The US Presidential Election 2016

From:	Harry (HARRYN)	9 Nov 2016 00:38
To:	Harry (HARRYN)	21 of 85

41828.21 In reply to 41828.20
Just to calm any nerves: - There will be nearly no difference between these two candidates as far as Europe / UK / Middle East are concerned, business, politics, or wars. - The only country that will really feel any difference is China. Clinton will embrace it, Trump will not. - There are some minor differences in how domestic policies are run, but less than you might think, as congress is a glacier, and lobbies still run the country. It's a republic, not a democracy, so the voters can shift a lot and it matters little for many years.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Peter (BOUGHTONP)	9 Nov 2016 02:11
To:	Harry (HARRYN)	22 of 85

41828.22 In reply to 41828.20

Out of those only Florida and Ohio have anything in.
Ohio is 49.1 vs 47.2 at 25.2% to Hilly Billy.
Florida is 49.1 vs 47.8 at 73.6% to Donald Duck.

Yay exciting numbers and stuff! (bounce)

Boo for bedtime being the wrong side of now. :(

3.1415P265E589T932E846R64338

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	ANT_THOMAS	9 Nov 2016 06:21
To:	ALL	23 of 85

41828.23
Well it looks like what most people outside of the US feared is happening. A

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)	9 Nov 2016 06:27
To:	ANT_THOMAS	24 of 85

41828.24 In reply to 41828.23
Stunner. :-O Make America grate again.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	koswix	9 Nov 2016 07:54
To:	ALL	25 of 85

41828.25

Well at least the exchange rate has improved a bit >.<


 ▪                    
             ┌────┐    ┌────┐                      
          │    │    │    │ ▪                    
          │    └────┘    │                      
          │   ──┐  ┌──   │ ▪                    
   ┌──────┤    ▪    ▪    │                      
  ┌┘      │              │ ▪                    
┌─┤       └──┐  │  │  ┌──┘                      
│ │          │ ││  ││ │   ┌─┐                   
│ │          └─┼┤  └┴─┴───┘ │                   
│ │           ─┘│           │                   
│ │   ┌──────┐  └┬──────────┘                   
  │   │      │   │                              
  │   │      │   │                              
  └───┘      └───┘

If Feds call you and say something bad on me, it may prove what I said are truth, they are afraid of it.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	graphitone	9 Nov 2016 08:29
To:	koswix	26 of 85

41828.26 In reply to 41828.25
Ah fuck. I'm starting to think the world is full of apathetic plebs who just want to watch the world burn. Drawings n' that PIBEES

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	ANT_THOMAS	9 Nov 2016 13:57
To:	ALL	27 of 85

41828.27
I think it's safe to say polling looks to have had its day in modern-day politics. Many Trump voters keeping quiet about that fact. A

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)	9 Nov 2016 15:45
To:	ANT_THOMAS	28 of 85

41828.28 In reply to 41828.27
Polling drives a great deal of 'news reporting' (and the ad revenues that come with it) so no, I don't think we've seen the last of it. I bet it's going to be a lot more carefully crafted, around stuff like twitter and facebook. And it will still frequently fail. Make America grate again.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Harry (HARRYN)	9 Nov 2016 16:14
To:	ALL	29 of 85

41828.29
At least in the US, we see a lot of supposed polls used to try to sell you on an idea, rather than ask your actual feelings and views. There are so many polls and phone calls to people that they start to push back by providing misleading information. It is also very difficult to estimate voter turn out. The weather was very mild, both candidates were very divisive in their politics, and both are very well known figures. You can see by looking at the numbers that the difference in votes is quite small both nationally and in many states. People gave a lot of thought to their votes and turn out was quite high. The candidates very much targeted their audience and won their audience. Sanders might have actually won if he were the candidate, since he had a wider political appeal to centrist, but Hillary simply could not expand past her core audience. Personally, I think that at least part of the voter push back was that Michael Bloomberg of NY is funding so many campaigns and issues across the country, and he is particularly unpopular outside of his very narrow base. He funds a lot of democrats (including Clinton) and requires them to take certain positions on issues, even if it costs them votes, or in this case, the election.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Harry (HARRYN)	9 Nov 2016 16:21
To:	CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)	30 of 85

41828.30 In reply to 41828.28
quote: Tiger Blowfish Liver (DSMITHHFX) Polling drives a great deal of 'news reporting' (and the ad revenues that come with it) so no, I don't think we've seen the last of it. I bet it's going to be a lot more carefully crafted, around stuff like twitter and facebook. And it will still frequently fail. I still have not really figured out the value of twitter. It makes perfect sense for a candidate to use twitter to communicate to the audience / potential voters, but what is the value in reading this information unless you are already are interested in the candidate? Why would a casual democratic voter follow a republican candidate, or frankly, why follow even the democratic candidates? I would think that most people make up their minds years in advance on how they will vote.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	ANT_THOMAS	9 Nov 2016 16:42
To:	Harry (HARRYN)	31 of 85

41828.31 In reply to 41828.30
Quote: It makes perfect sense for a candidate to use twitter to communicate to the audience / potential voters, but what is the value in reading this information unless you are already are interested in the candidate? Why would a casual democratic voter follow a republican candidate, or frankly, why follow even the democratic candidates? I would think that most people make up their minds years in advance on how they will vote. This is actually an issue that has been discussed a lot on social media lately, especially after the EU Referendum result, and earlier after the 2015 UK General Election. Many people (on the left) on social media essentially exist within an echo chamber, where they only follow/interact with people who are the same political persuasion as themselves. This results in people having a skewed view of reality because all they're reading/consuming is based around their personal views, because they've created the stream of content by following people with similar views. I think it would be fair to say this place is similar. We're mainly a load of centre-left/left liberals and it does show. I often think I should make an effort to seek out the opposite opinion of my own more often, but at the moment that pushes you towards the alt-right, and frankly I don't want to read that shite. A

+1/1

Reply Quote

More

From:	milko	9 Nov 2016 20:18
To:	ANT_THOMAS	32 of 85

41828.32 In reply to 41828.31
The trouble with all this is by all means we can go read other people's opinions but then what? Reasoning with them does not generally change anybody's mind. As a lot of people are saying, we seem to be in a post-truth society now, people believe what they want to believe. And the majority of people want to believe in racist, sexist horrible stuff. Ho hum. I think if the 'left' want to do anything in the west now they have to some serious soul-searching about why they don't have more popularity. And that probably means not accusing racist sexist horrible people of being racist or sexist or horrible. Hmm.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	milko	9 Nov 2016 20:20
To:	ALL	33 of 85

41828.33
Like, if you voted for Trump and Pence. You voted for all the things we know Trump is. Pence supports things like electro-shock therapy to 'cure' gay people. The list gets mighty long. And apparently that's OK? Thought I was a few more stages down the path than this, but I guess it's still shock/disbelief for me despite at least half expecting it to happen!

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	ANT_THOMAS	9 Nov 2016 20:37
To:	milko	34 of 85

41828.34 In reply to 41828.32
You're absolutely right. We're beyond being able to assume people will vote for the person/team/side/party with the better morals. The echo chamber thing is more a case of being in a bubble assuming everyone is thinking the same as you, which means little is done to attract more people and being oblivious to the reality. But as you say, it's often a waste of time to reason with a lot of people at the moment. People want change, irrelevant of what that change brings. Brexit and Trump seemed to offer that over the "establishment". Facts and consequence seem to be irrelevant to the majority at the moment, how do you compete with that. I think the only person on the left who managed to secure some proper widespread support was Bernie Sanders. I guess he was viewed as being a real chance for positive change which people could get behind, but there's no chance of that now. Jeremy Corbyn could have been that over here, but his inability to lead the opposition properly plus the media's issue with him have ruined it. A

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)	9 Nov 2016 20:54
To:	ALL	35 of 85

41828.35
This is as good an explanation as any I've so far read: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate Make America grate again.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	milko	9 Nov 2016 21:40
To:	ANT_THOMAS	36 of 85

41828.36 In reply to 41828.34
The only hope I have for Corbyn is that the polls continue to be very wrong and he starts to get some better press somehow to complete the job. Beyond the bollocks in the press (including 'left' papers like the Guardian) I think a lot of what he says would be agreed with by a lot of people if it was somehow given to them in a neutral way. Don't really see it happening. Labour themselves have mostly seen to that.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	9 Nov 2016 23:48
To:	milko	37 of 85

41828.37 In reply to 41828.32
I don't think most people who voted Trump are (actively) racist, sexist, etc. etc.. I think it's the same as Brexit - there's a huge proportion of the population who feel like they've been left behind by globalism and neoliberal economics. Those people should be the left's core demographic but the left embraced neoliberalism and trickle-down bullshit along with the centre-right so those people are left with no compelling narrative to follow. So when some (apparently in the eyes of some) charismatic character who "tells it like it is" and "talks tough", whether it be Trump or that UKIP cunt, comes along they jump on that shit. Especially uneducated white men who are particularly alienated since their self identification - their idea of what masculinity is - is now seen as offensive and they don't really get why (imagine a whole tangent here about the fact that, again, the left has failed to provide an alternate conception of masculinity - particularly white masculinity - so, surprise fucking surprise, we get a surge in superficial fascism, 'meninism' and the alt-right). Sanders was able to speak to those people while also genuinely representing progressive ideas, albeit in a very incremental way. But the Democrats pulled out all the stops to get status-quo neoliberal Hillary Clinton the nomination instead of him. So, like always, we get a lesser-of-two-evils election and it becomes entirely about turnout. Even those who dislike Trump found it hard to vote for Clinton and turnout was unsurprisingly extremely low - Trump got a slightly lower number of votes than GOP candidates in the last two elections and Clinton's was far far lower. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cw1RUvqWgAATypw.jpg:large Which is unsurprising when you've given two shitty options to vote for. The left really needs to work on providing a counter-narrative to whatever Trump and UKIP represent and the alt-right. But I don't expect they actually will because they're fucking useless. This tweet pretty much sums it all up for me: https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/794204785742266368 , , , , , , , , , , `' (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) \ \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) ''`>-,--”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---- ,'.*''`

+2/2

Reply Quote

More

From:	Drew (X3N0PH0N)	9 Nov 2016 23:57
To:	milko	38 of 85

41828.38 In reply to 41828.36
Also I think the "post-fact" idea is overblown. There's some truth in it but we've been there for decades, it's just that it's ok when it's our bullshit that's being promulgated. The people who voted for Brexit, for example, weren't voting on the economy. They don't give a shit about the economy because it has no perceptible bearing on their lives, at least relative to those in the middle classes who do very much benefit. It's not that they don't recognise facts it's that the facts we care about are irrelevant to them. , , , , , , , , , , `' (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) (o,o) \ \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) \|)__) ''`>-,--”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---”-”---- ,'.*''`

+1/1

Reply Quote

More

From:	Matt	10 Nov 2016 13:23
To:	ANT_THOMAS	39 of 85

41828.39 In reply to 41828.31
I don't think the echo chamber / hyper-normalization affect is something that only people on the left of the political spectrum do and likewise I don't think it is a phenomenon found only on The Internet. I would bet it occurs also on the right and in the "real world" too. Facebook, Twitter, et al have made it incredibly easy to slip into a state of hyper-normalization, especially when they seem to actively reinforce and encourage it by suggesting similar pages, groups and users to follow based on your existing subscriptions. This here BBC 2 moving-picture-thing covers the topic and is a really good watch.

0/0

Reply Quote

More

From:	CHYRON (DSMITHHFX)	10 Nov 2016 17:12
To:	Matt	40 of 85

41828.40 In reply to 41828.39
But how many knuckle-dragging banjo players even heard of the internet? Make America grate again.

0/0

Reply Quote

More