The 2016 US American Election Thread

[ernie]

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.

But it isn't a guiding principle when it comes to platform as you can tell from the support the GOP gets from the minority communities. It is for some sure but it isn't to the same extent. A vote on a specific item is different than a vote on an overarching platform. For the latter the there are other things that take precedence. Not so much for the religious right. These are things that are most concerning to them or as concerning as other items. Or rather things that they simply don't care about which is the happiness of people that aren't like them.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

this election is a golden example of such.

No its not.
He's not argusing that women can't be rational, he's saying that menstruation shouldn't exempt her from criticism. It's crude and simplistic, with a rather gaping logical flaw as you mention, but that's not a golden example of sexism.
Frankly, you're kind of supporting his argument by suggesting the topic is off-limits.

[photon]

A good look at the most recent "quid pro quo" hacked email accusation, and again highlights how easy it is for someone uninitiated to find things that sound bad but aren't when the context is understood.

Which wouldn't be so bad except that most people wouldn't take the time to understand (ETA: And I don't think it's reasonable that everyone should, people have lives to lead, so I'm not directly blaming people), and lots of the media don't either, so the misconception that favours were given to hide an problem becomes part of the "facts" people believe.

EDIT: The actual link: https://twitter.com/yottapoint/statu...51222469029888

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

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

Dude, you have a real problem with people disagreeing with you. Honestly, 90% of this thread has just been you talking to yourself, and like three other posters. It's not interesting in the least.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Apparently this is what I think of Trump if you get enough drinks in me. Yikes. Surprised no one called me out on this one, even with the caveats... maybe you all just have me on ignore.

Good of you to own that, it was pretty clearly out of line. FWIW I thought it was pretty out of character for you.

[GGG]

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

In fairness they did give Trump billions in free promotion during the primary.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

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.

Stacking the court with hyper-partisan judges.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...supreme-court/

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Itse

Good of you to own that, it was pretty clearly out of line. FWIW I thought it was pretty out of character for you.

It was so bizarre that I didn't really give it any credence.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by peter12

Nope. That, and also, African Americans.

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

Nope, Mormons.

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dis...tion-8/209748/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-k..._b_163016.html

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by peter12

Dude, you have a real problem with people disagreeing with you. Honestly, 90% of this thread has just been you talking to yourself, and like three other posters. It's not interesting in the least.

And 90% of your posts are attempts to troll that usually fall flat. But you keep coming back to this "stiffing it to the elites" with almost nothing to back it up other than your opinion. Wanna know an interesting fact? The average Trump primary voter (i.e. the Trump core) earns over $70,000 a year. Hardly people struggling against the elite.

You are a conservative poster who would in almost every other election would be fully supportive of the GOP nominee. Here you obviously have no love for Trump, but you also don't want the party you'd normally support to appear to only be backing a candidate because of bigotry. So you reach for non-existent reasons instead. It's not true, and no matter how much evidence shows Trump support is obviously based mostly on bigotry, you still won't accept it. But keep trying to play up "the elites", ignoring who most Trump supporters think "the elites" are. (hint: Jews).

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Nope, Mormons.

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dis...tion-8/209748/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-k..._b_163016.html

Mormon money forced African Americans to vote 70% in support of Prop 8 even though they didn't want to. They were forced to.

Dastardly Mormons.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Gozer

No its not.
He's not argusing that women can't be rational, he's saying that menstruation shouldn't exempt her from criticism. It's crude and simplistic, with a rather gaping logical flaw as you mention, but that's not a golden example of sexism.
Frankly, you're kind of supporting his argument by suggesting the topic is off-limits.

I'm having a really hard time connecting the dots you're laying out here.

He suggests that if she gets a cold and has her period at the same time (which again, isn't even possible for a woman over 65 except for possibly exceptionally rare cases), she wouldn't make proper decisions. Where on earth are you getting the "menstruation shouldn't exempt her from criticism" part? He flat out uses it as a reason why Clinton (and by extension, any woman) is unfit for office.

Her menstrual cycle (or lack thereof) has literally nothing to do with her capacity as potential president, and yet he's making the argument that it does.

[PsYcNeT]

Also prop 8 was a lifetime ago. Attitudes shift.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

It was so bizarre that I didn't really give it any credence.

This is your brain on bourbon and coke.

... er, the cola.

Originally Posted by peter12

Dude, you have a real problem with people disagreeing with you. Honestly, 90% of this thread has just been you talking to yourself, and like three other posters. It's not interesting in the least.

You forgot the part where it's really, really important to him that people who aren't all about Clinton just admit that they're really Trump supporters (despite denying the same in no uncertain terms) so that he can put them in that category and safely ignore them as unworthy of attention.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

And 90% of your posts are attempts to troll that usually fall flat. But you keep coming back to this "stiffing it to the elites" with almost nothing to back it up other than your opinion. Wanna know an interesting fact? The average Trump primary voter (i.e. the Trump core) earns over $70,000 a year. Hardly people struggling against the elite.

You are a conservative poster who would in almost every other election would be fully supportive of the GOP nominee. Here you obviously have no love for Trump, but you also don't want the party you'd normally support to appear to only be backing a candidate because of bigotry. So you reach for non-existent reasons instead. It's not true, and no matter how much evidence shows Trump support is obviously based mostly on bigotry, you still won't accept it. But keep trying to play up "the elites", ignoring who most Trump supporters think "the elites" are. (hint: Jews).

Have I ever even used the word "elite?" I'm not sure.

I'm Canadian, and I've never voted for Republican Party (obviously). I don't have any skin in the game, but I think that there are some interesting social/cultural things happening in this election beyond your crude attempts at explaining why Clinton should be appointed instead of elected.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

Stacking the court with hyper-partisan judges.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...supreme-court/

Is there a hypothetical President that could replace four members of the SCOTUS that would not have partisan implications?

The argument can be reduced to 'change is scary.'

I think a more interesting discussion would be; should there be a Constitutional Convention before such turnover?
Jefferson's clothes are 200 years old now, America has grown.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by peter12

Stacking the court with hyper-partisan judges.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...supreme-court/

Even in that very article, Clinton's does not go dramatically liberal in the way that Trump would go dramatically conservative. She would still keep things closer to moderate than would Trump. It's a slow, slight progression toward a more liberal court, whereas Trump is a dramatic upswing toward extreme conservatism.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

He suggests that if she gets a cold and has her period at the same time (which again, isn't even possible for a woman over 65 except for possibly exceptionally rare cases), she wouldn't make proper decisions.

That's not what I read.

I'll edit this in a couple hours and clarify

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by peter12

Have I ever even used the word "elite?" I'm not sure.

I'm Canadian, and I've never voted for Republican Party (obviously). I don't have any skin in the game, but I think that there are some interesting social/cultural things happening in this election beyond your crude attempts at explaining why Clinton should be appointed instead of elected.

The only interesting social/cultural thing we're learning is there's a lot more angry, hateful people in America than we ever could have thought. I always thought it was maybe 20% of the country, but now it's looking close to 35%. And no one has said Clinton should be appointed, just that Trump is 2 years old maturity wise, has never read the constitution (and possibly can't spell the word constitution if you follow his grammar fun on Twitter), and acts without any rational thinking. Didn't you have a post saying Trump should never be considered, that it should just be about whether you're comfortable with Hillary?

[photon]

SCOTUS conversation could be moot (if Dems don't get the Senate), McCain says they'll be united against anyone Clinton nominates.

"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."

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