2016 Presidential Election Thread Archive

[ShamefurDispray]

politi"fact"

[Belesarius]

NPR transcript/fact check of debate.

 

 

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497056227/fact-check-clinton-and-trump-debate-for-the-second-time?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[Sturgeon]

That wasn't half bad. But still nobody cares about facts.

[Belesarius]

That wasn't half bad. But still nobody cares about facts.

Not wrong.

[Belesarius]

I hadn't finished reading it. Interesting that Natural Gas is making coal unviable economically. I didn't know that.

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

Relevant.

[Priory_of_Sion]

I hadn't finished reading it. Interesting that Natural Gas is making coal unviable economically. I didn't know that.

Both candidates are pro nuclear energy as well, which is good.  

[LostCosmonaut]

So is Gary Johnson, for all 2 people who were curious. (Jill Stein isn't because Jill Stein is a moroon with terrible ideas.)

 

On one hand, coal becoming irrelevant is going to completely fuck the already shaky economies of a lot of areas (West Virginia, parts of Kentucky, etc.). On other hand, coal is a terrible, dirty energy source. Unlike nuclear, it solves the waste disposal problem by placing it directly into your lungs.

[ApplesauceBandit]

I would say there's some irony in the party about the environment wanting to get rid of nuclear, but then I remember they're all a bunch of hippies, so it does make sense.

[Sturgeon]

Looks like Trump isn't the only person having a problem because of a hot mic:

[Priory_of_Sion]

So is Gary Johnson, for all 2 people who were curious. (Jill Stein isn't because Jill Stein is a moroon with terrible ideas.)

 

On one hand, coal becoming irrelevant is going to completely fuck the already shaky economies of a lot of areas (West Virginia, parts of Kentucky, etc.). On other hand, coal is a terrible, dirty energy source. Unlike nuclear, it solves the waste disposal problem by placing it directly into your lungs.

It would be too easy to focus on building nuclear plants in Appalachia to help ease economic stress and cut down emissions. 

[Sturgeon]

So Donald Trump took to the stage today to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries:

I guess now collimatrix is contractually obligated to vote for him.

[Donward]

 

I chuckled.

[Sturgeon]

Alright, prepare your anooses, because I'm about to rant.

 

DISCLAIMER FOR IDIOTS: I really don't like Trump. I never have. To me, he's one of those reality TV clowns alongside Joe Rogan, Ryan Seacrest, and Snookie. I am not voting for Trump or for anyone else, and I am not telling anyone else to vote for Trump.

Although if you don't want Hillary to win, you probably should.

 

I am also not a Republican nor a member of any other party.

I've seen a lot of crap on Facebook recently, and since I try not to shit up my Facebook with political posts, I am going to shit up this thread instead.

It seems that many Republicans are upset with Trump because he once said some lewd things on a bus, including admitting to sexual assault. This last part is very important both because I do not want to sound like I am whitewashing Trump but also because it's something I will address directly. Many of the Republicans are so upset about this, that they are disavowing Trump completely and pledging to not vote for him in November. I think this is the kind of foolish, moral absolutist idiocy that we have come to expect from Republicans. They will always cut off their nose to spite their face.

I used a term there, "moral absolutist"; I should explain what I mean by this, first. It might be more correct to say "moral hyper-absolutist" but that adds two syllables, so we'll just go with "moral absolutist". Moral absolutism is an infectious disease that affects human minds and causes them to idiotically refuse to accept any situation that isn't absolutely and completely moral according to their impossibly rigid standards. You can recognize these people by how they react to anyone who has ever said anything they do not like, or that could be construed to be something they do not like. It's very loud. Of course, moral absolutists are capable of turning a blind eye, but only to those they like. This is natural human behavior and needs no further comment. What is important is that moral absolutists are happy to use any mote whatsoever to denounce others for political or social gain.

I want to be very clear: Being a moral absolutist is different than being principled. Someone who is principled exercises great discipline in themselves to live up as best they can to morals. Principled people, in general, understand that no one is perfect, and that sin and immorality cannot ever be entirely wiped away. In other words, principled people believe in second chances, and moral absolutists don't (though they may when it suits them).

Now, let's take a look at Trump and about Republicans and the historical problems of the GOP:

The GOP has historically had a problem with completely ignoring its voting base, electing candidates who were not popular, and never addressing real issues that its constituents cared about. They have had problems tackling Democratic policies head on, standing up for conservative principles, and being shackled to an increasingly negative evangelical base that has made the GOP into a joke for many people. The Republican Party has repeatedly failed to court disenfranchised Blue constituents, like factory workers and blacks, and they have completely failed to tackle the Democratic monopoly on inner cities that is the deathknell for the GOP if allowed to continue. Finally, the Republican party has had a very difficult time nominating candidates who are willing to actually fight their Democratic opponents, instead channeling weakness into a false "high ground" position. This is a recipe to lose, and keep losing.

What has Trump done?

 

1. He has unshackled the Republican party from the gay marriage issue, while maintaining evangelical support.

 

2. He has successfully courted the black vote (he's not getting all of it by any stretch of the imagination, but he's done a much better job breaking the Democratic stranglehold on the black vote).

 

3. He has already won over disenfranchised labor votes.

 

4. He has acknowledged Democratic mismanagement of inner cities, and directly courted the inner city vote.

 

5. He has proven in this last debate that he is an absolute bulldog against his Democratic opponents.

 

6. He's proven that a non-politician is a viable political candidate (for now, at least).

 

 

What are Trump's positions? Well, one criticism of Trump is that he is often nonspecific. Let's be clear: Being specific about policy is a terrible campaign move, for a bunch of reasons. One, nobody cares about the details, they just want to feel good. Two, specific policy outlines are always subject to change after election. Three, making very specific promises during a campaign makes it much harder to make good on them later. There are more reasons, but I've already bored you with the details, which is reason four. The point is that I am going to list Trump's key issues, not his policies. They are:

A. Border security. Trump is directly addressing the migrant crisis and the Mexican border crisis. Other candidates do not want to address those problems, and for many years the latter one was all but forgotten.

 

B. Military decay. Most politicians are willing to say something along the lines of "blah blah blah fighting men and women blah blah blah strong national defense", but ironically Trump has been unprecedentedly specific about this issue. He is the first candidate I know of who has directly addressed the crumbling nuclear stockpile, our aging B-52 fleet, etc.

C. Russia and China. Nobody wants WWIII, but they also don't want to just roll over and let Russia and China get what they want. Trump is the first candidate I've seen in recent memory who talked a good game here.

 

D. Manufacturing jobs. Trump has directly addressed the loss of manufacturing jobs and has acted very serious about addressing it.

 

E. ISIS.

 

F. Protecting the 2nd Amendment. Trump has given us pretty much the standard Republican line on this one, but it's a perfectly serviceable one that has been a strong point in the Republican platform historically.


For Trump, it's pretty much those six, plus a handful of other circumstantials (tackling corruption in the media and in Washington, for example). He has been very consistent about hammering those six points, throwing in a few other related ones here and there ("bringing respect back to police" comes to mind). These are simple, easy to understand priorities, that help inform the voter what Trump cares about without giving them too much specifics that they can hate on. In other words, this is a platform that Republicans should be absolutely thrilled about, coming from someone with all the qualities they have said they want in a candidate (well, I suppose he doesn't have a Texas accent).

Trump should be the ideal Republican candidate, but for some people there's an absolutely non-negotiable catch. So let's look at that catch.

TRUMP ONCE SAID HE GRABS WOMEN BY THE GROIN WITHOUT ASKING.

 

Sexual assault is a very serious crime. However, shit talk is not, and if it were 85% of the male population of the United States ought to be in jail, including me. I have said some terrible things, none of them I really meant, because saying terrible things is one very good way to be funny. Imagine for a second that Trump was a stand-up comedian, and he had said exactly the same thing in pretty much exactly the same way on stage in front of hundreds of people. Would we really think that was terribly unusual or beyond the pale? No. Because it's not.

 

However, for some, they are taking Trump at his word, which given the context is a bit of an odd thing to do, but whatever. If we take Trump at his word - well, the words from eleven years ago, not the ones from last night - then he has sexually assaulted women in the past, more specifically, groped them in one form or another.
 

How much are you willing to sacrifice to send an anti-groping message? We're not talking about locking Trump up for his crimes, here (well, maybe Hillary would lock him up for daring to run against her), we are talking about supporting him as a political candidate. To any Republicans reading this, how much are you willing to give up? Are you willing to lose yet again to the Democratic machine, to the worst, most corrupt Democratic candidate since the last Clinton? Are you willing to give up on the border, give up on your 2nd Amendment rights, give up on the inner cities, give up on better relations with Russia and China, give up on workers, give up on the military, give up on veterans, and perhaps most importantly, are you willing to give up all the progress that has already been made dismantling the old GOP that many of you hate so goddamn much, to make sure that our next generation of little boys knows that groping is wrong?

 

Before you decide on your answer, I want to you really think about it. If Trump is not good enough, not enough of a role model, then who is? Who has all the good characteristics that Trump has, and didn't have a groping problem in his past? Where is this person, and how are you going to get them on the ticket before November? If you're not going to get them on the ticket in November, how are you going to get them to win against an incumbent Hillary in four years, and what are you going to do in the meantime? What is the alternate plan? Is there no alternate plan? If there isn't, do you just plan to lose? If you plan to lose, especially given that the opponent's candidate is partner in crime to a far worse sexual predator (who was President! So much for teaching little boys that groping is bad, I guess), then what good is all your moral superiority?

And if it's not really about the groping, then why'd you decide to vote for him at all in the first place?

The Democrats are perfectly willing to all get behind a corrupt, evil person with a history of supporting sexual abusers if it is for the greater good of the Party. Many Republicans are not, which is why your party has been the Democrats' bitch for the past 12 years. Being holier than thou about this is how you get completely uninteresting and noncompetitive political candidates who will rarely win and always disappoint you. You know who did not have groping scandals? McCain and Romney, and you never really felt like they actually represented you or even had a shot at winning, did you?

I'll close by hitting you with the book. Jesus didn't look at Saul's history of persecution of Christians and go "oh, you're an asshole, I don't want you", he saw that Saul was the right man for the job and recruited him.

If you think Trump is the right man for the job, don't worry about his past transgressions. Vote for him.

 

Or don't, I don't really care. Just shut the fuck up.

[Sturgeon]

Since I know you will want to ask, yes, Donward, you can use this as a copypasta on Facebook. Just cite the source as anonymous, I want no part.

[Donward]

McCain had groping problems and was even rumored to have had an affair with Washington Senator Maria Cantwell (Democrat) among other women. Or so I was told by a former Cantwell staffer.

 

As for Jesus, he hung out with Fishermen. Fishermen have been known to tell off color jokes about women.

[Belesarius]

The problem is, if they aren't moral absolutists, then their positions on a lot of social issues become untenable.  And that's a lot of the platform that the base of the party wants.

 

Edit: And to be clear, I think a lot of the problem with the modern republican party is that the 'base' of the party that isn't based on rational issues has taken over and is ruling policy.  When you have religious extremists trying to set policies on women's health issues nationwide, and idiots on school boards trying to have religion taught as science your party gets viewed as an existential threat vs just an opponent with different viewpoints. A lot of why I can get along with the right wing folks on this board is because you can be convinced by an argument, in general.

[Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect]

Very very true Sturge.  Agree on all points. 

 

Not sure which way Colorado will vote. The front range is basically lost to Californians, but that's a small voting block compared to the rest of the state. 

[Priory_of_Sion]

I'm not sold on most of Trump's supposed upsides. 

 

Mike Pence as VP kinda signals that Trump will enact policies that are traditional Christian-Right shit. Trump's detente with Russia is great, but when his FP centers around a euphemism about colonial exploitation of Middle Eastern oil and seemingly wanting to bomb Iran it creates a lot of doubt that he'd be any different from Clinton or the average Republican. 

 

On nuclear weapons, the US is developing a nuclear cruise missile(LRSO) and the B-21(I guess that's not a real B-52 replacement, but whatever) is suppose to have nuclear capabilities so that's not a real selling point to me. 

 

Trump's economic policies are a mixed bag. Every politician says they will cutout loopholes, but that will not happen. Trump's corporate taxes may stimulate growth, but who knows how much of that is offset by protectionist measures that raise input costs for businesses and goods for consumers. The whole debt reduction thing Trump espouses also seems to be hogwash. 

 

I don't really take Trump's solution to the border seriously as it basically amounts to international extortion, but even if a wall is built I doubt that it will be completed or functional. Trump's support for the war on drugs, more complicated immigration, and no real welfare reform lead me to believe that Trump isn't actually serious about border security. 

 

Though, Trump does have positives (amount variable by opinion) and probably wouldn't end civilization. We'll be alive in 2020. I'm worried though that Trump's positives will be discarded by whoever gets into power by either theocratic Republicans or neoliberal Dems who now want to police the world and any criticism will be labelled as Trumpist or some shit. 

 

Meh, my two cents. Trump can probably prove my opinions on him to be wrong if elected, as opposed to Clinton who will validate everyone's poor opinion of her if elected. 

[Sturgeon]

I'm not sold on most of Trump's supposed upsides.

Mike Pence as VP kinda signals that Trump will enact policies that are traditional Christian-Right shit. Trump's detente with Russia is great, but when his FP centers around a euphemism about colonial exploitation of Middle Eastern oil and seemingly wanting to bomb Iran it creates a lot of doubt that he'd be any different from Clinton or the average Republican.

On nuclear weapons, the US is developing a nuclear cruise missile(LRSO) and the B-21(I guess that's not a real B-52 replacement, but whatever) is suppose to have nuclear capabilities so that's not a real selling point to me.

Trump's economic policies are a mixed bag. Every politician says they will cutout loopholes, but that will not happen. Trump's corporate taxes may stimulate growth, but who knows how much of that is offset by protectionist measures that raise input costs for businesses and goods for consumers. The whole debt reduction thing Trump espouses also seems to be hogwash.

I don't really take Trump's solution to the border seriously as it basically amounts to international extortion, but even if a wall is built I doubt that it will be completed or functional. Trump's support for the war on drugs, more complicated immigration, and no real welfare reform lead me to believe that Trump isn't actually serious about border security.

Though, Trump does have positives (amount variable by opinion) and probably wouldn't end civilization. We'll be alive in 2020. I'm worried though that Trump's positives will be discarded by whoever gets into power by either theocratic Republicans or neoliberal Dems who now want to police the world and any criticism will be labelled as Trumpist or some shit.

Meh, my two cents. Trump can probably prove my opinions on him to be wrong if elected, as opposed to Clinton who will validate everyone's poor opinion of her if elected.

Yep, and those are all perfectly valid, real reasons to not vote for him.

And while I'm sitting here thinking about it, the sexual assault thing is also a reason not to vote for him, but I guess I am just sick of people posturing about it already. Yesterday I saw like five different multi-thousand word screeds about how Trump's FINALLY GONE TOO FAR and BETRAYED EVERYONE, and I just thought to myself "gimme a break, sheesh..."

[Priory_of_Sion]

Yeah, the whole possible sexual assault thing is near the last in the list of reasons why I'd be worried about with Trump or Clinton for that matter. 

[Belesarius]

The sexual assault thing bugs me, but on a personal, rather than political level. I think the people on this board are capable of differentiating between 'Locker room talk' that would get you slapped by your woman and bragging about forcing your attention on a woman. And given Trump's history, I kinda expect that the tape is just the tip of the iceberg on that front.   The fact that he's running for the party that screams about 'family values' and moral issues makes running him hypocrisy of the most amusing sort.  I kinda think it is hilarious that this stuff is coming home to roost and the republicans are acting surprised about it now.

[Priory_of_Sion]

The sexual assault thing bugs me, but on a personal, rather than political level. I think the people on this board are capable of differentiating between 'Locker room talk' that would get you slapped by your woman and bragging about forcing your attention on a woman. And given Trump's history, I kinda expect that the tape is just the tip of the iceberg on that front.   The fact that he's running for the party that screams about 'family values' and moral issues makes running him hypocrisy of the most amusing sort.  I kinda think it is hilarious that this stuff is coming home to roost and the republicans are acting surprised about it now.

I heard that the Trump campaign's attacks on rap music are in preparation of a tape where Trump goes drops some N-bombs. That'll be fun. 

[Belesarius]

There is a tape, apparently from the set of the Apprentice.. but someone has to come up with $5 million to pay for breaking the NDA.  Given the nature of this election I expect someone to pay it.  I would have bet on Gawker before they got squashed.

[Belesarius]

And then there is this gem from the WSJ.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-path-to-president-pence-1476050418