[Gorefest]

https://www.theguard...lm-donald-trump
Free to watch tonight in the US via Facebook.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 03 November 2016 - 08:41 PM

[EmperorMagus]

@Terez:

Do you trust 538 which gives Trump an almost 36% chance or everyone else who thinks he has no chance?

[Terez]

Definitely 538. It's going to be a fairly close one. I still think he'll lose though.

I need to go vote. I could have voted already but I've been stupid busy. For some reason I agreed to help moderate r/dbz :/

[EmperorMagus]

 Terez, on 06 November 2016 - 02:55 AM, said:

Definitely 538. It's going to be a fairly close one. I still think he'll lose though.

I need to go vote. I could have voted already but I've been stupid busy. For some reason I agreed to help moderate r/dbz :/

So DT is more likely to win than Romney was in 2012.

The sheer idiocy of that fact makes me want puke.

[Terez]

Obama was more popular with the maybe-voters on the left than Hillary.

Trump is more popular with the maybe-voters on the right than Romney.

The party-line always-voters don't decide elections.

[EmperorMagus]

 Terez, on 06 November 2016 - 03:19 AM, said:

Obama was more popular with the maybe-voters on the left than Hillary.

Trump is more popular with the maybe-voters on the right than Romney.

The party-line always-voters don't decide elections.

But who else were the crazies going to vote for?

I understand why HC does not have the appeal of Obama, but I cannot understand why people even consider Trump. He is so uniquely unqualified for the job it's not even funny anymore.

I think it's been clear sometimes that I am partly rooting for Trump. The sole reason I like Trump more than Clinton for the presidency is that I believe he will be the US version of Nero or Caligula. DC will burn down around him and he will be on twitter insulting mexicans. Meanwhile Clinton will be the one forcing Canada to sign TPP or making sure third world countries are spreading their asscheeks for US companies.


I can't understand why any American would vote for Trump. Yes, you are disgruntled. Yes, your options are fucking horrible. But even Gary Johnson in all his craziness is a better option. At least he is coherent. You can even write in someone else's name or spoil your ballot if you want to, but voting for Trump is inexcuable.

[Terez]

That's the thing; we're talking about maybe-voters here. If they don't like the option running for their party, they don't vote at all.

[Gorefest]

 EmperorMagus, on 06 November 2016 - 04:35 AM, said:

I can't understand why any American would vote for Trump. Yes, you are disgruntled. Yes, your options are fucking horrible. But even Gary Johnson in all his craziness is a better option. At least he is coherent. You can even write in someone else's name or spoil your ballot if you want to, but voting for Trump is inexcuable.

Not that bizarre, really. A large section of the public is fed up with the political establishment. They are fed up with big bankers, with neoliberalism, and with corporate involvement. Hillary is a guarantee of retaining the status quo. Trump is a complete outsider. If you forget all the crazy rhetoric about building a mexican wall, being obnoxious to women and pulling up the bridges for muslims, he says a lot of things that resonate with a large disgruntled portion of the nation and which to them is more important than hollow rhetoric. Things like empowering american small businesses, dismantling big government, etc. Sure, it is mostly not practical and he makes promises that are impossible to keep, but with the right media push behind it people will feel empowered to kick the establishment in the teeth.

You can dismiss the movement as idiotic and populist, not to be taken seriously from an intellectual ivory tower, but you do so at your own detriment as we found out here in the UK during the Brexit debate. Try and look past the dumb one-liners and spot the very real stream of discontent bubbling underneath the sheen of clownery.

[Primateus]

Today there is this!

Washington post

[Tiste Simeon]

Hmm will we see his taxes now?

[worry]

Here's something to lighten the mood. Journalist Kurt Eichenwald, apparently the left's answer to all the hack journos on the right, and who somehow has a job at Newsweek, insists that it is impossible for 650k emails to "fit on a laptop". https://twitter.com/...410682292408321
The number of things one has to fundamentally misunderstand about email/computer storage/etc. to believe this is staggering -- like elder who can't set the time on a VCR-level incompetent.

[EmperorMagus]

And he keeps arguing on twitter that he's right ...

Can these people just give up when they are wrong?

@Gorefest:

I'm not on an ivory tower. I understand the point that people are trying to make by voting for Trump. The problem is, it would be to depressing to believe that half of a country would rather DT fuck them instead of Clinton. One will be gentle and they may survive it, the other will not. Brexit is not comparable to Trump, nowhere in that referendum was anyone considering handing a lunatic (at least two of my psych profs have outright stated in class that the guy has a minimum of one Cluster B PD) access to nuclear weapons.

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 07 November 2016 - 04:25 AM

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

 EmperorMagus, on 07 November 2016 - 04:25 AM, said:

Brexit is not comparable to Trump, nowhere in that referendum was anyone considering handing a lunatic (at least two of my psych profs have outright stated in class that the guy has a minimum of one Cluster B PD) access to nuclear weapons.

If we take the point of people voting because they're fed up with the establishment and status quo, I'd say it's very comparable indeed.

[EmperorMagus]

 TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 07 November 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

 EmperorMagus, on 07 November 2016 - 04:25 AM, said:

Brexit is not comparable to Trump, nowhere in that referendum was anyone considering handing a lunatic (at least two of my psych profs have outright stated in class that the guy has a minimum of one Cluster B PD) access to nuclear weapons.

If we take the point of people voting because they're fed up with the establishment and status quo, I'd say it's very comparable indeed.

But the consequences are not comparable at all, that is my point. In one case the worst consequence was an economic downturn which could potentially have horrible effects on the UK. In the other case you're giving Donald Trump the nuclear keys.

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

 EmperorMagus, on 07 November 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

 TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 07 November 2016 - 07:23 AM, said:

 EmperorMagus, on 07 November 2016 - 04:25 AM, said:

Brexit is not comparable to Trump, nowhere in that referendum was anyone considering handing a lunatic (at least two of my psych profs have outright stated in class that the guy has a minimum of one Cluster B PD) access to nuclear weapons.

If we take the point of people voting because they're fed up with the establishment and status quo, I'd say it's very comparable indeed.

But the consequences are not comparable at all, that is my point. In one case the worst consequence was an economic downturn which could potentially have horrible effects on the UK. In the other case you're giving Donald Trump the nuclear keys.

No argument there - I just think that "potential horrible consequences" of any magnitude don't seem to sway a fed up populace in either scenario - despite one being mightily scarier than the other.

[Garak]

It's because people don't generally think about what the "potential horrible consequences" are. And sometimes they don't even know what/who they're voting for. We had presedential elections here where there were people who thought they were voting for a pension increase. I mean, what? The various party's saying whatever they think will attract voters doesn't help matters. Though I still can't figure out how you vote for Trump after hearing what comes out of his mouth.

[Primateus]

 Garak, on 07 November 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

It's because people don't generally think about what the "potential horrible consequences" are. And sometimes they don't even know what/who they're voting for. We had presedential elections here where there were people who thought they were voting for a pension increase. I mean, what? The various party's saying whatever they think will attract voters doesn't help matters. Though I still can't figure out how you vote for Trump after hearing what comes out of his mouth.

(My bold)

Unfortunately, I think it's because a great deal of those people, they actually, genuinely agree with much of what he's saying. I think HRC was right to call them his "basket of deplorables". And honestly, I think that the basket is bigger than we might want to admit.

[Morgoth]

 Gorefest, on 06 November 2016 - 03:07 PM, said:

 EmperorMagus, on 06 November 2016 - 04:35 AM, said:

I can't understand why any American would vote for Trump. Yes, you are disgruntled. Yes, your options are fucking horrible. But even Gary Johnson in all his craziness is a better option. At least he is coherent. You can even write in someone else's name or spoil your ballot if you want to, but voting for Trump is inexcuable.

Not that bizarre, really. A large section of the public is fed up with the political establishment. They are fed up with big bankers, with neoliberalism, and with corporate involvement. Hillary is a guarantee of retaining the status quo. Trump is a complete outsider. If you forget all the crazy rhetoric about building a mexican wall, being obnoxious to women and pulling up the bridges for muslims, he says a lot of things that resonate with a large disgruntled portion of the nation and which to them is more important than hollow rhetoric. Things like empowering american small businesses, dismantling big government, etc. Sure, it is mostly not practical and he makes promises that are impossible to keep, but with the right media push behind it people will feel empowered to kick the establishment in the teeth.

You can dismiss the movement as idiotic and populist, not to be taken seriously from an intellectual ivory tower, but you do so at your own detriment as we found out here in the UK during the Brexit debate. Try and look past the dumb one-liners and spot the very real stream of discontent bubbling underneath the sheen of clownery.

Neoliberalism? That can't be right. Trump is the one talking of downsizing the government to a substantial degree, whereas Hillary's rhetoric has been one of increased government involvement, at least as far as I can tell.

[Terez]

Neoliberalism is an aspect of Clintonian "triangulation" or Third Way politics. Free Trade, decreased regulation, lowered taxes, etc. It's what separates the New Democrats from the traditional liberals, but it's arguably the only reason the Democrats were able to regain the White House in 1992. It's all about those donors. Bill and Hillary have both tried to play both sides on this; they only cater to liberals on voters' high-priority issues; it's the stuff voters don't pay much attention to (like trade deals and financial deregulation) where they make the donors happy.

Of course, it's not pure neoliberalism, if there is such a thing, but then neither would Trump be pure neoliberalism. He's not a fan of Free Trade. (Or at least, he says he's not because his base doesn't like it.)

[Morgoth]

 Terez, on 07 November 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

Neoliberalism is an aspect of Clintonian "triangulation" or Third Way politics. Free Trade, decreased regulation, lowered taxes, etc. It's what separates the New Democrats from the traditional liberals, but it's arguably the only reason the Democrats were able to regain the White House in 1992. It's all about those donors. Bill and Hillary have both tried to play both sides on this; they only cater to liberals on voters' high-priority issues; it's the stuff voters don't pay much attention to (like trade deals and financial deregulation) where they make the donors happy.

Of course, it's not pure neoliberalism, if there is such a thing, but then neither would Trump be pure neoliberalism. He's not a fan of Free Trade. (Or at least, he says he's not because his base doesn't like it.)

Are you sure? My knowledge on the subject is somewhat patchy, but the first time I encountered the term was in a book about Pinochet, which described his economic reforms as neoliberal. I have also seen Reagan's economic platform being described as neoliberal on multiple occasions. A quick google search shows me that The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute describe themselves as neoliberal, too.