Well, at least, they're releasing the Amelia Earhart files...

[D.o.S.]

One thing I'd like to add about the electoral college. Since none of the candidates won a plurality of the vote, the EC actually the election from being decided by Congress (which, basically, would amount to the same thing in this case). Also, if we did swap to a system based around the popular vote, you'd see way, way, way more Republicans in places like NY and California voting.

[Seance]

And redoubled voter suppression efforts by the Republican party.

[Faldoe]

Maybe this whole thing will bring back some rational discourse from the left and have them leave behind or cut the fat to the dumb shit the Left/Democrats have been catering to - either out of fear or the desire for votes.

In addition to the gullibility of a lot of Republicans, the left drove a lot of people Trumps way - to his nomination among more sane Republican candidates - by not speaking up to the SJWs and other loons that do not operate on reason. I'm not giving pass to those on the right that also do not operate on reason as well.

I thought this was a start:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM38Phpz_UE[/youtube]

[rustywire]

A) The choices were more like Aids and Cancer, not Aids and the cold.

2) If you genuinely believe that, you're a stupid person. Clinton isn't left wing by any stretch of the imagination, she's awful, but she hasn't been endorsed by the KKK either. She hasn't vowed to mass-deport immigrants or build a wall to keep "rapists" out of the country. She's not pals with Putin. You have been following this campaign, haven't you?

D) The other point you made was in reply to something you imagined I said, but didn't.

See this is the kind of shit I think jwar is talking about. The attempts to guilt, shame demonize people by superficial association.
Didn't work out so well in the brexit vote either, did it? But lets focus on things relevant to this campaign.
Historically the KKK was a dixiecrat militia, yes? In 2016 they have very little power, influence and relevance. Now contrast that with the financial institutions, insurers, big pharma, chem, agro, energy, comm, tech and media conglomerates who endorsed HRC for president...and firms who have been under federal investigation or indictment in the 21st century.

How much investigation have you done into the democratic candidate you're supporting from an ocean away?
Who she pals around with & accepts money from? Perhaps a current regime or two who keep their bitches in check...or else.
Not conspiracy theory shit, actual conspiracy shit. She's gangsta af d00d.

I fucking hate Clinton, thanks for asking. I don't support her in any way and I know all about her "foundation" as a front for political corruption and the fact she's basically a Goldman Sachs employee. Don't give me shit and then put words in my mouth. She is not as evil/harmful as Trump probably will be, that's all I said. I guess if you guys think she is, there's not much anyone can do to argue against that.

edit: half my family are american too.

I misremembered you being one of the vocal Clinton supporters itt. My b.
However you said considerably more than *She is not as evil/harmful as Trump probably will be* didn't you?
Lets set aside the part where you call someone a stupid person because you disagree with their analysis.
You made specific assertions attempting to portray Trump through guilt-by-association in the form of support from a fringe group. Support he has publicly rejected has he not? Is there any tangible link between Trump and Putin or is that more conjecture, smoke & mirrors?
Anyway
HRC is *so awful* she lost to Trump.
She had every advantage and infrastructure, experience on her side and still lost in a clear referendum. TO TRUMP. Think about that.
Is HRC to blame or everyone who didn't vote for her? Sexism? White supremacy? Many bigotry?

[D.o.S.]

I think it's mostly because people accept bad, untrue arguments if they're delivered consistently (See: Sam Hinkie and the Philadelphia 76ers). The same can not be said for smart arguments made haphazardly.

[Strange Tales]

The whole DNC is to blame for how this played out. If any finger is pointed its to them first and foremost.

[Invisible Man]

I mean have you seen their water I think a Nuke would be overkill.

Strong breeze would probably do it.

[rustywire]

I can dig it. Repeat the lie til it becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. That's how meaningless wars get started.
Also calling someone "bigot" or any manner of names is not a smart argument. Or an argument.

[D.o.S.]

It may, however, be a fact.

[snipelfritz]

The whole DNC is to blame for how this played out. If any finger is pointed its to them first and foremost.

Yes, boopins.

I will be very smug (at least to myself). Should'a gone with Bernard. Berrrrnnnnnaaaaaarrrrrrddd.

[Dungus]

A) The choices were more like Aids and Cancer, not Aids and the cold.

2) If you genuinely believe that, you're a stupid person. Clinton isn't left wing by any stretch of the imagination, she's awful, but she hasn't been endorsed by the KKK either. She hasn't vowed to mass-deport immigrants or build a wall to keep "rapists" out of the country. She's not pals with Putin. You have been following this campaign, haven't you?

D) The other point you made was in reply to something you imagined I said, but didn't.

See this is the kind of shit I think jwar is talking about. The attempts to guilt, shame demonize people by superficial association.
Didn't work out so well in the brexit vote either, did it? But lets focus on things relevant to this campaign.
Historically the KKK was a dixiecrat militia, yes? In 2016 they have very little power, influence and relevance. Now contrast that with the financial institutions, insurers, big pharma, chem, agro, energy, comm, tech and media conglomerates who endorsed HRC for president...and firms who have been under federal investigation or indictment in the 21st century.

How much investigation have you done into the democratic candidate you're supporting from an ocean away?
Who she pals around with & accepts money from? Perhaps a current regime or two who keep their bitches in check...or else.
Not conspiracy theory shit, actual conspiracy shit. She's gangsta af d00d.

I fucking hate Clinton, thanks for asking. I don't support her in any way and I know all about her "foundation" as a front for political corruption and the fact she's basically a Goldman Sachs employee. Don't give me shit and then put words in my mouth. She is not as evil/harmful as Trump probably will be, that's all I said. I guess if you guys think she is, there's not much anyone can do to argue against that.

edit: half my family are american too.

I misremembered you being one of the vocal Clinton supporters itt. My b.
However you said considerably more than *She is not as evil/harmful as Trump probably will be* didn't you?
Lets set aside the part where you call someone a stupid person because you disagree with their analysis.
You made specific assertions attempting to portray Trump through guilt-by-association in the form of support from a fringe group. Support he has publicly rejected has he not? Is there any tangible link between Trump and Putin or is that more conjecture, smoke & mirrors?
Anyway
HRC is *so awful* she lost to Trump.
She had every advantage and infrastructure, experience on her side and still lost in a clear referendum. TO TRUMP. Think about that.
Is HRC to blame or everyone who didn't vote for her? Sexism? White supremacy? Many bigotry?

If you're trying to change my mind by proving Clinton is as bad as Trump, then I don't know. Well done? No idea.
You set aside the part about the "Mexican rapists" and mass-deportation of immigrants too, by the way. Just so you know.
Cheers.

[Disarm D'arcy]

Who cares? Trump has a very decent majority in congress. Don't give the only decent president you guys have had since maybe Lyndon Johnson such a bad rep. His own congressmen failed him. Wasn't that already a sign the democrats were in the wrong?

It's too easy to badger on bad voters when the real issue is that Clinton was a terrible candidate and failed to convince the masses she would have their best interest at heart, maybe because she didn't. There's a reason an outsider such as Obama beat her. There's a reason Sanders went so far in the primary and received such potent popular support. It's time to wipe the slate clean of that center right leaning democrats era that was the Clinton era. Where are the Roosevelts and the Kennedys?

My take on why the democrats failed.

[Seance]

If you look at Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders,
their appeal is that in talking to voters they can take very
complex political issues and societal problems and break them
down into easily comprehensible parts that connect directly
with their audiences, both intellectually and emotionally.

The appeal of George W. Bush and Trump is that they bypass
the brain and appeal to "the gut" of voters. This is also largely
what "Saint" Ronald Reagan did. It "felt right" even when it was
factually false. When George HW Bush ran against Reagan he
rightly classified Reagan's trickle-down economic theory as
"voodoo economics". But it...felt... right to people, even if
it wasn't true and would never work for them. Giving all the money
to the people at the top so it "trickles down" on the poor like
a golden shower is not a sound economic plan. That's not how
you grow the middle class. That is not how you "support" the
blue-collar worker. But Reagan convinced blue-collar workers
that his "feel good" message was true and that he was operating
in their best interest.

As male politicians, exhibiting empathy or having the ability to
connect emotionally with voters over the issues that matter the
most to them is seen as a measure of that male politician's
strength, perceptiveness and political acuity.

So why wasn't Hillary able to do the same thing?

Partially it comes down to her temperament. She is more like Al Gore
or Bob Dole or George HW Bush: good on policy and working with other
politicians to tackle thorny issues and get legislation passed, but not as
adept at sounding natural and authentic when trying to condense the
complex issues that people care about into rousing soundbites in a speech.

When giving a speech HRC seems to have a harder time connecting emotionally
with voters while still maintaining her authentic self and sounding in any way
heartfelt. She does care. She just doesn't sound like it. But the job
of president isn't only giving speeches. It's also about getting stuff done
and dealing with friends and foes alike with diplomacy, measured action and
well-informed intelligence. Those are things HRC would have been great at,
but it was seemingly impossible for her to put that fact into a soundbite or to
convey that convincingly in a speech or political ad.

Also... it is harder for a woman to be emotionally expressive in the
political forum without being called "hysterical" or "shrill". And the
opponents of a female candidate can easily discredit the substance
of a policy or speech by criticizing the "manner" of a female politician.
It's obviously not impossible. The speeches delivered by Michelle Obama
easily hit all the marks—she came off as passionate and well-informed.
But HRC isn't that type of politician. And the last two years have proven
that Republican voters think that the government, the press and the education
system are all illegitimate, and have gone about unfunding and destabilizing
and delegitimizing those American institutions with no negative blow-back
(as evidenced by this election).

[Invisible Man]

It may, however, be a fact.

There are no facts, only interpretations.

[snipelfritz]

Can we talk about sleepy Baron?

That's how I feel right now.