The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Q99]

I notice we have several things that could be counted as an 'october surprise' already. All of them Trump's problems.

[Lord Insanity]

Is this a joke? The underdog has no chance at all using the popular vote. He loses period. This is especially hilarious that you have the 2000 election results showing one of the few times the underdog wins via the electoral college. Making it possible to win despite losing the popular vote is exactly what the electoral college is supposed to do.

I could echo your first statement right back at you. You and I do have a vastly different perception about what democracy means. Any result where someone wins while not having a mayority of the popular vote in his corner in comparison to the other contenders is a perversion of what democracy stands for.

And especially the 2000 result shows that the popuplar vote is giving underdogs more chance. Nader was THE underdog, and would have had 2.7% instead of 0. This - small underdogs getting a share of the vote even though they never won, outright, would make 3rd parties possible, as they could compete with other parties. If people see that their vote is not 'thrown away' but their choise has a chance of succeeding, democracy could be revived.

Also, Gore would have won, the one with MORE votes. The 2000 election perfectly shows all that is wrong about using the college.

On the contrary, The 2000 elections shows exactly what the electoral college is supposed to do. A presidential election is NOT a single national vote. It is 51 (D.C. counts as a state for this) separate state votes. The winner of the 51 state votes wins which is usually but not always the national popular vote winner. It is the exact same logic behind the baseball championship where the winner is the best out of 7 games which is not necessarily the team with the total highest score.

Here is another article published in 2004 from MIT which sites physicist Alan Natapoff's work and why an electoral college style system would have been better for the then newly formed Iraqi government.

Alan Natapoff cares passionately about democracy, believes strongly in the power of fair voting, and has proved a mathematical theorem to show that individuals have more voting power with the Electoral College than without it.

"Raw voting foils the intention of democracy in the large," said Natapoff, a research scientist in MIT's Center for Space Research who studies brain performance in space. "The president should represent not merely the majority, but the whole electorate."

In the present system, candidates are forced to remain moderate enough to please most voters, or at least are punished if they make mortal enemies of some voting segments. Without the electoral system, the United States could easily divide into warring factions, he said, a situation that must be avoided in Iraq.

Natapoff's suggested tweak: keep the state-based determination of electoral votes, but change the way they're apportioned. Give the winner in each state the total number of popular votes actually cast in the state that day, plus one-quarter of the number of votes cast in the average state, to replace the two senatorial electoral votes per state awarded under our present system.

In Natapoff's proposed system, a voter also could choose to cast a blank ballot, which would not be counted for the winner. "This would let the supporters of the underdog punish a leading candidate who is hostile to them," he said.

Natapoff believes a similar electoral college with closely contested districts could help establish a democracy in Iraq. It's the U.S. Electoral College that forces candidates to consider the wishes of all voters, not just those of the majority. This makes all the difference in a world where minorities and majorities have a history of slaughtering one another, he said. And it helps explain why the Electoral College has been essential to sustaining a robust democracy in the United States over two centuries.

[FireNexus]

Here's a question. With the East Coast (a series of very close swing states) under the gun of a big hurricane, would the "global warming-induced hurricane narrative (scientifically inappropriate as it is) have a big impact on the election of it hits? Especially since the Obama Administration is currently batting 1.000 on the response to natural disasters?

[SolarpunkFan]

So... about this Assange character.

I doubt he has something real on Clinton, but if he's able to get something fabricated then it could be a very dangerous turn of events, especially considering how prone people are to the bandwagon effect.

I'm not into the doldrums I was before, but I'm definitely a little nervous right now.

[Elheru Aran]

Assange likes to talk a big game, but frankly if he's got something serious, odds are pretty good the government knows he does, and he's probably not supposed to have it, so that would be bad news for him. If he had something real, he'd probably have released it by now. On the other hand, he probably knows just as much dirt about Donald Trump-- especially as Trump wasn't playing with nation-state levels of security before the campaign-- and, well, should Trump be elected, if a leaker pissed him off enough... no, keeping Clinton in the game is just better for Assange's own, ahem, ass. I'd say he's just trying to keep Clinton honest.

[Dominus Atheos]

Julian Assange has gone more than a little insane after being besieged inside the london Ecuadorian embassy for so many years, especially WRT Hillary Clinton. Here he is heavily implying Clinton murdered one of Wikileaks' sources:

[SolarpunkFan]

Julian Assange has gone more than a little insane after being besieged inside the london Ecuadorian embassy for so many years, especially WRT Hillary Clinton. Here he is heavily implying Clinton murdered one of Wikileaks' sources

Quite. I wouldn't put it past him to try to fabricate something.

And the possibility that he might be a little cozy with Putin is, well I'm not quite sure how to put it right now.

[Elfdart]

If Hillary wins big, some of the credit should go to Alec Baldwin:

[Q99]

So... about this Assange character.

I doubt he has something real on Clinton, but if he's able to get something fabricated then it could be a very dangerous turn of events, especially considering how prone people are to the bandwagon effect.

I'm not into the doldrums I was before, but I'm definitely a little nervous right now.

The last time wikileaks had something 'dangerous' it was 'DWS talked about lines of attacks on Bernie late in the primary, but decided they were dumb and didn't do them.'

[Bug-Eyed Earl]

So... about this Assange character.

I doubt he has something real on Clinton, but if he's able to get something fabricated then it could be a very dangerous turn of events, especially considering how prone people are to the bandwagon effect.

I'm not into the doldrums I was before, but I'm definitely a little nervous right now.

The last time wikileaks had something 'dangerous' it was 'DWS talked about lines of attacks on Bernie late in the primary, but decided they were dumb and didn't do them.'

But let's not forget that masses of useful idiots on the Progressive side used it to scream "THEY WERE FAVORING HILLARY!!" All from emails dated after most of the primaries were over and it was mathematically impossible for Bernie to win. I follow so many liberal YouTube channels- The Young Turks, Secular Talk, the David Pakman Show- they ALL touted this, despite there being no serious talk in the emails of things the DNC actually did much earlier in the primaries. If Assange drops some new info, they will run with it, probably without a second of critical thinking.

[Q99]

So... about this Assange character.

I doubt he has something real on Clinton, but if he's able to get something fabricated then it could be a very dangerous turn of events, especially considering how prone people are to the bandwagon effect.

I'm not into the doldrums I was before, but I'm definitely a little nervous right now.

The last time wikileaks had something 'dangerous' it was 'DWS talked about lines of attacks on Bernie late in the primary, but decided they were dumb and didn't do them.'

But let's not forget that masses of useful idiots on the Progressive side used it to scream "THEY WERE FAVORING HILLARY!!" All from emails dated after most of the primaries were over and it was mathematically impossible for Bernie to win. I follow so many liberal YouTube channels- The Young Turks, Secular Talk, the David Pakman Show- they ALL touted this, despite there being no serious talk in the emails of things the DNC actually did much earlier in the primaries. If Assange drops some new info, they will run with it, probably without a second of critical thinking.

True, but in short we are not going to be talking anything wide electorate shaking.

[The Romulan Republic]

So... about this Assange character.

I doubt he has something real on Clinton, but if he's able to get something fabricated then it could be a very dangerous turn of events, especially considering how prone people are to the bandwagon effect.

I'm not into the doldrums I was before, but I'm definitely a little nervous right now.

The last time wikileaks had something 'dangerous' it was 'DWS talked about lines of attacks on Bernie late in the primary, but decided they were dumb and didn't do them.'

But let's not forget that masses of useful idiots on the Progressive side used it to scream "THEY WERE FAVORING HILLARY!!" All from emails dated after most of the primaries were over and it was mathematically impossible for Bernie to win. I follow so many liberal YouTube channels- The Young Turks, Secular Talk, the David Pakman Show- they ALL touted this, despite there being no serious talk in the emails of things the DNC actually did much earlier in the primaries. If Assange drops some new info, they will run with it, probably without a second of critical thinking.

I must point out that it is inaccurate to say that it was mathematically impossible for Bernie to win in any sense until after the June 7th. primaries (even their their are theoretical scenarios involving mass switching of delegates and Clinton having to drop out and so forth, but those are very far-fetched, of course, and neither would qualify as actually winning the most delegates in the primary contests).

You can say that it was highly unlikely for Bernie to win at any point after New York, at the latest. Hell, you could say that it was highly unlikely for him to win at any point- he was always a long shot candidate. However, words do have meanings, and it is factually false to say that it was mathematically impossible for him to win at any point before June 7th.

It is also simply fact that the DNC, or at least certain officials within the DNC, favoured Hillary to an extent, so to mock and ridicule any progressive who points this out is as disingenuous as it is insulting. It doesn't mean that the DNC did anything illegal, even. Their are plenty of legally permissible but ethically dubious ways to influence an election.

It won't stop me from voting for Clinton, nor should it stop any rational and informed progressive from voting for her, considering the alternative. But let's not pretend its something other than what it was. The historical record of this primary, and how it is perceived, will influence the direction of the Democratic Party going forward.

[FireNexus]

You would pull that shit. It was mathematically nearly impossible. Is that better for your then still extant fever dream of a Bernie Nod, you flaming pile of pain in the ass?

[Q99]

To draw things off this tangent, Hillary's blunt view of social progress

In the push for social progress, which comes first: changed hearts or changed laws?

Hillary Clinton answered this question in the course of her quasi-private meeting with activists from the Black Lives Matter movement, and she came down firmly on the side of the latter. “I don’t believe you change hearts,” Clinton told Julius Jones in an candid moment backstage after a campaign event. “I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You’re not going to change every heart. You’re not. But at the end of the day, we can do a whole lot to change some hearts, and change some systems, and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them.”

And, I think she has a solid point. Changing hearts can help in small ways, but changing laws gets stuff done, and can make it easier to sway hearts. The laws for interracial marriage came well before the hearts, and showing it could be done is what made it worked. Gay marriage spread after a few states showed it worked. Practicality in progress.

[SolarpunkFan]

Well, Assange seems to be going ahead with the speech.

The livestream I found is on the nutter Alex Jones YouTube channel, so think about whether you want to click this link: https://youtu.be/B-sVGIp6E9g

[SolarpunkFan]

Well, Assange seems to be going ahead with the speech.

The livestream I found is on the nutter Alex Jones YouTube channel, so think about whether you want to click this link: https://youtu.be/B-sVGIp6E9g

Aaaaannnddd... judging by the comments others are making online (I wasn't watching the stream), the speech was nothing. Literally nothing. Unless you count a realtime Wikileaks donor infomercial as something.

I've really got to chill out.

Edit: or as one person put it,

FIND OUT NEXT TIME ON DRAGONBALL Z!

Yeah, that about sums it up.

[Flagg]

You would pull that shit. It was mathematically nearly impossible. Is that better for your then still extant fever dream of a Bernie Nod, you flaming pile of pain in the ass?

I want to have your babies.

[K. A. Pital]

http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pre ... n-assange/

Clinton’s State Department was getting pressure from President Obama and his White House inner circle, as well as heads of state internationally, to try and cutoff Assange’s delivery of the cables and if that effort failed, then to forge a strategy to minimize the administration’s public embarrassment over the contents of the cables. Hence, Clinton’s early morning November meeting of State’s top brass who floated various proposals to stop, slow or spin the Wikileaks contamination. That is when a frustrated Clinton, sources said, at some point blurted out a controversial query.

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010 records releases, divulging secret U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan in July and the war in Iraq just a month earlier in October, sources said. At that time in 2010, Assange was relatively free and not living cloistered in in the embassy of Ecuador in London. Prior to 2010, Assange focused Wikileaks’ efforts on countries outside the United States but now under Clinton and Obama, Assange was hammering America with an unparalleled third sweeping Wikileaks document dump in five months. Clinton was fuming, sources said, as each State Department cable dispatched during the Obama administration was signed by her.

Clinton the peaceful progressive leader.

I cannot even begin to express just how much I hate both candidates.

[Iroscato]

http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pre ... n-assange/

Clinton’s State Department was getting pressure from President Obama and his White House inner circle, as well as heads of state internationally, to try and cutoff Assange’s delivery of the cables and if that effort failed, then to forge a strategy to minimize the administration’s public embarrassment over the contents of the cables. Hence, Clinton’s early morning November meeting of State’s top brass who floated various proposals to stop, slow or spin the Wikileaks contamination. That is when a frustrated Clinton, sources said, at some point blurted out a controversial query.

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010 records releases, divulging secret U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan in July and the war in Iraq just a month earlier in October, sources said. At that time in 2010, Assange was relatively free and not living cloistered in in the embassy of Ecuador in London. Prior to 2010, Assange focused Wikileaks’ efforts on countries outside the United States but now under Clinton and Obama, Assange was hammering America with an unparalleled third sweeping Wikileaks document dump in five months. Clinton was fuming, sources said, as each State Department cable dispatched during the Obama administration was signed by her.

Clinton the peaceful progressive leader.

I cannot even begin to express just how much I hate both candidates.

Yes, but which do you hate more?

[K. A. Pital]

Good question. I feel Clinton is more dangerous, but Trump is simply insane. Trump is worse, but by such a tiny margin...

For me this is a purely theoretic question anyway.

[cosmicalstorm]

http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pre ... n-assange/

Clinton’s State Department was getting pressure from President Obama and his White House inner circle, as well as heads of state internationally, to try and cutoff Assange’s delivery of the cables and if that effort failed, then to forge a strategy to minimize the administration’s public embarrassment over the contents of the cables. Hence, Clinton’s early morning November meeting of State’s top brass who floated various proposals to stop, slow or spin the Wikileaks contamination. That is when a frustrated Clinton, sources said, at some point blurted out a controversial query.

“Can’t we just drone this guy?” Clinton openly inquired, offering a simple remedy to silence Assange and smother Wikileaks via a planned military drone strike, according to State Department sources. The statement drew laughter from the room which quickly died off when the Secretary kept talking in a terse manner, sources said. Clinton said Assange, after all, was a relatively soft target, “walking around” freely and thumbing his nose without any fear of reprisals from the United States. Clinton was upset about Assange’s previous 2010 records releases, divulging secret U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan in July and the war in Iraq just a month earlier in October, sources said. At that time in 2010, Assange was relatively free and not living cloistered in in the embassy of Ecuador in London. Prior to 2010, Assange focused Wikileaks’ efforts on countries outside the United States but now under Clinton and Obama, Assange was hammering America with an unparalleled third sweeping Wikileaks document dump in five months. Clinton was fuming, sources said, as each State Department cable dispatched during the Obama administration was signed by her.

Clinton the peaceful progressive leader.

I cannot even begin to express just how much I hate both candidates.

Lol.

I'm sure she was just a few years ahead of her time in that simple question. I wonder if that idea will really lose her some votes. I suspect it won't, if she promised to nuke the moon tomorrow then Donald would have to come up with something even more raucous by the next day, so as not to be left in the wake.

By the way, off topic I guess, but what would have happened if they had actually performed a drone strike on Julian? God that would have saved us this boring embassy drama, I bet the public would have forgotten about his untimely demise in 6 months.

[Civil War Man]

http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pre ... n-assange/

Clinton the peaceful progressive leader.

I cannot even begin to express just how much I hate both candidates.

Really? You are citing True Pundit to support that stance? You might as well get your news from InfoWars at that point.

[SolarpunkFan]

Really? You are citing True Pundit to support that stance? You might as well get your news from InfoWars at that point.

I must inform you that the correct way of typing it is "InfoWhores", not "InfoWars".

[maraxus2]

http://truepundit.com/under-intense-pre ... n-assange/

Clinton the peaceful progressive leader.

I cannot even begin to express just how much I hate both candidates.

Really? You are citing True Pundit to support that stance? You might as well get your news from InfoWars at that point.

Love the useful idiots who think that tearing down Clinton will somehow help progressivism in the US.

Good question. I feel Clinton is more dangerous, but Trump is simply insane. Trump is worse, but by such a tiny margin...

For me this is a purely theoretic question anyway.

This is spoken like a person who neither knows nor cares much about American politics.

*snip*

Pretty much. I do think it's interesting how easily Assange has made the transition to working with the right-wing fever swamps here in the States, the very same people who wanted to actually kill/arrest him, Manning, and Snowden for all of the leaks.

*snip*

This nonsense again? People should start putting "Trigger Warning: DNC" on their posts so you can stop yourself from getting offended.

[K. A. Pital]

This is spoken like a person who neither knows nor cares much about American politics.

For me, an outsider and a Marxist, this is a pick your poison situation. Clinton is a dedicated crazy globalist, though, and as an anti-globalist who is devoted to destroying obnoxious deals like TTIP, stopping the corporate takeover of the world is a bit more important than petty US politics. In fact, i see oligarchs on Bloomberg arguing for Clinton every day.

On the other side, Trump is the oligarch. He is the capitalist elite. And he's crazy. The only bright spot is.. If Trump is such a loose cannon that he can wreck the corporate paradise of globalist free capital flows in ways he himself cannot anticipate (I've read teh stock market would plunge if Trump were elected), then it would be a case of capitalists shooting themselves in the foot. I'd like to see their sour faces if it happens.

Capitalists are everywhere these days. I don't need to care a lot about which brand of mine enemies runs the burning chariot.