Election 2016

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Jul 30, 2016 5:27 am

Whipstitch wrote:
Prak wrote:Roughly half of all young male journalists want to be Hunter S Thompson. The other half want to be sports journalists and don't know who Hunter S Thompson was.
Trust me, sports journalists know who Thompson was. There's few people more influential in that industry given that the utility of impartiality is actually pretty suspect when you're writing about games that are ultimately being played for entertainment. He started out sports writing and he pretty much wrote the book on using the fact that sports are fundamentally absurd to backdoor his way into talking about whatever the fuck he wanted. He and the other New Journalism guys are the missing link between self-serious print guys and sports radio provocateurs.

I'm aware of this, because I know who Hunter S Thompson was. In my experience, most burgeoning sports writers don't.

But then I also went through my school's journalism program with a guy who thought The Great Gatsby was the best book ever, instead of, you know, lukewarm mediocrity about a rich fuck I'd have drowned in the pool by page ten.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:38 am

So, Trump's son has, apparently, in interviews with potential VPs, said that Trump would let his VP basically be presiden, ie, complete foreign and domestic power while he focuses on "making America great again."

Is that even legal? Could a president actually delegate everything to their VP?

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:55 am

Prak wrote:So, Trump's son has, apparently, in interviews with potential VPs, said that Trump would let his VP basically be presiden, ie, complete foreign and domestic power while he focuses on "making America great again."

Is that even legal? Could a president actually delegate everything to their VP?

Officially no, unofficially pretty much yes. Most of the actual enumerated powers of the presidency are fairly ceremonial. It would take a good deal of work to set up and some strong adherence to unwritten agreements within the White House and among the cabinet, but the VP could stand in for the president in terms of most domestic policy decisions. Foreign policy is trickier - you'd need to make absolutely sure that the VP got along with SecDef, SecState, the NSA and CIA directors, and probably the SecDHS as well, but since Trump is almost certain to appoint toadying yes-men in the event of his election, this is possible to arrange.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:10 am

I get to see this fun stuff a lot on my FB

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:37 am

I love how Busters are all "Hillary's guilty!" but then can't tell me any actual laws she broke, or when they do, they're fucking wrong about the actual facts...

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:01 am

I don't actually know what peoples' "conscience" could be saying to them that would make voting for Hillary Clinton difficult. Generally people say they hate her because they think she's lying about supporting the things she says she supports that they like. But that's all very circular. If you assume instead that she is not lying, what exactly is their problem?

The reality is that Presidents normally try to fulfill their campaign promises, whatever they may be. The worst presidency in modern history for keeping campaign promises was Reagan/Bush - and even those assholes kept 52% of their promises. That's still more than half.

Even with Republicans bringing down the averages a lot, a typical presidency comes through with just over two thirds of their campaign promises. So given that, here's the actual set of Hillary Clinton promises. It's an hour long, and she runs through a pretty big grab bag of what she intends to accomplish and how. So if you go through that and assume she'll deliver on a statistically average 2 out of 3, what on that list is an actual red flag for your conscience?

If watching videos is too taxing, here's her policy proposals in written form. Again, what two thirds of that pile do you think she's going to deliver on that would move the country backwards?

Hillary Clinton's "baggage" is that she's been working for progressive change since before I was born and hasn't actually stopped. She did important work desegregating schools, getting disabled children into public schools, and expanding access to health care. The official position of the United States of America is that "Gay Rights are Human Rights and Human Rights are Gay Rights" because she declared that by fiat and no one stopped her. She arranged for HIV treatment to get to hundreds of thousands of people that would otherwise die without medical care. And so on and so on.

If someone is going to claim their conscience won't let them vote for Hillary, they'd better go through the policy list and say what exactly there is that's a bridge too far. And if it's something like "too supportive of Israel" that you literally will not get different no matter who gets elected from any party as the country currently stands, then they'd better consider the possibility that their so called "principles" are just them being whiny drama llamas.

-Username17

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 11:34 am

So... what you are whining now that it's so unfair that Hillary is so unpopular because she is so left wing (hah).

Buuuuut... back in the primaries the number one single reason given that she HAD to be picked was... she was more viable and popular than the left wing guy because she wasn't so "crazy" left wing.

It is in fact true that Hillary has essentially one single test here as her suitability as candidate at this stage. She has to beat Trump, and NOT by "just a little bit" because anything SHORT of "clearly and safely" IS a betrayal of all those voters who were berated that they had to pick her so that she would totally win so easily because everyone supposedly fucking loved her so much more.

I don't care about the crazy fringe protest vote both real and strawman, politicians that run on a platform of little more than "I'm totally electable" had better at least be pretty fucking electable.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:28 pm

Hillary's problems have nothing to do with her policies and everything to do with her charisma and lack thereof. It's not her dumpstat, but its just around average. Average charisma really isn't a good thing is a race against Trump, because Trump dumped all of his points into charisma and then proceeded to convince people to give him billions of dollars, and this has been his primary occupation for the past several decades.

Trump knows how to get up there and work the crowds. He knows how to sell. And he does it a heck of a lot better than Hillary can. And that's the primary reason that Trump won the nomination in the first place, none of his opponents had any charisma at all.

Hillary just isn't enough of a celebrity. That's the big thing. She's a household name, sure, but it's not like she ever headlined a reality game show on NBC. Like, if she took a short break from politics and hosted a revival of Deal or No Deal in 2014, I think a lot of people would like her more.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:31 pm

hyzmarca wrote:Hillary just isn't enough of a celebrity. That's the big thing. She's a household name, sure, but it's not like she ever headlined a reality game show on NBC. Like, if she took a short break from politics and hosted a revival of Deal or No Deal in 2014, I think a lot of people would like her more.

If this is really true then America deserves Trump and the subsequent descent into anarchy and ruin, only to be remembered by future historians as "the society that wanted to die".

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:05 pm

Koumei wrote:
hyzmarca wrote:Hillary just isn't enough of a celebrity. That's the big thing. She's a household name, sure, but it's not like she ever headlined a reality game show on NBC. Like, if she took a short break from politics and hosted a revival of Deal or No Deal in 2014, I think a lot of people would like her more.
If this is really true then America deserves Trump and the subsequent descent into anarchy and ruin, only to be remembered by future historians as "the society that wanted to die".

We deserve President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:15 am

hyzmarca, that's bullshit.

Trump won 35% of the republican primary vote because he was one anti-establishment candidate against a dozen establishment ones all saying the same thing, and the two best establishment types stayed in the race right to the end to keep splitting the vote against him.

The great majority of republican primary voters voted against trump. His "charisma" beat neither cardboard cut-out in the only race he's ever been in, and those establishment players who were very popular basically told their supporters to not vote for him. He is already struggling for money and receives almost no public support from anyone you've ever heard of.

Clinton has Sanders on her side, after she won the clear majority of the democrat vote against only one opponent, despite having to concede on most of his policy points and pull them into the democratic fold along the way. She beat the guy who she lost all the arguments to because ... hey, maybe she's more charismatic.

Trump's polling went up during the RNC, when the news was wall-to-wall republican fearmongering, and then during the DNC it went right back down again as the democrats targeted his fearmongering as both ridiculous and harmful.

Trump's saying he won't even debate (because she'd make him look stupid, duh), so he's got nothing for three months but telling everyone how scary mexicans and muslims and women's bodies are, while the democrats laugh at him and point out what a horrible human being he his.

And yes, there's a bunch of people voting for Trump because they want to see the world burn. But those are also not people actually attracted to his messaging. His charisma is not really a thing, he's famous like a train wreck, not like a statesman.

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:52 am

Trump's best skill is his masterful ability to manipulate the media of the current era. Specifically the fact that due to ongoing economic issues the current media - both old school forms and web-based - is absolute unbelievably desperate for attention. Anything that grabs ears or eyes is essential. Trump has long been able to make himself a story and continually manipulates the media into talking about him and keeping himself the center of attention. As a result he's increased his support through sheer ubiquity.

Additionally, Trump hasn't been damaged by many of the horrible things he's said because of the nature of modern Republican politics. Republican voters have been schooled for the past two decades to believe only specific right wing mouthpieces, everything else that is said, which includes all challenges by traditional media to Trump's BS, is nothing but liberal lies. However the right wing media is actually even more dependent upon Trump for stories than the mainstream and liberal media is. That means they can't call Trump out on stuff even when they, presumably, want to. I mean seriously, Megan Kelly - who had the platform and every personal motivation in the world to take a piece out of Trump's hide - folded quietly.

Hillary, by contrast, is boring. She's focused, competent, and incredibly focus grouped. She has made it a practice to avoid saying anything dangerous on TV and is incredibly wonkish out of personal habit. That's part of the reason why she generates so much negative coverage: in the absence of interest the media drums up every whiff of scandal for something to talk about.

So Trump does have a very real advantage in the area of sheer media exposure. In a massive primary field that was decisive. In a highly polarized electorate and in a two-person race, not nearly so much.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:32 am

Okay, guys, I need a refresher.

Tell me about Benghazi, and/or point me to something reliable where I can find info. It happened at a time when I was fairly down and wasn't paying too much attention to news. By the time I got interested enough to dig for details, there's just too much conspiracy shit involved around it and it's hard to find anything that's solid and says what happened.

So far as I understand:

-Protest/attack happened on a US embassy in Benghazi, killing the four people inside. Protest may have been over a film, may have been a direct and coordinated attack.

-Republicans claim Hillary Clinton left people to die and that flying jets over could have somehow saved everyone. I personally doubt this

-They also claim there were 'forces in the region'. I am unsure of this

-Republicans won't stop about it. Have investigated Hillary many times, and now have somehow claimed her personal e-mails are relevant to this.

My dad won't stop going on about it, so I need info before I decide whether or not to fight with him about it next time he decides to discuss politics when we're around each other.

Any help here?

erik · Post by **erik** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:46 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

A good primer for you.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 6:54 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack

The basic story is ...

People set the US embassy on fire during a protest about an amateur film. This is just after the Libyan civil war, where the crazy people won, so place is crazy. The ambassador died of smoke inhalation. There's a theory that the protest was hijacked by a pre-planned terrorist action, but the people arrested deny this and there's no real evidence for it.

Meanwhile, that embassy had asked for better security, because the place is crazy and people are throwing grenades over the wall now and then, shit like that. Clinton was the one in charge of deciding if a mass of US troops inside the wall made that situation better or worse, and decided troops was not the answer.

The Republican version is Clinton is soft on terrorism and won't protect your children from the monsters lurking under their beds. The Democrat version is a mass of crazy people burnt a couple buildings for no good reason and that sucks but is genuinely difficult to predict or even to stop.

angelfromanotherpin · Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:41 am

http://www.mediamatters.org/research/20 ... cts/211240

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 12:56 pm

Personally I think I vaguely recall that early on Benghazi was going to be ignored/lightly exploited then forgotten by the right like hell, a dozen other similar incidents.

But there was that whole offensive anti-muslim movie some conservative wanker released that kinda provoked the related riots. And the rather clear chain of events was that the movie provoked the riots that resulted in the event, or at the very least provided the opportunity/cover for the event.

Someone prominent and mainstream, I don't recall who, possibly Hillary herself dared to actually point out the clear provocation though not direct or complete responsibility by the seethingly racist anti-muslim movie, which of course was one of the right's beloved children at the time...

...and THAT was the moment when Benghazi HAD to become Obama's/Hillary's fault. Because how DARE the blame fall on the right's obvious provocations.

Benghazi like so much of the crazed bullshit of the right was never planned in advance, it was an accident of happy reactionary hysteria that they, just, can't, let, go.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 1:18 pm

Maxus wrote:Okay, guys, I need a refresher.

Tell me about Benghazi, and/or point me to something reliable where I can find info. It happened at a time when I was fairly down and wasn't paying too much attention to news. By the time I got interested enough to dig for details, there's just too much conspiracy shit involved around it and it's hard to find anything that's solid and says what happened.

So far as I understand:

-Protest/attack happened on a US embassy in Benghazi, killing the four people inside. Protest may have been over a film, may have been a direct and coordinated attack.

-Republicans claim Hillary Clinton left people to die and that flying jets over could have somehow saved everyone. I personally doubt this

-They also claim there were 'forces in the region'. I am unsure of this

-Republicans won't stop about it. Have investigated Hillary many times, and now have somehow claimed her personal e-mails are relevant to this.

My dad won't stop going on about it, so I need info before I decide whether or not to fight with him about it next time he decides to discuss politics when we're around each other.

Any help here?

1) There was no protest.

2) There was an attack by one of Libya's many militias. This is true.

3) There was initially some speculation that the attack was in response to this crappy youtube video that no one even watched. Obama made the mistake of advancing the stupid theory before the situation was fully analyzed. The crappy youtube video got a lot of hits as a result. This was a terrible mistake. on Obama's part.

4)Lots of people are pissed off that there wasn't an instant military response.

5)The Libyan government used the attack as an excuse to outlaw all militias and blow up any who resisted, which was a good thing.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 4:55 pm

Thank you all. This has been very helpful. At least now I can shut him up about some stuff.

Hiram McDaniels · Post by **Hiram McDaniels** » Mon Aug 01, 2016 11:22 pm

tussock wrote: And yes, there's a bunch of people voting for Trump because they want to see the world burn. But those are also not people actually attracted to his messaging. His charisma is not really a thing, he's famous like a train wreck, not like a statesman.

I have a hypothesis that the majority of people voting for Trump because he's like a homonculus made of all their fears and prejudices. You can point out time and again how he's a failure in business, knows nothing of public policy foreign or domestic, how his ideas are insubstantial garbage that would be disastrous for everyone if realized...but it doesn't matter. They're not voting for the man; they're voting to have their impotent white rage legitimized.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 4:37 am

hyzmarca, read the links, man.

1) There was totally a protest. It was earlier in the day than the fire, but it did attack the embassy and breach the walls thereof, on live international TV. The initial protest backed off for a while, and then came back with ... EDIT: This was in Cairo, but on TV in Libya.

2) a militia leader at the head of it, directing things to be destroyed and burnt and whatnot. Same people. EDIT: not same people, but you know, same twitter feeds.

3) The protest was about a video that literally no one had even watched. It's a thing in certain strains of crazy over there that you don't have to view insults to the prophet to take bloody violence out on people who are vaguely related to those making the insult. That's strait from all eye witnesses, and the guilty parties themselves, even though the dude in question was totally just looking for an excuse, he totally found that one with a ready-made angry mob. EDIT: Yes, his mob was also his militia. Local good old boys.

4) There was a rapid military response from the United States and Libya, they totally got there, cleared the mob, and pulled people out of the fire, most of whom survived, but smoke inhalation got a couple anyway. There was also further military responses, the guilty parties are in prison, etc. EDIT: This bit's right.

5) They also had an extended night of the long knives in the new Libya afterward, for the same reason that always happens. EDIT: This too, that really does always happen, Animal Farm and so on.

EDIT: Fridge logic moment. Quick reading when sleepy not a great idea.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 5:54 am

Hiram McDaniels wrote:
tussock wrote: And yes, there's a bunch of people voting for Trump because they want to see the world burn. But those are also not people actually attracted to his messaging. His charisma is not really a thing, he's famous like a train wreck, not like a statesman.
I have a hypothesis that the majority of people voting for Trump because he's like a homonculus made of all their fears and prejudices. You can point out time and again how he's a failure in business, knows nothing of public policy foreign or domestic, how his ideas are insubstantial garbage that would be disastrous for everyone if realized...but it doesn't matter. They're not voting for the man; they're voting to have their impotent white rage legitimized.

It's kind of funny that you call him a homunculus. That was exactly what came to my mind when I saw a picture of his mother on tumblr- that I had never really thought of him as having one, despite knowing he had a father, and, I mean, obviously... but somehow my mind had never consciously thought about him having passed through a woman, like he was a homunculus brewed of semen in a mound of crap.

I think it would explain a lot if Trump was in fact a homunculus...

SlyJohnny · Post by **SlyJohnny** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 10:34 am

I have a friend who knew one of the server admins at the embassy, who died in the attack. His last nesssge to her was that he was nervous about people outside the walls taking photos of the place. Shes convinced Hillary's decision led to his death.

It doesn't help that some of the unsecured information from the email scandal concerned that situation and the site, too. I can't imagine the mob got hold of it and it changed the outcome, but nothing's going to persuade her that isn't the case, and it doesn't look good.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 2:34 pm

SlyJohnny wrote:I have a friend who knew one of the server admins at the embassy, who died in the attack. His last nesssge to her was that he was nervous about people outside the walls taking photos of the place. Shes convinced Hillary's decision led to his death.

It doesn't help that some of the unsecured information from the email scandal concerned that situation and the site, too. I can't imagine the mob got hold of it and it changed the outcome, but nothing's going to persuade her that isn't the case, and it doesn't look good.

Some people are just beyond saving on some issues. It's like how pro war people suddenly become anti-some specific war their kid dies in. Of course you care more about your friends and family than anyone else, but we don't, so Clinton had no obligation to send a bunch of soldiers (who also might have died) to possibly forestall this riot/attack that might not have happened.

But you aren't going to convince her of that, so don't even bother.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Tue Aug 02, 2016 7:35 pm

SlyJohnny wrote:I have a friend who knew one of the server admins at the embassy, who died in the attack. His last nesssge to her was that he was nervous about people outside the walls taking photos of the place. Shes convinced Hillary's decision led to his death.

"His last message to her." Uh huh.

Vilerat dropped that line in goonfleet jabber, and the Mittani publicized it in his eulogy the day after the attack. If your friend is characterizing her relationship with the man as some sort of personal confidence, or implying some preternatural anxiety in the tongue-in-cheek caveat he made about the viability of video game plans they were making, then do me a favor and tell her to eat shit.