2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

6,401 to 6,450 of 7,079 << first < prev | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

CBDunkerson wrote:

So despite the strong evidence that Clinton is going to win this thing, and likely bring along a Senate majority, I have been forcing myself to contemplate what a Trump presidency might be like.

Best case scenario, once in office he might abandon all the ridiculous things he has said (force Mexico to build a wall, ban Muslims, nationwide stop and frisk, MORE police militarization, et cetera) and we'll have four years of merely horrific congressional GOP rule. In such case, I'd expect his loving masses would become disillusioned and not come out in large numbers for 2020... making him likely a one term president.

The other extreme is that he really meant everything he said and we'll have increasing police and FBI abuses against blacks, latinos, muslims, and (to a lesser extent) citizens in general... increasingly nasty relations with Mexico... Roe v Wade overturned... massive tax cuts for the wealthiest... the US acting as a rogue state on climate change... abandoning our NATO allies... health costs spiraling out of control as millions lose coverage... et cetera. In short, the most disastrous presidency in history. Again... one term president, but having set the country back decades rather than merely years.

Maybe he can find some middle ground where he keeps his base happy while not driving the country into ruin and gets two terms, but that would require eight years of enough bad policy that he'd guarantee the GOP never wins the latino or women vote again (they've already permanently lost African americans).

Any way you slice it... going to be VERY difficult for another Republican to win any time soon if Trump becomes president. Thus, I am hopeful that this is the last gasp of overt bigotry in our nation's politics for some time to come. Hopefully it fails and we move forward as a more 'grown up' nation... but even if the 'deplorables' succeed one more time, it is likely to be their last. They are dying out and being replaced by a more multi-cultural populace.

As a Minnesotan i can think of another scenario. When Jessie Ventura was elected Gov as an outsider it was pretty unbelievable. What occurred though was the insiders teamed up on him with the media. It was an entire circus for his term. The media took him to task on every silly damn thing and both parties made sure he couldnt accomplish much. Mayhaps, this is how a Trump presidency would play out?


jocundthejolly wrote:

This argument has prompted me to consider the one choice I had long since discounted:

Canceling Dynasty 2.0: You have to give the Republicans credit, they dispatched their political family by the South Carolina primary. The Democrats were not so lucky. There are over 300 million people in the United States, yet a Bush or a Clinton has occupied the Oval Office for 20 of the past 28 years. If Hillary wins and serves a full term, it’ll be 24 of the past 32.

Liberals who can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary have three options: stay home, vote for a third party, or, dare I suggest, vote for Trump.

Doing the one of the first two might clean your conscience but doing the latter could potentially clear the Clinton machine out of the Democratic Party, allowing the new leadership to focus on the issues they care about instead of protecting the political interests of the political family that just won’t go away.

I'm not sure why a Trump Presidency would "clear the Clinton machine out of the Democratic Party" in a way that a Bush win and an Obama win didn't.

Other than her pretty much being too old to run again anyway. The Clinton machine, whatever that is exactly is likely to be gone in 8 years whoever wins.
And for that, we'll have to put up with 4 (8?) years of Trump and Republican control. For what?

Besides, it wasn't really the South Carolina primary that killed the Bush dynasty. It was 8 years of George W. By that example, the way to kill the Clinton dynasty would be to elect Hillary Clinton. If you're prepared to deal a Trump disaster to get rid of her, why not a Clinton disaster?


We'd just get Chelsea in four more years. ;P


Pan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Still seems pretty shady even without the gun.
He's stumping the required 40ish feet away, which he's allowed to do. Free speach and all that
Yeah, there's no way a 357 Mangum can make a shot at that range. [/sarcasm]
You'd be surprised how often people miss at 21ft with a .357. I recall this line from George Romaro's Dawn of the Dead, "the only sucka who could miss with this (gun), is the brother with enough bread to buy it!"

You'd be surprised how often people miss full stop. Police hit rates are around 5-20%, and they are usually a heck of a lot closer than 20ft. The fact is that unless they seriously train for it, almost everyone is an atrocious shot under stress. With the exception of SWAT, police snipers and similar, most police do not train seriously for it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Pan wrote:
As a Minnesotan i can think of another scenario. When Jessie Ventura was elected Gov as an outsider it was pretty unbelievable. What occurred though was the insiders teamed up on him with the media. It was an entire circus for his term. The media took him to task on every silly damn thing and both parties made sure he couldnt accomplish much. Mayhaps, this is how a Trump presidency would play out?

No. Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate. The GOP and Dems were against him from day one. Despite some squabbling, the vast majority of the GOP has fallen in line behind Trump. A majority of them support most of his policies. Their objections are more to the man himself than any but the most ridiculous of his positions.

A Trump presidency WILL see the GOP agenda advanced. It is only a question of whether he pushes for the kind of extremism he promised on the campaign trail or settles for merely status quo raiding of the treasury.

jocundthejolly wrote:

Liberals who can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary have three options: stay home, vote for a third party, or, dare I suggest, vote for Trump.

Doing the one of the first two might clean your conscience but doing the latter could potentially clear the Clinton machine out of the Democratic Party, allowing the new leadership to focus on the issues they care about instead of protecting the political interests of the political family that just won’t go away.

That's horrifying.

That Trump may be the last disastrous president to befall our nation for a while does nothing to diminish the fact that he WOULD be a disaster.

I'm not thrilled with Clinton or political dynasties in general, but frankly the odds of Chelsea running for president seem remote and if her children eventually do so it will be in a completely different political landscape.

However, in any case... 'getting Clintons out of politics' would be a trivial 'victory'... symbolically reassuring, but having no real practical impact. NOTHING to make the horrors of even a 'best case' Trump presidency worthwhile.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why, but I keep reading that as, "With the exception of SWAT, police strippers and similar..."

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
Pan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Still seems pretty shady even without the gun.
He's stumping the required 40ish feet away, which he's allowed to do. Free speach and all that
Yeah, there's no way a 357 Mangum can make a shot at that range. [/sarcasm]
You'd be surprised how often people miss at 21ft with a .357. I recall this line from George Romaro's Dawn of the Dead, "the only sucka who could miss with this (gun), is the brother with enough bread to buy it!"
You'd be surprised how often people miss full stop. Police hit rates are around 5-20%, and they are usually a heck of a lot closer than 20ft. The fact is that unless they seriously train for it, almost everyone is an atrocious shot under stress. With the exception of SWAT, police snipers and similar, most police do not train seriously for it.

A guy standing 40ft outside a polling office harassing voters doesn't sound like the stressed one to me.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
Pan wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Still seems pretty shady even without the gun.
He's stumping the required 40ish feet away, which he's allowed to do. Free speach and all that
Yeah, there's no way a 357 Mangum can make a shot at that range. [/sarcasm]
You'd be surprised how often people miss at 21ft with a .357. I recall this line from George Romaro's Dawn of the Dead, "the only sucka who could miss with this (gun), is the brother with enough bread to buy it!"
You'd be surprised how often people miss full stop. Police hit rates are around 5-20%, and they are usually a heck of a lot closer than 20ft. The fact is that unless they seriously train for it, almost everyone is an atrocious shot under stress. With the exception of SWAT, police snipers and similar, most police do not train seriously for it.

More snarky response:

Roll-to-Hit doesn't apply in real life, you fire a gun, the bullet IS going to end up in something.

And that's beside the fact that guns have a whole clip to shoot from, not just one bullet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Also, just stating the obvious: The intimidation is in walking up to people armed and telling them to vote Republican. That would be f&~*ing terrifying for anybody, intentional or not. You don't have to shoot someone from forty feet away. You just have to shoot them from ten feet away when they answer, "Yes."

Huffington Post wrote:
“He’s like, ‘Who are you going to vote for, crooked Hillary?’ And I was like, that’s really none of your business,” Cotti said, adding that the man was standing in the sidewalk outside of the office when they left and blocking their path.

And of course it was intentional. I buy it being accidental like I buy that Bundy didn't realize he was hampering federal employees from doing their jobs.

Huffington Post wrote:
Brown said her office contacted the local Republican Party, which got the man to agree to pull his Trump shirt over the weapon so people couldn’t see it. “Hopefully nobody else will be concerned about him,” Brown said.

He didn't stow his gun when people expressed their concern. He stowed it when his own party had to be dragged in to tell him to stop. Acting like he was anything approaching courteous is the equivalent of saying, "Sure, Joey repeatedly punched his classmate, but he stopped when the teacher got involved!"


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't know why, but I keep reading that as, "With the exception of SWAT, police strippers and similar..."

Get your head out of the gutter, KC.

Unless you fell there after passing out from a drinking binge induced by the phrase "President Trump". In that case, I think I might join you.


CBDunkerson wrote:
With Voting Rights Act protections gone, Republicans close hundreds of polling places in Democrat leaning areas

Very Personal opinion coming...feel free to bypass if you don't feel like reading my rant here...

I don't have a problem with them checking ID's to vote (in all honesty, even not including Student ID's...they didn't check ANY personal information on me when I got my first Student ID...I simply told them whatever name I wanted and ID code and that's what was on my ID...with my picture...in theory...if I had used that and My Driver's license and they were valid as ID I could have voted twice. I didn't...but it's possible).

I'm as much of what one might call a foreigner and called into question whether I'm from the US or not...and I'd say anyone who has a problem getting a State ID probably wasn't going to vote in the first place. That's what mystifies me on why people have problems with presenting the ID to vote. Only difficulty I could figure is if someone has to present it at the polling place and forgot their ID that day (which would warrant a ticket if they were to drive a vehicle).

On the OTHERHAND...THIS IS SERIOUS. This type of stuff affects me FAR MORE than any ID law. This is how you disenfranchise minority voters. Getting an ID is something that might take a little longer, but is doable (heck, before I self employed I needed an ID for any job I got hired for!). Saying the closest voting facility is 20 miles away on a work day...and you don't have a car...THAT should make anyone upset.

Closing polling places is a direct attack against many minority voters, and I think the impact that such actions have are extremely horrendous.

Worse, is that by doing this, for those who are all day workers, and then have to stand in line...without laws that state anyone in line by a certain time can vote...disqualifies a TON of voters simply because they can't get them all through the polling station in time.

Looking at the map of the states that reduced the polling places...I'd absolutely think it was discriminatory based. In effect, it's legalized discrimination in action against minorities. At least that's how I see it from the evidence presented.

This paragraph is pretty good a descriptor

Quote:


 Many of these counties have been hot spots for voting discrimination. Cochise County, on the Mexico border, which is 30 percent Latino, was sued by the Justice Department in 2006 failing to print election materials in Spanish or have Spanish-speaking poll workers, in violation of the VRA. Today, the county “is the nation’s biggest closer by percentage,” having shuttered 63 percent of its voting locations since Shelby. There will be only 18 polling places for 130,000 residents in 2016, down from 49 polling places in 2012.

While I do not live there, over 30% of the population where I live IS a minority. The city I'm in made national news at one point in the past 5 years BECAUSE of how discriminatory it was (for example, one person had a sign telling everyone not of a certain race to stay away...etc). This is exactly the type of thing they do to make it so that not as many minorities can vote. It's not a matter of whether they want to vote or not, but whether or not they can even be able to vote for reasons that are far beyond anything they could control (racist employer makes sure they work far too close to the poll closing time and since the poll is too far away, or the lines will be too long, even if they make it to the poll right after work...they won't be allowed to vote).

I'm surprised the outrage at it doesn't warrant more conversations regarding it.

Quote:


 Medina County, a heavily Republican area in South Texas, closed a polling place in the town of Natalia, which is 75 percent Latino and the only Democratic-leaning part of the county. “We’ve had a polling place for at least the last six decades,” Emilio Flores, a local activist and registered Republican, told me. When Flores asked the county elections administrator, Patricia Barton, how low-income and disabled Latino voters were supposed to vote without a polling place in their town, he said she told him, “If you think it’s such a big issue, why don’t you shuttle them yourself?” Last week the county commission approved a polling place in Natalia for Election Day after local activists like Flores raised alarms, but Medina County will have only eight polling places in 2016, down from 14 in 2012.


Snowblind, Snarkwyrm wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I don't know why, but I keep reading that as, "With the exception of SWAT, police strippers and similar..."

Get your head out of the gutter, KC.

Unless you fell there after passing out from a drinking binge induced by the phrase "President Trump". In that case, I think I might join you.

We all float down here!


GreyWolfLord wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
With Voting Rights Act protections gone, Republicans close hundreds of polling places in Democrat leaning areas

Very Personal opinion coming...feel free to bypass if you don't feel like reading my rant here...

I don't have a problem with them checking ID's to vote (in all honesty, even not including Student ID's...they didn't check ANY personal information on me when I got my first Student ID...I simply told them whatever name I wanted and ID code and that's what was on my ID...with my picture...in theory...if I had used that and My Driver's license and they were valid as ID I could have voted twice. I didn't...but it's possible).

I'm as much of what one might call a foreigner and called into question whether I'm from the US or not...and I'd say anyone who has a problem getting a State ID probably wasn't going to vote in the first place. That's what mystifies me on why people have problems with presenting the ID to vote. Only difficulty I could figure is if someone has to present it at the polling place and forgot their ID that day (which would warrant a ticket if they were to drive a vehicle).

On the OTHERHAND...THIS IS SERIOUS. This type of stuff affects me FAR MORE than any ID law. This is how you disenfranchise minority voters. Getting an ID is something that might take a little longer, but is doable (heck, before I self employed I needed an ID for any job I got hired for!). Saying the closest voting facility is 20 miles away on a work day...and you don't have a car...THAT should make anyone upset.

Closing polling places is a direct attack against many minority voters, and I think the impact that such actions have are extremely horrendous.

Worse, is that by doing this, for those who are all day workers, and then have to stand in line...without laws that state anyone in line by a certain time can...

Even with such laws, when one group of people needs to stand in line for hours and another does not, the first group is being disenfranchised - some of those people will have other commitments - children to care for, jobs they can lose, etc, that mean they can't wait long enough. Meanwhile, in the other part of town, voters walk in and out, spending only a few minutes and barely interrupting their day.

It's easy to look at those situations and predict one group losing many potential voters, while the other group places a much lower burden to cast a vote and thus a larger percentage will vote.

As for ID, for those who don't drive, - like poor urban folks, proper IDs can be hard to come by. At least some of the ID laws were specifically tailored to allow IDs that white people were likely to have and not ones that blacks were. Take a look at the court decision overturning some of NC's laws.
There were also some cases where, along with adopting voter ID requirements, they closed or restricted the hours of the offices that offered the court required free IDs. In one memorable case to something 1-3 on one Tuesday a month. In one office in the county.


thejeff wrote:

Even with such laws, when one group of people needs to stand in line for hours and another does not, the first group is being disenfranchised - some of those people will have other commitments - children to care for, jobs they can lose, etc, that mean they can't wait long enough. Meanwhile, in the other part of town, voters walk in and out, spending only a few minutes and barely interrupting their day.

It's easy to look at those situations and predict one group losing many potential voters, while the other group places a much lower burden to cast a vote and thus a larger percentage will vote.

As for ID, for those who don't drive, - like poor urban folks, proper IDs can be hard to come by. At least some of the ID laws were specifically tailored to allow IDs that white people were likely to have and not ones that blacks were. Take a look at the court decision overturning some of NC's laws.
There were also some cases where, along with adopting voter ID requirements, they closed or restricted the hours of the offices that offered the court required free IDs. In one memorable case to something 1-3 on one Tuesday a month. In one office in the county.

Once again, another personal opinion...feel free to bypass.

I actually have gotten several ID's when I didn't have a vehicle. When it was a part time job, it was actually easier than with a full time job.

With the full time job...they gave me vacation time. I had to USE my vacation time (it's all a matter of priorities) to get a new ID for that state I was in, but it wasn't something that was all that hard for me, just took some planning.

However, on the entire polling place thing...it seems they remove the polling areas from those places where more minorities live than where those who are not minorities live. It highly influences the vote.

There was a town (albeit they put ONE polling place back in for the ENTIRE TOWN after it made national news and there was an uproar beyond state lines) they simply removed the polling place altogether. The minorities of that town had NO PLACE to vote at all unless they went some distance...and in a small town...that's going to hurt far more than voting ID laws.

I've walked 12 miles before to get to places and work and other areas. As long as I have enough time afforded to me I can normally get something done if it's open in a way that I can plan for it (even if it's only open once a month for 2 hours at a time).

However, when there is a time limit (polling places have hours on a specific day and that's it...no extended hours...not open at least once a week or once a month on a regular basis...it's open once for that election at a particular place and time) and you are assigned to a polling location (which is a different issue, but relavant...in some states you are assigned your polling place...when that polling place is 34 miles away...with all the other restrictions...yeah...makes it far harder).

I'd say in that instance, you HAVE to at least have a rule that whoever is in line BEFORE the polling time closes, STILL GETS TO VOTE and HAVE THAT VOTE COUNTED.

Otherwise, it's simply going to not let people vote, not because they weren't there on time, but because the polling place closed before it could clear it's line or let everyone in it's selected area actually vote.

For me, especially in an area heavy with minorities...the reduction of polling places would affect me FAR more than any ID law. It's a direct attack to reduce the number of minorities voting.


Something else you can add to the fear mill if you worry about a Trump win:

Trump's infrastructure plan would privatize public roads and utilities


GreyWolfLord wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Even with such laws, when one group of people needs to stand in line for hours and another does not, the first group is being disenfranchised - some of those people will have other commitments - children to care for, jobs they can lose, etc, that mean they can't wait long enough. Meanwhile, in the other part of town, voters walk in and out, spending only a few minutes and barely interrupting their day.

It's easy to look at those situations and predict one group losing many potential voters, while the other group places a much lower burden to cast a vote and thus a larger percentage will vote.

As for ID, for those who don't drive, - like poor urban folks, proper IDs can be hard to come by. At least some of the ID laws were specifically tailored to allow IDs that white people were likely to have and not ones that blacks were. Take a look at the court decision overturning some of NC's laws.
There were also some cases where, along with adopting voter ID requirements, they closed or restricted the hours of the offices that offered the court required free IDs. In one memorable case to something 1-3 on one Tuesday a month. In one office in the county.

Once again, another personal opinion...feel free to bypass.

I actually have gotten several ID's when I didn't have a vehicle. When it was a part time job, it was actually easier than with a full time job.

With the full time job...they gave me vacation time. I had to USE my vacation time (it's all a matter of priorities) to get a new ID for that state I was in, but it wasn't something that was all that hard for me, just took some planning.

However, on the entire polling place thing...it seems they remove the polling areas from those places where more minorities live than where those who are not minorities live. It highly influences the vote.

There was a town (albeit they put ONE polling place back in for the ENTIRE TOWN after it made national news and there was an uproar beyond state lines) they simply removed the...

It certainly is. But so are the other rules.

You had vacation time, for example. You had to use it, but you could. If you're poor and juggling a couple part time jobs, you don't have that luxury.
Closing polling places may be more direct, but it's the same intent.
Or just understaffing (undermachining?) them so they can't process all the voters in good time.
Sure, with many of those things the more organized and dedicated to voting people will manage to vote anyway, but meanwhile those in the other part of town don't have to be so organized and dedicated. They've got enough polling places and enough machines they can just duck in with out waiting. And they've probably got jobs with more flexible hours and already have cars and thus licenses.

It's a dedicated organized attempt to reduce voting by groups less likely to vote for your party - particularly minorities, but we also see it directed at students and some other demographics.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
In one memorable case to something 1-3 on one Tuesday a month. In one office in the county.

If it's from the same source I'm remembering (John Oliver), it's Sauk City, WI. It's open 8:15-4 the 5th Wednesday of the month. Admittedly you can come over to Madison a little over half an hour away where it's open normal business hours, but it was a striking point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

48 hours left or so.

Thor help us.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Debates on immigration are very rarely centered around the actual well-being of a country. Instead, they are too often framed around hegemonic cultural values about who an "American" looks or acts like. The way you can tell is because anti-immigration efforts never fall equally on all groups. 60% of undocumented workers in the US are Mexican, yet they represent 90% of all arrests for that offense in the crime data. On the other side, eastern european undocumented workers and those that fit the 'look' (read: whiteness) of an "American" remain above suspicion.
A cursory glance over US history shows this to be the case, with the Chinese, the Irish, the Japanese, etc. These are all groups that were heavily discriminated against for both racial and political reasons.

This isn't even to get into how baseless the argument that undocumented workers are a severe burden on the US economy. Most companies who hire them still take out taxes from their income -- taxes they will never see the benefit from in the form of social security or other benefits. On top of that, they are underpaid and frequently the victim of crimes. In one region, undocumented workers are referred to as "walking ATMs" and are robbed constantly on payday. Reporting crimes to the police isn't really an option for them, and undocumented women are victims of horrendous levels of domestic abuse -- taken advantage of by a partner who knows full well that they cannot go to the police for help. The byzantine process of obtaining citizenship makes it an endeavor one can only take if they have at least 1000 dollars on hand for legal fees. Lastly, their application can be denied because of insignificant and absurd reasons. Because a failed application results in a deportation and a legal bar from re-entering for 10 years, it just isn't an attractive option for undocumented workers to reveal themselves and attempt to do things the legal way.

My impression is that the only people who want undocumented workers on the radar are the workers themselves. Otherwise, legislation would focus on putting them on the grid, rather than deporting them for a decade at a time.


Thomas Seitz wrote:

48 hours left or so.

Thor help us.

OOh I guess its to late to endorse the Norse party eh? Plus he wasn't born in america so he can't be president. :(

Reminds me of the Odin for president meme.
Odin said he'd get rid of all the frost giants. do you see any frost giants around? vote Odin!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

How come so many people seem to believe that "Constitutional" secretly means "in accordance with my wishes"? :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:


OOh I guess its to late to endorse the Norse party eh?

I promise to cut the fat out of politics, just ask Tyr.

I believe in impossible things, just look at my tie.

I'm for fair distribution of wealth, just ask Iðunn about that argument we had.

Through strength and perseverence we can break our bonds and make a better tomorrow!


bugleyman wrote:

How come so many people seem to believe that "Constitutional" secretly means "in accordance with my wishes"? :P

Because people tend to believe that legal and right are the same thing.


The skittles are poisoned?

6,401 to 6,450 of 7,079 << first < prev | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards