Election 2016

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 4:16 am

I think he just disappears for a month every time anyone says the magic words "slavery" and "[good/most free/best]"

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 9:49 am

So Ecuador says that they are the ones who cut off Asange's internet access because they were concerned about him using Ecuadorian resources to interfere in the American election. This is a shame. The other theories were so much cooler than just Ecuador valuing its neutrality and getting increasingly sick of Asange's bullshit.

The best theory of course was that Pamela Anderson's anti-pornography tour was a CIA front and that she had poisoned Asange with an up-market vegan sandwich. I am genuinely proud to live in a world where people can discuss that theory seriously.

The second best theory was that Asange's internet had been cut by interpol after he sent dick pics to an eight year old girl in Jamaica. Unclear whether he thought he was sending dick picks to the girl's 22 year old relative who actually owned the account.

Regardless, fuck that guy. You don't get to pretend you seriously give a shit about freedom of information if you are openly working to elect fucking Donald Trump, the man who is running on the idea that the legal system needs to be reformed so that reporters can be imprisoned for saying things he doesn't like. Also too, at the point where you are claiming that peoples' credit card numbers are information the public has a right to, you are basically just a criminal.

-Username17

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 5:55 pm

FrankTrollman wrote: The best theory of course was that Pamela Anderson's anti-pornography tour was a CIA front and that she had poisoned Asange with an up-market vegan sandwich. I am genuinely proud to live in a world where people can discuss that theory seriously.

-Username17

Holy shit. Yes. Yes. That is hilarious.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, I saw on Facebook a meme claiming that every US President has been blood related to "The Roman Empire".

Now, I'm PRETTY sure that if you went to very remote areas of northern Scotland or Scandinavia, you'd find some white people who didn't have a Roman in the family tree 1,700 years back. Even if you count just the emperors, what with all the families and individuals gaining and losing the throne, I'm sure a surprising number have an emperor in there. But that was it. Just a statement. "They've all been related to the Roman Empire" like that's evidence of the hidden hand of the Illuminati.

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:02 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:So Ecuador says that they are the ones who cut off Asange's internet access because they were concerned about him using Ecuadorian resources to interfere in the American election. This is a shame. The other theories were so much cooler than just Ecuador valuing its neutrality and getting increasingly sick of Asange's bullshit.

The best theory of course was that Pamela Anderson's anti-pornography tour was a CIA front and that she had poisoned Asange with an up-market vegan sandwich. I am genuinely proud to live in a world where people can discuss that theory seriously.

The second best theory was that Asange's internet had been cut by interpol after he sent dick pics to an eight year old girl in Jamaica. Unclear whether he thought he was sending dick picks to the girl's 22 year old relative who actually owned the account.

Regardless, fuck that guy. You don't get to pretend you seriously give a shit about freedom of information if you are openly working to elect fucking Donald Trump, the man who is running on the idea that the legal system needs to be reformed so that reporters can be imprisoned for saying things he doesn't like. Also too, at the point where you are claiming that peoples' credit card numbers are information the public has a right to, you are basically just a criminal.

-Username17

I don't think that Assange cares about electing Donald Trump, so much as about staying relevant by positing any shit people send him without even attempting verification.

At this point he's the international espionage equivilant to soccer moms who credulously forward urban legend chainmails to their entire contact lists.

As for the vegan sandwich, the CIA has done stranger. They tried to kill Castro with an exploding cigar and with poisoned food at different times.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:34 am

Wow, the moderator in tonight's debate is horrible.....both candidates keep talking right over him....

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:49 am

I think the best example of Chris Wallace's wretchedness is that the statements about nuclear weapons that Trump just denied making, were made in an interview with Chris Wallace. And he just sits there.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:18 am

Oh god...my liver....I really shouldn't watch these in real time.

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:07 am

So Trump refused to say that he would abide by the results of the election during the debate. That's just...it's openly contemplating whether or not to commit treason in front of an audience of millions. And it pretty much implies that he's not running to be president, he's running to be dictator.

This is insane. Was this what is was like for the Germans when Hitler was running for office in the Weimar Republic? Honestly, that's the closest parallel that comes to mind, which is terrifying.

One can only hope that Trump's support craters further starting tomorrow. Early signs are promising, thankfully.

OgreBattle · Post by **OgreBattle** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:21 am

sendaz wrote:
OgreBattle wrote:What tabletop RPG's do Trump supporters play the most
Depends on who you ask and the game

http://6d6rpg.com/rpg/republicans-dont-play-dd/

While not really a full on RPG, there is the tabletop game Election USA
https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10815.phtml

I could see why McCain has a chip in his shoulder about it, he played Dungeons & Dungeons IRL

Was this what is was like for the Germans when Hitler was running for office in the Weimar Republic?

An optimistic time of change they could believe in. Trump is more like Churchill's post war re-election where his campaign ran on the idea that there are commie traitors among your neighbors that need to be gestapo'd.

CapnTthePirateG · Post by **CapnTthePirateG** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:34 am

Mechalich wrote:So Trump refused to say that he would abide by the results of the election during the debate. That's just...it's openly contemplating whether or not to commit treason in front of an audience of millions. And it pretty much implies that he's not running to be president, he's running to be dictator.

This is insane. Was this what is was like for the Germans when Hitler was running for office in the Weimar Republic? Honestly, that's the closest parallel that comes to mind, which is terrifying.

One can only hope that Trump's support craters further starting tomorrow. Early signs are promising, thankfully.

What are his options, exactly? Call on his supporters for an insurrection?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 5:40 am

CapnTthePirateG wrote:What are his options, exactly? Call on his supporters for an insurrection?

That's the thing that drives me crazy about that stupid question. I mean, I know why they keep asking it, but it's just such a dumb question because what does "not abiding" even mean? Technically, whining about how the election was rigged on TrumpTV is still abiding by the election. Not abiding would be moving into the White House and/or assassinating Clinton, neither of which are things he can even do.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:19 am

People are not concerned about what Donald Trump will do; he's stupid, sexist, and stubborn, but he's not suicidal. He's not going to say anything that is literally a call for civil war. People are concerned about what his supporters will do. Concessions are important because in them losing candidates acknowledge they were defeated legitimately and that they have no claim to the office. It's very difficult to justify trying to put the king's second son on the throne when the second son admits he shouldn't be there and calls you a rebel for trying. If Donald Trump refuses to concede, or worse publicly contests the outcome, he's insinuating - and something like one-third of the country may very well believe him - that the results of the election were invalid and that his supporters would be justified in either disobedience or open rebellion on his behalf - even if he doesn't directly call for such a thing. That's ugly.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:22 am

Yes, my point is just that the correct thing to do is to ask the question in a non shitty way. "Abide by" is the wrong question.

Just like "how will you move energy forward to grow jobs (and also be friendly to the enviroment)" is the wrong question if you want to ask about global warming.

Mechalich · Post by **Mechalich** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:32 am

The mostly likely thing Trump could do is incite his supporters to massive street demonstrations and potentially street violence. The intent would be to paralyze the government in DC and in whatever states he had sufficient support in with the goal forcing another vote or something. Giant street protests against nominally elected leaders have brought down weak democracies before - Egypt and Ukraine both rather recently.

Roog · Post by **Roog** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:08 am

This seems relevant

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... od/499754/

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 8:34 am

Mechalich wrote:Giant street protests against nominally elected leaders have brought down weak democracies before - Egypt and Ukraine both rather recently.

I can't really think of any metric by which you could call the US a weak democracy though. Hell, even riots in a given state basically get ignored by every other state, and the police either deal with it effectively or deal with it horrifically.

Though if it means the last we see of Trump is a televised trial before he goes to actual prison, then maybe it all works out for the best?

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:17 am

Kaelik wrote:That's the thing that drives me crazy about that stupid question. I mean, I know why they keep asking it, but it's just such a dumb question because what does "not abiding" even mean?

Announce on national television that, despite the election results, he is the legitimate president and Hilary Clinton is not. Tell his supporters to resist the Clinton administration and to refuse to enforce any law passed by President Clinton. Insist that the Republican Party impeached and imprison the duly elected President for election fraud as a political ploy to install himself as President.

None of these actions are likely to work. Many of them would be treason. But the fact that any of this is on the table at all is incredibly corrosive to the idea that elections mean anything in America.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:44 am

Weak democracies are ones where large sections of the population do not accept the results of elections, for whatever reason. It's why Gore didn't fight Bush long in Florida. Republicans have been presenting an anti-government front for a very long time now, and Trump is simply extending that to where he's the solution to there being a democratic government at all. He doesn't even support the party he's standing for.

About 40% of the voters are voting for him, at last count, that's way better than old Adolf ever got, and those people are the police in the states he's winning, no college education white protestant males trend heavily for Trump. That's a lot of people who would be pretty happy to see an angry white man just get in there and do whatever he feels like at the time, and make Mexico pay for it.

And if things turned bad as a result, that would obviously just be everyone else's fault, and Trump himself would find no end of folks to send to Gitmo, which you'll notice is still a legal limbo after 14 years of the Supreme Court telling the two Presidents to stop that shit.

deaddmwalking · Post by **deaddmwalking** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 11:34 am

Trump supporters are not going to launch an insurrection. Trump will not call on them to do so. Remember, that even among people voting for him, Trump isn't liked. Roughly half of his supporters like him; the other half are willing to hold their nose and put up with him. Those who really do believe in him can't believe that they're fewer than 1/4 Americans. Keep in mind that the polls are focused on likely voters. Only 62.3% of eligible voters voted in 2012 - approximately 215 million Americans were eligible.

Assuming he gets 42.8% of the popular vote and the turnout is similar and there are now 225 million Eligible voters (Pew Research, he's looking at potentially 96 million votes. If half of those people actually like him (48 million) and 1/2 of THEM are crazy and healthy enough to launch an insurrection, you're looking at 8% of the total population.

Now, that's a lot of people, but they're not organized (Trump has been much maligned for his 'ground game' and ability to organize his voters). If they rose up, well, the electorate would be a lot more liberal in 2020.

As for comparisons to Hitler, they really give Trump too much credit. Sure, he's a fascist, but your go-to example should be Mussolini. The parallels are striking.

momothefiddler · Post by **momothefiddler** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:02 pm

CNN wrote:"Our lives depend on this election. Our kids' futures depend on this election and I will tell you just for me, and I don't want this to happen but I will tell you for me personally if Hillary Clinton gets in, I myself, I'm ready for a revolution because we can't have her in," she said emotionally.

Pence shook his head a little, saying: "Don't say that."

So I mean it's good (though unsurprising) that his running mate is against it.

deaddmwalking wrote:If [8% of the total population] rose up, well, the electorate would be a lot more liberal in 2020.

And US gun ownership would drop dramatically. But that seems a bit blithe when referring to the theoretical insurrection of 24 million people (and their wives and kids), which, organized or not, is still more than double the population of the CSA.

Grek · Post by **Grek** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:23 pm

8% of the population is a horrifyingly large amount when you're talking about possible armed insurrection. Now, most of those people aren't actually going to do shit, even if Trump told them to. But suppose just one person in every hundred thousand did decide they needed to get their guns and "take back the country from the crooks" by force. You're looking at 240 shooting sprees, all across the country. A national tragedy on the scale of a hundred of 9/11s. That is not what America needs right now.

I want to say that's not going to happen, that no candidate would go that far with brinkmanship. But Trump keeps lowering the bar, and seems to only be encouraged by the idea of other people looking on in horror at his actions.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:51 pm

The point is that Trump isn't going to call for people to take their guns and shoot up a mall, and his followers aren't going to do it either.

40% of Texans say they want to secede, and they just keep not shooting up malls.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 1:55 pm

Hm, I think he's worked enough crazies into a frenzy that there will be some election-related shooting incidents, but they'll happen whether or not Trump calls for them.

Post by **fbmf** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:27 pm

Kaelik wrote: 40% of Texans say they want to secede, and they just keep not shooting up malls.

Cite? Genuinely curious as to your source. I'm sad to admit that I'm related to people calling for secession*, and even they concede they have half a million supporters at most.

Game On,
fbmf

*-I have more than one crazy uncle (actually my grandfather's brothers) that goes off on far right prejudice-laced anti-Obama secession rants at family gatherings, which is largely why I limit myself to 1-2 a year. It is all I can take.

Last year I got into it with That Uncle(TM), who periodically threatens to run for governor because Abbot isn't right-wing enough him (I'm 100% serious) when he said that, since there are eight military bases in Texas, when we secede we'll have no problem defending ourselves.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:46 pm

fbmf wrote:
Kaelik wrote: 40% of Texans say they want to secede, and they just keep not shooting up malls.
Cite? Genuinely curious as to your source. I'm sad to admit that I'm related to people calling for secession*, and even they concede they have half a million supporters at most.

Game On,
fbmf

*-I have more than one crazy uncle (actually my grandfather's brothers) that goes off on far right prejudice-laced anti-Obama secession rants at family gatherings, which is largely why I limit myself to 1-2 a year. It is all I can take.

Last year I got into it with That Uncle(TM), who periodically threatens to run for governor because Abbot isn't right-wing enough him (I'm 100% serious) when he said that, since there are eight military bases in Texas, when we secede we'll have no problem defending ourselves.

The very last question in this poll: https://web.archive.org/web/20090426053 ... /22/TX/288

It may or may not be ongoingingly representative or whatever, but the point is you can get 40% of crazy texans to agree to dumb secession talk with a minimum of work at any time.

So yes, 40% are saying today that if Clinton gets elected Texas should secede because they always say that, but they never mean it. And they'll go right back to not meaning it later.

And even the ones that do mean it don't go around shooting up malls, because that would be a lot of work and not help with their goals.