National Elections Thread

[Murdin]

If you support ignoring the will of the electorate and just going with what you wanted regardless, it's YOU that's authoritarian, not me.

Personally, I think Democrats should take the advice they levelled at Trump before the election and accept the result without shenanigans...

...or riots.

Lol.

I honestly wouldn't have minded people protesting Clinton's victory, especially in those regions that haven't recovered, at all, from the recession. The losing party rejecting the results is another matter entirely.

[RavynousHunter]

There is still a chance. December 17 the electors vote in finality, and select the next President. If there are some defections, we could still have President Clinton.

Sure, its un-democratic. But those disgusting piglets and cretins do not deserve democracy. There is no circumstance in which the un-educated deserve to tell the educated how to run a country.

Oh my god.  The reaction to that would be fucking HILARIOUS.  As for it being un-democratic, actually...it would be.  The popular vote actually voted for Hilary.  Granted, the margin was pretty fucking slim (~1,000,000 votes), but a majority is a majority.

[davedan]

I think it is important to note that Hilary conceded and urged people to give the Trump presidency a chance. She can't stop people protesting but she certainly didn't encourage it.

Just saw this piece from an muslim woman who voted for Trump: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/im-a-muslim-a-woman-and-an-immigrant-i-voted-for-trump-20161110-gsmwws.html

What is weird is that her main grip appeared to be economic and about the Affordable Care Act. Trump doesn't actually have any plans on these points, just has had said 'trust me it'll be great.'

With Republican control of the Presidency, Senate and Congress they will have free rein to make whatever changes they think they should. My guess is they will use the same policies they used under George W Bush. Worked wonders then.

[Sigmaleph]

If you support ignoring the will of the electorate and just going with what you wanted regardless, it's YOU that's authoritarian, not me.

Personally, I think Democrats should take the advice they levelled at Trump before the election and accept the result without shenanigans...

...or riots.

Lol.

I think it's too late to try and reverse this without creating even bigger problems.

but for what it's worth, it's currently looking like the electorate i.e. the popular vote, chose Hillary (still, by a depressingly small margin). An artificial structure imposed on top of the popular vote that reweighs the votes by state is what chose Trump.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

There is still a chance. December 17 the electors vote in finality, and select the next President. If there are some defections, we could still have President Clinton.

Sure, its un-democratic. But those disgusting piglets and cretins do not deserve democracy. There is no circumstance in which the un-educated deserve to tell the educated how to run a country.

And you were calling me a Nazi?

Lol.  Nice of you to show off your own fascist credentials there.

Well Fascism is the combination of right wing, and nationalistic with authoritarian. This is why not every authoritarian is a "Fascist", Vlad the Impaler and Emperor Caligula were not Fascists. While I don't agree with niam he's not calling for the mobilization of all citizens to form a one party state in a nation that draws it's power from a merger of state and corporate control.

Neither are you, though you certainly fit the "authoritarian", "right wing" and "nationalist" parts.

But then being precise with words you throw around was never really your thing!

If you support ignoring the will of the electorate and just going with what you wanted regardless, it's YOU that's authoritarian, not me.

Having a view that's contrarian to the view of the majority is authoritarian...wait...

What?

[dpareja]

I'd rather shove a wet noodle up a bobcat's ass than listen to another one of her speeches.

[niam2023]

There is still a chance. December 17 the electors vote in finality, and select the next President. If there are some defections, we could still have President Clinton.

Sure, its un-democratic. But those disgusting piglets and cretins do not deserve democracy. There is no circumstance in which the un-educated deserve to tell the educated how to run a country.

And you were calling me a Nazi?

Lol.  Nice of you to show off your own fascist credentials there.

Well Fascism is the combination of right wing, and nationalistic with authoritarian. This is why not every authoritarian is a "Fascist", Vlad the Impaler and Emperor Caligula were not Fascists. While I don't agree with niam he's not calling for the mobilization of all citizens to form a one party state in a nation that draws it's power from a merger of state and corporate control.

Neither are you, though you certainly fit the "authoritarian", "right wing" and "nationalist" parts.

But then being precise with words you throw around was never really your thing!

If you support ignoring the will of the electorate and just going with what you wanted regardless, it's YOU that's authoritarian, not me.

Personally, I think Democrats should take the advice they levelled at Trump before the election and accept the result without shenanigans...

...or riots.

Lol.

I have no problem being labeled as a fascist by someone like you. The electorate that spoke were barely literate mouth-breathers - the Rural Whites make possibly the best case for eugenics that could ever be made. These are people who have methods presented to them which could improve their lives...and they choose to get fucked harder and harder each and every time, just because they think its what their religion demands and because the results might screw over people they dislike for having different skin color.

They concoct these absurd ideas for themselves. I saw one article that talked about Southerner Values like honor and loyalty to ones' own "folk", among others. These were some of the most antiquated, hilarious ideas I've ever seen.

And lastly, they choose their Presidents based not on ability or any other qualifier, but whether or not he speaks the same brain-damaged dialect as the rest of them.

Really, its sad we allow such idiots to choose our Presidents.

[davedan]

Warren/ Sanders 2020?

[dpareja]

Warren/ Sanders 2020?

Not Sanders, way too old. Even Warren will in 2020 be a year older than Trump is now.

Look to someone like Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner... assuming the DNC gets their act together and puts progressives in charge.

[SCarpelan]

The only reason for Sanders to run again is if the situation is as bad as this year on the Democratic side. That would mean that the progressive politics have failed badly.

[niam2023]

We need a breath of young air in the democratic party. I think half the problem is that the candidates involved were old - a younger, brighter voice would resonate more strongly. As superficial as that may sound, I suspect it may be true on some level.

[dpareja]

We need a breath of young air in the democratic party. I think half the problem is that the candidates involved were old - a younger, brighter voice would resonate more strongly. As superficial as that may sound, I suspect it may be true on some level.

Honestly, I don't think anyone could have beaten Clinton given how the DNC had stacked the deck. What has to be done going forward is to clean house at the DNC, hammer the corporatists into acquiescence/submission/a bloody pulp to ensure that they don't do suicidal crap like put in Dean as chair and Kaine as the 2020 nominee, and put progressives in their place who don't do things like take corporate money. Put Keith Ellison (Sanders' preferred choice) in as chair ASAP and run Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner against Trump in 2020. Nominate progressives for every seat up for grabs in 2018--even if it means turfing corporatist incumbents in primaries--and let the voters decide between progressivism and corporatist paleoconservatism.

[SCarpelan]

We need a breath of young air in the democratic party. I think half the problem is that the candidates involved were old - a younger, brighter voice would resonate more strongly. As superficial as that may sound, I suspect it may be true on some level.

Honestly, I don't think anyone could have beaten Clinton given how the DNC had stacked the deck. What has to be done going forward is to clean house at the DNC, hammer the corporatists into acquiescence/submission/a bloody pulp to ensure that they don't do suicidal crap like put in Dean as chair and Kaine as the 2020 nominee, and put progressives in their place who don't do things like take corporate money. Put Keith Ellison (Sanders' preferred choice) in as chair ASAP and run Tulsi Gabbard or Nina Turner against Trump in 2020. Nominate progressives for every seat up for grabs in 2018--even if it means turfing corporatist incumbents in primaries--and let the voters decide between progressivism and corporatist paleoconservatism.

Nah, in hindsight she was very much beatable. The party gave her an advantage compared to her opponents but it was far from insurmountable. Part of why she made through is that everyone assumed she was unbeatable and didn't want to risk their careers by participating in a hopeless presidential primary. Even Sanders didn't believe he could win and this reflected on the timing and original strategy of his run. He revealed to even his own surprise that the giant's legs were made out of clay but he ran out of time and when the primaries started his momentum died.

[Askold]

I keep talking to people on the net on why they think that people in populated regions should have their vote count for less than the ones in rural areas. It mostly seems to follow on "but then the yuppies and commies in few cities would decide the elections for the entire country and they live in their own bubble and don't know a thing about our lives outside the cities." But I don't see the problem in that. One person, one vote each of the same value.

How can you go and say that "this person's thoughts on how this country should be run matter less than MINE" and still claim to support democracy? I mean I know it's annoying for me when I look at election results and see that people who most agree with me are my own age and the elderly voters are mainly against things that I consider reasonable but this still does not mean that I would support taking away voting rights from old people.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

I don't know if Republicans do support democracy, they openly engage in voter suppression and their candidate only accepted the outcome because he won.

They're Republicans, they support their place in the republic.