2016 USA Presidential election thread II: And. Here. We. Go!

[Blubbartron]

As long as he's only voting once in an election, does anyone honestly give a fuck beyond trying to dig up irrelevant bullshit to use against Trump? I seem to recall a bunch of Democrats having a similar issue of owning multiple homes, and voting in their "home state" that they didn't actually live in. Didn't care about those, don't care about this.

[Gredival]

As long as he's only voting once in an election, does anyone honestly give a fuck beyond trying to dig up irrelevant bullshit to use against Trump? I seem to recall a bunch of Democrats having a similar issue of owning multiple homes, and voting in their "home state" that they didn't actually live in. Didn't care about those, don't care about this.

But the issue isn't him voting from another legitimate residence, it's clearly him doing what he can to vote in FL because of its swing state status despite having zero ties to the state.

There's a gray area in where you vote, but your "don't care if it's only one vote" is far beyond the gray. It's fine if the popular vote mattered, but under the EC your policy means the parties should just spend time rounding up millions of voters in states like CA, TX, NY, etc. and transplanting their ballots into OH, VA, NC, FL, etc. instead of trying to campaign.

[ringthree]

As long as he's only voting once in an election, does anyone honestly give a fuck beyond trying to dig up irrelevant bullshit to use against Trump? I seem to recall a bunch of Democrats having a similar issue of owning multiple homes, and voting in their "home state" that they didn't actually live in. Didn't care about those, don't care about this.

Republicans, champions of strict voter restrictions on other people!

[Melena]

Never mind the fact it also gives him the ability to vote on issues on an area that he doesn't even live with. That would be like if people living outside of California managed to change their voting residency to California to vote for Prop 8.

[Zealot]

What has begun to really grab my attention as I get more into election coverage is the amount Trump supporters are willing to ignore about him and believe about Hillary.

Donald Trump's personal failings and failures are all a matter of extremely public record. He brags about a lot of them. His every bad business outing, racial slur, misogynistic comment, public temper tantrum, all of it is right out there for anyone to see. All of Hillary's faults all eventually tie back to either a conspiracy theory or an actual event magnified dozens of times over to seem like a huge issue.

Donald Trump can say "Mexico, South America, and maybe, probably, the Middle East is sending us only criminals, drugs, and rapists. We need to build a wall to stop immigration and ban Muslims from entering the country, and institute a religious test. Look at my African American over there." His followers respond with "That Donald, telling it like it is, so bold."

Hillary says "We have to unite as Americans to overcome the systemic issues of racism in this country and go forward together to make our country better for everyone" and is met with "Dammit Hillary! Why are you so devisive?!"

It is enough to furrow my brow.

[kisada]

What has begun to really grab my attention as I get more into election coverage is the amount Trump supporters are willing to ignore about him and believe about Hillary.

Donald Trump's personal failings and failures are all a matter of extremely public record. He brags about a lot of them. His every bad business outing, racial slur, misogynistic comment, public temper tantrum, all of it is right out there for anyone to see. All of Hillary's faults all eventually tie back to either a conspiracy theory or an actual event magnified dozens of times over to seem like a huge issue.

Donald Trump can say "Mexico, South America, and maybe, probably, the Middle East is sending us only criminals, drugs, and rapists. We need to build a wall to stop immigration and ban Muslims from entering the country, and institute a religious test. Look at my African American over there." His followers respond with "That Donald, telling it like it is, so bold."

Hillary says "We have to unite as Americans to overcome the systemic issues of racism in this country and go forward together to make our country better for everyone" and is met with "Dammit Hillary! Why are you so devisive?!"

It is enough to furrow my brow.

what gets me is that trump is the one making all this shit up and calling hillary the liar with virtually every word he speaks. conversely hillary is the one actually telling it like it is.

the irony of it all is astronomical

[Quicklet]

What has begun to really grab my attention as I get more into election coverage is the amount Trump supporters are willing to ignore about him and believe about Hillary.

Donald Trump's personal failings and failures are all a matter of extremely public record. He brags about a lot of them. His every bad business outing, racial slur, misogynistic comment, public temper tantrum, all of it is right out there for anyone to see. All of Hillary's faults all eventually tie back to either a conspiracy theory or an actual event magnified dozens of times over to seem like a huge issue.

Donald Trump can say "Mexico, South America, and maybe, probably, the Middle East is sending us only criminals, drugs, and rapists. We need to build a wall to stop immigration and ban Muslims from entering the country, and institute a religious test. Look at my African American over there." His followers respond with "That Donald, telling it like it is, so bold."

Hillary says "We have to unite as Americans to overcome the systemic issues of racism in this country and go forward together to make our country better for everyone" and is met with "Dammit Hillary! Why are you so devisive?!"

It is enough to furrow my brow.

Twilight of the Elites by Chris Hayes does a good job of predicting a lot of this stuff coming out of the loss of trust in institutions because of things like the failure to find WMDs in the Iraq War, the MLB PEDs scandal, the Catholic Church pedophile scandal, etc. He wrote it in the wake of the Great Recession / Occupy / Tea Party era, but it's spot on at explaining how the environment has been created for Trump to come in and basically be able to say whatever he wants because people have no trust in institutional government anymore.

The diagnosis is clear, but I don't know how you repair these people's trust in government. They'll only remain angry if Hillary wins, and sadly even if Trump were to win, once they realize he won't actually be able to do a lot of the legislative things he's promising (like the wall), they'll be even madder.

Part of the responsibility is going to be on the Republican Party to clean up this mess. Hillary is giving the party a hall pass to distance themselves from Trump before the election. If the party leadership doesn't disavow Trump, they're going to go down with the ship and it's just going to kill their chances to rebuild quickly.

[Gredival]

The diagnosis is clear, but I don't know how you repair these people's trust in government. They'll only remain angry if Hillary wins, and sadly even if Trump were to win, once they realize he won't actually be able to do a lot of the legislative things he's promising (like the wall), they'll be even madder.

People have to learn -- and accept -- how the government works. More specifically, they need to process how things are accomplished through government (which means need to get past denial and anger and learn to vote the party line)

[Quicklet]

People have to learn -- and accept -- how the government works. More specifically, they need to process how things are accomplished through government (which means need to get past denial and anger and learn to vote the party line)

First of all, the exact reason we are at this moment in history is that government has not been working. Both parties have some responsiblity here, but Republicans have taken it to an extreme since 2008.

The issue is not voting the party line. If we apply that logic, Trump would be much more competitive even though he's the most unfit candidate we've had in decades. That would be a disastrous outcome.

This is not something you can solve with debate, because you're starting with two different sets of facts to begin with. Trying to convince these people to change their minds through discourse is more likely to cause them to cling to their positions harder. That's why I think Republicans need to first stop giving them cover as a mainstream option, knowingly telling these people things that are flatly impossible to do like repealing Obamacare or defunding Planned Parenthood. If Republicans would focus on actual governance and showing that government can be trusted as an institution once more, you might slowly see this problem be rectified. They would also re-emerge as a viable alternative to Democrats on a national level.

[archibaldcrane]

We survived Vietnam, a shitload of assassinations around the civil rights movement, and Watergate - we'll survive no WMDs, pedopriests and PEDs lol

[Gredival]

First of all, the exact reason we are at this moment in history is that government has not been working. Both parties have some responsiblity here, but Republicans have taken it to an extreme since 2008.

The government didn't have nearly this level of dysfunction pre-2008.

The issue is not voting the party line. If we apply that logic, Trump would be much more competitive even though he's the most unfit candidate we've had in decades. That would be a disastrous outcome.

The party line also means not voting for anti-establishment nuts. As fundamentally problematic as the GOP establishment is with their willingness to use obstructionism, they still have the goal of governing.

The tea party and House Freedom Caucus does not.

Party elites and power brokers are/were essential to the way our legislature works. The GOP departed from the functioning formula first in a power grab by trying to cut Dems out with obstructionism, which not only hurt the Dems' ability to govern but the ensuing failure of government created anti-establishment fallout that has affected the Democrats too.

Now the GOP is beholden to the anti-establishment fringe, and the Dems can't gather enough support to wrest control. But, there are more Dems in the country than Republicans. So if everyone just turned out and voted the party line, we'd have a functioning Democratic legislature,

[Quicklet]

We survived Vietnam, a shitload of assassinations around the civil rights movement, and Watergate - we'll survive no WMDs, pedopriests and PEDs lol

Not sure what you are getting at with this. In many ways we haven't hit the kind of rock bottom that we did in the 60s/70s, i.e. those examples from the 2000s are more important in terms of loss of trust in institutions, not actual long-lasting wide-ranging effects. Most of the anger is channeled into phantoms now (Obama as secret Muslim, Hillary being on her death bed, crime waves that don't exist, etc.).

A big difference is that you don't have gatekeepers in media anymore. You choose your own adventure -- someone who gets their news primarily from Fox News, Breitbart, and Drudge is living in an alternate universe. My point is that the trust isn't going to come back anytime soon, and certainly not with Republicans continuing to play footsie with these groups by not outright disavowing them.

The government didn't have nearly this level of dysfunction pre-2008

Yes, complete agree, but bipartisan complicity in the Iraq War and willful ignorance of the subprime housing bubble created the conditions for post-2008 dysfunction to take hold so easily. Much of the post-2008 dysfunction was rooted in (legitimate) anger at the massive deficit spending that occured under Bush years and was compounded by the bailouts/stimulus. Republicans took advantage of that as well as exploiting paranoia about a Republican-inspired health care bill in the ACA to obtain a massive victory in 2010, but warped it into both a profit-generating enterprise and a cudgel to wield against Obama's presidency.

As fundamentally problematic as the GOP establishment is with their willingness to use obstructionism, they still have the goal of governing.

The tea party and House Freedom Caucus does not.

Party elites and power brokers are essential to the way our legislature works

Disagree with this. At least, this is not how they've acted in practice. If they truly believed in governance, we would not have had these dog and pony shows over votes to repeal Obamacare, multiple government shutdowns, and nearly defaulting on national debt.

Do I believe Boehner/McConnell didn't seriously intend to breach the debt ceiling? Yes. But they either didn't have the spine to stand up to their fringe elements, or they realized that they no longer had control over them. IMO it's more the latter than the former -- Boehner is gone, Cantor is gone. McConnell and Ryan are both persona non grata to the base. They are scared to disavow Trump because they know they need that fringe base to win. McCain won't even come out against Trump and Trump's donor is funding his primary challenger.

I think if Trump is still down by 10 in late September, you will see more of the Republican establishment and intellectual conservative wings of the party distance from Trump, but right now they are still trying to double dip and have it both ways. The fallout from this election will be ugly for the GOP and if the establishment doesn't clearly come out against Trump, it could taint them for a generation.

[Ragnus]

Yeah, I think Quicklet nailed it on the head. Across the country, the GoP have basically turned themselves into a part that runs entirely on doing things that have the most conserva-cred. It doesn't even matter if it's enforceable or good for the state.

[ringthree]

First of all, the exact reason we are at this moment in history is that government has not been working. Both parties have some responsiblity here, but Republicans have taken it to an extreme since 2008.

The issue is not voting the party line. If we apply that logic, Trump would be much more competitive even though he's the most unfit candidate we've had in decades. That would be a disastrous outcome.

This is not something you can solve with debate, because you're starting with two different sets of facts to begin with. Trying to convince these people to change their minds through discourse is more likely to cause them to cling to their positions harder. That's why I think Republicans need to first stop giving them cover as a mainstream option, knowingly telling these people things that are flatly impossible to do like repealing Obamacare or defunding Planned Parenthood. If Republicans would focus on actual governance and showing that government can be trusted as an institution once more, you might slowly see this problem be rectified. They would also re-emerge as a viable alternative to Democrats on a national level.

How is the government "not working"? I think there are problems, but divided government was specifically designed to limit change since the conception of this government. I think you are more concerned by the problems with the political parties, not the government itself.

I also reject the notion that you can't progress through debate and compromise. I actually think we need FAR more of it to prevent what we have with the political system. It is the full-scale rejection of debate and compromise that is causing the issue.

[Quicklet]

How is the government "not working"? I think there are problems, but divided government was specifically designed to limit change since the conception of this government. I think you are more concerned by the problems with the political parties, not the government itself.

The Congresses since 2010 have been among the least productive in modern US history. They are barely functional. They couldn't even pass a zika bill before going into recess for the summer. Most of the positive achievements of the Obama administration have come through the executive or judicial branches. The legislative achievements are largely relegated to pre-2010. Hard to look at a lot of major legislative achievements since then except those that have averted self-inflicted catastrophe like the sequester.

I also reject the notion that you can't progress through debate and compromise. I actually think we need FAR more of it to prevent what we have with the political system. It is the full-scale rejection of debate and compromise that is causing the issue.

You may be referencing political compromise. I am speaking of the belief systems that people use to argue policy.

It is well-documented that in many instances cognitive dissonance will override thoughtful, rational discourse. You literally will not be able to persuade some people that, for example, climate change is a real thing, because they are so invested in a certain worldview that they are unwilling to accept the contrary, no matter what evidence you provide them.

They are exploited by institutions (conservative talk radio and by extension the Republican Party) who knowingly pander to them because they provide money and votes. Significant and meaningful compromise are incompatible with how the Republicans have courted voters in the Obama era. If they compromise now, they lose anywhere between a third to half of their base for selling out.

So now they are stuck with someone who is so viscerally repulsive to most American sensibilities that it overrides the dislike and hatred of Hillary for a large enough group of Republicans that they are stuck in a lose-lose situation. If they disavow Trump, they lose worse than just trying to pretend like Trump doesn't exist, because they lose the base. If they don't disavow Trump, they will be associated with supporting a guy who simply repulses most Americans.

The problem is going from where the Republican Party is now to where it can actually compromise in a meaningful way. Both paths available to them are hard to stomach, but one takes a long-term view while the other risks destroying the party brand over short-term gains.

[ringthree]

The government didn't have nearly this level of dysfunction pre-2008.

That's funny, I remember thinking that in 1995 about pre-1994. It always feels like the end of the world. And that probably says a lot about the human condition.

[arus2001]

At the moment, it's more like we need some limits lifted to undo some of the incremental shit that's snowballed over time. Money tainting politics is a simple way to describe the issue, but stuff like religion also gets an honorable mention. Things like cellular carriers and internet providers should probably get hit with the regulation stick as our reliance on them grows. Health care stuff is obvious, in part due to recent price gouging scandals. Education and infrastructure is failing, too, but some might argue that's just as planned so the elite can remain as such.

Perhaps the most important question that should be asked of any politician is if what they're doing is for the people or for personal gain. It obviously casts a light on if being a career politician is a good thing, and if those who go onto playing lobbyist after getting voted out should be tolerated. Could also look into things like age restrictions, high and low, as well as term limits for positions that might not have them. Staying with the times doesn't really seem like something our current system is good at. And that isn't to say more expedient action can't be measured.

[ringthree]

The Congresses since 2010 have been among the least productive in modern US history. They are barely functional. They couldn't even pass a zika bill before going into recess for the summer. Most of the positive achievements of the Obama administration have come through the executive or judicial branches. The legislative achievements are largely relegated to pre-2010. Hard to look at a lot of major legislative achievements since then except those that have averted self-inflicted catastrophe like the sequester.

Divided governance is not necessarily dysfunction. As I mentioned, it is actually intended design. That said, I don't think you are necessarily wrong in your assessment, I just wanted to be clear that failure to produce legislative "achievements" is not a sign of failure. I will agree that the failure to pass debt extensions would be a signal that the government has failed, but we haven't gotten to that point.

Failure to pass legislation is perfectly fine governance. In fact, in a perfect world, no legislation would ever need to be passed besides funding bills.

Yes, I am probably being pedantic and splitting hairs, but I feel it is an important distinction.

[kisada]

i'd mostly agree

[Ragnus]

In fact, in a perfect world, no legislation would ever need to be passed besides funding bills.

Unfortunately, we live on Earth. Not Libertarian Wet Dreamscape 429.