• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Political Discussion Thread (READ FIRST POST)

Recommended Posts

All I can say now is - Wow, East. Coast. Then again, they lived up to their name as tossup states.

Welp, good luck and good morning, America.

57 minutes ago, ProfessorTomoe said:

And from there, a trip to Denmark. One way.

Say hi to Hack when you meet him!! :demonicduck:

1 hour ago, Troacctid said:

Pre-election polls are actually pretty close to the popular vote projections.

Not for Wisconsin and Michigan (among others), though. Upsetting real hard more than your March Madness bracket. *wink wink*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

Obama took pushing the limits of executive power an important bit further. 

(snip)

 I like that you presented a well-thought-out and to-the-point argument here, highlighting the specific things that Obama did wrong (the Means) as opposed to criticizing his political goals (the Ends).

12 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

One can just as rightly say that it is Obama that is standing in the way of Congress' agenda.  Who you blame is much a function of partisanship as anything else

Gridlock can be a surprisingly good thing.  It means Congress is not making many new laws.  It creates a stable taxation, legal and regulatory environment.  Business likes that. 

The US budget deficit is down from its obscene 2009 and 2010 levels and gridlock is why.  Nobody can embark on new spending sprees which drive the deficit up, nobody dares change Sequester, which clips federal programs back toward a balanced budget and the stable business environment brings in more tax revenue.  20 years ago, gridlock combined with a boom/bubble economy to give us a budget surplus.

Inaction in terms of not making new laws can be good, meaning as you have said the maintenance of the status quo. Inaction on must-pass-or-government-shuts-down major appropriation bills however is bad news. The battles over what should be funded and by how much need to be fought during the budget approval process, not after the budget has been approved and major government services are facing being suspended due to their approved funding having not been appropriated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly feel sad.  So many people who admit that Trump is not qualified for the job, yet voted for him anyway.  So many people who described their vote as giving the finger to the status quo, or said they voted for Trump because they thought Clinton was worse, or didn't vote because they didn't think either candidate was worth voting for.

Even among the Clinton supporters, while there were some like me, who saw her as a great positive force for doing good in this country and the world, there were an awful lot of people who said they voted for Clinton only because they thought Trump was worse, who bought into the constant barrage of accusations and innuendo.  Her opponents knew if they slung enough mud, people would start believing she was dirty whether she actually was or not, and it worked.  One of the most qualified candidates ever and a chance to have the first woman president in our country, and now we've lost that chance, for who knows how long?  Having lost three times, I doubt Clinton will get another chance, which is especially sad considering how long and hard she's been serving her country.

How did we get to a point where so many people think our country is so worthless, that it's not worth fighting to make it better, to build on what we've already accomplished?  Why do so many people want to go backwards on equality and respect for women, on the religious freedom that's written into our Constitution, on trying to build a future together with kids who grew up here and want nothing more than to be productive members of society?  Aren't they tired of seeing people lose everything because someone in the family got sick and it ate up their entire savings?

Why have we become so bad at inspiring actual hope instead of hate and fear and selfishness?  Why do so many people see life as a zero sum game, where the only way for them to rise is to push others down?

Following a man based on personality, who blames our problems on foreigners and on one particular religion, who wants a strong military, who promises great things but doesn't say how he plans to deliver them until it's too late....we've seen this before.  Last time, we helped save the world from him.  But who will save the world from us?

At best, he's a shyster who just conned his way into the most influential job in the world, and will be incompetent at it.  At worst....he has nuclear weapons.

How the heck did this happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ijuin said:

 I like that you presented a well-thought-out and to-the-point argument here, highlighting the specific things that Obama did wrong (the Means) as opposed to criticizing his political goals (the Ends).

I try to present information from the public record and analysis as I see it.  If I just threw out boilerplate party rhetoric, first it'd be lazy, second I'd get stomped from 10 different sides, and third, I'd just reinforce stereotypes. 

Ehh...why bother with that?  Much better to actually challenge myself and my opponents with my A-game.

10 hours ago, ijuin said:

Inaction in terms of not making new laws can be good, meaning as you have said the maintenance of the status quo. Inaction on must-pass-or-government-shuts-down major appropriation bills however is bad news. The battles over what should be funded and by how much need to be fought during the budget approval process, not after the budget has been approved and major government services are facing being suspended due to their approved funding having not been appropriated.

Passing the budget hasn't seemed to be a problem.  Anything else...well...nothing is perfect.

RE budget: There was that one government shutdown but the Republicans who did the shutting-down did not fare well.  (As an aside I think that shutdown was as much an internal squabble between Republican old guard elites and new guard populists as it was between Republicans and Democrats)

I think these might be decent posts to bow out of the topic for a few weeks.  While I love a good discussion, I think I might just be twisting the knife right now.

It really isn't the end of the world, just a peaceful transfer of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not normally comment in person but once again I feel compelled to make an exception.

Whatever other issues of policy may be at hand, I am greatly concerned by the president-elect's apparent intention to disengage from old alliances across the world. NATO in particular has been of obvious importance to my homeland. Denmark is a small nation with little in the way of military power and is situated in a position of immense strategic importance to Russia. NATO has helped ensure a long peace in Europe, one which has lasted most of my lifetime with few interruptions. On such occasions where other nations have attacked the US, my homeland has every time reciprocated by placing forces, planes and naval vessels at the disposal of the US. Also, it is worth noting that the esteemed JML of this forum has served the US in Europe for a number of years and thus aided in extending this peace, for which I owe him my thanks and gratitude.

No alliance lasts forever, of course. But I must confess to feeling strong pangs at the thought of NATO coming apart, not to mention considerable worry at the thought of what Putin and similar strongmen might do to take advantage of it. That other similar detentes around the globe are also in danger does nothing to reassure me, I fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two good things to come out of the 2016 election, at least in Oklahoma:

  1. That simple possession, of any drug, not just marijuana, but any thing on the controlled substance act, is now a misdemeanor, not a felony, with no state prison time attached.
  2. Beer and Wine over 2.6% ABW can be sold in places other than liqueur stores.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Florida passed medical marijuana and defeated a bill which claim to make solar a right while forever closing of any option of acquiring it save for new home construction. There are still no provisions for providing options (like incentives) to get solar outside of having it's cost included being in a mortgage as the house is built but there is nothing still nothing expressly forbidding them thanks to the amendment's failure.

Beyond that the post election increase in acts of racism & hate has convinced my niece it's probably a lot safer to come back from Tampa to the East Coast where her family lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ijuin said:

"Places other than liquer stores"? Does that mean that they could not be served in actual taverns previously?

I meant in bottles/cans/bags in boxes.  Getting liqueur by the drink is a change in the law that happened in my adult life time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly reminder of electoral process timeline.

May or may not be related.

As noted, there is little likelihood of changes but then alway's remenber the words of  the ancient sportman sage.

Quote

It ain't over till it's over.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, PSadlon said:

Friendly reminder of electoral process timeline.

May or may not be related.

As noted, there is little likelihood of changes but then alway's remenber the words of  the ancient sportman sage.

 

As for the electoral-college effort to stop Trump: Clinton needs at least 38 Republican electors to vote *for her*. Abstentions and votes for some-third-person don't help her much - for the electoral college to settle the election, one candidate must get the votes of a majority of all electors appointed. The most that votes for not-Trump-or-Clinton can do is throw the election to the House of Representatives where each state will get one vote, and the Republicans presumptively lead 33-17.

There is at least one Democrat elector who has publicly pledged to NOT vote for Clinton. That doesn't help Trump any (unless that elector votes for him, but she's a Sanders supporter) but it certainly hurts Clinton.

In US history to date, the number of electors from one major party who voted for the Presidential candidate from the other major party is: ONE. If I remember my reading correctly, that was in 1800.

There has been only one occasion where 38 or more electors failed to vote for their party's candidate for President. On that occasion, said candidate had two relevant attributes: (1) he had lost the election fairly badly anyway, and (2) he was dead. And the electors voted for other people from the same party.

Once about 20 electors declined to vote for their party's candidate for VICE president (abstaining), because he openly kept a slave woman as his mistress; he won the election anyway. Incidentally, in that same election two or three electors for the other party also didn't vote as directed.

I don't think Clinton can win this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

I don't think Clinton can win this way.

No.  It's barely conceivable Trump could lose this way - if he announced tomorrow his intention to swear his oath of office to uphold the Constitution except for the illegitimate XIVth amendment and his plan to execute any member of Congress who doesn't agree to vote him godhood it's possible his electors would vote for Pence or something, but even if they found a reason to ditch Trump they aren't going to give the election to Clinton.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PSadlon said:

I would honestly prefer Pence or Kaine to Trump or Hillary.

Neither major party has nominated a candidate for US President that I thought was any good in the last three decades, but this election they gave us the two most-undesirable candidates in that period.

It's also the first time in 30 years that I thought one of them would be enough worse than the other to make voting for the lesser evil worthwhile. (Granted, one prior winner turned out to be quite a bit worse than I expected.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hillary was a fantastic candidate. You all keep talking about her like, "Oh, she's so terrible, they're both terrible, Giant Meteor 2016," but I bet you can't even name two actual policies of hers that you don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Troacctid said:

Hillary was a fantastic candidate. You all keep talking about her like, "Oh, she's so terrible, they're both terrible, Giant Meteor 2016," but I bet you can't even name two actual policies of hers that you don't like.

Two?  OK

Her support of the ACA, which for a select number of people, like myself, is useless and actually makes my medical insurance situation worse, not better.

Her standing on gun control issues.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Two?  OK

Her support of the ACA, which for a select number of people, like myself, is useless and actually makes my medical insurance situation worse, not better.

Her standing on gun control issues.

You don't like letting kids stay on their parents' plans for longer, stopping insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and/or subsidizing insurance for millions of struggling middle-income families?

You don't think we should have universal background checks, enforce existing gun laws, and/or prevent the sale of guns to domestic abusers, suspected terrorists, and the mentally ill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Troacctid said:

You don't like letting kids stay on their parents' plans for longer, stopping insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and/or subsidizing insurance for millions of struggling middle-income families?

You don't think we should have universal background checks, enforce existing gun laws, and/or prevent the sale of guns to domestic abusers, suspected terrorists, and the mentally ill?

The Moderator: Please be careful with how you phrase yourself. The above could readily be seen as stacking the argument and comes across rather strongly. For example, it is entirely possible to approve of the entirety of part one and still not approve of having one's own situation materially worsened.

Please refrain from assumptive posts of this kind where you put words in the mouths of others. It makes it much harder to have a civil discussion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, malloyd said:

No.  It's barely conceivable Trump could lose this way - if he announced tomorrow his intention to swear his oath of office to uphold the Constitution except for the illegitimate XIVth amendment and his plan to execute any member of Congress who doesn't agree to vote him godhood it's possible his electors would vote for Pence or something, but even if they found a reason to ditch Trump they aren't going to give the election to Clinton.

 

I think it's the XIIIth Amendment that Trump would prefer to repeal . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now