Nosy Latin American chimes in US Election :P

[Swift]

When I wrote the above I had no idea you thought Trump winning could spell the end of civilization. To me that is the same thing as people arguing the same for Obama. It doesn't mean you're insane anymore than my belief that if things continue as they are, there will be a massive destructive force. The difference is that you find Trump more likely to bring that about where I believe continuing with the status quo is what will do it.

It's just a question of probability and I think mine is the more likely, you think you're is.

Maybe the end of civilization is too strong, and if I implied that, I'm sorry. And I only picked Putin as an arbitrary example.

I can see Trump (or Cruz) getting us into another Iraq War or three. I can see Trump really screwing our relationships with Mexico, Canada, China, and Europe. I can see him do to Muslims what the US did Japanese-Americans during WWII. I can see him doing enough stupid shit to put the economy into another recession like 2008.

The brains of Bush II, crossed with the morals of Dick Cheney and Richard Nixon.

Of course, that all assumes that he really means to do all the crazy shit he says and it isn't just a con job.

But, as I said, I have no ability to predict anything.

[SciFi Chick]

But, as I said, I have no ability to predict anything.

Well, what good are ya?

[vendic]

Then we are in close agreement.
It's still better than the long term problems of continuing with the same thing as before.

[Swift]

Well, what good are ya?

My boss seems to imply the same question every day.

[SciFi Chick]

Well, what good are ya?

My boss seems to imply the same question every day.

I was trying to make you laugh.

[vendic]

He just told you he can't predict things.

[SciFiFisher]

There's a conspiracy floating around the interwebz, that Trump is doing all of this in order to make certain that Hillary gets elected. Apparently, they've been friends for years, and he wants the Republican nomination so she can win. It's an interesting conspiracy theory as far as they go.

Trump is way too egotistical not to be serious.

[vendic]

So not in the nature of a narcissist. Or a sociopath for that matter.
It's debatable which he is.

[geonuc]

With respect to the status quo, one of the two big problems in US elections and politics is money, specifically corporate and hidden money. It's the way the game is rigged right now and I don't hold it against any candidate for taking money to win an election.

To change the game and go back to the status quo ante, we need to ditch the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Which, of course, means electing a Democrat to appoint reasonable people to the court. Then we can have elections which will still cost money but at least we won't have the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelman buying them.

The second issue is gerrymandering, which is why the US House of Representatives is in GOP hands even though Democrat voters have outnumbered Republicans in the recent past. State legislatures are responsible for setting district boundaries and Republican houses have taken it upon themselves to rig the game and keep themselves in power even if in the minority. Gerrymandering is nothing new, of course, but the GOP took it to a whole new level and it has absolutely poisoned the well. We need to enact legislation to bring control of federal elections wholly within the federal government. State governments are orders of magnitude more corrupt than Washington. I'm not a big fan of state's rights.

We need to:

1) Overturn Citizens United and set up a strong Federal Elections Commission to limit, distribute and monitor all campaign funding for national offices. The FEC will also oversee all elections.

2) Set up an independent commission to draw federal district boundaries. Several states have already done this.

3) Get rid of the electoral college. Some people have argued that this will disenfranchise rural voters but the principle of one person, one vote must rule in a representative democracy. Rural areas of the country should have less power because fewer people live there.

[vendic]

Can't say I disagree with anything you wrote except to add that the systems been rigged well before the SCOTUS decision.
The issues here didn't happen in the few couple of years. It's happened over decades of money influencing politics.

[Thumper]

There's a conspiracy floating around the interwebz, that Trump is doing all of this in order to make certain that Hillary gets elected. Apparently, they've been friends for years, and he wants the Republican nomination so she can win. It's an interesting conspiracy theory as far as they go.

Conspiracy theories must trickle in slow to your part of the country.

[SciFi Chick]

There's a conspiracy floating around the interwebz, that Trump is doing all of this in order to make certain that Hillary gets elected. Apparently, they've been friends for years, and he wants the Republican nomination so she can win. It's an interesting conspiracy theory as far as they go.

Conspiracy theories must trickle in slow to your part of the country.

Nah. I just don't read about them unless I'm really, really, really bored.

[SciFi Chick]

3) Get rid of the electoral college. Some people have argued that this will disenfranchise rural voters but the principle of one person, one vote must rule in a representative democracy. Rural areas of the country should have less power because fewer people live there.

I agree with this soooo much! I think rural voters may need some extra oomph on a state level, but I see no reason why they should have extra power in a federal election.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Can't say I disagree with anything you wrote except to add that the systems been rigged well before the SCOTUS decision.
The issues here didn't happen in the few couple of years. It's happened over decades of money influencing politics.

I think that Un-rigging the system will also take decades. Unless of course you want a repeat of 1789, but IIRC that didn't work out so well, nor it was too effective.

One thing to remember about professional politicians, no matter on whose pockets they are, they can smell when the tide is running against them, so they shift position, if ever so slowly.

Remember the US 2008 Elections how Obama was painted as a dreamer and Clinton as the practical one. Obama turned out to be a hard nosed pragmatist. I remember how even here people were disappointed in how he did things. If you ask me, after the last eight years, considering the level of opposition he has in the legislative branch, he could have done a lot worse.

IMHO the more people vote for Sanders, the better. I think that Clinton will win the nomination. HOWEVER, she'll know that the wind is starting to blow differently, so she will act accordingly, no matter on whose pockets she is.

As for Clinton vs Trump (which IMHO is how the election will actually be) . I certainly hope Trump loses, he reminds me too much of Chavez AFTER 2004.
EVEN if Sanders wins the nomination and presidency, it will take decades to un-rig the system. Despite everything, the view I have from the outside is that that system isn't so rigged that it can't be fixed to acceptable levels.

[vendic]

It will take decades. The problem that I'm seeing is that the majority here are highly stressed and ready to snap.
It seems to be the American way.

r.e. politicians changing their tune. Have you been watching the news?
The Republicans are getting worse as a response to Trump because they are too damned stupid to figure out why the people don't like their brand of bullshit.
So their answer is to make it smell more. Here's a tip, they don't like the smell now and they sure as hell aren't going to like it when you produce more of it! Fucking hell. And they want people to let them run the country when they can't work that out.

[Swift]

With respect to the status quo, one of the two big problems in US elections and politics is money, specifically corporate and hidden money. It's the way the game is rigged right now and I don't hold it against any candidate for taking money to win an election.

To change the game and go back to the status quo ante, we need to ditch the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. Which, of course, means electing a Democrat to appoint reasonable people to the court. Then we can have elections which will still cost money but at least we won't have the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelman buying them.

The second issue is gerrymandering, which is why the US House of Representatives is in GOP hands even though Democrat voters have outnumbered Republicans in the recent past. State legislatures are responsible for setting district boundaries and Republican houses have taken it upon themselves to rig the game and keep themselves in power even if in the minority. Gerrymandering is nothing new, of course, but the GOP took it to a whole new level and it has absolutely poisoned the well. We need to enact legislation to bring control of federal elections wholly within the federal government. State governments are orders of magnitude more corrupt than Washington. I'm not a big fan of state's rights.

We need to:

1) Overturn Citizens United and set up a strong Federal Elections Commission to limit, distribute and monitor all campaign funding for national offices. The FEC will also oversee all elections.

2) Set up an independent commission to draw federal district boundaries. Several states have already done this.

3) Get rid of the electoral college. Some people have argued that this will disenfranchise rural voters but the principle of one person, one vote must rule in a representative democracy. Rural areas of the country should have less power because fewer people live there.

Yes, yes, and yes.

And yes, money was a problem before Citizens United, but that made it even worse.

[Sigma_Orionis]

It will take decades. The problem that I'm seeing is that the majority here are highly stressed and ready to snap.
It seems to be the American way.

Dude, the majority is ALWAYS highly stressed and ready to snap, check out how things were in the 1930s.

r.e. politicians changing their tune. Have you been watching the news?
The Republicans are getting worse as a response to Trump because they are too damned stupid to figure out why the people don't like their brand of bullshit.
So their answer is to make it smell more. Here's a tip, they don't like the smell now and they sure as hell aren't going to like it when you produce more of it! Fucking hell. And they want people to let them run the country when they can't work that out.

I think that the 'Pubs are close to implosion. I am of the opinion that the nutjobs pushing for Trump to be the Republican nominee was the last straw, moderates and independents are being pushed to the left.

[Cyborg Girl]

@geonuc

Completely agreed re: changing the status quo. Especially gerrymandering.

@vendic

Another reason you wouldn't want Trump long-term, is that his Supreme Court appointee(s) would be wingnuts. Assuming he didn't just appoint his favorite horse, or something.

@Sigma

Unfortunately I suspect you're wrong. Trump is the logical conclusion of the Republican party's tacit racism... My guess is, he's set a precedent; and future presidential elections will just get worse from here, regardless of whether he gets in.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

[Sigma_Orionis]

@Sigma

Unfortunately I suspect you're wrong. Trump is the logical conclusion of the Republican party's tacit racism... My guess is, he's set a precedent; and future presidential elections will just get worse from here, regardless of whether he gets in.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

I agree that Trump is the logical conclusion of the Republican "strategy". Which, IMHO was sooner or later bound to bite them in the ass.

I guess we'll find out in November if it actually payed off or backfired, I am hoping for the latter. Which HOPEFULLY, would establish the precedent that behaving like Trump won't win elections.

[vendic]

@vendic

Another reason you wouldn't want Trump long-term, is that his Supreme Court appointee(s) would be wingnuts. Assuming he didn't just appoint his favorite horse, or something.

This is what the system allows and was set up to allow. So oh well. The only way the rules for that will change is when it becomes clear that there is an issue.
Sections of the USA seems to constantly think that certain things won't happen regardless of how bad the consequences can be so ignore them till it can be ignored no more, sometimes in the face of clear evidence. That's what I have observed in the mentality of the area I'm in. It appears it's not isolated to here.

e.g. global warming deniers.
trickle down economy supporters.
Gun nuts whose solution to the gun deaths is more guns.

So, until you manage to get a completely biased SCOTUS that messes things up so badly that people are rioting, no one will think there is a problem with the current system.

[SciFiFisher]

@vendic

Another reason you wouldn't want Trump long-term, is that his Supreme Court appointee(s) would be wingnuts. Assuming he didn't just appoint his favorite horse, or something.

This is what the system allows and was set up to allow. So oh well. The only way the rules for that will change is when it becomes clear that there is an issue.
Sections of the USA seems to constantly think that certain things won't happen regardless of how bad the consequences can be so ignore them till it can be ignored no more, sometimes in the face of clear evidence. That's what I have observed in the mentality of the area I'm in. It appears it's not isolated to here.

e.g. global warming deniers.
trickle down economy supporters.
Gun nuts whose solution to the gun deaths is more guns.

So, until you manage to get a completely biased SCOTUS that messes things up so badly that people a rioting, no one will think there is a problem with the current system.

Look up acid rain some time. It will give you a huge case of confirmation bias.

[geonuc]

This is what the system allows and was set up to allow.

I'd argue that the system wasn't 'set up to allow' what is happening now. The confirmation process for Article III judges and justices was intended to prevent obviously unqualified nominees from being seated. It largely has worked, until now. The difference now is that the US Senate is no longer a polite deliberative body that respects its own system.

The evolution of the US Supreme Court is actually quite fascinating and much about how it functions and came about seems to be a mystery to many Americans. I saw somewhere where a commenter was railing about how not having nine justices on the court violated his constitutional rights were he to have a case heard before that court.

[Rommie]

@Sigma

Unfortunately I suspect you're wrong. Trump is the logical conclusion of the Republican party's tacit racism... My guess is, he's set a precedent; and future presidential elections will just get worse from here, regardless of whether he gets in.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong.

I agree that Trump is the logical conclusion of the Republican "strategy". Which, IMHO was sooner or later bound to bite them in the ass.

I guess we'll find out in November if it actually payed off or backfired, I am hoping for the latter. Which HOPEFULLY, would establish the precedent that behaving like Trump won't win elections.

I agree that I hope this will happen. It's actually not even terribly far-fetched because if you look at it, frankly Trump doesn't have a mandate even in his own party by far (and I'm talking with voters, not the elites- that one is obvious).

Btw SFC, if you're frustrated by people saying you should vote for Hillary and step in line, holy crap talking to people like my conservative dad would depress you. I asked how he was going to vote (Florida election is two weeks away), and he doesn't like Trump but is resigned to the man getting the nomination and thus supporting him in the general election.

The weird thing there btw was his tacit assumption that I would do the same in the general election because I wouldn't want to vote for Hillary, ergo...

[SciFi Chick]

And I know you don't like to argue with him, so that must be both frustrating as well as depressing.

[vendic]

This is what the system allows and was set up to allow.

I'd argue that the system wasn't 'set up to allow' what is happening now.

Allow me to elaborate. When I say it was setup to allow it, that doesn't mean that it was intentional. It was never intended to operate that way but lack of foresight into bad consequences allow it to happen. The fact that is possible to happen however means it was setup to allow it. Bit like having loopholes in the law that defeat the intent of the law itself. It means if you don't want the loophole, you have to change it.

My point however was that it seem most people I've met never think something is possible so they completely deny it in the face of evidence. Which I find really confusing as the same people then throw random garbage out and believe it, such as death camps under Obama. Makes no sense to me.

I'd imagine as an engineer you regularly look at design issues for unintended consequences/failure modes. When you find them, you know it's possible given the right circumstances. Then it's either changing the design, monitoring for those conditions or hoping they never happen. The latter seems to be normal for many people. I tend to concentrate on those unintended consequences. Sometimes that makes me look very extreme, but it's me looking for things that can go wrong and trying to find ways to prevent them, as opposed to me believing that the extreme position is the most likely. It's a fine line that often confuses.