2016 United States Election

[Inanna]

Cerin, I think you are right about the Democratic Party.

But not that people will see that Trump is a fraud. If he fails the establishment will be blamed. If he succeeds even minutely - in increasing jobs - he will claim gigantic effects. And it will all be "terrific" because of him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RoseMorninStar]

This is the fourth U.S. presidential election I've followed in detail, and I'm now used to the manic rhetoric and predictions of doom. When Bush was re-elected, many left-wing people (including on this family of boards) were predicting that America was destroyed and democracy had failed, and this was the beginning of the slide into some sort of totalitarianism. The same thing happened from the other side when Obama was elected in 2008, and in particular, when he was re-elected in 2012. In each case, going into the election pundits were claiming that this was the single most important election in living memory and it represented some sort of cross-roads where there was no turning back from the wrong path.

There is far too much rhetoric in American elections and a far too long an election cycle, however, rhetoric works evidently. I don't think I would be alone however, in saying this year was markedly different from any other election, and I've seen more elections than I'd care to admit. This was our first female nominee for a major party. It was the first time a major candidate claimed he was 'smart' for not paying taxes or for mentioning his private parts in a televised public forum ugh. The level of discourse, bullying, and name-calling for someone running for the leader of our country was disappointing to say the least.

While the hysteria is sometimes overboard, some of it is founded. It can work as a check & balance. It shows we have learned something from history and that horrible dictators, even democratically elected ones, can rise to power. And, I suppose whether things are a 'disaster' depends upon what you find important. The environment is important to me and Trump does not believe in climate change and he is for opening up federal lands for mining & drilling and will likely cut environmental safeguards & controls. I believe this is short-sighted because one of the things that made American products desirable were that they were considered quality/high standard goods due to regulations, especially on our foods. This has suffered greatly over the last couple of decades. Some things, once done, are difficult to undo.

Trump defeated would have been immortalized, along with his rhetoric. But people of good will who voted for Trump will soon see he is a fraud...

Agreed. (I agree with Inanna's comment too) Trump stirred a pot that will not quiet on it's own and had another party won his followers vowed a revolution due to 'rigged elections'. However, I wish I could be as optimistic that people will come to see him for the fraud he is. I've dealt with 2 narcissists and it's not been good. They are very good at.. well, hypnotizing people while others stand by and wonder, 'How can they not see them for what they are?' My experience is not unique. Few, if any, walk away unscathed.

[Primula Baggins]

All I know tonight is that Tom and I ran into a member of our church (also our kids' high school calculus teacher) at a grocery store tonight, and we just stood close to each other and talked, and I said, I"m looking forward to church tomorrow, to be among our people, and she nodded emphatically, and we talked about grief and sadness and groping for things to do to help change this, and it was good. I don't think I have ever needed my church more. Not as a source of people who think exactly like me, because (a) that's a problem, not a solution, and (b) I'm sure some of them voted for Trump. But (c) we are brothers and sisters together, and we have compassion for each other, and if anyone knows a way forward I'm going to hear about it there, with my brothers and sisters who don't hate me even if they disagree with me politically. And that in itself, that something like this exists and brings people together, gives me hope. There are other places like my church, and a whole lot of them aren't even churches. We'll find a way forward.

[Inanna]

It was lovely to read that, Prim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lalaith]

I should have read that first before posting my bitter thought in the concrete suggestions thread.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

Meanwhile, those of good will whose hopes are dashed by Trump will have a place to go in a new non-corporate Democratic Party, now that defeat has broken the Clintons' stranglehold on the party, and only the obstinately obtuse won't concede that neo-liberalism has been proven a failure.

??

This is going to be bad for the structures of both parties, and that is good.

Trump was the candidate the GOP establishment least wanted. They started out wanting Jeb, and reluctantly backed Cruz in an attempt to stop Trump. Now the public face of the party is someone the party leadership doesn't want and the elected party members in Congress don't want. Plus it is fall of the house of Bush.

And, as you pointed out, it is also the fall of the house of Clinton. She spent the last 8 years ensuring that the party machinery would line everything up for her personally so that she wouldn't have any real opposition, and that if someone did dare to run against her the party machinery would stomp them down. When she lost she took Wasserman down with her.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And Donna Brazile too.

[Inanna]

And rightly so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Dave Chapelle and Chris Rock watch the election returns with some white people.

[Inanna]

I should have read that first before posting my bitter thought in the concrete suggestions thread.

We are bitter, Lali. But we will get over it.

[RoseMorninStar]

Stephen Bannon has just been named as White House Strategist. I'm not sure we'll be getting over it any time soon.


Voronwë I normally stay up until the wee hours and I went to bed at 6:00pm on election day. I'd had a horrid foreboding all day.

[Inanna]

Trump just said that he would appoint a SC judge with the intent of repealing Roe v. Wade.

No, I don't think we will be.


But - V, is it possible? How do you think Kennedy & Roberts would vote?

And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not allowed to die.

[Impenitent]

I've been seeing a petition doing the rounds for President Obama to confirm Garland due to an alleged Constitutional provision that allows the President to fill vacancies at the end of the Presidential term where the Senate and Congress have refused to confirm.

Now, forget the petition, I'm curious about this alleged provision. Does it exist in some form? (...if the House and Senate refuse to consider the nominee, and the President's term is up, and the stars are aligned...) I've never seen reference to it before. And if it does exist, and President Obama were to throw caution to the wind and appoint Garland to the Court, could he really get away with it? Couldn't it simply be undone anyway by the incoming administration? If this alleged provision exists, that is.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Trump just said that he would appoint a SC judge with the intent of repealing Roe v. Wade.

No, I don't think we will be.


But - V, is it possible? How do you think Kennedy & Roberts would vote?

And Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not allowed to die.

Kennedy would not vote to overturn Roe. I don't know about Roberts. So Trump would need to appoint at least two justices to have that happen.

[Lalaith]

I should have read that first before posting my bitter thought in the concrete suggestions thread.

We are bitter, Lali. But we will get over it.

We need to. Bitterness is an emotion that is not very productive or healthy.

In any case, they mentioned his name today in church. "We pray for our president, Barack, and our president-elect, Donald."

I got fairly choked up at that.

[Cerin]

I've been seeing a petition doing the rounds for President Obama to confirm Garland due to an alleged Constitutional provision that allows the President to fill vacancies at the end of the Presidential term where the Senate and Congress have refused to confirm.

Now, forget the petition, I'm curious about this alleged provision. Does it exist in some form? (...if the House and Senate refuse to consider the nominee, and the President's term is up, and the stars are aligned...) I've never seen reference to it before. And if it does exist, and President Obama were to throw caution to the wind and appoint Garland to the Court, could he really get away with it? Couldn't it simply be undone anyway by the incoming administration? If this alleged provision exists, that is.

Here's a cogent article dealing with the subject. The gist of it is, the President's responsibility is to nominate, then appoint after the Senate advises and consents. If the Senate refuses to do the advise and consent part, the President could reasonably assume they have waived their portion of the process, and go ahead and appoint. The Senate could then bring suit to contest the appointment, and then it would probably end up at . . . the Supreme Court. I suppose the appointee in question would have to recuse, and then it could be another 4-4 decision.
Which I guess would mean that the lower court decision would stand.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

[Inanna]

Thanks, V, that makes me feel better. They can try, it won't happen, and hopefully ACLU will keep trying to turn back restrictions in the southern states.

One positive about this election: it actually found support for Freakonomics' finding that money spending does not have a significant effect on elections' outcomes. Now, we can argue its because the media didn't do its job, or because of social media - but I do find *some comfort* in that thought.

And Hillary didn't have even a single rally in WI. The fact that she lost WI by 27,000 votes makes me wonder the difference a couple of rallies as opposed to a couple of fund-raising parties could have made.

Not that it excuses Trump's election.

[RoseMorninStar]

Four days ago I made a 'tinfoil hat' prediction that Trump would partner up with Putin however I am shocked at how quickly that has come to pass

What I believe it comes down to is Trump, as a narcissist, fights dirty and he plays to win at all costs. Lies do not matter. He played the media like a fiddle knowing he could make headlines and get more media time without paying for it. He's a name-calling bully. Hillary may have done some questionable things as tends to happen in politics/campaigns, but she didn't stoop to his level. He's an authoritarian 'Sugar Daddy' selling dreams. People want to believe in dreams and that someone is going to come in and 'fix' everything. He plays to win and he appealed to emotions (as did Bernie Sanders). Hillary's approach was experience and logic. Too often emotion wins over logic.

[Cerin]

How do you see Sanders playing to emotions? His speeches were very straightforward, concrete and specific, pointing out inequities of the current system and how he thought they could be remedied. You really couldn't get a much more meat and potatoes speaker than Sanders.

[Túrin Turambar]

One positive about this election: it actually found support for Freakonomics' finding that money spending does not have a significant effect on elections' outcomes. Now, we can argue its because the media didn't do its job, or because of social media - but I do find *some comfort* in that thought.

I agree with this. Of course, Trump made up for his lack of fundraising by constantly saying outrageous things in order to keep himself in the headlines, but it proves the point (which I think I might have made here) that money doesn't vote - people do.