The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[maraxus2]

...Badly? Which is why your gut instincts are worth exactly jack shit? Not sure what exactly you're trying to say there...

Assuming that you're being sincere, and that this isn't an instance of "can't tell if trolling or stupid," it should be relatively easy for you to dispute some basic claims with evidence. Here are three:
1. The Democrats, including Hillary, have a built-in advantage in the electoral college. It is much easier for them to get to 270 than it is for the GOP. Where will Trump win that will get him an extra 66 electoral votes that Romney could not get?

2. Trump is historically unpopular, particularly with crucial demographics like Latin@s and women. Given that Romney lost the election in 2012, and given that he lost Latin@ voters by a 72-27 split, and given that he lost women by a 55-45 split, what can he do to win back their votes.

3. Trump is really quite unpopular with Republican electeds and a substantial number of Republican voters say they will never vote for him. How will Trump win back those votes?

Please humor me. I've met so very few Trump supporters that weren't my redneck family members, so your thoughts are appreciated.

[Flagg]

That's assuming Trump doesn't get bounced at the GOP convention and some other vacuous empty suit doesn't get the nomination in which case even if Trump doesn't run on his own, the party will be split. The only way a Republiturd gets sworn into office as POTUS next January is if Clinton and her VPOTUS-Elect get hit by an asteroid and Eddy Munster (assuming the GOP keeps the House) takes the oath.

[Gandalf]

Yeah, if Trump can barely get a majority of Republicans onside, how does he get enough of the country onside?

[Thanas]

This is cosmicalstorm who believed Europe to be totally defenseless against hordes of smelly rapy barbarians from the middle east, so why are you guys taking him seriously? Just do whatever you do when faced with an imbecile - laugh, smile, pat his head and then go on your merry way.

[maraxus2]

This is cosmicalstorm who believed Europe to be totally defenseless against hordes of smelly rapy barbarians from the middle east, so why are you guys taking him seriously? Just do whatever you do when faced with an imbecile - laugh, smile, pat his head and then go on your merry way.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast, or at least when it comes to weirdo politics. I'd like to hear what he has to say for himself, personally.

@Flagg:

Not a chance that it's anyone other than Trump or Cruz at this point. Apart from finding someone who could unify enough GOP delegates to win the nomination (and has there ever been a bigger fool's errand than a conservative trying to unite the GOP?), it would just look really really bad if they couldn't find someone who didn't outright lose the primary.

[Flagg]

This is cosmicalstorm who believed Europe to be totally defenseless against hordes of smelly rapy barbarians from the middle east, so why are you guys taking him seriously? Just do whatever you do when faced with an imbecile - laugh, smile, pat his head and then go on your merry way.

I'm laughing on the inside. And the outside.

[Flagg]

@Flagg:

Not a chance that it's anyone other than Trump or Cruz at this point. Apart from finding someone who could unify enough GOP delegates to win the nomination (and has there ever been a bigger fool's errand than a conservative trying to unite the GOP?), it would just look really really bad if they couldn't find someone who didn't outright lose the primary.

I'd consider Ted "The Canuk" Cruz an empty suit. But like I said, barring an asteroid strike that kills POTUS-Elect Clinton and her VPOTUS-Elect and assuming the Republiturds hold onto the House leaving Paul Ryan as Speaker, thus third in line, no member of the GOP will be sworn in as President in January 2017.

[Raw Shark]

Because voting for the Republican would be a +1 instead of a null, I don't believe in Clinton, and I want to send a, "Give us something or after four years of outrage we will actually get the stoners off the couch, go all Tea Party, and primary you hard," message. It might have as much chance of getting read as a bottle flung into the ocean, but when you're on a desert island you do what you can to pass the time and give yourself hope. I don't whine. I throw glass things.

Is that how you send that message? Not "Please ignore me because I won't show up in the general and almost certainly won't vote in the mid-terms?" That's an...interesting strategy.

I didn't mean to imply that I wouldn't be voting in the general or the mid-terms. I vote every year. Colorado has Amendment 69 on the ballot this year, which will enact state-wide single-payer healthcare if it passes, and that alone would get me to turn out, even if I didn't care who represents me in Congress.

@cosmicalstorm: You're still going on about SJWs? What the actual fuck, man?

[jwl]

I feel dirty just reading your filth.

Like the fact that you apparently regard the prospect of a "white first" (your words) President not being able to get elected as a bad thing. You ever heard of the 14th. Amendment? You know, the one that guarantees equal protection under the law? Or how about the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."?

It's embarrassing to our entire country when you quote the Constitution/Declaration of Independence in the face of a foreigner you're debating.

I think they're applicable when discussing weather a man who spits on their ideals is fit to be President of the United States, thank you.

If we were discussing who should run whichever poor country is blighted with cosmicalstorm's presence, perhaps it would be more appropriate to cite different documents.

It's only really in america where everyone has such an obsession of the constitution though. Most other places, if you want something to happen that goes against the constitution, that's an argument to have constitution changed, not to give up on the idea.

[jwl]

@cosmicalstorm: You're still going on about SJWs? What the actual fuck, man?

Half of this thread is going on about social justice warriors, they just use a different term.

[Raw Shark]

It's only really in america where everyone has such an obsession of the constitution though. Most other places, if you want something to happen that goes against the constitution, that's an argument to have constitution changed, not to give up on the idea.

We've changed it 27 times.

[Mr Bean]

It's only really in america where everyone has such an obsession of the constitution though. Most other places, if you want something to happen that goes against the constitution, that's an argument to have constitution changed, not to give up on the idea.

We've changed it 27 times.

To be exact we added onto it about twenty five times. The only time you can argue we changed it would be a handful of amendments like what came out of the civil war and famously the 18th and 21st amendments banning then repealing that ban on the sale of booze.

Things like the 19th amendment (Women's suffrage) one could argue would have been as easily fixed if not a permanently by simple legislation rather than amendment of the constitution.

When done right, the constitution has been a document telling the government what it can't do and what every citizen has the right to. When done wrong it typically bans things.

[maraxus2]

I'd consider Ted "The Canuk" Cruz an empty suit. But like I said, barring an asteroid strike that kills POTUS-Elect Clinton and her VPOTUS-Elect and assuming the Republiturds hold onto the House leaving Paul Ryan as Speaker, thus third in line, no member of the GOP will be sworn in as President in January 2017.

For an empty suit, he sure dresses to the far-right.

Speaking of Ted Cruz and things involving his wiener, look at this video of his 8 year-old daughter fleeing from his evil presence

Video confirms that Caroline Cruz is the only morally competent member of the Cruz household.

During Wednesday night’s live broadcast of the Cruz family Town Hall on CNN, one of the daughters of Texas Senator Ted Cruz seems to have let it slip that there is video of her father in a bizarre wardrobe choice that his PR team is almost certainly tracking down as we speak.

The Republican candidate for President and his wife Heidi were joined by their two daughters on stage with Anderson Cooper during a late portion of the broadcast. In keeping with the Town Halls this week, which were often focused on more personal elements of the candidates and their families, Cruz discussed a recent Daddy-Daughter picnic at school. To demonstrate some of the everyday goofiness in his role as Father in Chief, Cruz relayed a harmless story of fatherly dress-up.

“She got to dress up Daddy in a pink boa and these like, big goofy-looking underwear…” explained the Texas Senator.

He was not expecting what his daughter revealed next.

“And [inaudible] it was on a videotape the whole time,” she told her father, in front of millions of Americans watching at home. “And that was a class video that they’re sending out to all the parents.”

As the (nervous?) Cruz could only manage a “uh-oh,” Anderson Cooper giggled his way through an “Oh really?” at the revelation. Heidi Cruz can be seen trying to perhaps quiet down her oldest daughter, and the note definitely thuds awkwardly with the gathered crowd.

Watch the above bizarre moment from CNN, and watch this space for the latest in the Pink Boa Footage search.

What a hero. I hope that someone somewhere leaks a copy of that video before the primary ends.

[Raw Shark]

It makes me sad that Cruz can't wear a pink boa to goof around with his kid without the right wing labeling him as a [whatever slur for half-assed cross-dressing comes to your imagination here]. This is the first time I have ever felt something positive for the guy.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's embarrassing to our entire country when you quote the Constitution/Declaration of Independence in the face of a foreigner you're debating.

I think they're applicable when discussing weather a man who spits on their ideals is fit to be President of the United States, thank you.

If we were discussing who should run whichever poor country is blighted with cosmicalstorm's presence, perhaps it would be more appropriate to cite different documents.

It's only really in america where everyone has such an obsession of the constitution though. Most other places, if you want something to happen that goes against the constitution, that's an argument to have constitution changed, not to give up on the idea.

Oh, I have no problem with amending the Constitution if its done through the proper procedures.

Simply violating it, though, as Drumpf would likely do based on some of his campaign positions and rhetoric, is another matter.

@cosmicalstorm: You're still going on about SJWs? What the actual fuck, man?

Half of this thread is going on about social justice warriors, they just use a different term.

Seriously, Social Justice Warrior is, in my opinion, a meaningless term. Or, rather, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone apply it to themselves. As far as I can see, it exists purely as a slur to denigrate whatever social values and policies the speaker feels are too Left wing.

That's assuming Trump doesn't get bounced at the GOP convention and some other vacuous empty suit doesn't get the nomination in which case even if Trump doesn't run on his own, the party will be split. The only way a Republiturd gets sworn into office as POTUS next January is if Clinton and her VPOTUS-Elect get hit by an asteroid and Eddy Munster (assuming the GOP keeps the House) takes the oath.

I think we'd all like to believe that Drumpf (or Cruz) could never win, but I'm not so confident. People have been saying that he could never win, that he was a joke, that he wasn't a real candidate, for about a year, expecting him to drop out/flop, and it hasn't happened yet.

I think their is a dangerous level of complacency among some on the Left about him. There's this idea that he can't possibly win, or that if he won, he couldn't possibly be that bad (i.e. an outright fascist/white supremacist). That it can't possibly happen here. But the thing is... it is happening. He's the Republican front-runner, and, God help us, he's probably going to be the Republican nominee. Who would have believed that a year ago? Yet here we are.

People need to realize that he could be President, and take that seriously. Otherwise we're going to continue to see Clinton Democrats alienating Sanders supporters because they think Hillary doesn't need their votes. We're going to see more people going Bernie or Bust because they want to make a statement and aren't worried enough about the possibility of him actually winning. We're going to see Democrats phoning the campaigning in, and we're going to see lower voter turnout.

Enough of that, and suddenly it isn't so hard to believe that the fascist could win. By all rights, this year should be an epic Democratic landslide. But there's perhaps no better way to throw away an easy win than taking that win for granted.

[Raw Shark]

We're going to see more people going Bernie or Bust because they want to make a statement and aren't worried enough about the possibility of him actually winning. We're going to see Democrats phoning the campaigning in, and we're going to see lower voter turnout.

I want to make a statement. That statement is, "Clinton and Trump are both complete assholes." I'm like Scarface quitting his job at McD's in Half-Baked right now. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you're cool [pointing at Jill Stein; she nods sagely, knowing in advance that I would say that], fuck you - I'm out.

[The Romulan Republic]

Clinton is an asshole, but their are degrees of assholes.

Proposed campaign slogan for Clinton:

"Clinton 2016: At least I'm not a fascist."

[Vendetta]

I think their is a dangerous level of complacency among some on the Left about him. There's this idea that he can't possibly win, or that if he won, he couldn't possibly be that bad (i.e. an outright fascist/white supremacist). That it can't possibly happen here. But the thing is... it is happening. He's the Republican front-runner, and, God help us, he's probably going to be the Republican nominee. Who would have believed that a year ago? Yet here we are.

Hyperventilating about how Trump is Hitler with sillier hair misses the point of what he is. He's a blowhard demagogue who can barely see beyond his own ego and is insulated from his own failures. He doesn't actually believe in many things at all other than that President Trump sounds like a great thing to have people say and so doesn't actually have many real policy positions (this is the source of a lot of his incendiary rhetoric, when you don't believe anything you can say anything, and also why his recent foreign policy speech is ten points of internally contradictory bollocks and he can happily reverse his position on any point if it sounds like public reaction is against him like he did on abortion clinics, where he tried to say the "right thing" to stir up the Republican base, got called out, and did the mealy mouthed PR half-retraction). What's come out from him that aren't wacky nonsense that won't even get voted on in government have often been fairly business as usual Republican tax cuts.

Add to that the fact that none of the Republican lawmakers actually like him and would be almost as willing to engage in their usual obstructionism as they have been for the last eight years when he's not serving the Republican party's entrenched interests, and President Trump would be a one term lame duck with a few headline tax cuts for rich people and a lot of federal government deadlock.

He's also not particularly interested in the details of things, so expect a Trump administration to be very much run back office by specialists (and possibly driven by Paul Ryan) whilst The Trump makes lots of noise and basks in the attention.

Cruz would be worse, Cruz has policy positions and they're all grounded in deeply held convictions which are absolute nonsense. Especially on economics, where Cruz is a full on goldbug and liable to do far more damage to the US economy than Trump would ever manage, and his chief advisor is one of the architects of the deregulation which produced the 2008 crash (Phil Gramm).

If Trump is the Republican nominee, just be glad it wasn't the other guy, the other guy was actually dangerous not just big, dumb, and loud.

[The Romulan Republic]

I keep hearing this, that Drumpf doesn't actually believe what he says, he's not serious, he's not a real Nazi, really, just pretending to be one for personal gain, as if that somehow is a mitigating factor.

And my answer is this:

1. Considering how disturbing what he says is, why the hell should we risk giving him the slightest benefit of the doubt? He choses to say and do the things he says and does. Why the hell shouldn't he be judged accordingly?

2. If he doesn't mean a word of it, that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous and morally bankrupt. He is still inciting violence and bigotry on a large scale and legitimizing them further as part of the political mainstream of America. That alone is profoundly dangerous, and unforgivable. And his victory would only exacerbate that problem, while utterly destroying America's global reputation (which isn't exactly shiny as it is) and causing economic instability. So yes, I consider him dangerous. Cruz is dangerous too, definitely, but that doesn't mean Drumpf isn't.

He could literally do nothing as President and still be one of our shittier Presidents simply due to the fact that he won.

I also believe, in part for reasons entirely outside of the current campaign, that he is genuinely a corrupt (possibly lawbreaking) businessman and a misogynist. He's also an alleged rapist who sexualized his infant daughter, by the way.

As to how much he'd be able to accomplish in office- sure, he has a lot of enemies in the Republican establishment, but he also has backers, and the Republicans have a tendency to ultimately rally around whoever their nominee is. And even if they don't... I'm not all that confident of their ability to control him. The Republican establishment has been trying to control him for months, and they've accomplished fuck all at it.

This isn't "hyperventilating." This is the reality that to some extent, he doesn't need to mean what he says to be a very dangerous person.

And I insist on taking Drumpf (and Cruz) so seriously in part because, as I said, I am worried that their is a dangerous level of complacency about this election on the Left, a "we can't lose" attitude that is setting the party up, potentially, for disaster.

[jwl]

I think they're applicable when discussing weather a man who spits on their ideals is fit to be President of the United States, thank you.

If we were discussing who should run whichever poor country is blighted with cosmicalstorm's presence, perhaps it would be more appropriate to cite different documents.

It's only really in america where everyone has such an obsession of the constitution though. Most other places, if you want something to happen that goes against the constitution, that's an argument to have constitution changed, not to give up on the idea.

Oh, I have no problem with amending the Constitution if its done through the proper procedures.

Simply violating it, though, as Drumpf would likely do based on some of his campaign positions and rhetoric, is another matter.

Not necessarily. Lots of candidates have promised things they couldn't do legally alone as president, Trump is no different.

@cosmicalstorm: You're still going on about SJWs? What the actual fuck, man?

Half of this thread is going on about social justice warriors, they just use a different term.

Seriously, Social Justice Warrior is, in my opinion, a meaningless term. Or, rather, I don't believe I've ever heard anyone apply it to themselves. As far as I can see, it exists purely as a slur to denigrate whatever social values and policies the speaker feels are too Left wing.

No-one would apply "stupid" to themselves either, that doesn't mean it is a meaningless term. "Vote for Hillary because she's a woman, if you don't you're sexist" is a Social Justice Warrior position, and people have been complaining about that for half of this thread.

[Vendetta]

I keep hearing this, that Drumpf doesn't actually believe what he says, he's not serious, he's not a real Nazi, really, just pretending to be one for personal gain, as if that somehow is a mitigating factor.

And my answer is this:

1. Considering how disturbing what he says is, why the hell should we risk giving him the slightest benefit of the doubt? He choses to say and do the things he says and does. Why the hell shouldn't he be judged accordingly?

Sure, judge him according to his behaviour. But actually do that, do it by looking and listening and thinking not pretending that he's the second coming of fascism. He just isn't. Dangerous ideologies are dangerous because of what they do not because they are loud and obnoxious (when they've finely judged that enough people will be gulled into voting for them by being loud, eg. Trump doesn't care about which bathroom a transgender person uses because anyone who does care is going to vote for Cruz anyway).

Judge him as a cynical fraud, and then you'll be equipped to actually deal with the reality of what he represents.

What Trump is saying has no relationship to what the Republican party would do if he were president, because "fool poor people into voting for the party that systemically benefits rich people and then ignore everything you told them" is their thing, Trump has just hijacked their game by being louder (y'know, like a baby cuckoo).

2. If he doesn't mean a word of it, that doesn't mean it isn't dangerous and morally bankrupt. He is still inciting violence and bigotry on a large scale and legitimizing them further as part of the political mainstream of America. That alone is profoundly dangerous, and unforgivable. And his victory would only exacerbate that problem, while utterly destroying America's global reputation (which isn't exactly shiny as it is) and causing economic instability. So yes, I consider him dangerous. Cruz is dangerous too, definitely, but that doesn't mean Drumpf isn't.

He might be emboldening racists, but he's not making them. He's certainly (accidentally, see: cynical fraud) highlighting problems in US society, but he's not going to suddenly invoke mass deportations or real protectionism (he's as big a fan of cheap labour as you can get, after all).

As to how much he'd be able to accomplish in office- sure, he has a lot of enemies in the Republican establishment, but he also has backers, and the Republicans have a tendency to ultimately rally around whoever their nominee is. And even if they don't... I'm not all that confident of their ability to control him. The Republican establishment has been trying to control him for months, and they've accomplished fuck all at it.

They haven't been trying to control him. They've been waiting to see if he'll go away and then trying vainly to fight him because he'd hijacked their system of keeping a deluded base of voters who don't get anything out of voting Republican but do it anyway because of rhetoric aimed at their insecurities.

None of that matters when he's in office though, because the Republican party in the house and senate is a finely tuned machine with the sole aim of making sure no government happens, and they've had eight years of practice against Obama.

[Channel72]

I agree for the most part - fear of Trump as some kind of Mussolini figure is somewhat exaggerated. The problem is that it's pretty clear that Trump is highly ego-driven, and while any particularly crazy shit he might try to do would likely be blocked domestically, it's a bit frightening to think about the powers granted to him by the Executive Branch and how he might use those powers internationally if he felt the least bit slighted/disrespected. Right now he and Putin seemingly have nice things to say about each other. But how long realistically can that actually last given their radically different and contradictory interests across the international stage?

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, I shudder to think who he'd try to appoint to the Supreme Court, and I don't trust the Republicans in Congress to block his appointments.

[Gaidin]

Also, I shudder to think who he'd try to appoint to the Supreme Court, and I don't trust the Republicans in Congress to block his appointments.

It's not that you can't trust the Republicans to block his appointments. It's that you can trust the Republicans to pass them. See, look at Obama's first three years. Even then, with his theoretically liberal justices insofar as they'd bitch about them they'd vote them through after a couple months of hemming and hawing. Why? Because they were technically qualified. It wasn't until the last year that they could sort of bullshit a political reason to block something for SCOTUS even though they could sort of invisibly mess with the federal courts forever(insofar as the masses are concerned anyway). You can bet Trump, if he can find a technically qualified nominee, it'll look about the same.

[Vendetta]

I agree for the most part - fear of Trump as some kind of Mussolini figure is somewhat exaggerated. The problem is that it's pretty clear that Trump is highly ego-driven, and while any particularly crazy shit he might try to do would likely be blocked domestically, it's a bit frightening to think about the powers granted to him by the Executive Branch and how he might use those powers internationally if he felt the least bit slighted/disrespected. Right now he and Putin seemingly have nice things to say about each other. But how long realistically can that actually last given their radically different and contradictory interests across the international stage?

I dunno, I mean the Chinese government love him already because they can point at him and tell their domestic pro-democracy movements "See, this is what your democracy gets you!"