Snarky comments about the US election

It would be more fitting if the update on the upcoming OblivAeon comes out next Tuesday.

I'm pretty sure the election results in the US will not result in the world coming to an end despite what some may think.  

That's not what my Aunt told me the Weekly World News said Nostradamus predicted.

Besides, the election won't occur, everyone knows the current lot will declare martial law and cancel the elections, just like the last two did.

Regardless of the outcome of the election, about half the US will pledge to move to Canada, and by the end of 2017 approximately 0% will have done so.

And I'm sure the Canadians don't WANT any of those people to move there, anyway.

EDIT: Spelling, and changing removing swear words. 

Ok. As a Canadian. You got understand something.We are alike in many ways. A lot of your culture (Entertainment especially) is a like.

But we are also different. You first must pass a test. 

1) Is Hockey the greatest sport?

2) What is our national beverage?

3) What is the worst city in Canada?

4) Who is our president?

5) What animals appear on our money?

6) Do you promsie not to act like silly-heads, and instead become more like us, and not try and force us to be like you? We're your neighboUrs, not some empty lot to park your cars. 

7) Do you know what we pay in taxes, how are health care system works, how we vote, what our police do, what jobs we are looking for, how our provinces differ?

8) Why Citizen Dawn matters?

9) What is the grestets sports franchise?

10) not a question, but Screw New York bagels. Accept the better kind: Montreal Style bagels.

1) Is Hockey the greatest sport?

Curling is, ya hoser.

2) What is our national beverage?

Maple syrup

3) What is the worst city in Canada?

It depends on whether you're in eastern or western Canada. It's Toronto either way, though.

4) Who is our president?

According to some businessmen, it's Justin Trudeau, and he's the worst President yet.

5) What animals appear on our money?

Caribou, beaver, loon, toon

6) Do you promsie not to act like silly-heads, and instead become more like us, and not try and force us to be like you? We're your neighboUrs, not some empty lot to park your cars.

Quiet, America's hat.

7) Do you know what we pay in taxes, how are health care system works, how we vote, what our police do, what jobs we are looking for, how our provinces differ?

The answer to all of this is "politeness."

8) Why Citizen Dawn matters?

Because she can't energy.

9) What is the grestets [sic] sports franchise?

The Newfoundland Grestets were formed in 1864 after someone wanted to sports. They've been sportsing ever since.

10) not a question, but Screw New York bagels. Accept the better kind: Montreal Style bagels.

Really?

As a physicist/engineer, I have to say:

This wins everything.

DARNIT! I just got it… I'm pretty slow…

I think this sign describes the election accurately.

Somehow, I feel like I need to apologize to everybody in the world.

Also, I have way more existential angst now than I did yesterday.

People voted and it's what the majority of states wanted.   I don't see any need to apologize for what we have.   All countries have had their share of questionable leaders and we are no different.  This country will continue on and if he is that terrible he won't have a second term.

Whatever the outcome was, the fact that no one here on the forum acted cruelly is what I liked. Though it might have slipped through, I never caught it. We were kind to one another, we helped, and cared for each other, and did nothing to show otherwise. I don't want or care who you voted for, or even if you voted. We all have our rights, opinions, and desires. The ability to set those aside so we can do good within our community is all I ask for, and we are not only doing it, we are doing it in stride.

Thank you everyone for being simultaniously thoughtful, kind, smart, and most importantly, silly. You Sentinels are the best of the best.

Now let's go Get those PRIME WARDENS!

Yeah definitely agree with this. Everyone here was really great about respecting that there’s going to be a lot of different opinions about politics and that this was probably not the best place todebate them. As the campaign got particularly nasty it was a huge relief to have an outlet that was non-political and where everyone was generally remarkably civil and considerate.

My thanks to everyone on these forums!

We are going to be living in exciting times.  Shaking up alliances, reorganizing the international powe structure, between Trump's preference of Russia and Israel to NATO and Brexit this is most likely a point that future history students will learn about as a time that re-shaped the planet.

As a lover of politics and history I'm actually excited to see what all comes of it.  Hopefully it doesn't go bad.

Bring it on.

Indeed. This may be the best election thread I have ever seen.

Honestly, I can't express my thoughts about this election in terms suitable for this site.

Understood and appreciated, dpt.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

As a lover of politics and history I'm actually excited to see what all comes of it.  Hopefully it doesn't go bad

May god have mercy on us all if Chris Christie gets a major cabinet spot. I'm qualified to say that now that I live in New Jersy and honestly do not feel that is a controversial opinion.

Looking at Trumps 100 day plan, as a staunch independent myself, there are quite a few good items along with some questionable ones. The major thing to watch for is that I do not think it will be as easy to get his plans pushed through congress even with majority in both houses. And now that this election is over, keep in mind that Trump has historically been a New York Demo for most of his adult life. Unless he is handing over major policy decisions to Pence (*shudder*) and just doing the international and military work, some of the things hes put forth will see quite a lot pushback. And with only 52 Republican seats in the Senate, it's going to be much harder than folks expect to push things through there, especially when the filibuster comes back to haunt them.

Things like setting term limits on House and Senate seats and 5 year gaps between leaving congress and working as a lobbyist will russel some jimmies for sure.  The dismantling of environmental protections and re-granting subsities to coal and trashing the renewable energy grants is far more troubling to me personally. Clean Coal is like Non-Tar ciggarettes when filters were introduced, it's pretty foolish. There just is still too much money to be made out of coal for them to give it up so easily plain and simple.

Opening more ties with Russia urks some folks (and there are plenty of good reasons why), but history looks favorably on the Nixon/China situation so I'm more willing to see how this plays out before I jump the gun. I can not say the same for the promise to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem however. This one is a massive blunder should it come true. This has been on the table for decades now, and every single US president since has waived it due to security reasons (even G.W.B). This one I'm truely afraid of. With any luck, his now daily security breifings for the next few weeks will change his mind about doing this. The advisors and cabinet he chooses will be instrumental here.

Due to the obsructionist politics of Republicans over the past few years, Trump will be the one to appoint a replacement for Scallia on the US Supreme Court. This changes very little of the current blance of power as the current congress will likely choose someone very similar to him in views and rulings. But here is the reality of the current court folks. Ruth Bater Ginsburg is 83 years old and Steven Breyer is 78. They are the oldest members of the court and happen to be two of the most liberal ones when making rulings. Anthony Kennedy is 80 and has historically been a switch hitter in his rulings, but has a liberal streak when it comes to societal issues (like gay marriage for instance). There is a good chance that Ruth, either due to choice or failing health, will retire from the court within the next 4 years, though if she is the stubborn old shrew we all know she is, she will fight tooth and nail to keep the seat until the next election. But she may not have the choice if her health goes. Both Kennedy and Breyer could be in the same boat as they get older. Trump replacing Scallia is no major issue currently, but if Trump gets to replace Ruth, the court makes a big swing to the right on social issues. If Trump gets to replace Ruth and either Kennedy or Breyer, the court takes a massive swing for decades to come. The Supreme Court has had more impact on daily lives than ever in recent history and is only getting more relevant as all of these major social issues get heard by the court. This is something to watch very closely.

I'm a little more concerned about the whole white nationalist thing.

Keep in mind for laws to change, they need to be passed in Congress first. The Senate will still be a major hurdle to jump over. They have the majority, sure, but its only 52 seats. Gonna be hard to get the 60 needed to change or pass most bills there.

The KKK has to vote for someone. Heck, even the Clintons are good friends with a former Klan leader. I wouldn't be too worried about pro-Klan legislation passing through congress, even a Republican majority held one.

Honestly I'm personally more bothered by people discussing the results in calm, collected terms than by people yelling abuse.

And I'm not talking about the fact that the KKK endorsed Trump. I'm talking about the fact that he, himself, ran a racist campaign, full of white nationalist callouts. Remember the time he pretended not to know who David Duke was? http://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-david-duke-amnesia/ (Hint: he knew. All the white nationalists properly understood that this was as close as he could come to explicitly endorsing them.) Remember when he retweeted a nazi-created meme? Donald Trump's Star of David Hillary Clinton Meme Was Created by White Supremacists And I haven't even gotten to his explicitly racist proposals yet.

This is a right-wing manufactured outrage. Robert Byrd was deluded as a young man, yes. But, to his very great credit, he recognized that, and spent much of his career fighting for racial equality. Here's a rememberance by Eugene Robinson from 2010:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062803119.html No one who honestly looks at that case can be outraged by the closeness between Clinton and Byrd, any more than they would think that Obama is a racist because he, too, was friends with Byrd. To the extent you are upset by this, it's because you have been manipulated.

Also:

It's not just laws:  Here Are 28 Reported Racist And Violent Incidents After Donald Trump's Victory

This is not normal.

DPT, don't get me wrong here. I do not disagree with you really. I didn't vote Trump and I do understand your fears here. And hopefully the explicitly racist proposals do not get passed through congress. He can't just make them happen at whim.

About the swastika on the wall. I had assumed that was drawn by a non-Trump supporter in protest. I guess it could have been drawn sans-irony, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions there. Also, I'm not upset by the Bryd thing. I think my position on that was misunderstood. I'm pretty aware of his carreer and what he has done recently.

In that link I posted, there are many, many examples of physical and verbal abuse of people that cannot possibly be ironic.

By the way, I hope that I'm calm enough now, three days after the election, to have this conversation here. Mods, please let me know if I slip up.

I have a working theory of Trump's foreign policy vision.  (International politics and economy is my real passion)

I don't think this is the place for digging into it but A transition from a two-power standof (which we are still in) to a kind of harmonious oligarchical mob style turf division looks to be the direction he seems to be heading.

One thing that has always stood out to me is how much presidents, and especially their international policy vision change after they win and start getting real information and top secret breifings.

I expect Trump to change some of his policy, and McConnell has already come out strongly defending NATO, so it is most likely we won't see such a big shift in international policy.

But it could happen.  Israel is still big, and is a huge deal for the people that voted Trump in, and Putin has made great effort to ally with Israel.  Trump wants to get in on that action.

I've floated conversation about this to my Trump supporting acquaintances and friends and you might be surprised how many would prefer to ally with Israel and Russia over NATO.  Even a good number of non-Trump supporters see that as a good thing.  Fewer, but a good number even like the idea that smaller countries that threaten to destabilize their region should pay financially when we come in and break up their messes in their land.

Is this the kind of thing you're talking about, phantaskippy?

https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history-tells-us-what-will-happen-next-with-brexit-trump-a3fefd154714#.180l1kcr4

The author is not very sanguine about the "harmonious" part of what you wrote.

Urgh.

Something to consider regarding the discussion Foote and dpt have been having is that laws don’t actually have to change at all for bigotry to become more normalized in society. Think about every time you hear in the news about a “rape culture” in a sports team or a club, and then magnify that nationally. These things may against the law, but if nobody is willing to prosecute and people who might otherwise have hesitated decide to push some boundaries, we could be looking at some very dark times for our LGBT/non-white/non-Christian/immigrant friends. Time will tell, but in this matter it is CRITICALLY important to catch the problem early. Please, everybody, remember to keep standing up for tolerance and equality. This community is fantastic about doing so on these boards. I want the rest of America to see your example!

Trump’s foreign policy ideas remind me a bit of the pre-WWI world. A multipolar scenario with several imperialist powers, and alliances negotiated on a heavily transactional basis. His promise to put “America first” and pull back from commitments with Baltic and Pacific states give Russia, China, and perhaps others a chance to step into the leadership vacuum we leave behind. I’m strongly for reducing the American defense footprint due to the incredible level of bloat and disturbing forms of “innovation” I’ve seen in the American military industry. But we have to make sure that transition is orderly, which, honestly, might take a generation. In the meantime, we’ll have a Commander in Chief who has already established a reputation for asking, in military briefings, “what about the nuclear option?” That attitude’s beyond bad - it’s an existential threat to humanity.

In terms of his changing his mind after getting the classified briefings, I learned last night that he walked out of a briefing that fingered Russia for hacking the DNC, and said that he simply didn’t believe the intelligence. So, yeah, I don’t expect his outlook to change based on expert opinions.

In the meantime, NOW is the time we need to start drastic actions to curb, mitigate, and adapt to global warming. The economic, societal, and defense implications of climate change over the next fifty to one hundred years are scary. Trump’s intention to “unleash coal” is extremely regressive (and misguided; it’s the market ruining the coal industry, not Obama). He’s looking at Sarah “Drill, Baby, Drill” Palin for Secretary of the Interior. He’s going to cut NASA’s funding for Earth science because he doesn’t want to hear about climate change.

I understand that a lot of Americans were frustrated, and they wanted a big shakeup. Honestly, I get that, and I’d love to gut and remake Congress, the DoD, the tax system, and Wall Street myself. The irony is that, though Trump ran as the “flip the board” candidate, his policy proposals are extremely regressive corporatist fare and likely to do the most damage to the very people who supported him.

When the best thing I can say about Donald Trump is that he says so many falsehoods, maybe he’s NOT going to do all the terrible things he said he would, I think we are in for a tough four years. The only question is how bad. What scares me is the range of badness I think we could encounter. We know so little about Trump’s potential decisions that I think we could have four years of cartoon buffoonery…or a nuclear war.

I’ll hope for the buffoonery. And I’ll vote next time. And I’ll donate to the SPLC and ACLU and Union of Concerned Scientists. And I’ll keep calling my representatives. And when I see darkness, I’ll try to shine a light.

I hope it’s enough for us to survive, and that the we leave a world to my hypothetical children.

I try to find words. Good words, apropriate for this site. I can't.

I am not a US citizen. Nor do I live here, or plan to do. But your elections affected the whole world.

To those of you who did not vote Trump, like the Doctor I'd say I am sorry. I am so sorry. Please, be courageous. Fight for the values you hold dear. You are not alone.

To those who voted Trump, I am sorry, so so sorry. Granted wishes turn sour.

To those who did not vote - I am not sorry.

Today, I had long conversations with many "hard core" supporters of democracy, here in my country. Everything is different today. We have lost something, "thanks" to what hapenned in your country. We have lost our faith in the democratic ideal. We have lost our faith in the ability of our values of reason, openness and acceptance of others to coexist constructively with different values. We have lost the faith that we could build the world we want through peace and debate. I have heard - and said - words that I never thought any of us would say, or even think. Words that the Doctor would not approve of.

It's strange how events sculpt the mind. What Trump does next is not important, he is not important - his election was enough to change peaceful "leftists" in ... something else. Maybe it was time to grow up. Maybe we gazed too long into the abyss.

Historical moment, indeed. Winter has come.

But, as the mustachoed philosopher said : when dragons rise, heroes are made.

Interesting years ahead.

I need another drink. I'll toast to you.

The Sound of Trees, can I ask what your country is?

I would say the bit about changing peaceful leftists a little differently. I would say that it changed passive liberals into determined radicals. That means different things for different people.

I am happy to accept your toast.

Not to get political, but did anyone else notice that "the Donald" is nine letters?

I am from France, dpt.

… So… what you're saying is that The ARG is not over?

You have an opportunity here! You can take this as an awakening that, yes, it can happen in France, too, BEFORE Le Pen is elected president. You can go and get involved in anti-racist groups, work on combating anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, and anti-poor rhetoric.

Imagine how you would feel if Marie Le Pen came into power. Act like that now.

The more I think about this, the more I'm bothered by it. It really beggars belief that anyone would draw a swasticka as an ironic act. Fantasy author Jim C. Hines compiled a small collection of abuse reports that he could confirm:

Documented Instances of Harassment, and a Request to Trump Supporters | Jim C. Hines

As Jim says, "There are so, so many more reports out there of people being harassed and attacked. I could spend all weekend adding to this list of  documented incidents." Shaun King is the real clearinghouse here, but there are so, so many reports that it takes forever to sort through.

So, Foote, you seem to be an intelligent guy that likes to think about the world. But still you repeated two right-wing distorted stories, without sufficiently looking into them. Can I humbly suggest you look at your information sources and examine whether you are skeptical enough?

Look, I just said what my assumption was when I too saw that picture posted elsewhere online. I'm not parroting right-wing or left-wing storries, just what my first thought was. I'm pretty sure my observation was without any political leaning. I never even suggested that things like that are not happening at all, and if you think I did, I feel you are trying way to hard to pick a fight with someone who's on your side.

So I'm unsure here of what information sources you think I'm speaking about or what you want me to be more skeptical of. I have a degree in media theory so I'm pretty confident in my abilities to analyse objectivly the information I read and hear and avoid the pitfalls of only seeking out information that jives with my own personal views or opinions. To call me skeptical of anything I hear is an understatement, so may I humbly suggest a little benefit of the doubt from you that other folks around the forums can form inteligent and reasoned opinions even if they may different than your own? And I say that pretty confirdent that we are on the same side of this thing in the first place, which is why your response is a little baffling to me.

It really beggars belief that anyone would draw a swasticka as an ironic act

Wouldn't you agree that it should irk the hell out of anyone to draw that stuff regardless of intent? Honestly, it doesn't matter why it was drawn, and maybe I should have made that my point instead of expressing that I thought it was drawn out of protest instead of scincerity.

well, that’s not quite true. Historical accuracy (e.g. Schindler’s List) is a valid reason.

Foote, my apologies for my comments about the swastika. Thinking back, my initial (naive) reaction to the first report I saw of a swastika was also that it was written ironically.

Yes… "Trump-as-President" doesn't directly cause me all that much concern.  The rest of the world certainly shares the belief that he's a buffoon, even to the point where China is brushing off his Taiwan call, whwhich they would have considered a major insult from any other president.  And the Republican congress won't let him get away with anything they wouldn't accept from any other Republican president.  (Although I certainly have opinions about the direction the country has gone the last couple of times the Republican party held both branches, this would have been exacerbated with someone like Cruz.)

What really concerns me is "Trump-as-role-model."  The day after his election saw a giant spike in hate crimes and harassment.  The following weeks haven't been much better.  It's going to take a lot of work to get back to the point we were even earlier this year as far as sexism and racism go.  And religious discrimination, well… that was already getting worse, not better, and I just hope we can survive the next few years without opening Muslim internment camps.  Fortunately, a lot of people are very aware and very vocal about the parallels between Trump's America and Hitler's Germany, so hopefully we'll do better this time than we did during WWII.

The problem is that what the Republican congress wants is pretty much just as bad as what Trump wants, if perhaps in slightly different ways.

I'm a lower class person with a lower class elderly disabled mother I care for where without a lot of the public assistance that Republicans want to cut we will literally have no other means available to gain the income to survive, basically. There are no jobs available for me that pay enough for me to afford to care for myself, let alone adding affording my mom and her health concerns on top of it. (And said job situation will of course get worse thanks to the economic policies the Republicans want to enact.)

Then add on the attacks to Roe vs. Wade, the FADA thing, the cutbacks to climate change mitigation… the change to the EPA is actually a big one for me, too. GE poisoned my city with toxic waste decades back and has basically required being dragged along like a recalcitrant child the entire time since then to do any sort of cleanups of their mess, and that's with the EPA helping us drag them. Now I worry that under the new management the EPA will decide we're being poor meanies to GE and we should "take the responsibility" of cleaning it up ourselves if we want it done… which of course is not only morally wrong but literally impossible since we just can't afford that much money as a city.

The fact that we elected Trump in the first place makes me wonder if we ever made that progress with those things to begin with, or if it only superficially looked like we had because people weren't allowed for a long time to say what they still continued thinking.

I've been running a test since Trump won, because I wanted to know if Trump's authortarian tone to his rhetoric was something people actually liked or something they didn't take seriously.  What I found was rather shocking to me.

Living in Western PA, which despite reality still sees itself as coal country and very blue collar.  I know a lot of people that voted for Trump and I know a lot of people who are very worried about their rights and freedom under a Trump Presidency.

The Trump voters believe that his race and gender rhetoric isn't all him, that much of it was foisted on him by the Party and the media.  Which there is some basis to when you look at this stances and words on things like marriage equality and abortion rights, he's careless with words that then get clarified by his campaign as being party line.

His softenning stance on immigration and muslims, and by softenning, I mean a wall of silence and potential abandonment of promises he's made on those matters, may signal that like a great many things he said, they were strictly for the election.

Like he said when asked if he regretted the tone the campaign took and he said "no, we won."

But anyways, back to my test.

I've been running past people a scenario I think lines up with Trumps words and prior actions for our foreign political and economic policy, where we pull away from NATO and more closely ally with Israel and Russia, and take on more of a two big powrs model, similar to a city divided by two mafia families that keep a peace between them.

In this model when countries cause trouble, or terrorists set up in your country the 2 big guys would come put that down, and then you would pay for it, trade deals, resource control, basically the stuff we did in South America not that long ago.  Larger countries would have to tow the line, as the 2 biggest military powers suddenly stand together and keep them from rising up.

What surprised me is how many people, including a good number of people who opposed Trump favor that model to what we do now.  They want a more authoritarian leader, and an American that is more of an international strongman.

Obviously I think this is largely because the promise of a safer, and more profitable America sounds good, while ignorance of history protects them from realizing how that modl turns out.

Americans are more and more ready to be the bad guy, because they see our curent America as weak and willing to be pushed around.

I've heard a lot of ridicule of "Coal country" Trump voters because the think coal jobs are going to come back.  But most of the ones I have spoken too or even connect to second hand don't believe those jobs are coming back.  They voted for a stronger America internationally, and a slowing down ofinternal change.  They see an America simultaneously moving farther away from one they recognize internally and becoming less of a stand alone powe and more as the member of a comittee that pays all the bills but has less and less control.

Frankly, I find the social and political sphere incredibly interesting right now.  

The death of democracy comes from an uneducated electorate.

What surprised me is how many people, including a good number of people who opposed Trump favor that model to what we do now.  They want a more authoritarian leader, and an American that is more of an international strongman.

Obviously I think this is largely because the promise of a safer, and more profitable America sounds good, while ignorance of history protects them from realizing how that modl turns out.

Yup.

-------------------

Most anyone who pays attention knows that coal isn't coming back. It's damn near impossible just on market factors alone. Coal is far too expensive and diminishing quickly while there are cheaper, cleaner alternatives that are growing rapidly. No investor anywhere is going to back coal, not even if Congress started to provide massive subsities for it like we do with Corn. But make no mistake the rhetoric was that those jobs would be coming back, when it should have been "we can make new jobs for you". Folks got conned and I almost have sympathy for them.

-------------------

Changes to the EPA and potentially backing out of other international climate treaties is worrying. However, there is hope, and again, the market is playing a big factor. Places like New Jersy and the goofy state of Florida are leading the way in cleaner power for cheaper costs, and in both cases voters and investors are backing these projects. Solar Panels that are better and less costly are poping up everywhere in Jersy, and once these things hit the larger market the demand will be there, forcing the hand of energy companies everywhere. It's no immediate substitute for what the EPA does, surely, but a weakened or even a disbanded EPA will not turn the tide off of market friendly clean energy for a consumer market. Also note that Trumps daughter has a very friendly view on climate change and has a lot of say with her father.

I thought the governor of Florida was a big-time climate change denier, including banning the use of the term "climate change"? Are you talking about a different level?

In regards to climate change in the past long before the election, Trump has realized it is an issue.  To be honest, most of his viewpoints before this election followed more DNC viewpoints and heck he was a member of it for a time.    Doesn't make him fit to be where he is regardless but there is at least some hope he is more moderate then what we've been led to believe.   Though I have the sinking feeling Trump is going to get himself impeached and removed from office because he won't stop running his own business.   At which point we will be left with Pence as President. 

Side note: This thread has lost its initial snarkiness.

When you tolerate non-serious discussion, the more nefarious serious discussion gains a foothold.  The end is nigh.

As for Florids, their politics are a hot mess.  But that's what you get with the bizarre make-up of Florida's population and industry.  They have struggles politically for clean energy, but politics don't control everything.  This Article is a great, quick place to see how clean energy in Florida differs from the perception.

It has been my contention that much of the problems in our society right now are caused or made worse by the gap between our technology and our adjustment to it.  Our technology is rocketing ahead right now, and we (the people as a whole) are woefully unprepared when it comes to leading a world with this new technology.

I think the election did a great job of showing just how big that gap has grown.  

I do not know much about the gov of Florida.

Here is a link to a story I shared on FB the other week. It's worth a read and explains the situation between the people and the utilities far better than I could. It's my understanding that the governor, regardless of what he thinks, won't have much impact on curtailing the marketplace when there is demand and the product is cheap and effecient enough.

A blind trust is not valid when the trustee is a relative. If his assets are not liquidated or put into a true blind trust, then it's impossible to be a public servant at the highest level and serve in good faith, not to mention his hotel down the street from the White House would be in constant violation of the Constitution's emolument clause the entire time. 

Keep in mind that we, as citizens, do not actually vote for a president. We vote for Electors who vote on our behalf (it's always surprising to me how few people know that basic function of our system). The purpose of those Electors are, ideally, to be guardians against potential charismatic but nefarious leaders who capture public. You can read all about the ideas and thoughts behind this in the Federalist Papers (#10 IIRC was written by Madison who lays out the rational behind this). Now, in my mind, If our Electors know anything about the Constitution or their duty within, they have every right under the 1st Admendment to vote however they choose on Dec. 19 regardless of their pledged support (called Faithless Electors). Faithless Electors have been few and far between in history and have never changed the outcome of an election. However, we havn't had a president-elect before who would be in violation of the Constitution from the second he is sworn in either. If the Electors are actually aware of their Constitutional duty, they would be forced to vote against Trump and likely instill a Clinton/Pence White House.

But, like most folks, I'll bet no one really knows their Constitutional duty or rights, and the system put in place will fail to succeed because of a lack of education and knowledge of their position.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the EC Dec 19th.  

There are some problems with rooftop solar being rebated for electricity they put into the grid.

One is that utility models are based on consumption and profits from that are allocated to infrastructure.  Some places are changing that, charging everyone a flat rate for using the grid, and then for consumption.  That unfortunately does hurt low income people who use less to cut their bills, and lower cost on wealthier people who use more.

Another is the problem of time, usage and storage.  Solar gives best output when consumption is lower, and at night when energy use climbs it produces nothing.  Storing solar energy is in the baby stage, with things like molten salt batteries leading the way currently and hydrogen fuel cells in development.  But without the ability to store that electricity for night use you are looking at cutting daytime power generation and stepping up night generation from non-solar sources.  That is not a sustainable model, because the cost of alterring the prduction a plant is currently creating is prohibitive on a ramp up, ramp down every day model.

Companies want to protect their own and own the power production, they don't want us making power.

People don't want to be charged for infrastructure and don't realize (or really care) about the difficulty rooftop solar creates for utilities.

The answer is two fold.
1. The technology that is currently coming, ways to store solar energy for night consumption.

2.  Creating ways to charge people for the infrastructure but still pay them for adding to the grid.

Longterm the generation of power through residential space is a fantastic thing.  But getting there is going to take technology advancing and more importantly, willingness to create fair new models of payment, something neither the people or the utility companies currently want to do.

Honestly, no it won't. It'll be business as usuall.

Look, an elector from Texas up and resigned the other week because he didn't want to vote for Trump but also didn't want to disregard the "will of the people". That alone should tell you exactly how little the actual electors know about their duty and what is Constitutionally allowed and required. Some states actually have fines for faithless electors, or rules to have them removed from the vote count. However none of that has ever been challenged in court and I'd bet the farm that the 1st Admendment upholds the nessesity of faithless elector votes and finds such punishments unconstitutional.

The Electoral College will put Trump in the White House.  To not do so would create calamity for our system.

The founding Fathers unwittingly betrayed their vision for the EC when they gave the power over the electors and how they work to the states.

States quickly abandoned the original idea for the current one we have, voters vote for president instead of electors, and the electors all go with the popular vote.

The original model is your district would come together and vote for one of you to go and join all the other elected voters, who would come together and hash out who should be president.

The system we have now gives the states more political clout in getting federal favor.  Once one state did it, the rest followed suit so they wouldn't be left out.

Right now the states that are swing states get the most attention from the federal government.  Because they are the ones that will determine if your party wins the presidency.

The new system does nothing to protect against demagogues.  Because the States, from the very beginning, were more interested in their own benefit then the welfare of the nation.  We talk about that today, that Americans are more interested in their ownbenefit then the health of our country, but that has always been the case.  It is a defining American characteristic.

I'm not saying it will change results but it will be interesting to see how many actual go through with voting against Trump if any that are supposed to chose him.   To be honest I wish there was a reset and we had a new set of candidates.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/texas-republican-elector-says-he-wont-cast-ballot-for-trump/ar-AAlaYBO?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

A story I just saw about a Texas Elector who will not be casting his vote for Trump.

The Electoral College will put Trump in the White House.  To not do so would create calamity for our system.

Straight Up horsefeathers Skippy. It would be our Republic carrying out the system as it was always intended to work.

I've been seeing that referenced a lot between yesterday and today. 

States should have power. It's too large and diverse of a Country to let go of the model of many seperate and individual states united under a single (hopefully smaller) federal banner. Local governments can serve folks better (given that locals participate in said governments).

The problem with the EC currently is not the original model, it's that in the 1920's Congress decided to arbitrarily cap the number of seats in the House of Representitives, even though the Constitution states that the House should be reflective of the distribution of the populace. The population has grown exponentially since then, but the House has not, and in not doing so, fails miserably at it's initial job. This is reflected in the EC since the total points are directly tied to seats in the House. If the House doesn't accuratly reflect the population, the EC point distribution also cannot. Thats why there is such a major stink, because people are finally catching on.

Just in case anyone is confused, there are two Texas electors in question. One resigned, and the other declared he would not vote for Trump. This is in addition to eight or so Democratic electors that have publically declared they're not voting for Clinton.

My favorite detail: Bill Clinton has declined comment on who he will vote for as a Democratic elector from New York.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/electoral-college-rogues-trump-clinton-232195

Doesn't mean they are voting Trump either, though I am unfamiliar with these particular declares, so who knows. It would be so interesting to see unfaithful electors come out in force across the country and throw things for a loop. If Trump doesn't get the votes needed to clinch, it's gonna be interesting. Though I have it at a 0% chance of that ever happening.

They've specifically said they're not voting for either Clinton or Trump. They seem to be leaning towards Kasich as an acceptable Republican.

I would put the chances at very low, but nothing is ever 0%.

Calamity would be thus:  The Electoral College results come 1 month before the inauguration.  That is one month for legal battles, public reaction and whoever they chose to form an entirely new cabinet.  Trying to form a cabinet that Republicans would vote for if the College chooses a Democrat would not be possible.  The government would be at war with itself.

If they chose another republican, forming a cabinet would be increadibly hard, as what Republican wants to join an administration that wasn't voted for by the people?

If they chose a third party candidate that gives one month for those parties to go from second rate operations with no real plan for winning into a political apparatus capable of filling a cabinet with good choices, while facing massive opposition from Republicans and little support from Democrats.

Net up if they don't choose Clinton, then they choose someone who won no states and miniscule amounts of the popular vote.  Clinton would not be likely to even accept winning like that.  She wouldn't want to be the face on that poop storm.  Heck, she isn't even trying to contest the election, she doesn't want to be a part of this mess.

If they go elsewhere, you would have massive international controversy and likely sanction, as we would go from violating only a decent number of our own criteria for free elections to violating the most basic ones.

There is no way that ends well.

Also, the Electoral college won't put anyone but Trump in, it would require more organization than the Electoral College is allowed.  and the States have time to replace or contest their own vote counts before they go to congress.

It just is not going to happen.

You know that, if no candidate gets the required number of votes in the Electoral College, the House then votes for the President and Vice President, ect.

Would it be a crazy time? Sure. It's never happened in the history of the Country. But the System was set up so that the door was open for this possibility.

I do not think it's in the relm of possibility that a candidate other than Trump would reach the 270 votes needed to win outright. However, there could be a slim chance of there being enough faithless electors around the country where no one reaches 270. That's the interesting scenario.

But I think we both agree that, for whatever reason, it's just not going to happen. My contention still, though, is that the Electors have a Constitutional duty to cast their vote faithlessly since Trump is unable to act as President in good faith and uphold the Constitution. It should happen. It won't though.

The house would vote trump in if it got that far, and even getting that far would cause serious long-term problems.

I’m pretty sure serious long term problems are inevitable. That would be true even if Clinton had won.

There is plenty that was done that I could snark about in this election (starting with snarking about how people were so afraid of someone who allegedly did certain things that they voted for someone who really did do those certain things and moving on from there), but the fact that I and other people still have to also suffer the negative consequences of that snark-worthy stuff we did not do or condone ourselves makes me feel more bitter than amused.

It's more the uneven deployment of technology that's the issue, IMHO. In particular lower class people are often the very last people to get to have beneficial new technological things (stuff like solar panels or energy-saving devices or easier access to information) but often the very first people to suffer the downsides of disruptive new technological things (stuff like automation).

My side note was more of a hint to the mods to change the title at this point.   

I want to leave it. Kinda hoping that brings the snark back.

But thank you all for the civil and polite discourse. It really is greatly appreciated!

Trump has 306 electoral votes coming his way, assuming no faithless electors.  So it would take 37 faithless electors (or recount changes, which I feel are unlikely, especially considering the timeframe) to change the result.  That's an astronomical number to try to hope for.  I'm sure we will get a record number, but not that many.

If that did happen, it's still pretty likely Trump would be voted in by Congress.  Their only other option would be to choose one of the Republican candidates who lost the primaries.  And that would clearly be against the will of their constituents and you can bet it would hurt their own chances of reelection.

Representation isn't meant to be proportional.  It intentionally gives more power to smaller states.  This was done to appease said smaller states when forming the Union in the first place.

I wouldn't say that they decided to arbitrarily cap the number of seats.  I mean, yes, the number they chose was arbitrary.  But if they had not done so, we would currently have over 10,000 representatives.  University of Central Florida would have two representatives all to theirselves.

In the 200+ years since the Constitution was written, the United States has changed dramatically in both population size and distribution, and in information and communication technology.  Both these things dramatically alter the "ideal" balance of representation between a reasonable number of representatives and reasonable representation by those representatives.  The 435 reps total that Congress chose is almost certainly not the optimal number.  But the 1 rep per 30,000 people originally used is even more certainly wrong.

Yeah, I'm OK with the limited number of Reps because sooner or later you run into sheer logistics issues. Can you imagine trying to get thousands of people to discuss and agree on anything? The problem with the House itself is more unfair gerrymandering, IMHO.

The Electoral College definitely has issues, though, since it's effectively a second layer of voting and one that doesn't even seem to be serving much of a useful purpose at the moment.

@Rabit: Part of the problem with being humorous is that we're basically running into Poe's Law as well, where anything satirical or parodic you could come up with starts being upstaged by actual reality. Or as I like to put it, "that moment when headlines by The Onion start being barely disguishable from real headlines."

Representation is explicitly meant to be proportional. That is the entire point of the House of Reps. You are thinking of the Senate where each state has equal power regardles of population.

Sure, I agree with you that thousands of representatives is unsreasonable. But the fact of the matter is that the EC was designed to be proportionally acurate portrayal of the populace and where they live. It's very far from being a faithful portrayal, and the cap is a major reason. The last census we had (which is used to redistribute the points under this cap), the point differences were very minor even in areas where populations had grown/lessened dramatically. That is not the way the thing was designed to work.

@Foote

Perhaps you'd be interested in the Congressional Apportionment Amendment?

That amendment wouldn’t actually do anything, as the 435 cap would still be constitutional.

The number of electoral votes a state gets is equal to its total number of representatives–the House and the Senate.  Therefore, the smallest states (with one Congressional district) get nearly three times as many electoral votes per capita than the largest states.  That's part of the Great Compromise, and is, as I said, intentional.

To say that electoral votes are not ment to be proportional though is misleading at best. I'm not taking about the Senate parts of the EC, I was only bringing up those that concerned the House.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Census10/FedRep.phtml?sort=Elec#table

I like numbers to visualize things. Here are the population and electoral stats from the last Census

There are worse parts of the representation in the House: thanks to gerrymandering, states like Ohio voted >50% for Democratic reps last election, but their congressional delegations are >75% Republican.

Gerrymandering is the direct result of FPTP voting systems. I'd rather not debate the flaws and merits of FPTP vs other voting methods, mostly because I lack enough knowledge of the alternatives to form a decent opinion. However, the fact that gerrymandering is not only enabled but encouraged in such a voting system does leave me pretty skeptical of it.

If you haven't seen them, I strongly strongly recommend CGP Grey's Politics in the Animal Kingdom series. It explains the strengths and weaknesses of various systems of voting in an extremely digestible way.

I'm going to agree that I feel gerrymandering is the real issue with our Representatives, as the lack of proportional allocation is not only understandable due to logistical barriers (seriously, can you imagine having thousands of people trying to successfully negotiate bills) but dwarfed by the fact that what Reps exist currently don't reflect the actual beliefs of the citizenry in question.

Even if we added more Reps per population point, I fear it would potentially do little to fix the lack of representation because the new regions would be just as subject to possible gerrymandering gaming as the existing ones. Conversely, if we fix the gerrymandering issues, I think the lack of raw numbers might not be such a huge setback in terms of representation.

TL;DR the possibility that my state is sending mostly the wrong party Reps compared to what the majority of the state populace actually believes feels like a bigger problem to me than arguably not sending enough Reps.

It isn't just the voting system.  If you change the system but leave the gerrymandering the results will improve but not a whole lot.

What California has done with their redistricting seems to be working really well, and the less safe political envronment it is creating bodes well for building new leaders.

We'll see how Maine's experiment with ranked choice works out.  With California and Maine both trying new ideas, and California's looking good, there is hope that our system will grow out of what it has become right now.

This was interesting. Thanks for the link.

I used to strongly feel that fixing gerrymandering was the critical step towards better politics, but I later read an article that argued that the extreme partisanship in the US is actually the result of parity. When one party has a clear majority, then the opposition _has_ to work with someone in the major party to get anything done, and people in the majority from different divisions start to find it more possible to get people from the opposition to join them on some issues. At parity, though, both sides are incentivized to do nothing that would help the other side, ever.

This is starting to approach dangerous territory! If you find yourself feeling the urge to post an angry reply, I recommend taking a breather, emailing the comment to yourself, and - if you still agree that it should be posted in 24 hours, posting it then.

Yes, I'm afraid that Jeysie's post contravenes Rules Part 2 #3:

>

3) Do not post things that are likely to start fights about politics, religion, etc.

For those who may be confused, the offending post has been unpublished. It wasn't necessarily so terribly awful, but it was over the line, and we'd rather nip these things in the bud.

Does this apply?

My post was not angry, it was an attempt to correct arenson9's factually incorrect post regards explaining the actual historical and current facts of the situation regards how the current extreme partisanship actually happened.

If being factually correct is not allowed on these forums, because simply posting facts is erroneously seen as "starting a fight" then I deeply regret posting here. Especially since I made a very good faith attempt to be fair and gracious despite having to report the facts, by bringing up areas where I was able to concede with the other side because it legitimately was simply a difference of opinion in those cases, yet have been censored anyway.

I don't appreciate being reprimanded and censored just for being calmly and politely factual, and don't feel welcome on a forum where such a thing occurs. Which is a shame because up until now I was really enjoying myself.

Jeysie,

You framed the issues in an antagonistic way, specifically mentioning one party and basically saying they are the forces of darkness. Given this is not a politcal website and the owners prefer it to be friendly to everyone, this was probably considered too far. You were not as objective and non-confrontational as you believe you were in that post.

I didn't see the post myself but I would talk with Arenson9 directly through PMs or with other moderators about it if you felt the post was censored unfairly.  

Never mind, I should just accept that everything I say is always wrong because I'm the one saying it, even when it doesn't make any sense to me that I did anything that deserved to be yelled at. I'm sorry I made you all upset with me and I'll just leave you all alone.

@pwatson1974: Look at the people who Trump has factually appointed to his cabinet positions. I literally, sincerely don't know how else people wanted me to categorize the situation.

It's just example n+1 in my attempts to socialize in life where I got yelled at when I don't understand how I said anything that was factually or morally wrong. So, yeah, I give up them.

Jeysie,

You have not been yelled at. One post has been removed because it went further than this particular site (which isn't a politics site) allows. If you really don't understand why the post in question was considered over the line, it might be best to not post about politics as your ideas of acceptable discourse in that area and the mods' of this site don't align. Outside of politics, the site is still pretty welcoming.

If you find yourself feeling the urge to post an angry reply, I recommend taking a breather, emailing the comment to yourself, and - if you still agree that it should be posted in 24 hours, posting it then.

This still applies!

Hey, everyone!

I'm going to lock this thread, because I'm fairly certain nothing more productive is going to come out of it. We have a lot of people from all walks of life that frequent these forums, and I don't want the historically divisive issue of politics to make anyone feel unwelcome. As I've had a few people from both sides of the aisle contact me directly, saying they felt exactly so, I feel pretty confident that locking this thread is the best solution.

If anyone has further concerns, please contact me directly. You can do that either through a direct message on the forums or by sending me an email.