U.S Presidential Election 2016 Not Otherwise Specified [Archive] - HungAngels

Stavros

06-10-2016, 02:12 PM

My comments would relate to the mechanics of your elections in the US.

1) I wonder if, after the experience with Sanders and Trump the Democrat and Republican parties will change their rules and limit nominees for public office to those who have been members of the party for a specified length of time? I would have thought for the Presidency, a minimum of 10 years continuous membership would be a reasonable demand. How this would work in individual States I do not know, in some strict criteria might already exist.
---In the UK you can stand as an independent if you want to but you can only do so if you have paid £500 and provided the name of 10 'subscribers' who live in the constituency you wish to represent. If you are a member of an established political party, their rules govern the selection process. In the Labour Party you need to be nominated by someone in your constituency party to have your named entered into the Parliamentary Panel (aka the 'Labour List') from which other constituencies can choose, and that person must have been a party member for at least 12 months prior to the nomination.

2) In the UK we do not have a system you have in the US whereby someone must register as a party supporter or member (Democrat or Republican) to take part in the primary or caucus processes when selecting candidates for elections, I am not even sure we understand how it works, and I do wonder about this 'registered Democrat/Republican' status, because it means your vote is not private. In the UK how we vote is a private matter that no other person need know, I find this public identification quite odd for a country that elects so many of its county, state and federal officials. Or I might have got it wrong as in mechanical terms I don't actually know how you do it.

3) You need to change your rules on election expenses, as the volume of money spent on elections is obscene. In the right hands, $10 billion would do Detroit, the Deep South and other needy parts of the USA much more good than 20 second ads in the intermission of a baseball game. What is more urgent and necessary -providing people with clean water, or giving an inflated jerk the opportunity on-air to insult half the country?

broncofan

06-10-2016, 03:57 PM

Out of curiosity...assuming for a moment that Sanders won the nomination...would you both still have voted for him regardless of who the Republican nominee was?.
Although there are conservative Republicans that I respect and whose policies I don't think would be as damaging as Trump's, it would be tough for a couple of reasons. I really am pretty far left. I posted the center left policies to show that I don't see them as such a terrible compromise, but ideologically I believe in social welfare programs, would love to see a single payer health care system (although it would include trade-offs). Additionally, the social issues, particularly same sex marriage are becoming areas of non-compromise for me. The reason I don't support Bernie is because I don't think he has any idea how to achieve many of these objectives. I also don't like sloganeering...I don't see more elaborate programs as requiring an attack on the 1% or on corporations or financial regulation as necessitating a destruction of large banks. I just believe in programs for the less fortunate and more taxes for those who are super wealthy and will remain so after they are taxed. I also believe in regulation of the marketplace, against monopolies, moral hazard, negative externalities, etc.

Saying that, I think it's an overreaction when people look at candidates they don't agree with and think they will destroy the country. There are conservatives who I'm sure would do a fine job and it would not be an apocalyptic outcome...but it would not be a compromise for me. I would have to forego things I believe in strongly. This is particularly the case on the social issues; I don't know too many candidates who believe that banning same sex marriage violates equal protection. It would just depend on how inept I think Sanders is, and though I think he's pretty inept, there's nothing there that I think would damage the country as much as carpet bombing another country or building a wall on our southern border.

broncofan

06-10-2016, 04:11 PM

My comments would relate to the mechanics of your elections in the US.

1) I wonder if, after the experience with Sanders and Trump the Democrat and Republican parties will change their rules and limit nominees for public office to those who have been members of the party for a specified length of time? I would have thought for the Presidency, a minimum of 10 years continuous membership would be a reasonable demand. How this would work in individual States I do not know, in some strict criteria might already exist.
---In the UK you can stand as an independent if you want to but you can only do so if you have paid £500 and provided the name of 10 'subscribers' who live in the constituency you wish to represent. If you are a member of an established political party, their rules govern the selection process. In the Labour Party you need to be nominated by someone in your constituency party to have your named entered into the Parliamentary Panel (aka the 'Labour List') from which other constituencies can choose, and that person must have been a party member for at least 12 months prior to the nomination.

I read an article that discussed the rise of Trump. It was talking about how all of the top down filters that usually prevent an extreme candidate from becoming the nominee have been eroded (one of these was the so-called democratization of media, where anyone can publish garbage on a blog and the usual filters such as editing no longer apply).

Although I like what you're recommending, would this have the effect of removing some power from the voter and giving it to the party establishment to set standards? In a way it is just making sure the candidate is committed to the party principles, but the skeptic would ask why registered party members are not permitted to do this with their vote? Is it because we don't trust large heterogeneous groups to make sound and principled decisions?

trish

06-10-2016, 04:42 PM

Out of curiosity...assuming for a moment that Sanders won the nomination...would you both still have voted for him regardless of who the Republican nominee was?.

Yes (giving the word ‘regardless’ a practical interpretation). For one thing, I’m not nearly as down on Bernie as Gene Lyons is. I am pretty upset with his die-hard fans. I voted for Hillary months ago in the primary because I think she is more experienced in domestic and foreign affairs than Bernie, and I prefer her more practical and nuanced approach to political, social and ethical issues.

I knew, however, that both would have a tough road on the general campaign trail. Bernie would get hit for all the items Gene Lyons mentioned in his article. Hillary would get hit with all the shit that conservatives have been throwing at her for decades. I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary in part because I thought Hillary would be too polarizing (little did I know just how much Obama’s race would polarize the nation). But Hillary has been thoroughly vetted, been through it all before and proved she has what it takes to sustain that kind of abuse. Bernie, although he’s been the Senate for what - 25 years, has never been through anything like the abuse he would get on the campaign for the general election. I wasn’t sure how he’d hold up, and I still don’t know how he’d hold up, because he never has been attacked in that way.

Would I vote for Bernie over Trump? In a nanosecond. Would I vote for Bernie over Cruz? In a nanosecond? Over Rubio? Hell yeah. Over Kasich? Yes. The economy of Ohio has improved under Kasich, but not necessarily because of his pro-conservative policies. He’s busting unions, he’s joined the war against planned parenthood and stopped its funding in Ohio, he pro-fracking, pro-Keystone XL etc. However, just 24 hours ago he just legalized medical marijuana in Ohio! Yeah Kasich!

I know there are people who vote for the person and not the policies and ideas. To me that’s just crazy. The person can only do so much. The important things are the policies, the appointees, the proposed agenda. I cannot endorse going in the directions most conservatives in power, or seeking power, want to take us.

Is there a liberal I wouldn’t vote for? Well Trump was a liberal at one point :) I wouldn’t vote for him no matter what ticket he decided to run on. I heard on NPR this morning that Bob Dole just endorsed Trump. He said he has “...an obligation to the party. What am I going to do? I can’t vote for George Washington.”

So there you go, would I vote for Bernie against any republican? As long as no descendent of Victor Frankenstein resurrects George Washington and convinces him to run on the Republican ticket.

Stavros

06-10-2016, 08:55 PM

I read an article that discussed the rise of Trump. It was talking about how all of the top down filters that usually prevent an extreme candidate from becoming the nominee have been eroded (one of these was the so-called democratization of media, where anyone can publish garbage on a blog and the usual filters such as editing no longer apply).

Although I like what you're recommending, would this have the effect of removing some power from the voter and giving it to the party establishment to set standards? In a way it is just making sure the candidate is committed to the party principles, but the skeptic would ask why registered party members are not permitted to do this with their vote? Is it because we don't trust large heterogeneous groups to make sound and principled decisions?

A strange reply, after all, what are political parties for? And why should they allow someone who has shown no previous commitment to the party to seek its nomination for President? It is up to the people to reject party candidates in favour of an independent, and if there is no independent who can transcend party and appeal directly to voters that is hardly my problem. But yes, when it is the party who chooses the candidate to represent you the people in general have no say in the matter, in the UK but as I say, we have a system dominated by parties, and as yet there have been few independents to make a difference, or smaller parties -consider how the Greens in Germany broke the duopoly between the SPD and the CDU. Or maybe Trump and Sanders are signs of a change taking place as voters become disaffected with 'business as usual' on both sides of the Atlantic...

BostonBad

06-10-2016, 09:56 PM

We need a smaller government and people should consider Johnson / Weld

broncofan

06-10-2016, 10:16 PM

A strange reply, after all, what are political parties for?
Maybe one of the reasons it's easy to lose sight of this in America is that in a virtual two party system a candidate can define himself by being different from the alternative. So while parties are organized around certain principles and values, you can almost call yourself a Republican if you're not a Democrat and vice versa. Affiliation over time shows a commitment to what each party stands for, but the parties are not making it very clear what views are a sine qua non to membership. The parties end up representing more an ethos than a clear set of principles.

Ask a person what it means to be a Democrat and they should be able to say more than, "well you have to register as a Democrat and be affiliated with the party." But as you indicate, this has to at least be a requisite. So I agree.....party affiliation over time is an easy litmus test for whether someone is committed to what the party stands for. If the person has not identified as a Republican or Democrat for very long, there is probably a good reason for that.

broncofan

06-10-2016, 10:35 PM

Or maybe Trump and Sanders are signs of a change taking place as voters become disaffected with 'business as usual' on both sides of the Atlantic...
Probably true. In order for such candidates to spawn a lasting movement, they would have to be rejected by their party for either not being orthodox enough or not being affiliated for long enough. Then we would see whether they could sustain a movement based on their ideas or whether it is whatever dubious personal appeal each man has that has resulted in his support.

fred41

06-11-2016, 01:22 AM

Although there are conservative Republicans that I respect and whose policies I don't think would be as damaging as Trump's, it would be tough for a couple of reasons. I really am pretty far left....

I don't think anything you've posted seems all that far to the left , but that may be due to changes in my own way of thinking. Closer to urban centers, there are Republicans that aren't as socially conservative, but unfortunately the minute they run for higher office, it seems they always have an epiphany and become legally opposed to abortion, gay rights, etc.
It even seemed as if the 'abortion rights litmus test' was on it's way out...and then the Tea Party showed up. It seems a Republican moderate no longer has a snowball's chance in hell of running for president...at least for the time being.
The reality of course is during an election a nominee is lock step with both their party and what they believe a majority of their voters want. Once they're in office though, there's usually a lot of policy tweaking going on. Sometimes you can distinguish between what a candidate says and what you think they really believe.

I wouldn't vote for Bernie...he really is too far left for me. Pretty much his whole life was devoted to it.
But I wouldn't vote for Trump either...people keep saying that's not the real Trump, but he hasn't even tried to brush up on the learning process. If he's not even going to bother learning policy or even being able to control childish outbursts at this late stage of the game...then what's the point in even considering him?

fred41

06-11-2016, 01:41 AM

Yes (giving the word ‘regardless’ a practical interpretation). ...

I wasn't going to give you a ridiculous choice or try to paint you into a moral corner...lol. I'm pretty sure you can come up with some interesting scenarios where your own personal principles would be put to the test.

But everyone has their own limits on where they would take a particular stand (whether or not the grounds for that stand are actual or in ones own head).

If it was between Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump I would finally be forced to either abstain or give the two alternate parties a closer look.

I'm also not in love with Hillary, but I can vote for her...I believe she's moderate enough and has more common sense than the two mentioned. For the record, I also would prefer her to Biden.

The real question of course wouldn't be "would you vote for Bernie against any Republican"....but "would you vote for any Democrat against any Republican"....but again, we would wind up coming up with some silly examples.

...might be fun at a later time though.

fred41

06-11-2016, 01:43 AM

and thank you both for answering the question honestly and thoughtfully.

zerrrr

06-13-2016, 05:25 PM

To be completely fair and honest, both candidates represent this country very well.

On the right we have an intolerant bigot whose rise was fueled by soundbites and memes. So apropos for the uneducated right. The educated right is left wondering if people really are this stupid when it is a combination of stupidity and being tone-deaf to the wants and needs of their constituents.

On the left we have a one-percent narcissist whose only goal is to be the first woman President, no matter what. She will run the Oval Office as an arm of her charitable foundation with a for sale sign outside. So apropos for a party that pays lip service to the poor while hiding behind their tax shelters and charitable organizations. She will turn on you when a larger donation appears in her bank account because she believes that the rules do not apply to her.

They represent the country well. They are us in a nutshell.

As for the second place finishers.....

On the left you have someone who is fighting tooth and nail against a corrupt system as he has done his entire life. Kudos to him. I don't agree with his policies but I do respect him.

On the right you have someone whose views may be extreme but was elected to go into Washington and shake up the rotten establishment. He made more enemies in one term than a six term Senator. Quite a success for someone elected to do just that and in the end the party looked to him to save them from a bigot. Irony in a nutshell.

They all represent America oh so well.

sukumvit boy

06-17-2016, 07:16 AM

943034

broncofan

06-22-2016, 02:49 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/22/us/politics/donald-trump-fund-raising-republicans.html?_r=0

Some of the predicaments faced by the Trump camp. Very poor campaign infrastructure, poor fundraising, and a recently fired campaign manager. I wonder whether he's going to want to use his own money for his campaign. First, it's not clear what's liquid, and it's also not clear that he has as much money as he says he has. So even if he can get several hundred million in cash together together for his campaign, does he leave himself able to fund the operating costs for his personal empire.

broncofan

07-30-2016, 04:04 AM

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-countrys-worst-anti-voting-law-was-just-struck-down-in-north-carolina/

broncofan

08-04-2016, 04:41 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/melania-trump-immigration-donald-226648

Melania Trump may have violated the terms of her visa when she worked as a model. Given Donald Trump's opposition to illegal immigration, this accusation would have serious traction. I have no idea whether it would have legal consequences for Melania, but it would probably damage Trump politically, even if only a little bit.

broncofan

10-14-2016, 02:48 AM

http://www.nytco.com/the-new-york-timess-response-to-donald-trumps-retraction-letter/

This is the New York Times response to Donald Trump's lawyer's threat to sue for libel. In case anyone here missed it I wanted to share it...it's enjoyable to read.

nitron

10-17-2016, 10:58 PM

nitron

10-17-2016, 11:09 PM

"either department of the Establishment party"(Nader quote)

trish

10-17-2016, 11:56 PM

Good of you to bring up Nader. If it weren't for Nader, we would never have had to put up with Bush/Cheney and all their nonsense. Remember and learn.

bluesoul

10-17-2016, 11:57 PM

To the former Bernie supporters, and to the rest who are Leftists.
Why not vote for the Greens or an independent . Stay with the anti -status-quo feels. You don't have to vote for either department of the Establishment party.

when you say an independent, do you mean like joe exotic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc-_7RCFArM

blackchubby38

10-18-2016, 01:34 AM

To the former Bernie supporters, and to the rest who are Leftists.
Why not vote for the Greens or an independent . Stay with the anti -status-quo feels. You don't have to vote for either department of the Establishment party.

Because Jill Stein has no idea what she is talking about. The same goes for Gary Johnson.

nitron

10-18-2016, 01:27 PM

trish

10-18-2016, 03:11 PM

Voting is not a religious act. The booth is not a confessional. Voting responsibly doesn’t mean you must selfishly remain true to yourself and your principles (as if that's ever possible), but rather that you cast your vote with the welfare of the entire population in mind. To count, to have a voice - you have to make your vote count.

buttslinger

10-18-2016, 04:51 PM

Let's talk Turkey, this whole thing is a crapshoot, the JUSTICE is in your imagination.
If you live in Texas or California, your vote is meaningless.
And like the old Art Buchwald joke, if two of your carpool are Democrats, and two are Republicans, you can do your civic duty by all agreeing to stay home on election day.
Half the people don't vote.
The system IS rigged, you can pick the Democratic machine or the Republican regime.
THAT BEING SAID.....
Anyone who remembers the years 2000-2008 and wants to put the Republicans back in charge needs to stay after school for the next 8 years.
Nothing could be simpler or clearer.

trish

10-18-2016, 05:02 PM

Let's talk Turkey, this whole thing is a crapshoot, the JUSTICE is in your imagination.
If you live in Texas or California, your vote is meaningless.
And like the old Art Buchwald joke, if two of your carpool are Democrats, and two are Republicans, you can do your civic duty by all agreeing to stay home on election day.
Half the people don't vote.
Better yet: if the other person in your carpool is the opposite party as you, then agree to both stay home and not vote, then vote anyway, 'cause you can't be sure those lying cheats from the opposite party can be trusted to keep the terms of their agreements.

Alternatively, just act responsibly and vote.

Anyone who remembers the years 2000-2008 and wants to put the Republicans back in charge needs to stay after school for the next 8 years.
Nothing could be simpler or clearer.For this you get a thumbs up.

bluesoul

10-18-2016, 07:50 PM

Blackchubby38, can I call you just blackchubby?
How about the other hundred or so Independents , with all do respect to Joe Exotic, surely Hillary ,( so evil it's stupid),and Trump, (so stupid it's evil) can't be the only shining lights?

what's exactly with this assumption that hillary is so evil? is it because she deleted a bunch of emails after using a private server? or is it because she has a bunch of wallstreet donors for her campaign?

i know trump says this a lot but i thought it was just part of his mantra to claim his opponent is evil and thus, he must be the opposite- but when everyday people say the same thing, i wonder, what exactly they mean. are you a very spiritual person to consider clinton evil or are you just repeating something you heard?

also, which independents do you think deserve the nomination since you keep bringing up. maybe joe exotic is a little "too exotic" so do you mean princess frambro? lynn kahn perhaps or ryan scott?

hey, is mcafee president material?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMz6GV3b1ys

trish

10-18-2016, 08:27 PM

W(BushII) 'lost' 22 million emails. Where's the outrage?

bluesoul

10-18-2016, 09:51 PM

hippifried

10-18-2016, 10:03 PM

Good of you to bring up Nader. If it weren't for Nader, we would never have had to put up with Bush/Cheney and all their nonsense. Remember and learn.

Nader was a nonevent. Lack of interest in Al Gore put W in the White House. All he had to do was campaign in & win his home Stare. Florida would have been moot.

Stavros

10-19-2016, 01:36 AM

maybe bush was too stupid to be evil.

i've always thought of evil as something with an intelligent design behind it- or as lady caroline lamb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Caroline_Lamb#Lord_Byron) once put it: mad, bad and dangerous to know.

p.s. is hillary evil because of this supposed evidence of voter fraud with the DNC?

this supposed voter fraud thing with the DNC (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs)?

Really, Bluesoul, it took me less than five minutes on Google to find out that James O'Keefe and his 'Project Veritas' has been peddling made up videos for years of which this is the latest which doesn't prove anything other than that Scott Foval claims he can do something illegal though he also claims not to have done. If you want to believe this, there is nothing to stop you, just as Lady Caroline Lamb was not referring to evil but her unfaithful boyfriend Lord Byron, the romantic poet who was 'mad, bad and dangerous to know' and hardly the most evil man in Britain at the time.

You can read debunks of Project Veritas here-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/james-okeefe-voter-fraud-video_n_1524146.html

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/james-okeefe-shows-everyone-just-how-hard-voter-fraud

bluesoul

10-19-2016, 02:26 AM

Stavros

10-19-2016, 10:04 AM

yeah, glad you're able to google brah. except, i wasn't using that video to claim anything about it was real. did you not read and comprehend my reply which was to nitron or have you started drinking from the toilet as well?

oh and lol @ motherjones and huffington post. what's next? yahoo news search results.

btw: i'll just pretend you never made the comment about lady caroline lamb. let's just say for now, you can go to sleep thinking you know what you're talking about. next time, there'll be no warning

A fair point with regard to my slight reading of your post, but the point about Lady Caroline Lamb, stands, and I will assume that next time, there'll be no warning is from Trump's playbook, having no practical or emotional impact on me or my ability to sleep through the night.

bluesoul

10-19-2016, 07:56 PM

A fair point with regard to my slight reading of your post, but the point about Lady Caroline Lamb, stands, and I will assume that next time, there'll be no warning is from Trump's playbook, having no practical or emotional impact on me or my ability to sleep through the night.

the only thing that stands is your incorrect, but mostly superficial understanding of the quote, but i like how modest you are with "my slight reading of your post"

do you think it's equally slight reading how you assume no warning next time as coming from trump's playbook or has this charade of you thinking you know what you're talking about suddenly started to unravel?

buttslinger

10-20-2016, 12:29 AM

After the election......
all fingers point to Paul Ryan being THE FACE of the Republican Party.
The Rock Hard Mad as Hell 35% Trump coalition will be 70% of your party.
So Paul,.....
what's the plan, stan?

bluesoul

10-20-2016, 02:53 AM

the dons playing this like it's a reality show finale

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc7Qje1aaGw

hippifried

10-20-2016, 02:27 PM

I like Hillary. Always have. She's a bit more conservative than I'd like, but nobody's going to be in lockstep with me. She's been vetted & investigated constantly for the last 23 years, & nobody's been able to come anywhere close to actually pinning anything on her. There's nothing there. It's all just a bunch of lies, told by assholes who have nothing else to talk about because they never had anything to talk about in the first place.

The loud mouth reactionaries saw her abilities to organize when she trotted out the healthcare proposal in '94 & knew she was gonna make a run for the White House. They've been trying to paint her as more evil than the devil ever since. None of it washes. It's been the most vile, disgusting, & dishonest vilification I've ever seen. And I'm 65 years old. I've never seen anybody attacked like this, for so long a time, without any supporting evidence to back any of it at all. The theory of memes is if you repeat a lie enough, it'll start becoming regarded as fact, regardless of how ridiculous it was/is. The kool-aid drinkers will buy it no matter what, If it's told by one of their demigods.

The Republicans just got a taste of their own medicine with this October surprise. All the whining and claims that Trump admitted to unwanted groping are every bit as bogus as the attacks on Sen. Clinton. But nobody cares other than Donald Trump, because he made himself vulnerable to the same kind of memetic silliness he's been spouting himself. I don't buy any of it, & all those accusing women crawling out of the woodwork is too convenient to be anything more than a political ploy. Dollars to donuts they just fade away after the election. Trump didn't realize how much scrutiny a politician has to put up with. Oops!

Don't get me wrong. There's nothing I'd like better than to see Donald Trump lose all 50 States to the bitch of his nightmares. He's earned it with all of his diligence and hard work at being a buffoon. The Republican Party earned their share of grief by being too chickenshit to refute the crazy. Goes around comes around and all that crap. We all knew how bad it was when John McCain was basically forced to accept Sara Palen as his running mate. The most ignorant & stupid person ever to be in that position. Pretty fuckin' sad. It's been a major embarrassment for the whole nation in the eyes of the world.

trish

10-20-2016, 06:51 PM

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?95047-So-what-do-you-Brits-make-of-Trump&p=1726266&viewfull=1#post1726266

broncofan

10-20-2016, 06:54 PM

I like Hillary. Always have. She's a bit more conservative than I'd like, but nobody's going to be in lockstep with me. She's been vetted & investigated constantly for the last 23 years, & nobody's been able to come anywhere close to actually pinning anything on her. There's nothing there. It's all just a bunch of lies, told by assholes who have nothing else to talk about because they never had anything to talk about in the first place.

The loud mouth reactionaries saw her abilities to organize when she trotted out the healthcare proposal in '94 & knew she was gonna make a run for the White House. They've been trying to paint her as more evil than the devil ever since. None of it washes. It's been the most vile, disgusting, & dishonest vilification I've ever seen. And I'm 65 years old. I've never seen anybody attacked like this, for so long a time, without any supporting evidence to back any of it at all. The theory of memes is if you repeat a lie enough, it'll start becoming regarded as fact, regardless of how ridiculous it was/is. The kool-aid drinkers will buy it no matter what, If it's told by one of their demigods.
.
I don't have the attention span to look into every accusation made against her, but if one does a random sampling of the ones you can pay attention to, they always lack substance. The recent thing Republicans are talking about to bolster Trump's absurd claim of election rigging (which even though untrue can lead to rioting and violence when he loses) is that there is voter fraud. Their evidence of this is that recently deceased people have not been eliminated from the polls of registered voters.

However, this does not lead to the conclusion that people are impersonating the dead to vote under their names, or that the dead are being resurrected and voting for Hillary...but the fact that the records of deaths cannot be immediately reconciled with the records of voter registration is being used to fuel this spurious claim. We also keep hearing about how the media is rigging the election for Hillary because a lot of media members support Hillary. Well, so too do a large number of educated people. This is not rigging in any conventional or unconventional sense. It only shows that Trump doesn't know what the word rig means. Not surprising from someone who said something in the debate about large "swatches" of land....I haven't worn a swatch in decades.

bluesoul

10-20-2016, 07:36 PM

with ailes having left trump (http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/roger-ailes-breaks-away-from-waste-of-time-trump-just-before-the-final-debate/) in free fall, his last ditch effort is to sabotage the election by saying it's rigged and refusing to concede if he loses.

and you're right: trump doesn't know what the word rig means. while the 20000 wikileaks pages of emails are pretty damning, most people will pay attention to the groping offense more- afterall, what makes a better halloween costume?

974182

bluesoul

10-21-2016, 05:35 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOUFsCS7xYE

trump actually managed to fuck up his own speech @ the al smith charity dinner

bluesoul

10-21-2016, 05:36 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ngEujYYKcI

meanwhile, clinton faired much better despite a few cringeworthy jokes in the beginning

broncofan

10-21-2016, 05:50 AM

I thought a couple of Trump's jokes were okay. They got really weak at one point in time...I wonder if this was the difference between professionals helping him write a few of the early ones and him insisting on his own taste right around the time he got to the "Hillary is so corrupt...." joke.

buttslinger

10-21-2016, 07:10 PM

Hey Maria Bartiromo- thanks for the October surprizes,,,,,
Nothing "conservative" about those tits except for the Cro-Magnon-type subliminal messages they broadcast.
Maybe it's just the pig that I am......

I'm with HER"S.

buttslinger

10-21-2016, 08:47 PM

I think something you don't hear about is that the core-trumpists don't like that the Dems have a BLACK man in the highest seat of the land, and they got nothing.
As a STRONGMAN, Trump not only has shown feet of clay, he's not a very good actor either.
Just like our first black president proved to be the opposite of the caricature,
the first woman president has the daunting task of having to shit nineteen trillion US Dollars.
I hope she didn't accidentally delete the plan on how to do that when she scrubbed her hard drive.

I do feel like if Hillary doesn't hostess a nineties type economy again in say....three years, ........she will be viewed as a failure.
Save us Hillary, save us.

zerrrr

10-23-2016, 06:29 AM

when you say an independent, do you mean like joe exotic?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

If he wins you get a free pony.

bluesoul

10-26-2016, 10:45 PM

flabbybody

10-26-2016, 11:35 PM

Stavros

10-27-2016, 01:23 AM

Trump and Kelly Ann have been using the BREXIT card to discredit the polls showing him about to get trounced. He's a fucking moron but I figured Kelly Ann had a little more respect for facts. In early Jine, a few weeks before the vote, the majority of polls had the result too close to call. A few actually had Leave slightly ahead.
But for Trump to make stuff up is par for the course.

In addition there is the fact that the EU Referendum was a simple Remain/Leave choice and had Leave won by a margin of 0.1% the result would have been Brexit, whereas a US Presidential election is not a 'first past the post' vote but a process whereby the States vote, and the Electoral College decides, and it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote fail to win the Presidency. The comparison with Brexit must be lost on most Americans anyway as I doubt they even know what the EU is.

Stavros

10-27-2016, 01:37 AM

^^^ as much as i appreciate (somewhat) his sense of humor i really hate his campaign slogan; also wish he took the satire to the nth degree rather than his current shtick but kudos to him for getting out there and making politics look barnum and bailey circus it really is.

speaking of circus', this exchange betwix newt "my face is actually a clown mask welded on my face" gingrich and megyn kelly on polls and "reality" is pretty interesting

This is standard waffle from an experienced politician who has baited the Clinton family ever since they stole half the wardrobe of the Republican Party to win two elections. When the Polls say you are winning you give a guarded affirmation that they are right while insisting the only Poll that matters is taken on Election Day. When the Polls are against you it is because a) the polls are flawed, b) the results are weighted and thus take no account of potential last minute changes of mind, and c) your own statistics show a different and more positive trend that will become clearer on election day. The simple message is that you must always stress you are strong, that you are ahead, that your have widespread support, and never, never, never even indicate you are losing a single vote -a standard campaign rule in all and any election.

Newton Gingrich also failed to expose a bias in Fox News by ignoring the fact that Trump makes headlines because of what he says and in particular because he tends to respond to criticism by going on the attack, creating more news that Trump wants the media to report. Hillary Clinton by contrast does not or rarely gives the Media enough daily material to create headline news. Here you see the difference between a clever politician with an experienced team that, yes, knows how the play the media, compared to a foul-mouthed intruder whose campaign is 90% personality and 10% policy, to be generous even to Trump. He craves media attention, so Gingrich cannot complain when he gets it.

And what is all this free advertising for the Trump Hotel business? He says his new DC Hotel is the most valuable real estate in DC other than the White House. More valuable than Congress, the Smithsonian, the Lincoln Memorial? Maybe one needs to be an American to comprehend this. And is Trump asking for the people's vote or their dollars? Can't believe this is even legal!

zerrrr

10-27-2016, 01:37 AM

How sad is it that we have forgotten 2000 when Gore beat Bush in the popular vote and lost the Electoral Vote.

You don't need to study analytics to understand the Electoral College. Most states have voted the same way for at least the last twenty years and the makeup heavily favors the Democrats. The Republicans need a lot to go their way to win.

But in this instance the race was over in February. We just need to sift through two more weeks of garbage. Then we get the anti-Hillary memes.

broncofan

10-27-2016, 02:44 AM

Sadly, I actually think Trump Tv is going to end up making his family money. I don't think he planned it that way but the way his campaign has gone, even if his hotel brand is damaged, he does have enough followers and capital to develop a successful television network. I'd be surprised if we don't see him create something to the right of fox, with moonbats fulminating against the so-called left wing media.

broncofan

10-27-2016, 02:52 AM

Of course he denies wanting to start the network but that's just because he doesn't want to be accused of giving up on the election and focusing on that. But it's not hard to see him complaining after he loses that the media was against him all along and it's his patriotic duty to start a network that tells the truth. We'll see...it might be too expensive for him to get off the ground by himself, but Jared Kushner, his son in law has already met with various industry people.

bluesoul

10-27-2016, 04:17 AM

Sadly, I actually think Trump Tv is going to end up making his family money.

i don't know about that. trump has proved that he cannot really manage a business for long (eg. trump university, trump steaks, go trump, trump vodka, trump mortgage, trump magazine or donald trump jr. all failures.

if there's going to be a trump tv it will be an online thing only kinda like sarah palin's paid subscription service that barely managed 12 months of business: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/08/palin-web-channel-offline/29849771/

steak anyone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyONt_ZH_aw

bluesoul

10-27-2016, 04:45 AM

ha! the whole interview betwix newt and megyn kelly didn't even surprise trump. he always knew she was biased says his senior advisor (https://twitter.com/DanScavino/status/791095041838186496)

i love how trump knows all these things, including being an expert in military stratergy (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-hell-teach-military-expert-couple-things/story?id=43083480)

broncofan

10-27-2016, 04:07 PM

i don't know about that. trump has proved that he cannot really manage a business for long (eg. trump university, trump steaks, go trump, trump vodka, trump mortgage, trump magazine or donald trump jr. all failures.

After reading a little bit about it, I think you're right. Expensive to start up, difficult to manage, takes years to generate profits even if it's done well. He doesn't have the management skill to do it...it could be done with his audience, but not by him.

I mean if he actually brought in a team of really talented people and worked with them...eh not his style:)

trish

10-27-2016, 06:23 PM

My greater worry, should Hillary win, is the continuation of obstructionism on the part of the legislative branch. Cruz and McCain have already promised that Republicans will block any and all of Hillary’s Supreme Court Nominees. It is already unprecedented to have blocked (without a vote) Obama’s most recent nominee for over three-hundred days now. The Senate is neglecting its duty to CONSIDER and vote usurping the Constitutional power of the president to appoint judges to the Supreme Court with the ADVICE and CONSENT of the Senate. If the Senate remains red, the Court may remain crippled for the next four years. The Dems NEED to take the Senate.

The House will almost assuredly remain red. I expect all proposals for fixing our Health Care system will die in House. Likely the House will vote fifty more times to overturn Obama Care. Members of the House are already hinting they’ll investigate Hillary’s emails again. The Dems NEED to win more down-ticket races. Hillary NEEDS a mandate.

Trump will not lose gracefully. My biggest worry is his gun-toting fans may take things into their own hands. We’ll see more Bundy-like take overs of Federal Wildlife preserves, more racism, more alt-right and neo-nazi activity all spurred on by Trump’s tweets and whatever new Palinesque media venue (Breitbart TV?) he’ll find for himself.

The GOP is not dying; it’s transforming - into something very ugly. It’s been transforming ever since Obama was elected (a black president President - OH MY - can’t be one of us - must be a Kenyan with anti-colonialist politics) and teabaggers started carrying guns into townhall meetings where citizens were asked to give their input on what they would like to see in a federal healthcare system. Remember the signs that read, “Keep UR Govt Mits Off My Medicare.”

Someday in the near future, some Caligula from this darkly devolving GOP is going to make it to the White House. I just hope he doesn’t usher in the next Dark Age.

bluesoul

10-27-2016, 06:38 PM

Trump will not lose gracefully. My biggest worry is his gun-toting fans may take things into their own hands.

except do you think a guy (or guys) like this can hit a still target? especially when that target has secret service agents around.
975489

even the last guy that tried couldn't get it done and only just recently got parole. anyone know who john hinkley jr. is voting for or will he sit this one through?

trish

10-27-2016, 06:59 PM

except do you think a guy (or guys) like this can hit a still target? especially when that target has secret service agents around.
975489

even the last guy that tried couldn't get it done and only just recently got parole. anyone know who john hinkley jr. is voting for or will he sit this one through?
No I don't think threats of assassination will be any higher for Hillary than for Obama, but I do fear more guns on display at protests, counter-protests and Bundy-like occupations - these things don't always start out with the intent of violence, but they can escalate to that pretty quickly. Polling officials are already fearful there may be violence at the polling places during this election - Trump and telling his followers to go to polls and make sure there are no shenanigans, "You know what I'm saying. You know what I'm saying." I'm afraid I do know what he's saying.

bluesoul

10-27-2016, 07:37 PM

oh you mean like joe walsh recently threatened/said? (https://twitter.com/WalshFreedom/status/791369493809201152)

i think what these yokels never take into account is how outnumbered and out armed they are. it's the whole tell don't show mentality

hippifried

10-27-2016, 07:38 PM

The comparison with Brexit must be lost on most Americans anyway as I doubt they even know what the EU is.

Seems a bit smug. It's not that we don't know what the EU is (very similar to the original American Articles of Confederation that got tossed in the round file during the constitutional convention because it was an unsustainable system), we just don't care. Been there done that.

There's nothing going on in the US that even remotely compares to Brexit. Well... except for all the reactionary hysteria. We have Trump leading the crazy charge here. But Brexit actually won over there. We'll see how this shakes out in the days ahead. I'm thinking this just may a turning point in the relationship between the voters and the media coverage. Hope so.

Stavros

10-28-2016, 01:07 AM

Seems a bit smug. It's not that we don't know what the EU is (very similar to the original American Articles of Confederation that got tossed in the round file during the constitutional convention because it was an unsustainable system), we just don't care. Been there done that.

There's nothing going on in the US that even remotely compares to Brexit. Well... except for all the reactionary hysteria. We have Trump leading the crazy charge here. But Brexit actually won over there. We'll see how this shakes out in the days ahead. I'm thinking this just may a turning point in the relationship between the voters and the media coverage. Hope so.

Not smug at all. You are intelligent and well-informed, but many of your fellow Americas are not probably because, as you indicate, they don't care. A Gallup poll, 2004 to be fair, discovered 77% of Americans do not know what the EU is or does. Another reason my remarks are not smug is that on our side, I doubt 77% of British citizens can accurately describe how the US President is elected, or name a single Senator or Congressional Representative. And it is when you realise those 77% -on whichever side of the pond they live- make up most of the people voting that you worry about the future

blackchubby38

10-28-2016, 04:49 AM

Not smug at all. You are intelligent and well-informed, but many of your fellow Americas are not probably because, as you indicate, they don't care. A Gallup poll, 2004 to be fair, discovered 77% of Americans do not know what the EU is or does. Another reason my remarks are not smug is that on our side, I doubt 77% of British citizens can accurately describe how the US President is elected, or name a single Senator or Congressional Representative. And it is when you realise those 77% -on whichever side of the pond they live- make up most of the people voting that you worry about the future

Case in point. I thought the European Union was formed in the 1990s' after the fall of Communism. Come to find its roots date to back to after the second world war.

bluesoul

10-28-2016, 04:51 AM

trump suggested we cancel the elections and give him the presidency (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-cancel-election-give-trump/story?id=43117877). i actually like that idea of repealing democracy and making him commander-in-chief.

bluesoul

10-28-2016, 06:58 AM

counter-protests and Bundy-like occupations

no need to fret- turns out it's totally cool for us white guys to do "bundy-like occupations"

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-oregon-standoff-federal-trial-aquittal-20161027-story.html

zerrrr

10-28-2016, 07:16 AM

Here is the political ad of the election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzjRwNUQDRU

martin48

10-28-2016, 10:54 AM

..., I doubt 77% of British citizens can accurately describe how the US President is elected....

Can Americans? They should explain in great detail to me until I fully understand. On the condition that I explain the rules of Cricket to them. Then let's see what is complicated.

Stavros

10-28-2016, 05:03 PM

Can Americans? They should explain in great detail to me until I fully understand. On the condition that I explain the rules of Cricket to them. Then let's see what is complicated.

Cricket has been played in the US since the 18th century and the Staten Island Cricket Club is one of the oldest in the world, though these days it is mostly played by immigrants (and descendants) from the Caribbean -you may have read Joseph O'Neills's novel Netherland (Pantheon, 200-eight) of whose plot the NYT review noted-

The book’s second story line, and perhaps its more resonant one, is about the solace Hans finds in the vibrant subculture of cricket in New York, where he is among the few white men to be found on the hundreds of largely West Indian teams in the city, teams that fan out, in the hazy summertime, across scrabby, lesser-known public parks
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/books/review/Garner-t.html

Maybe 77% of Caribbean origin Americans do know the rules of Cricket. Is that satisfactory?

martin48

10-28-2016, 05:09 PM

Easy.

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game

trish

10-28-2016, 06:21 PM

I think I'm beginning to understand what Deepak Chopra's been saying all these years!

bluesoul

10-28-2016, 09:22 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PG2V0YnokM

Stavros

10-29-2016, 12:39 AM

Donald J. Trump might be in love with American Indian voters, his declared love for India however sounds hollow given the attacks he has made on foreigners taking the American jobs he is going to 'repatriate' at the expense of...er...the Tata Group and other Indian conglomerates. Tata was founded in 1868 and is the largest industrial conglomerate in India, it also runs a consultancy service which the Trump claims is linked to the Clinton campaign.

Apparently Mr Trump doesn't in fact love Indians, or not all of them, as his campaign team argued-
"HCL and Tata are responsible for the layoffs of workers from Disney , Southern California Edison, Northeast Utilities, Xerox, University of California, Siemens, and countless others," it added
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/54493747.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

Meanwhile the prospect of a Trump Presidency has led to a fall in the value of shares in India IT giant Infosys-

Concern around the US election had focused partly on concerns that Donald Trump, if elected, could introduce policies to restrict companies’ use of Indian IT contractors: for example, imposing high minimum pay levels for skilled foreign workers in order to encourage hiring of local people. Companies could also be deferring projects involving outsourcing in order to avoid criticism, he added, noting the heated rhetoric on the subject during the campaign.
https://www.ft.com/content/a354488c-9209-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78Northeast Utilities, Xerox, University of California, Siemens, and countless others," it added

hippifried

10-29-2016, 05:01 PM

Indians don't take jobs. They buy motels.

broncofan

10-30-2016, 05:13 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

Possible Hatch Act violation by Comey.

trish

10-30-2016, 06:15 PM

Comey's underlings in the FBI felt betrayed when he dropped the email investigation against Hillary. He felt betrayed by the evidence which never accumulated to anything he could act upon. He disappointed himself, his party and it all added to his longtime hatred of the woman who threatens his long held conservative ideals. He gave in to the pressure from without and within. As a result he may come under pressure of an investigation of his own actions: Is he attempting to use his position in the FBI to influence an election? Poor James Comey is under so much pressure from so many different directions, I don't believe he's even in control of himself anymore.

Stavros

10-31-2016, 06:37 AM

I had never heard of the Hatch Act, so the letter Harry Reid has sent to Mr Comey is important if the Democrats can now use this angle to turn the FBI investigation away from being an issue over emails -650,000!!!- and the proper conduct of the FBI with regard to the investigation into Anthony Weiner as well as the hacking of the DNC emails as I think the public will at least warm to to concept of 'fair play' in this and feel uncomfortable with the idea the head of the FBI is politically biased -but they have to press this home, as the elephant in the room is this rather unattractive man called Weiner which the Americans even pronounce 'weener'!! I see it and think Viner. Whatever. Who could imagine a Presidential election would pivot on a groper on the one hand and a flasher on the other? I think you deserve much better, such as a debate on education and climate change, but I guess its too late for that now.

buttslinger

10-31-2016, 08:01 AM

Maybe Obama sent Huma 10,000 presidential pardons as a gag.
The next few days should be very interesting............

blackchubby38

10-31-2016, 11:59 PM

According to emails released by Wikileaks, supposedly Donna Brazile leaked two debate questions to Hillary Clinton during the Democratic Primary. While I take issue with how Wikileaks probably came by this information, this doesn't look good. Especially when you have Donald Trump going around saying that the election is rigged. Just when I have accepted the fact that I'm voting for Hillary Clinton, this and the whole email fiasco rears its ugly head.

trish

11-01-2016, 12:22 AM

As if Hillary needed the exam questions ahead of time! Donna Brazile is a fucking idiot.

bluesoul

11-01-2016, 01:19 AM

2 weeks ago clinton had an 88% chance of winning. today she has a 75% chance. by election day, that percentage may have fallen even lower.

and then we have this:

976330

blackchubby38

11-01-2016, 01:56 AM

2 weeks ago clinton had an 88% chance of winning. today she has a 75% chance. by election day, that percentage may have fallen even lower.

and then we have this:

976330

I have talked before about how I can see Trump winning this election. But if he does lose, I don't think its going to be in a blowout as many in the media thought it was going to be.

zerrrr

11-01-2016, 04:17 AM

Hillary will clear 300 Electoral Votes. It is not even a close race.

broncofan

11-02-2016, 08:17 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/suppress-black-vote-trump-campaign-230616

White nationalists plan to try to suppress black vote on election day.

bluesoul

11-02-2016, 08:50 PM

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/suppress-black-vote-trump-campaign-230616

White nationalists plan to try to suppress black vote on election day.

"hand out liquor and marijuana in the city’s “ghetto” on Election Day to induce residents to stay home"

i don't get how this induces someone to stay home. can't they just claim the free booze and weed and still go out and vote? or better yet, vote early then get your reward on election day.

either way, i'd like to claim that, along with my free blowjob from teambj

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTNcTo4ut2s

hippifried

11-03-2016, 02:55 AM

Should be a great spectacle if they can muster up at least a couple dozen. The big question though is: How many klan/nazis can squeeze into the clown car?

blackchubby38

11-03-2016, 03:04 AM

This election is starting to remind me of this year's NBA finals or the World Series. Where one team was up 3-1 in the series and momentum slowly started to shift to the other team as they won the next two games. Before you know it, its game 7 and Lebron James is holding up the O'Brien trophy.

hippifried

11-03-2016, 03:19 AM

I really hope you're not comparing Trump to LeBron.

blackchubby38

11-03-2016, 03:36 AM

I really hope you're not comparing Trump to LeBron.

Hey I know its an insult to Lebron James. But the analogy is kind of fitting.

The way things are looking, I could probably switch Lebron for a member of the Chicago Cubs.

broncofan

11-03-2016, 03:50 AM

I do feel a momentum shift, but I still think Trump will fall short. I'm not sure if it's just wishful thinking or that I think Trump has had a ceiling in this election, just 2-3% behind Hillary in the popular vote. Of course, he can win the election without the popular vote but he needs a lot of swing states. Florida will be a big one. I think Hillary has it, but not by a lot.

Stavros

11-03-2016, 05:09 AM

Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia on the BBC the other night pointed out that one percentage point does not make that much difference when overall Hillary Clinton is estimated to have around 70% of the vote based firmly in the large states. He discounts the importance of North Carolina (where today we have heard Black voters are being removed from the register and given no reason for being denied the vote), preferring to consider Florida the key state where the Trump vote is weak in some areas. He also argued that while the Democrats have a well-oiled machine across the USA on the ground, Trump has next to nothing and is dependent on tv, to the extent that he stated that because neither candidate can claim popularity, if Hillary Clinton is headline news, her poll ratings go down, if Trump becomes headline news, his ratings go down.
If the Democrats can find something on Trump -particularly any links to Russia- or Trump does a Trump and insults or abuses a fellow American, and if it happens later this week, the pendulum will swing again, but from where we are something sensational must happen for Trump to win this election.

broncofan

11-03-2016, 06:09 PM

. He discounts the importance of North Carolina (where today we have heard Black voters are being removed from the register and given no reason for being denied the vote), preferring to consider Florida the key state where the Trump vote is weak in some areas.
Right now there are a bunch of states within the margin of error. But looking at the map and assuming they each get the majority of the states where they have current leads, Florida becomes crucial. If Hillary wins Florida, it is mathematically very tough for Trump to win. He would need to win every swing state where he has a current lead, plus several states where Hillary has a lead depending on the electoral vote of those states (Michigan, Pennsylvania etc). In most scenarios, he would need to win three states that are very likely to go to Hillary, plus carry every state that he has a current lead in.

Nate Silver has been a bit shoddy in predicting European elections with his poll aggregator but his method seems to have been pretty reliable in the U.S. in both presidential and congressional races. This is what he has so far...a somewhat close race with a clear edge to Hillary. Here are the electoral totals to play around with...but he has Florida close.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Here are the electoral totals.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Electoral_map_2012-2020.svg/600px-Electoral_map_2012-2020.svg.png&imgrefurl=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)&h=371&w=600&tbnid=VXka8o4WIQrhlM:&tbnh=131&tbnw=214&docid=V8PDoX14zF8kRM&usg=__oMOy76zJOaLXcO1APurSqrS2k0I=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF_4iX-ozQAhVO_mMKHXS_DBYQ9QEIHzAA

broncofan

11-03-2016, 06:12 PM

But I want to re-emphasize that Florida is much more crucial to Trump than Hillary. She has many ways to win without Florida....if Trump loses Florida, his chances are slim.

The most useful graphic in the 538 link is the "winding road to 270" (slightly below middle of the page). He has every state color coded for who has a current lead, with the ones within margin of error a lighter shade. Very useful to then add or subtract from that graphic.

bluesoul

11-03-2016, 06:52 PM

i agree with broncofan; if hillary won florida it would be near impossible for trump to win, but i think he'll win florida at this rate. the thing is, she HAS TO win pennsylvania and possibly colorado (not sure about the last one)- and maybe ohio?

whatever the case, i don't think clinton would survive another wikileaks scandal.

btw: i was keeping a tally of how many times gary johnson got embarrassed during his campaign, and i can't figure what was more embarrassing. him loosing his cool during an interview (again) or bill weld basically leaving him hanging and endorsing clinton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvULsrjLdI4

broncofan

11-03-2016, 07:11 PM

i agree with broncofan; if hillary won florida it would be near impossible for trump to win, but i think he'll win florida at this rate. the thing is, she HAS TO win pennsylvania and possibly colorado (not sure about the last one)- and maybe ohio?

The problem is there are so many ways to reconfigure this. If he wins Florida, and every state goes to whoever has a current lead, Hillary would win slightly, taking Pennsylvania and Colorado but not Ohio. If she loses Colorado, North Carolina which is currently polling Red would more than make up the deficit if it swung her way (his average lead there is smaller than Hillary's lead in Colorado). Pennsylvania on the other hand is tougher for her to lose because it has 20 votes, but Ohio's 18 would probably be enough to get her to 270 if they swapped.

Have you seen the one with Gary Johnson holding his tongue:)? Gary Johnson videos have kept this campaign fun.

bluesoul

11-03-2016, 07:36 PM

Have you seen the one with Gary Johnson holding his tongue:)? Gary Johnson videos have kept this campaign fun.

of course man. that was one of my favorite- but him describing conquering mt everest definitely takes the cake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nOy4WtAc4c

buttslinger

11-03-2016, 07:42 PM

I think the word on the street is...if they call either North Carolina or Florida for Clinton, the Clinton/trump election is over.
I'm still guaranteeing Hillary in the Oval Office, but I'm waiting to see if Director Comedy directed the senate to trump.

PS Hillary, please fire Comey in a sneaky deliberate way when you are IN, and oh yeah, fire every Republican you can day by day, hour by hour.
People in my neighborhood aren't putting up Trump signs.
Maybe he didn't make any, maybe people are afraid their home values will go down.
Presidential elections are like a card game with 52,000 cards.

zerrrr

11-03-2016, 07:59 PM

broncofan

11-03-2016, 08:07 PM

Pennsylvania is not even close. The state is solid blue except when they need except for the times the Democrats in this state need money; then it becomes a battleground state. When was the last time PA went red? Almost 30 years.
The polls indicate Clinton will win Pennsylvania, but you have to remember analysts are trying to present this data in probabilistic terms. This requires being able to think in shades of gray. I'm not suggesting you aren't able to or that "not even close" isn't a reasonable metric:).

zerrrr

11-03-2016, 08:15 PM

The polls indicate Clinton will win Pennsylvania, but you have to remember analysts are trying to present this data in probabilistic terms. This requires being able to think in shades of gray. I'm not suggesting you aren't able to or that "not even close" isn't a reasonable metric:).

The last time PA went red was 1988. If PA goes red there is a serious problem within the Democratic Party.

The analysts are just stroking fears. If you look at the hard data I think almost 35 states have voted the same way for the past 4 or 5 elections. There are only a few states that are true toss-ups. Most states are solidly in one column or another which is why I say the electoral college is slanted heavily towards the Democrats.

Here is an article with electoral maps going back 50 years. Pay attention to the electoral college vote from 2000 forwards and tell me how many states flip-flop. The NE, Rust Belt, and west coast are solid blue with the center of the county and south red. The elections come down to only about 10-15 states with the Democrats winning most large states over 12 electoral votes.

2000 is a better starting point than 1992 which is what I had before.

zerrrr

11-03-2016, 08:26 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/upshot/50-years-of-electoral-college-maps-how-the-us-turned-red-and-blue.html?_r=0

From 2000 forward only New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Colorado, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida changed hands. That is 10 states out of 50. I may have missed a few but for the most part the election is pretty much focused on a few states. Most of the country is locked into place.

2000 is a very good starting point because it shows just how thin of a margin the Republicans have to win. In order for the Republicans to win the White House a lot has to go their way on the Electoral College map.

buttslinger

11-03-2016, 09:35 PM

Sonny Jurgensen was told by Vince Lombardi that most football games are decided by two or three plays,
of course you never know WHICH three plays.
In this World the best you can get to the truth is an EDUCATED guess.

Stavros

11-05-2016, 03:57 PM

Does anyone wonder if, given the controversial nature of this year's election, Faithless Electors in one or more States could affect the final result? A Faithless Elector is one of those electors chosen to cast their vote in the Electoral College who switches their vote -for example, voting for someone other than the candidate chosen by popular vote in the state. It might seem perverse, but it is after all a 'pledge' and I am not sure if electors are obliged by law to vote for the candidate the State has chosen, some fundamentalist Christian, for example, in a State won by Trump might switch the two with Pence as President... The wikipedia article on it is here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#2000_to_present

The timetable for the Electoral College looks like this:

November 8, 2016—Election Day:
The voters in each State choose electors to serve in the Electoral College. As soon as election results are final, the States prepare seven original "Certificates of Ascertainment" of the electors chosen, and send one original along with two certified copies to the Archivist of the United States at the Office of the Federal Register.
December 19, 2016—Meeting of Electors:
The electors in each State meet to select the President and Vice President of the United States. The Electors record their votes on six “Certificates of Vote,” which are paired with the six remaining original “Certificates of Ascertainment.” The electors sign, seal and certify the packages of electoral votes and immediately send them to the Federal and State officials listed in these instructions.
December 28, 2016—Deadline for Receipt of Electoral Votes:
The President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States, and other designated Federal and State officials must have the electoral votes in hand.
January 6, 2017—Counting Electoral Votes in Congress:
The Congress meets in joint session to count the electoral votes (unless Congress passes a law to change the date).
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/roles.html#dates

broncofan

11-05-2016, 05:09 PM

The way the electoral college works is something we almost take for granted despite the examples of faithless electors in your link. If the election is close, it could undoubtedly be a factor (this is afterall an election where many norms have vanished), and would contribute to a feeling that the democratic process was subverted. I just read in another link that federal law cannot require electors to honor their pledges (perhaps states have their own mechanisms to ensure)..

I'm not sure what the purpose of not having the vote in each state just add to a national tally is. Is it to give the appearance that the selection is more indirect than it is? This is something that has been mysterious to me my entire life...I remember asking people as a child what would happen if the electoral college did not vote the way the voters of each state did and they would assure "that won't happen", almost as an article of faith. For my part, I hope they don't break faith and it's one less thing to worry about.

But maybe we should worry.

http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-11-04/washington-state-elector-says-he-wont-vote-for-clinton

broncofan

11-05-2016, 05:22 PM

The man said no matter what he won't cast his vote for Hillary. So, election predictors now have to assume that in Washington, a state where Hillary is almost assured a win, she will get 11 not 12 electoral votes.

Stavros

11-06-2016, 02:22 AM

flabbybody

11-06-2016, 04:31 AM

why do we have an electoral college as opposed to a simple national talley?
cuz George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were deathly afraid of direct democracy....so were Winston Churchill and FDR centuries later, and they routinely overruled it for the greater good.
All you need for a modern day example of majority rule run amok is the BREXIT vote

buttslinger

11-06-2016, 08:51 PM

broncofan

11-06-2016, 09:44 PM

why do we have an electoral college as opposed to a simple national talley?
cuz George Washington and Alexander Hamilton were deathly afraid of direct democracy.. I anticipated it was a bulwark against dangerous popular impulses, but that's why we have the judiciary and the bill of rights. I'm just curious what the acceptable range of their discretion is between automatically casting their vote for the state's winner and deciding to supplant their judgment for that of the voters.

What exactly is their mandate or role??? Do they only refuse to comply when conscience won't allow them to accede to the public's desires? Or do they have a more robust role than that? It's just always been hazy to me...doesn't mean it is for you or anyone else.

broncofan

11-06-2016, 09:59 PM

What exactly is their mandate or role??? Do they only refuse to comply when conscience won't allow them to accede to the public's desires?
Because if their role is to buffer us against the stupidity of the masses, then maybe they should refuse to cast electoral votes for someone who doesn't understand something so basic as why we can't really use nukes.

broncofan

11-06-2016, 11:46 PM

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/another-electoral-college-voter-might-reject-clinton.html

blackchubby38

11-07-2016, 03:48 AM

I hope they show "The Apprentice" outtakes after the election.
Kind of like when Eisenhower made the local Nazi townfolk walk through the Concentration Camps.

If it's not on TV, it's not real.

Instead of a Mortician, Kellyanne Conway will need a team of autobody repairmen to remove that phony smile from her face.

I know one thing, if Trump does pull this thing off, she is going to be smiling all the way to the bank. She was able to do what two other campaign managers weren't able to do. Turn Trump into a general election candidate.

trish

11-07-2016, 05:30 AM

No, that was the clown car of GOP candidates from Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie up to Jeb Exclamation Mark.

trish

11-07-2016, 05:31 AM

This just in: Trump's campaign managers took away his twitter account. They don't trust him with a twitter account, but they want to hand him the nuclear codes. :D

buttslinger

11-07-2016, 06:15 AM

I know one thing, if Trump does pull this thing off, she is going to be smiling all the way to the bank. She was able to do what two other campaign managers weren't able to do. Turn Trump into a general election candidate.

Look, Half my family lives on the Gulf Coast, if I lived down there, I would be voting for Trump like you. .
It's just like Obama said
"If I watched Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, either"

If you support Trump for whatever reason, that is your right.
But if you believe
"we can't AFFORD health care for poor people"
and
"throwing away the Constitution is better than giving Hillary her Supreme Court Justice"
or "climate change is fake"

you're going to get a talk.
If someone can talk you into something, then someone can talk you out of it.

buttslinger

11-07-2016, 07:50 AM

The fact that both sides are insane shows how much more alike both sides are than unlike.
There is no doubt in my Heart that New York State Republicans who worked with Senator Clinton dug getting things done.
The USA is the greatest Country in the World!!!
"There is no security - only opportunity" ..Douglas MacArthur
"It's your ass now, Compton" Joe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7VaXlMvAvk

blackchubby38

11-07-2016, 09:05 AM

Look, Half my family lives on the Gulf Coast, if I lived down there, I would be voting for Trump like you. .
It's just like Obama said
"If I watched Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, either"

If you support Trump for whatever reason, that is your right.
But if you believe
"we can't AFFORD health care for poor people"
and
"throwing away the Constitution is better than giving Hillary her Supreme Court Justice"
or "climate change is fake"

you're going to get a talk.
If someone can talk you into something, then someone can talk you out of it.

Actually I'm not voting for Trump. While I'm not 100% enthusiastic about her, I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. I'm just being realistic about Trump's chances of winning. A view I have had going all way back to their respective conventions.

Stavros

11-07-2016, 10:45 AM

Whether or not Comey endangered his position at the head of the FBI, the episode has cost him his chief asset: his reputation, cultivated assiduously in the media, for probity and judgment. Beyond the director himself, the coda to the Clinton email inquiry has exposed the FBI as a politicized agency, a development with serious repercussions over the next several years.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/fbi-director-james-comey-clinton-emails-trump

I don't know if people will agree with the above, but the article offers a gloomy prospect for the FBI for the near future. Another casualty of this ugly election, you have to wonder how the FBI got itself into such a mess.

martin48

11-07-2016, 07:21 PM

Best of luck for tomorrow. You know your duty

(Sent from a legal email server!)

bryanferryfan2

11-07-2016, 07:33 PM

buttslinger

11-07-2016, 08:21 PM

Actually I'm not voting for Trump. While I'm not 100% enthusiastic about her, I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. I'm just being realistic about Trump's chances of winning. A view I have had going all way back to their respective conventions.

I have a little confession.
Not only do I misread half the posts here,
I have no idea what will happen tomorrow.
Either half the country is composed of morons,
or I am mentally ill.
Maybe both.

Ben in LA

11-07-2016, 11:19 PM

I'm glad that this forum allows for political discourse but I find it funny that a fair number of conservative men thoroughly enjoy viewing transgender porn or engaging in physical acts with transsexual women. But say or do very little to help with lgbtq issues !
Same here...and same goes for trans folk (male and female) voting for a party that literally wants to legislate them out of existence.

Stavros

11-08-2016, 01:54 AM

My last thoughts on this election are prompted by the insistence by Ann Coulter on the BBC 2 programme Newsnight an hour ago, that she thinks Trump has articulated the issues and that it was not his personality that won over those Americans who say they will vote for him. I find this astonishing, as his attacks on trade deals, on China and immigration contain no depth of thought at all and if anything present the remarkable position of an American capitalist who is opposed to free trade. That alone should have had conservatives storming the barricades around Trump rallies, or having a quiet word with Reince Priebus about ditching him. And where in any case was there a sustained debate on climate change and the environment, on education, on perhaps the biggest issue for Conservatives -welfare?

But two moments for me crystallise this election campaign -the first was the moment at a Trump rally when a man heckling the platform was dragged away and Trump said he would like to punch him in the face. That a Presidential candidate wanted to physically assault a fellow American for criticising him exposed that aspect of Trump's personality which makes him unfit for public office. The second came in the TV debate when, having claimed elections are rigged, Trump refused to say he would accept the result. That to me was not just outrageous, it did not just prove Trump believes he is more important than the American political system, it was surely an attack on the Constitution, and that the Republican Party failed to deal with it speaks volumes for the decline of the Party of Lincoln into a bottle party that no decent person would want to attend.

Courage!

sukumvit boy

11-08-2016, 03:18 AM

Agreed . The complete impotence of the Republican Party in this whole thing disturbs me the most.

broncofan

11-08-2016, 03:35 AM

flabbybody

11-08-2016, 04:37 AM

I'm very certain America will vote with resounding wisdom tomorrow and elect Hillary our next president. (fingers crossed)
This has been a difficult election for sure. The stuff some of my family and friends have uttered greatly trouble me.. and I'm sure the Trump folks in my life are saying the same about me.
Our little forum here has been a welcome ray of sanity.

sukumvit boy

11-08-2016, 05:39 AM

Clump.978007

broncofan

11-08-2016, 05:51 AM

martin48

11-08-2016, 05:29 PM

I'll drink to that

flabbybody

11-08-2016, 07:43 PM

let's do it, even though we're all in different time zones

fred41

11-08-2016, 08:38 PM

I know we do not know each other, but I propose if things go well, we all drink a toast...at an appointed time. I recommend tomorrow night when the results are called at say midnight, since I assume we will be up for what will be a historic night. I'll drink one shot of vodka to the members of the forum and to the result if it's Hillary. If it's Donald, I'll have three and a mild hangover. :)

Haven't posted in awhile. It gets a little repetitive after a bit. Also it gets a little emotionally exhausting politically disagreeing with friends, coworkers and family IRL. I never start the political arguments, but if you're going to give me obvious bogus stats and political lies...I'm going to call you on it.
A rabid Trump fan ex of mine started going into the whole - "I can't vote for 'her' because she corrupt, crooked ..and Blah, blah, blah... "
I said "Even if you are absolutely correct and I'm completely wrong - every sin you accuse her of can be countered with one by Trump. Hell, he often touts them as accomplishments or character strengths. At the very, very least Mrs. Clinton can work in government and know how to be 'Presidential'. Trump's an intellectual lazy douche."

I voted Clinton at 0930 AM EST. I feel it was the only real choice.
I'm gonna forgo the usual Bourbon and go right to the Tequila Bronc...

fred41

11-08-2016, 08:49 PM

correction: intellectually lazy douche.

There's no way he's an intellectual.

blackchubby38

11-08-2016, 11:21 PM

The best advice I can give to anyone who had differences with friends and/or family members during this election is this:

If Clinton wins, don't overly celebrate. Either in person or on social media. Just say you're happy this election went the way you wanted it to and move on.

If Trump wins, tip your hat to the guy they voted for and accept the results. Don't give any Trump voter the satisfaction of seeing you get upset.

broncofan

11-09-2016, 06:26 AM

At this point, it's not over, but it looks like Donald Trump is going to win (Hillary still has a path to victory, but her chances are being whittled away). This feels like science fiction or surreal in some way. If Trump wins, I will respect that he won the vote, but we still have a constitution and still have the rights of women and minorities to defend. That fight shouldn't be suspended. But I feel too sick to drink anything. I cannot believe that so many people can be so stupid and hate-filled.

trish

11-09-2016, 07:11 AM

At this point, it's not over, but it looks like Donald Trump is going to win (Hillary still has a path to victory, but her chances are being whittled away)... I feel too sick to drink anything. I cannot believe that so many people can be so stupid and hate-filled.
I do believe it. I've seen it. Trump has legitimized it all over again. Should he win, and it looks likely, I will respect the election results. But I'll be crying inside for the next four years at the very least. This country is going down the toilet once again, until some future liberal president wrests it from self-destruction. Even should Hillary win, this vile hatred that many white American Christian men feel for the Other has been unleashed; putting it back in its jar will be a difficult task.

Gillian

11-09-2016, 08:34 AM

I'm struggling to comprehend what the American people appear to have done. The man is a demagogue. Can't anyone see that?

Surely a destabilising influence on the world ... :(

Stavros

11-09-2016, 10:08 AM

The result, if Donald Trump is elected President, contains more questions than answers at this point. The electoral process has only just begun, and it remains to be seen if the Electoral College confirms Trump as President.

The questions raised exist precisely because of what Trump has said he would do, and before any consideration of trade policy, immigration and foreign policy, if we accept that the voters have rejected 'politics as usual' then Trump's much-repeated slogan 'We are going to drain the swamp' combined with the fracture in policy terms between Trump and his own party raises the prospect of a Republican President who can't get his policies through a Republican Congress. Given that the Republican Party is closely tied to the corporate interests that fund it, the same interests the voters are blaming for their problems that Trump says he will solve, if he is going to 'drain the swamp' then surely that must refer to Republican as well as Democrat Senators and Representatives, as well as the institutions of state, such as the offices of government -such as the Departments of Homeland Security and Education, and agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Reserve, as well as the CIA, the FBI and so on -or 'drain the swamp' is what it always sounded like -an empty slogan from a dodgy salesman whose main aim is to sell you something you think you want but what in fact you don't need.

In sum, this election has produced a result from which, like Brexit, everyone, including I suspect the Trump campaign, is lost in a fog of disbelief. One can imagine Trump being told he has won and after a few moments, exclaiming like Mr Magoo 'Now what do I do?'. Moreover, if there is anything to learn from Brexit, it is that what appears to be a clear message to government, does not produce a clearly stated agenda, indeed the immediate chaos that surrounded the result in the UK has only been replaced by an orderly confusion of 'what Brexit means' because in both cases it is hard to know if what Trump said has any traction in real policy terms just as we don't know what the real terms of Brexit will be, let alone what their impact on economy and society will be.

But the markets are spooked, and that may present a 'President Trump' with a recession as item No 1 in his in-tray, undermining his plans for 'change'.

Thus the bitter irony in all this is that Trump will not get to build his wall, he will not be able to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, he will not be able to roll back 40 years of liberal legislation on abortion and LGBQTPIAN-B rights, he will find himself stuck in tortuous negotiations on trade that cannot be annulled by Presidential swipes of the pen while the Chinese counter Trump's threats by refusing to carry on buying the American debt, indeed asking for their money back or withdrawing it from US Banks, while the promised wipe-out of Daesh is irrelevant as existing US power together with the Iraqi and Kurdish forces relieve him of that burden-

thus, the people who voted for change will wonder when is this change going to happen? The tone of politics will change, Trump has already poisoned the well on that level, and I do hope that the violent attacks on Polish businesses and individuals resulting in destruction and death that followed Brexit here do not translate in the US into physical attacks on minorities, but it may be that is the price you have to pay for handing power to a reckless idiot who may not even last the full four year term. We shall see.

I respect the result, because democracy is bigger than any one person, but what I hope most of all is that in such a bitterly divided country, Trump and his supporters also respect the democracy that has given them power, because they are custodians of a great tradition for four years, not for all time, and as we all know, anything is possible in America, and one must always trust that in the long term the USA will survive the best and the worst of times.

Stavros

11-09-2016, 11:39 AM

martin48

11-09-2016, 01:05 PM

Well, shit really does happen. Enjoy being ruled by a sociopath

martin48

11-09-2016, 01:58 PM

What more is there to say

flabbybody

11-09-2016, 03:29 PM

Is it possible that on December 19 the State Electors of the Electoral College will elect Hillary Clinton as the 45th President of the United States? After all it is the Electoral College that must choose the President.
No. It is not possible. An elector is morally obligated to vote for the candidate who attained a simple plurality of votes in the state that he/she represents. A tiny handful of electors in our history have not honored this duty, but it is extremely rare. It has never changed a result from what was intended by the vote.

blackchubby38

11-09-2016, 05:56 PM

Reflecting back on the events of last night, I think it was clear early on that Hillary was in trouble. It just seemed as the results started coming in, she was either way behind Trump or she could never gain any momentum when she was ahead of him. If you look at the swing states, her numbers remained stagnant, while Trump's kept increasing. As precincts' kept coming in, those states where getting redder and redder. Until the final result showed why I thought Trump would win this election. There is a huge segment of this country that is angry (and sometimes rightfully so, its just their anger is misdirected) and this was their opportunity to "take their country back". It also confirmed that this country truly is racially divided and I don't see how we can move things forward.

irvin66

11-09-2016, 06:27 PM

broncofan

11-09-2016, 07:20 PM

OMG.............. Congratulations on a well conducted election in the USA! How is this possible.....?????
Hillary led before the election, did she not?
He reminds me a bit about the German "Führer des Dritten Reich" in the thirties, hope he is more reasonable than he sounds in the media ....
I know it's difficult to think of this when you think of Americans. But you think of 59 million people who supported him....but also think of the 59 million people who were very invested in seeing him lose (who donated money, went to his opponent's rallies, voted, and encouraged others to do so).

We have no idea what we're going to get...there is the hope that he's more moderate in using power than he was in attaining it...but that doesn't even sound convincing. And yes he was behind in the polls, but there was a group of voters, mainly rural, in the midwest, who issued a primal scream on election night. What they want I have no idea.

APD2

11-09-2016, 07:22 PM

Ha. I may have been slightly over-hasty when I suggested Trump might be a Clinton plant.......

broncofan

11-09-2016, 07:22 PM

After all it is the Electoral College that must choose the President.
This porous filter will let through a giant orange fascist.

Paladin

11-09-2016, 11:51 PM

My only last thoughts are that we should all get out and vote even if you're in a state that's bluer than blue or redder than red. It's a privilege to be able to have a voice in the election, and there's a lot at stake. If obstacles have been put in your way, that's even more incentive to vote.

Hopefully the next time I post here, we'll have just elected our first female president, who despite her pantsuits and awkward laugh, is a supremely competent and dedicated public servant.

...I cannot believe that so many people can be so stupid and hate-filled.

You mean annoying cackle.

Dedicated - yes, to enriching herself & slick willy.

Not stupid and hate filled, just tired of the lies and corruption going on the over 24 years.

On the market - It closed at a near record high! so much for the financial disaster the the pundits were (wrongfully) espousing.

Paladin

11-10-2016, 12:04 AM

blackchubby38

11-10-2016, 12:20 AM

I know it's difficult to think of this when you think of Americans. But you think of 59 million people who supported him....but also think of the 59 million people who were very invested in seeing him lose (who donated money, went to his opponent's rallies, voted, and encouraged others to do so).

We have no idea what we're going to get...there is the hope that he's more moderate in using power than he was in attaining it...but that doesn't even sound convincing. And yes he was behind in the polls, but there was a group of voters, mainly rural, in the midwest, who issued a primal scream on election night. What they want I have no idea.

What they basically want are the manufacturing jobs that disappeared over the course of 30 years to return. In the order for that to happen, they're hoping Trump will put an end to globalism and fair trade.

They see how much the country has changed over the past 30 years when it comes to the color of people's skin and the impact that has had on what jobs are left and society as a whole. So they want Trump to put an end to illegal immigration.

They feel the failed Middle East policies of both Bush and Obama have made us less safe. So they want a stronger war on terror or for the United States to leave the Middle East all together.

They feel political correctness has run amok (this is actually one of the few things that I agree with) and its having a negative impact on the American. When it comes to fighting the war on terror, policing, and education.

They get angry every time there is a mass shooting and their 2nd Amendment rights come under constant attack.

They see the violent reaction of some members of the BLM as an attack on law enforcement. I can guarantee that was one of the reasons why Hillary lost North Carolina.

The other and I want to preface what I'm about say with this: I am against any forms of bathroom laws and I'm glad that outside pressure from various people and groups tried its best to get North Carolina to re-appeal the law.

Having said that, Trump supporters in North Carolina were galvanized by that outside pressure. They viewed it as economic blackmail. It didn't help that North Carolina was hit pretty hard by the Hurricane Matthew.

As you said, we have no idea what we are going to get. I still don't know what Trump's agenda is. Hopefully the Republicans in Congress who didn't trust him will keep him in check.

hippifried

11-10-2016, 12:24 AM

All props to blackchubby38 for seeing through the punditry bullshit. I was convinced that they knew something. Anything. I was wrong. So were they.

Oh well. At least CA prop 60 went down in flames. So did Joe Arpaio. The world's toughest sheriff was up to his eyeballs in lawsuits & federal charges for being an asshole. Cost Maricopa County millions to defend the indefensible. Republicans are like boils. Get rid of one & a bigger one infects you.

bluesoul

11-10-2016, 01:31 AM

so, was at a bar last night in the prague when the results came in. and today i read that trump is "considering" ben carson as education secretary (ha- that's a laugh).

can't wait to get back home and wallow in depression with everyone else, but in the mean time, i'm off to have sex

978513

filghy2

11-10-2016, 10:30 AM

One thing that has been overlooked in most of the commentary is that Clinton has actually received about 230,000 more votes in total than Trump. The seemingly decisive outcome is really just a product of the electoral college system and the geographical distribution of the votes. That obviously doesn't change the reality, but it does suggest that the idea that Americans have endorsed the Trump view of the world and rejected Clinton is complete nonsense (though non-college-educated whites clearly did so).

In reality, the USA is split almost 50/50 into two apparently irreconcilable camps, who even seem to get their 'facts' from different sources. I can't see how this augers well for the future of the country. History shows that countries tend to go into decline when they lose internal cohesion - that is, some level of agreement on shared values and rules of the game (and not viewing politics a 'winner take all' game where anything goes to advantage your own side). The idea that American can be made great again through half the country imposing it's view on the other half is a complete delusion.

Stavros

11-14-2016, 04:23 PM

I was asked by a friend to give figures on voter turnout and have discovered that votes are still being counted (half of them in California) and while it won't change the make-up of the electoral college, it does not look like the voter turnout will go beyond 60% as it appears to be around 57%.
Although this is in the area most elections have been in since the 1980s with the exception of 2008 when turnout exceeded 60% this seems a poor showing for such a large and vibrant democracy.
And thoughts on this?

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/

filghy2

11-16-2016, 07:42 AM

The USA is certainly towards the lower end among the developing countries, even where voting is optional http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/02/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/

I don't claim to have done a proper study, but I suspect the countries with high turnout have generally done better on social cohesion, ensuring the gains are widely shared etc. Cause and effect could go either way, but I think there's a reasonable argument that higher turnout tends to moderate the influence of the extremes (who have more strongly-held views) and push politics towards the centre.

I'm actually from Australia, which has compulsory voting (and >90% turnout). Actually, it's compulsory to turn up at the polling station and have your name crossed off - what you do with the ballot paper after that is your own affair (though only about 5 per cent of voters fail to cast a valid vote). The fine for not doing so is only A$20, so the high turnout seem to be explained by things other than the financial incentive.

Voting certainly seems to be much easier in Australia. I've seen pictures of long queues at US elections, but have never had to wait more than 5 minutes here. It helps a lot that voting in Australia occurs on Saturday rather than a weekday. It also helps that we have an independent electoral commission whose tasks is to encourage people to vote, rather than using tactics to discourage voting by certain groups as a political weapon.

Stavros

11-21-2016, 03:31 PM

A few thoughts on the US elections to add to my earlier post about voter turnout and Filhgy2's response above.

1) Would the US indeed, other liberal democracies benefit from a 'civic duty' approach to voting, as in Australia? But if there are already complaints that Americans are being denied the right to vote if they cannot produce a 'valid' ID which may require money to be spent on, say, a photo ID card which they cannot afford, why impose a financial penalty on them if they don't vote and also can't afford to pay the fine? On any given day, for a poor person, even $10 is more than they have. I think the 'civic duty' is a good idea, but it has flaws, particularly in the US where each State has its own rules.

2) Should the US change its polling day from Tuesday to Sunday, or voting on both Saturday and Sunday, to give people more time to vote when they have free time, to avoid lengthy queues, maybe even to increase voter participation? It is something I would like to see in the UK where we vote on a Thursday in May.

3) Should there be universal, ie Federal reform to restore voting rights to citizens who have been in prison? 'Felony disenfrachisement' means that more than 5 millions Americans are denied the vote, it may be as high as 1 in 40 people, and even if you think prisoners should be denied the vote, once released surely restoring their right to vote would help make them better citizens?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement#Current_practices

4) Are ballot papers in the US too big? Would it make it easier for people to choose the President if there was a separate ballot paper for the Presidency rather than one huge ballot paper with the names of all the candidates for county-state-Congress-Presidential offices? (I assume this is how it is done from the Ballot Papers I have seen).

5) Should the boundaries of Congressional Districts be the right of each State to determine, or should there be an independent, Federal Boundary Commission to do the job? This may go to the heart of 'State's Rights' but it appears that district boundaries are in desperate need of reform, though this may not be a high priority item for the Trump administration. And, crucially, would it result in a fairer distribution of votes and of representation?

blackchubby38

11-22-2016, 11:58 PM

@Stavros:

1. My view on voter fraud has always been this. If it truly is a problem like Republicans say it is, then non-driver photo ids should be made available to the public free of charge. Or since many states' benefit cards have the person's photo on them, those should be accepted as a form of identification at the polling place. But at the same time, Democrats need start to realizing that saying that poor people can't afford non-drivers photo id is a flawed argument. Here in NYC, you can get a valid id that is good for 8 years at a reasonable price. That covers two presidential elections right there.

2. I do think the time has come for Election Day to either be made a national holiday or moved to a Saturday. Having said that, a change like that needs bipartisan support and can't be brought up every time the Democrats lose an election. It just comes off as being a sore loser. Or the very least Republicans need to lose a close election and let them bring it up. I think the same applies for the calls to get rid of the electoral college.

3. I think a lot of it depends on the crime. If its a non-violent felony, then I could see restoring a person's right to vote as a part of the rehabilitation process. If the person commits a violent crime and/or is a repeat offender, I think they're showing that they don't want be part of civilized society and they're forfeiting all the rights that come with it.

4. I think the paper ballots are fine. The choices for President are the first ones on the ballot. So isn't like people have to go looking for them at the bottom or the back.

5. That's definitely a states' right issue and it can be seen as the federal government overstepping its bounds.

But I think the most important thing the Democrats could have done to prevented the low voter turnout in the 2016 election was to make sure their candidate didn't take it for granted and just assumed they were going to win it. Among other things.

Stavros

11-23-2016, 10:16 AM

Blackchubby thanks for your response. It seems institutional or structural reform is difficult to make be it the US electoral system or the British, the UN or the EU. In most cases this is because reform needs the agreement of too many parties with their own interests unwilling to allow any change that might weaken their position, just as change when it happens often comes after a disaster, like war. There is also apathy - in 2011 UK voters were asked in a referendum if we wanted to change the way we choose our representatives by moving from a Single Member Simple Plurality ('first past the post') system or opt for a form of proportional representation. Change was rejected, but voter turnout was 42.2%. If Trump behaves in an outrageous way this might force minds, and he himself wants to reform the terms that govern the House so we shall see if he is a revolutionary or not.

bluesoul

11-24-2016, 02:14 AM

so, was at a bar last night in the prague when the results came in. and today i read that trump is "considering" ben carson as education secretary (ha- that's a laugh).

congrats to ben carson on his new position as secretary of urban housing and development

is it just me or does anyone read that as a joke?

blackchubby38

11-24-2016, 05:49 AM

congrats to ben carson on his new position as secretary of urban housing and development

is it just me or does anyone read that as a joke?

I guess Trump figures since he looks like most of the people that live in urban housing, Carson would be the perfect fit.

Ts RedVeX

11-28-2016, 03:08 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VggFao85vTs

Stavros

11-28-2016, 10:16 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VggFao85vTs

Brought to you by the same people who gave you regime change in Iraq and permanent war in Afghanistan -cost: choose a number and add $Trillion after it; the same people who gave you the collapse of Savings and Loans banks in the 1980s and the financial crisis of 2008; the same people who use State law to limit a woman's right to an abortion; the same people who want to ban same-sex marriage and criminalise homosexuality and what they deem 'deviant' sexual behaviour; the same people who want you to pay every time you click on a link on the internet which they also want monitored and censored in line with their political views. And from the same people who created the Moral Majority and other fanatical Christian groups -rather than 'Marxists'- who sit in Congress allegedly as 'Republicans' but who refuse to recognise that the Constitution they are sworn to maintain is a secular, not a religious document.
It is not 'cultural Marxism' that these people are opposed to, it is the fact that Americans vote for someone else, not them. And if 'cultural Marxism' has been so effective in schools and universities and the media, why do people vote Republican or vote for Trump? This rubbish has been doing the rounds of the internet and YouTube for years, it is the American version of Salafist Islam and should be treated in the same way.

Ts RedVeX

11-28-2016, 04:09 PM

Stavros

11-28-2016, 04:58 PM

I cannot say that I agree with all of what the movie preaches but it surely makes more sense than your pro-communist bullshit which just does not make any sense. There is no reasoning with you guys. You seem to acknowledge information given to you and simply take it for granted without question. Most of you do not even bother watching movies like this one because you already lost your ability to reason. All I can say that maybe election of Trump is going to open up your eyes a bit, as he makes quite a lot of sense.

In my case I posted a severe critique of Castro just yesterday and far from just supping up 'information' without criticism I have been both active in left-wing politics and engaged with it and other forms of politics through intellectual scrutiny for many years so my conclusions are drawn from a reasoning that does involve questions, of the kind which many more do not ask of Donald Trump who has told so many blatant lies, and fooled so many people it is surely going to be his supporters who will feel 'Castroed' this time next year -?

On a more serious level, I do not accept that political correctness is a form of 'cultural Marxism', just as I would argue that free market capitalists, anti-EU and anti-trade deal billionaires like Rupert Murdoch have been more influential in swaying public opinion against the NHS, against same-sex relations and internet freedom, against political correctness through their media outlets like Fox News, and newspapers and websites in the UK. It is up to individuals to make their own choices, but I think it is patronising to assume posters here do so without much thought given the quality of argument in most of the posts in P&R.

blackchubby38

11-28-2016, 05:38 PM

While I have made my feelings known about how anti-political correctness sentiments played a role in this year's election (and will continue to a play role in future elections if the Democrats don't get their shit together), I would never refer to it as "cultural marxism". I also can't take that video seriously when one of the first people speaking is Pat Buchanan and the words "militant secularism" comes out of his mouth.

Ts RedVeX

11-28-2016, 06:35 PM

Have you even watched the movie or just read its title? You are accusing capitalists, who in contrast to communists actually get things done for others to use, of telling lies while your propaganda is nothing but lies.

Frankly, I cannot see why a capitalist would have anything against same sex relations or internet freedom. Moreover, as a businesswoman, I would like to promote whatever suited my business, on-line! However, you lefties, wanna have the media all controlled because you want to be the "more equal" class in your world of "equality". You are against free trading. You are against competition.

You want to induce fear in black, latino transgendered, homosexual people with your promotion of violent acts against them on the media you control. This causes some of us to do silly things like all sorts of parades, marches and other things that in turn make the "normal" part of the society feel uneasy. It increases racism, xenophobia and hate in general. All one needs to do is look around them to see all this and interpret it in the properly.

Luckily, your bullshit seems to have lost a bit of its momentum... Fingers crossed that you guys will be pushed back to your universities and the general public is going to get a break from all that crap.

trish

11-28-2016, 06:45 PM

It’s always been something of a mystery to me what Americans even mean by ‘political correctness.’ Language is always on the move. Usages go out of fashion and meanings change. Other usages come into fashion. I assume that to most Americans ‘political correctness’ refers to this ebb and flow in the context of political language, especially within identity politics. “Crippled” was displaced by “disadvantaged” was replaced by “challenged” etc. as each substitution acquires through abusive usage more and more negative freight. Once very common, words like “wop” and “kike” and others have fallen almost completely out of disuse. Why? You tell me.

How are these evolving usages enforced? Nobody is using clubs, knives or guns: “militant political correctness” is outright hyperbole. In most cases there are no laws involving language use. You can call me a “jungle bunny” if you like - there is no law against it. If you commit a violent crime against me while using such epithets the State may have a case that the crime was a “hate crime” which may carry harsher penalties. You might lose your job if you referred to a client using an epithet. Most managers realize such behavior is bad for business.

If on the other hand, a person uses “political correctness” to refer, not to language, but to rights; e.g. your right to use the rest room you deem appropriate for you gender, I would say they are conflating “political correctness” with “civil rights”. The fight for civil rights not unconnected to political correctness, but it is certainly a more substantial issue. There are laws protecting our civil rights. There weren’t always such laws. Most of them were hard won and some of them (our emancipation from slavery, for example) did indeed involve militancy. Still not everybody has full protection under the law. ALEC is constantly pushing laws in state legislatures that would abridge the civil rights of women, LGBTQ persons, Muslims and others.

But instead of facing up to these substantial issues, we are now entering the War-Against-Christmas season, where we listen to O’Reilly rant about the militant attack against Christian values and how Christianity is about to be displaced by Anti-Christian Secularism.

Stavros

11-28-2016, 10:35 PM

[QUOTE=Ts RedVeX;1733867]
Have you even watched the movie or just read its title? You are accusing capitalists, who in contrast to communists actually get things done for others to use, of telling lies while your propaganda is nothing but lies.
--I posted a critique of a film on YouTube some time ago, but I don't recall its title and cannot find the post. The film explores the same issue with regard to 'Cultural Marxism' and is just as riddled with factual errors and other distortions of the truth to be of no value in any serious debate on politics. I have criticised, not defended Communism, and as for getting things done, well, over a period of 600 years capitalism has achieved extraordinary things, but not always. Sometimes the truth really is just that, not propaganda.

Frankly, I cannot see why a capitalist would have anything against same sex relations or internet freedom. Moreover, as a businesswoman, I would like to promote whatever suited my business, on-line! However, you lefties, wanna have the media all controlled because you want to be the "more equal" class in your world of "equality". You are against free trading. You are against competition.
-If you read the post I started last week you will note that it is the Conservative government that has introduced in the Investigative Powers Act a law to limit your internet freedom, and it is nonsense to say that 'the left' is opposed to free trade when the evidence suggests that people like Donald Trump, who claims to be a successful capitalist, is opposed to free trade and in favour of tariffs. The left is now so lacking in influence in politics in the UK and the USA you probably need to accept that the current division of most importance is between 'traditional conservatives' and 'authoritarian populists' though that is a bit of a (tasteless) mouthful.
http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showthread.php?100977-Snooper-s-Charter-to-become-law-in-UK&p=1732144#post1732144

You want to induce fear in black, latino transgendered, homosexual people with your promotion of violent acts against them on the media you control. This causes some of us to do silly things like all sorts of parades, marches and other things that in turn make the "normal" part of the society feel uneasy. It increases racism, xenophobia and hate in general. All one needs to do is look around them to see all this and interpret it in the properly.
-The sad fact is that if any media outlet has encouraged violence against minorities it is Breitbart, and we all know where they stand in relation to Donald Trump. The minorities you refer to have never been attacked by The Guardian, or Channel 4 News, or even the BBC in the UK, all allegedly part of the 'left-wing media'.

Luckily, your bullshit seems to have lost a bit of its momentum... Fingers crossed that you guys will be pushed back to your universities and the general public is going to get a break from all that crap.
--When it comes to 'bullshit', a man who claims elections are rigged but offering no supporting evidence qualifies for the brown stuff. I don't work in a university, for what that's worth.

The critical remarks you have made about 'the left' could as easily be made about Conservatives. I understand why you support Donald Trump, but he is not a 'conventional conservative' and I suspect much of what he claimed he would do on the campaign trail will be discarded. From what you have said I would expect you to identify with libertarians, but Trump is not one of them, and I therefore think you may be both disappointed and disillusioned with the reality of contemporary politics next year.

broncofan

11-29-2016, 05:44 AM

I strongly agree with Trish' post about political correctness. It is a phrase that has a legitimate domain so small it's difficult to think of an example of someone tangling themselves up in verbal gymnastics to avoid causing offense. The one example I can think of is a Jewish friend of mine who did not like the word "Jew" even when used in its ordinary manner as a noun, because he had heard people use it in a sinister way as a pejorative, or worse yet as an adjective. But the solution is not to make people acting in good faith say Jewish-American instead of Jew, which when used in good faith should offend no one. That's literally the only example I can think of.

Almost every other time I've heard people say they are tired of political correctness, they follow it up with epithets and stereotypes. Objecting to the attempt to disqualify a Judge because he's Hispanic is not political correctness. Objecting to the insinuation that Muslims are affiliated with terrorist organizations is not political correctness. Objecting to the use of racist caricatures of African-Americans and slurs against them is not political correctness. These are actual racist offenses and should be opposed by everyone.

The only way political correctness can get in the way of solving problems is if you are one of those people who believes there are actually innate differences between groups of humans, and such urgent issues as the Jewish question (as one example) need to be answered without self-censorship. Then you might actually deplore political correctness because it prevents us from having that candid conversation about how to deal with that group.

But political correctness for me is synonymous with decency and conscientiousness.

broncofan

11-29-2016, 05:58 AM

I should say political correctness as it is used by Republicans is synonymous with common decency and conscientiousness. Political correctness used properly to mean gratuitous offense-taking, has a domain so narrow very few actual examples exist.

hippifried

11-29-2016, 06:14 AM

For the most part, those who whine about political correctness just want rude to be considered politic because they're too stupid to converse any other way.

Stavros

11-29-2016, 06:49 AM

Have you even watched the movie or just read its title? You are accusing capitalists, who in contrast to communists actually get things done for others to use, of telling lies while your propaganda is nothing but lies.

I have now watched this film and it is similar to the one I saw a year or two ago whose title and link I cannot find. The film has a simple message which is entirely American in orientation. This message is that America is the greatest country in the world, formed to give people liberty and freedom, provided through its Constitution which aims to give people a life free of taxes and government. The thrust of the film is provided by something called 'Cultural Marxism' which at times appears to be anything considered un-American that originated in Europe and which has infected the USA like a virus. The attack on America thus takes the form of an attack on the family, on private property, on the nation and on God. As Pat Buchanan argues at the beginning of the film and later (around 19.55) America is a Christian country but one where the Supreme Court has 'perverted the Constitution' by imposing secular views and values on States and communities, a comment he makes in spite of the fact that the Constitution is a secular document.
A core element of the argument is that everything changed in the 1960s and thus the film is an attack on youth culture which allegedly lapped up European Cultural Marxism to replace Dad as head of the family with Mom, indeed this entire section entitled 'Androgyny' beginning around 33.45 claims that tv, film, the media and academia have all conspired to destroy the American family as a union between a man and a woman who believe in a Christian God and love their Country. Crucially, throughout this film, Christianity is the core belief of the USA to the extent that no other religion is mentioned, presumably because such religions are either irrelevant or un-American.
The last half-hour of the film is a savage attack on Woodrow Wilson, FDR and John Maynard Keynes, with the various claims about the printing of money, debt and borrowing as being unconstitutional and of course, part of Cultural Marxism's attempt to smash capitalism and the USA with it. Keynes is described as an economist 'indoctrinated in the environment of our former enemy' (ie Britain), who with Roosevelt conspired in the New Deal to destroy a Republic founded on free trade.
Thus welfare creates poverty and above all, shifts responsibility from the Christian family (which is no longer Christian) to the State, and the State provides, creating a circle of dependency that boosts the power of the Federal government and its power to levy taxes and print money.
There are so many holes in these arguments one hardly knows where to start. There is no awareness of the role played by the Christian church in Europe (or Latin America) in crushing democracy, in acting against the interests of the people by forming alliances with corrupt and dictatorial monarchies of the very kind the American Constitution sought to prevent. Again, the Constitution is continuously lauded as the source of law and values, yet Buchanan, a writer called Giffin and others regularly impute to the Constitution Christian values that are not there.
At times the language is absurd, such as the claim that children sent to day care centres and public schools are 'handled like animals in captivity' (c35.44) and the conclusion by one Harvard economist that the 2nd Amendment in effect obliges every citizen to be armed. In the matter of capitalism, while it has in private property and free trade provided America with its greatness, the fascists known as multi-national corporations have Congress bought and sold for their benefit, and it was the Federal Reserve that caused the great depression.
As for Cultural Marxism, a loose collection of thoughts by philosophers from Marx through Gramsci to the Frankfurt School does not amount to the organized conspiracy the film tries to portray it as, in fact there is no evidence the film-maker even understands what it was that Marx argued for, given that he viewed Communism as a state-less society...rather like the United States of America the film-maker would like to live in.

broncofan

11-29-2016, 07:32 PM

All I can say that maybe election of Trump is going to open up your eyes a bit, as he makes quite a lot of sense.
Before I give you my rebuttal I want to say I appreciate that you're willing to stand up and state your views. On this forum when I state my views, they tend to be fairly mainstream but I know what it's like to state views that you know 10 or 12 people will vehemently disagree with. So thanks for that. I've read transcripts of Trump speaking, and all I see are tangents, non-sequiturs, bluster, and falsehoods.

On Twitter the other day, he said that MILLIONS of people voted illegally for Hillary. This false claim was rebutted by CNN and other networks, as it's noteworthy that the winning candidate in an election is making a baseless charge of voter fraud. He then took to twitter to insult CNN and say, "prove to me what I said isn't true." Anyone with an iota of common sense knows that the onus is on a person making an outrageous claim to provide evidence it's true, not on those saying it's unsupported to prove a negative.

The reason he finds allies in people like Alex Jones, who makes videos claiming secret agents are in the midst of following him, is that he needs to go to the paranoiac fringe to find people with as little respect for facts and reality. He won a big victory in the election, but it's not a victory for truth, it's a victory for nihilists and people who don't care very much about facts but are angry about the way things are.

I also imagine you were here to see Erika's little performance where she was posting racist images and memorializing Nazis to show her love for Trump. This movement, known as the alt-right, but little more than a collection of neo-nazis of varying degrees of commitment, has grown under Trump. People might ask what control does he have over those who follow him? He doesn't have ultimate control. But it is telling that he is more vitriolic in talking about Rosie O'Donnell than he is in talking about thousands of Neo-Nazis who feel empowered enough by his victory to yell things like "Heil Trump". Being too cowardly to chastise a group who calls other human beings subhuman with the vigor you do of someone who mocks your thin hair is not leadership quality.

broncofan

11-29-2016, 09:17 PM

Woody Allen mocks a woman in his movie Manhattan who talks about how biting satire is the best way to combat fascism. The joke is that in the face of violent people who do not care about facts or irony or ridicule but who only want to bash your skull in, the rebuttals amount to nothing. That's how I feel in writing about Donald Trump's recent tweet where he said that people who burn the American flag should be imprisoned or lose their citizenship. First of all, under our constitution, nobody can have their citizenship revoked, even for murder. Once you are a citizen, you can be imprisoned, you can even be executed for crimes, but there is no process for forfeiting citizenship. The imprisonment (or any punishment at all) of people for burning the U.S. flag is also unconstitutional as it violates the first amendment. This has been ruled upon and if it were before the court again, I imagine such a law would fail first amendment scrutiny unanimously. We are truly living in a post-fact world, where we have a president who treats literal neo-nazis with kid gloves and then recommends the imprisonment or deportation of citizens engaging in protected speech.

trish

11-29-2016, 09:31 PM

We are now in a time where people are derided for kneeling before the flag and not standing. In the words of Kurt Vonnegut, "So it goes."

flabbybody

11-29-2016, 09:38 PM

broncofan

11-29-2016, 10:25 PM

Im a little concerned about Tom Price for Health&Human Services secty. This doctor-legislator has been authoring bills to kill Obamacare and Medicaid for years. Now he's been made boss and can actually do it.
I didn't know that, though it's not surprising. This is going to sound like a partisan claim, but I think that any problems or inefficiences that exist with obamacare are the result of not having a comprehensive enough system. The entire reason the federal government has commerce clause power is to impose a uniform system for economic activity whose costs and benefits transcend state boundaries.

Healthcare is something that affects people regardless of geography, and it never made sense for the health insurance industry to be split up into fifty different regimes. It was only further complicated by the fact that ERISA peeled off those employer sponsored plans and did subject them to federal regulation, but removed some of the deterrents that used to provide protection against insurance companies acting in bad faith (summarily denying meritorious complaints or drowning busy people in paperwork).

Were both parties to recognize that healthcare is not an ordinary good or service, that it is one best dealt with using insurance (which involves the sharing of risks) because its costs are so unpredictable and potentially catastrophic to families, then maybe we can agree upon a system that retains few characteristics of a purely private system. My recommendation is that if we get rid of Obamacare, we try to replace it with a system that protects working class families against rising healthcare costs rather than leaving those unfortunate enough to become gravely ill vulnerable to a hodgepodge of laws that make them susceptible to financial ruin.

blackchubby38

11-29-2016, 11:29 PM

Im a little concerned about Tom Price for Health&Human Services secty. This doctor-legislator has been authoring bills to kill Obamacare and Medicaid for years. Now he's been made boss and can actually do it.

I read an article the other day that said some Republican governors don't want the part of Affordable Care Act that expanded the Medicaid program in their respective states. The fear being that if you kick all those people off Medicaid, they will start using emergency rooms for their primary care providers. So between this and Trump already saying he wants to keep certain parts of the Affordable Care Act that works, I'm still optimistic that it won't be repealed.

Although I do wonder if Republicans would have been more open to the ACA if it didn't have the individual mandate attached to it.

broncofan

11-29-2016, 11:38 PM

The last half-hour of the film is a savage attack on Woodrow Wilson, FDR and John Maynard Keynes, with the various claims about the printing of money, debt and borrowing as being unconstitutional and of course, part of Cultural Marxism's attempt to smash capitalism and the USA with it. Keynes is described as an economist 'indoctrinated in the environment of our former enemy' (ie Britain), who with Roosevelt conspired in the New Deal to destroy a Republic founded on free trade.
Thus welfare creates poverty and above all, shifts responsibility from the Christian family (which is no longer Christian) to the State, and the State provides, creating a circle of dependency that boosts the power of the Federal government and its power to levy taxes and print money.As you indicate, nothing Keynes said, or Roosevelt did during the New Deal could be challenged as unconstitutional, nor is it unconstitutional to run deficits or increase the money supply or do all sorts of things fiscal conservatives think are harmful. There were a series of cases, called the Lochner cases during the early 20th century, where libertarians basically argued that states cannot pass laws that in any way impede the right of two individuals to enter into a contract. This is different from saying that a state cannot impair existing contracts, but would strike down any law that could prospectively interfere with a contract between an employer and an employee. If the Court had not shortly overturned this in an eloquent decision by Justice Holmes, all sorts of employment protections and wage floors and social programs might be held unconstitutional. But otherwise, as you rightly indicate, there's nothing in there that seems to identify any liberal policies that are actually unconstitutional.

broncofan

11-29-2016, 11:44 PM

Although I do wonder if Republicans would have been more open to the ACA if it didn't have the individual mandate attached to it.
If it didn't have a mandate attached to it, it's not a system at all. Risk pooling depends upon cross-subsidization between low and high risk individuals. If low risk individuals opt out, you have something called adverse selection, and a remaining pool for health insurance that is not affordable for people who really need it. Given that insurance companies are already not allowed to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions, without the low risk individuals as part of the pool, they probably can't be competitive.

Low risk individuals also tend to underestimate their risk, and given that we have programs like EMTALA which make emergency care mandatory, their failure to get insurance would increase costs. If you allow people to remain uninsured, you don't have good risk pooling and you also have huge back end costs.

broncofan

11-29-2016, 11:50 PM

Actually, the Holmes opinion I"m thinking of is in the dissent of Lochner, but a subsequent case overturned Lochner's endorsement of a fundamental right to contract.

broncofan

11-29-2016, 11:53 PM

Although I do wonder if Republicans would have been more open to the ACA if it didn't have the individual mandate attached to it.
And I realize you are trying to identify areas of compromise. Excuse me, I'm just being a spoiled baby. But I did feel that the mandate is what makes the system work.

Stavros

11-30-2016, 12:03 PM

As you indicate, nothing Keynes said, or Roosevelt did during the New Deal could be challenged as unconstitutional, nor is it unconstitutional to run deficits or increase the money supply or do all sorts of things fiscal conservatives think are harmful. There were a series of cases, called the Lochner cases during the early 20th century, where libertarians basically argued that states cannot pass laws that in any way impede the right of two individuals to enter into a contract. This is different from saying that a state cannot impair existing contracts, but would strike down any law that could prospectively interfere with a contract between an employer and an employee. If the Court had not shortly overturned this in an eloquent decision by Justice Holmes, all sorts of employment protections and wage floors and social programs might be held unconstitutional. But otherwise, as you rightly indicate, there's nothing in there that seems to identify any liberal policies that are actually unconstitutional.

Some years ago I briefly knew an American woman (resident in London) who insisted that Roosevelt was a Communist and would not accept an alternative argument. The people who made the film and promote these arguments take a severe, minimalist view of what the USA ought to be, based on their interpretation of the Constitution in the context they provide of the American revolution, which they see as a revolution against monarchy, taxation and servility, and for a Republic with little or no taxation and guaranteed liberty. One of the public speakers in the films makes a correlation between the Boston Tea Party protests about a few pence of taxes on tea compared to the lack of protest in the US today over taxes counted in dollars. The debate in the film over the 2nd Amendment revisits the problem Washington had with a standing army that could only be maintained through taxation, thus the interpretation offered is that the 'well armed militia' should be the armed forces of the USA and for this reason every citizen should be armed. The cardinal point being the reluctance of the government to impose taxes on the citizen. It is also part of the free market libertarian view that your money is your private property and should be yours to spend as you wish without any interference from the government. From this perspective, the Federal Reserve is a state-sponsored thief stealing money it does not earn from people who do.
There is no room here for any argument about banking regulation, or the historical evidence that the multiple banking failures in US history took place in an environment where precisely the lack of regulation Rand Paul supports led to their collapse. His view, I assume, would be that the market could not sustain those banks, with little or no sympathy for those people who though the bank was safe, put their money in it, only to be told once it evaporated markets succeed and sometimes they fail.
Crucially, there is no sensible argument about what to do when capitalism fails, and the deep trauma of the depression and the New Deal administration that it led to is not viewed in human terms, but in terms defined by a mis-trust of government and the state. One public speaker suggests that poverty used to be an unfortunate but temporary glitch that people got over, until the government moved in with welfare programmes that stole money from working people to give to unemployed people who thereby had no incentive to work at all so thereby welfare created a class of people permanently unemployed and permanently supported in their idleness by people working. Although the identity of this mass of unemployed dependents is not clearly stated you don't need to be a genius or be familiar with the works of either Charles Murray or Daniel Moynihan to know who is being discussed.

As for Keynes, there is a common mis-perception that his economic theories on state intervention in the economy offered an alternative to free market capitalism, where in fact Keynes offered a temporary solution to economies in recession seeing this as part of an economic cycle. The difference between him and, say Jeavons, is that Keynes argued the worst effects of a recession can be dealt with through the state sponsoring jobs to maintain an equilibrium of supply and demand; his famous remark that it would be better for the state to employ one group of men to dig holes and another to fill them in than leave both idle, was an illustration of the need for money to continue circulating in the economy through wages and consumption.
The difference between then and now, is that in Keynes's day, once the recession had bottomed out, productive capacity would return, bringing more jobs and prosperity with it, and the need for government intervention would recede, and markets would return as the primary form of economic activity. This worked until the de-industrialization and modernizations that began in the 1960s changed the way products are made, and where they are made.
The UK along with the USA has lost productive capacity with regard to what was once called 'heavy industry' and the service and techno industries that have grown since the 1970s just do not create as many jobs. The irony of Trump's insistence that Apple and IBM repatriate jobs from China to the USA is that with modern technology in the form of robotics, Apple may be able to re-locate the whole of its production of computers and phones to the USA but employ less than a thousand people to do it because robotics is now becoming even cheaper than labour in China, indeed, Foxconn is in the process of replacing 60,000 workers in China with robotic production-
http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/25/11772222/foxconn-automation-robots-apple-samsung-smartphones

What do you do with an army of unemployed people? As modern production is increasingly automated, and as many people do not have the skills to be part of the 'knowledge economy', can markets rather than government provide the jobs needed to give people something to do? Most Americans are now employed by either the Federal or State and local government, but if Trump delivers on some of his promises, the ranks of the unemployed may be about to grow. And who knows where that leads?