The 2016 US American Election Thread

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by peter12

Stacking the court with hyper-partisan judges.

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

...

Uh huh, If hyper-partisan judges are your big concern why are you linking to a articule entitled "Clinton And Trump Are Both Promising An Extreme Supreme Court" as a justification. They're getting promised hyper-partisan appointments either way.

C'mon man admit it, you don't have a problem with hyper-partisan judges so long as the hyper-partisan in question is your kind of partisan.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Gozer

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.

The real concern is the slow disappearance of the moderate.

[Drak]

Gotta give the GOP some credit. They are very forceful and determined with their antics about having it their way.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is your brain on bourbon and coke.

... er, the cola.

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.

You mean Buster and Illiminaughty? Well then I guess I should focus more on powers of persuasion instead of powers of deduction.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by peter12

The real concern is the slow disappearance of the moderate.

The Clintons have always been considered right of centre.

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by photon

Video of Trump supporter saying Hillary needs to be taken out.

The twitterer's comment: "The @FBI visited my house when I said there would be protests at the convention. If I said this, I'd be in jail."

https://twitter.com/deray/status/788038683958112256

Wow. I'm actually not surprised that a Trump supporter would say this. But still, it's pretty shocking and sad when you hear people talking like that. Election day is gonna be frightening.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by peter12

The real concern is the slow disappearance of the moderate.

I can't be the only one who finds it funny one of the least moderate posters on the site complaining about the lack of moderates. Wouldn't you prefer more people who wish we could go back to the "way things were" with regards to the family unit and such, like you enjoy espousing?

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by Gozer

That's not what I read.

I'll edit this in a couple hours and clarify

Upon a second read, I think I get what you're reading. You're seeing it as "well we're criticizing her health and we should be allowed to!"

But criticizing her health with regards to the pneumonia thing (while still a grasp at straws) isn't a sexism issue, he can criticize and question her ability to serve well if her health is actually a problem, absolutely.

But he then takes it to an extreme and acts as if merely menstruating is a detriment to your ability to serve in a public capacity, in the same way that a major health problem could potentially be a detriment to that capability. That is where it gets sexist. He compares menstruation to a massive health problem in terms of how it negatively affects one's ability to do a job (in this case, lead the country).

A woman on her period, even on her worst day, is just as capable of making important decisions, and he's implying that she cannot.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is your brain on bourbon and coke.

... er, the cola.

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.

You mix your bourbon? Gross, dude. I bet you buy expensive stuff too.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by 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

This is such a slap in the face of democracy. Damn, John McCain has really let himself go. The GOP just seem like a bunch of babies, "I wont support Obama on ANYTHING." Yet, they're the first one to rile against safe spaces. What a conundrum.

[jammies]

Sometimes when I get, uh, "insufficient female affection", I get irritable and cranky, and my decision-making suffers. This proves no men are fit for public office.

It also is why porn saves lives.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

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?

Yes. This is pretty interesting.

The rest of this post isn't.

Rational people should move on, and start thinking critically about Clinton as POTUS, instead of acting like she is some kind of misunderstood progressive savior that will set everything right with America.

Massive cleavages have opened up within the American electorate, and there are no signs of this tension dissipating whatsoever.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Izzle

This is such a slap in the face of democracy. Damn, John McCain has really let himself go. The GOP just seem like a bunch of babies, "I wont support Obama on ANYTHING." Yet, they're the first one to rile against safe spaces. What a conundrum.

Congress is supposed to hold up the Presidency.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I can't be the only one who finds it funny one of the least moderate posters on the site complaining about the lack of moderates. Wouldn't you prefer more people who wish we could go back to the "way things were" with regards to the family unit and such, like you enjoy espousing?

To be moderate is to hold different views on different positions based on reason, personal experience, and cultural knowledge.

I may be somewhat socially conservative on religion and the family, but I am actually quite "left" on matters of free trade and labour rights.

I am also against using military force as a tool to build democracies in regimes whose values do not align with our own.

I am quite in favour of the humanities and arts central role in university education, and I believe that this should be available in some shape or form to all citizens.

I truly don't think you understand much about politics beyond what you read on your Twitter feed. It's a shame because you are quite an eloquent poster.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

You mix your bourbon? Gross, dude. I bet you buy expensive stuff too.

I buy both. I don't mix the good stuff.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by jammies

Sometimes when I get, uh, "insufficient female affection", I get irritable and cranky, and my decision-making suffers. This proves no men are fit for public office.

It also is why porn saves lives.

"Will you be awake when the 3 AM call comes?"

"I'll probably be fapping"

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by peter12

Yes. This is pretty interesting.

The rest of this post isn't.

Rational people should move on, and start thinking critically about Clinton as POTUS, instead of acting like she is some kind of misunderstood progressive savior that will set everything right with America.

Massive cleavages have opened up within the American electorate, and there are no signs of this tension dissipating whatsoever.

Haven't we all called her another Obama, a moderate leaning right? Pretty much no one has said "she is some kind of misunderstood progressive savior". Trump has unleashed the Deplorables, and we'll see what they do after the election. That's without question the most interesting thing to follow, because America could get very ugly if they really do view Hillary as an existential threat.

As to Hillary, until we know what Congress looks like it's a moot point to discuss. If she's stuck with a GOP House/Senate, we can look forward to more obstructionism. Only if something changes in that is there something to talk about. And it's not looking like it will change much.

[photon]

On Trump's death march.

https://theringer.com/donald-trump-i...e-2a23da0e8af4

And on the topic of a massive cleavage in the electorate, was being discussed a few days ago as well and I don't think anyone was optimistic that Clinton could be the one to start to bring things together, and we're going to be right back here next election.

[peter12]

"Unleashed the deplorables." Okay, a bunch of dirt-poor, uneducated rural whites are going to destroy America. Okay.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by peter12

"Unleashed the deplorables." Okay, a bunch of dirt-poor, uneducated rural whites are going to destroy America. Okay.

They won't destroy America, but if someone gets shot after this election, I won't be surprised.