General US Politics

[Alertcircuit]

Exit polls in SC said that Hillary won by like 2 points. Which is about a 5 point difference than what actually happened. Not that exit polls matter all that much, but if there was a fourth state, that one and Florida would be the prime candidates.

Hillary won't, and probably shouldn't, say anything. She wouldn't want to look like a sore loser among all this.

I don't even know if Jill herself thinks that the recounts will do anything. She might just be doing this as a publicity grab to liberals.

[Rezzy]

I was against Trump before the election, but me seeing the sore losers on the left side is wondering if we're better off this way. Obama even went on record saying there was no way the election could be rigged. I believe there are weak points to our voting system, but hacking thousands of separate places that aren't connected to the internet is a low possibility.

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.

She would have to flip all 3 to change the election, and Michigan wasn't connected to the internet at all. I'm not completely sure about Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.

Getting through this election was like ripping off a bandaid. I knew I wouldn't be totally happy either way, but can we at least be done with it, now?

Exit polls in SC said that Hillary won by like 2 points. Which is about a 5 point difference than what actually happened. Not that exit polls matter all that much, but if there was a fourth state, that one and Florida would be the prime candidates.

Hillary won't, and probably shouldn't, say anything. She wouldn't want to look like a sore loser among all this.

I don't even know if Jill herself thinks that the recounts will do anything. She might just be doing this as a publicity grab to liberals.

Do you mean NC? And it seems a nation wide trend of Trump outperforming expectations, since many Trump voters were embarrassed to be honest when asked about who they were voting for.

Fraud is a concern going forward, and getting tight election system is something to strive for, but not enough adds up and even the people who originally called for the recount did not have any evidence of any hacking. Just trends in voting that are easily explained by demographics, like a large percentage of white non-college voters, who Trump won overwhelmingly nation-wide, not just in the rust belt. If Hillary had actually campaigned in the Midwest, she might have fared better here.

[Augestein]

From what I heard Clinton isn't actually pushing for this, so it just seems that there are really people that are just this vehemently against Trump. Hopefully everyone will just calm down eventually.

[Yojinbo]

If that's the case I'd expect Clinton to distance herself from the whole idea asap, especially after she already conceded. Everything else would hurt the democrats even more than the current situation already does.

I was against Trump before the election, but me seeing the sore losers on the left side is wondering if we're better off this way.

I think it's only a matter of time until it becomes obvious that the right-wing/conservatives are the actual losers of this election. Because they have to watch a not actually that consistently right wing, not actually conservative and not actually republican president making politics in their name and they can't do a whole lot about it without screwing themselves. It's as hilarious as it's potentially dangerous.

[Rezzy]

If that's the case I'd expect Clinton to distance herself from the whole idea asap, especially after she already conceded. Everything else would hurt the democrats even more than the current situation already does.

I think it's only a matter of time until it becomes obvious that the right-wing/conservatives are the actual losers of this election. Because they have to watch a not actually that consistently right wing, not actually conservative and not actually republican president making politics in their name and they can't do a whole lot about it without screwing themselves. It's as hilarious as it's potentially dangerous.

I think a president not accomplishing anything in 4 years would be a good thing.

Trump could end up like John Tyler and be a president without a party.

[Tryhard]

I was against Trump before the election, but me seeing the sore losers on the left side is wondering if we're better off this way.

It would have been the same should the opposite result have occurred.

I think it's actually more entertaining that Trump has already walked back his campaign promises and is pretty much u-turning on a lot of points, including wanting to jail Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/trump-flip-flops-president-elect-214478

Trump isn't a Republican. I'm not sure I could classify what he is. It'll become quite evident that if you voted for him because of his campaign promises, you've been had, you've been conned, you've been bamboozled, you've been memed by the mememaster. Newt Gingrich already referred to the wall as a "campaign device and says he can’t make Mexico pay" and everyone skimmed over that, so it probably won't be long until the curtain falls... but it should have always been obvious.

I'm sure there will be a long line of excuses for ol' Don, but remember that now that he had your vote, he will dispose of you like used condoms. Now bend over as he helps the elites and cares little about his 'populism' now.

There was also this pretty hilarious thing.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/trump-says-hed-fire-steve-bannon-if-he-were-involved-alt-right

Considering Steve Bannon straight up said that Breitbart is 'the home of the alt-right', I think our friend Don is a little ignorant.

Edited November 24, 2016 by Tryhard

[Radiant head]

I think it's only a matter of time until it becomes obvious that the right-wing/conservatives are the actual losers of this election. Because they have to watch a not actually that consistently right wing, not actually conservative and not actually republican president making politics in their name and they can't do a whole lot about it without screwing themselves. It's as hilarious as it's potentially dangerous.

yeah not to mention ryan, mccconell, etc. tried really hard to throw trump under the bus, which means now he might not be all that receptive to the gop's agenda.

but then again his cabinet is full of extremists so i'm not getting my hopes up

[Augestein]

It would have been the same should the opposite result have occurred.

I think it's actually more entertaining that Trump has already walked back his campaign promises and is pretty much u-turning on a lot of points, including wanting to jail Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/trump-flip-flops-president-elect-214478

Trump isn't a Republican. I'm not sure I could classify what he is. It'll become quite evident that if you voted for him because of his campaign promises, you've been had, you've been conned, you've been bamboozled, you've been memed by the mememaster. Newt Gingrich already referred to the wall as a "campaign device and says he can’t make Mexico pay" and everyone skimmed over that, so it probably won't be long until the curtain falls... but it should have always been obvious.

I'm sure there will be a long line of excuses for ol' Don, but remember that now that he had your vote, he will dispose of you like used condoms. Now bend over as he helps the elites and cares little about his 'populism' now.

There was also this pretty hilarious thing.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/trump-says-hed-fire-steve-bannon-if-he-were-involved-alt-right

Considering Steve Bannon straight up said that Breitbart is 'the home of the alt-right', I think our friend Don is a little ignorant.

Yeah, that's what actually bothers me the most. He's really wishy-washy on a lot of his statements. People change their opinions, yes, but it's a little bit too fast for my liking.

[Yojinbo]

I think a president not accomplishing anything in 4 years would be a good thing.

Generally or under the current circumstances?

Trump isn't a Republican. I'm not sure I could classify what he is. It'll become quite evident that if you voted for him because of his campaign promises, you've been had, you've been conned, you've been bamboozled, you've been memed by the mememaster.

Exactly.

Like, did anybody in their right mind think he was actually being serious about building a wall to Mexico and having them pay it? Did anybody think he'd be that stupid? A man who made his fortune by abusing loopholes of tax legislation and whacky bancrupcy deals - in other words, a man who obviously understands the finest details of major business - would genuinely believe that that's how it supposed to work? Ted Cruz may actually have been mentally deranged enough a person to seriously push for that idea but Trump? No way.

His quote from the people magazine that he'd run for republican because they have the dumbest voters might be a fake, but after all that happened during the election he might as well could've said it because he proved the point perfectly - even if he never actually made it.

[Rezzy]

It would have been the same should the opposite result have occurred.

I think it's actually more entertaining that Trump has already walked back his campaign promises and is pretty much u-turning on a lot of points, including wanting to jail Hillary.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/trump-flip-flops-president-elect-214478

Trump isn't a Republican. I'm not sure I could classify what he is. It'll become quite evident that if you voted for him because of his campaign promises, you've been had, you've been conned, you've been bamboozled, you've been memed by the mememaster. Newt Gingrich already referred to the wall as a "campaign device and says he can’t make Mexico pay" and everyone skimmed over that, so it probably won't be long until the curtain falls... but it should have always been obvious.

I'm sure there will be a long line of excuses for ol' Don, but remember that now that he had your vote, he will dispose of you like used condoms. Now bend over as he helps the elites and cares little about his 'populism' now.

There was also this pretty hilarious thing.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/trump-says-hed-fire-steve-bannon-if-he-were-involved-alt-right

Considering Steve Bannon straight up said that Breitbart is 'the home of the alt-right', I think our friend Don is a little ignorant.

Good thing I didn't vote for Trump. So I have nothing to regret for what happens.

I have nothing against peaceful protests, but violent riots are concerning and reflect poorly on the left.

[eclipse]

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.

Most of the reasons I can think of are very low-probability, like trying to buddy up to Clinton, not being comfortable with Trump as the winner, pandering to the more extreme part of Clinton's fanbase/feminists/others who otherwise despise Trump, etc.

In other words, it's probably not for her own votes, because I seriously doubt that she broke the ten million mark, let alone half the US.

[Crysta]

It's already been mentioned that Michigan is mostly paper ballots, she's hardly a Clinton supporter, and surprise the fundraiser has already exceeded the requested amount (which probably should be lower because lol Michigan).

So yeah, she's in the con game too.

[Life]

I think it's only a matter of time until it becomes obvious that the right-wing/conservatives are the actual losers of this election. Because they have to watch a not actually that consistently right wing, not actually conservative and not actually republican president making politics in their name and they can't do a whole lot about it without screwing themselves. It's as hilarious as it's potentially dangerous.

Didn't I say this long before the election?

[Yojinbo]

And that matters because _________ ?

[Rezzy]

Since there's already a climate change topic, should we keep that discussion there?

[Rezzy]

Generally or under the current circumstances?

In general. The more government tries to involve itself in things, the worse they make things.

[The Geek]

Good thing I didn't vote for Trump. So I have nothing to regret for what happens.

I have nothing against peaceful protests, but violent riots are concerning and reflect poorly on the left.

The only protest that I heard turned into a riot was the first one in Portland, Oregon, and that was because of some group of anarchist assholes taking advantage of the chaos. That's what the local news station found anyways.

[Balcerzak]

Since there's already a climate change topic, should we keep that discussion there?

If anyone is wondering where about a page of posts went, this is where.

[Rezzy]

If anyone is wondering where about a page of posts went, this is where.

Ah, that makes it look like I double posted, now.

Didn't I say this long before the election?

I think both major parties crumbling apart would be the best possible outcome of 2016.

[Yojinbo]

In general. The more government tries to involve itself in things, the worse they make things.

That's probably something that, yet again, belongs into a different thread but I couldn't disagree more. A certain amount of government control is needed for a society to be stable - and free!

Why do you think extremist groups that pose a threat to the whole world's safety always rise to power [and, initially, often local popularity] in areas of countries where statehood, for lack of a better term, is fragile to non-existent? How come IS become so dominant in Iraq, Syria or Lybia but not in, say, Jordan or Azerbaijan? Why is it Greece and Ukraine of all european countries that have such increasingly successful nationalsozialist oganizations?

[Augestein]

Ah, that makes it look like I double posted, now.

I think both major parties crumbling apart would be the best possible outcome of 2016.

I can agree with that. It really looks like we're already starting to see that happen though. I honesty haven't really heard much from the democratic party lately on anything that they really plan on doing now. Just regrets about what they should have done.

That's probably something that, yet again, belongs into a different thread but I couldn't disagree more. A certain amount of government control is needed for a society to be stable - and free!

Why do you think extremist groups that pose a threat to the whole world's safety always rise to power [and, initially, often local popularity] in areas of countries where statehood, for lack of a better term, is fragile to non-existent? How come IS become so dominant in Iraq, Syria or Lybia but not in, say, Jordan or Azerbaijan? Why is it Greece and Ukraine of all european countries that have such increasingly successful nationalsozialist oganizations?

I think her point was that there are some things that the government should be involved with and some things that they shouldn't be. IE, the government should be there to regulate that everyone gets along, but it shouldn't be doing much more than that. IE, you might have a moderator on a forum, but what they don't do is sift through all of your post and edit them.

There's definitely a threshold there though. Too much and people might riot, too little and people with a little too much influence are in control.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Augestein

[Yojinbo]

She literally said "the more government tries to involve itself in things, the worse they make things". There isn't much ambiguity in that statement.

[Rezzy]

I think her point was that there are some things that the government should be involved with and some things that they shouldn't be. IE, the government should be there to regulate that everyone gets along, but it shouldn't be doing much more than that. IE, you might have a moderator on a forum, but what they don't do is sift through all of your post and edit them.

There's definitely a threshold there though. Too much and people might riot, too little and people with a little too much influence are in control.

Yeah, I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist. The government should ensure people don't hurt, kill, or defraud each other, but not much else.

She literally said "the more government tries to involve itself in things, the worse they make things". There isn't much ambiguity in that statement.

I'm not advocating for anarchy, just that our society is over-regulated and litigious. As a doctor, I have to practice "defensive" medicine, which means I have to practice in a way that gives the smallest chance of being sued, not what's in the patient's best interests. So this often means ordering pointless expensive tests because there's that 0.001% chance something comes up on it, and if you don't you'll be sued. It's a lot easier to sue doctors in America than other countries, because we're so lawyer happy here, and don't have a loser-pays law for lawsuits. That's just one example, where I think less government regulation would be better.

[Excellen Browning]

Yeah, I'm a Libertarian, not an anarchist. The government should ensure people don't hurt, kill, or defraud each other, but not much else.

I'm not advocating for anarchy, just that our society is over-regulated and litigious. As a doctor, I have to practice "defensive" medicine, which means I have to practice in a way that gives the smallest chance of being sued, not what's in the patient's best

You do realize that civil law is a part of people getting along, right?

[Rezzy]

You do realize that civil law is a part of people getting along, right?

I'm not sure if you mean to be condescending, but it comes off a bit that way. If you did not intend that, I apologize for taking it that way, and know that either way, I bear you no ill will.

Libertarians are not anarchists. I don't advocate for the abolition of all law. People don't understand libertarianism, if they think we want to legalize theft, rape, and murder.

We just live in an overly bureaucratic and litigious society, so a deadlocked congress would be a good thing as to prevent the growth of more pointless red tape.