Re: Politics and Current Events

by **eselle28** Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:32 am

Now that you say it, I think you're right. The conservative side of my Facebook has been quiet tonight, so I don't know what their reaction is, but my assessment is that Clinton won this by a very large margin. Not only was she calm and in command of the facts, but she also managed a couple moments where she was human and relatable (mostly the bits about her father and that little woo! shoulder shimmy moment) while keeping her opponent on defense the entire time. That's a very good debate performance for any candidate. It's weird that it's hard for media outlets to say this rather than trying to set it up as a near tie. And when I google, it doesn't seem like that's been something that they've tried so hard to do when both opponents are men and the debate is a shut out.

by Wondering Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:00 pm

Ugh, that "over-prepared" thing has now turned into "Hillary was given the questions before the debate and Trump wasn't!"

Rage. Rage at sexism so ingrained that people believe dishonesty and shenanigans before they believe competence in a woman, and would then deny it was even sexism.

by jcorozza Tue Sep 27, 2016 10:42 pm

A lot of my male friends keep saying things like "oh, it's like two children fighting" or "they're equally ridiculous". Liike, no. It's like one woman is trying not to roll her eyes while a giant manbaby throws a tantrum all over this country. Is she flawed? Of course. But the comparison is so ridiculous. And the funny thing is, most, if not all, of those friends will vote for her. But they have to do it grudgingly, like "anyone but Trump" is the only reason they would vote for her, because you can't enthusiastically support Hillary Clinton if you are...well, most dudes I know. You can bash Trump, absolutely. But you can't actually say that you like Hillary, or think that she would be a decent president. Nope. Like, really, are we watching the same debate? Are we all seeing the same news stories?

by WJMorris3 Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:14 am

I'm voting for Hillary because she's the only woman running from a major party. Simple enough reason.

by Wondering Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:55 pm

Can we vote October 8 instead of November 8?

by **reboot** Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:35 pm

Wondering wrote:Can we vote October 8 instead of November 8?

Seriously. I am so over this election

by **eselle28** Sun Oct 02, 2016 10:42 pm

My election will be done tomorrow, when I drop off my absentee ballot at the courthouse (no point mailing it - the post office is across the street).

I would be nice if everyone else's could be done soon too. Hopefully the news will consist of nothing but reports of adorable animals frolicking in leaves for at least a week afterwards.

by Wondering Mon Oct 03, 2016 12:31 am

Oh, wow. You get yours early. Our state is all vote-by-mail, but we won't get the ballots for another few weeks.

by **reboot** Mon Oct 03, 2016 8:53 am

Wondering wrote:Oh, wow. You get yours early. Our state is all vote-by-mail, but we won't get the ballots for another few weeks.

Same here. Assuming that I did not get "purged" from the rolls, something that seems to happen in Democratic districts more than Republican ones. There is a reason AZ was under federal supervision until the Shelby case

by **Enail** Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:44 am

My wife's state has not counted absentee ballots every year she's tried to vote. I'm not sure why this is a thing that happens, but it does.

by Wondering Mon Oct 03, 2016 10:31 am

If the difference in votes between candidates/issues is more than the number of absentee ballots mailed out, they don't count them because there are not enough absentee votes to make a difference, so it saves money not to count them. This is not the case in states with mail-in only voting since all the ballots are mailed.

by **eselle28** Mon Oct 03, 2016 1:15 pm

That is absolutely the case in some states and some districts, for the reason Wondering describes. It's not one in mine, if only because our city races often come down to 10 or 20 votes. The reason we have voting so early is in part because a good part of our electorate are like my parents and spend their winters in Arizona or Hawaii, and the state wants to encourage them to vote here rather than decide their winter home is their official residence.

by Wondering Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:31 am

Speculation is that Marla Maples is the one who released Trump's partial tax records.

by Guest Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:13 am

Ah fuck it, I was going to vote for the libertarian guy, Gary Johnson because I'm clearly a psycho.

In all seriousness though, I *was* since I'm all about personal personal, social and economic freedom. However having read some new stuff on Gary Johnson, I've reconsidered Hillary.

In the end, John Oliver helped tip the scale. Razz

by **reboot** Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:57 am

Wondering wrote:Speculation is that Marla Maples is the one who released Trump's partial tax records.

I have been curious about that. I had money on disgruntled former employee, but disgruntled former wife makes sense

by Wondering Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:12 pm

It also makes it legal for her to do since they'd be her tax returns, too.

by **eselle28** Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:01 pm

Wait, so this is Trump's October Surprise? This is the thing that has caused him to be disinvited from speaking with Paul Ryan?

I'm genuinely confused. Not that this isn't serious, but it's not really news. We know Trump says gross things about women all the time, because he's said them on camera when he's been aware he's being recorded. We know he's said he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue without losing support. We know he's been accused of rape. Wasn't it obvious that he probably said things similar to the ones in the most recent tapes when he thought he had more privacy? To me, this latest "scandal" is about as much of a surprise as a recording of Hillary Clinton confessing her love of pantsuits.

by **reboot** Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:14 pm

eselle28 wrote:Wait, so this is Trump's October Surprise? This is the thing that has caused him to be disinvited from speaking with Paul Ryan?

I'm genuinely confused. Not that this isn't serious, but it's not really news. We know Trump says gross things about women all the time, because he's said them on camera when he's been aware he's being recorded. We know he's said he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue without losing support. We know he's been accused of rape. Wasn't it obvious that he probably said things similar to the ones in the most recent tapes when he thought he had more privacy? To me, this latest "scandal" is about as much of a surprise as a recording of Hillary Clinton confessing her love of pantsuits.

I bet hearing the actual words is making evangelicals twitchy. Not because they care about women and consent, but because of the swears. They could pretend he was not that bad until it was recorded

by Wondering Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:02 pm

The profanity is likely part of it, but I think hearing the recording does a couple other things. One, it's him admitting he's done things which is different from just a rape accusation (or accusations). Two, it's realistic and hard to dismiss as hyperbole or misunderstanding like shooting people or Megyn Kelly's "wherever." I think the fact that he talked about trying to manipulate a woman he knew was married is going to sit badly with a lot of conservatives, too. Moreso than him cheating on his own wives whom he got around to divorcing. The fact the married woman was not receptive paints her in the socially acceptable chaste light, making him look all the worse.

And all of this makes us overlook that Russia is objecting to the UN criticizing Trump. Like, what the heck! Foreign policy and national security issues galore here. Most of the rhetoric about Trump focuses on what a reprehensible person he is and how that makes him unsuited to be president. Take all that reprehensibility away and he's still vastly unsuited to be president from a security and policy perspective.

by JP McBride Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:02 pm

It's the transition between off-camera ("Grab 'em ...") Trump and on-camera ("Melania said this was ok.") Trump. It's like a rape culture Rosetta stone.

by WJMorris3 Sat Oct 08, 2016 8:55 pm

I'm almost wondering if it would be better for the country if Trump stepped down and was replaced by Paul Ryan? Let's be honest - there is nobody in America who would beat Hillary Clinton in an election. This way, Ryan would be as disgraced as Trump.

by **eselle28** Sat Oct 08, 2016 10:50 pm

WJMorris3 wrote:I'm almost wondering if it would be better for the country if Trump stepped down and was replaced by Paul Ryan? Let's be honest - there is nobody in America who would beat Hillary Clinton in an election. This way, Ryan would be as disgraced as Trump.

I don't think that would be possible. The ballots are already printed, many people have already voted, and many more will have voted by the time the party was able to choose a successor. Ryan wouldn't do it, anyway, and I don't think there's any chance Trump will step down. He doesn't have any loyalty to the GOP or any personal shame, so there's no reason for him too.

Oh, and speaking of Ryan, I love this tweet by Patton Oswalt:

"I wish SOMETHING would distract from Donald's horrible Central Park 5 statement." -- Paul Ryan, wishing on a monkey's paw

by JP McBride Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:08 am

WJMorris3 wrote:I'm almost wondering if it would be better for the country if Trump stepped down and was replaced by Paul Ryan? Let's be honest - there is nobody in America who would beat Hillary Clinton in an election. This way, Ryan would be as disgraced as Trump.

The blast radius on this thing is going to be huge. There's no running from this.

by Guest Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:32 am

Here's the latest from CNN: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/10/07/politics/donald-trump-republicans-endorsement/index.html

I predict another 2000 election-type situation. In that trump could possibly win the popular vote but get destroyed by the electoral college. As much shit as the electoral college gets, it's exactly this type of election nonsense it was designed to protect the country from.

by **eselle28** Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:13 am

That seems unlikely. Nate Silver isn't the be all and end all of political polling, but his site predicts a 0.7% chance that Trump wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college. That figure has been low all election, and I don't see much chance of things changing (other than the odds of it going down) in the next few weeks.

by Sponsored content