America would be just as racist if Trump had received a few ten thousand fewer votes in the right places and lost the presidency. The worry people express about what to tell their children isn't a revelation - we all already knew America is racist. The surprise was the that the polls were off, not that millions of people are happy to support racism.
The problem is that Donald Trump's election has sent a message in the political world that to pretend to solve racism is no longer a priority. The uptick in hate crimes post election also shows that racists in the general population have be emboldened as well. Even Dylan Roof's massacre did not have as a long lasting effect (that I have been informed of. I know there was a wave of hate crime and church burning, but that went down unlike Donald Trump's election because it's going to be around for four years max).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
President-elect Donald Trump told MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski that he's fine with a nuclear arms race developing, Brzezinski said Friday morning.
The "Morning Joe" co-host said Trump privately told her he is confident that the U.S. can “outlast” any other country.
“Let it be an arms race, we will outmatch them at every pass ... and outlast them all,” Brzezinski recounted Trump saying.
Semi-related: the Trump campaign crew are all such nice people. [That's sarcasm.]
I mean, Yeah. I'm pretty sure at this point we're singing to the choir here. While the posters here have a wide array of beliefs, I feel the majority of posters left on the debate forum are not looking forward to a Trump presidency. I'm not sure who here wants to debate promoting nuclear proliferation and/or modernization (the of which, I'd like to point out, was something President Obama began).
Also, should the $#!† Trump is going to do just be an entirely new thread? The election itself is over, over. It ended on Monday with the Electoral College.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
1st, my ballpark: Dr. Jill Stein's recount efforts. They're done. The Michigan Supreme Court declined to reinstate the Michigan recount, killing the effort*, Pennsylvania's recount never took off after being denied in federal court**, and Wisconsin's recount completed with additional votes being found for Clinton and Trump (and likely others), but in the end the net gain of the recount was just over two hundred more votes for Donald Trump. To read more, click here. So... Donald Trump definitely won Wisconsin.
*While Michigan will not have a complete recount, irregularities in the votes that were counted showed so the state of Michigan is going to have a comprehensive audit.
**The real defeat for Dr. Stein was when a judge separately declined to allow the Stein Campaign access to run a forensic analysis of the voting machines, which was what she really wanted to do because when the Green Party did that twelve years ago it started an anti-electronic voting movement that has at the least resulted in California moving away from electronic voting.
Takeaways:
1. The National Democratic Party is currently so far off its game at this moment that the Green Party managed to get at least fifteen minutes of fame in a neutral way (as opposed to negative; I dunno if this will go down as positive, but it could). As someone on the inside, I don't think the Green Party currently has the operatives to capitalize on this to turn it into a momentum to grow, nor do I think that the Democrats will stay off their game long enough for the Greens to gain that much attention. Then again, this election has defied expectations in so many ways, so sure, why not? I will say though that it would spell trouble for the Left/liberals/progressives/whatever-left-leaning-label-you-choose in the current political climate and structures if they split into two political parties evenly rather than a major coalition that exists(ed?) in the Democrats because for the time being it looks like all Republican splintering has at the least gilded over with their surprise victory.
2. Voting Machines were likely not hacked. There's other ways to "hack" an election, and so I never expected that angle to come to fruition unless someone we weren't expecting did it.
3. This could be a troubling sign for Democrats in terms of fundraising. Let's be blunt: Jill Stein took advantage of distraught Democrat Voters desperate to reverse the election to fund this recount (and I've been in touch with people that do think that may have been D. Stein's hope as well; I guess I won't know unless I ever actually ask her). Her actual execution strategy was questionable, but I don't believe she scammed donors as Donald Trump accuses. However, that frustration Dr. Stein capitalized on is not going away. While I trust Dr. Stein to be honest, transparent, and use donor funds as appropriately as she can... others are likely to come along with real scams. This problem plagued the Tea Party Movement for the past five years because people started realizing they could capitalize on the political anxieties of the opposition party.
2nd, Russia. The CIA has now confidently declared that Russia not only intervened in the election to smear Secretary Hillary Clinton, but they also did it with the expressed purpose of putting Trump in the White House. This has raised an entire slew of new anxieties, the latest being Trump's Secretary of State nomination being an ExxonMobil executive with strong ties to Russia. There is growing bipartisan concern about this, but both sides are approaching the issue with caution. The Democrats don't want to appear to be sore losers and the Republicans don't want to tear down the man that just carried them into keeping a House and Senate majority.
Takeaways:
1. The world has entered a new era of cyberwarfare. A foreign government interfering with an election is nothing new. A foreign government has tried to breach a foreign government's systems for intelligence before. The United States has too! This the first time a cyberattack has been weaponized against a first world power (the first time period that we know of is the US and Israel hacked Iran to mess with a virus called Stuxnet). This is an escalation from the anxieties of agencies (China) passively taking information for intel. No one is really sure yet where we go from here (or what Obama may do in his final days about it).
2. A foreign government hacked the voters, not the voting machines. I never believed that ties to Russia would have been found in voting machines. Their propaganda campaign through Wikileaks and apparently contributing to Fake news did most of the work to render changing votes obsolete. Anything that they missed is looking likely to have been covered by James Comey. Email is not a secure form of communication. Between the Clinton server and the hacks, I feel confident in always tacking that on as a major lesson for the entire election.
3. Russia will likely be making major moves on the political stage, and there's a good chance that the United States will either be passive or support them. I normally hate red scares, but Trump seems Putin friendly, the US is the largest contributor to NATO, and Putin needs to get around NATO to fulfill his political ambitions. I feel it may be an appropriate time to have concerns.
3rd, the Hamilton Electors. With the growing Russia influence in the election, the Hamilton electors (and the Clinton campaign) have pounced to try to get security briefings out to the electoral college before the 19th. That's really all they have going right now since they were just hit with a loss in court in Colorado. Source. Also, the RNC has started a whip operation to crackdown on their own electors to keep them voting for Trump. Source
Takeaways:
1. It's probably still not going to work. I guess it's gotten serious enough the RNC is formally involved, but yeah, that's not saying much.
But outside the election, concerns should start shifting more towards the government that Donald Trump is building, and that's going to be difficult enough since Donald Trump can essentially throw people off because he knows how to give the media the run around by being a reality star.
Let's be honest here: Jill Stein is operating on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Whether at the direction of Clinton (unlikely), or out of some misguided attempt to shift the election results. In either case, the end goal has absolutely nothing to do with "checking the integrity of the voting process" and everything to do with "what can I do to try and make Hillary win". The selection of states that she filed for a recount in makes that abundantly clear.
What can I do to try and make Hillary win?*
*If she lost due to electoral fraud, because that's kind of an important thing.
If she's worried that electoral fraud changed the outcome of the election, and has a limited budget to investigate, it doesn't seem that unusual to me that she'd investigate the states that were actually in play, as opposed to safe states.
There isn't any evidence (despite Trump's claims) of electoral fraud. None. I'm fine with her requesting a recount. I think it also makes a lot of sense to make the person requesting that recount pay the actual costs of it if they don't have a reasonable chance of winning as a result of it.
As a tax payer in Michigan, Jill Stein is wasting my money. It's made worse because rather than just outright admitting that she's trying to swing it for Hillary she's making a BS claim that she is trying to restore confidence in the electoral system and that she selected the states she did because of their counting process.
I hate to be bearer of bad news, but Jill Stein is not conducting the recount to flip the election. You've got it backwards. Jill Stein is taking advantage of the discontent with the outcome of the election to force continuing Green issues of hating electronic voting and being suspicious of the "establishment". The reason Jill chose those 3 states is because she knew she could crowdsource the funds to kick off the recount.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that you should be even more pissed at Jill than you already are because she went into this not caring whether the results changed, but to make an ideological point. The Green Party also did this in 2004 and started the anti-electronic movement because of it, so I'm not sure what I'll make of this until we see the consequences of the recount besides the election not changing.
Here are my thoughts as lean-towards-Green:
1. I support the recount on the grounds that that we should check such an enexpected outcome that's so close. While I admit that there was a bias it would change the election (that faded by Sunday), the "let's see the sausage making process" does have my attention.
2. If someone was going to go check the Jill Stein thread, they'd probably not be surprised when I say stiffing Stein with the entire recount cost would be something I'd do not just because it's a wasteful burden on the Michigan taxpayers. I support making Jill Stein grandstanding mean that Jill Stein covers more of the costs to grandstand. I feel like if Michigan finds something (they won't), then shifting costs would not be justified… but I'm typing on my phone during my lunch break, so we can come back to nuance and exceptions if you desire in a later post. What I will say is that I'm against the retroactive date for the same reason we can't oust Trump based on losing the popular vote. Dr. Stein followed the law to her advantage just like Trump won based on the current election system. To change that midstream would ultimately undermine trust for a significant portion of the population.
3. I think there should be election reforms beyond Michigan shifting the cost of the burden. I hope they look into them in addition to raising the barrier to ask for a recount. Jill Stein is riding a wave of discontent. Creating more barriers in the process is not going to quell that discontent and ultimately plays into her message on her now expanded audience. The solution between accessibility to voting verification and burdening taxpayers? I dunno. If anything, that should be part of the conversation/debate when we come back to this from a historical standpoint. And hopefully next time this debate happens it won't be because Jill Stein is making another expensive protest.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
So far at I can tell, right now it's eight Democratic electors and zero Republican electors.
This isn't happening.
There is one confirmed Republican defector. Lawrence Lessig has since provided a means for electors to communicate anonymously, so we won't know how many defect from either side until December 19th.
The Hamilton Electors suffered a blow today when John Kasich said to not choose him.
To be clear, despite all these post-election hurdles cropping up, Donald Trump will be president 99.9% certain. If I was in a betting market, I would not put money on anything keeping Donald Trump from entering office. Jill Stein will not change the election outcome, smooth transition of power through the electoral college is one of the few bipartisan issues left on the Federal Government level, and not matter how much his opponents want it, if Trump has gotten this far, spontaneously combusting isn't going to keep him from taking office.
Second, the Hamilton Electors.
Remember those talks of faithless electors? Well, now they've dubbed themselves the Hamilton Electors, have legal representation and a private platform to strategize thanks to Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and his friends, and a Texas Republican elector has joined the effort. Also, it looks like the Hamilton Electors have reached a candidate to cast a ballot for instead of Trump or Clinton: Governor John Kasich.
What I don't understand is why most of the Hamilton Electors are Democrats voting against Hillary. Surely it would be a better plan to try and persuade moderate and disgusted Republicans like the gentleman from Texas to vote for Kaisch whilst retaining your vote for Clinton. At least that would then drag Trump down below that magic 270 number he needs and it would be sent to the House of Representatives to decide.
It's the price they are willing to pay to bring Republicans on board. Honestly even if Democrat electors all tow the line for Clinton anyway, it wouldn't matter because the magic number is 270. It doesn't matter how close Secretary Clinton gets (A 269 could be fun I suppose if there was only two people's name in the running) otherwise because there's nothing to gain from proportion unless it's a winning majority/plurality of the vote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Okay, comprehensive election update: the tl;dr version is President-Elect Donald Trump is not done with the election.
First, the recounts.
Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party has garnered a new national spotlight by kicking off recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan, and although she's withdrawn her petition in Pennsylvania state court over a million dollar bond, she's trying to force a recount through federal court now.** Additionally, an advocacy group just filed a suit to try to force a hand-recount in Florida. The Democrat Party and Clinton campaign are for the most part steering clear of these recounts because of President Obama's call for smooth transition of power as well as Secretary Clinton jeering Trump for weeks to accept the outcome of the election regardless of the results biting her, although the Clinton campaign is tagging along for "fairness to all sides sake", whatever that means.
Why does this matter?
Not because of the likelihood it will change the results, but because it's visibly irritating Trump, which is having its own effects... that I feel are best described as unhinging. Donald Trump's complaint that three million people voted illegally originated directly from the Clinton campaign in essence legitimizing Dr. Stein's recount. He's also spending money to fight all the recounts Dr. Stein started, which considering he just lost stopping power two of the three and will have to keep fighting a third and soon a fourth will also likely stress Trump even more... and I'd like to point out Trump has a history of expressing frustration in blunt tweets.
**Okay, is it just me or are we all officially reliving 2000 now? Except only instead of Al Gore, Ralph Nader is leading the recount charge. In terms of roles, we have Trump=Bush, Clinton=Gore, Stein=Nader, and Bernie Sanders=Bill Bradley. I can't be the only one seeing this, right?
Second, the Hamilton Electors.
Remember those talks of faithless electors? Well, now they've dubbed themselves the Hamilton Electors, have legal representation and a private platform to strategize thanks to Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and his friends, and a Texas Republican elector has joined the effort. Also, it looks like the Hamilton Electors have reached a candidate to cast a ballot for instead of Trump or Clinton: Governor John Kasich.
Why does this matter?
Because it means this movement is organized and therefore a threat the Trump camp cannot ignore. I am not sure how Trump will react (or has reacted because I don't read his twitter feed first hand because I just don't want to), but I don't think it will be pretty. I speculate he's likely to see this as an attack on all sides and respond accordingly.
So... personally with all that's exploded over the past weekend, I would like to recommend for this forum that the Donald Trump transition become its own thread and that the post-election mess continue in this thread because I think there's officially enough to split the topics now.
Bannon also wants only property owners to be allowed to vote. [link]
So what exactly defines "land owner" in Bannon's world?
Because my mother is the kind of person who started volunteering at a refugee assistance center just to thumb her nose that the politicians talking about blocking Syrian refugees, and she owns 40 acres; I'm sure she would gift most of it in 1"-square blocks to various minority individuals if that meant giving them the right to vote again.
6.3M square inches in an acre, 39 acres (let's say she keeps the acre around the house itself)... 246,600,000 available "plots" of land to gift, and approximately 115,760,000 nonwhite American citizens.
If trends towards disenfranchisement continue under the current guise of "ID Laws", it'd probably be her first priority to start shuttling people to the DMV and ready to help contribute to the pound of flesh and xanax that could be added to the poll taxes process. In fact, she may want to get started now in case the process does start getting more strenuous in the future.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
While there is technically always a chance that a president will be impeached, heck the Republicans bluffed mentioned the possibility almost every day through Barack Obama's second term, Donald Trump is a little unique in this case, so if a chance arises, the Congress might actually jump on it.
But you're forgetting that Congress has a Republican majority. The long and the short of it is that to be impeached and convicted, Trump would have to do something not just arguably against the law, but clearly and absolutely indefensible even for stalwart partisans. Remember, Bill Clinton was acquitted of perjury, when there was no doubt that he did it, and that was two decades ago. And Trump has done a lot of shady things in his seventy years, but he has also never been convicted of a felony. He's not just used to getting away with stuff, he's good at it. So basically, I would not put money on a Pence presidency.
I wouldn't either (and personally, I'd rather not find out Whether or not I'd dread a Pence presidency more than Trump presidency. There's a reason Pence's nickname is "Insurance Policy" on the left).
Michale Moore and the guy who developed the "Keys to the White House" prediction model have predicted a Trump impeachment. I suspect the reason is because the bar for discarding Trump as head of the Party and the country at least seems lower than it has looking back on previous presidencies. *Then again, all most people really have to go on in recent memory is Barack Obama, and the GOP cried wolf on him way too many times while ignoring his real issues.*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Show of hands: Who honestly think Trump will be impeached?
Now all of you under the age of 12 put your hands down.
While there is technically always a chance that a president will be impeached, heck the Republicans bluffed mentioned the possibility almost every day through Barack Obama's second term, Donald Trump is a little unique in this case, so if a chance arises, the Congress might actually jump on it.
1. Donald Trump's entering the presidency historically unpopular. This is not a real reason to impeach anyone from office, but it needs to be laid out in the forefront because this reason enables all the other real speculations. He's even not all that popular to the Republicans he carried to victory as well.
2. Donald Trump is coming across as not knowing what he's going to do or how to do it, and if that's true, it's not that difficult to imagine a situation where Donald Trump inadvertently commits an impeachable action.
3. Donald Trump could deliberately commit an impeachable act under the hubris that he would not be impeached. There's a pattern of behavior in Donald Trump's history of him and his businesses thinking he/they are above the law. For example, needing to be sued twice for refusing to house African Americans, Trump University, allegations of sexual misconduct that even if half are proven true would date back decades, barging into a pageant dressing room, refusing to pay contractors for their work, and funnelling his campaign funds seemingly excessively into his business ventures. This is slightly different than accidentally committing an impeachable offense.
4. Donald Trump is filling his cabinet with controversial positions. What this means is that Donald Trump is surrounding himself with people that appear to encourage some of the qualities in Donald Trump that people do not like. This is natural; people surround themselves with people that agree with them. My concern is that tied with Trump's appearance to try to spin everything as either praising or attacking him personally would create a bubble and insulate himself from constructive criticism. That's bad. It helps create an environment for something like 2. or 3. to take place. Also, I watched the bubble on the left pop on election night. A bubble like that popping in the White House would be just as a big of a culture shock.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Let us also meditate on the fact that we're talking about impeaching Trump before he even takes office.
It's at this point that I really wonder if this thread has really run it's course. The election has been over for almost for two weeks. We're really not discussing the election results themselves at this point because for the most part the media has moved on to the president elect's transition and as you so... sarcastically(?)... point out, Trump's actions. I'm not sure how you want the reader (me) to interpret this. Would you say more?
Here is what you aren't respecting Blinking: You might be purely correct here, that her message was not meant to be conveyed like that to intellectuals. The problem is that there were plenty of people who did feel like they were being grouped in with the "deplorable". Even if Clinton herself did not do anything, a lot of people on the left took issue with her speech, and that of many of her supporters. So yes, I think those comments costed her the election, even if they were completely misunderstood in context and a factor of it does go back to that problematic behavior on the left.
I think those comments were a symptom of what cost Hillary Clinton the election, and even your analysis plays into the larger picture. While a single gaffe can be costly *Aleppo*, to pin the results on a single cause in its essence shrinks the conversation around other factors that could have been just as important. And also, I don't think this can be reiterated enough, Donald Trump has completely redefined the gaffe because his entire campaign can be summed with falling up a flight of stairs.
You shouldn't be able to act like whiny children when things don't go your way and use your ''freedom of speech'' to silence others who disagree with you and force them to accept your beliefs.
Trump straight up said he should be able to weaken the first amendment so he can sue people who say things he disagrees with, for example the women who've accused him of sexual harassment. [link]
Yes, you really should learn not to listen nor take seriously anything that the presidential candidates say during the elections. Besides that, I don't see why is this surprising to you? A man threatens to sue people who slander him and seek to ruin his reputation? Yes, that is normal, people sue people for that stuff. If I were ruining for president and you decide to slander me and try to ruin my reputation I would sue you in an instant.
This is not ''weakening the first amendment''. It is called law and it clearly states that you can sue someone for slander. No ''mystical manipulation of the first amendment'' is required to do so.
Er... Donald Trump is talking about switching burden of proof from the prosecution (him) to the defendant (the people he's suing).
Is it a good idea to actually follow through with this? Probably not because while the majority of the population voted for Hillary Clinton, the majority of states did not.
At this point, it would just further confirm the Trump base's belief that the system is rigged and cause an even bigger backlash in four years. If not earlier. And they wouldn't even be wrong. Hillary Clinton lost the election and Donald Trump is our lawful president-elect. Breaking the system when you don't like the result is the surest way to undermine the principles of orderly transfer of power and rule of law. It's exactly why it was so unconscionable when Trump implied he might do the same thing back when it looked like he'd lose. You can't beat Trump by using his tactics.
Trump getting elected despite the popular vote has already triggered protests across the country. The one in Portland devolved into a riot. With Hillary Clinton's popular lead still growing and the scars from 2000 being opened and running deeper in 2016, I suspect that the system will have enough trouble from the growing challenges on the Left (heck, it's been part of the Green Party platform for years. I sense Democrats will join them on this soon). That being said, that further fuels exactly why I agree you. The system is taking a beating from the left, and to give the right the exact opposite reason to protest... and then two opposing protests cross paths... it's not difficult in the least to see all hell breaking loose, dragging the government down with it.
Furthermore... the Electoral college kind of gives the face of a Major political party incentive to campaign nationwide and appeal nationwide. Changing the electoral college outcome at this level would amount to trying to silence the enter center of the country. Let's not forget that all of Hillary's efforts to paint Donald Trump as unfit for office and engaging in racism did work... in the states Democrats were already secure. It just turns out her strategy worked in the West, failed in the Midwest, and was kind of meh everywhere else. She did not run a national campaign.
Personally, I am of the mind at the moment for states to operate like Maine, distributing electoral votes proportionally with the two at large ones being dedicated to the overall popular vote.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
The problem is that Donald Trump's election has sent a message in the political world that to
pretend tosolve racism is no longer a priority. The uptick in hate crimes post election also shows that racists in the general population have be emboldened as well. Even Dylan Roof's massacre did not have as a long lasting effect (that I have been informed of. I know there was a wave of hate crime and church burning, but that went down unlike Donald Trump's election because it's going to be around for four years max).candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I mean, Yeah. I'm pretty sure at this point we're singing to the choir here. While the posters here have a wide array of beliefs, I feel the majority of posters left on the debate forum are not looking forward to a Trump presidency. I'm not sure who here wants to debate promoting nuclear proliferation and/or modernization (the of which, I'd like to point out, was something President Obama began).
Also, should the $#!† Trump is going to do just be an entirely new thread? The election itself is over, over. It ended on Monday with the Electoral College.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
1st, my ballpark: Dr. Jill Stein's recount efforts. They're done. The Michigan Supreme Court declined to reinstate the Michigan recount, killing the effort*, Pennsylvania's recount never took off after being denied in federal court**, and Wisconsin's recount completed with additional votes being found for Clinton and Trump (and likely others), but in the end the net gain of the recount was just over two hundred more votes for Donald Trump. To read more, click here. So... Donald Trump definitely won Wisconsin.
*While Michigan will not have a complete recount, irregularities in the votes that were counted showed so the state of Michigan is going to have a comprehensive audit.
**The real defeat for Dr. Stein was when a judge separately declined to allow the Stein Campaign access to run a forensic analysis of the voting machines, which was what she really wanted to do because when the Green Party did that twelve years ago it started an anti-electronic voting movement that has at the least resulted in California moving away from electronic voting.
Takeaways:
1. The National Democratic Party is currently so far off its game at this moment that the Green Party managed to get at least fifteen minutes of fame in a neutral way (as opposed to negative; I dunno if this will go down as positive, but it could). As someone on the inside, I don't think the Green Party currently has the operatives to capitalize on this to turn it into a momentum to grow, nor do I think that the Democrats will stay off their game long enough for the Greens to gain that much attention. Then again, this election has defied expectations in so many ways, so sure, why not? I will say though that it would spell trouble for the Left/liberals/progressives/whatever-left-leaning-label-you-choose in the current political climate and structures if they split into two political parties evenly rather than a major coalition that exists(ed?) in the Democrats because for the time being it looks like all Republican splintering has at the least gilded over with their surprise victory.
2. Voting Machines were likely not hacked. There's other ways to "hack" an election, and so I never expected that angle to come to fruition unless someone we weren't expecting did it.
3. This could be a troubling sign for Democrats in terms of fundraising. Let's be blunt: Jill Stein took advantage of distraught Democrat Voters desperate to reverse the election to fund this recount (and I've been in touch with people that do think that may have been D. Stein's hope as well; I guess I won't know unless I ever actually ask her). Her actual execution strategy was questionable, but I don't believe she scammed donors as Donald Trump accuses. However, that frustration Dr. Stein capitalized on is not going away. While I trust Dr. Stein to be honest, transparent, and use donor funds as appropriately as she can... others are likely to come along with real scams. This problem plagued the Tea Party Movement for the past five years because people started realizing they could capitalize on the political anxieties of the opposition party.
2nd, Russia. The CIA has now confidently declared that Russia not only intervened in the election to smear Secretary Hillary Clinton, but they also did it with the expressed purpose of putting Trump in the White House. This has raised an entire slew of new anxieties, the latest being Trump's Secretary of State nomination being an ExxonMobil executive with strong ties to Russia. There is growing bipartisan concern about this, but both sides are approaching the issue with caution. The Democrats don't want to appear to be sore losers and the Republicans don't want to tear down the man that just carried them into keeping a House and Senate majority.
Takeaways:
1. The world has entered a new era of cyberwarfare. A foreign government interfering with an election is nothing new. A foreign government has tried to breach a foreign government's systems for intelligence before. The United States has too! This the first time a cyberattack has been weaponized against a first world power (the first time period that we know of is the US and Israel hacked Iran to mess with a virus called Stuxnet). This is an escalation from the anxieties of agencies (China) passively taking information for intel. No one is really sure yet where we go from here (or what Obama may do in his final days about it).
2. A foreign government hacked the voters, not the voting machines. I never believed that ties to Russia would have been found in voting machines. Their propaganda campaign through Wikileaks and apparently contributing to Fake news did most of the work to render changing votes obsolete. Anything that they missed is looking likely to have been covered by James Comey.
Email is not a secure form of communication. Between the Clinton server and the hacks, I feel confident in always tacking that on as a major lesson for the entire election.
3. Russia will likely be making major moves on the political stage, and there's a good chance that the United States will either be passive or support them. I normally hate red scares, but Trump seems Putin friendly, the US is the largest contributor to NATO, and Putin needs to get around NATO to fulfill his political ambitions. I feel it may be an appropriate time to have concerns.
3rd, the Hamilton Electors. With the growing Russia influence in the election, the Hamilton electors (and the Clinton campaign) have pounced to try to get security briefings out to the electoral college before the 19th. That's really all they have going right now since they were just hit with a loss in court in Colorado. Source. Also, the RNC has started a whip operation to crackdown on their own electors to keep them voting for Trump. Source
Takeaways:
1. It's probably still not going to work. I guess it's gotten serious enough the RNC is formally involved, but yeah, that's not saying much.
But outside the election, concerns should start shifting more towards the government that Donald Trump is building, and that's going to be difficult enough since Donald Trump can essentially throw people off because he knows how to give the media the run around by being a reality star.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I hate to be bearer of bad news, but Jill Stein is not conducting the recount to flip the election. You've got it backwards. Jill Stein is taking advantage of the discontent with the outcome of the election to force continuing Green issues of hating electronic voting and being suspicious of the "establishment". The reason Jill chose those 3 states is because she knew she could crowdsource the funds to kick off the recount.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that you should be even more pissed at Jill than you already are because she went into this not caring whether the results changed, but to make an ideological point. The Green Party also did this in 2004 and started the anti-electronic movement because of it, so I'm not sure what I'll make of this until we see the consequences of the recount besides the election not changing.
Here are my thoughts as lean-towards-Green:
1. I support the recount on the grounds that that we should check such an enexpected outcome that's so close. While I admit that there was a bias it would change the election (that faded by Sunday), the "let's see the sausage making process" does have my attention.
2. If someone was going to go check the Jill Stein thread, they'd probably not be surprised when I say stiffing Stein with the entire recount cost would be something I'd do not just because it's a wasteful burden on the Michigan taxpayers. I support making Jill Stein grandstanding mean that Jill Stein covers more of the costs to grandstand. I feel like if Michigan finds something (they won't), then shifting costs would not be justified… but I'm typing on my phone during my lunch break, so we can come back to nuance and exceptions if you desire in a later post. What I will say is that I'm against the retroactive date for the same reason we can't oust Trump based on losing the popular vote. Dr. Stein followed the law to her advantage just like Trump won based on the current election system. To change that midstream would ultimately undermine trust for a significant portion of the population.
3. I think there should be election reforms beyond Michigan shifting the cost of the burden. I hope they look into them in addition to raising the barrier to ask for a recount. Jill Stein is riding a wave of discontent. Creating more barriers in the process is not going to quell that discontent and ultimately plays into her message on her now expanded audience. The solution between accessibility to voting verification and burdening taxpayers? I dunno. If anything, that should be part of the conversation/debate when we come back to this from a historical standpoint. And hopefully next time this debate happens it won't be because Jill Stein is making another expensive protest.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
There is one confirmed Republican defector. Lawrence Lessig has since provided a means for electors to communicate anonymously, so we won't know how many defect from either side until December 19th.
The Hamilton Electors suffered a blow today when John Kasich said to not choose him.
_____________________________________________________________________
To be clear, despite all these post-election hurdles cropping up, Donald Trump will be president 99.9% certain. If I was in a betting market, I would not put money on anything keeping Donald Trump from entering office. Jill Stein will not change the election outcome, smooth transition of power through the electoral college is one of the few bipartisan issues left on the Federal Government level, and not matter how much his opponents want it, if Trump has gotten this far, spontaneously combusting isn't going to keep him from taking office.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
It's the price they are willing to pay to bring Republicans on board. Honestly even if Democrat electors all tow the line for Clinton anyway, it wouldn't matter because the magic number is 270. It doesn't matter how close Secretary Clinton gets (A 269 could be fun I suppose if there was only two people's name in the running) otherwise because there's nothing to gain from proportion unless it's a winning majority/plurality of the vote.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
First, the recounts.
Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party has garnered a new national spotlight by kicking off recounts in Wisconsin and Michigan, and although she's withdrawn her petition in Pennsylvania state court over a million dollar bond, she's trying to force a recount through federal court now.** Additionally, an advocacy group just filed a suit to try to force a hand-recount in Florida. The Democrat Party and Clinton campaign are for the most part steering clear of these recounts because of President Obama's call for smooth transition of power as well as Secretary Clinton jeering Trump for weeks to accept the outcome of the election regardless of the results biting her, although the Clinton campaign is tagging along for "fairness to all sides sake", whatever that means.
Why does this matter?
Not because of the likelihood it will change the results, but because it's visibly irritating Trump, which is having its own effects... that I feel are best described as unhinging. Donald Trump's complaint that three million people voted illegally originated directly from the Clinton campaign in essence legitimizing Dr. Stein's recount. He's also spending money to fight all the recounts Dr. Stein started, which considering he just lost stopping power two of the three and will have to keep fighting a third and soon a fourth will also likely stress Trump even more... and I'd like to point out Trump has a history of expressing frustration in blunt tweets.
**Okay, is it just me or are we all officially reliving 2000 now? Except only instead of Al Gore, Ralph Nader is leading the recount charge. In terms of roles, we have Trump=Bush, Clinton=Gore, Stein=Nader, and Bernie Sanders=Bill Bradley. I can't be the only one seeing this, right?
Second, the Hamilton Electors.
Remember those talks of faithless electors? Well, now they've dubbed themselves the Hamilton Electors, have legal representation and a private platform to strategize thanks to Law Professor Lawrence Lessig and his friends, and a Texas Republican elector has joined the effort. Also, it looks like the Hamilton Electors have reached a candidate to cast a ballot for instead of Trump or Clinton: Governor John Kasich.
Why does this matter?
Because it means this movement is organized and therefore a threat the Trump camp cannot ignore. I am not sure how Trump will react (or has reacted because I don't read his twitter feed first hand because I just don't want to), but I don't think it will be pretty. I speculate he's likely to see this as an attack on all sides and respond accordingly.
So... personally with all that's exploded over the past weekend, I would like to recommend for this forum that the Donald Trump transition become its own thread and that the post-election mess continue in this thread because I think there's officially enough to split the topics now.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
If trends towards disenfranchisement continue under the current guise of "ID Laws", it'd probably be her first priority to start shuttling people to the DMV and ready to help contribute to the pound of flesh and xanax that could be added to the
poll taxesprocess. In fact, she may want to get started now in case the process does start getting more strenuous in the future.candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I wouldn't either (and personally, I'd rather not find out Whether or not I'd dread a Pence presidency more than Trump presidency. There's a reason Pence's nickname is "Insurance Policy" on the left).
Michale Moore and the guy who developed the "Keys to the White House" prediction model have predicted a Trump impeachment. I suspect the reason is because the bar for discarding Trump as head of the Party and the country at least seems lower than it has looking back on previous presidencies. *Then again, all most people really have to go on in recent memory is Barack Obama, and the GOP cried wolf on him way too many times while ignoring his real issues.*
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
While there is technically always a chance that a president will be impeached, heck the Republicans
bluffedmentioned the possibility almost every day through Barack Obama's second term, Donald Trump is a little unique in this case, so if a chance arises, the Congress might actually jump on it.1. Donald Trump's entering the presidency historically unpopular. This is not a real reason to impeach anyone from office, but it needs to be laid out in the forefront because this reason enables all the other real speculations. He's even not all that popular to the Republicans he carried to victory as well.
2. Donald Trump is coming across as not knowing what he's going to do or how to do it, and if that's true, it's not that difficult to imagine a situation where Donald Trump inadvertently commits an impeachable action.
3. Donald Trump could deliberately commit an impeachable act under the hubris that he would not be impeached. There's a pattern of behavior in Donald Trump's history of him and his businesses thinking he/they are above the law. For example, needing to be sued twice for refusing to house African Americans, Trump University, allegations of sexual misconduct that even if half are proven true would date back decades, barging into a pageant dressing room, refusing to pay contractors for their work, and funnelling his campaign funds seemingly excessively into his business ventures. This is slightly different than accidentally committing an impeachable offense.
4. Donald Trump is filling his cabinet with controversial positions. What this means is that Donald Trump is surrounding himself with people that appear to encourage some of the qualities in Donald Trump that people do not like. This is natural; people surround themselves with people that agree with them. My concern is that tied with Trump's appearance to try to spin everything as either praising or attacking him personally would create a bubble and insulate himself from constructive criticism. That's bad. It helps create an environment for something like 2. or 3. to take place. Also, I watched the bubble on the left pop on election night. A bubble like that popping in the White House would be just as a big of a culture shock.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I'll just let you click this.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I think those comments were a symptom of what cost Hillary Clinton the election, and even your analysis plays into the larger picture. While a single gaffe can be costly *Aleppo*, to pin the results on a single cause in its essence shrinks the conversation around other factors that could have been just as important. And also, I don't think this can be reiterated enough, Donald Trump has completely redefined the gaffe because his entire campaign can be summed with falling up a flight of stairs.
What is the larger picture? I'm... not entirely sure. It's too early to tell. That's going to take time and a lot of research by people smarter than me. For example, voter turnout was not as abysmal as people were making it out to be last week.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Er... Donald Trump is talking about switching burden of proof from the prosecution (him) to the defendant (the people he's suing).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
Trump getting elected despite the popular vote has already triggered protests across the country. The one in Portland devolved into a riot. With Hillary Clinton's popular lead still growing and the scars from 2000 being opened and running deeper in 2016, I suspect that the system will have enough trouble from the growing challenges on the Left (heck, it's been part of the Green Party platform for years. I sense Democrats will join them on this soon). That being said, that further fuels exactly why I agree you. The system is taking a beating from the left, and to give the right the exact opposite reason to protest... and then two opposing protests cross paths... it's not difficult in the least to see all hell breaking loose, dragging the government down with it.
Furthermore... the Electoral college kind of gives the face of a Major political party incentive to campaign nationwide and appeal nationwide. Changing the electoral college outcome at this level would amount to trying to silence the enter center of the country. Let's not forget that all of Hillary's efforts to paint Donald Trump as unfit for office and engaging in racism did work... in the states Democrats were already secure. It just turns out her strategy worked in the West, failed in the Midwest, and was kind of meh everywhere else. She did not run a national campaign.
Personally, I am of the mind at the moment for states to operate like Maine, distributing electoral votes proportionally with the two at large ones being dedicated to the overall popular vote.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~