General US Politics

[Tryhard]

That was a joke, bro. Calm down.

What it means that he simply is against drugs. That's a fair position as long as he doesn't keep me from them in a legal sense.

I thought the joke was that "he thought the Ku Klux Klan was okay until he found out they were on pot." I'm fairly sure he actually believes what I said to be true.

Caucus member Jeff Sessions (R.-Al.) spoke of the need to foster "knowledge that this drug is dangerous, you cannot play with it, it is not funny, it's not something to laugh about... and to send that message with clarity that good people don't smoke marijuana."

Sounds fairly serious and not a joke to me unlike the former. There's a video of it and everything. Very clear, it was at a drug hearing.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Tryhard

[Radiant head]

As per my comments in the punditry thread, it's pretty difficult/arbitrary to define what "centre" means, at least internationally. The Dems are certainly centre-left by the standards of the average American voter, but might be centre-right in some other countries.

it's not just relative to europe, the center has been moving further right in america for a while now. the democratic party visibly shifted in the 90s into becoming a champion of wall street and other big business interests, which was normally the republican domain.

[Tolvir]

Clinton is supposedly considering challenging the election and make them recount. Whether that rumor is true or not I don't know. Honestly, the margin in which she won with the popular vote is extremely small. Last time I checked it was about 1.5 million, and when you look at New York city's population of 13 million, that is really small for the US as a whole. I don't see how a recount would change anything.

That and the electoral college changing its vote is unlikely. It has never happened before, and at this point would likely cause more damage to this country than good. The protests seem to be going down, and most are already accepting Trump's victory outside of a few, and parts of Hollywood. Though with Robert De Niro changing his tone, and Jeff Bridges, who was a supporter of Clinton, saying that he hopes Trump does well it looks like Hollywood is calming down too. The only ones among them still losing their minds are the ones hoping to profit from the anger, like Green Day who have been irrelevant for years.

Edit: waiting for source until some more credible sources talk about it. Right now the only place I have seen it was Gateway Pundit, which unfortunately can jump to conclusions that just aren't there. If anyone else can find more sources that would be great.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Tolvir

[Res]

I haven't read it in full yet, but this is written by the person everyone's quoting in the articles. So probably the best source you can find!

[Alertcircuit]

I don't think it will happen, but if there's any truth to the hacking claims she should challenge. Not like a recount would really hurt.

[Tolvir]

I haven't read it in full yet, but this is written by the person everyone's quoting in the articles. So probably the best source you can find!

Interesting, still sounds pretty unlikely a recount will happen, let alone do anything. I think the hacking idea is just wishful thinking from those still upset by the loss.

[Rezzy]

Michigan's ballots aren't connected to the Internet.

Nate Silver posted that the claims the election was hacked hold no water.

[Yojinbo]

If they actually recounted the votes that'd reflect very poorly on them - not just on Hillary but the whole democratic party in general.

Like, why can't they just finally accept the fact that people in the USA simply don't want Hillary as their president? She lost to Obama when he was pretty much a newbie. DNC had to be rigged in order for her to beat Sanders. She couldn't even beat Trump, a liar with no political experience whatsoever, who also got less votes than Mitt Romney, the loser of 2012's election, did. How much clearer can it get that nobody actually wants her as their president?

[Time the Crestfallen]

Eh, why not? If nothing else, it'll put the issue to rest for good.

[Excellen Browning]

Not allowing a recount (in case of suspicion of fraud) is antidemocratic.

[Life]

Not allowing a recount (in case of suspicion of fraud) is antidemocratic.

I'm not saying that a recount shouldn't be allowed but I find demanding a recount is much more anti-democratic.

Remember, the Clinton camp came up with the opinion that Russia was influencing the election even though there were no solid claims (WikiLeaks had existed long before 2016 and was putting out documents that Democrats loved). If a recount were to happen and it was proven that Hillary lost (I don't think a recount will show anything different), then any claims of the election being rigged are solely on a basis that she and her party do not accept the democratic process.

I have said before that I believed that Hillary's coronation would lead to the end of the Republic and a future tyrannical government in the future (maybe not in the next four years but the path would be set). The idea of rejecting a democratic result makes me believe that I was probably correct.

Now, I know that Trump said the same thing too but it was more in the sense of catching the Democratic Party committing election fraud during the primary. So there was some truth to his statement but I think it came out differently than what he meant to say. I could be wrong too but it felt like he was saying it in jest when Chris Wallace asked him about it.

Not defending Trump on that issue. Challenging the result of a democratic election goes down a very deep rabbit hole and I don't want to do that without a good amount of evidence. Even joking about it is bad. But that's what I took it as. A very poorly timed bad joke that shouldn't have been said.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Life

[Time the Crestfallen]

If a recount were to happen and it was proven that Hillary lost (I don't think a recount will show anything different), then any claims of the election being rigged are solely on a basis that she and her party do not accept the democratic process.

Aren't the calls for a recount based on oddities in voting numbers in certain swing states? If the recount goes ahead and Hillary still loses, all it means is that the oddities in question are a coincidence/she really did do poorly in those states. To be honest, I kind of want it to go ahead just so I can stop hearing about it.

Edited November 23, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Rezzy]

Hillary would have to flip all three of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania to win the Electoral College. As Nate Silver stated, Michigan uses paper ballots state wide, so it could not be hacked overseas, but only by people locally, which would require multiple operatives fixing the machines at multiple locations in a coordinated effort to change the election's result. That's not impossible, but highly improbable, and far less likely than your traditional methods of voting fraud involving people voting multiple times, people voting who aren't eligible, or just ballot stuffing.

Since Michigan is nigh impossible to be hacked, it seems unlikely that there was a coordinated effort that swung all three states. Nate Silver show that the demographics that went Trump are consistent with the rest of the country, so it's unlikely fraud contributed to the election. http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/11/hackers_stole_the_election_fro.html

Fraud is always a concern, especially since Hillary got caught rigging the primary, but the evidence points towards fraud not being a deciding factor this election (unlike 1960), but the burden of proof is on the people accusing the system of being rigged, and even they say it only could have possibly happened, rather than giving any compelling evidence.

I even voted against Trump, but I think it sets a bad precedent if the losing party sues for a recount after every single election. He won by the parameters that the country set up centuries ago, and now we have to live with the results. If you want him out in 4 years, put forth a better candidate than Hillary, that I can actually want to vote for.

[CyborgZeta]

Why does Jill Stein even want a recount? It's not going to magically make her the winner.

And if they want to avoid fraud, they should ensure people have an ID that proves they're citizens before allowing them to vote. The US is apparently the only first-world country where you don't have to prove you're a citizen to vote.

It gets even sketchier when there are states like California, Washington and New York that provide driver's licenses (aka government-issue ID) to illegal immigrants.

[Papa Wolf]

actually, i think democrats lean social libertarian. definitely not a whole lot, but notably so.

progressives make up a fraction of the modern democratic party.

Hillary's wing of the democratic party is just the corrupt wing, true people on the right are for limited government corporate shilling is corruption, not right vs left.

The democrats are losing the working-class union demographic, which was the moderate part of the party. If you look at the states Bill Clinton won in the 90s, they are heartland states that are considered pretty conservative today. Montana, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia. A party that could win those states is more moderate than today's Democratic party. The Dems are moving left, not right. There used to be a ton of moderate Dems like Zell Miller, but they are getting pushed out by far the far left wing or the corrupt corporate shill wing.

[Alertcircuit]

Why does Jill Stein even want a recount? It's not going to magically make her the winner.

1) To drum up sympathy and support for her inevitable 2020 run.

2) To keep whatever money isn't used.

Or maybe it's an honest endeavor on her part. I don't know.

[CyborgZeta]

Either way, Trump has a solid enough lead in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that a recount is unlikely to change the results; the margin is enough that they probably don't even qualify for a recount. Michigan was really close though, but winning it by itself won't change the electoral winner.

This feels like the delegates battle from the primaries all over again.

People thought Trump supporters would be causing trouble, trying to contest the election result; now those same people are the ones doing the contesting, despite Hillary herself already conceding. Just goes to show how partisan things are, I guess; people will criticize the other side for something, but will do the same thing when the tables turn.

EDIT: Apparently Michigan already did a recount, and Trump still won.

http://linkis.com/UhyxG

Edited November 24, 2016 by CyborgZeta

[Dark Holy Elf]

Why does Jill Stein even want a recount? It's not going to magically make her the winner.

And if they want to avoid fraud, they should ensure people have an ID that proves they're citizens before allowing them to vote. The US is apparently the only first-world country where you don't have to prove you're a citizen to vote.

It gets even sketchier when there are states like California, Washington and New York that provide driver's licenses (aka government-issue ID) to illegal immigrants.

If you're an illegal immigrant, you're not going to risk discovery just to cast a single vote. These sorts of claims are pure anti-immigrant fearmongering that don't hold up to basic logic. (Also, the states you cited aren't close anyway, so there's even less reason for an individual voter to commit fraud.) Individual voter fraud is honestly a bit of a boogeyman. Relevant reading: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/

It is certainly untrue that all other contries require ID that proves you are a citizen to vote; that would be ridiculous as very little ID actually offers proof of citizenship (you've got birth certificates, passports, and citizenship certificates in some cases... that's about it?). In most countries, there is already a voting list; any sort of ID is all you need to show that you are a name who appears on that list. Generally speaking most moves done to require more stringent ID are purely political moves to disenfranchise the poor (who are by far the most likely to lack such ID, and the least likely to have the time and political awareness needed to obtain it).

[Tolvir]

There is another thing stopping a recount. Hillary already conceded, and therefore lost the ability to ask for a recount. Even if she tried, no court is going to pick it up, let alone it actually go anywhere. This is just wishful thinking on behalf of some of her supporters. And the hacking angle doesn't work considering it would need access to the internet to work. Therefore they would have to manually go in and do that. With the amount of districts in my county in Michigan alone, that would be hundreds of machines. Then you are looking at the entire state, which is thousands. Then multiple states. Now we are looking at anywhere from tens of thousands to even hundreds of thousands. It is nigh impossible to hack something like this, and that's on purpose.

[Crysta]

Eh, you can retract a concession. Al Gore did it. It's not legally binding in any fashion.

But it is wishcasting imo: I'm pretty sure she performed worse than expected in those states because people simply didn't show up to vote for her like she anticipated.

And Stein's pandering again.

I think this attempt is probably more laudable but also a very long shot.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Crysta

[Radiant head]

i doubt the election results will flip, but if there was some kind of issue, discovering it and fixing it for the next election cycle would be great imo.

[Res]

If you're an illegal immigrant, you're not going to risk discovery just to cast a single vote. These sorts of claims are pure anti-immigrant fearmongering that don't hold up to basic logic. (Also, the states you cited aren't close anyway, so there's even less reason for an individual voter to commit fraud.) Individual voter fraud is honestly a bit of a boogeyman. Relevant reading: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/trumps-bogus-voter-fraud-claims/

It is certainly untrue that all other contries require ID that proves you are a citizen to vote; that would be ridiculous as very little ID actually offers proof of citizenship (you've got birth certificates, passports, and citizenship certificates in some cases... that's about it?). In most countries, there is already a voting list; any sort of ID is all you need to show that you are a name who appears on that list. Generally speaking most moves done to require more stringent ID are purely political moves to disenfranchise the poor (who are by far the most likely to lack such ID, and the least likely to have the time and political awareness needed to obtain it).

Yes to all of this; particularly the last sentence.

And Permanent Residents aren't going to commit voter fraud, either, since pretending to be a U.S. Citizen in any capacity (even checking the wrong box on your i-9!) can seriously jeopardize your status and can prevent you from ever seeking citizenship.

So Betsy DeVos is a terrible choice for education secretary. And the plans to scrap NASA's climate research are also very concerning.

[Alertcircuit]

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

Wisconsin is entirely funded. Looks like this is happening.

Not sure if they'll hit the 6 million but it'd be cool. Maybe throw North Carolina in there too.

[Rezzy]

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

Wisconsin is entirely funded. Looks like this is happening.

Not sure if they'll hit the 6 million but it'd be cool. Maybe throw North Carolina in there too.

Why North Carolina? That one wasn't even close.

I'm not sure what Jill Stein's really getting at, here. The evidence that the voting machines were hacked are about as low as vaccines causing autism, but then again, she believes the latter. When you start calling the lawyers, it's just going to drag things out, accomplish nothing, and make the lawyers rich. We haven't even heard anything from Hillary, yet.

[tuvarkz]

Why North Carolina? That one wasn't even close.

I'm not sure what Jill Stein's really getting at, here. The evidence that the voting machines were hacked are about as low as vaccines causing autism, but then again, she believes the latter. When you start calling the lawyers, it's just going to drag things out, accomplish nothing, and make the lawyers rich. We haven't even heard anything from Hillary, yet.

Attention, and possibly money.

Clinton is probably trying to save face in something that she knows won't likely end up ending in her favor. Her win condition would be to flip multiple states, but best case scenario she'll only flip one, which wouldn't be enough to give her the presidency but still make her look bad.