The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[The Romulan Republic]

You would not be saying this if the exact opposite had just played out last night (i.e. Hillary won EC but lost popular vote), would you?

Yes, because all us Democrats don't actually have real principles, right?

You strike me as a reactionary ideologue prone to doom and gloom and incapable of seeing beyond the end of your narrative (I couldn't possibly imagine why), so it's a fair question to ask.

Its insulting speculation, and largely irrelevant to the topic. You are attacking my character and supposed motives rather than the substance of my argument. This is textbook ad hominem fallacy.

And as to the implication that I will simply support something because it benefits my side- if you've followed the election thread, you ought to remember that I am a Bernie Sanders voter who has spoken out repeatedly against the caucus system. That should tell you all you need to know.

But in any case, we should be able to debate the issues without people insisting on trying to turn it into a referendum on my personality yet again.

With you for the first part, suspect you would have been 'dismayed' not because the EC 'stole' the election for Hillary but because you would have been freaking out how the majority of American voters do not see the world the way you do (hint; you would be calling them racist, misogynist, other 'ists' add your own).

I never used the word "stole". I fully acknowledge that Trump's election is lawful, as Hillary's would have been in that scenario. It is simply undemocratic.

I don't doubt that my reaction would have been somewhat different, but I would have preferred to win with the support of the people than against them. And I think that had I considered the question, I would have come to the same conclusion that the Electoral College is fundamentally wrong.

Again, I was inclined to oppose it even before this.

But again, that won't stop you from putting words in my mouth, to make me fit the narrative you've already written in your head.

And then you finish by not actually answering my question, let me ask it again; Would you have posted that little rant if the roles were reversed? Yes or no?

See above.

And what you dismiss as a "rant" is an entirely valid argument whatever my reasons for posting it. I will note, again, that you are making no effort whatsoever to address the argument, but are focussing entirely on trying to attack my character and motives. This is a textbook ad hominem fallacy, and suggests that you have no substantive counter-argument to make.

I will not entertain such tactics further. If you want to debate the issues, do that. Otherwise, we're done here.

Answer the question.

Answer one yourself:

Would you be supporting the Electoral College over the will of the people had Hillary won in such a manner?

[Tribble]

While true, it is both the system we have and the numbers as you pointed out were not that far off from previous elections. I'm all for ditching the EC but good luck with that. The powers that be on both sides know it and know how to game it.

2000 and 2016 beg to differ on the Democrats being able to game the system on the EC. It's potentially twice now that they won the popular and lost the EC. Have they won the EC and lost the popular since the Southern Strategy caused parties to effectively switch positions?

I don't think it would be fair to abolish the electoral college entirely as that would mean only urban areas / big states matter, but the electoral college should be reformed. IMO at the very least they should make it so that the electors are given out proportionately in each state rather than "winner take all."

Nonsense. A straight popular vote would mean that Farmer Joe and Wall Street Winston would both have equal power in the election. More immediate focus may be placed on large/dense population centers, but it would make it so the tactic of only going to swing states is utterly non-viable.

Yeah, as it stands now, Floridians (another word for weird morons) and Ohioans have more of a say in who becomes president than someone in New York, Texas, and California.

And as a result, only urban people will really matter because by definition they have the greatest population density. Yet what the hell do they know about living in rural areas, and why should they be given an exclusive right to rule over rural voters, which is essentially what you are advocating for? Beause let's be honest, poltical candidate would bother to travel outside major cities if he/she knew that they were the only things that mattered.

And btw, states like Florida are only seen as more valuable because unlike other states they tend not to "lock in" to particular parties. If California is realistically going to vote Democrat no matter what Republicnas do, why bother to go there? And vice versa.

[Knife]

Yeah, as it stands now, Floridians (another word for weird morons) and Ohioans have more of a say in who becomes president than someone in New York, Texas, and California.

Actually that's how they know the game and play it. Under the current EC, we pretty much know how California and New York will vote, those numbers are usually a given. It's the medium sized states that are in play. The so called 'road to victory' every election isn't about how California will fall, it's about a half dozen states with 20-40 EC votes go.

And in general, not you Flagg since I've seen it pop up a couple times in a couple threads, the idea that if you abolish the EC, smaller states will not get any attention is horse shit. If what you mean is 'smaller states' like Ohio and Penn, sure. But actual small states like Utah (since I'm here) never actually get any attention anyways.

[Tribble]

Of course another question is whether or not there should be a US president, at least as the position is setup right now. What kind of powers should a single person really have? I prefer parliamentary systems where the leader is the head of the party with the most seats. Yes, yes, "separation of powers" and all that, but so far by most standards my country isn't doing too bad. Maybe it's needed in the US, I dunno.

[TheFeniX]

I know exactly what most Republicans will do. They didn't have the guts to really stand up to Trump when he was thought likely to lose, and they sure as hell won't do it when he's President and can (however falsely) claim to have a mandate from the voters. They're too afraid of getting primaried and/or shot by their base.

Fucking cowards.

So, what if it swings the other way: Reps fall in line behind Trump and he decide to expand the ACA? I have no idea what he's going to do, but I recall him saying good things about the socialized healthcare of places like Canada and..... Scotland? That doesn't sound right, whatever. So say he goes loose cannon and starts pushing extensions of Obamacare? I've also heard talk from him about capping executive pay. Also, ridiculous tariffs on foreign importers, especially China. I'm not saying I agree/disagree with any of this.

Everyone else is handling the Doom and Gloom, I'm interested (in a semi-depressed way) to see what happens in the next 4 years. Because the idea of Trump, pretty much the Rep outsider equivalent of Sanders, bullying the GOP is... kind of funny.

[The Romulan Republic]

2000 and 2016 beg to differ on the Democrats being able to game the system on the EC. It's potentially twice now that they won the popular and lost the EC. Have they won the EC and lost the popular since the Southern Strategy caused parties to effectively switch positions?


Nonsense. A straight popular vote would mean that Farmer Joe and Wall Street Winston would both have equal power in the election. More immediate focus may be placed on large/dense population centers, but it would make it so the tactic of only going to swing states is utterly non-viable.

Yeah, as it stands now, Floridians (another word for weird morons) and Ohioans have more of a say in who becomes president than someone in New York, Texas, and California.

And as a result, only urban people will really matter because by definition they have the greatest population density. Yet what the hell do they know about living in rural areas, and why should they be given an exclusive right to rule over rural voters, which is essentially what you are advocating for? Beause let's be honest, poltical candidate would bother to travel outside major cities if he/she knew that they were the only things that mattered.

And btw, states like Florida are only seen as more valuable because unlike other states they tend not to "lock in" to particular parties. If California is realistically going to vote Democrat no matter what Republicnas do, why bother to go there? And vice versa.

Again, you are treating diverse groups of people as homogenous blocks.

You think that it would unfairly advantage urban voters because you're thinking in the mindset of the Electoral College, of the winner being determined by counting blocks of votes by region rather than individual votes.

If we went with a straight popular vote, however, an urban voter's vote would be worth as much as a rural voter's vote. The candidate more popular with rural voters would still get some urban votes, and they might be enough in a close race, if they got high margins outside the urban areas.

[Flagg]

Yeah, as it stands now, Floridians (another word for weird morons) and Ohioans have more of a say in who becomes president than someone in New York, Texas, and California.

Actually that's how they know the game and play it. Under the current EC, we pretty much know how California and New York will vote, those numbers are usually a given. It's the medium sized states that are in play. The so called 'road to victory' every election isn't about how California will fall, it's about a half dozen states with 20-40 EC votes go.

And in general, not you Flagg since I've seen it pop up a couple times in a couple threads, the idea that if you abolish the EC, smaller states will not get any attention is horse shit. If what you mean is 'smaller states' like Ohio and Penn, sure. But actual small states like Utah (since I'm here) never actually get any attention anyways.

Yeah, I'm in full agreement. I've been for abolishing the electoral college since high school. I don't see the necessity for it in the modern world. It made sense in the time before and during telegraphs, but IMO it's just a holdover that no one will change because Amendments are a pain in the ass and more likely because it enables campaigns to target certain states and virtually ignore states like California and Texas which are just taken for granted.

I mean I was at one of many Gore rallies in FL in 2000 when he was campaigning for my vote, but when Obama comes to WA he's campaigning for our governor.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, because blocking a couple of trade deals is more important than the basic equality, dignity, and civil liberties of every woman and minority in America, more important than our democratic institutions and the rule of law.

People like you are the problem, Crown.

Yes you dumbass, these are not just "trade deals". It is a transnational undemocratic, unelectable system of secret courts which allows corporations to sue governments for passing laws they don't like.

If that is "a couple of trade deals" then sorry, but you do deserve Trump as your president.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I'm not cool with throwing every woman and minority under the bus for your hobby-horse. Sorry about that.

[Crown]

You strike me as a reactionary ideologue prone to doom and gloom and incapable of seeing beyond the end of your narrative (I couldn't possibly imagine why), so it's a fair question to ask.

Its insulting speculation, and largely irrelevant to the topic. You are attacking my character and supposed motives rather than the substance of my argument. This is textbook ad hominem fallacy.

I'm just providing an honest insight to my opinion of you based on our few interactions, not seeking to attack your person over your argument and then based on my assessment why I would ask it of you (and maybe not other people railing against the EC as an example). The key phrases were: "You strike me as..." and "so it's a fair question to ask".

And as to the implication that I will simply support something because it benefits my side- if you've followed the election thread, you ought to remember that I am a Bernie Sanders voter who has spoken out repeatedly against the caucus system. That should tell you all you need to know.

The possibilities are thus;

• I have and was aware and are simply trolling you
• I haven't and thus am not aware so I'm asking

Pick one.

But in any case, we should be able to debate the issues without people insisting on trying to turn it into a referendum on my personality yet again.

Fair point.

With you for the first part, suspect you would have been 'dismayed' not because the EC 'stole' the election for Hillary but because you would have been freaking out how the majority of American voters do not see the world the way you do (hint; you would be calling them racist, misogynist, other 'ists' add your own).

I never used the word "stole". I fully acknowledge that Trump's election is lawful, as Hillary's would have been in that scenario. It is simply undemocratic.

I used 'stole' as short hand, no other meaning was intended.

I don't doubt that my reaction would have been somewhat different, but I would have preferred to win with the support of the people than against them. And I think that had I considered the question, I would have come to the same conclusion that the Electoral College is fundamentally wrong.

Again, I was inclined to oppose it even before this.

But again, that won't stop you from putting words in my mouth, to make me fit the narrative you've already written in your head.

So the answer is ... no? You wouldn't have posted that? Unless someone else prompted you to 'consider the question'? This is sincere, here.

And what you dismiss as a "rant" is an entirely valid argument whatever my reasons for posting it. I will note, again, that you are making no effort whatsoever to address the argument, but are focussing entirely on trying to attack my character and motives. This is a textbook ad hominem fallacy, and suggests that you have no substantive counter-argument to make.

I will not entertain such tactics further. If you want to debate the issues, do that. Otherwise, we're done here.

Don't be daft; if you cannot simply answer 'yes I would have still posted about the EC unprompted had the roles been reversed' then you are merely demonstrating the phenomenon known as sour grapes.

Answer the question.

Answer one yourself:

Would you be supporting the Electoral College over the will of the people had Hillary won in such a manner?

My turn to be legalese; I haven't supported the EC.

But to answer the the 'spirit' of the question; the EC is a well known and established part of the US election system, for better or worse we know its there and we need to operate within its scope. I don't do bitching about something we knew was there before we started, didn't change while the race was being run and operated exactly as intended at the end of the race.

[Tribble]

Yeah, because blocking a couple of trade deals is more important than the basic equality, dignity, and civil liberties of every woman and minority in America, more important than our democratic institutions and the rule of law.

People like you are the problem, Crown.

Yes you dumbass, these are not just "trade deals". It is a transnational undemocratic, unelectable system of secret courts which allows corporations to sue governments for passing laws they don't like.

If that is "a couple of trade deals" then sorry, but you do deserve Trump as your president.

I... actually have to agree with K.A. Pital here. The signing of NAFTA and the Democrats attempts at passing the TPP and TTIP (which Clinton was a huge proponent for before backing down due to the Sanders campaign) are just about the most undemocratic thing they've done in a long time.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, I'm not cool with throwing every woman and minority under the bus for your hobby-horse. Sorry about that.

You American-centric narcissist, stop the god damn drama, there are 7 billion people in the world.

Most of them live outside America and it is on their working class shoulders to bear the weight of TTIP and TTP. Not yours, you entitled do-nothing!

NAFTA made people suffer - a spike in poverty in Mexico and, apparently, outsourcing to sweatshops from the US. You are truly blind.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I'm not cool with throwing every woman and minority under the bus for your hobby-horse. Sorry about that.

You American-centric narcissist, stop the god damn drama, there are 7 billion people in the world.

Most of them live outside America and it is on their working class shoulders to bear the weight of TTIP and TTP.

You think Trump won't hurt them too?

Not yours, you entitled do-nothing!

You know nothing about me- you simply hurl insults at anyone who doesn't think like you.

Were this simply about my self-interest, I wouldn't give a shit about the people, especially women and minorities, both in and out of America, who will have their lives ruined by Trump.

NAFTA made people suffer - a spike in poverty in Mexico and, apparently, outsourcing to sweatshops from the US. You are truly blind.

I did not say that I support these deals.

I simply do not think that they outweigh all other issues, like letting a fascist get his hands on the Constitution and military of the world's most powerful country.

[Tribble]

What does the Constitution matter if corporations and the political elite can just bypass it at will? With secret unaccoutable courts no less, so the public will never even hear about the details? Make no mistake, NAFTA, the TTIP, CETA, TPP etc are direct attempts by politicians and corporations at subverting the constitutions and sovereignty of the countries where they are proposed. They can and should be treated just as bad as having someone like Trump taking over because for all intents and purposes that's exactly what these secret courts are. "We'd love to help you, dear voter, but our trade agreements won't let us!" is a frequent refrain, and the more of these things come into paly, the worse it will get.

[K. A. Pital]

Seriously though I do feel for all those armed forces personnel who are certain to die, directly or otherwise if America no longer counterbalances Russian aggression.

Because Russia has attacked US forces... how many times in history? I mean, seriously, get a grip.

You think Trump won't hurt them too?

If he stops US free-trade rampage? Yes.

I simply do not think that they outweigh all other issues, like letting a fascist get his hands on the Constitution and military of the world's most powerful country.

Stop calling anyone you dislike a fascist - and we will see what happens.

[Knife]

What does the Constitution matter if corporations and the political elite can just bypass it at will? With secret unaccoutable courts no less, so the public will never even hear about the details? Make no mistake, NAFTA, the TTIP, CETA, TPP etc are direct attempts by politicians and corporations at subverting the constitutions and sovereignty of the countries where they are proposed. They can and should be treated just as bad as having someone like Trump taking over because for all intents and purposes that's exactly what these secret courts are. "We'd love to help you, dear voter, but our trade agreements won't let us!" is a frequent refrain, and the more of these things come into paly, the worse it will get.

I agree they are important but that doesn't mean fixing our election system isn't either. Not sure why it has to be one or the other.

[The Romulan Republic]

If he stops US free-trade rampage? Yes.

Because their are no other ways to fuck over the poor and disadvantaged.

Ah, the mindless tunnel vision of single-issue campaigners.

Stop calling anyone you dislike a fascist - and we will see what happens.

I don't call everyone I dislike a fascist. You are a liar, or at best engaged in misleading hyperbole.

I call Trump a fascist because he employs fascistic rhetoric, has fascist supporters, and supports fascistic policies.

[Crown]

I agree they are important but that doesn't mean fixing our election system isn't either. Not sure why it has to be one or the other.

That's not the thread of argument going on here, he's literally calling people that would dare (dare I say!) prioritise things like the TTP or the TTIP over some nebulous claim that "the basic equality, dignity, and civil liberties of every woman and minority in America, more important than our democratic institutions and the rule of law" were on the line as 'part of the problem'.

Conveniently ignoring that "every woman and minority in America" would be affected (negatively in our view) by the TTP and TTIP and that these trade deals by design subvert "democratic institutions and the rule of law".

Because feels. Literally, that is his argument.

[The Romulan Republic]

I agree they are important but that doesn't mean fixing our election system isn't either. Not sure why it has to be one or the other.

That's not the thread of argument going on here, he's literally calling people that would dare (dare I say!) prioritise things like the TTP or the TTIP over some nebulous claim that "the basic equality, dignity, and civil liberties of every woman and minority in America, more important than our democratic institutions and the rule of law" were on the line as 'part of the problem'.

Conveniently ignoring that "every woman and minority in America" would be affected (negatively in our view) by the TTP and TTIP and that these trade deals be design subvert "democratic institutions and the rule of law".

Because feels. Literally, that is his argument.

Conveniently ignoring Trump's stated intent to restrict the press, ban Muslims, deport millions, strip children of illegal immigrants of their citizenship, and violate the Geneva conventions, among other things.

We know you're a liar and an Alt. Rightist troll, Crown. But you keep digging that hole deeper.

[Crown]

That's not the thread of argument going on here, he's literally calling people that would dare (dare I say!) prioritise things like the TTP or the TTIP over some nebulous claim that "the basic equality, dignity, and civil liberties of every woman and minority in America, more important than our democratic institutions and the rule of law" were on the line as 'part of the problem'.

Conveniently ignoring that "every woman and minority in America" would be affected (negatively in our view) by the TTP and TTIP and that these trade deals be design subvert "democratic institutions and the rule of law".

Because feels. Literally, that is his argument.

Conveniently ignoring Trump's stated intent to restrict the press, ban Muslims, deport millions, strip children of illegal immigrants of their citizenship, and violate the Geneva conventions, among other things.

I'm not 'conveniently ignoring' any of that, but the TTP and TTIP will fuck you and yours for generations. I've done a different risk assessment than you. And even if I believe that Trump will do everything you just listed 100% all the way (and I sure as shit don't), I still firmly believe that the TTP and TTIP present greater harm than the alternative.

This generation is shaking its fist at the Baby Boomers and the way they fucked it all up for them, pass the TTIP and TPP and 3 generations from now they will be saying the same about this generation.

By the way, none of that rebuts the argument; the TTP and TTIP are a direct threat to your "democratic institutions and the rule of law" and also screw over "every woman and minority in America". So go fuck yourself.

We know you're a liar and an Alt. Rightist troll, Crown. But you keep digging that hole deeper.

Ah yes, the Alt. Right. I suppose that would make you the Ctrl. Left? Whose the Del. Middle?

[Tvpnbb]

I'm not 'conveniently ignoring' any of that, but the TTP and TTIP will fuck you and yours for generations. I've done a different risk assessment than you. And even if I believe that Trump will do everything you just listed 100% all the way (and I sure as shit don't), I still firmly believe that the TTP and TTIP present greater harm than the alternative.

Greater harm than Trump's position on climate change?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, didn't even think of that point.

Wasn't his position basically "Its a hoax by the Chinese?"

[Tribble]

I'm not 'conveniently ignoring' any of that, but the TTP and TTIP will fuck you and yours for generations. I've done a different risk assessment than you. And even if I believe that Trump will do everything you just listed 100% all the way (and I sure as shit don't), I still firmly believe that the TTP and TTIP present greater harm than the alternative.

Greater harm than Trump's position on climate change?

Seeing as these agreements basically gut all attempts at dealing with climate change given that corporations can sue whenever a government proposes an environmental regulation that could potentially impact their future profits, on the whole I'd say yes. Trump is one man. The USA, while certainly a major player, is only one country. These agreements (especially larger ones like the TTIP and TTP) would cover a lot more countries, and the ISDS decisions are secret and subject to no oversight or review.

There have already been multi-billion dollar lawsuits against governments that try to regulate the environment. Quebec for example is facing a $billion+ lawsuit in the NAFTA ISDS right now for suspending fracking, even though there is a lot of evidence showing how dangerous the practice is for the environment.

And btw, the governments being sued under the ISDS are not allowed to represent themselves.

[Crown]

I'm not 'conveniently ignoring' any of that, but the TTP and TTIP will fuck you and yours for generations. I've done a different risk assessment than you. And even if I believe that Trump will do everything you just listed 100% all the way (and I sure as shit don't), I still firmly believe that the TTP and TTIP present greater harm than the alternative.

Greater harm than Trump's position on climate change?

Is it now your argument that in 4 years (possibly 8 years) that Trump can do so much damage to the climate that it wouldn't be manageable at a time when Europe and China (to name 2 of the biggest players) are actively going in the correct direction on the issue?

Is he going to pass legislation mandating rolling coal as mandatory?

[Flagg]

Yeah, I'm not cool with throwing every woman and minority under the bus for your hobby-horse. Sorry about that.

You American-centric narcissist, stop the god damn drama, there are 7 billion people in the world.

Most of them live outside America and it is on their working class shoulders to bear the weight of TTIP and TTP. Not yours, you entitled do-nothing!

NAFTA made people suffer - a spike in poverty in Mexico and, apparently, outsourcing to sweatshops from the US. You are truly blind.

Yeah, while I'm opposed to the free trade shit designed to outsource manufacturing (both because of the deplorable working conditions and fucking over both the poor in developing nations as well as the American working class) under the Orwellian term "free trade", I don't know that President Elect Rapist Donnie Douchebag won't go ahead with those horrid deals anyway. So I worry about American minorities and women of every stripe.

And there's also the issue of Global Climate Change which will effect poor and developing nations far more than it will first world nations. And the mass migration of people that will happen due to drought, desertification, and sea level rise will almost assuredly result in wars and even genocides. The US needs to be a leader in developing alternate sources of power and changing our lifestyles (just cutting down on beef consumption to once a week as I've tried to do can make a huge difference if the 350,000,000 fatasses in this country all did it would be huge) if we expect developing nations like China and India to take what we say seriously because right now they have every right to tell us to go screw as they have every right to the same quality of life as we in the America's and Western Europe enjoy.

And I'm fully willing to admit that a Rapist Donnie Douchebag presidency scares me on a personal level simply because the bulk of our income is social security disability. So on a moral and personal basis I'm not having a good day.