US Presidential Election 2016

[eFestivals]

Just now, The Nal said:

This isn't a children art competition. They raised $700m to run. Of public money. From all walks of life, Super PACs, Joe 6 pack, poor people who donated what they could. 16% of donations were under $200. They're accountable. Shes accountable. They're partially to blame. They lost an election - lost badly - to the worst candidate of all time. 

Best article I've read so far today on the whole thing. 

I saw some comment during the night which pointed out that Trump generated himself $2Bn's worth of TV time by saying outrageous things - and things which Clinton tended to be on the back foot for in responding, and so losing her own message.

An interesting piece here by Paul Mason:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/globalisation-dead-white-supremacy-trump-neoliberal

He's suggesting a number of different factors going on with female liberation and equal rights on both race and gender being strong parts, and how those things have changed the status in society of men. I agree with some of what he says.

But I also think he's making the same self-indulgent response of the navel-gazing left, of trying to blame all of the failings of the left onto the right, and ends up saying not much different to "the reason we lose is because it's the wrong electorate".

[The Nal]

Gun controls aren't changing. If you can't restrict assault weapons and extend background checks with 20 dead kids at Sandy Hook still raw in the memory its not happening. Guns are in their DNA unfortunately. 

I saw some comment during the night which pointed out that Trump generated himself $2Bn's worth of TV time by saying outrageous things - and things which Clinton tended to be on the back foot for in responding, and so losing her own message.

An interesting piece here by Paul Mason:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/globalisation-dead-white-supremacy-trump-neoliberal

He's suggesting a number of different factors going on with female liberation and equal rights on both race and gender being strong parts, and how those things have changed the status in society of men. I agree with some of what he says.

Amazingly, 53% of white women voted Trump. 

And yeah, no such thing as bad publicity! Even the publicity he had. Gets Trump on the front page so top speak.

But I also think he's making the same self-indulgent response of the navel-gazing left, of trying to blame all of the failings of the left onto the right, and ends up saying not much different to "the reason we lose is because it's the wrong electorate".

Yep. Its a huge issue. "Oh they played dirty" or "they muddied the issues" etc. Errr, so? Thats what they do! Deal with it.

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by The Nal

[michael eavis' beard]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I don't think trump cares about gay marriage and am fairly confident he won't look to ban it. As for gun control, it wouldn't have made a difference if Hillary won, there's no way the house would have allowed it.

While I'm disappointed Trump won. At least it's not Ted Cruz!

He has said that he would strongly consider appointing a Supreme Court Justice who would help to overrule same sex marriage.  His opposition to same sex marriage might not be as vocal as others but it's there and has been for many years.

[eFestivals]

21 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Best article I've read so far today on the whole thing. 

PS: yep, that's a great piece.

 

[michael eavis' beard]

3 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Gun controls aren't changing. If you can't restrict assault weapons and extend background checks with 20 dead kids at Sandy Hook still raw in the memory its not happening. Guns are in their DNA unfortunately. 

It's got less to do with DNA and more to do with NRA.  A significant majority of Americans did support those restrictions after Sandy Hook.  They were voted on less than 6 months later.  All those 'representatives of the people' who get funding from the NRA voted against those restrictions.  Coincidence? 

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Yep. Its a huge issue. "Oh they played dirty" or "they muddied the issues" etc. Errr, so? Thats what they do! Deal with it.

I agree completely.

We're (supposedly) still 4 years out from an election, and the Corbynistas are getting those excuses in already.  Those sorts of lines normally go on to say that it's not Corbyn's fault that he doesn't get his message in the papers because the papers ignore him, but Corbyn makes little effort to engage with the media. I find it infuriating.

[Wooderson]

32 minutes ago, The Nal said:

This isn't a children art competition. They raised $700m to run. Of public money. From all walks of life, Super PACs, Joe 6 pack, poor people who donated what they could. 16% of donations were under $200. They're accountable. Shes accountable. They're partially to blame. They lost an election - lost badly - to the worst candidate of all time. 

Best article I've read so far today on the whole thing. 

HRC won the popular vote. Had things worked out the other way round you'd be on here criticising her for a weak mandate-free scrape over the line, she can't win. Trump wouldnt have conceeded either.

As long as people place the blame for a loss at the door of someone like HRC rather than Donald Trump for his campaigns shameful tactics in winning, we're goosed. When a variety of forces domestic and international are "working in his favour" and the polls are a fiasco this compounds the issue.

[The Nal]

4 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

HRC won the popular vote. Had things worked out the other way round you'd be on here criticising her for a weak mandate-free scrape over the line, she can't win. Trump wouldnt have conceeded either.

As long as people place the blame for a loss at the door of someone like HRC rather than Donald Trump for his campaigns shameful tactics in winning, we're goosed. When a variety of forces domestic and international are "working in his favour" and the polls are a fiasco this compounds the issue.

Press was fully on the HRC train. Trump was laughed at for 18 months. Rightly so.

And blame Trump of course. And the GOP. But did we expect anything different? Thats their thing. Wild from Trump. So wild and so stupid that a bit of balls and on point shaming could've dispatched him easily. Months ago. Its a dirty business. 

[Wooderson]

Might do a bit of role play and enact an intolerant tough-guy right winger for a while. Seems to be all the rage.

If anything it just makes the world seem so easy to sort out. Simple, robust processes. I can't wait to start.

[Wooderson]

2 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Press was fully on the HRC train. Trump was laughed at for 18 months. Rightly so.

And blame Trump of course. And the GOP. But did we expect anything different? Thats their thing. Wild from Trump. So wild and so stupid that a bit of balls and on point shaming could've dispatched him easily. Months ago. Its a dirty business. 

The hell are you talking about?

[Wooderson]

Hillary Clinton had to be perfect. That she wasnt is her downfall.

The other guy - as he said himself - couldve gotten away with murder.

[The Nal]

3 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Hillary Clinton had to be perfect. That she wasnt is her downfall.

The other guy - as he said himself - couldve gotten away with murder.

Which shows how weak the opposition were. He got a free pass from them on lots of stuff. They should've attacked him. Grabbed him by the throat. Instead we got 18 months of the usual sanctimonious nonsense. 

[eFestivals]

13 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

HRC won the popular vote. Had things worked out the other way round you'd be on here criticising her for a weak mandate-free scrape over the line, she can't win. Trump wouldnt have conceeded either.

As long as people place the blame for a loss at the door of someone like HRC rather than Donald Trump for his campaigns shameful tactics in winning, we're goosed. When a variety of forces domestic and international are "working in his favour" and the polls are a fiasco this compounds the issue.

HRC lost to what you call "shameful tactics".

If she was worthy of winning, how could she be beaten by shameful tactics?

That's the thing, right there. If she was beaten by shit, she must be really really shit.

Even so, I get what you're saying and to some extent agree with that angle, but the danger there is that next time the democrats might think they can be really really shit again. They'll only win if they're better.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Hillary Clinton had to be perfect. That she wasnt is her downfall.

The other guy - as he said himself - couldve gotten away with murder.

She had to be perfect because of the baggage she carries. Whether that baggage is rightfully hers is a different question, but it's there all the same.

She wasn't perfect enough.

Trump as Pres is gonna be shit, but a republican Pres always is. Whether its worse than normal we'll have to see.

But one thing the republicans won't be able to do is blame it on the other guy when they control all levels of the legislature, so there's perhaps light on the other side.

[lost]

I remember these same hysterical reactions from the right when Obama won 8 years ago. He's a communist, socialised medicine means “end of life planning” and granny will be taken out and shot. Muslims will be attacking the country every week, The founding fathers beliefs/constitution are dead and we'll be living in a socialist one party police state within 2 years etc..

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by lost

[lost]

16 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Hillary Clinton had to be perfect. That she wasnt is her downfall.

The other guy - as he said himself - couldve gotten away with murder.

Um.. she's not nicknamed killalry for no reason. Apparently when Assange started leaking stuff her reaction was "can't we drone him?" 

This was probably a least worst choice for most people.

[fred quimby]

12 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

If she was worthy of winning, how could she be beaten by shameful tactics?

 

Because as you have stated people are stupid

 

Mind you what a hell of a choice they had

[eFestivals]

6 minutes ago, lost said:

I remember these same hysterical reactions from the right when Obama won 8 years ago. He's a communist, socialised medicine means “end of life planning” and granny will be taken out and shot. Muslims will be attacking the country every week, The founding fathers beliefs/constitution are dead and we'll be living in a socialist one party police state within 2 years etc..

 

Yep.

When the rhetoric gets ever-more polarised it's not really a surprise when the politics does too.

I think there's a big element of 'I want it all and I want it now' going on from all viewpoints, without much regard for whether it's really possible.

Perhaps it's Thatcher's final gift to us all.

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, michael eavis' beard said:

He has said that he would strongly consider appointing a Supreme Court Justice who would help to overrule same sex marriage.  His opposition to same sex marriage might not be as vocal as others but it's there and has been for many years.

Everything he has said has to be seen through the prism of someone looking for votes. He may (or may not) be personally against it, that doesn't automatically follow that he will try to ban it.

[Wooderson]

9 minutes ago, lost said:

Um.. she's not nicknamed killalry for no reason. Apparently when Assange started leaking stuff her reaction was "can't we drone him?" 

This was probably a least worst choice for most people.

Oh god. Please spare me this nonsense.

[eFestivals]

2 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Oh god. Please spare me this nonsense.

The voters who made the difference for Trump voted for Obama last time. 

Think about that for a moment.

It means they don't reject on race or liberal values, at least not all the time.

Those people were rejecting Clinton as much as they were accepting Trump.

[Wooderson]

23 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

HRC lost to what you call "shameful tactics".

If she was worthy of winning, how could she be beaten by shameful tactics?

That's the thing, right there. If she was beaten by shit, she must be really really shit.

Even so, I get what you're saying and to some extent agree with that angle, but the danger there is that next time the democrats might think they can be really really shit again. They'll only win if they're better.

Obama is an absolute saint by comparison to HRC, yet he was characterised as a Saul Alinsky-inspired feckless commie that would reduce the Republic to ashes. Utter nonsense. This notion "worthy" doesnt sit with me well Neil mate... a spoofy term. A significant % of Trumps voters admitted he doesnt have the temperament to be CIC. Worthy was John Kerry and we saw what happened there.

The outrage machine on the Right is the most effective political tool of our times. Facts are irrelevant. Details a waste of time. Humanity a weakness. The worse you are the more headlines you get, the more it annoys "libtards" and gives white men a semi. "Grab 'em by the pussy" probably helped Trump.

 

[The Nal]

8 minutes ago, Wooderson said:

Obama is an absolute saint by comparison to HRC, yet he was characterised as a Saul Alinsky-inspired feckless commie that would reduce the Republic to ashes. Utter nonsense. This notion "worthy" doesnt sit with me well Neil mate... a spoofy term. A significant % of Trumps voters admitted he doesnt have the temperament to be CIC. Worthy was John Kerry and we saw what happened there.

The outrage machine on the Right is the most effective political tool of our times. Facts are irrelevant. Details a waste of time. Humanity a weakness. The worse you are the more headlines you get, the more it annoys "libtards" and gives white men a semi. "Grab 'em by the pussy" probably helped Trump.

 

All true, and yet Im watching Hillarys concession speech at the moment. Just as I did Kerrys.

Poor Huma Abedin looks shattered here in the front row. Dreadful few months for her. 

Edited November 9, 2016 by The Nal

[Wooderson]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The voters who made the difference for Trump voted for Obama last time. 

Think about that for a moment.

It means they don't reject on race or liberal values, at least not all the time.

Those people were rejecting Clinton as much as they were accepting Trump.

Yes, Trump made vast gains into counties that votes for Obama once out of his two runs. Clinton on the other hand flipped a miniscule fraction of counties that Romney won. We don't know if this was a latent untapped white vote that felt obliged to participate this year for whatever reason.

 

1 minute ago, The Nal said:

All true, and yet Im watching Hillarys concession speech at the moment. Just as I did Kerrys.

And? The "worthy" label was placed on Kerry's candidacy and it got him nowhere.

[russycarps]

so trump got less votes than hillary, and less votes than romney and still won? amazing.

just reading the comment section of some websites. A few people have mentioned beyonce's "black power dance" at the superbowl would have won a few trump a few million middle american votes. Probably a depressing amount of truth in that