137 replies to this topic

[udarnel]

Today hate & racism & greed won.

Thank the middle-aged bigots from the old slave plantations the South and Midwest...

 

Crying for the future of our world.

Edited by ROTFLMAOMAGNETS, 14 November 2016 - 02:22 AM.
[trump thread] note added

[Superoni]

[True Goddess Reincarnation]

Is this tumblr or twitter now?

[Caek]

We be Huffington Post.

[PItiful Boar]

gawker baby

[Delicious Cake]

I'm crying that USD hasn't nosedived harder vs EUR. It's our usual quarterly FX restock period and we were hoping since the announcement that it might break at least $1.15/€ later when the market here opens.

[ClothoBuer]

Boo-goddamn-hoo, your worthless Soros shill spent millions trying to buy minority votes and neglected the fact that whites are still a sizable population, and as a result lost most of the Industrial States. Blame the Democrats for colluding and taking bribes to put Hillary on a pedestal, only to have it all burned to the ground with candidate character issues and numerous federal investigations. Blame the Republicans for refusing to adapt to the times and allowing a billionaire businessman with no filter step in and shitpost himself into office. Blame the liberal voters who were so disenfranchised by their own goddamned candidate that they undermined their party all by themselves by voting independent. Blame the political landscape of stagnation and standstills resulting in a logjam of any real progress, because neither party wants to work with each other.

 

But blaming the people who said "hey, he says bad things, but last I checked this other person did bad things, so I'll just go with the lesser of the two evils here" and won him the office? Asinine, juvenile, and to be honest, the reason he won in the first place; because people are tired of words.

 

TL;DR: fuck off 

[2hot4you]

found the trump supporter

[Will of NGE]

I have a different question about this.

Hillary got majority population vote, but had less seats won and thus lost. So why did people vote exactly? Every single one of those 110+millions of votes have been for nothing.

[cmertb]

Well, I'd say the many times since Adolf Hitler that the US invaded and/or bombed other countries, or supported coup d'etats in them, were worse days in Western history than yesterday. At least more shameful. Let's keep things in perspective.

[Natureboy]

The way the U.S. Electoral College works is a strange relic of the early 19th century. With the populist movement exemplified by President Andrew Jackson, states switched from a 'pure federal' system, where state governments appointed presidential electors, to a mixed quasi-democratic practice of voting state-by-state. Around the same time most states dropped the property ownership requirement for voting (still just white men) and adopted a winner-take-all system for appointing electors who support the candidate/party that won their state. Jackson and his supporters were considered crude and uncultured (sound familiar?) and his supporters trashed the White House when they partied at his inauguration. Subsequent expansion in voting rights and changes electoral law haven't overturned that old Jacksonian framework. Anyway, nothing in the federal Constitution requires states to appoint presidential electors in a specific or uniform way.

 

When a U.S. presidential candidate wins by a large margin the result is the same as if presidents were elected by direct popular vote. In contrast, when the vote margin is fairly close, then all those details of state-by-state subelections start to matter (including the 2 states that allocate electors partly by winners within congressional districts). Before modern transportation and communication systems the country had a lot of regional cultural and economic differences, and winning national power required assembling a coalition of regional political powers. Each of those coalitions might be rather ideologically diverse. (For example, many northern Republicans used to be well to the left of most southern Democrats.) Because of that U.S. national elections are still made up of a large collection of local and regional elections.

 

For about the past 25 years, the U.S. 2-party system has been fairly evenly divided--with close to half the voters supporting each party, so hearing about those archaic details has become a regular feature of presidential elections. Over the same time period, the parties have become more ideologically distinct and regional residence patterns have become more segregated by political and religious belief. Rather than political interests emerging from regional traditions and economic differences, people have tended to move where they find neighbors with similar interests and values. As rural areas became more homogeneous and left-wingers and cultural novelty seekers became more concentrated in large metropolitan areas in certain states, national campaign strategies have adjusted to focus less on regional coalition building and more on: (1) persuading voters without firm ties to political parties who happen to live in evenly divided states, and (2) driving up (or down) turnout of voters loyal to particular parties or candidates.

 

As with engineering designs, a highly optimized strategy is also usually a brittle strategy. Campaigns tuned to the details of recent elections aren't robust to significant changes in either voter allegiance or electoral turnout rates for particular groups. Neither are polling-based models for forecasting electoral results. So it comes as a shock when a large number of people act differently than they did in the past few elections.

[Horn]

Haha, yes, I'm sorry. I'm a terrible human being who can't take anything seriously anymore.

EDIT: Oh yes, also this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u8f6pE69k0

Edited by Horn, 10 November 2016 - 09:04 PM.

[PItiful Boar]

I thought the idea for the electoral college came from Alexander Hamilton. Wasn't it in one of the Federalist papers? Think that preceded Andrew Jackson by quite a bit.

In another words the system was designed from the start to prevent democracy. To protect the opulent minority against the impoverished masses, as Madison puts it.

[Natureboy]

I thought the idea for the electoral college came from Alexander Hamilton. Wasn't it in one of the Federalist papers? Think that preceded Andrew Jackson by quite a bit.

In another words the system was designed from the start to prevent democracy. To protect the opulent minority against the impoverished masses, as Madison puts it.

Yup. Madison favored a mixed method for choosing a federal president, and Hamilton argued for an electoral college insulated from popular passions and potential foreign influence.

 

The Jacksonian era is when most actual, ordinary (white male) voters got involved in choosing the next president--with the electoral college kept as an intermediate step/buffer between the voters and the actual choice of president.  Maryland & Pennsylvania have always chosen electors by popular vote. Virginia & Rhode Island joined them in 1800. Most other states went to popular votes by 1832. (See Wikipedia. South Carolina was a hold-out for selection by the state legislature, until after the Civil War.) Also see  http://history.house.gov/Institution/Electoral-College/Electoral-College/

 

In roughly the same time period (1826) direct election of senators was suggested.  It wasn't until the 17th amendment (1913) when states finally switched over to direct election of senators, rather than appointment by the existing state government.

[Doonge]

I thought the idea for the electoral college came from Alexander Hamilton. Wasn't it in one of the Federalist papers? Think that preceded Andrew Jackson by quite a bit.

In another words the system was designed from the start to prevent democracy. To protect the opulent minority against the impoverished masses, as Madison puts it.

I'm not under the impression that the opulent minority (aka the 1%) was pro-trump.

[Natureboy]

I'm not under the impression that the opulent minority (aka the 1%) was pro-trump.

Many were. He promised them further reductions in corporate tax rates and eliminating the estate tax.

[Doonge]

Trump was / is (personally I prefer to wait and see) the anti-establishment candidate.

I'm googling quickly, I do not know if those links have any credence.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-26/billionaire-donors-led-by-soros-simons-favor-clinton-over-trump

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-income_counties_in_the_United_States

 

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/virginia/

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/maryland/

etc...

 

 

I'm reading that indeed Trump's tax plan is more lenient towards the top 1%, but that's not changing the top 1% mind.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/28/how-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-would-tax-the-1-percent-in-one-chart.html

[Natureboy]

Of the Maryland counties in the top 25 for average income, Trump carried the more rural ones and Clinton the more urban/suburban. The county where I grew up, which is mixed suburban-rural and includes the state capital, was nearly a 50/50 dead heat, despite having the 18th highest median income. The county where I live now is majority black, doesn't make the top  25 list, and went 89% for Clinton.

 

FYI: The cost of living in those urban/suburban counties around DC and Baltimore, like the high income counties in California, New Jersey and New York, is much higher than most of the rest of the country. I've been commenting for over a decade that the "unit cost" of having a tradesman (plumber, carpenter, electrician, HVAC specialist, etc.) come out for a visit is $400 dollars--before they do any work. Parts and actual labor charges for anything non-trivial appear to be on top of that. Housing costs are similarly high. Plus retail shopping requires an automobile, because housing and shopping districts are separated by greater than walking distances, and traffic is bad enough that it takes at least a half hour to get anywhere.

Edited by Natureboy, 11 November 2016 - 04:08 AM.

[udarnel]

Well, I'd say the many times since Adolf Hitler that the US invaded and/or bombed other countries, or supported coup d'etats in them, were worse days in Western history than yesterday. At least more shameful. Let's keep things in perspective.

That's a given. Let's not forget that the US were built on the blood of entire civilizations. And that the aftermath to Hitler consisted in the Western Block summarily executing German officers at Nuremberg. And why not talking about the outrageous shame of the Tuskegee experiments (and too many others experiments of the sort...), which did the same as Hitler, but after taking him down as the Devil...

But I'd say that those who support Trump are the same trash that supports the US's most ruthless internal and foreign policies... racism, utter disregard for people of other countries, complete intolerance towards non-bigot non-christians, and so on. Clinton wasn't a satisfying choice, by no means, but all the young and educated voted her, because voting Trump meant voting for all the bad in America. Trump winning means that most Americans WANT to be Nazis

Edited by udarnel, 11 November 2016 - 01:22 PM.

[Doonge]

That's a given. Let's not forget that the US were built on the blood of entire civilizations. And that the aftermath to Hitler consisted in the Western Block summarily executing German officers at Nuremberg. And why not talking about the outrageous shame of the Tuskegee experiments (and too many others experiments of the sort...), which did the same as Hitler, but after taking him down as the Devil...

But I'd say that those who support Trump are the same trash that supports the US's most ruthless internal and foreign policies... racism, utter disregard for people of other countries, complete intolerance towards non-bigot non-christians, and so on. Clinton wasn't a satisfying choice, by no means, but all the young and educated voted her, because voting Trump meant voting for all the bad in America. Trump winning means that most Americans WANT to be Nazis

I'm not an american, the elections were interesting to me but I wasn't concerned (I'm saying this to Natureboy so knows that I have no pretention of knowing much).

 

You are foolish. Probably because you are young and probably see yourself as educated - I'm just picking up your comment about young and educated people voting for Hillary.

By your attitude and your fears, you are cementing the very thing you claim to be against. By demonizing all who voted for Trump you make them stronger because you miss the roots and because you present yourself as an enemy they can unite against. You are projecting your own racism and bigotry everywhere.

 

If you had said that a lot of Trump supporters, for instance the ones that suffer from the poor economic problems (coal regions, metallurgy etc...), are just useful idiots for the nazi wannabes (the people that would run Trump's campaign and "in the know"), then I could pretend you are being reasonable. Politicians lie, and poor gullible schmucks, common people, are not the evil incarnate. I think that half the americans nazis wannabes were just pulled out of your ass, because I didn't see them 4 years ago nor 8 years ago. To put things in perspective, I remember people like you saying that the sky was falling when Obama was elected, and I remember an initiative to secede Texas like California now

 

It is not a coincidence that some vehement anti-gay persons, including powerful politicians who end up hurting gays through their legislation, are gay themselves; that some "feminist" men who are shouting loudly against misogyny are, in fact, deeply misogynist themselves; that some anti-racism activists are deeply racists. The name is overcompensation.