uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

«‹›594 »

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Gringostar posted:

I know for sure that Obama walking with them wouldn't have changed the outcome when (a) Walker ran and won on loving over unions (b) Obama and the democrats lost huge in 2010. You seem intent on carrying on about how if only Obama did more things would have been different when Walker was elected in part as a rebuke of Obama trying to do things. I've also not once said he was right to not show up, I've said he knew about (a) and (b) which is why he probably didn't.

your first premise is out and out false and is literally scott walker propaganda: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/

quote:

In the turbulent wake of his controversial plan to sharply curtail collective bargaining rights, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has faced criticism that he gave no warning of such a dramatic plan during the long 2010 governor�s race.

Walker has forcefully challenged that contention, most bluntly at a Feb. 21, 2011 news conference. A reporter asked if the move to limit union power was payback for pro-union moves made by Democrats in the past.

"It�s not a tit for tat," Walker responded. "The simple matter is I campaigned on this all throughout the election. Anybody who says they are shocked on this has been asleep for the past two years."

The statement echoed one at Feb. 17 news conference, in which Walker was even more emphatic that he campaigned on all the changes included in the entire budget-repair measure -- not just forcing employees to pay more for health and pension costs.

Asked if he was "ramming through" the budget-repair bill, Walker said:

"We introduced a measure last week, a measure I ran on during the campaign, a measure I talked about in November during the transition, a measure I talked about in December when we fought off the employee contracts, an idea I talked about in the inauguration, an idea I talked about in the state of the state. If anyone doesn't know what's coming, they've been asleep for the past two years."

Now, we thought we were following the campaign pretty closely.

It seemed to us like the first public hint Walker gave that he was considering eliminating many union bargaining rights was at a Dec. 7, 2010 Milwaukee Press Club forum, some four weeks after the election.

you might want to step back from this argument and re-evaluate your preconceptions

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:02

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 04:56

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

Xae posted:

Eh. By the time AI is advanced enough to run the economy from end to end it should also be advanced enough to figure out a solution.

And I think we're a good deal further away from AI takeover than people realize.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Multivac, how can widespread unemployment be reversed?

MULTIVAC: THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

...

PRESIDENT DUCKWORTH: Multivac, how can unemployment riots be eased?

MULTIVAC: THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

...

PRESIDENT WEST: Multivac, how can the West Humanitarian Camps be eliminated?

MULTIVAC: THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

...

PRESIDENT KARDASHIAN: Multivac how can we reclaim the Heartland Zones?

MULTIVAC: THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

...

PRESIDENT MUSK: Multivac, how can the Orbital Diaspora return to Earth?

MULTIVAC: THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

...

MULTIVAC (after quite some time): THERE IS NOW SUFFICIENT DATA TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. LET THERE BE FULL COMMUNISM NOW.

Quorum fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Nov 23, 2016

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:06

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

Boon posted:

Yeah, maybe not, but they weren't campaign against loving Trump who is literally unsuitable for the presidency.

Trump meets the legal requirements necessary to run for, and be elected President of the United States. According to the law, he is a suitable candidate.

If those requirements aren't good enough for you, perhaps you could write to the incoming adminstration about adding some aristocratic political old boy's club amendments that would make it more to your liking.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:07

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Mister Macys posted:

Trump meets the legal requirements necessary to run for, and be elected President of the United States.

If those requirements aren't good enough for you, perhaps you could write to the incoming adminstration about adding some aristocratic political old boy's club amendments that would make it more to your liking.

Haha what is this poo poo.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:08

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

Mister Macys posted:

Trump meets the legal requirements necessary to run for, and be elected President of the United States.

If those requirements aren't good enough for you, perhaps you could write to the incoming adminstration about adding some aristocratic political old boy's club amendments that would make it more to your liking.

You know how job postings always have that section listed "minimum qualifications" and it's like "bachelor's degree, two years experience, have a car?" And then there's that other section below where it lists all the things you actually need to get hired and succeed in the job?

Yeah, there's a reason Donald Trump's heading in the debate watch threads was "Constitutionally Eligible."

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:09

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

"Suitability" is irrelevant, or it would've been included in the requirements.

He won.

And he's allowed to win.

And the electoral college wanted him to win.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:09

Koalas March: May 21, 2007

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Haha what is this poo poo.

A terrible post by a goddamn moron.

"Well he's a citizen of a certain age, that's good enough for me!"

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:10

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

Mister Macys posted:

"Suitability" is irrelevant, or it would've been included in the requirements.

It is the duty of the American people to consider suitability; this is the purpose of a democracy. The American people have objectively failed in this, thanks in part to an antiquated system which was ironically intended in part to avoid situations like this. The fact that this system hasn't received any regular maintenance since 1911 is part of the reason it's throwing up results like this.

Similarly, it is technically possible for a goddamn moron with a bachelor's degree to get hired to a job he isn't actually suited for; this happens all the time, when hiring managers don't do their jobs properly. Just because someone meets the minimum qualifications does not mean they are a good fit for the job, and in most jobs, that's what a probationary period is for. Because this is the highest office, that probationary period is the election, and we've just signed off on Donnie boy sticking around for minimum four years. He will do a terrible job, because that's what happens when you hire someone unsuitable for a job.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:11

Angry_Ed: Mar 30, 2010; Grimey Drawer

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Haha what is this poo poo.

Sounds like my dumbass friend who was like "Trump proves that anybody can be President!" Forgetting that Trump is rich and that no, the average person cannot become president because you need a poo poo-ton of money to do so for campaigning and so forth. Said dumbass also thought every single President before Trump was in government beforehand (because he doesn't know poo poo about US History despite him verbally fellating the Constitution at every opportunity, and forgot about people like Ulysses S. Grant and Ike Eisenhower).

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:11

Gringostar: Nov 12, 2016; Morbid Hound

Condiv posted:

your first premise is out and out false and is literally scott walker propaganda: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/

you might want to step back from this argument and re-evaluate your preconceptions

That's based on the entirety of the plan.

quote:

But for Walker to be right, he has to be correct on the entirety of the plan.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:12

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Here is a great article detailing how Trump made himself paltible to all his fans It wasn't the racism, it was the promise of Jobs, repeatedly, as well as the promise of LOTS OF ROADS!

Or else its jsut that all working class people are racsit.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/trump-speeches-populism-war-economics-election/ posted:

Listening to Trump

What did millions of voters see in Trump? His speeches hold the answer.
by Christian Parenti
Donald Trump in Reno, Nevada on January 10, 2016. Darron Birgenheier

Donald Trump in Reno, Nevada on January 10, 2016. Darron Birgenheier

The new issue of Jacobin is out now. To mark its release, we�re offering discounted introductory subscriptions.

Leaning into the mic, face flushed, speaking with unhurried and angry deliberation, Donald Trump told a cheering New Hampshire audience: �We�re gonna bring businesses back. We�re gonna have businesses that used to be in New Hampshire, that are now in Mexico, come back to New Hampshire. And,� pausing for applause, �you can tell them, to go gently caress themselves! Because, they let you down, and they left!�

The crowd roared its approval.

It has become apparent that very few coastal lefties, progressives, or liberals actually watched any full-length Trump speeches. I have a different problem: I may have watched too many. During early spring I went down a multi-week-long, late-night, Trump YouTube rabbit hole. I found myself watching hours of raw video feed of Trump campaign speeches. Insomnia got me there but I stayed for the mesmerizing dada quality of the Trump show, and for the mind-bending experience of watching a reality TV freak articulate surprisingly subversive political truths about the economy and America�s role in the world.

Contrary to how he was portrayed in the mainstream media Trump did not talk only of walls, immigration bans, and deportations. In fact he usually didn�t spend much time on those themes. Don�t get me wrong, Trump is a racist, misogynist, and confessed sexual predator who has legitimized dangerous street-level hate. Most of all, Trump is a fraud. And his administration will almost certainly be a terrible new low in the evolution of American authoritarianism.

But the heart of his message was something different, an ersatz economic populism, which has been noted far and wide, but also a strong, usually overlooked, antiwar message. Both spoke to legitimate working-class concerns.

Furthermore, his message was delivered with passion and a strange warmth. Dare I say it? Donald Trump has charisma. It is a mix of almost comic self-confidence, emotional intelligence, a common touch, but also at times slight vulnerability. Let�s face it, even the aura of sex around Trump � sleazy and predatory, sometimes sophomoric, as in the �small hands� jokes � was at least part of a libidinal aura.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, constrained by sexist double standards and lawyerly calculation, too often came across as bloodless. At her best moments, like facing down the vainglorious Trey Gowdy, she exuded impressive competence, brains, and steely self-control. She bested Trump in the debates. But more often, Clinton came across like a scripted and dissembling Human Resources manager.

At almost every turn the liberal pundits misunderstood, or did not hear, what Trump was saying. After his win in the Nevada caucus Trump said: �We won with highly educated, we won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated! We�re the smartest people, we�re the most loyal people.� Liberals lampooned him, assuming that he had insulted part of his base.

A different interpretation translates those comments as: �Trump understands that it�s not all my fault that I couldn�t get an education. He understands that even people who don�t have advanced degrees can make good decisions and are worthy of respect.�

One of the few coastal elites to have cracked the Trump discursive code is the otherwise odious Peter Thiel, who told the National Press Club, �the media is always taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally.� Voters on the other hand, said Thiel, �take Trump seriously but not literally.� Bingo!

Or to translate this into the academese of Roland Barthes, perhaps Trump�s discourse was more �writerly� (scriptable) than its simple sounds suggested; that is his meanings, because of the form of their delivery, were open to multiple understandings and re-assembly by the listener. Even his endlessly invoked wall, in reality a proposal for more militarized policing, could sound like a public works scheme, an infrastructure-based jobs program.

The writerly nature of Trump�s rhetoric was apparent in his contradictions. He infamously kicked off his campaign with his racist �they�re sending rapists� comments. But later asserted that he had �a tremendous relationship with the Mexican people.� And said, �I love Mexican people.� �They�re great workers. They�re fantastic people and they want legal immigration.�

Again, the smart set smirked at Trump�s inconsistency. But in the logic of the Chaos Candidate�s discourse each statement was a floating signifier that audiences could use as they wished.

In Trump�s discourse A does not necessarily connect to B. If you don�t like A, just focus on B. The structure of Trump�s discourse will never demand that all the pieces be connected. That, in part, is what he meant with the Orwellian phrase �truthful hyperbole.� He has even described his own statements as mere �opening bids� in a negotiation.

Clearly, some people of color took Trump�s invitation not to connect the dots and focused more on Trump�s disavowal of racism than on his racist utterances. If in fact 29 percent of Latinos did vote for Trump (this shocking statistic is disputed) having sunk into the variety-show style discourse of his stump speeches, I can imagine how some people could convince themselves to overlook Trump�s racism and just embrace his ersatz populism.

Hillary never insulted Mexicans or threatened to deport them. Yet she never seemed to declare her �love� for them either.

A typical Trump speech would tee-up with reference to �the wall� but then quickly pivot to economic questions: trade, jobs, descriptions of economic suffering, critiques of deindustrialization. His speeches were rambling, freewheeling, peppered with non-sequiturs and shout-outs to local businessmen, effusive thanks to key local supporters and to the crowd as a whole. �Beautiful. So, so nice. So nice. So, they say we set a record tonight.�

Often Trump�s sentences were just distinct phrases strung together. The lack of structure, far from boring, gave his stump talks an almost hypnotic quality. The listener could relax and just let it flow. In this regard Trump seems to a have stepped from the pages of Neil Postman�s old book Amusing Ourselves To Death, in that he personified the cut-up dada style assault on coherent thought that is the essence of television.

Choppy as they were, Trump�s speeches nonetheless had a clear thesis: Regular people have been getting screwed for far too long and he was going to stop it.

�When I see the crumbling roads and bridges, or the dilapidated airports, or the factories moving overseas to Mexico, or to other countries, I know these problems can all be fixed, but not by Hillary Clinton � only by me. The fact is, we can come back bigger and better and stronger than ever before � Jobs, jobs, jobs!� And amid the wacky bricolage he would suddenly sound like Bernie Sanders: �I would never support what has to be the craziest idea in the history of US politics: allowing the government to invest Social Security retirement funds in the stock market.�

Then he might read a few poll results, mock an opponent, and move on, perhaps to praising veterans. �So backstage, I met some of the vets, the greatest people we have in this country.� From there he would slide into antiwar, anti-NATO, maybe even anti-imperialist riffs, delivered not in a �woke� fashion, but rather in the �let them fight their own wars� vein of American isolationism.

�She made a terrible mistake on Libya. And not only did she make the mistake, but then they complicated the mistake by having no management once they bombed the you-know-what out of Gadhafi.� He told his audiences what many of them already knew but never saw discussed on TV, that US foreign policy has delivered apocalyptic outcomes: �We would be so much better off if Gadhafi were in charge right now. If these politicians went to the beach and didn�t do a thing, and we had Saddam Hussein and if we had Gadhafi in charge, instead of having terrorism all over the place, at least they killed terrorists, all right?�

Meanwhile, Hillary ramped up her anti-Russia and anti-Assad rhetoric, giving voters the impression she would deliver yet more war. Trump also linked war to economic suffering in America. Consider this, from a New Hampshire speech:

We spent $2 trillion in Iraq. China is taking a lot of the oil, just so you understand. ISIS may have it and Iran may have it, but China is taking out a lot of the oil. Can you imagine? We spent � we never do anything right with China. We spent $2 trillion. Thousands of lives of great people, mostly young, beautiful people, wounded warriors, who I love, all over the place, all over the place, not treated properly by the way.

And then:

Iran and Iraq, they were the same. They were twins. They have wars for years � wars, boom. One goes this way, one goes that way. One � and I said if you take out one, the other one is going to take over. Well, we took out one and look at the mess we have. We destabilized the Middle East and it is a mess . . . I mean I�m not a fan of Saddam Hussein, but he ran the place. And, he had no weapons of mass destruction. And now instead of Saddam Hussein, we have far more brutal. We have ISIS . . . What do we get out of this? What do we get?

Much to my surprise, the young Yemeni American shopkeeper at my local convenience store in Brooklyn supported Trump. Why? Because, instead of hearing in Trump�s rhetoric a threat to round up Muslims, he heard a promise to stop supplying Saudi Arabia with bombs to drop on Yemen. �Over a thousand school kids killed by those bombs! Just little kids!�

Mainstream media typically treats American imperialism as sacrosanct, beyond criticism, and so Trump�s antiwar message was mostly just ignored. But in much of the heartland � where the people who actually fight America�s wars come from, and go back to with their PTSD, missing limbs, addictions, and related financial burdens � there is deep if quiet concern about the broadly defined costs and apparent failure of our belligerent foreign policy. Even the average �low information voter� � while perhaps confused about the details � knows that the country is at war, that this is expensive, kills people, and doesn�t seem to lead to peace.

On election eve a friend in Alabama, a combat-disabled Iraq veteran turned contractor, sent me the following text:

I�ll tell you man, this is how we won. Some percent of minorities, LGBT, women and Muslims crossed over . . . People are sick of the corruption and trump is going to be very socially liberal, minus abortion. And his spending priorities are totally anti-conservative, minus military. Honestly man, I�m praying that he doesn�t let the system change him. It�s gonna be a lot harder than he thinks. gently caress Koch brothers. And gently caress Paul Ryan too.

Turns out my Trump-supporting friend was to some extent correct. Despite Trump�s infamous bigotry he outperformed both Romney and McCain among African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos.

These were Hillary�s firewalls and they all cracked, at least enough for a few sparks to get through. Half a million black women who voted for Obama in 2012 stayed home in 2016. 13 percent of black men voted for Trump. And where Obama got 60 percent of voters making under $50,000 in 2012, Hillary was closer to 50 percent. That�s not a crack; it�s a gaping hole.

The Democratic Party establishment, now spinning desperately to cover their own strategic incompetence, is blaming the white working class as �deplorable� racists. Progressives and leftists who echo this line are making the worst mistake possible.

If Trump�s victory were merely the result of racism how could it be that many white blue-collar, rust-belt areas voted for Obama by wide margins in 2008 and 2012 but then voted Trump? Obama received 1.5 million more votes from white men than did Hillary.

If Trump�s victory were just sexism how could it be that 42 percent of women with college degrees voted for him? Something deeper is going on.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times described the geography:

The Wyoming River Valley of Pennsylvania � which includes Scranton and Wilkes-Barre � voted for Mr. Trump. It had voted for Mr. Obama by double digits. Youngstown, Ohio, where Mr. Obama won by more than 20 points in 2012, was basically a draw. Mr. Trump swept the string of traditionally Democratic and old industrial towns along Lake Erie. Counties that supported Mr. Obama in 2012 voted for Mr. Trump by 20 points.

Obama won Iowa in 2012; Trump won it this time. That same pattern � Clinton underperforming Barack Obama among white working-class voters � spread all across the upper Midwest and Northeast. This cost her key electoral college states she had expected to win, most notably Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

What was it that the voters saw in Trump? The mainstream media version of Trump was as a crazy and brutal pig � not entirely untrue. The words �huge� and �tremendous� were leitmotifs in mocking Trump�s limited vocabulary. But his stump speech lexicon also included �loyalty� �win� �pledge� �beautiful� and �love� � lots and lots of �love.�

In that New Hampshire speech where Trump dropped the F-bomb he followed it up with: �We want the businesses that stayed. I�ve toured a lot of businesses that stayed. It�s hard for them to stay . . . those are the ones that we have to love and cherish.�

Or consider the particularly emotional exchange Trump had with a father from upstate New York. �I lost my son two years ago to a heroin overdose,� says the father from off camera. �Well, you know they have a tremendous problem in New Hampshire with the heroin,� says Trump. �Unbelievable. It�s always the first question I get, and they have a problem all over. And it comes through the border. We�re going to build a wall.�

Then, instead of moralizing anger, playing against type come compassion and respect: �In all fairness to your son, it�s a tough thing. Some very, very strong people have not been able to get off it. So we have to work with people to get off it.�

At this point it becomes clear that the bereaved father has started to cry. Trump shifts to tough-guy reassuring. �You just relax, OK? Yeah, it�s a tough deal. Come on. It�s a tough deal.� And, in a veiled reference to Trump�s own brother�s death from alcoholism, �I know what you went through.� Then, to the audience while pointing at the father: �He�s a great father, I can see it. And your son is proud of you. Your son is proud of you. It�s tough stuff, it�s tough stuff, and it could be stopped.�

My point is not that we should like Trump but rather that the Left must understand why almost sixty million Americans voted for him. The answer seems clear: it was Trump�s ersatz populism, antiwar message, and his ability to, in a Bill Clinton style, �feel� people�s real pain.

Ultimately, the Democratic establishment brought this loss on themselves. They spurned and tried to sabotage Bernie Sanders and his class message. Trump took the Bernie-style populism, emptied it of real class politics, reduced it to a jumble of affective associations, and used it to beat up the smug liberals of the professional managerial class. It worked.

Alas, too bad for all those well-meaning Trump voters and everyone else. Trump is a fraud, a ripoff artist who leaves unpaid bills and collapsed casinos in his wake.

The next four years look very grim indeed. As president he will attempt to govern by Twitter and soundbite, dragging American political discourse deeper into the muck. The worst-case scenario is that Trump will establish a modus vivendi with the far-right Koch-brother-led wing of the GOP and achieve a historic gutting of the regulatory state plus a momentary debt, tax-cut, and infrastructure-funded economic boom. This could consolidate a new right-wing populist base � at least until it all comes crashing down. If the Democrats continue shunning the working class, they will only help solidify Trumpism.

Or perhaps the Chaos Candidate�s colossal ego, infamously short attention span, and apparent pleasure in firing people will produce the Chaos Cabinet and exacerbate divisions within the GOP and paralysis on the policy front. Perhaps, the Clinton- DNC cabal can be broken up and run off and the Democratic Party can re-launch on the basis of a neo-Rooseveltian/Sanders style set of programs.

Either way, the grassroots left � as in social movements, advocacy groups, and organized labor � faces scary and unprecedented challenges.

Originally published at nonsite.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:12

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

Quorum posted:

It is the duty of the American people to consider suitability;

No, it's not. Their only duty is to vote or not vote. Anything else is personal choice, and not in the legal requirements to be a voter.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:12

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

Mister Macys posted:

No, it's not. Their only duty is to vote or not vote. Anything else is personal choice, and not in the legal requirements to be a voter.

Oh, okay. This is not the post of someone doing anything other than Fishmeching in bad faith.

And you can go ahead and sub "civic responsibility" there if you want my statement to be technically correct. You do remember that part of civics class, right?

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:14

Tiny Brontosaurus: Aug 1, 2013; by Lowtax

Mister Macys posted:

No, it's not. Their only duty is to vote or not vote. Anything else is personal choice, and not in the legal requirements to be a voter.

Presenting: Bare Minimum Man! Fighting for ~~truth~~, ~~justice~~, the letter of the law!

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:15

Fitzy Fitz: May 14, 2005

DaveWoo posted:

Politico Editor Resigns After Doxxing White Nationalist Leader

I have to admit, I wouldn't have expected a Politico editor of all people to go full-on "bash the fash".

I'm not gonna endorse hurting anybody, but this is good. These people need to be scared.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:17

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Fitzy Fitz posted:

I'm not gonna endorse hurting anybody, but this is good. These people need to be scared.

Welll nazis should fear their thoughts.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:20

theblackw0lf: Apr 15, 2003; "...creating a vision of the sort of society you want to have in miniature"

Hmm...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

quote:

Hillary Clinton is being urged by a group of prominent computer scientists and election lawyers to call for a recount in three swing states won by Donald Trump, New York has learned. The group, which includes voting-rights attorney John Bonifaz and J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, believes they�ve found persuasive evidence that results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania may have been manipulated or hacked. The group is so far not speaking on the record about their findings and is focused on lobbying the Clinton team in private......

I don't know where I stand on whether Hillary should ask for a recount. I doubt they were hacked, but there is legitimate reason to be suspicious. On the other hand, this could cause more problems with the transition process.

I sure know I'd sleep better though if there was a recount, as at least I could be confident that the final tally was correct, even if Hillary still ended up losing.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:23

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Quorum posted:

e: if you're into nerd poo poo, we're headed for the Expanse, not the Culture.

Finally, somebody who can explain things in terms I understand.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:24

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

theblackw0lf posted:

Hmm...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

I don't know where I stand on whether Hillary should ask for a recount. I doubt they were hacked, but there is legitimate reason to be suspicious. On the other hand, this could cause more problems with the transition process.

I sure know I'd sleep better though if there was a recount, as at least I could be confident that the final tally was correct, even if Hillary still ended up losing.

My feeling is that if they had actually persuasive evidence, they'd have come out and released it publicly. They may have suggestive evidence, but I doubt it's anything large or pervasive enough to actually swing the election.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:25

HannibalBarca: Sep 11, 2016; History shows, again and again, how nature points out the folly of man.

Quorum posted:

My feeling is that if they had actually persuasive evidence, they'd have come out and released it publicly. They may have suggestive evidence, but I doubt it's anything large or pervasive enough to actually swing the election.

Agreed. This smells like 2004-vintage Diebold hysteria.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:27

SpiderHyphenMan: Apr 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

theblackw0lf posted:

Hmm...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

I don't know where I stand on whether Hillary should ask for a recount. I doubt they were hacked, but there is legitimate reason to be suspicious. On the other hand, this could cause more problems with the transition process.

I sure know I'd sleep better though if there was a recount, as at least I could be confident that the final tally was correct, even if Hillary still ended up losing.

Yeah, no.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:27

Nonsense: Jan 26, 2007

theblackw0lf posted:

Hmm...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

I don't know where I stand on whether Hillary should ask for a recount. I doubt they were hacked, but there is legitimate reason to be suspicious. On the other hand, this could cause more problems with the transition process.

I sure know I'd sleep better though if there was a recount, as at least I could be confident that the final tally was correct, even if Hillary still ended up losing.

Why would you order recounts in states controlled by Republicans, and an active Trump base that is out for blood at the slightest opposition?

edit: They're actually turning on themselves at the base level because Trump won't prosecute Hillary. Let that poo poo stir, and don't give them any reason to unify.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:28

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Gringostar posted:

That's based on the entirety of the plan.

That's a convenient way of saying he ran on a non-union busting platform. Getting concessions is not necessarily loving over unions. He only adopted his union busting policies against collective bargaining after he was elected.

Scott walker did not campaign on loving over unions and his election was not a mandate for that in any way, unlike what you claimed.

As I said before, you're adopting republican propaganda to try to defend Obama. I'd really suggest you take a step back and rethink things.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:28

Venuz Patrol: Mar 27, 2011

there absolutely should be a recount either way, imo. the margin in michigan and wisconsin is less than 1%, and the margin in pennsylvania is only barely above 1%. i'm pretty sure it falls within the range that allows a recount to be formally requested, and i support any initiative that signals opposition to donald trump. if you're worried about the precedent this sets, well, that precedent was already set a while ago

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:29

Madkal: Feb 11, 2008; Fallen Rib

Fitzy Fitz posted:

I'm not gonna endorse hurting anybody, but this is good. These people need to be scared.

The part of the grandfathers taking baseball bats to Bund meetings made me giggle for some reason.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:31

theblackw0lf: Apr 15, 2003; "...creating a vision of the sort of society you want to have in miniature"

Quorum posted:

My feeling is that if they had actually persuasive evidence, they'd have come out and released it publicly. They may have suggestive evidence, but I doubt it's anything large or pervasive enough to actually swing the election.

The White House doesn't want a recount, which is possibly why they've remained quiet

quote:

Also complicating matters, a senior Clinton adviser said, is that the White House, focused on a smooth transfer of power, does not want Clinton to challenge the election result.

As I said, I doubt it was rigged, but I'd feel better if there was a recount, even if Hillary still ended up losing.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:31

Venuz Patrol: Mar 27, 2011

i am not interested in smoothly transitioning power to fascists.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:33

HorseRenoir: Dec 25, 2011; Pillbug

Hillary's not going to contest the election because she knows that the smartest move is to just lay low and get out of politics. Demanding a recount would just stoke the "lock her up" bullshit and keep everyone talking about Hillary again instead of Trump. Even if she somehow won a recount or faithless electors flipped the EC, her presidency would be an unpopular disaster with a hostile Republican Congress who would block all appointments and be on track to gain more seats to gently caress the 2020 redistricting map even harder, followed by a loss to a Republican more competently evil than Trump. At most, you would just be stalling for four years before the Republicans reverse any progressive policy decisions made by the Clinton White House anyway.

It sucks but we're in a better spot to rebuild the party and gain downticket seats than we would have been under a Clinton administration. I liked Hillary but the Clinton era of the party is over and she knows it.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:35

Xae: Jan 19, 2005

HannibalBarca posted:

Agreed. This smells like 2004-vintage Diebold hysteria.

Agreed.

I think it should be investigated, but quickly and quietly.

Because unless the evidence is 100% convincing there would be loving riots either way.

And in this day and age, no evidence outside of divine revelation is 100% convincing.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:36

theblackw0lf: Apr 15, 2003; "...creating a vision of the sort of society you want to have in miniature"

Xae posted:

Agreed.

I think it should be investigated, but quickly and quietly.

Because unless the evidence is 100% convincing there would be loving riots either way.

And in this day and age, no evidence outside of divine revelation is 100% convincing.

What happens though if they are recounted and it turns out Hillary did win?

Then what the hell happens?

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:40

theblackw0lf: Apr 15, 2003; "...creating a vision of the sort of society you want to have in miniature"

NYT writer

https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/801207669692526592

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:42

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

theblackw0lf posted:

What happens though if they are recounted and it turns out Hillary did win?

Then what the hell happens?

This election occupies the first two or three paragraphs of a very long and very unpleasantly illustrated chapter in the history text book.

Though keep in mind that this may well be the case regardless.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:42

HannibalBarca: Sep 11, 2016; History shows, again and again, how nature points out the folly of man.

theblackw0lf posted:

What happens though if they are recounted and it turns out Hillary did win?

Then what the hell happens?

No one knows. It would be completely unprecedented. Which is a big part of why I don't think it will happen.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:43

DoctorWhat: Nov 18, 2011; A little privacy, please?

Riots, but that's preferable to fascism.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:43

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Was-the-US-Election-Stolen-...Yet-Again-20161118-0008.html

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:45

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Yeah, if Hillary wants to remain engaged, she would do well to pull a Carter and pick a humanitarian field to champion. Child malnutrition, addiction recovery, professional retraining. She'll still be a punchline for dumb partisans but will do a lot of good, and that's pretty much the best she can hope for at this point.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:45

Quorum: Sep 24, 2014; REMIND ME AGAIN HOW THE LITTLE HORSE-SHAPED ONES MOVE?

HannibalBarca posted:

No one knows. It would be completely unprecedented. Which is a big part of why I don't think it will happen.

Well, no, if there is an official recount and it changes the outcome of the election then Hillary is president. That part is pretty solid. The only problem is what someone mentioned above, which is that she has no legitimacy, no legislative ability to govern, and is massively opposed across all levels of government. Yes, we miss out on all the terrible things that President Trump was going to do as an executive, and that's good. But the long-term outcome is not nearly so rosy.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:47

HannibalBarca: Sep 11, 2016; History shows, again and again, how nature points out the folly of man.

Pollyanna posted:

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/Was-the-US-Election-Stolen-...Yet-Again-20161118-0008.html

quote:

According to the exit poll data compiled from 28 states where data was available, nearly every single race where there was a discrepancy between exit poll and final vote data went to Trump.

yeah it's 2004 alright

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:47

Xae: Jan 19, 2005

theblackw0lf posted:

What happens though if they are recounted and it turns out Hillary did win?

Then what the hell happens?

It won't, but if it did: Throw it to the house of reps and go with a "2016 sucks" Unity ticket. McMullin/Sanders.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 04:56

theblackw0lf: Apr 15, 2003; "...creating a vision of the sort of society you want to have in miniature"

Evidence ballot totals in WI aren't adding up

https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/801084482153512960

I saw something similar in another Wisconsin county.

There could be a reasonable explanation. But that is concerning.

# ? Nov 23, 2016 00:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > uspol november: as it turns out they could not stump the trump

«‹›594 »