Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I voted!

66 (36.3%)

I did not vote!

13 (7.1%)

I can't vote, for reasons!

21 (11.5%)

I'm not a United Statsian, but I want to see the poll results!

82 (45.1%)

Total Members Voted: 181

[Strife26]

Violence is not an acceptable route, guys.

Yet.

This is the right route. There's certainly a point where it's time to take up arms, but we're very, very far away from that point.

Not that it's a bad idea to stock up in advance, of course.

[Innsmothe]

It has actually made me laugh that the shrill anti-gun Hillary base has been ranting it up on certain reddit subs that this has to happen.
Alot happens to a persons ethics if they are thrust out of their comfort zone apparently.

[Sirus]

Violence is not an acceptable route, guys.

Yet.

This is the right route. There's certainly a point where it's time to take up arms, but we're very, very far away from that point.

Not that it's a bad idea to stock up in advance, of course.

Whether violence can be considered acceptable or not, this is not the place for such talk.

That goes for everyone, mind. I want this thread to remain chill. Continued discussion of rioting or what have you will not help in that regard.

[Frumple]

Aye.

... though that said, it's not like a lot of clinton's supporters don't also support gun ownership. Support for that is broad and bipartisan. Difference is in how the ownership is framed, what regulation is acceptable, etc., not the right itself.

[Flying Dice]

You know, it's been intensely amusing to see all the similarities with 2016.

Clinton runs against a populist perceived as an honest outsider, her diehards accuse anyone opposing her of misogyny, she loses. Honest-outsider-populist wins general election. Radical fringe on the other side has spent too much time huffing the paint they used for their narrative, assumes that death panels brownshirt rape/minority execution squads are incoming. All we need now is for everything to turn out better than expected. Please.

As an aside, I'm shoving myself into deep, thorough enjoyment of the schadenfreude. How's that "most electable candidate" going for you now, you fuckers? We knew she was a loser in 2008, and moreover we knew she was a loser against exactly this sort of anti-establishment populism. This is what happens when you buy too deep into your own delusional narrative of inevitable triumph and drive wedges between your candidate and every undecided bloc.

--

Also, have this, an impromptu interview with two old men I regularly see after work:

Q: So, who did you vote for?
A1,2: Trump.

Q: Why?
A2: Clinton was, you couldn't trust her. Every time she spoke she was all fake.
A1: Yep. Trump, he's, uh, he's an embarrassment, but he sounded like he wasn't lying to you.

Q: What do you think is most important for Trump once he takes office?
A1,2: He's-
A1: He's gotta do two things: get the illegals out, and make a good path for them all to get back in the right way. He doesn't do that, you can't trust a word he says.
A2: He said last night he was gonna, that we're gonna build the wall. We'll see.
A1: Like that thing that Congress is doing, [mumbles] amnesty for illegals who've been here five years or whatever, that's-I guess it's okay. If they're paying taxes and working.

Q: Why do you think Clinton lost?
A1: It was Florida and Wisconsin, once that-
Q: No, sorry, I meant what do you think made people vote for Trump, or against her?
A1: Oh, oh, that's that you can't believe anything that comes out of her mouth.
A2: I woulda voted for Sanders, you know? Didn't like everything he was saying, but he always seemed like he was being honest about it, and he wasn't a bozo the way Trump is.

They cut it off there, but, uh. Yeah. Anecdotal and all, but there's those hateful bigots who want Trump to bring back the Klan, right?

See, there's what has worried me since her name came up. A third of the country is convinced that she's a pathological liar, and a third deeply dislikes her (rounded roughly). Clinton's campaign banked on enough of the latter being frightened of Trump more than they disliked her, but they, the media, and her more rabid supporters spent the entire campaign savaging anyone that didn't march in lockstep.

That's the truth we have to face. Half the country voted for Trump because they thought that he would be a better president than Clinton. And we knew this about Clinton. We've known it for years that she is unpopular and very much a face of the establishment. We knew that this was going to be a cycle full of anti-government sentiment and desire for more change. Now ask yourselves why Clinton not only got the nomination, but was the DNC's candidate in the first place.

[Levi]

Heh, that is a bit telling.  Reminds me a bit of why I don't vote for the NDP here in Canada, they always give me the impression they are saying whatever will score them points, rather than what they actually believe in.

[Frumple]

Because the DNC made the mistake of trusting the electorate to actually think for two seconds, and maybe have the least of cares of if they were being lied to, apparently. They wanted to be lied to the right way, instead. Or the EC did, anyway.

Though if you think that guy actually would have voted sanders after our media was done with the 'im, I've some wonderful deals on bridge investment you might be interested in, heh.

[Ghills]

You know, it's been intensely amusing to see all the similarities with 2016.

Clinton runs against a populist perceived as an honest outsider, her diehards accuse anyone opposing her of misogyny, she loses. Honest-outsider-populist wins general election. Radical fringe on the other side has spent too much time huffing the paint they used for their narrative, assumes that death panels brownshirt rape/minority execution squads are incoming. All we need now is for everything to turn out better than expected. Please.

As an aside, I'm shoving myself into deep, thorough enjoyment of the schadenfreude. How's that "most electable candidate" going for you now, you fuckers? We knew she was a loser in 2008, and moreover we knew she was a loser against exactly this sort of anti-establishment populism. This is what happens when you buy too deep into your own delusional narrative of inevitable triumph and drive wedges between your candidate and every undecided bloc.

--

Also, have this, an impromptu interview with two old men I regularly see after work:

Q: So, who did you vote for?
A1,2: Trump.

Q: Why?
A2: Clinton was, you couldn't trust her. Every time she spoke she was all fake.
A1: Yep. Trump, he's, uh, he's an embarrassment, but he sounded like he wasn't lying to you.

Q: What do you think is most important for Trump once he takes office?
A1,2: He's-
A1: He's gotta do two things: get the illegals out, and make a good path for them all to get back in the right way. He doesn't do that, you can't trust a word he says.
A2: He said last night he was gonna, that we're gonna build the wall. We'll see.
A1: Like that thing that Congress is doing, [mumbles] amnesty for illegals who've been here five years or whatever, that's-I guess it's okay. If they're paying taxes and working.

Q: Why do you think Clinton lost?
A1: It was Florida and Wisconsin, once that-
Q: No, sorry, I meant what do you think made people vote for Trump, or against her?
A1: Oh, oh, that's that you can't believe anything that comes out of her mouth.
A2: I woulda voted for Sanders, you know? Didn't like everything he was saying, but he always seemed like he was being honest about it, and he wasn't a bozo the way Trump is.

They cut it off there, but, uh. Yeah. Anecdotal and all, but there's those hateful bigots who want Trump to bring back the Klan, right?

See, there's what has worried me since her name came up. A third of the country is convinced that she's a pathological liar, and a third deeply dislikes her (rounded roughly). Clinton's campaign banked on enough of the latter being frightened of Trump more than they disliked her, but they, the media, and her more rabid supporters spent the entire campaign savaging anyone that didn't march in lockstep.

That's the truth we have to face. Half the country voted for Trump because they thought that he would be a better president than Clinton. And we knew this about Clinton. We've known it for years that she is unpopular and very much a face of the establishment. We knew that this was going to be a cycle full of anti-government sentiment and desire for more change. Now ask yourselves why Clinton not only got the nomination, but was the DNC's candidate in the first place.

The cognitive dissonance necessary to believe that Trump is more honest than...just about anyone, really...is hard to wrap one's mind around. There were a lot of missteps on the DNC's part, but recognizing that people would believe Trump, of all people, was the more honest candidate is only a mistake made obvious by hindsight.

[Flying Dice]

Oh, I know. But that's the point. Elections are about perceptions. The single most important measure of a candidate is how trustworthy people believe them to be. Truth has nothing to do with it. The DNC picked a candidate that they knew people disliked and distrusted. And Clinton's diehards are already hard at work blaming everyone and everything else for the loss, because they're too invested in their own narrative and perspective, in which she is the saintly pure waifu who will save us all, to understand that most people don't think like that.

And not hindsight. We've seen this before, the idea of the blunt jackass being perceived as honest. Remember Dubya? The guy that got elected because of his name, and because he managed to come off as a regular joe who spoke straight and would be willing to pull up to the bar next to you? Hell, remember Obama? Remember that he was intensely popular in no small part because people (who weren't on the right's delusion express)  saw him as trustworthy and relateable?

That's what was genius about Trump's campaign. They made a lying corrupt blowhard super-rich clown appeal to ordinary people.

[wobbly]

What about all the people who were saying they were voting for Trump because "he tells it like it is" right from the start. Takes the same kind of not looking to convince yourself people weren't buying his nonsense, as it does to believe what he said.

[wierd]

Those people typically have a koolaid IV right in their arm, and live in a right wing echo chamber.

[Starver]

Posting to be depressed.

[misko27]

Yesterday I spent the entire day working. I have learned a lot about Humanity by working a General Election, and the majority of it can be summed up as "Bureaucracy is the foulest of the necessary evils", followed somewhat closely by "It is very easy to turn the general population into absolute morons by subjecting them to a sufficient amount of lines and paperwork." I spend all day playing "Line Management Simulator 2016", and then I get home to even worse news.

[helmacon]

Well, let's look at the comparison to obama's election and trump's election.

A lot of what republicans were afraid Obama was going to do was never fully realized, despite baby steps in that direction. The difference here is that Obama was facing an opposing Senate/House and a bipartisan Judiciary.

Trump has the full cooperation of the house and senate, and after a few appointments the judiciary will be leaning in his favor as well. There are literally no checks and balances left to oppose a republican agenda. They can literally do whatever they want.

That is why people are so scared right now. Trump by himself is upsetting, but a Trump with no limitations is scary.

[Frumple]

Oh, I know. But that's the point. Elections are about perceptions. The single most important measure of a candidate is how trustworthy people believe them to be. Truth has nothing to do with it. The DNC picked a candidate that they knew people disliked and distrusted.

Yeah, I could agree they fucked up there. Not necessarily on the candidate -- again, the one of the bigger things there is that clinton is goddamn superlatively qualified, for just about anything the american left actually claims they want -- but by not being nearly aggressive enough on slapping down bullshit. Left wing not only didn't particularly contest the right/alt-right narrative, many of them actually bought into it, DNC group this time included (Sup bernie. I'm not forgetting this year.). Think I've mentioned but one of the most screwed up things about this whole election is that the information, the stuff to frame bloody all of this, was all there. If you bother to google around a bit and read, you'd have enough material to be shouting down the shit that got spewed this election so hard it couldn't get back up. But the DNC barely tried, the left wing media made it worse and gave it weight, and the voters didn't give a damn about what they were swallowing.

Bad overestimation of their supporters, basically, at least on the part of the DNC (not in numbers, mind, but how much they could be trusted to work for their own interests). Left wing media, well, they were just milking this shit for ratings, clicks, and so on, same as most of the fourth estate, for all they're shitting on that particular title. If trump actually does turn on them and sodomize our free speech laws to bits with GOP support as he's declared intent to, it couldn't happen to people more deserving. Shame about the rest of us, but hey, that's the theme for 2016, innit?

... kind of a summation, I actually do think clinton was the right candidate, here -- bernie would have been bent over a knee and used as a playtoy by the hate machine, and there's few to no actual democrat politicians right now that could do better than even him, nevermind clinton -- but the DNC indeed screwed the pooch on the campaign pretty hard, even if they're not even remotely fully to blame, here (this one's on us, mostly, and the goddamn media most of the rest). They took the high road a bit too much, and apparently that was a mistake.