Topic: Trumpmageddon

[Radiant]

Reality check: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

[Jack]

But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.

I used the word female because I assumed there must've been male politicians more openly corrupt than her. Your assumption that I used the word female pejoratively is... Yes...

You can certainly think that it's grubby and not how the system ought to work, but none of this is illegal--

When you get to claims of actual criminal corruption, the evidence gets incredibly flimsy, and you're stuck with a long chain of hostile assumptions and recursive conspiracy theories.

These are blatant lies.

This is illegal:

Clinton Foundation admits it didn't notify State Department of $1 million Qatar gift

This is illegal:

Hacked Emails Prove Coordination Between Clinton Campaign and Super PACs

That's not all, and it's only from what was leaked. A candidate can skirt and exploit the law and still be morally reprehensible and unfit for office.

You can try to convince yourself that everything that leaked about her and what it implies is nothing, or you can convince yourself that "it's just how things are done". It's that kind of apathy that perpetuates a political system like this.

The point is that people could no longer afford to be that intellectually lazy, and looking at what was available and provable, they decided that treason is worse than being an asshole.

[Ali]

But the idea that she is exceptionally corrupt in comparison with the men who have previously held the office of President takes a spoonful of sexism to go down.

I used the word female because I assumed there must've been male politicians more openly corrupt than her. Your assumption that I used the word female pejoratively is... Yes...

If there are male politicians more corrupt than her, then she is not exceptionally corrupt! She belongs to the group 'politicians', not 'female politicians'. Your use of the word was sexist and you cannot get out of that by ending sentences... with ellipses...

[Grok]

I had already planed to use a character known for the catch phrase "You're fired" in the the episode of Space Rangers under work.
When that some one got himself elected I just had to make a comic strip of one of the planed options in the upcoming game.


(I hope including this in two different threads is not a no-no.)

I'm not American. I don't live in America. I had no vote to give. If I had had one, I wouldn't have wanted to vote for either of the two main candidates, but one candidate is completely unthinkable and the other one is just quit bad, in my opinion.  But as I said, not my call to make.

We live in interesting times as the old Chinese curse goes ("May you live during interesting times.").

[dactylopus]

Is Clinton evil?  Maybe.  But she's certainly the lesser of 2 evils.  That's worth something.

[Danvzare]

Is Clinton evil?  Maybe.  But she's certainly the lesser of 2 evils.  That's worth something.

But there were like two or three other candidates?
Why choose the lesser of two evils when there are candidates that aren't evil?

I've constantly heard the whole "you'll throw your vote away", but that just makes me question.
On the one hand everyone is being told that they should always vote, because no matter how insignificant a vote may seem, it can still help.
Yet on the other hand, everyone is also being told to never vote for a third party because that's just throwing your vote away.
WHICH ONE IS IT!!!

[Radiant]

I've constantly heard the whole "you'll throw your vote away", but that just makes me question.
On the one hand everyone is being told that they should always vote, because no matter how insignificant a vote may seem, it can still help.
Yet on the other hand, everyone is also being told to never vote for a third party because that's just throwing your vote away.
WHICH ONE IS IT!!!

The setup of the "electoral college" system means that any candidate that cannot reach 50.1% of the votes in each of a substantial number of states is completely irrelevant.

[Snarky]

These are blatant lies.

This is illegal:

Clinton Foundation admits it didn't notify State Department of $1 million Qatar gift

The source does not support the claim. It only says that it "apparently" violates an ethics agreement she signed, which was a personal pledge and does not have the force of law. And in fact that's not even correct, as I was able to figure out within a couple of minutes of googling: the agreement in question is NOT the one Clinton signed, but a separate "memorandum of understanding" by the William J. Clinton Foundation, which Hillary Clinton had no role in at the time and did not sign. (It was signed by the Foundation's CEO, Bruce Lindsey.) And on top of that, it's not clear that the failure to notify in this particular case does in fact violate the somewhat fuzzy language of the agreement.

You also haven't established any actual corruption. The Clinton Foundation collects donations for its charitable work. We all knew that. At most, what you have here is poor reporting by some staffer at a foundation Hillary didn't actually work for. Like I said, the more you look into it, the less there is to see.

This is illegal:

Hacked Emails Prove Coordination Between Clinton Campaign and Super PACs

Again, the source does not support the claim. The hacked emails reveal that the Clinton campaign coordinated with Correct The Record... and then later the article explains that CTR from the very beginning has openly stated that it would be coordinating with the campaign, arguing that it is exempt from some of these restrictions for various legal reasons. Essentially they've found what they argue is a legal loophole.

Are the rules around campaign spending a joke? Absolutely. Should they be fixed? Hell yes! To do that you need to overturn Citizens United (or pass a constitutional amendment). And which candidate promised to appoint Supreme Court justices who would do so? It sure as shit wasn't Donald Trump.

In the mean time, do you want Democrats to tie one hand around their back by not taking advantage of the rules that exist to raise money as freely as Republicans cheerfully do? Did you miss the part about how Trump has also been pushing the limits of these rules?

And to go back to the original point, weren't you saying that Clinton is "the most openly corrupt female politician in history"? And yet the first sentence of your reference goes: "The fact that political candidates are closely coordinating with friendly Super PACs — making a mockery of a central tenet of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision — is one of the biggest open secrets in Washington."

A candidate can skirt and exploit the law and still be morally reprehensible and unfit for office.

Sure, but then you have to provide evidence to support that. If you claim "This is illegal" and then you provide a bunch of examples that aren't actually illegal... well, you're not strengthening your case.

[cat]

Reality check: https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

This is terrible

[Scavenger]

But there were like two or three other candidates?
Why choose the lesser of two evils when there are candidates that aren't evil?

Oh, don't worry, Johnson is pretty evil, being a libertarian against welfare, and his global warming manifesto was "the earth will be consumed by the sun".

Jill Stein constantly courts antivaxxers and wants to implement homeopathy and junk as the health care system.

So yeah, Clinton was the lesser of four evils, not two.

On the one hand everyone is being told that they should always vote, because no matter how insignificant a vote may seem, it can still help.
Yet on the other hand, everyone is also being told to never vote for a third party because that's just throwing your vote away.
WHICH ONE IS IT!!!

Its both. Because of the way the system works, a vote for not Clinton us a vote for Trump, since third parties rarely have enough local support across the board to win enough electoral college votes,  and we saw this time that Trump took Florida simply by virtue of Clinton not having those few extra votes that went to Johnson. But every vote does count... If you are voting for the two main parties.

The system is broken as hell and needs repairing, but that's the gist of it. Voting for anyone not in the main two parties usually favors the republicans.

That said, I don't wholly blame third party voters. That blame is squarely on Trump voters, who managed to look past reams and reams of murderous rhetoric and think "he's still the candidate for me!"

[Snarky]

(Post-review edit: Oh, guess Scavenger already said all this. Oh well.)

Is Clinton evil?  Maybe.  But she's certainly the lesser of 2 evils.  That's worth something.

But there were like two or three other candidates?
Why choose the lesser of two evils when there are candidates that aren't evil?

Evil or not, the two other main candidates were blatantly unqualified to be president and ran on idiotic platforms. John Oliver provides an amusing version of the criticism:

[embed=640,360]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU[/embed]

Also, as Radiant says, the American electoral system is set up in such a way that you can't have more than two major parties (and hence, under normal circumstances, viable candidates). This is actually not about the electoral college, though, but the first-past-the-post vote and the fact that the executive is embodied in a single person (the president), "directly" elected by the people. Under such a system, a third candidate will always act as a spoiler for whichever of the two leading candidates they are closest to politically, and most sympathizers will go with the more popular candidate in order to avoid splitting the vote.

[Danvzare]

Oh, don't worry, Johnson is pretty evil, being a libertarian against welfare, and his global warming manifesto was "the earth will be consumed by the sun".

Jill Stein constantly courts antivaxxers and wants to implement homeopathy and junk as the health care system.

So yeah, Clinton was the lesser of four evils, not two.

Ha ha, oh that made my day.
America was screwed in every respect.

Because of the way the system works, a vote for not Clinton us a vote for Trump

Couldn't it just as equally be said that a vote for not Trump is a vote for Clinton?
Which in turn would sort of balance it out?
Whose to say all those people who voted for Johnson, didn't prefer Trump over Clinton?

[dactylopus]

That said, I don't wholly blame third party voters. That blame is squarely on Trump voters, who managed to look past reams and reams of murderous rhetoric and think "he's still the candidate for me!"

That's a very optimistic view.  I don't think they were overlooking his rhetoric.  I think these people agree with it all.  There is more bigotry and hatred in America than most people realize, and now it is being exposed.  Trump is the champion for the lowest common denominator, which is a very large group.  That's why it scares me.  It shows me how many Trumps there are in the country.  It shows how many think and feel and act as he does.  It exposes the monsters.

I'd say Jill Stein was close to being a good choice.  Her politics were the closest to Bernie's, and his were the closest to mine, but she definitely has her share of issues as well.

And the Electoral College is a really broken system.  I'm not sure it's even relevant anymore.

Couldn't it just as equally be said that a vote for not Trump is a vote for Clinton?
Which in turn would sort of balance it out?
Whose to say all those people who voted for Johnson, didn't prefer Trump over Clinton?

If there are essentially 2 sides (and there are), then Johnson is the Conservative (Republican) and Stein is the Liberal (Democrat).  So a vote for Johnson could have been a vote for Trump (more likely), and a vote for Stein could have been a vote for Clinton (more likely).  I doubt any Stein supporters would have otherwise voted Trump, and vice versa.

Evil or not, the two other main candidates were blatantly unqualified to be president and ran on idiotic platforms. John Oliver provides an amusing version of the criticism:

Great video, thanks for posting.

[Jack]

Reality check (since we're judging a division by its vocal minority):

‘Die Whites Die': Anti-Trump Rioters Vandalize NOLA Monuments

‘You Voted Trump!' Shock Video Shows White Man Viciously Beaten in Chicago After Election

Video as yet not taken down by youtube.

In the lead-up to the election I was sure hillary was the globalist favourite, the one that was supposed to win. I was sure there might be a civil war right after, if she wins. Now on the other side of the hill, I'm wondering if trump was not the one that was supposed to win all along. He is the first ironically elected president in history.

Maybe it never mattered who won. Hillary or not, this is going to tear the country apart, which will destabilise the world even further. There won't be time for executive changes to give people jobs, if that's even possible at this point. It seems to be happening right now.

Civil war.

[Scavenger]

That's a very optimistic view.  I don't think they were overlooking his rhetoric.  I think these people agree with it all.  There is more bigotry and hatred in America than most people realize, and now it is being exposed.  Trump is the champion for the lowest common denominator, which is a very large group.  That's why it scares me.  It shows me how many Trumps there are in the country.  It shows how many think and feel and act as he does.  It exposes the monsters.

Yeah, I really should have said "look at reams and reams of murderous rhetoric". A vote for Trump is definitely a vote for that kind of bigotry coming back into style, and if not by legislation, the resident brownshirts will start with the violence and the hate crimes, like Radiant linked to.

I do hope that any Trump supporters here come to their senses, and see the pandora's box they've opened, because I have zero sympathy for them if they don't try to oust him and stop the bigotry. Because if they don't, this will empower other fascists in other nations, and a lot of vulnerable people will die, and then we'll probably run out of resources and ruin our environment because Trump appointed a climate change skeptic to look after it.

I mean, sure Hillary wasn't perfect, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also Jack, violent rebellion against an oppressive system out of desperation is not the same as state sanctioned white supremacist thuggery. The fault here lies entirely with the white establishment trying to kick down at everyone else. Trump was boasting about the systematic exile of non-white people and the registration and exile of muslim people (which he still plans to do and people voted for that). That's more violent than any individual account of a black person beating up a white person.

[Mandle]

So... Trump criticized the electoral college system back in 2012 even going so far as to say:

This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!
The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.
Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us.
We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!

Now that it turns out that Hillary won the popular vote and the only reason Trump won the election is because of the electoral college system, shouldn't he be standing by his words and stepping aside to allow the "real" winner to take her place?

What a disgusting hypocrit that he can just be all smiles and speeches after having "won" via a system he himself said was a travesty of democracy.

[Adeel]

Some were wondering about women voting for Trump here. Well, many immigrants voted for Trump too. As an example:

My cousin-in-law is a practising Muslim (he also sports a beard). My cousin is also a practising Muslim (she wears the hijab). And both are first-generation immigrants. I don't know about my cousin, but my cousin-in-law voted for Trump. And I know this because of his FB post. I didn't ask him why, though.

Now, I wonder why would immigrants (Muslims or Non-Muslims) vote for Trump?

[Jack]

You really don't know why so many women voted for trump?

Also Jack, violent rebellion against an oppressive system out of desperation is not the same as state sanctioned white supremacist thuggery. The fault here lies entirely with the white establishment trying to kick down at everyone else. Trump was boasting about the systematic exile of non-white people and the registration and exile of muslim people (which he still plans to do and people voted for that). That's more violent than any individual account of a black person beating up a white person.

You're right about one thing. They're desperate. For the same reasons that some trump supporters want to deport all immigrants. They have no jobs.

I wasn't judging. Black communities were protesting all over the US before trump became president. It was their protests and riots which initially led me to predict civil war in america (weeks ago). Now I'm thinking of all the bad apples in the police forces of the US who will use the election as a license to kill. And the media who will be all the more eager to stoke the fires now that they can put a leftist spin on it. It has the potential to get out of hand very quickly.

[Stupot]

You really don't know why so many women voted for trump?

I personally don't, either. Could you please teach me?

[Gurok]

You really don't know why so many women voted for trump?

I personally don't, either. Could you please teach me?

I heard one reporter say they were voting against Hillary because she, unlike other women heads of state, wouldn't have got there on her own. They feel she'd have got there because she was Bill's wife. I can understand that you wouldn't want the rule to be "any woman can be president as long has her husband is first", but I don't know if it would set a precedent. I think it was also partly an anti-establishment vote. There is nothing special about women that precludes them distrusting the establishment.