Elephants and Jackasses...

It got lost in an edit. The white entertainment channel thing was dumb and a joke not really directed at you. And I'm not going to respond to everything you said out of apathy. But there needs to be some clarifications.

Here is what you said about women and equality

Onto the alt-right

As far as the alt right goes, the Brietbart piece says this with my emphasis added.

 

Yes, I know what I wrote. That's not sexist, and it's in line with everything else I've said. Don't know why? Well, I'm not surprised considering every single political argument you've had on here has devolved into you calling someone racist and sexist. You were too apathetic to respond to the post, but you had the initiative to call me sexist again.

This is like if you were arguing with a woman and kept shouting that she was a whore and then repeatedly demanded she prove she isn't a whore. Your own constant insinuations that someone with a differing political view is racist/sexist is bigotry in itself. Go bang your head on a wall with someone else.

In other news, this is interesting. It would appear the fracturing within the republican party is doing serious damage to down ticket races, so we may be looking at a change in congress. 538 did a discussion on whether Clinton should shore up swing states or shoot for an electoral landslide. From a strategic standpoint you have to aim to win the presidency first. However, she's a heavy favorite at this point, and the advantages of having a democratic congress are worth spreading the money around and further supporting down ticket races. If the polls don't move within a week I don't see why she wouldn't do this.

So we might be looking at a democratic congress and president, which I'm kind of ok with. I don't particularly like either candidate, but I'm going to be all dems down ticket. The republican party struggling and the popularity of Trump (even if he loses) may move the republican party left, which is also a good thing. I still have my fingers crossed Hillary has a heart attack, but there's a bright side at least.

I imagine she will institute some of her platform with a democratic congress. Sadly, I don't think she'll be doing this, and I'm really shaky about how sincere she is on health care reform, two of the main issues for me. Might still be preferable to a Trump presidency with a democratic congress where nothing substantive happens. Although, you got to admit the entertainment value would have been fascinating, assuming half of us didn't die as a result.

 

I see this phrase thrown out a lot, but here's what else I see on this board: Whenever an actual example of something that looks pretty sexist (or racist) gets brought up there's a lot of excuse making and poo-pooing about how that particular incident doesn't necessarily mean it was due to racism/sexism, that we shouldn't come to any conclusions until we know all the facts, that SJWs/BLM are being too loud and will turn regular peoples' opinions against the victims of the incident, and so on and so forth. Hell, Feminism is the one topic that's pretty much off-limits on this board because of how worked up people get. But my point is that "sure, there's still sexism/racism in our culture" is a pretty empty - if downright dishonest - statement when the people expressing that sentiment will vociferously deny all actual incidents of such.

 

How are the republicans caught so off guard by this entire mess for two reasons:

1) They created it
2) Anyone with a basic knowledge of demographics saw this coming two decades ago.

To the first point: they spent 8 years undermining the legitimacy of the first black President (and you can't tell me there wasn't a racist bent to that entire "birther" fiasco, no one was asking any other President in history where their fucking birth certificate was). They spent six years blocking the President from doing anything and grinding the government to a screeching halt. Not because of policy, but because their only objective was "don't let Dems win." They've been playing the sore loser for six years, now. They blame democrats for all the backlogs and do-nothing congress, but the reality is that for the past eight years, we've had a President that could start a speech with "what a beautiful blue sky!" and you'd hear screams of "YOU'RE A FUCKING LIAR! ITS ORANGE!" or "Pandering! Pandering!" Many Americans got sick of the obstructionism, and that was very clearly a republican thing. Fuck, look no further than the currently vacant Supreme Court seat. Republican obstructionism at its finest, and unprecedented, to boot. Instead of letting the democratically elected guy choose a nominee, they spent a YEAR of his term refusing to hold a hearing. Now, John McCain is saying if Hillary is elected, they'll block anyone SHE attempts to nominate, as well.

Think of the message that sends Americans.
"We will let the American People have a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee."
"A Democrat won."
"We will block any attempts by this new President to nominate a Supreme Court Justice."

What the serious fuck is that? How can anyone see that tactic and not just go into a fucking eye twitch rage? It doesn't matter which party you support, that kind of obstructionism is utter bullshit, and Americans are tired of it. Republicans have spent eight years becoming known as the party of obstruction, and everyone sees it, and it has damaged their brand. Not irreparably, but damaged it.

Then there is point 2. Cities, minorities, and women have always leaned much more democratic. Women make up 51% of the population. Republicans tend to be white, male, and most importantly, rural. If you live in a rural area, you're likely republican. If you live in an urban area, you're more likely democrat. And Urban living people make up the majority.

Shit, Republicans know this. Let me demonstrate with my state, Indiana (a VERY republican/conservative state):

These were our congressional districts in the 2000s.

Spoiler

Districts look fucked up? Of course they do, because republicans gerrymandered the shit out of them to keep as many seats republican as possible. Two districts are solidly democrat (1 and 7, around Gary and Indianapolis), with a 3rd that was close (district 2, which had Michigan City, another solidly democratic area). They were giving up two seats and fighting district 2. They didn't want to fight for district two anymore. So, when they had to redraw it in 2010:

Spoiler

It may look better. At least the districts don't reach into weird areas all fucked up anymore. But notice districts 1 and 2? They changed them (obviously). 1 used to be Lake, Porter, Jasper, Newton, and Benton County. Lake and Porter are more democratic (more urban, contain Gary, Hammond, cities like that), while Newton, Jasper, and Benton are extremely conservative (all three counties are very rural). In addition, district 2 was up for grabs frequently because of the Michigan City vote. So? Move all of Michigan City (democratic) into district 1 and cede district 1 to Democrats to ensure they always win district 2.

This is how gerrymandering works, and republicans have done this in every state they control (please note: democrats do this, too, so I am NOT solely blaming republicans, it just happens that they control more states than democrats right now. This is a very common political tactic and is just kind of taken as "standard operating procedure").

The point of this little civics lesson? Republicans do this because they're not dumb. They know the demographics, and know they're fighting a losing battle with demographics, so I don't understand how they're so surprised or caught off guard by anything that is happening. Not just losing the Presidency, but losing the Senate and maybe even the house.

Their only hope from day one was to reach out to minorities and women. Instead, they nominate a guy who very specifically ostracizes minorities and women, and throw all their backing behind him. Now, they're getting shellacked so bad they may lose not only the Presidency, but the Senate is looking increasingly likely to go, and the house is actually on the table. This couldn't be going worse for Republicans if Donald Trump was actually caught while raping someone (of course, that would be "media bias" too...).

Republicans don't have awful ideas. In fact, I've always voted Democrat nationally and Republican locally. I've just always felt the small government/less taxes/less regulation thing works much better in a smaller environment like a state, whereas the national government needs that funding and can override states who overreach on civil rights (i.e. Mike Pence and pretty much everything he does). That is why this election is so infuriating as a guy who does feel like he is slightly more moderate, but comes off as batshit-lunatic liberal, because I don't buy into the conspiracy theories about voter fraud and media bias against a guy who says outrageous shit and then complains the media covers said outrageous shit, or when all statistical evidence shows voter fraud is borderline non-existent. I believe in Occam's razor. The most simple, obvious cause is most likely the correct one. Which is more simple:

Changing demographics and a Republican nominee that is offensive to (at minimum, likely more) 51% of the population are leading to a democratic landslide?

OR

There is a vast conspiracy, spanning what would have to be thousands of people (Hillary, her camp, operatives in every state, and the "voters" who will be to repeatedly voting), of voter fraud and media coverups and manipulation designed to keep Democrats in power while suppressing the vote of whites.

I mean, be honest with yourself. Which of those seems more likely? If you're thinking the second, by all means, explain to me how "Loose Change" prove 9/11 was an inside job. I'll leave this message board to the conspiracy theorists and let Gravy keep banging his head against that brick wall by himself. Honestly, the amount of conspiracy theories that have been bought into around here lately is staggering, but the reasoning is simple; you Hate Hillary. I get it, she is very easily hated. However, because you hate her, you work backwards from there. "I hate Hillary, she is constantly dishonest," is your baseline. Then, you buy into any story that reinforces this baseline (no matter how outlandish and tin-foil-hat it may be) while ignoring any possible holes or problems with said stories. We all do it. The difference right now is, at least I'll admit I do it, but I also have Occam's Razor on my side.

Republicans had a chance to actually make strides. They could've reached out to women and minorities. They could have made an honest attempt at (GASP!) compromise. However, as the last six years have demonstrated, compromise has become the dirtiest word in the republican sphere. Shit, they'll vote for guys that say "grab them by the pussy!" before they'll let someone say compromise.

The true irony there is that its the conservatives who are so up-in-arms about how terrible the establishment is, when they are the REASON things are so deadlocked.

 

So, here's something I've been wondering. I don't think I've been hearing a lot about the concerns of what the actual consequences of a Hillary presidency would be. I hear all of the fears about a Trump presidency, from the realistic to the melodramatic, alongside why he's hated as a person and a candidate. And I know why people hate Hillary as a person and a candidate. But what are the worst case scenarios people are worried about how those qualities would translate to what her presidency would look like and what the country would be like? I know that for the Christian Right the main concern is the Supreme Court seat(s) because of abortion and gay stuff, but I don't really know what all the other anti-Hillary people have been talking/worried about.

 

Well, because she's corrupt. And not having corrupt politicians is a standard we've decided to have starting in 2016, apparently.

 

Hillary is definitely the safer choice. It's not so much about what she will, as what people think she won't do. I personally think her platform is good, it's that I've seen her act in contrast with her campaign promises.

She might do something damaging, like pushing a bankruptcy bill similar to the one she voted for in the past. The two biggest concerns I have for her other than just not getting much done is supporting a trade bill like the TPP (which would be a disaster in my mind) and her policy on ISIS. She wants to arm the kurds in Syria, a small group of rebels who I don't trust to uphold whatever agreements we barter. So we'll spread more weapons into the region, which will likely go to more radicals eventually. We need to focus on improving relations with middle eastern nations that have better human rights records, and arming the kurds is going to piss off Turkey for a really long time. Beyond that her plan to defeat ISIS looks inherently flawed and like a continual drain on resources. Trump is just going to nuke them (I'm kidding, I think).

Also, I think taking in so many Syrian refugees is a really stupid idea in light of what we know regarding Europe.

She also has been downright careless at times, like claiming she didn't know drone strike attacks had to be classified and her haphazard protection of classified information, but yeah, compared to Trump this is hardly a concern.

Trump is a wild card, but I think he's more likely to stand behind his platform on issues important to me.

 

Is she still pushing that idea that manufacturers should be sued if their gun is used in a crime? Because that might be the single stupidest piece of legislation I've ever heard of.

 

I think people are acting all end-of-the-world about her because this election has had an unprecedented level of unwanted(by the candidates) transparency. People are hearing stuff that they have been blissfully ignorant about for as long politics has been a thing. They act like she's the first candidate to have questionable ties to some undesirable group.

Remember what sunk Mitt Romney's campaign? The 47% thing? It wasn't even factually wrong. It may have been a tad crass, but look at the shit Trump says every single day. That Mickey Mouse shit by comparison to this election.

Then you have these Wikileaks releases every 20 minutes, a hot mic moment from a fundraiser about Bernie supporters, and a video showing members of the DNC trying to incite Trump supporters. I'm no great fan of Hillary but I feel the stuff she is being accused of is politics as usual and no different from other politicians out there. She's just getting caught more. I think successful politicians are sociopaths. She's not the first person to have ties to wall street. Or make money from speeches. She's the only one who has to answer for them. I think that's bullshit and a lot of the people know that.

 

I think the BATFE would quietly gain a lot more power but not in ways that are actually beneficial. They need to do things like improve the NICS system and check process rather than start enforcing ITAR registration out of nowhere like they did earlier this year, which is just ridiculous.

 

I’ll piggy back off Audrey’s post to bring up something similar I’ve been thinking about lately, which is what happens all around after this shit ends.

To start with Audrey, in part because it’s the thing I’m most sure about: you don’t hear it because there’s nothing to say beyond the typical disagreements any reasonable person would have, as evidenced by the subsequent posts here. They don’t have anything major to point to because they’re either fervent Trump supporters who hate her because they enjoy it and think Donald is just a hoot -- they don’t actually care about this election, or the country’s future, they’re just enjoying it like a reality TV show. Or, they’re her informed opponents who are creating so much smoke out of such small embers they may actually be violating a law of thermodynamics. They know full well that her presidency will be boring, uncontroversial (besides what they stoke) and will end up being a net good for the country, all while her foundation continues to be one of the greatest sources of good in the developing world. She’s a poor public speaker and bad campaigner, but as the emails show, she’s a friggin policy nerd that actually likes doing the work. They know this.

I’m less sure of what Donald and his supporters will do. My hunch is that there’s a small chance it actually hurts him with his supporters, but I would bet they mostly won’t care that he officially became a loser, because rigged election blah blah. He might even say he never wanted the job, not as an admission, but as a “I’m too good for it anyways,” or “The country doesn’t deserve my awesomeness” spin. I’m damn sure there will not be any kind of revolution from die-hard Donald-ites, since they lack the will, intelligence and physical ability to do so. Plus, there will be something more entertaining on TV, quite possibly Donald.

Though it is nice to imagine he actually goes away after all this. Sigh.

The thing I’m least sure but most hopeful about is what the republican party will do. I think George Will could be right in that this is an acid wash for the party and that maybe – maybe – they will stop poking and prodding the worst of the American electorate to come vote for them, and instead begin appealing to people who don’t view higher education as an inherently bad thing and have some semblance of a working bullshit detector. An extremely low bar, I realize, and I wouldn’t bet on it happening, but if it did, I would say without hesitation that Donald’s campaign was in the end a net good.

Dude you're hilarious.

 

As far as I know there isn't a single fervent Trump supporter on here. The general consensus is that we have two terrible candidates. I don't care what people think about Hillary's corruption at this point(if you don't see any of it good for you). Your conspiracy theory about Trump running to lose on purpose doesn't have any evidence. You just pulled it out of your ass, don't start talking down to people.

And seriously guys, go ahead and disagree with someone, but writing these long winded idiotic posts about how 'insert entire group that disagrees with my candidate preference' are stupid assholes is just worthless discourse. Stop fucking up the thread.

 

I think Hillary does it more and she gets caught more. It's not all about Hillary, and people have generally known this about politicians, but this cycle shed light on how flagrant it's become. This whole election cycle was very anti-establishment. 8 years ago I don't think someone like Trump would have a chance. He likely would have dropped out early in the primaries. As insane as it's made things it's not necessarily a bad thing overall. We may get citizens united overturned, and scale some of it back, although I don't think it will be within the next four years.

 

I could have written that clearer.

When I said "you don’t hear it because there’s nothing to say beyond the typical disagreements any reasonable person would have, as evidenced by the subsequent posts here", I was including reasonable people on and off this board ("posts here" was a good clue as to what I meant). In the next sentence, when I said "They don’t have anything major to point to because they’re either fervent Trump supporters..." the 'they' I was referring to were the people I assume Audrey was referring to, that being Trump's sick surrogates who go on TV defending him and are somehow able to sleep at night. Even if Audrey wasn't referring to those people, I was.

Him running only to promote himself is obvious to anyone with a working bullshit detector (along with the knowledge that people do exactly what he's doing ever single election, they just never get the nomination). Some of the specific evidence is that he didn't have a serious campaign manager until spring of this year, they keep getting fired or quitting because he doesn't listen to them, birtherism, he won't release his tax returns, and he bullshits so often and flagrantly that fact checkers can't even keep up. You hilariously keep projecting some subtle, deft strategy on to what he's doing, when it's obvious that he's just winging it, because he doesn't take it seriously and never expected to get this far (just like he didn't in the last election).

Based on your last sentence, you didn't understand what I wrote, even excluding the first part when I wasn't clear, but that's about par. Stop fucking up the thread.

One more edit for ya: Stop straw manning my point to say that "he's running to lose on purpose". You're not understanding that he doesn't care if he wins or loses the election, he cares about promoting himself, and in that sense, he's already won possibly more than any human ever. If he won, Pence would dwarf Cheney in terms of VP influence -- he'd have to do the actual job himself, which is just as scary. I keep specifically using the term bullshit because he isn't lying the way a typical politician like Hilary tends to. He's just using words -- some make true statements, most don't, but the content is irrelevant -- to make sure the attention stays on him. That's why he can hold a "major campaign press conference", spend the first part pimping his hotel, then say Hilary started the birther movement with a straight face. It's so far from the truth that calling it false does an injustice to the idea of lying. Like his most fervent supporters (none of whom are on this board, calm down), he truly does not give a fuck.

Not sure if you're referring to me, but nothing I said indicates that I think a person with conservative views is stupid or bigoted. I specifically said that his 'campaign' could be a wake up call to the republican party to stop going out of their way to appeal to and rile up people who are stupid and bigoted. Ever hear them talk derisively about 'ivy league elites' (even when they themselves went to an ivy league) or 'the intelligentsia'? Yeah, that.

 

I am doing my best to be open minded with this election and God damn is this hard..

I also think the issue is we have plenty of laws, and little enforcement. Why? Enforcement Costs money and that comes from taxes we no longer seem intent on collecting.

 

Hell, they've done worse than piss poor. I think the most ridiculous thing fox news does is when they bring on the craziest, stupidest black motherfucker they can find. There's this one recurrent guy who was trying to argue that this person shot in the back by cops deserved it because running by itself is grounds for an execution. Don't get me started on gay to be cool, and all things gay psychology. There was a republican think tank that conducted a study on Obama hormones, and how females vote based on chemical imbalances or some shit. Another republican think tank published a study on how western economic aid to Africa is the cause of impoverishment.

Granted, that stuff is rare, but it makes it's way back to people and you can't really think anything other than "What the fucking fuck?" There's this group mentality among the right media, and somewhat with the politicians themselves that you aren't supposed to denounce this stuff because they're on your team, which effectively gives the impression that these are widely held conservative views.

Other than that, as D26 mentioned they've become increasingly obstructionist, and increasingly anti-left in their narrative rather than touting their own policies. Everyone knows that there's lazy assholes who want to abuse the system rather than use it to get back on their feet, but it's not helpful to focus so much on them rather than the rest of the lower class.

Even the left now is borderline touting the idea that we can pay off the debt, expand government programs, and cut taxes at the same time. The right has been pushing the idea that tax cuts pay for themselves since the Reagan era.