2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Locked
User avatar
Lost Soal
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2618
Joined: 2002-10-22 06:25am
Location: Back in Newcastle.

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Lost Soal »

Ralin wrote:
Dragon Angel wrote: Oh, and if Trump really cared about the LGBTQ segment, he probably should've chosen a better running mate than Mike "I Really Hate Gays" Pence, for one.
Well, they probably weren't going to vote for him in large numbers anyway. I'm still holding out hope that Pence will have minimal influence, because I can totally buy that Trump will decide that the vice-president's job is to stand around looking stupid and ineffectual so the president seems better by comparison.

That said, I wouldn't call Trump's record pro-transgender people. Though admittedly I had thought myself that he was at a slight net positive myself after the North Carolina by virtue of the fact that I couldn't remember anything else he'd ever said or done on the subject until someone reminded me.
Then you better hope Paul Manafort was wrong when speaking to the Huffington Post
The vice presidential pick will also be part of the process of proving he’s ready for the White House, Manafort said.

“He needs an experienced person to do the part of the job he doesn’t want to do. He seems himself more as the chairman of the board, than even the CEO, let alone the COO.”
To be fair he does seem to have changed a bit since then. Now he wants he son-in-law to be involved in the presidential briefings, although that could just be so they can discuss how the policy decisions will affect The Trump Organization.
Because Fuck conflicts of interest.
"May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places where you must walk." - Ancient Egyptian Blessing

Ivanova is always right.
I will listen to Ivanova.
I will not ignore Ivanova's recommendations. Ivanova is God.
AND, if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out! - Babylon 5 Mantra

There is no "I" in TEAM. There is a ME however.
User avatar
ArmorPierce
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:54pm
Location: Born and raised in Brooklyn, unfornately presently in Jersey

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by ArmorPierce »

Alferd Packer wrote:
K. A. Pital wrote:Or at the very least, e-mail leaks are much worse than openly sexist comments in the eyes of the common US man.
And woman. Never forget that he won a majority of white women.
Yup. I'm not sure why people keep painting white women as innocent actors here.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
User avatar
Alferd Packer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3706
Joined: 2002-07-19 09:22pm
Location: Slumgullion Pass
Contact:

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Alferd Packer »

Well, it wasn't a huge win. 54-46 or something like that. Certainly nowhere near the margin of white men. Still, I think that's the biggest shock of the election, even moreso than Trump's actual victory.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." -Herbert Spencer

"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." - Schiller, Die Jungfrau von Orleans, III vi.
User avatar
ArmorPierce
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:54pm
Location: Born and raised in Brooklyn, unfornately presently in Jersey

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by ArmorPierce »

Alferd Packer wrote:Well, it wasn't a huge win. 54-46 or something like that. Certainly nowhere near the margin of white men. Still, I think that's the biggest shock of the election, even moreso than Trump's actual victory.
I am not astonished. White women align their interest and identify with white women. I think it's a fantasy to think of women as a united monolithic group with the same interests in mind...

Keep in mind that most of the white men that voted for Trump are also actually objectively voting against their personal interests.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by K. A. Pital »

In my native language the word "man" means both men and women, so I obviously did not mean to exclude them, it just got lost in translation.

But why do you think they voted against their interests? What are their interests?
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
Wild Zontargs
Padawan Learner
Posts: 360
Joined: 2010-07-06 01:24pm

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Wild Zontargs »

Oh, please do keep yelling about "white men this", "white women that". You'll get exactly what you're asking for.

This Election Marks The End Of America’s Racial Détente
This Election Marks The End Of America’s Racial Détente

Jamelle Bouie is right about one thing: the racial social contract we’ve had is over. Whites aren’t content to let everyone but them get special treatment any more.

David Marcus
NOVEMBER 14, 2016

Jamelle Bouie had an article in Slate following the election titled “White Won.” It is a powerful, at times beautiful piece about his shock and dismay at Donald Trump’s surprise victory. He describes having to leave the CBS News studios for a walk and a call to his wife as he realized the impossible was happening. He rightly concludes that the most direct national appeal to white voters in decades had not only been made, but won.

As a white person, I cannot fully understand what Trump’s victory means for people of color. I have my own strong reservations about his presidency, but they do not involve fears related to the color of my skin. In trying to better understand the fears of minorities through Bouie’s essay, one section stood out to me as a particularly astute description of the current racial moment in America. Bouie writes:
John McCain indulged racial fears, and Mitt Romney played on racial resentment, but they refused to go further. To borrow from George Wallace, they refused to cry ‘nigger.’ This is important. By rejecting the politics of explicit racism and white backlash, they moved the political battleground to nominally colorblind concerns. Race was still a part of these clashes—it’s unavoidable—but neither liberals nor conservatives would litigate the idea of a pluralistic, multiracial democracy. Looking back, I thought this meant we had a consensus. It appears, instead, that we had a detente. And Trump shattered it.
This admission that what he believed to be a consensus was really a détente is extremely important. While a consensus means questions have been laid to rest, a détente means disagreement still lingers, but a deal is struck to keep those disagreements from flowering into open hostility. From the 1970s through the beginning of the current century, America existed under such an agreement. Bouie is correct that this has been shattered, but he is wrong to suggest Trump is the only, or even the primary, reason for this.

The Structure of American Racial Détente

The rules of the deal were pretty straightforward. For whites, they stated that outright racist statements and explicit appeals to white racial identity were essentially banned. Along with this, whites accepted a double standard about the appropriateness of cultural and political tribalism. For obvious and reasonable historical and economic reasons, black and brown people explicitly pursuing their own interests was viewed differently than whites doing the same thing.

The other side of the deal was that so long as white people were sufficiently punished for acts of outright racism, minority leaders and communities would be cautious with accusations of racism. The key here was that once leveled and proved, the accusation of racism was a blow most whites could not come back from. From Jimmy the Greek to Michael Richardson, being labeled a racist was a black mark that did not wash off easily.

This was the basic agreement that set our cultural norms, a set of rules with relatively clear boundaries. Under those rules, many of Trump’s words and actions would have been immediately disqualifying, but they weren’t, because the rules are no longer in effect.

The clearest example is the Judge Gonzalo Curiel drama. By the rules of the détente, saying a judge cannot fulfill his duties because of his race or nationality counted as a firing offense. Indeed leaders on both the Left and Right assumed Trump could not overcome it.

But not only did many white voters break the rule of disqualifying a person based on a racist statement, they broke the second rule too. They began to ask why Trump couldn’t say a Mexican judge might be unfair, when we hear all the time about the danger of all white juries and white police officers. The white acceptance of legitimate racial double standards had dissipated, and without it the détente could not stand.

The Beginning of The End

There is a misconception that political correctness was responsible for the breakdown of the racial détente. This is incorrect. Political correctness, as loose a term as it is, was the means by which we continually renegotiated the terms of the deal. After all, the primary rules for whites had exactly to do with what was acceptable to say.

Privilege theory and the concept of systemic racism dealt the death blow to the détente. In embracing these theories, minorities and progressives broke their essential rule, which was to not run around calling everyone a racist. As these theories took hold, every white person became a racist who must confess that racism and actively make amends. Yet if the white woman who teaches gender studies at Barnard with the Ben Shahn drawings in her office is a racist, what chance do the rest of have?

Within the past few years, as privilege theory took hold, many whites began to think that no matter what they did they would be called racist, because, in fact, that was happening. Previously there were rules. They shifted at times, but if adhered to they largely protected one from the charge of racism. It’s like the Morrissey lyric: “is evil just something you are, or something you do.” Under the détente, racism was something you did; under privilege theory it is something you are.

That shift, from carefully directed accusations of racism for direct actions to more general charges of unconscious racism, took away the carrot for whites. Worse, it led to a defensiveness and feeling of victimization that make today’s whites in many ways much more tribal than they were 30 years ago. White people are constantly told to examine their whiteness, not to think of themselves as racially neutral. That they did, but the result was not introspection that led to reconciliation, it was a decision that white people have just as much right to think of themselves as a special interest group as anyone else.

Blame and Destroy Whitey

The unfortunate place where we now find ourselves is one in which blatant attacks on white people, often from white people, are driving them further into a tribal cocoon. Samantha Bee’s awful and irresponsible berating of white women as the evil force behind Trump’s victory, while condescendingly describing magical people of color as the only ones who can save us, is a clear example of where white defensiveness and victimization are coming from.

Furthermore, the ever-present drumbeat from the Left that every conservative victory is the death throes of bad, old white people who are about to be swept away by waves of brown immigration is making many whites dig in. On a certain level, how can you blame them? They are explicitly being told that their values and way of life are under the sword. How do we expect them to react?

The détente was far from perfect. It often allowed quieter racism to lurk unchallenged. In some ways, it was a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. But Band-Aids have a role to play in treating bullet wounds—the body heals itself better when the wound is clean and free from infection. This is true of discourse’s ability to heal our body politic, as well. Under the détente, there was still racism, but Steve Bannon, whose publication Breitbart has traded in vile explicit racism, could never have been considered for White House chief of staff.

It’s Time for New Negotiations

Whether the old détente was better or worse than current conditions is probably a purely academic question. It is not coming back. It was created in a cauldron of a very specific historical moment. Its creators had known and experienced racism in ways we simply have not, and they were more willing to compromise to keep the monster at bay while, hopefully, new generations naturally became more racially accepting.

Cultural and political white tribalism in its current form is likely here to stay for some time. Perhaps the best we can do now is forge our own new agreement. We are very far from achieving that. But we can all take a concrete step toward that goal. We can listen to each other without immediate judgment and with trust in people’s good faith. That trust will not always be rewarded, but without it a détente can never be.

If a generation of Americans who lived through the racism, riots, anguish, and terror of the civil rights movement were able to trust each other’s decency and create cultural codes and norms to punish abject racism, we should be able to do it, too. But the truly scary thing is that, at this moment, it doesn’t appear we want to.
Доверяй, но проверяй
"Ugh. I hate agreeing with Zontargs." -- Alyrium Denryle
"What you are is abject human trash who is very good at dodging actual rule violations while still being human trash." -- Alyrium Denryle
iustitia socialis delenda est
User avatar
Iroscato
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2360
Joined: 2011-02-07 03:04pm
Location: Great Britain (It's great, honestly!)

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Iroscato »

Well, if this is just the start of the Glorious White Revolution, I can't fucking wait to see where it ends up...
Yeah, I've always taken the subtext of the Birther movement to be, "The rules don't count here! This is different! HE'S BLACK! BLACK, I SAY! ARE YOU ALL BLIND!?

- Raw Shark

Destiny and fate are for those too weak to forge their own futures. Where we are 'supposed' to be is irrelevent.

- SirNitram (RIP)
User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by cosmicalstorm »

Scott Alexander is always very able to keep his head cool, very good post. Excerpt below:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/yo ... ying-wolf/
Listen. Trump is going to be approximately as racist as every other American president. Maybe I’m wrong and he’ll be a bit more. Maybe he’ll surprise us and be a bit less. But most likely he’ll be about as racist as Ronald Reagan, who employed Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan as a senior advisor. Or about as racist as George Bush with his famous Willie Horton ad. Or about as racist as Bill “superpredator” Clinton, who took a photo op in front of a group of chained black men in the birthplace of the KKK. Or about as racist as Bush “doesn’t care about black people!” 43. He’ll have some scandals, people who want to see them as racist will see them as racist, people who don’t will dismiss them as meaningless, and nobody will end up in death camps.

Since everyone has been wrong about everything lately, I’ve started thinking it’s more important than ever to make clear predictions and grade myself on them, so here are my predictions for the Trump administration:

1. Total hate crimes incidents as measured here will be not more than 125% of their 2015 value at any year during a Trump presidency, conditional on similar reporting methodology [confidence: 80%]
2. Total minority population of US citizens will increase throughout Trump’s presidency [confidence: 99%]
3. US Muslim population increases throughout Trump’s presidency [confidence: 95%]
4. Trump cabinet will be at least 10% minority [confidence: 90%], at least 20% minority [confidence: 70%], at least 30% minority [30%]. Here I’m defining “minority” to include nonwhites, Latinos, and LGBT people, though not women. Note that by this definition America as a whole is about 35% minority and Congress is about 15% minority.
5. Gay marriage will remain legal throughout a Trump presidency [confidence: 95%]
6. Race relations as perceived by blacks, as measured by this Gallup poll, will do better under Trump than they did under Obama (ie the change in race relations 2017-2021 will be less negative/more positive than the change 2009-2016) [confidence: 70%].
7. Neither Trump nor any of his officials (Cabinet, etc) will endorse the KKK, Stormfront, or explicit neo-Nazis publicly, refuse to back down, etc, and keep their job [confidence: 99%].
User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7700
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by FaxModem1 »

Sidebar, there has been a bit of a culture war in the US and online on what racism even is, and whether or not a race not in power is capable of it.

Example: A white woman could be racist to a black woman, because she has privilege and belongs to a race that has more power than the other institutionally.

A black woman could be bigoted or discriminatory to a white woman, but not racist, because of the lack of power and privilege her race has to the other.

White people have taken exception to this, due to how in the US, it makes all whites racist and other races only discriminatory. There also has been a lot of bickering on which definition of racism is valid, etc.

It might have had a significant effect on white voters throughout the US for this election.
Image
User avatar
ArmorPierce
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:54pm
Location: Born and raised in Brooklyn, unfornately presently in Jersey

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by ArmorPierce »

K. A. Pital wrote:In my native language the word "man" means both men and women, so I obviously did not mean to exclude them, it just got lost in translation.

But why do you think they voted against their interests? What are their interests?
Policies that would increase their wealth and social mobility. A substantial number of Republicans are less affluent white people who would benefit from liberal social policies and reject it due to irrational beliefs of the others talking their jobs and stealing their money despite objective evidence showing that thsee beliefs have no basis in reality.

Of course there are many who actually care more about identifying with the winning team rather than increasing their personal wealth and social and economic mobility... a lot of folks are happy with their social and economic status... they don't wish to have to compete to maintain it.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Master
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Khaat »

Many socially-stuck, low-income ("less-affluent") whites vote Republican now for the same reason they fought to keep slaves then: at least that way, someone's lower than they are on the social ladder. It's all racism (with a whisp of wishful thinking - that all their hard work will pay off and they'll be wealthy one day!)
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Chimaera wrote:Well, if this is just the start of the Glorious White Revolution, I can't fucking wait to see where it ends up...
The same place it always ends, if it ever goes anywhere at all- with a lot of bloodshed for absolutely no reason.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
Wild Zontargs
Padawan Learner
Posts: 360
Joined: 2010-07-06 01:24pm

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Wild Zontargs »

Khaat wrote:Many socially-stuck, low-income ("less-affluent") whites vote Republican now for the same reason they fought to keep slaves then: at least that way, someone's lower than they are on the social ladder. It's all racism (with a whisp of wishful thinking - that all their hard work will pay off and they'll be wealthy one day!)
Or, you could, y'know, talk to those socially-stuck, low-income white Republican voters and ask them why they voted for Trump. Hint: it isn't racism (emphasis mine):
Living in a down-at-the-heels mill town in the north central Appalachians, I know quite a few people who supported Trump; I’ve also heard from a very large number of Trump supporters by way of this blog, and through a variety of other sources.

Are there people among the pro-Trump crowd who are in fact racists, sexists, homophobes, and so on? Of course. I know a couple of thoroughly bigoted racists who cast their votes for him, for example, including at least one bona fide member of the Ku Klux Klan. The point I think the Left tends to miss is that not everyone in flyover country is like that. A few years back, in fact, a bunch of Klansmen came to the town where I live to hold a recruitment rally, and the churches in town—white as well as black—held a counter-rally, stood on the other side of the street, and drowned the Klansmen out, singing hymns at the top of their lungs until the guys in the white robes got back in their cars and drove away. Surprising? Not at all; in a great deal of middle America, that’s par for the course these days.

To understand why a town that ran off the Klan was a forest of Trump signs in the recent election, it’s necessary to get past the stereotypes and ask a simple question: why did people vote for Trump?
I don’t claim to have done a scientific survey, but these are the things I heard Trump voters talking about in the months and weeks leading up to the election:

1. The Risk of War. This was the most common point at issue, especially among women—nearly all the women I know who voted for Trump, in fact, cited it as either the decisive reason for their vote or one of the top two or three. They listened to Hillary Clinton talk about imposing a no-fly zone over Syria in the face of a heavily armed and determined Russian military presence, and looked at the reckless enthusiasm for overthrowing governments she’d displayed during her time as Secretary of State. They compared this to Donald Trump’s advocacy of a less confrontational relationship with Russia, and they decided that Trump was less likely to get the United States into a shooting war.

War isn’t an abstraction here in flyover country. Joining the military is very nearly the only option young people here have if they want a decent income, job training, and the prospect of a college education, and so most families have at least one relative or close friend on active duty. People here respect the military, but the last two decades of wars of choice in the Middle East have done a remarkably good job of curing middle America of any fondness for military adventurism it might have had. While affluent feminists swooned over the prospect of a woman taking on another traditionally masculine role, and didn’t seem to care in the least that the role in question was “warmonger,” a great many people in flyover country weighed the other issues against the prospect of having a family member come home in a body bag. Since the Clinton campaign did precisely nothing to reassure them on this point, they voted for Trump.

2. The Obamacare Disaster. This was nearly as influential as Clinton’s reckless militarism. Most of the people I know who voted for Trump make too much money to qualify for a significant federal subsidy, and too little to be able to cover the endlessly rising cost of insurance under the absurdly misnamed “Affordable Care Act.” They recalled, rather too clearly for the electoral prospects of the Democrats, how Obama assured them that the price of health insurance would go down, that they would be able to keep their existing plans and doctors, and so on through all the other broken promises that surrounded Obamacare before it took effect.

It was bad enough that so few of those promises were kept. The real deal-breaker, though, was the last round of double- or triple-digit annual increase in premiums announced this November, on top of increases nearly as drastic a year previously. Even among those who could still afford the new premiums, the writing was on the wall: sooner or later, unless something changed, a lot of people were going to have to choose between losing their health care and being driven into destitution—and then there were the pundits who insisted that everything would be fine, if only the penalties for not getting insurance were raised to equal the cost of insurance! Faced with that, it’s not surprising that a great many people went out and voted for the one candidate who said he’d get rid of Obamacare.

3. Bringing Back Jobs. This is the most difficult one for a lot of people on the Left to grasp, but that’s a measure of the gap between the bicoastal enclaves where the Left’s policies are formed and the hard realities of flyover country. Globalization and open borders sound great when you don’t have to grapple with the economic consequences of shipping tens of millions of manufacturing jobs overseas, on the one hand, and federal policies that flood the labor market with illegal immigrants to drive down wages, on the other. Those two policies, backed by both parties and surrounded by a smokescreen of empty rhetoric about new jobs that somehow never managed to show up, brought about the economic collapse of rural and small town America, driving a vast number of Americans into destitution and misery.

Clinton’s campaign did a really inspired job of rehashing every detail of the empty rhetoric just mentioned, and so gave people out here in flyover country no reason to expect anything but more of the same downward pressure on their incomes, their access to jobs, and the survival of their communities. Trump, by contrast, promised to scrap or renegotiate the trade agreements that played so large a role in encouraging offshoring of jobs, and also promised to put an end to the tacit Federal encouragement of mass illegal immigration that’s driven down wages. That was enough to get a good many voters whose economic survival was on the line to cast their votes for Trump.

4. Punishing the Democratic Party. This one is a bit of an outlier, because the people I know who cast votes for Trump for this reason mostly represented a different demographic from the norm out here: young, politically liberal, and incensed by the way that the Democratic National Committee rigged the nomination process to favor Clinton and shut out Bernie Sanders. They believed that if the campaign for the Democratic nomination had been conducted fairly, Sanders would have been the nominee, and they also believe that Sanders would have stomped Trump in the general election. For what it’s worth, I think they’re right on both counts.

These voters pointed out to me, often with some heat, that the policies Hillary Clinton supported in her time as senator and secretary of state were all but indistinguishable from those of George W. Bush—you know, the policies Democrats denounced so forcefully a little more than eight years ago. They argued that voting for Clinton in the general election when she’d been rammed down the throats of the Democratic rank and file by the party’s oligarchy would have signaled the final collapse of the party’s progressive wing into irrelevance. They were willing to accept four years of a Republican in the White House to make it brutally clear to the party hierarchy that the shenanigans that handed the nomination to Clinton were more than they were willing to tolerate.

Those were the reasons I heard people mention when they talked in my hearing about why they were voting for Donald Trump. They didn’t talk about the issues that the media considered important—the email server business, the on-again-off-again FBI investigation, and so on. Again, this isn’t a scientific survey, but I found it interesting that not one Trump voter I knew mentioned those.

What’s more, hatred toward women, people of color, sexual minorities, and the like weren’t among the reasons that people cited for voting for Trump, either. Do a fair number of the people I’m discussing hold attitudes that the Left considers racist, sexist, homophobic, or what have you? No doubt—but the mere fact that such attitudes exist does not prove that those attitudes, rather than the issues just listed, guided their votes.

When I’ve pointed this out to people on the leftward side of the political spectrum, the usual response has been to insist that, well, yes, maybe Trump did address the issues that matter to people in flyover country, but even so, it was utterly wrong of them to vote for a racist, sexist homophobe! We’ll set aside for the moment the question of how far these labels actually apply to Trump, and how much they’re the product of demonizing rhetoric on the part of his political enemies on both sides of the partisan divide. Even accepting the truth of these accusations, what the line of argument just cited claims is that people in the flyover states should have ignored the issues that affect their own lives, and should have voted instead for the issues that liberals think are important.

In some idyllic Utopian world, maybe. In the real world, that’s not going to happen. People are not going to embrace the current agenda of the American Left if doing so means that they can expect their medical insurance to double in price every couple of years, their wages to continue lurching downward, their communities to sink further in a death spiral of economic collapse, and their kids to come home in body bags from yet another pointless war in the Middle East.
Доверяй, но проверяй
"Ugh. I hate agreeing with Zontargs." -- Alyrium Denryle
"What you are is abject human trash who is very good at dodging actual rule violations while still being human trash." -- Alyrium Denryle
iustitia socialis delenda est
User avatar
ArmorPierce
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2002-07-04 09:54pm
Location: Born and raised in Brooklyn, unfornately presently in Jersey

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by ArmorPierce »

Khaat wrote:Many socially-stuck, low-income ("less-affluent") whites vote Republican now for the same reason they fought to keep slaves then: at least that way, someone's lower than they are on the social ladder. It's all racism (with a whisp of wishful thinking - that all their hard work will pay off and they'll be wealthy one day!)
Yup. And in America, the others are moreally easily discernable and obvious. Correct me if I'm wrong but the others in some western European nations are mostly recent eastern European immigrants who would be more difficult to easily distinguish from the general population once they become culturally assimilated.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Master
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Khaat »

Wild Zontargs wrote:Or, you could, y'know, talk to those socially-stuck, low-income white Republican voters and ask them why they voted for Trump. Hint: it isn't racism (emphasis mine):
Yeah, only those elitist ivory-tower-types know anything about rationalizing. But those reported race- and sex-based hate crimes signed "Trump"? Totally just poor whiner babies who need to "suck it up".

1. Risk of war - Sure, who needs a strong President willing to stand up to a real threat, when you can elect his boyfriend? They buy their girlfriends in the same place! And it isn't like Iran will shoot back!
2. Obamacare Disaster - Amazing how if it had actually been properly funded by Congress, it wouldn't still be a half-finished mess. But hey, fully with you on that train-wreck website. Well, I never saw it myself, but I heard stories! :wink:
3. Bringing Back Jobs - Because Trump said he could, and he doesn't have a history of crap business practices actual plan at all
4. Punishing the Democrats - They said we had to treat others with the same respect WE demand! HOW DARE THEY!

Now it's "muslims" (even if they're not muslims) taking "your" jobs
50 years ago it was "wetbacks"
100 years ago it was "Italians Wops, Irish Mics, and Chinese Chinks"
150 years ago it was... I think you can see where this is going. But, hey, Totally Not Racism(tm). Somehow. :roll:

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." But as long as it isn't white me suffering, who cares, right? It isn't like rich white men destroyed our economy for "more." It isn't like rich white men outsourced jobs to cut overhead for "more." It isn't like rich white men sold us the idea that we need... "more." They'll totally look out for us now, right? Right? All those golden opportunities to "work hard, get ahead" will come back, right? And we can totally exclude Them, those Others, from getting any, because.... WALL! TERRORISTS! GAYS!
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Flagg »

Khaat wrote:
Wild Zontargs wrote:Or, you could, y'know, talk to those socially-stuck, low-income white Republican voters and ask them why they voted for Trump. Hint: it isn't racism (emphasis mine):
Yeah, only those elitist ivory-tower-types know anything about rationalizing. But those reported race- and sex-based hate crimes signed "Trump"? Totally just poor whiner babies who need to "suck it up".

1. Risk of war - Sure, who needs a strong President willing to stand up to a real threat, when you can elect his boyfriend? They buy their girlfriends in the same place! And it isn't like Iran will shoot back!
2. Obamacare Disaster - Amazing how if it had actually been properly funded by Congress, it wouldn't still be a half-finished mess. But hey, fully with you on that train-wreck website. Well, I never saw it myself, but I heard stories! :wink:
3. Bringing Back Jobs - Because Trump said he could, and he doesn't have a history of crap business practices actual plan at all
4. Punishing the Democrats - They said we had to treat others with the same respect WE demand! HOW DARE THEY!

Now it's "muslims" (even if they're not muslims) taking "your" jobs
50 years ago it was "wetbacks"
100 years ago it was "Italians Wops, Irish Mics, and Chinese Chinks"
150 years ago it was... I think you can see where this is going. But, hey, Totally Not Racism(tm). Somehow. :roll:

"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." But as long as it isn't white me suffering, who cares, right? It isn't like rich white men destroyed our economy for "more." It isn't like rich white men outsourced jobs to cut overhead for "more." It isn't like rich white men sold us the idea that we need... "more." They'll totally look out for us now, right? Right? All those golden opportunities to "work hard, get ahead" will come back, right? And we can totally exclude Them, those Others, from getting any, because.... WALL! TERRORISTS! GAYS!
I want to have your babies.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Patroklos »

Khaat wrote:[
2. Obamacare Disaster - Amazing how if it had actually been properly funded by Congress, it wouldn't still be a half-finished mess. But hey, fully with you on that train-wreck website. Well, I never saw it myself, but I heard stories! :wink:
The biggest strike against Obamacare, as demonstrated here, is that the champions of it don't have any understanding of how it is supposed to work...
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by FireNexus »

TRR and Dragon angel, I'LL concede my "white male nominee" point because it's off the rails and I don't really care enough about it to write multiple page defenses of it. And people whose opinions I generally respect have expressed opposition to the idea, so I'm probably wrong at least in part.

Dragon Angel, though, I take issue with the false equivalency between the NCGOP issue (which you're dragging up months later because it apparently left a stick up your butt) and the "bonus points for being white male" contention I just conceded.

You got my smugness then (and are getting it now) because you were urging that people explicitly avoid donating for relief after an act of terrorism because the victim is your political opponent. Because of all the things they have done wrong, you argued, no support should be provided to them that could help them because they're going to use it for Wrong Things.

The argument I made is that it is 1.) Tacit support of terrorist attacks against Republicans. Your argument boiled down to you dancing around the idea that they deserved it.2 .) Politically really fucking stupid because it is so clearly the former. You're not going to convince anyone that you're the party of equality and prosperity when you're out there coming just short of advocating firebombing your opponents. It had a very "Of course, but maybe..." vibe if I recall.

This is especially true when you're making that argument out of the other side of a mouth claiming that the opposing Presidential candidate will endorse acts of violence and silence political dissent. Your position on that issue was, and is, fucking stupid, hypocritical, and self-defeating. And if you ever find me advocating a similarly idiotic position, feel free to call me a hypocrite.

Here, I contended that adding whiteness as a "pro" in selecting a 2020 candidate was a good idea almost to the point of being necessary. I've backed down from that contention because it's likely wrong even if I can't see why. You, to my knowledge, clinged to the notion that donating to the fire fund was tantamount to politically supporting the homo- and trans-phobic agenda of the party itself because it gave them resources. See how mine is not the same as coming out vocally against helping the victims of terrorist vandalism (ostensibly perpetrated by people on my side of the political fence) because their politics are harmful to a group I happen to be a member or ally of?
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by FireNexus »

In other news. Paul Ryan is planning to push Medicare privatization through congress in January. And Trump is a spray tanned rubber stamp.

Maybe fly around the block before you decide to go live on the sun, there, Icarus?
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
User avatar
Khaat
Jedi Master
Posts: 1047
Joined: 2008-11-04 11:42am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Khaat »

Patroklos wrote:The biggest strike against Obamacare, as demonstrated here, is that the champions of it don't have any understanding of how it is supposed to work...
You mean this?
ACA In 2016
Although the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010, there has been a timeline of implementation – with some components being immediately implemented, while others have been implemented over time in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.
In addition, some components of the ACA were delayed or deferred. This year is considered an important one because of the “full implementation” of the employer mandate as well as a number of changes, repeals and moratoriums on other sections of the Act. Here are some of the important things to be aware of regarding the ACA during 2016:

#1: Full implementation of the Employer Mandate
The ACA does not mandate that employers provide health care. But, if they do not, they may be subject to monetary penalties. This section is commonly known as the “Play-or-Pay” Penalty (POP) or Employer Mandate.
Internal Revenue Code section 4980H requires an Applicable Large Employer (ALE) to offer health care coverage to full-time employees (or “Full Time Equivalents” -- FTE) or be liable for a substantial “assessable payment” if it fails to offer the opportunity to enroll in “minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan.”
Under section 4980H, a full-time employee is one who works an average of 30 hours per week or 130 hours per calendar month. In addition, 4980H recognizes FTE employees: a “combination of employees, each of whom individually is not a full-time employee, but who, in combination, are equivalent to a full-time employee."
In addition, a plan must meet Minimum Value standards (the plan's share of the total allowed costs of benefits must be at least 60% of those costs) and be considered “affordable.”
Initially the Employer Mandate was to be implemented in 2014 but the IRS extended partial implementation in 2015 and as of 2016, the 4980H Employer Mandate requirements are being fully implemented.
1. Changes to the employer mandate
There have been several changes in cover requirements, affordability requirements, employer mandate penalty changes, and more. Here are some:
2015 coverage requirements: Businesses with 100 or more full time employees or full-time equivalents had to offer at least 70% of full time employees insurance to avoid penalties.
2016 changes to coverage requirements: Businesses with at least 50 full time employees or full-time equivalents must offer at least 95% of full time employees insurance to avoid penalties.
2. Changes to the definition of "affordability" requirements
Under section 4980H, a plan must also be affordable. Coverage is considered “affordable” for IRC Sec. 4980H purposes if the cost to the employee of self-only coverage does not exceed a specified percentage of the employee’s “household income.”
This is true irrespective of whether he or she qualifies for some other level of coverage (e.g., self plus dependents, family). Thus, although family coverage might require a larger employee premium, affordability for IRC Sec. 4980H purposes is determined based on the cost of self-only coverage. The Act defines “household income” to mean “modified adjusted gross income of the employee and any members of the employee’s family (including a spouse and dependents) who are required to file an income tax return.”
2015 affordability requirements: The plan is affordable if the self-only coverage health care plan costs no more than 9.5% of an employee’s total household income.
2016 affordability requirements: The threshold of affordability for the plan has been raised to 9.66% of the employee’s total household income.
In addition to actually calculating the numbers for each employee, the ACA offers the use of three “safe harbors” as proxies for defining affordability: Form W-2 wages, an employee’s rate-of-pay, or use of the Federal Poverty Line.
3. Employer mandate penalty changes
Employers can be penalized for not providing minimum essential coverage or for having an inadequate health plan. Employers that offer health coverage will not meet the requirements if the following occurs:
at least one full-time employee obtains a premium credit in an exchange plan, and
the plan does not provide minimum essential benefits; the employee’s required contribution for self-only coverage exceeds the specified percent of the employee’s household income; the employer pays for less than 60 percent of the benefits.
Neither penalty is triggered unless an employee receives a tax credit for the purchase of health insurance on a state exchange.
4. Minimum essential coverage penalty changes (4980H(a))
Minimum essential coverage penalties are found in section 4980H(a), which defines the penalty for an employer failing to meet requirements of “minimum essential coverage.” Initially the penalty was set at $2,000 per employee but this number is adjusted annually for inflation. The penalty has changed as follows:
2015 penalty: the 4980H(a) penalty was $2,080 x number of FTEs in excess of 80 employees
2016 penalty: the penalty has changed to $2,160 x number of FTEs in excess of 30 employees
5. Inadequate health care plan changes (4980H(b))
Section 4980H(b) provides for a different penalty for employers who offer minimum essential coverage that does not meet the federal requirements of Minimum Value and Affordability. This penalty will kick in if any full-time employee receives a premium tax credit to purchase insurance on exchanges because of the following reasons:
Minimum value: the employer health coverage offered did not provide "minimum value" (the plan's share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is not at least 60% of those costs)
Affordability: the employer health coverage offered was "unaffordable"; or the employee was not among the 95% (70% in 2015) of full-time employees offered coverage.
Under 4980H(b), the penalty incurred is the lessor of either of these two conditions:
What the 4980H(a) penalty would have been had it been levied $2,080 in 2015/ $2,160 in 2016 multiplied by the number of each full-time employee in excess of 30 (80 in 2015)) or
$3,120 in 2015 and $3,240 in 2016 per full-time employee who procures coverage from a health insurance exchange who receives a premium tax credit to enable him or her to purchase coverage through the health insurance exchanges.

#2: Reporting requirements and penalties
The ACA requires employers and/or health insurance issuers to report to the IRS information about employer-sponsored health coverage. Reporting requirements were delayed from 2014 until the 2015 tax year to coincide with the delay in the employer play-or-pay mandate.
1. Changes in reporting dates
The IRS has offered some relief for the 2015 reporting forms, due in 2016. Penalties will not be imposed on a filer for reporting incorrect or incomplete information if the filer can show that it made good-faith efforts to comply with the information reporting requirements for 2015.
IRS Notice 2016-4 issued on December 28, 2015, announced an extension for 2015 information reporting. The notice extends the due date for these two kinds of situations:
For furnishing to individuals the 2015 Form 1095-B, Health Coverage, and the 2015 Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage, from February 1, 2016, to March 31, 2016, and
For filing with the IRS the 2015 Form 1094-B, Transmittal of Health Coverage Information Returns, the 2015 Form 1095-B, Health Coverage, the 2015 Form 1094-C, Transmittal of Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Information Returns, and the 2015 Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage, from February 29, 2016, to May 31, 2016, if not filing electronically, and from March 31, 2016, to June 30, 2016, if filing electronically.
2. Penalties for applicable large employer failure to report
Penalities for large employer failures to report have to do with information returns and payee statements.They are itemized as follows.
Information returns: The penalty for failure to file an information return generally is $100 for each return for which such failure occurs. The total penalty imposed for all failures during a calendar year cannot exceed $1,500,000.
For returns required to be filed after December 31, 2015, the penalty for failure to file an information return generally is increased from $100 to $250 for each return for which such failure occurs. The total penalty imposed for all failures during a calendar year after December 15, 2015 cannot exceed $3,000,000.
Payee statements: The penalty for failure to provide a correct payee statement is $100 for each statement with respect to which such failure occurs, with the total penalty for a calendar year not to exceed $1,500,000.
The penalty for failure to provide a correct payee statement is increased from $100 to $250 for each statement for which the failure occurs, with the total penalty for a calendar year not to exceed $3,000,000. The increased penalty amount applies to statements required to be provided after December 31, 2015.
Note about intentional situations: Special rules apply that increase the per-statement and total penalties if there is intentional disregard of the requirement to furnish a payee statement.

#3: Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP)
The Small Business Health Options Program was designed for small employers to be able to provide health and dental coverage to their employees and to enable these small employers to have some of the same purchasing power, range of choices, and ability to pool risk that are available to large companies. There have been four significant changes in the SHOP program for 2016.
1. Size of eligible companies
On October 7, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Protecting Affordable Coverage for Employees (PACE) Act. The PACE Act amended the definition of “small employer” so that it would continue to apply to employers with one to 50 employees, rather than changing to one to 100 employees as of 2016 as provided in the original ACA.
However, each state can still decide whether to adopt the one-to-100 employee definition of small employer if they choose. This enables states to be able to choose to expand the participation in the SHOP marketplace from employers with one to fifty employees to employers with one to 100 employees. It should be noted that currently only four states have accepted the expansion: California, Colorado, New York, and Vermont.
2. Change in the SHOP marketplace Minimum Participation Requirement (MPR)
The SHOP marketplace MPR has changed for 2016, generally making it easier for employers to use the SHOP program. In most states, 70% of employees must accept the offer of SHOP coverage or be enrolled in other types of coverage for the company to participate.
However, it should be noted that the following states have MRPs of 75%: Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.
The 2016 changes to the MPR requirement have made it easier for employees to enroll in SHOP Marketplace coverage. In 2015, employees werenot counted toward the MPR if they had coverage through another job, another person’s job, or a government program such as TRICARE or Medicare.
In 2016, employees with non-SHOP coverage will be counted toward the MPR. Beginning in 2016, the Minimum Participation Rate is calculated as follows:
MRP = Number of employees ENROLLING in SHOP
Number of employees OFFERED enrollment in SHOP
Participation rate must equal 70% (or 75% for the exceptions noted above).
3. Changes in health and dental coverage options in SHOP
Beginning in 2016, employers may offer their employees one of three options through SHOP:
Health coverage only
Dental coverage only
Both health and dental coverage
Qualified employees can choose either health, dental, or both in this situation. Employers may offer health and dental coverage to employee dependents as well. The dependents must enroll in the same plan as the employee.

#4: Delay in Cadillac tax until 2020
The “Cadillac tax” is a 40% excise tax on the cost of health coverage that exceeds pre-determined threshold amounts and is imposed on coverage providers high-premium health insurance plans.
This cost of health coverage includes total cost by both employer and employee and is for plans costing more than $10,200 for individual and plans costing more than $27,500 for family coverage. This tax is calculated on a monthly and per-person basis, where any plan above $850 per month for single coverage and $2,292 per month for family coverage is subject to it.
Stephen Tackney, Deputy Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits) with the IRS Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Tax-Exempt and Government Entities) addressed the 28th Annual Insurance Tax Seminar of the Federal Bar Association Washington D.C. on Thursday, June 2, 2016 and shared news the that IRS is contemplating issuing another request for comments on issues regarding the Cadillac Tax. Tackney stated that there were still issues with the excise tax and that the IRS may not have enough feedback to promulgate proposed regulations.
Concerns arose that potentially 75% of employee health plans could be subject to the tax by 2029.
The 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act imposed yet another delay in implementation of the Cadillac tax, which was originally scheduled to take effect in 2013. This implementation was delayed until 2018 but now is delayed until January 1, 2020.
In addition to the delay, the Cadillac tax payments will be tax-deductible, assuming the provisions ever take effect. At this point, the tax is "down, but not out," and some sentiment still exists to keep it, since it was part of the original funding plan for the Affordable Care Act.

#5: Menu-labeling requirements delay
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently released the final guidance on the new menu-labeling requirements implemented to comply with section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act. The new menu-labeling rules require chain restaurants to provide calorie information on the menu and provide, upon customer request, additional nutritional information for menu items. The rules will begin to be enforced by the FDA on May 5, 2017, one year after the date of publication of this final guidance notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 27067, May 5, 2016).
On December 18, 2015, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 delayed enforcement of the menu-label final rule until the later of December 1, 2016, or the date that is one year after the date on which the FDA publishes a final guidance on the subject
1. Who must comply with the new menu-labeling rules
Restaurants were initially exempt under section 403(q) of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, but the ACA removed this exemption. The menu-labeling rules apply to restaurants or similar retail food establishments selling foods intended for immediate consumption, or a concession stand, that are a part of a chain with 20 or more locations that do business under the same trade name and that offer substantially the same menu items for sale.
This includes vending machine chains with 20 or more locations. In addition, a restaurant or retail food establishment may voluntarily register to be subject to the menu-labeling requirements.
2. Specifics of the menu-labeling rules
Businesses affected will be required to include calorie information on menus for all standard menu items. In addition, written information must be available upon customer request, regarding nutritional information for standard menu items, including the amount of total calories, calories from fat, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, total carbohydrates, dietary fiber, sugars, and protein.
These requirements apply only to standard menu items, and do not apply to daily specials, custom orders, alcoholic beverages on display that are not self-service, or menu items that only appear temporarily on the menu for less than sixty days per calendar year.
The rules include alcoholic beverages, other than those falling under the same above exceptions. In the case of the exception for alcoholic beverages on display that are not self-service, essentially this will not include mixed drinks if the bottles are on display and the drinks are not on the menu.
3. Calculation of calories and other nutritional information
A business must rely on a “reasonable basis” for determining the calorie and other nutritional information for standard menu items. This can include a variety of methods including the use of databases, cookbooks and other reasonable references.

#6: Repeal of automatic health care enrollment
With the passage and implementation of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, enacted on November 2, 2015, the ACA automatic health care enrollment requirement as written in Section 18A of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) was repealed.
Section 18A was added by the Affordable Care Act through section 1511. Automatic enrollment required that employers with more than 200 full time employees to automatically enroll employees in health coverage unless employee opted out.
This provision had been postponed since December 2010 through a Department of Labor FAQ detailing that employers were not required to comply with automatic enrollment until the implementing regulations were issued.
This provision remained in doubt because of ensuing confusion over the interpretation of the statutory language and the likelihood of being an administrative burden for employers

#7: Medical device tax moratorium
With the passage of the Protection of Americans from Tax Hikes Act, the PATH Act, a moratorium on the Medical Device Tax has been imposed. This tax initially applied a 2.3% tax to devices sold after the end of 2012, however the moratorium effective during 2016 and 2017.
The tax is now slated to take effect on devices sold on or after January 1, 2018, but will be under further analysis and review during this suspension period.

#8: Health insurance tax moratorium
This tax moratorium has been imposed by the Consolidated Appropriations Act – for 2017, on the collection of the annual health insurance provider fee which has been in effect since 2013.
This was a tax imposed on the health insurance providers but passed through to the consumer through premiums. It is anticipated that this could lower premiums by 1 to 3 percent.

#9: Individual tax penalties
If an individual goes without qualifying minimum essential coverage for more than a single period of up to three months in a year, he or she may owe a penalty under the Shared Responsibility payment. These have been in place since 2014 and the penalty increases annually. In 2016, it is the higher of these amounts:
2.5% of annual household income above the tax filing threshold to a cap of the national average bronze plan premium OR
$695/adult and $347.50/child under 18 to a maximum penalty of $2,085 per family
Certain exemptions do apply in the case of hardships, certain life events, and other situations. In addition, those who have no affordable coverage because the cost of annual premiums exceeds 8 percent of their household income are also exempt. One needs to apply for exemption.
#10 Premium rate changes for 2016
The Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of silver plans in major cities in 13 states showed the following average rate increases from 2015 to 2016:
4.1 percent – the second lowest cost silver plan before tax credits
1.9 percent – the second lowest cost silver after tax credits
5.1 percent – the lowest-cost silver plan before tax credits
2.9 percent – the lowest-cost silver plan after tax credits
For 2016, the maximum out-of-pocket expenses for deductibles, copays, and coinsurance for in-network coverage is $6,850 for individual / $13,700 for family coverage. This is an increase over the 2015 out-of-pocket maximums of $6,600 for an individual and $13,200 for family coverage.
"Supposed to work", like with the cooperation of the for-profit industry who could, in theory make shit-tons of cash off it?
Rule #1: Believe the autocrat. He means what he says.
Rule #2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule #3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule #4: Be outraged.
Rule #5: Don’t make compromises.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Flagg »

FireNexus wrote:In other news. Paul Ryan is planning to push Medicare privatization through congress in January. And Trump is a spray tanned rubber stamp.

Maybe fly around the block before you decide to go live on the sun, there, Icarus?
Fuck. I get Medicare. Ok, I'm getting a baseball bat, wrapping it in barbedwire and naming it Hillary. Then all you Trump asslickers are gonna get on your motherfucking knees and I'm gonna beat the everloving shit out of all of you. I'm not some pussy like Negan playing games. Hillary's a huuuuuuungry girl! She's a VampireBat! :twisted:

But seriously every single one of you Trump voting cocksuckers just made my life harder. That's fine, I'm used to it. But my mom is on Medicare too, and possibly has breast cancer, we find out on the 23rd. You fuck with me, I call you names. You fuck with my mom and I'm taking names. :finger:
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Flagg »

K. A. Pital wrote:In my native language the word "man" means both men and women, so I obviously did not mean to exclude them, it just got lost in translation.

But why do you think they voted against their interests? What are their interests?
They don't know. They are too goddamned stupid to form their own opinions by things like reading or education that they just take whichever fatass cuntservative drug addict that they see on the teevee box and spout that fuckfaces opinion at their Klan meetings Church.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Flagg »

cosmicalstorm wrote:Scott Alexander is always very able to keep his head cool, very good post. Excerpt below:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/yo ... ying-wolf/
Listen. Trump is going to be approximately as racist as every other American president. Maybe I’m wrong and he’ll be a bit more. Maybe he’ll surprise us and be a bit less. But most likely he’ll be about as racist as Ronald Reagan, who employed Holocaust denier Pat Buchanan as a senior advisor. Or about as racist as George Bush with his famous Willie Horton ad. Or about as racist as Bill “superpredator” Clinton, who took a photo op in front of a group of chained black men in the birthplace of the KKK. Or about as racist as Bush “doesn’t care about black people!” 43. He’ll have some scandals, people who want to see them as racist will see them as racist, people who don’t will dismiss them as meaningless, and nobody will end up in death camps.

Since everyone has been wrong about everything lately, I’ve started thinking it’s more important than ever to make clear predictions and grade myself on them, so here are my predictions for the Trump administration:

1. Total hate crimes incidents as measured here will be not more than 125% of their 2015 value at any year during a Trump presidency, conditional on similar reporting methodology [confidence: 80%]
2. Total minority population of US citizens will increase throughout Trump’s presidency [confidence: 99%]
3. US Muslim population increases throughout Trump’s presidency [confidence: 95%]
4. Trump cabinet will be at least 10% minority [confidence: 90%], at least 20% minority [confidence: 70%], at least 30% minority [30%]. Here I’m defining “minority” to include nonwhites, Latinos, and LGBT people, though not women. Note that by this definition America as a whole is about 35% minority and Congress is about 15% minority.
5. Gay marriage will remain legal throughout a Trump presidency [confidence: 95%]
6. Race relations as perceived by blacks, as measured by this Gallup poll, will do better under Trump than they did under Obama (ie the change in race relations 2017-2021 will be less negative/more positive than the change 2009-2016) [confidence: 70%].
7. Neither Trump nor any of his officials (Cabinet, etc) will endorse the KKK, Stormfront, or explicit neo-Nazis publicly, refuse to back down, etc, and keep their job [confidence: 99%].
You quoted (and I'm going to punch myself for using the word, but fuck it) a fucking retard.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Aether
Youngling
Posts: 145
Joined: 2014-06-20 12:38am

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Aether »

Khaat wrote:
Now it's "muslims" (even if they're not muslims) taking "your" jobs
50 years ago it was "wetbacks"
100 years ago it was "Italians Wops, Irish Mics, and Chinese Chinks"
150 years ago it was... I think you can see where this is going. But, hey, Totally Not Racism(tm). Somehow. :roll:
No, because every example you listed above isn't a race. But hey, it's just easier to make blanket statements against people whom you do not know because it is easier. After all, the "RACIST!" label is a powerful one even when it doesn't apply. If you want to redefine what racism is to include, I don't know, everything...then nothing is racist.

Every group poo-poos their own members transgressions. Every outside group amplifies said transgressions. Did actual racism and sexism play a role? I believe it did. Is *every* Trump voter a racist or sexist? I do not believe that to be true. I have an acquaintance on Facebook who is female and Navajo as well as an avowed feminist. What was her major focus? Sexism. Very important. Just as equal as all others. 100% Racism. 100% Xenophobia. And definitely, most absolutely, 200% sexism caused the rise of Trump. How dare you not believe that isn't true Cis White Christian Male!
User avatar
Dragon Angel
Jedi Knight
Posts: 753
Joined: 2010-02-08 09:20am
Location: A Place Called...

Re: 2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

Post by Dragon Angel »

FireNexus wrote:Dragon Angel, though, I take issue with the false equivalency between the NCGOP issue (which you're dragging up months later because it apparently left a stick up your butt) and the "bonus points for being white male" contention I just conceded.

You got my smugness then (and are getting it now) because you were urging that people explicitly avoid donating for relief after an act of terrorism because the victim is your political opponent. Because of all the things they have done wrong, you argued, no support should be provided to them that could help them because they're going to use it for Wrong Things.
Oh man, if you think that "because the victim is my political opponent" is the only reason I objected, then you're deluded or seriously privileged.

Actually I brought up the NCGOP thing (as a footnote, by the way, note that my post was mainly attacking your shitty find the nearest white man argument) because I found it incredibly hilarious that you were so morally pompous back then, and now you're claiming that "abandoning the moral high ground" for "realism" is the way we should go. Apparently it wasn't when talking about an entity that not only engaged in massive voter suppression, but is/was the driving force behind the transgender bathroom bill and more in that state.

Please acknowledge your moral inconsistency here and we can move on like adults.
FireNexus wrote:The argument I made is that it is 1.) Tacit support of terrorist attacks against Republicans. Your argument boiled down to you dancing around the idea that they deserved it.2 .) Politically really fucking stupid because it is so clearly the former. You're not going to convince anyone that you're the party of equality and prosperity when you're out there coming just short of advocating firebombing your opponents. It had a very "Of course, but maybe..." vibe if I recall.
Actually, I didn't advocate for the bombing. I didn't say at all that they "deserved" it, implied or otherwise. You're the one putting words into my mouth by making this association.

The NC Democrats could have just merely decried the bombing. Others suggested the NC Democrats perhaps lend the NCGOP temporary office space. A lot of other paths could have been chosen besides "let's write a big check". A big check of money just ends up funding other agendas they could push. An office space, or something other than money ensures they still have room to continue their work, but they won't have extra resources on top of their building insurance. It ensures they won't spend the money on agendas against marginalized minorities. Insert "panhandler buying drugs/alcohol and not food" analogy here.

You don't have to give money to condemn the bombing. You could just ... condemn the bombing. You could literally do anything but give them money. Your singular tunnel vision blinds you to this. Jesus christ I'm arguing for a side I absolutely despise better than you are by suggesting these alternatives.
FireNexus wrote:This is especially true when you're making that argument out of the other side of a mouth claiming that the opposing Presidential candidate will endorse acts of violence and silence political dissent. Your position on that issue was, and is, fucking stupid, hypocritical, and self-defeating. And if you ever find me advocating a similarly idiotic position, feel free to call me a hypocrite.
Look and you shall see, I have. 8)
FireNexus wrote:Here, I contended that adding whiteness as a "pro" in selecting a 2020 candidate was a good idea almost to the point of being necessary. I've backed down from that contention because it's likely wrong even if I can't see why. You, to my knowledge, clinged to the notion that donating to the fire fund was tantamount to politically supporting the homo- and trans-phobic agenda of the party itself because it gave them resources. See how mine is not the same as coming out vocally against helping the victims of terrorist vandalism (ostensibly perpetrated by people on my side of the political fence) because their politics are harmful to a group I happen to be a member or ally of?
Something I'm not sure you know of is the Democratic office was also vandalized. This person clearly was not anywhere near the Democrats' agenda and was some far left fool.

If we're going to put out interpretations of words, your searching for a white candidate can be and has been interpreted by at least one person here as tacit support of institutional racism/sexism. I'm disagreeing with that assessment as I have little idea of who you are to make such an observation, but you have to realize your viewpoint is not the only valid viewpoint. A ton of people were hurt and felt incredibly betrayed by the Democrats' fundraiser, and you're blatantly ignoring that side of the argument.
"I could while away the hours, conferrin' with the flowers, consultin' with the rain.
And my head I'd be scratchin', while my thoughts were busy hatchin', if I only had a brain!
I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin', my heart all full of pain.
I would dance and be merry, life would be would be a ding-a-derry, if I only had a brain!"
Locked