General US Politics

[Time the Crestfallen]

And I would have called them out too. I was expecting Trump to lose, remember?

My point is that I think that you guys are hypocrites.

Well considering that all the people who you're accusing of hypocrisy have not only stated their thoughts on voting systems before Trump even won, many of them were even praising/giving grudging respect to Trump for running a proper campaign and winning within the rules of the system and criticising the DNC/Hillary for their actions during the primaries. The only thing this accomplishes is making you look unreasonably hostile, which is hypocritical of you considering that you've stated you were considering leaving these threads because they're 'too toxic'.

Edited November 27, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Tryhard]

I'll give it to him that the people who were aghast that Trump said he perhaps wouldn't accept the election results if he lost, turned around and started to protest about the election results when he won are more than a little hypocritical.

But me, I always thought the electoral college was not good, even if it turned out to hypothetically benefit Hillary or any other democrat. It's like with the Brexit vote being a popular vote - I'm not pleased by the result, and I'm pretty disappointed that it did end up having more of the public voting for it, but I'm not in the streets or one of the MPs who are wanting to nullify it now.

edit: by the way, trump doesn't really know when to shut up again

Edited November 27, 2016 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

Also, I find it impossible to believe the idea that if the roles had been reversed, we would still have this conversation. If Trump won the popular vote and lost the electoral college, I would bet just about anything that all of you would be pro-electoral college. Mind you, I actually would be pro-electoral college still because it's the best system that exists in the world (considering that I've dealt with two different parliamentary systems).

We've had this discussion. Please stop trying to start shit while ignoring the previous responses. This is what annoys people; when you just disregard everything previously and go on a soapbox, because you deem it irrelevant or reactionary when it's not. It's just something that was beaten to death before.

Marxism is inherently bad because it fails to reward individual effort and talent, and as such it makes everyone overall less productive because there's no incentives to perform at their best. I believe that even the idealistic scenario for marxism would be utterly detrimental to humanity.

That's because Marxism as it had been practiced was shit (and also diverged from Marxism). Phoenix Wright did also say (and my ideology lines up with his) that society has not advanced to the extent where we can make it work. An ideal Marxist system is naturally communal, and equality is its own reward.

It also relies on the elimination of basic freedoms afforded to every person. Which makes it inherently evil.

​Phoenix, I'm not saying you're stupid for supporting Marxism. I'm saying that you're evil depending on the degree that you're willing to implement it since it requires force and coercion.

Can you stop saying shit like this and go into detail? What the fuck are you talking about? If this is some more "tax is theft" bullshit I'm going to quote my damn post, make a new thread, and say some shit about it, because I'm sick and tired of people who are anti-tax coming in and fucking ignoring everything. And otherwise, why don't you go into detail in a way that doesn't invoke a strawman?

Furthermore, you're saying "oh it's not stupid, it's evil" like that's actually better. How about this, you're evil and selfish for going against Marxism, because you'd rather throw someone under a bus to get a dollar raise rather than help someone get to your level.

I will also say this; I have zero respect for Trump or how he handled his campaign, how much of a shithead he is and the kind of person he has enabled. But I accept his result as legitimate. I just think the electoral college has forced the US to vote for two shit candidates that lost the popular vote in my lifetime, and I have no doubt in my mind that a Gore-lead America in 2000-2008 would lead to a significantly better world than Bush's America. On that principle I have zero faith in the electoral college.

I'll give it to him that the people who were aghast that Trump said he perhaps wouldn't accept the election results if he lost, turned around and started to protest about the election results when he won are more than a little hypocritical.

Yeah... I was thinking about how weird this was. I actually went to a Trump protest thing in Baltimore a week ago because I was curious what the discussion was, and I firmly believe 1% of the protesters want a recount. The rest are just not unified, but I think what they want is security in the LGB/T/Minority rights and outright decrying/expressing his disgust for things like the KKK march in North Carolina and the UPenn Lynch Groupme. It almost feels like they're protesting his VP choice - Mike "Satan" Pence - moreso than Trump himself, but they're also protesting the attitude that Trump brought, but there's no coherent or unified thought and there's like 15 different protest/identity/charity organizations that expect everyone to be everywhere at once.

I think the left tends to lose more elections because of the idea of "single policy voting" - which we actually saw in this thread! And I got a lot of that vibe from that "protest." It wasn't a "we're up in arms, we want the election to be different, and we're rallying the streets" but more of an organized in-a-church kind of protest and planning meeting, by the way, but only like 1% wanted an election audit and I thought that was laughable, because like 99% were mentally prepared to march on Washington. I really honestly think the protests are much more about enabling negative attitudes rather than the result of the election or claim that the system is rigged, but this is an anecdote.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Rezzy]

Thinking of the last few decades and if we had a popular vote with either a runoff or ranked voting, many elections probably would have turned out differently.

1992: Clinton won with a plurality of only 43%. This very well could have turned out differently. Perot aligned with Bush closer politically, so I could easily see a majority of Perot's secondary votes going to Bush and handing him a second term.

1996: Clinton fell short of 50% here, too, but he was close, so likely would have won here in a run-off

2000: It was so close, it's hard to say who would have won in a run-off

2016: I could see the majority of Stein votes going to Clinton, and the majority of Johnson and McMullin votes going to Trump. If each got 100% of the corresponding third parties' votes, it would be 50.05% Trump to 49.01% Clinton, with the rest of the % going to other third parties or write-ins that I don't know enough about to say whether they are closer to Republicans or Democrats. That is still very close, and if we had ranked voting, we might have had a better chance of a third party candidate getting to the point where they could challenge the two major parties.

I voted third party, because I wasn't willing to give my vote to a candidate I didn't agree with and figured they'll just keep giving us worse and worse candidates, until enough of us get fed up and vote third party to send them the message. I hope the Democrats got the message this time, giving us Hillary. I honestly think it's a good thing for the Democratic party that Hillary lost. Maybe now they can regroup and reconnect with the voters and reject the cronyism and suspicious foreign influence that the Clintons represented. Maybe they can be the party of JFK and Truman, again.

I've been voting in elections since 2004, and I'm independent, never voting on party lines and trying to see who I think is best for the job.

[eclipse]

Phoenix, I'm not saying you're stupid for supporting Marxism. I'm saying that you're evil depending on the degree that you're willing to implement it since it requires force and coercion.

Furthermore, you're saying "oh it's not stupid, it's evil" like that's actually better. How about this, you're evil and selfish for going against Marxism, because you'd rather throw someone under a bus to get a dollar raise rather than help someone get to your level.

CUT IT OUT. Take the petty name-calling somewhere else.

[Lord Raven]

I was more making a point about how baseless/fundamentally unsound that argument is. I did not intend for it to be petty name-calling, and I'm only saying this now so it's not taken as anything but a portrayal of how fundamentally unsound it is. It was "I can throw the word evil out too for any reason I want, but it's meaningless!"

EDIT: @Rezzy, I'm thinking more on it and I'm wondering if Gary Johnson voters would be more fundamentally split between Hillary and Trump. I imagine a lot of Gary Johnson voters were people who want conservative ideals but are also fundamentally disgusted by Trump - and luckily they've got Hillary.

EDIT 2: Also I would've voted third party in Maryland on principle because Maryland going red would be about as surprising as Texas going blue. The issue is that I think Gary Johnson was a rambling fucking lunatic who has no knowledge of foreign policy and his domestic policy sucks ass, and Jill Stein is far more dangerous than Gary Johnson economically and when it comes to science. I think this was the wrong election to vote third party.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Res]

Lord Raven - I concur on the protests. I actually just found out my mother-in-law was at one today (which was why I couldn't borrow her parking sticker...); it was titled 'Love Trumps Hate' and the signs had slogans like 'build bridges, not walls', 'I love all my family', 'Mexicans against a Muslim registry', etc. She said it was very peaceful and no one was calling for a recount.

[Rezzy]

EDIT: @Rezzy, I'm thinking more on it and I'm wondering if Gary Johnson voters would be more fundamentally split between Hillary and Trump. I imagine a lot of Gary Johnson voters were people who want conservative ideals but are also fundamentally disgusted by Trump - and luckily they've got Hillary.

EDIT 2: Also I would've voted third party in Maryland on principle because Maryland going red would be about as surprising as Texas going blue. The issue is that I think Gary Johnson was a rambling fucking lunatic who has no knowledge of foreign policy and his domestic policy sucks ass, and Jill Stein is far more dangerous than Gary Johnson economically and when it comes to science. I think this was the wrong election to vote third party.

Yeah, me voting for Johnson was really the least terrible candidate in my opinion. As I stated before, I didn't want Hillary or Trump. I agree with you on Stein being pretty bad for science, and I don't agree with her policies at all. I seriously thought about not voting at all, but figured a vote for third party would at least send a message to the major parties. A lot of third party voters might not have voted at all in a theoretical run-off. I was just hypothesizing on what would happen if the EC had not been used this election.

The idea of ranked voting, and the instant run-off actually brings something to light. It would probably rely on electronic machines to function efficiently, and they seem to be the target of much controversy, lately.

[Time the Crestfallen]

The idea of ranked voting, and the instant run-off actually brings something to light. It would probably rely on electronic machines to function efficiently, and they seem to be the target of much controversy, lately.

Well we have instant run-off paper ballots here in Australia and it works alright as far as I can tell. It might be a problem in the US since our population is much lower than yours.

[Rezzy]

Well we have instant run-off paper ballots here in Australia and it works alright as far as I can tell. It might be a problem in the US since our population is much lower than yours.

Yeah, the sheer size of the USA makes everything more complicated.

The idea of auditing our voting system is a laudable goal, but the fact that Jill Stein is only targeting states Trump won in the rust belt seem political for lack of a better word. If she was truly concerned about the integrity of the system, she should have pushed for a nation-wide audit. It seems like it's a scam to get funds for the Green party. She's not calling for a recount in New Hampshire or Minnesota, that Clinton won by a small margin.

At least Gary Johnson isn't pulling anything like this. I'm a bit embarrassed by third party's behavior right now, she's either shilling out to Clinton or trying to get money for herself.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Yeah, the sheer size of the USA makes everything more complicated.

The idea of auditing our voting system is a laudable goal, but the fact that Jill Stein is only targeting states Trump won in the rust belt seem political for lack of a better word. If she was truly concerned about the integrity of the system, she should have pushed for a nation-wide audit. It seems like it's a scam to get funds for the Green party. She's not calling for a recount in New Hampshire or Minnesota, that Clinton won by a small margin.

At least Gary Johnson isn't pulling anything like this. I'm a bit embarrassed by third party's behavior right now, she's either shilling out to Clinton or trying to get money for herself.

To be honest, I thought it was her trying to court Clinton voters. Hillary has already conceded, so I guess it's Jill trying to gain more supporters by pushing an anti-Trump agenda. I can see it working, considering that a lot of the media has rolled over and is willing to give Trump a go at it.

Edited November 28, 2016 by The Blind Idiot God

[Rezzy]

To be honest, I thought it was her trying to court Clinton voters. Hillary has already conceded, so I guess it's Jill trying to gain more supporters by pushing an anti-Trump agenda. I can see it working, considering that a lot of the media has rolled over and is willing to give Trump a go at it.

I wouldn't say that the media rolled over from Trump, they simply went from openly saying he was a joke to realizing they were wrong about his chances at winning and having to take him seriously. He still gets quite a bit of negative press from CNN and MSNBC.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I wouldn't say that the media rolled over from Trump, they simply went from openly saying he was a joke to realizing they were wrong about his chances at winning and having to take him seriously. He still gets quite a bit of negative press from CNN and MSNBC.

Poor choice of words on my part, when I said 'rolled over' what I meant was that they're not really pushing to try and change things i.e. recount or overturn the results. I think what's happening is that she's trying to court the hardcore Clinton supporters, the ones who want to stop Trump from reaching the White House where the media and a lot of other supporters have accepted that Trump has won the election.

[Phoenix Wright]

It also relies on the elimination of basic freedoms afforded to every person. Which makes it inherently evil.

​Phoenix, I'm not saying you're stupid for supporting Marxism. I'm saying that you're evil depending on the degree that you're willing to implement it since it requires force and coercion.

this post showcases simultaneously, comically so, your lack of understanding in addition to your unwillingness to discuss. what a treat.

Marxism is inherently bad because it fails to reward individual effort and talent, and as such it makes everyone overall less productive because there's no incentives to perform at their best. I believe that even the idealistic scenario for marxism would be utterly detrimental to humanity.

Regarding the electoral college, I believe its main flaw is the ability for an elector to change the candidate the elector was chosen to vote for.

capitalism is inherently bad because it fails to keep safe the exploited worker from the owners of production, and as such it makes everyone overall less productive because there's no incentives to perform at their best. i believe that even the idealistic scenario for capitalism would be utterly detrimental to humanity.

see, i can grossly simplify an entire socio-economic idea and make it seem like a coherent thought too.

i'm not even a marxist in practice (as i've said), but at least i've spent more than 15 minutes reading about what marxism actually is/what it's meant to look like.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[Rezzy]

Something I saw that I'm surprised hasn't gotten more attention is, if people oppose Trump, they should be pumping money into the Louisiana Senate race, that would lead to a slimmer Senate majority for the Republicans and make it harder to overcome filibuster attempts, if the Democrat pull out a surprise victory there. The recount is really a fool's errand and waste of time and money. That Senate seat is the difference between 52-48 and 51-49. That's a big vote. Senators like Rand Paul differ on enough issues, that I could see people like him breaking away from the Republicans if they try anything extreme. It gets exponentially harder to pull votes away from a party the more you get away from 50.

Everyone remember, I was the one who was wanting a deadlocked congress before the election.

I get the feeling that people must think I'm a right-winger, but I think most people just lean left here. In other places, I'm having to tell people that Trump doesn't have some big mandate, did not reach 50% of the vote, and only won because Hillary was an even worse candidate than he was.

[Phoenix Wright]

you exhibit some pretty right-leaning beliefs economically, but not necessarily socially. if i were to give you a "label," it'd be blue-dog democrat probably. emphasis on "blue-dog," rather than democrat.

[Res]

Meanwhile I've had to really watch my words because this is the most right-leaning space I'm currently active in!

[Rezzy]

you exhibit some pretty right-leaning beliefs economically, but not necessarily socially. if i were to give you a "label," it'd be blue-dog democrat probably. emphasis on "blue-dog," rather than democrat.

That's part of the reason I'm not a huge fan of the left/right dichotomous designations. I think the two axis model is a bit better, if still not perfect.

[Dark Holy Elf]

So Trump is claiming (without evidence, of course) that there were literally millions of illegal votes cast in this election. This is honestly alarming, because I can only draw one of two conclusions:

1. Trump is so thin-skinned that he is seriously bothered by the fact that he lost a purely symblic vote, to the point that he is turning to conspiracy theories to make himself feel better (and do so publically). This reflects badly on both his temperament and his judgement, yet nevertheless it is the explanation I am hoping for, because the other is...

2. Trump is trying to sow distrust for the American electoral process for the purpose of a future election. I hope I'm just being paranoid.

Yeah, the sheer size of the USA makes everything more complicated.

The US has a voting population roughly equal to that of Indonesia and far smaller than that of India, which manage to run national elections just fine, and Indonesia has run-offs. Being a larger country is a very weak excuse. More population just means you have more polling stations, more people counting ballots, and so on; the system scales up quite well. And yeah, paper works just fine for run-off (and I tend to prefer it to other methods myself in general; it's nice to have a verifiable physical record of all votes should it be necessary).

Edited November 28, 2016 by Dark Holy Elf

[eclipse]

So Trump is claiming (without evidence, of course) that there were literally millions of illegal votes cast in this election. This is honestly alarming, because I can only draw one of two conclusions:

1. Trump is so thin-skinned that he is seriously bothered by the fact that he lost a purely symblic vote, to the point that he is turning to conspiracy theories to make himself feel better (and do so publically). This reflects badly on both his temperament and his judgement, yet nevertheless it is the explanation I am hoping for, because the other is...

2. Trump is trying to sow distrust for the American electoral process for the purpose of a future election. I hope I'm just being paranoid.

Or third is that he's shooting his mouth off YET AGAIN, which makes me oh-so-glad that I didn't vote for him.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Shooting his mouth off basically falls under (1), though I'm open to someone putting a more positive spin on it than I did!

[Rezzy]

Or third is that he's shooting his mouth off YET AGAIN, which makes me oh-so-glad that I didn't vote for him.

Me, too. It seems Trump can dish, but can't take it in return. The pettiness I've seen in politics in recent years is troubling. The president should be above that.

[eclipse]

Shooting his mouth off basically falls under (1), though I'm open to someone putting a more positive spin on it than I did!

I see it more as attention-whoring, which is an extremely bad quality IMO. It's not necessarily to make himself feel better, it's to put him in the spotlight again.

[Rezzy]

There very well could have been illegals voting, probably not 3 million like he claims, but it's a legitimate concern. However, just like the claim that the voting machines were hacked, you shouldn't be making those claims publicly without some solid evidence to back it up. The burden of evidence is on the one making the accusation, here. Trump pointing out that Hillary is a bit of a hypocrite for not accepting the elections is one thing, but making a claim that there were 3 million illegal votes crosses the line.

[Radiant head]

i'm not even a marxist in practice (as i've said), but at least i've spent more than 15 minutes reading about what marxism actually is/what it's meant to look like.

lol yeah

marxism isn't the soviet union model, it's just a way of analyzing and understanding socioeconomic systems. there was a little bit written on what a post-capitalist system would look like but it's very minimal and abstract since it was impossible to predict such a thing in the 1800s.