The 2016 US American Election Thread

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by peter12

There are enormous issues related to American democracy that are not being addressed. It is too bad that many people, on both sides, refuse to actually investigate why so many people are supporting Trump.

Instead they decide to focus on scattered media reports, which is honestly just providing a distorting picture.

It's even more amazing you refuse to accept what's staring you right in the eyes. A reminder for you...




http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/poli...?event=event25

...I know you want it to be something deeper, but it's not. More often than not the correct answer is indeed the obvious answer.

[Drak]

I don't think it's hyperbole that Trump is a very dangerous candidate. He's not in the same ballpark as Mitt Romney or John McCain (outside of the VP pick). It's understandable that entertainers are very concerned and speaking out about it during their shows.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm pretty sure 90% of all stand-up I've seen this year (live and specials) has been 50% jokes and 50% being unable to comprehend why people are voting for Trump.

Just look at all the newest specials on Netflix. David Cross, Patton Oswalt, Jim Jeffries all have new specials where the majority is just visible pain at the thought of a Trump presidency. Not surprised Schumer is taking the same shots.

And it's not even funny. None of it is funny. It is complete virtue signalling, holier than thou, out of touch snobbery.

This is also a serious problem, and a sign of growing hyper-partisanship. How can we expect that same media to cover a Clinton administration independently when they were falling all over themselves to get her elected?

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016...-campaign-cash

In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I'm pretty sure 90% of all stand-up I've seen this year (live and specials) has been 50% jokes and 50% being unable to comprehend why people are voting for Trump.

Just look at all the newest specials on Netflix. David Cross, Patton Oswalt, Jim Jeffries all have new specials where the majority is just visible pain at the thought of a Trump presidency. Not surprised Schumer is taking the same shots.

This is where it's no longer funny. I'm in the minority but I don't find John Oliver or Seth Myers funny at all. In fact I find them arrogant. You can disagree with the other side without mocking them and calling them stupid. Stewart and Colbert know where the line is which makes them really funny and entertaining.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by peter12

And it's not even funny. None of it is funny. It is complete virtue signalling, holier than thou, out of touch snobbery.

This is also a serious problem, and a sign of growing hyper-partisanship. How can we expect that same media to cover a Clinton administration independently when they were falling all over themselves to get her elected?

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016...-campaign-cash

I'd say it's a lot less concerning being as most of the support is far, far, far more "Trump is an existential threat", than pro Hillary

[Drak]

Originally Posted by peter12

And it's not even funny. None of it is funny. It is complete virtue signalling, holier than thou, out of touch snobbery.

This is also a serious problem, and a sign of growing hyper-partisanship. How can we expect that same media to cover a Clinton administration independently when they were falling all over themselves to get her elected?

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016...-campaign-cash

Well, if you're going to whine about it, maybe the right should foster some decent entertainment talent instead of offering up C and D grade celebrities. Albeit, Clint Eastwood makes very good movies. Too bad he's getting old and senile.

How is the media trying to get Clinton elected? Trump shoots himself in the foot. He's dangerous and it's plainly obvious. No one is making up what comes out of his mouth at his rallies and on his twitter feed.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I'd say it's a lot less concerning being as most of the support is far, far, far more "Trump is an existential threat", than pro Hillary

I don't think they are at all equivalent, but there are reasons to be concerned with Clinton as well. Obviously, whatever insanity Trump would get up to would just be completely awful, but Clinton's stance on SCOTUS, Russian/Syria, and the executive in general is not exactly great for America.

[photon]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It seems to me that allowing guys like Itsmagic and Illuminaughty to post in spite of being a beer short of a six pack is a better option than banning them, particularly in light of the existence of the ignore feature, which though an imperfect solution does provide some balance. Also, I just never like the idea of anyone unilaterally deciding whose opinions are too crazy for others to hear, even if there are good reasons they should have that authority.

There's also the secondary effect of being active in curating the walled garden breeds a garden that is less able to deal with weeds all by itself. Breeds maybe not the best analogy, since it's more about expectations than capability.

In my ideal world a poster that is clearly off the deep end would just receive far less engagement, hopefully to the point where they decide to take their ball and find a more entertaining place for them to play. Either by using the ignore function of the forum or by using the one in the brain. Or one person just naturally "take point" and then the effect can be limited and focused thus easier to skip (and this actually happens quite a bit).

But nothing is ideal. In general the mods (including myself) lean towards your stance and we don't really like banning someone just because they hold a different opinion. We REALLY have to be convinced that someone is trolling or brinking (brinking meaning intentionally getting as close as possible to breaking the rules without breaking them). Or (and to me this is the most unfortunate one) if the responses are so disruptive that there really isn't any other choice.

We discuss it a lot and let it simmer a lot too (which is why we're often a lot slower to take visible action than lots would prefer). If we're not sure we like to give people room to make more evidence.

There's also the utilitarian aspect of it you mention; sometimes looking at a reported post in a politics or religion thread can be like standing at the bottom of a mountain looking up. If I have to spend half an hour reading just to understand the context.. it's much more difficult to get 3-4 mods to do that to discuss and try and get to a consensus, partly because of time, partly just because of basic motivation. Plus if a moderator is actually in the discussion so understands the context, they're usually less apt to want to render a judgment since they're involved and possibly less partial.

That's why even the rules say that threads on politics and religion are given a more leeway.

/rambling

[ernie]

So journalists aren't allowed to support a candidate as a private citizen?

Unless one has actual proof that these people are explicitly being biased in coverage based on political leanings then well you have nothing. And yes I understand that most news organizations forbid or strongly discourage it.

They go after Trump because he does and says bizarre things and wasn't properly vetted by the GOP during the primary process. They do indeed discuss the wikileaks stuff with Clinton but there is nothing in there. They spent 2 years covering her server scandal every freaking night.

Opinion based reporting...sure there is bias. On both sides. What a shock.

Why are people lining up behind Trump...well you still have 10-15% of the population that doesn't think there should be interracial marriage. There is a significant part of the population that thinks it affects them personally if two consenting adults of the same sex sleep together or want to get married. There is a significant part of the population that straight up doesn't like people of another skin color or religion. There is some overlap but I don't think it's exaggeration to say 15-20% of the US population is bigoted and that forms the core issue of their being not just the election. Shockingly the demographics of people who most hate these things lines up exactly with the demographics Trump is strong in. The last poll I saw was less than 80% of conservatives believed interracial marriage should be allowed....it's the 2010's for goodness sakes. And that is why it is critically important to not have the republican party as it stands today choosing supreme court judges. And I'm dead serious. The court does not need another Scalia or 3 on it.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by peter12

I don't think they are at all equivalent, but there are reasons to be concerned with Clinton as well. Obviously, whatever insanity Trump would get up to would just be completely awful, but Clinton's stance on SCOTUS, Russian/Syria, and the executive in general is not exactly great for America.

How so?

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by ernie

Not going to quote someone but feel the need to put this in. The one study I alluded to a number of pages back regarding gender bias and wage gap.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1



And many other studies show similar things. This includes biases in hiring male applicants that are underqualified vs the qualified female applicant. Hiring male applicants preferentially into longer hour positions etc etc. And while taking time away from work does play into future earnings it has been shown that such reasoning can't account for the final 10-15% of the wage gap. The wage gap exists. The gender bias exists. It is real. And there is a reason why the big companies do guard against it by making sure female employees are receiving similar performance grades compared to males. But not every company is a large company that makes sure this is happening and guards against the biases. As such, in the end over the entire hiring market the bias and inequality is present. Not as prevalent as it was but it is still present. Present in quite subtle but substantive ways.

There's also pretty solid evidence that as a field becomes inundated with women, despite previous wages for the same job while male-dominated, the wages drop.

She is a co-author of one of the most comprehensive studies of the phenomenon, using United States census data from 1950 to 2000, when the share of women increased in many jobs. The study, which she conducted with Asaf Levanon, of the University of Haifa in Israel, and Paul Allison of the University of Pennsylvania, found that when women moved into occupations in large numbers, those jobs began paying less even after controlling for education, work experience, skills, race and geography.

And there was substantial evidence that employers placed a lower value on work done by women. “It’s not that women are always picking lesser things in terms of skill and importance,” Ms. England said. “It’s just that the employers are deciding to pay it less.”

A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/up...pay-drops.html


There are obviously a lot of factors involved, and this is far from a black-and-white issue, but to say that it's a myth is exasperating. Again, it is 2016 and for the first time in our country's history we have a major party with a female presidential nominee. She's ludicrously experienced, has proven herself at every level of public service, and yet she's being graded unfairly on a curve against a man who lives in his own world entirely averse to facts and reality.

And even at that, we have glorious things like this:




The good old "but ladies and their hormones" pearl-clutching. Of course this particular person doesn't seem to grasp that Hillary wouldn't have had "that time of the month" in probably two decades, but that's neither here nor there. These same people panicking about Clinton's hormone levels dictating her policy seem to be fine with a man who threw a temper tantrum about an SNL skit.

Regardless of the extent of the "wage gap," women are often held to a different standard than men, and this election is a golden example of such.

[Kybosh]

It would be interesting to see the historical breakdown of campaign donations and funding to the Republican and Democrat Presidential nominees. I don't recall, but I believe the Democrats have slightly eclipsed the Republicans in this regard over the last couple of election cycles. Only this year, have we seen such a huge disparity in campaign funding and donations which should speak volumes to the unqualified nature of one of the candidates. Perhaps the USA should look at restricting and changing the way donations are provided to even the field in that regard?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

How so?

Well, the overall problem is that SCOTUS has been politicized beyond belief. I mean, the real issue with all of these elections is the increasing powers being assumed by POTUS ever since like 2nd term Clinton/George W.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by ernie

So journalists aren't allowed to support a candidate as a private citizen?

Unless one has actual proof that these people are explicitly being biased in coverage based on political leanings then well you have nothing. And yes I understand that most news organizations forbid or strongly discourage it.

They go after Trump because he does and says bizarre things and wasn't properly vetted by the GOP during the primary process. They do indeed discuss the wikileaks stuff with Clinton but there is nothing in there. They spent 2 years covering her server scandal every freaking night.

Opinion based reporting...sure there is bias. On both sides. What a shock.

Why are people lining up behind Trump...well you still have 10-15% of the population that doesn't think there should be interracial marriage. There is a significant part of the population that thinks it affects them personally if two consenting adults of the same sex sleep together or want to get married. There is a significant part of the population that straight up doesn't like people of another skin color or religion. There is some overlap but I don't think it's exaggeration to say 15-20% of the US population is bigoted and that forms the core issue of their being not just the election. Shockingly the demographics of people who most hate these things lines up exactly with the demographics Trump is strong in.

There is overlap though. For example Blacks don't like same sex marriage. They overwhelmingly defeated California Proposition 8 in 2008 while voting for Obama.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There is overlap though. For example Blacks don't like same sex marriage. They overwhelmingly defeated California Proposition 8 in 2008 while voting for Obama.

No the Hispanic (Catholic) vote defeated Prop 8. Also massive amounts of meddling from the Mormon Church.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

How so?

Because in peter's dream world the Ten Commandments will be the rule of law in America.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

There's also pretty solid evidence that as a field becomes inundated with women, despite previous wages for the same job while male-dominated, the wages drop.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/up...pay-drops.html


There are obviously a lot of factors involved, and this is far from a black-and-white issue, but to say that it's a myth is exasperating. Again, it is 2016 and for the first time in our country's history we have a major party with a female presidential nominee. She's ludicrously experienced, has proven herself at every level of public service, and yet she's being graded unfairly on a curve against a man who lives in his own world entirely averse to facts and reality.

And even at that, we have glorious things like this:




The good old "but ladies and their hormones" pearl-clutching. Of course this particular person doesn't seem to grasp that Hillary wouldn't have had "that time of the month" in probably two decades, but that's neither here nor there. These same people panicking about Clinton's hormone levels dictating her policy seem to be fine with a man who threw a temper tantrum about an SNL skit.

Regardless of the extent of the "wage gap," women are often held to a different standard than men, and this election is a golden example of such.

I mean, how do you deal with a person that doesn't even understand menopause? Is it cos of the failing school system? But, isnt Trump platforming for school choice, which is implicitly, "I wanna teach my kids what I believe," rather than anything based in Science?

Like whoa.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well, the overall problem is that SCOTUS has been politicized beyond belief. I mean, the real issue with all of these elections is the increasing powers being assumed by POTUS ever since like 2nd term Clinton/George W.

But that doesn't really answer the question, what about Clinton's view on the SCOTUS bothers you?

She's stated that she'll choose justices likely to repeal Citizens United (which I think most everyone can agree that less money and fewer lobbyists from moneyed interests would be a very good thing in American politics), protect Roe v Wade (which was already decided decades ago, can we move on already?) and protect marriage equality (again, we've had it for over a year now, and the apocalypse has not begun, so clearly it's not that big a deal).

I'm not sure what position she's taken re: SCOTUS that's such an issue.


EDIT: And on this topic, well-timed article I just found.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/17/politi...urt/index.html

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain said. "I promise you. This is where we need the majority and Pat Toomey is probably as articulate and effective on the floor of the Senate as anyone I have encountered."

So Republicans in Congress are going to just continue to refuse to do what the Constitution requires of them, just to stick it to Democrats/Clinton.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

And it's not even funny. None of it is funny. It is complete virtue signalling, holier than thou, out of touch snobbery.

Yeah god forbid entertainers use their platforms to send a message. The David Cross special was excellent actually. Patton's was a bit sad.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

No the Hispanic (Catholic) vote defeated Prop 8. Also massive amounts of meddling from the Mormon Church.

Nope. That, and also, African Americans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-gay-marriage/