Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
edited 24th Nov '16 11:17:31 AM by henry42
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!![]()
There would be such a huge uproar and backlash from the voters of those states that went to Trump whose electors voted for HRC.
The EC's very existence is an insult to democracy. But electors going against the will of their constituents is also an insult to democracy.
edited 24th Nov '16 11:18:19 AM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedHow it works:
- President is whoever gets more than half of the EC votes.
- If nobody got more than half, Congress casts votes for the top three EC vote-getters.
If an EC revolt happens and is large enough to deprive Trump of 270 votes, I'd expect the faithless GOP electors to have voted for some non-Trump republican instead. Congress would probably not choose Hilary.
![]()
I'm not sure I see your point. Either way it doesn't say anything about what the Democrats have been doing in recent years.
edited 24th Nov '16 11:21:01 AM by Gilphon
But... part of the EC's justification for existence is stopping an unqualified, unpredictable, populist demagogue or dictator getting into the White House.
Donald Trumps ticks an uncomfortable number of boxes in the "unqualified", "unpredictable" and "populist" lists. And, has more than a few ticks in the "potential demagogic kleptocrat" one. :/
They'd still be doing their constitutional job — however terrible it looks for democratic elective processes.
This is a problem in the system that just sticking heads in the sand and humming "can't do that!" won't fix. Especially when the College can expressly go against "the will of the states".
edited 24th Nov '16 11:26:21 AM by Euodiachloris
![]()
![]()
"Which President signed the repeal?" It appears you ignored Fighteer's point about Congress's role.
The point that the Democrats just didn't wanna regulate Wall Street or pass healthcare is absurd. A number of Democrats sacrificed their seats to pass healthcare, and do you even remember the fight it took to pass Obamacare? Or Dodd-Frank? What is with this self defeating attitude of "If I can't have anything, the people who gave me the best they could are totally corrupt!"
Nevermind the stuff you just posted as "why Hillary lost" is absolute rot. The 'basement dwellers' comment? Seriously? That's taking an empathetic statement and spinning it hideously.
I know I'm going on, but also spare me this shit about "Clinton wouldn't regulate Wallstreet!" what is that based on exactly?
![]()
![]()
That's probably because democracy was not the system most founding fathers had in mind and instead opted for a system of representative government.
edited 24th Nov '16 11:36:28 AM by germi91
"It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few."The founders didn't want direct democracy.. In fact, the Electoral College system was designed along a Jeffersonian compromise, with the specific intent of weighting the Presidential vote towards rural districts and less-populated states. That's how Trump could win with 2 million fewer votes, because if you live in a city or other large population center, your vote literally counts less.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Btw, on the whole recount business.... Just what could possibly be more Green Party than investing in almost-certainly-futile recounts to stop Trump rather than just, you know, telling your swing state supporters to vote for Clinton, the vastly superior candidate from any point on the left spectrum before this was even an issue rather than screaming how awful and corrupt Clinton was for so long?
Do I think Stein swung the election? Not really. I think this falls apart in Pennsylvania, but she was a factor. And it also reveals the extraordinary bad faith in which she campaigned. Nobody who knows anything really thinks that there’s no meaningful difference between a competent, moderate liberal and a grotesquely corrupt and unfit authoritarian sexual predator.
In a period of political crisis, she ran a campaign whose only possible material effect would be to put Donald Trump in the White House. Period. If you joined in on attacking Hillary Clinton, you overlooked she was the only credible option in the race from any leftist perspective and that it shouldn't have mattered if she didn't 'excite' you, and that issues like "but maybe she won't bring back Glass-Steagal" wasn't as important as "can most people in this country still drink fresh water and have food to eat when this election is over?"
Stein spent her entire campaign reinforcing the ridiculous narrative that this was a race between to equally corrupt candidates who were similar ideologically, and her supporters pushed this narrative to its worst possible conclusion. This was dishonest. And counterproductive. I do not want to hear Clinton was a terrible candidate. She was qualified. She was capable. She was intelligent. She was prepared. She was a candidate we should have been celebratng. Reinforcing nonsense scandals and lending credence to decades of right-wing character assassination doesn't go away because now some of these people want a do-over.
edited 24th Nov '16 12:21:20 PM by Lightysnake
Thank you, Lightysnake. I've seen way too many smug far-lefters saying how it clearly was Clinton's fault, instead of the two chucklefucks whose only roles were to underscore the idea that Hillary was the lesser candidate because she wasn't populist enough. At least Bernie endorsed Hillary after the primaries.
It's been fun.Eh. The recount is important because I do not actually trust electronic voting at all. Secure computing systems are very rare and there are just too many people with a vested interest in this election, high tech skills and low respect for democracy. I don't just mean Russia - I can think of a fair few groups that might have decided to approach swinging the election is a more direct fashion than mis-information campaigns.
Not that the mis-information campaigns were not important. Those are a dire problem for democracy. We're all being split into virtual social clusters of like-minded individuals. In some respects, this is a powerful force for good, but it also makes it possible to wrap people in a cocoon of lies and group-think.
But still, first things first. The fact the election was close at all is a dire problem. But the accuracy of the count still needs verification.
..How long will a recount take once filed for? Because it's clearly happening.
No offense, but you know this is happening for a fact because...
I mean, I don't think think there was any one cause. Did the Clinton campaign make errors? Certainly. But we're dealing with things like sexism, voter suppression, decades of character assassination, Wikileaks, a rogue FBI, and suddenly being made into the freaking avatar of Everything Wrong With Politics.
As to Wall Street: Equity Firms, groups like Goldman Sachs, and Bain Capital, Finance in general. Hillary making speeches to these guys and knowing them personally was taken as a negative because people still fucking hate Wall Street (i.e. the Finance Industry) for essentially going "Hold my beer" and nearly crashing the world economy in 2008 due to what was turning into a game of financial hot potato.
A large portion of people see the finance industry as something that should be burned down, until only ash remains, and their hands dusted of the whole affair afterwards. It's fundamentally seen as useless by a large portion of voters, or at least more trouble than it's actually worth as it generates no visible net advantage in the average American's life, and only causes trouble otherwise.
And Trump was able to convince people he wouldn't be crooked on banks because Trump was able to position himself as Al Czervik to High Society's Bushwood: A rich schlub vs snobby high society.
As to Hillary herself, it doesn't matter if the scandals are real or fake, Truthiness is all that matters. And unfortunately, in any other country, she would of been privately retired from the party and asked to leave to spend the rest of her life as a private citizen for the greater good to avoid tarnishing their chances of keeping or gaining control of government. Candidates with a toxic history, fabricated or note, do no good for the Party.
This again. It means nothing without opposition research on Sanders.
@henry
You genuinely do not understand the Syrian Civil War if you think that Clinton was out to escalate it. The policies she wanted to put in place were vital to protecting civilians from Russian air strikes, which are being undertaken in support of Assad.
As for imperialism...if there's a meme on the far left that I am tired of, it is this one. It sometimes seems as if every hard leftist wakes up one morning, discovers that the American government often acts in its own self-interest, and declares that therefore everything the US government does must be bad, and that even if it helps people, the possible presence of ulterior motives means it shouldn't be done.
Assad is committing mass murder. He's doing it right now, while I'm typing this. No, he's not the only mass murderer in the world. Yes, the USA has friendly relations with some of those other mass murderers. But how in the world does that somehow mean to you that Assad should be left alone? You sound like a guy in Chicago circa the 1930s, demanding a serial killer be released because the corrupt cops won't arrest Capone.
edited 24th Nov '16 1:13:35 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
This article
has some of the research the GOP did on Sanders. Tl;dr: Environmental racism, living on uneployment benefits, stealing electricity, and links wih the radical left in South & Central America.
Yup. But, there's a distinct difference between "established politician wins popular vote on sensible platform, but doesn't win enough states" and "celebrity personality taps into widespread antagonism with nebulous, hate-filled platform to win more states, but doesn't attract more actual votes".
One is populist. The other is marginally more popular. Where your founding fathers went wrong was assuming that the words have synonymous meanings.
edited 24th Nov '16 1:44:57 PM by Euodiachloris

No. If the EC somehow in a moment of sanity said "Fuck this" and voted for HRC. Hillary is President. Period.
There's literally nothing the House, Senate, NOR the Supreme Court could do to overturn it as it's explicitly laid out in the Constitution.
New Survey coming this weekend!