2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Dragon Angel]

That's your problem imperialist! Sorry, I was channeling Castro.

But isn't it a bitch that the people who would benefit most by relocating to a country without its social safety net being in imminent danger by an incoming regressive administration are the least able to do so?

Man, the most annoying people are the ones who just willfully ignore that. Like, you can almost see them laying brick by brick their wall against facts. You could present every single bit of proof you can muster and they'll just go all "I reject your reality and replace it with my own!"

Like the person I live with right now who seems to be oblivious to everything including me literally writhing in pain in front of her.

Not saying Stas is doing this but this isn't the first time I've encountered that statement.

[Simon_Jester]

I am saying that if the country's political system continously produces a result that is not to your liking, but it does not change much over time either, maybe you are in the wrong country... that is all. It does not mean you should just leave, but you can certainly consider it.

It is good to disagree and try to change your country. But at some point, even you might realize that some thing will not change within your lifetime, because what you would like to happen and what actually happens in the country are too different. What then?

The Electoral College actually might change within our lifetimes, because frustration with it has gotten to the point where a large fraction of the states have already made what amounts to a pact to neuter it. If that pact gets enough supporters, and it very well might, things could change dramatically.

The vast majority of the public and decision-makers were blind to the paradigm shift that has occurred due to social media and smart mobile devices in the past few years that enabled Trump to reach voters and for them to support each other in non-traditional means.

So... smart devices mean dumb politics, in other words.

You know, I think I'm going to keep that as a catchphrase.

[Flagg]

I am saying that if the country's political system continously produces a result that is not to your liking, but it does not change much over time either, maybe you are in the wrong country... that is all. It does not mean you should just leave, but you can certainly consider it.

It is good to disagree and try to change your country. But at some point, even you might realize that some thing will not change within your lifetime, because what you would like to happen and what actually happens in the country are too different. What then?

The Electoral College actually might change within our lifetimes, because frustration with it has gotten to the point where a large fraction of the states have already made what amounts to a pact to neuter it. If that pact gets enough supporters, and it very well might, things could change dramatically.

The vast majority of the public and decision-makers were blind to the paradigm shift that has occurred due to social media and smart mobile devices in the past few years that enabled Trump to reach voters and for them to support each other in non-traditional means.

So... smart devices mean dumb politics, in other words.

You know, I think I'm going to keep that as a catchphrase.

Yeah, Clinton had the "ground game" all sewn up, but Trump was able to not have much of one and instead use social media to reach out to the worst of our population who think America needs to be "taken back" from THEM.

[Flagg]

That's your problem imperialist! Sorry, I was channeling Castro.

But isn't it a bitch that the people who would benefit most by relocating to a country without its social safety net being in imminent danger by an incoming regressive administration are the least able to do so?

Man, the most annoying people are the ones who just willfully ignore that. Like, you can almost see them laying brick by brick their wall against facts. You could present every single bit of proof you can muster and they'll just go all "I reject your reality and replace it with my own!"

Like the person I live with right now who seems to be oblivious to everything including me literally writhing in pain in front of her.

Not saying Stas is doing this but this isn't the first time I've encountered that statement.

Yeah, I don't think Stas is doing that either, he's talking to people with options as opposed to people like you and I. Still, I couldn't resist ribbing him a bit even though I agree with him nine times out of ten.

[jwl]

I didn't. I'm not embarrassed to say that I didn't think he had much of a chance given his demeanor and how fucking repugnant he is and always has been. Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voters. What seems to have happened is that turnout in solid blue states was high and in swing states low. Which makes sense given that apparently Clinton will have the same or higher number of votes than Obama did in his 2012 trouncing of Romney.

If that's the case you could argue the electoral collage is more representative than the popular vote, because it may be the number of electors per state is proportional to the number of eligible voters rather than the number of people who voted. That's worth considering, I think.

It's not. If you think it's more democratic for a minority of voters to hand a federal election to someone despite an overwhelming majority of people who voted choosing the other candidate, I don't know what to tell you. My vote in WA matters less than it did in FL (even though SCROTUS overruled the actual vote count when they set a precedent they ruled against in later election cases by appointing The Cocaine Cowboy) by a significant amount. That doesn't sound like, look like, or feel like democracy.

In the past I've been of the opinion it is best to have a single vote for a single candidate, but what you were saying there was making me rethink that view. Let me give a toy election model as an example:
Imagine you have a country with three statesof equal population: Zip, Zap and Zok. Running for president in this country you have two candidates: Alice and Bob. In Zip, the results are 100℅ Alice; in Zap the results are 60℅ Alice, 40℅ Bob; in Zok the results are 100℅ Bob. However, Zip and Zap only have 50℅ turnout, whilst Zok has 100℅ turnout, so Bob wins the popular vote. I would argue, however, that Alice winning would be more representative of the population.

Although thinking about it, whilst electoral collage would be better at this than the popular vote, it isn't the optimum way of doing this. That would be to assign every vote points equal to the reciprocal of their state's turnout, and add the points up to assign the winner. It will probably be possible to work out whether Hillary or Trump would have won under this system but it would take me too long.

[Flagg]

If that's the case you could argue the electoral collage is more representative than the popular vote, because it may be the number of electors per state is proportional to the number of eligible voters rather than the number of people who voted. That's worth considering, I think.

It's not. If you think it's more democratic for a minority of voters to hand a federal election to someone despite an overwhelming majority of people who voted choosing the other candidate, I don't know what to tell you. My vote in WA matters less than it did in FL (even though SCROTUS overruled the actual vote count when they set a precedent they ruled against in later election cases by appointing The Cocaine Cowboy) by a significant amount. That doesn't sound like, look like, or feel like democracy.

In the past I've been of the opinion it is best to have a single vote for a single candidate, but what you were saying there was making me rethink that view. Let me give a toy election model as an example:
Imagine you have a country with three statesof equal population: Zip, Zap and Zok. Running for president in this country you have two candidates: Alice and Bob. In Zip, the results are 100℅ Alice; in Zap the results are 60℅ Alice, 40℅ Bob; in Zok the results are 100℅ Bob. However, Zip and Zap only have 50℅ turnout, whilst Zok has 100℅ turnout, so Bob wins the popular vote. I would argue, however, that Alice winning would be more representative of the population.

Although thinking about it, whilst electoral collage would be better at this than the popular vote, it isn't the optimum way of doing this. That would be to assign every vote points equal to the reciprocal of their state's turnout, and add the points up to assign the winner. It will probably be possible to work out whether Hillary or Trump would have won under this system but it would take me too long.

That sounds good, but what if turnout for the demographics who would vote for Bob in Zip and Zap are suppressed by Alice's party like what Republicans flat out brag about doing when they think the mic is off? And why should Zok's population be subject to governance of a candidate they didn't vote for to the point that they turned out while the other 2 states did not? You're effectively saying that California or Texas has to eat a shit sandwich because people in Ohio or Florida had voter suppression or low turnout for any other number of reasons. I know we live in a democratic republic, but when you have an electoral margin that is decisive yet a popular vote that's overwhelmingly the opposite, why should the people in states with a higher turnout be "punished" for it?

[Knife]

Meh, not sure I agree with you Armor. I think the left was banking on the paradigm shift but treated it like a monolithic block. While in general they were correct, since the popular vote is overwhelmingly for Clinton, they glanced over the middle they needed. Trumps 'used carsalesman' tactics on the medium sized states, namely promising jobs he cannot actually give them, taking them back to the 'good old days' were able to pick off enough to get him the spot. Clinton just had it outsold from under her. Granted, doesn't help that some of her vote stayed home in a lot of states due to her being ho-hum candidate. It's sad but true that it doesn't matter if 2million more voters come out for her in California or Oregon, she needed more voters coming out in Ohio, Penn, and North Carolina.

[The Romulan Republic]

Sadly, I cannot imagine that we get through four years without a single major terrorist attack, especially with President Moron the Muslim Basher as President.

Trump is a lot of things, but I'd never describe him as a "moron". He actually does have some smarts. Not as much smarts as ego, but a lot of people have underestimated him to their later sorrow.

I think he has a very specific kind of intelligence- he is skilled at manipulating the media, and to some extent the political system of America, and he is good at stirring up a particular portion of the electorate, and convincing them to act against their interests. He is, in essence, a talented show man and con man.

I have yet to be convinced that he knows, or cares to know, much about anything else, more's the pity.

[Flagg]

He's incredibly uninformed and has no intelligent curiosity, much like W. I don't think he's a moron, but his intelligence is more like that of a cunning predator. If there was any fictional character I think you could compare Trump to, it's Lord Baelish on Game of Thrones, except he can't get away with the shit he does without people knowing since everything you say on camera or audio these days can't be disappeared.

[Knife]

He's a rich spoiled kid who has been around powerful rich people all his life as well as business leaders all his life. I give him he understands basically how management goes and how all the games the super rich play to stay super rich; but really only has lasted this long due to his wealth and not necessarily because of his ability to produce it. I don't think he's smart at all, just smart enough to basically understand the system he is in and rich enough to bully his way through it.

[Flagg]

He's a rich spoiled kid who has been around powerful rich people all his life as well as business leaders all his life. I give him he understands basically how management goes and how all the games the super rich play to stay super rich; but really only has lasted this long due to his wealth and not necessarily because of his ability to produce it. I don't think he's smart at all, just smart enough to basically understand the system he is in and rich enough to bully his way through it.

Yeah, but there's more to it. Rachel Maddow played a taped interview he did with an author about how in 1962 when he was in school he was the best athlete. He literally said that he was the best baseball player ever, and that it was "before baseball was a popular sport and players made no money". This is after the Babe Ruth era and when you had nobody players like Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMagio. But he was the best. He literally believes he's the best at everything he's ever done despite failing in business time and again, then using financial tricks to basically rip people off.

But he fucks people over. Thats one thing he's a master at. That's why I compared him to Baelish.

"I fuck people."
-Baelish

[MKSheppard]

Fortunately the Millennials generation is for more liberal than prior generations, so eventually the political environment will begin to shift back to the left as the baby boomers die off.

Wasn't that what they were saying in the 1970s?

"Goddamn old fashioned World War II generation, when MY generation is in power things are gonna change!" said every baby boomer ever.

[Knife]

He's a rich spoiled kid who has been around powerful rich people all his life as well as business leaders all his life. I give him he understands basically how management goes and how all the games the super rich play to stay super rich; but really only has lasted this long due to his wealth and not necessarily because of his ability to produce it. I don't think he's smart at all, just smart enough to basically understand the system he is in and rich enough to bully his way through it.

Yeah, but there's more to it. Rachel Maddow played a taped interview he did with an author about how in 1962 when he was in school he was the best athlete. He literally said that he was the best baseball player ever, and that it was "before baseball was a popular sport and players made no money". This is after the Babe Ruth era and when you had nobody players like Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMagio. But he was the best. He literally believes he's the best at everything he's ever done despite failing in business time and again, then using financial tricks to basically rip people off.

But he fucks people over. Thats one thing he's a master at. That's why I compared him to Baelish.

"I fuck people."
-Baelish

How does that refute what I said? He has enough money to bully people beneath him economically. Buffet thinks he's a joke, Koch's think he's a joke, ect... but they are above him economically. People who can see he is a bully with money see it. People conditioned to see 'rich' as better than them, don't. And while I adore Rachel, she is blind to this shit. She has a particular mind set but pretty much toes the MSNBC line which is pretty much corporate media.

[Knife]

Fortunately the Millennials generation is for more liberal than prior generations, so eventually the political environment will begin to shift back to the left as the baby boomers die off.

Wasn't that what they were saying in the 1970s?

"Goddamn old fashioned World War II generation, when MY generation is in power things are gonna change!" said every baby boomer ever.

But Gen Xers are more liberal. We're still suffering from baby boomers in office. Sure, Obama and Ryan are a gen xer's, but Trump, Clinton, McConnell, O'Bannon are all Baby boomers.

[Flagg]

He's a rich spoiled kid who has been around powerful rich people all his life as well as business leaders all his life. I give him he understands basically how management goes and how all the games the super rich play to stay super rich; but really only has lasted this long due to his wealth and not necessarily because of his ability to produce it. I don't think he's smart at all, just smart enough to basically understand the system he is in and rich enough to bully his way through it.

Yeah, but there's more to it. Rachel Maddow played a taped interview he did with an author about how in 1962 when he was in school he was the best athlete. He literally said that he was the best baseball player ever, and that it was "before baseball was a popular sport and players made no money". This is after the Babe Ruth era and when you had nobody players like Mickey Mantle and Joe DiMagio. But he was the best. He literally believes he's the best at everything he's ever done despite failing in business time and again, then using financial tricks to basically rip people off.

But he fucks people over. Thats one thing he's a master at. That's why I compared him to Baelish.

"I fuck people."
-Baelish

How does that refute what I said? He has enough money to bully people beneath him economically. Buffet thinks he's a joke, Koch's think he's a joke, ect... but they are above him economically. People who can see he is a bully with money see it. People conditioned to see 'rich' as better than them, don't. And while I adore Rachel, she is blind to this shit. She has a particular mind set but pretty much toes the MSNBC line which is pretty much corporate media.

I wasn't trying to refute what you said. I just think there are deeper pathological issues that IMO make him a dangerous person.

[Knife]

I wasn't trying to refute what you said. I just think there are deeper pathological issues that IMO make him a dangerous person.

Ok, fair enough. Not sure I agree though.

[Ralin]

Fortunately the Millennials generation is for more liberal than prior generations, so eventually the political environment will begin to shift back to the left as the baby boomers die off.

Wasn't that what they were saying in the 1970s?

"Goddamn old fashioned World War II generation, when MY generation is in power things are gonna change!" said every baby boomer ever.

Baby Boomers sort of, uhm. Ended up better off economically than Millennials are and will probably continue to be. On average.

[Simon_Jester]

Fortunately the Millennials generation is for more liberal than prior generations, so eventually the political environment will begin to shift back to the left as the baby boomers die off.

Wasn't that what they were saying in the 1970s?

"Goddamn old fashioned World War II generation, when MY generation is in power things are gonna change!" said every baby boomer ever.

They did change.

Women have jobs that don't involve making coffee. It isn't socially expected that disabled people are supposed to hide, to the extent that there is disapproval when they don't. You can admit you have a psychiatric disorder, without it being the end of your life. Beating gay people to death is no longer officially considered a public service, even if a frightening number of Americans still seem to think it should be.

Most of that has changed since 1980 or so, and it is since 1980 that boomers started taking charge of things.

It is simply not the case that the boomers turned into people with exactly the same views as the WWII generation they replaced. They turned into, well, themselves. They're a mix of people some of whom were very tolerant and wanted society to change in certain ways. Of the hippies, and of the College Republicans who supported Goldwater (or, if they were born a bit later, Nixon) in their teens. Some of them shifted into nativists and so on, but they're still a mix.

And the Overton window of opinions they accept is well to the left of what people thirty years older than them would have supported or put up with.

[Flagg]

Yeah, the boomers faults are well known, but to add to what Simon said they were by and large very instrumental in pushing forwards the Civil Rights movement in the 70's pretty much cementing it in place that casual racism = bad.

[Highlord Laan]

Fortunately the Millennials generation is for more liberal than prior generations, so eventually the political environment will begin to shift back to the left as the baby boomers die off.

Wasn't that what they were saying in the 1970s?

"Goddamn old fashioned World War II generation, when MY generation is in power things are gonna change!" said every baby boomer ever.

Unlike the paradigm between the WWII and Boomers, the Millenials are seeing themselves get deliberately screwed over at every turn by their parents generation. The boomers felt their parents were repressive and stupid. Milenials are starting to actively hate boomers as a bloc due to the Politics As Usual getting in the way.

There's even studies that show an alarming percentage of Millenials are beginning to see value in outright violence to effect change, in dire contrast to the boomers protests in the 60's. They're a generation that's seen their parents burn the future down to fund their lifestyles, and are more and more losing any faith in the American system of governance, seeing it as completely undermined and corrupt.

I may fly off the handle with hyperbole, but there's growing numbers of people expressing the "burn it down, start over" method of changing our government.

[Flagg]

Fortunately the Millennials generation is for more liberal than prior generations, so eventually the political environment will begin to shift back to the left as the baby boomers die off.

Wasn't that what they were saying in the 1970s?

"Goddamn old fashioned World War II generation, when MY generation is in power things are gonna change!" said every baby boomer ever.

Unlike the paradigm between the WWII and Boomers, the Millenials are seeing themselves get deliberately screwed over at every turn by their parents generation. The boomers felt their parents were repressive and stupid. Milenials are starting to actively hate boomers as a bloc due to the Politics As Usual getting in the way.

There's even studies that show an alarming percentage of Millenials are beginning to see value in outright violence to effect change, in dire contrast to the boomers protests in the 60's. They're a generation that's seen their parents burn the future down to fund their lifestyles, and are more and more losing any faith in the American system of governance, seeing it as completely undermined and corrupt.

I may fly off the handle with hyperbole, but there's growing numbers of people expressing the "burn it down, start over" method of changing our government.

I don't know if I'm a millennial (born in 1981), but I've felt that in some cases violence is if not entirely justified, at least understandable. In the past I've stated support for violence in response to police action like in the Occupy Wall Street movement when it was apparent that nonviolent resistance just wasn't working. But TBH as I get older and less naive I don't think that would do anything but make the violence on the part of law enforcement seem justified after the fact.

But paying for the boomers medical costs and retirement when it seems apparent that when I get that age my generation and the generation after me won't have the same luxury burns my ass.

Edit: Well, according to Wikipedia I am a millennial since if I hadn't gotten my diploma a year earlier than I was supposed to I would have been graduating with the class of 2000.

[Lost Soal]

Non violent protest has managed to get the Dakota Pipeline stopped. It seems half the media did their best to ignore it but the Army Core of Engineers finally stepped in and stopped it

[The Romulan Republic]

While that is wonderful news, I am honestly not sure what it has to do with he election thread.

[Lost Soal]

The effectiveness of non-violent protest verses violent protest is being questioned. This shows that non-violent protest can still work and there is no need to start talking about such drastic measures, at least not yet.
If you want more Trump has a financial investment in the pipeline, so they also get to stick it to him.

[Highlord Laan]

The effectiveness of non-violent protest verses violent protest is being questioned. This shows that non-violent protest can still work and there is no need to start talking about such drastic measures, at least not yet.
If you want more Trump has a financial investment in the pipeline, so they also get to stick it to him.

I've been keeping pace with the protests, and it's nowhere near as pretty as people think. Two of my friends are Nebraska State Troopers on loan for stupid people control, and from what they've told me, the only actual nonviolent people there are the Troopers themselves. Ask social media though, and a chunk of cinder block being thrown through the passenger window of a cruiser is a totally nonviolent action, and any repercussions would obviously show how fascist and evil the State Troopers are being.

First the Keystone pipeline, now this. The brainless NIMBY idiots were given an inch after years of screaming, so now they're after a mile.