The 2016 US American Election Thread

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by GGG

I'm not sure how your response fits with what I said. I support the argument that a generic democrat would have done better against trump than Clinton.

I do agree with you that the republican caricature of her definitely has a significant role in how she is perceived.

Actually, I didn't need to put your post in quotes because I was making more of a general statement. My apologies because I was addressing the unjustly applied hatred towards Hillary, and it's primary source. Your post inspired me to jump in, but not because we disagree.

[direwolf]

On the news last night, they were interviewing people at a Trump rally from yesterday. One woman wearing a t-shirt that said "deplorable" said that she's absolutely certain there will be an armed uprising and it's "gonna be World War 3" if Hillary is elected.

These Trump supporters are truly frightening. I lived in the States for a few years and still have a lot of friends down there. I'm seriously starting to worry about their well-being at the polls on election day. If Trump had any shred of decency or humanity in him at all, he would stop this dangerous rhetoric and calm these people down. Unfortunately Trump is a selfish, moronic ######bag, so we know he won't. Getting his insane supporters riled up is feeding his ego, and he's loving every minute of it.

I don't think I've ever seen that country more fiercely divided as it is right now. If Hillary wins this, she's definitely got her work cut out for her. Bringing that country back together after all of this seems like an insurmountable task at this point, but I think she can be somewhat successful if she plays it right. And we know she'll at least try. If Trump somehow gets elected? God help us all. I doubt he'd even bother trying to bridge the divide, unless of course there was something in it for him or his brand.

[MissTeeks]

Now the US will pay to build the wall and Mexico will have to reimburse them for it.

[photon]

I guess my question is are there more of them than "normal". This group of people that lap up everything posted by a random Facebook account or a radio show host but reject everything by any journalist have always existed, and there's enough of them that they cause real issues from time to time, but have never had a real unified voice in government.

But did Trump help create vastly more? Or is it the same group that's always been there but now are more bold and vocal and organized, and will go back to the way they were assuming Trump is soundly defeated?

Which is a good reason for people to get out and vote, the more soundly Trump goes down, the stronger message it sends to the rest of the Republicans that Trump's nationalist populist followers aren't the majority.

[photon]

'Trump says he's look to break up Comcast/NBC, alleging excessive concentration of power and attempt to "poison the mind of the voters"'

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/sta...62590251995136

[nik-]

Breaking up those massive media mergers is actually a good idea, but then he has to ruin it at the end.

[Gozer]

I listened to Era Klein's interview with Clinton; I had really high expectations for a policy-wonk reporter and policy-wonk politician. And it was massively dissapointing.

I wrote it off as tentativeness around an election, where (like a debate) the only thing that matters is a soundbite, but she really said nothing of substance or principal, just 'well it's complicated and there's a lot to consider' over and over.
Which is true enough, but the contrast to Bernie was stark.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Trump is a symptom, much like Bernie Sanders was for the Democrats.

There is a growing backlash against establishment politics as the feeling is that the US has been co-opted by corporate interests, which has in part been enabled by the current group of politicians and the 2 party system. That is why Trump in every single debate so far has gone after Hillary essentially saying "what have you done in the last 30 years to change the system".

Over the next few years I predict we will see more of the following:

1) Anti-Establishment
2) Anti-Interventionalism (foreign wars, playing the world police role)
3) Anti-Immigration (not so much anti-immigrants, but more anti towards ones that don't share a common value system with the host country).
4)Anti-Globalization/Anti Free Trade
5) Anti-Corporatism

But the establishment, wars, globalization and corporatism are all Republican party traits. So it makes no sense that they are the ones fighting it.

There needs to be a Bernie Sanders-esque 3rd party.

[direwolf]

Not surprisingly, Trump is now saying he'll be suing all the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct once the election is over.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/22/politi...ers/index.html

[photon]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Not surprisingly, Trump is now saying he'll be suing all the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct once the election is over.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/22/politi...ers/index.html

His surrogates were all over saying "if these are true why didn't they come out earlier".

Well duh, this is why. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Hopefully these women are helped out with their legal defenses.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

But the establishment, wars, globalization and corporatism are all Republican party traits. So it makes no sense that they are the ones fighting it.

Yeah, that's a strange thing about all this.

If you're a poor student with smelly dreadlocks out in the streets griping about the negative effects of globalization and free trade, you might get a truncheon in the head.

If you are a billionaire with a weird wig on TV griping about the negative effects of globalization and free trade, you might become the standard bearer for the Republican Party.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Not surprisingly, Trump is now saying he'll be suing all the women who have accused him of sexual misconduct once the election is over.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/22/politi...ers/index.html

He's lying an bullying again. No way he wants to be deposed under oath on these claims.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I am beginning to wonder if Trump is the beginning or end of this nonsense though. Is he the problem or just a symptom?

What happens next time if a candidate with similar ideals comes along but has slightly more charm? The fact he is polling as high as he is after everything is depressing even if he loses.

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

I think you're right. Trump is losing because he's a vile human being who can't stop blurting out stupid bull####. If someone took up his platform who was eloquent, and wasn't a complete asshat, they'd win for sure.

Tell that to Mitt Romney and John McCain.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Tell that to Mitt Romney and John McCain.

McCain and Romney were/are both decent and honourable men.

They did not run on Trump's platform of vilification and fear of 'the other.'

[Gozer]

Molly Ball, another interview from Era Klein, made a really interesting argument about 'vicarious resentment.'

It's worth listening to in-full, but it boils down to blaming 'the other' for the faults of society.
An example was a guy who lost a job in a factory, got re-trained in a govt program, and got a better job...But still resented the consequences of the factory closing. He made it through ok, but had this vicarious resentment.

She also made a great point about blowback against the liberal ideals of "raising all boats at once" - people experience life as more of a zero-sum game; you're either with the winners or you're with the losers.

I liked it enough that I might re-listen to it.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Tell that to Mitt Romney and John McCain.

They were also running against Barack Obama. Whatever you think of him, you cannot deny he is a formidable individual. McCain and Romney have the same problem as Hillary - they're career politicians with no personality.

Whereas Obama is one of the coolest people on the planet.

[FlamesAddiction]

I didn't support McCain or Romney, but neither were downright disgusting or had authoritarian streaks like Trump who is probably the most authoritarian candidate since John Adams.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Gozer

McCain and Romney were/are both decent and honourable men.

They did not run on Trump's platform of vilification and fear of 'the other.'

In Monday night's Republican presidential debate out of Florida, Mitt Romney described his plan for reducing the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S.: "self-deportation."

The former Massachusetts governor was responding to a question about his immigration position by Adam Smith, the political editor at "The Tampa Bay Times," who said he was "confused" about his stance on deportation.

"Governor Romney, there is one thing I'm confused about. You say you don't want to go and round up people and deport them, but you also say that they would have to go back to their home countries and then apply for citizenship. So, if you don't deport them, how do you send them home?" Smith asked.

Romney said "we're not going to round people up" but rather, financially struggling undocumented immigrants would choose to return to their home countries of their own volition.

"The answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can't find work here because they don't have legal documentation to allow them to work here," he said. "And so we're not going to round people up."

The former governor explained: "The way that we have in this society is to say, look, people who have come here legally would, under my plan, be given a transition period and the opportunity during that transition period to work here, but when that transition period was over, they would no longer have the documentation to allow them to work in this country. At that point, they can decide whether to remain or whether to return home and to apply for legal residency in the United States, get in line with everybody else. And I know people think but that's not fair to those that have come here illegally."

"Isn't that what we have now?" asked Smith, who pointed out that "If somebody doesn't feel they have the opportunity in America, they can go back any time they want to."

Romney suggested his administration would make it harder for illegal immigrants to get jobs, which would in turn lead them to seek work elsewhere.

Trump would of course criticize the Romney campaign after losing for being hard on minorities.

Trump now being hard on minorities isn't a sign that Trump is a liar or whatever, it's a sign that being hard on minorities is a republican campaign policy hallmark and part of what whips their base into electoral frenzy.

Trumps tax plan is eerily similar to Paul Ryan's, surprise surprise, it's more supply side claptrap that is again a hallmark GOP policy.

You don't get the republican nomination without extolling republican party policies. In this regard, the GOP is much more inflexible than the Democratic party.

Does Trump really care about abortions? I see no reason to believe he does, but he's gotta carry the party line. You CANNOT be the Republican nominee and be pro-choice.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by troutman

He's lying an bullying again. No way he wants to be deposed under oath on these claims.

Wouldn't the burden of proof be on him? Seems like a losing case to take on

[Caged Great]

Another accuser. This time it's a porn star and includes paying for sex.

Got to love those family values.