discharged for asking that question in class, which is typically the ideal time to ask questions.
Last edited by Quizatzhaderac on Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Thu Aug 11, 2016 5:58 pm UTC

Vahir wrote:
cphite wrote:No. This is something that a lot of people seem to worry about but it really doesn't work that way. There are no circumstances under which any president can launch nukes simply by saying so; and there isn't even a "button" in the sense that most people seem to think. The president can authorize a nuclear strike, yes - but in the absence of a known threat, an order to do so would never be carried out. There is protocol in place to prevent that, and frankly even if there wasn't there is no way that the chain of command is going to kick-start the end the world just because Donald Trump says so on a whim.


Yes, yes, he can't by a word nuke a country, but his decision whether or not to use nuclear weapons would be hugely important nonetheless. If the chain of command is split, for example, then he would be able to do something horrible like that. And besides, that someone so stupid, terrible, and silly has such an important voice in whether or not we use weapons which can END THE WORLD should be scary enough by itself!


If the chain of command is that split on whether or not to launch a nuclear strike, Trump being in the room isn't going to make that big a difference. For one thing, the decision would have to be predicated by a threat; either a confirmed launch from someone, or a sincere belief that one was imminent. We aren't going to launch preemptively based on an angry conversation.

North Korea is run by a true to life super-villain and even they manage not to actually nuke anybody.

Donald Trump has abused his position and powers whenever he could for his entire life, for his own benefit or worse, to satisfy his enormous ego. This is a man who has been in near-continuous frivolous lawsuits for decades, who's pettiness borders on sociopathy. Do you REALLY think he won't abuse his presidential position to attack everyone and anyone who's ever slighted him? He'd be the most corrupt and destructive president in the last century. Just the suggestion that such a man could be elected should be a shocking wake up call for American democracy. And yet here he is, a serious candidate with a serious chance to gain the office.


I don't disagree... but do you honestly not see the same thing in Clinton?

This is a woman who used her political clout as first lady to attack and destroy the credibility of women who accused her husband of rape. Dozens of people who've been in position to harm her politically have wound up dead, or suddenly charged with crimes, etc. There is evidence that she's used the Clinton Foundation - to trade political favors, ranging from job appointments to contract bids being approved... and this includes dealings with people and governments in countries considered hostile or unfriendly.

During her tenure as Secretary of State, she pushed for military intervention in Libya which has left that country in utter ruin... Qaddafi was bad, to be sure, but things are clearly worse now - for our own national interests and for the people who live there. She not only voted for but actually pushed for the invasion of Iraq... She's definitely one of the most hawkish Democrats out there.

She allowed highly sensitive national secrets to be placed on a private, unsecured server - gross negligence or otherwise - and there is reason to believe that at least one person who was serving the US died because of that incompetence. All because it was more convenient somehow?

Honestly, the suggestion that either of these two assholes is going to be the next president makes me sick.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:21 pm UTC

Yeah, Clinton also would be this.

So, yeah, both candidates are pretty symptomatic of the horrible results of partisanship, I suppose.

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Drumheller769 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:46 pm UTC

Its too bad there isnt some sort of no confidence vote option, or something to say, all of this is bad, please retry.
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:48 pm UTC

Third parties are pretty much as good as we have for that. It's kinda similar, though it conveys preferences to some degree.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 11, 2016 6:59 pm UTC

Drumheller769 wrote:Its too bad there isnt some sort of no confidence vote option, or something to say, all of this is bad, please retry.

The GOP primary was the no confidence vote. That's why we got Trump. The truth is that the majority of primary voters wanted these two to win, Hillary more so than Trump. (Trump took advantage of the unfair and uneven primary rules. ) You're asking for a do over of the no confidence vote. That's very different.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3999
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 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:12 pm UTC

A true "No Confidence" vote (at least n this context*) would be a vote to return to the primaries and select new candidates. Unfortunately even considering votes for third parties as a substitute, one of the jackasses in the current line-up is going to get in to the office for the next four years.

*In most parliamentary systems a "No Confidence" vote is regarding current government and the potential dissolution thereof, not candidates looking to be elected.
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.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:28 pm UTC

Honestly, that probably wouldn't help. I mean, Clinton and Trump both did pull a majority, for better or worse, and if we reset, who is going to win those primaries? It's not as if the democrat pool is very deep, for instance, and Bernie was just not as popular as Clinton. A rematch would be a tiresome extension and would lead to the exact same place there.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Honestly, that probably wouldn't help. I mean, Clinton and Trump both did pull a majority, for better or worse, and if we reset, who is going to win those primaries? It's not as if the democrat pool is very deep, for instance, and Bernie was just not as popular as Clinton. A rematch would be a tiresome extension and would lead to the exact same place there.

Trumps majority is shakier, so a rematch there could change. The GOP field is very deep.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 94FN93dYdw
Trump proclaims that he will never change and that yes, he really did mean literally Obama founded Isis.
Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."
Trump objected.
"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said.

Fyi Cphite, this isn't a joke, nor a fake "liberal outrage", or media bias misconstruing his words. It was clear the first time he said it, and then a conservative gave him the metaphor as an out, but Trump wanted the world to know he meant it literally. The sad thing is I don't even know if this even matters to Republicans.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:57 pm UTC

It's less certain there, but Trump has enjoyed rather a lot of publicity at this point, he'll still have a noted advantage over most other candidates if there's a rematch.

And many of the other candidates in that field were not particularly great themselves. Cruz was essentially the number 2 choice, but a Cruz/Clinton matchup wouldn't be all that much more amazing.

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 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 7:59 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Trump proclaims that he will never change and that yes, he really did mean literally Obama founded Isis.
Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."
Trump objected.
"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said.

Fyi Cphite, this isn't a joke, nor a fake "liberal outrage", or media bias misconstruing his words. It was clear the first time he said it, and then a conservative gave him the metaphor as an out, but Trump wanted the world to know he meant it literally. The sad thing is I don't even know if this even matters to Republicans.
I need to stop laughig at Trump news, because this shit is serious... but I don't even know how to take it seriously.

I'll just keep watching deep red states become battlegrounds to keep calm.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:32 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."
Trump objected.
"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said.

Fyi Cphite, this isn't a joke, nor a fake "liberal outrage", or media bias misconstruing his words. It was clear the first time he said it, and then a conservative gave him the metaphor as an out, but Trump wanted the world to know he meant it literally. The sad thing is I don't even know if this even matters to Republicans.


It matters to me, and I'm Republican, for what its worth.

I hope in 4 years that reasonable Republicans like John Huntsman or Jeb Bush would be willing to run after this shitshow.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:35 pm UTC

Don't overstate Trump's weakness. After all his blunders and failings combined with Clinton's, nets you Georgia and Arizona as battleground states. Which is pretty amazing, but nothing like netting Utah for the symbolic value or Texas for the slaughter rule.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:37 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I hope in 4 years that reasonable Republicans like [...] Jeb Bush would be willing to run after this shitshow.
The fact that Jeb Bush is even considered a reasonable candidate illustrates the disastrous consequences of the best outcome of this shitshow.

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.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:43 pm UTC

Just read a quote saying that one in five registered Republican voters want Trump to drop out of the race. That feels pretty unprecedented.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:03 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Just read a quote saying that one in five registered Republican voters want Trump to drop out of the race. That feels pretty unprecedented.

Wants him to drop out, or wants him to drop out but will still vote for him?

Knight exemplar, it's all a numbers game. If the number of people who abandon Trump remains small, then nothing good will happen. That's what I mean by matters to Republicans. It should shift the polls or tend them downward.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:05 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
elasto wrote:Just read a quote saying that one in five registered Republican voters want Trump to drop out of the race. That feels pretty unprecedented.

Wants him to drop out, or wants him to drop out but will still vote for him?


Not sure what the historical results are for this particular question, but yeah. There's always a significant amount of voting for the lesser of the two evils in any election. There may be rather more this time around, but it's still a pretty common thing.

I mean, there were LOTS of republicans that were not overly enthused about Romney. Totally normal.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:09 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
elasto wrote:Just read a quote saying that one in five registered Republican voters want Trump to drop out of the race. That feels pretty unprecedented.

Wants him to drop out, or wants him to drop out but will still vote for him?

Knight exemplar, it's all a numbers game. If the number of people who abandon Trump remains small, then nothing good will happen. That's what I mean by matters to Republicans. It should shift the polls or tend them downward.


Why abandon Trump? Its a fucking shitshow. Clinton wins in November and then Republicans make plans for 2020. That's really all there is to it.

Under no circumstances do I see it politically advantageous to dump Trump now. The time to dump-Trump was pre-convention, now its too late. So the best option, no matter how shitty Trump gets, is to marry yourself to Trump and hope that he doesn't drag down too many votes.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:25 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Just read a quote saying that one in five registered Republican voters want Trump to drop out of the race. That feels pretty unprecedented.
It's not too surprising considering most republicans that voted in the primary didn't vote for him.

The results of this election are very much a product of the specific election systems used.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

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 » Thu Aug 11, 2016 9:33 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Why abandon Trump? Its a fucking shitshow. Clinton wins in November and then Republicans make plans for 2020. That's really all there is to it.

Under no circumstances do I see it politically advantageous to dump Trump now. The time to dump-Trump was pre-convention, now its too late. So the best option, no matter how shitty Trump gets, is to marry yourself to Trump and hope that he doesn't drag down too many votes.
Down ballot. Though it's not really clear what kind of effect Trump is going to have on down ballot races.

Granted, I don't think even Trump can swing the vote enough for Dems to take the House... but I imagine the risk is that a lot of Republicans stay home and don't vote.

EDIT: Also, there's the question of the damage Trump has done to the Republican's reputations at this point. This was supposed to be the year the would woo religious Hispanics, but he basically blasted that to hell. He's also polling historically badly with black voters, so you have to wonder if he's doing lasting damage there too (more than Republican policies already did).

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:25 am UTC

@someone

The post has to do with how we portray people in political advertising. The truth of the matter has nothing to do with it. It didn't then, and it doesn't today. The Dems are going to throw chamber pots at him and see how much sticks. And all he does when he missteps is to have his mouth open when the chamber pots gets tossed.
Tyndmyr wrote:I mean, there were LOTS of republicans that were not overly enthused about Romney. Totally normal.
Senior political people like the ex head of the NIA and the CIA don't sign press releases saying we can't vote for this man. I'm quite sure in private there is all kinds of talk, just not on the front pages.

cphite
Posts: 1371
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cphite » Fri Aug 12, 2016 2:26 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Trump was asked by host Hugh Hewitt about the comments Trump made Wednesday night in Florida, and Hewitt said he understood Trump to mean "that he (Obama) created the vacuum, he lost the peace."
Trump objected.
"No, I meant he's the founder of ISIS," Trump said.

Fyi Cphite, this isn't a joke, nor a fake "liberal outrage", or media bias misconstruing his words. It was clear the first time he said it, and then a conservative gave him the metaphor as an out, but Trump wanted the world to know he meant it literally. The sad thing is I don't even know if this even matters to Republicans.


And then hours later he Tweeted that it was sarcasm.

Look, I'm not disagreeing with you about it being a really stupid thing to say, joke or not. But what it really is, at the end of the day, is marketing. There are a whole lot of people out there who believe - really - that Obama is secretly a Muslim who supports the downfall of Western civilization. As ridiculous as that belief is, by agreeing with them he's appealing to them. He's gonna say whatever he thinks A) gets these people riled up and B) gets media attention.

And yes, it's dangerous for someone at his level to be saying that shit... just like it was dangerous when left-leaning officials were accusing George W. Bush of orchestrating 9/11 and other such nonsense.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8573
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:03 pm UTC

cphite wrote:And yes, it's dangerous for someone at his level to be saying that shit... just like it was dangerous when left-leaning officials were accusing George W. Bush of orchestrating 9/11 and other such nonsense.

"Left-leaning"?
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
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Fri Aug 12, 2016 4:51 pm UTC

Clinton is dominating in swing state polls: Marist has her up by 5 in Florida, 9 in North Carolina, 13 in Virginia and 14 in Colorado.

Those last two especially are devastating for Trump. With them locked up, Hillary could do very poorly elsewhere and still win.
Exit the vampires' castle.

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1266
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Aug 12, 2016 5:48 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:
cphite wrote:And yes, it's dangerous for someone at his level to be saying that shit... just like it was dangerous when left-leaning officials were accusing George W. Bush of orchestrating 9/11 and other such nonsense.

"Left-leaning"?

"Officials" is the part I'd take issues with. Who were these officials spouting fringe nonsense?

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8573
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Fri Aug 12, 2016 6:25 pm UTC

Yes there are multiple things one can choose to comment on, I agree.
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: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:52 pm UTC

Everyone is afraid of a Trump victory, but today let's imagine the limits of a Clinton landslide. The states that falls and the cliffs Democrats face aren't always what you expect.
[img]
http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.fi ... 1150&ssl=1
[/img]
[img]
http://i2.wp.com/espnfivethirtyeight.fi ... 1150&ssl=1
[/img]
Turns out Texas isn't the most conservative state. These are the Hardcores conservative states.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:55 pm UTC

It won't happen but a real devastating landslide would be satisfying to watch.

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 » Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:39 pm UTC

Yea, I think Nate's 16 point map is a bit dreamy, but it's fun to think about.

Still even a 10 point national lead would be something to see, I'd like that kind of message sent to the Republican party for the insanity they've tried to pull this year...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6817
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Aug 12, 2016 9:56 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:Yea, I think Nate's 16 point map is a bit dreamy, but it's fun to think about.

Still even a 10 point national lead would be something to see, I'd like that kind of message sent to the Republican party for the insanity they've tried to pull this year...

The only difference between 10 and 8 points is South Carolina. Aka, you kick McCain and Rubio out of office instead of a nail biter.
The big take away is that don't expect much along the margins even if Trump collapses. Unless Hillary gets +16 points, Democrats are still stonewalled with any margin of victory from +1 to+ 12 points. For bragging rights, Clinton needs +14 points to take Texas as a trophy and kick pence in the balls by taking Indiana.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:13 pm UTC

Anyone who hasn't drank the Twitter Kool Aid or been duped by the media circus surrounding this whole election cycle knew that Trump would be trounced. All this pearl clutching about some potential armageddon by Democrats has been so cynical and pathetic.

Mitt Romney was far more moderate and even he was slapped around by the socialist Kenyan with decreased popularity in re-election.

Hell, with the heavy left-wing recruitment in universities and an increasingly larger university-attending population, the future looks to be a lock-in for the Democrats in the coming decades barring a Democrat version of a G.W. Bush.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

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 » Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:53 am UTC

sardia wrote:Turns out Texas isn't the most conservative state. These are the Hardcores conservative states.

Funnily enough, of the 10 states that refuse to vote for Hillary there, five of them – Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia – are states that voted for Bill both times. See also: areas where Kerry in '04 outperformed Obama in '08.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Sat Aug 13, 2016 3:09 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Anyone who hasn't drank the Twitter Kool Aid or been duped by the media circus surrounding this whole election cycle knew that Trump would be trounced.
They also knew that Trump would never be nominated.

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
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 » Sat Aug 13, 2016 4:26 am UTC

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/ ... -cheating/

Well, there is no way Clinton can win Pennsylvania - not without cheating, of course, which she will probably do. So sayeth Donald Trump, who is totally not trying to either make excuses or incite his supporters to violence after he loses.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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 » Sat Aug 13, 2016 9:51 am UTC

He's also calling on his supporters to patrol the polling places. Y'know, to prevent irregularities.

In other news: Trump's top guy in NYS quadruples down on the Khan attack, saying that they don't deserve to be called Gold Star parents because they support "the ISIS-type of attitude".

Trump also clarifies that his claim about Obama founding ISIS was "not that sarcastic", after clarifying that it was sarcastic, after clarifying that it definitely wasn't sarcastic.
Exit the vampires' castle.

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 » Sat Aug 13, 2016 3:48 pm UTC

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... march.html

Donald Trump said a lot of different things last week so we polled to what share of his supporters bought into each of them:
-69% of Trump voters think that if Hillary Clinton wins the election it will be because it was rigged, to only 16% who think it would be because she got more vote than Trump. More specifically 40% of Trump voters think that ACORN (which hasn't existed in years) will steal the election for Clinton. That shows the long staying power of GOP conspiracy theories.
-48% of Trump voters think that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton deserve the blame for Humayun Khan's death to 16% who absolve them and 36% who aren't sure one way or the other (Obama was in the Illinois Legislature when it happened.)
[...]
-Even though Trump ended up admitting it didn't exist 47% of his voters say they saw the video of Iran collecting 400 million dollars from the United States to only 46% who say they didn't see the video. Showing the extent to which the ideas Trump floats and the coverage they get can overshadow the facts, even 25% of Clinton voters claim to have seen the nonexistent video.


Post-fact politics indeed...
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 12 guests