Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
....even the people who voted for Trump as a last futile "from hell's heart, I stab at thee"..

I think that's a good description of many Trump voters from Ahab

Raises hand.

I've fully admitted earlier in this thread that my vote was specifically anti-Hillary. I don't think my desire to prevent her coronation comes as a surprise to anyone. The real surprise is that there were enough voters out there who felt the same way to actually pull it off.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The one consolation prize the people that don't like Trump can claim is that The Onion will have no shortage of quality material to mine in the coming years.

And Saturday Night Live!

Been watching them recently and it seems "old style" comedy now.

 Spinner wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
One of the San Bernadino shooters was born in the USA, as was the guy who carried out the Orlando shooting.

If you want to take measures to stop those things from happening, then figure out why US citizens are turning weapons on their fellow countrymen. Why are they susceptible to radicalisation?

Cracking down on a community with harsh policing and scapegoating will not stop young people from deciding to fight back against a society which they perceive as their enemy.

To play satan for a moment: what if the answer to "why US citizens are turning weapons on their fellow countrymen" is 'Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western, secular values'?

In other words, what if the fundamentalist Imams are right and you really do have to choose between being a good, tolerant American and submission to the will of Allah?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in a position to make such a judgement. But I also understand that my own religion is at odds with many things in the Western world (owing to the West's Christian foundations). I must come to terms with this (or move, to be fair) through mechanisms in my faith that may (or may not) be applicable to Islamic doctrines.

Or what if it's 'sometimes people aren't all there or need someone to blame for their problems, turn to violence, and justify it through religion"?

What if it is? That one Muslim may be driven by lunacy does not mean all are.

Again, you would seem to exculpate Islam by exsanguination: emptying it of all vitality and the possability of meaning.

On another note, Americans shouldn't be too worried about Trump policy because most of it is pie in the sky, and is unlikely to see the light of day.

1) The wall. Never going to happen. Too expensive, too impractical, and too easily surmounted by tunnels and flying machines of all types. And it would ironically end up employing either illegal or Mexican labour

2) Deporting 11 million illegals? Good luck with that. It would take thousands of people, cost hundreds of millions and would be very hard to do. They're not all in one place, and most are off the radar anyway. Plus, American business would never stand for it. They need these low paid workers for picking fruit and building stuff.

3) He'll bring jobs back to America? Robots and automaton will have something to say about that. Sadly, people who are losing their jobs, would probably end up losing them to a robot anyway....

4) Ban or heavily vet Muslims from entering the USA? Standing in the Q at passport control will be a laugh I'm sure, not to mention a strain. How do you vet somebody as a Muslim, anyway?

5) Jail HRC? That's abuse of executive power and Richard Nixon territory. Never going to happen.

The real trouble starts when the people who put him there, realize he is a fraud, and the backlash begins....

 Zywus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So she won tge popular but lost the EC? It's crazy that this has happened twice in the last two decades. You'd almost think that it's ans outated system thwt no longer works...

That's how federalism works.

You could mitigate the chance of it happening by introducing some Leveling seats a.k.k Adjustment seats. A group of electors distributed with the whole nation as one district, in order for the allocation of electors to match the popular vote. Such systems exist in Scandinavia (and I believe in Germany) in order to retain local representation, but still having the overall result conform with the overall popular votes. In Norway recently though, despite the Adjustment seats, the winning coalition got more seats with slightly less votes.

Good luck on making any changes to the American voting system though. As I understand, there's a metric f-ton of red tape and qualified majorities (unanimous decision by all states even?) needed.

All that presupposes that the idea that the election results have to reflect the popular vote is the correct and necessary idea. We don't need that reform because the popular vote and the electoral vote don't need to match. What you're basically arguing for is that we need to award bonus electoral points for margin of victory which is completely unnecessary. Hillary won California, she got all their electoral votes, whether she won by one vote or one million doesn't matter. More populous states have more electoral votes the system is already weighted in the favor of populous states we don't need to increase that favoritism even more. There are states where generations of people have never seen a presidential candidate in person because the states don't have enough electoral votes to be an important swing state, we don't need to devalue those states even further. Most often the candidate that wins the electoral vote will also win the popular vote by virtue of winning a lot of states, on some occasions a candidate will win the electoral college without winning the popular vote based on the margin of victory in some states and that's ok, it doesn't change the outcome in states and it doesn't change the fact that populous states have more electoral importance than sparsely populated states. There is no problem to fix.

 sourclams wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

In other words, they voted for something that sounded like what they wanted, but is far more fairy tale and pixie dust than reality.

One of the issues in today's discourse is that it's becoming devoid of nuance.

Trump literally said he'd build a wall and Mexico would pay for it. No doubt there's some percentage of the electorate that is taking that literally, but the majority of folks that view this as a significant swing point are probably looking at the difference between somebody who will take a much tougher stance than the open, unenforced border we currently have, as compared to someone who assuredly will not.

In talking with 'normal people' for the past year, I've personally been surprised by the amount of 1st and 2nd generation Hispanic support for Trump and a stronger border. Basic reasoning is 'I came here because I wanted to get away from all that stuff (generally drugs, hopeless economic conditions, and corruption), shut it down'. The belief that a stronger border is somehow racist or anti-immigrant has been more closely held by 2nd and 3rd generation natives that believe Trump will try to deport their parents/grandparents.

For all the "Murica is so racist" comments; blacks, hispanics, latinos and asians were a big swing toward the Rep compared to the 2012 election according to the exit polls (which I don't trust as far as I can throw them).

 Buzzsaw wrote:

This is a dangerously misguided idea, comparing shooters motivated by metal illness to shooters that believe, with excellent reasoning, that their faith endorses certain kinds of violent acts.

What makes Christinaity so different from Islam, that it could not possibly be motivated by violence? The Crusades were a time where Christians believed "with excellent reasoning, that their faith endorses certain kinds of violent acts." How is that any different from what's currently going on with ISIS? The knights were purging infidels from the holy lands. God, doesn't that sound familiar?

Let's step away from Islam for a moment. I am an orthodox Jew, one might even go so far as to say that I am a Jewish Fundamentalist (depending on definitions). As such, I believe, as a moral certainty, that my God instructs that there are times when violence is not only appropriate, but obligatory.

I don't believe this because of voices in my head, or delusions, but words on a page. Very important words in very important books. Ignoring those words doesn't make them go away: we must accomodate ourselves to them, or deny them (and our faith).

I'm going to try very had not to insult you, so please bear with me. I believe religious texts are fluid in meaning, I think they're a great source for inspiration, but much like the philosophical works of Nietzche, I think they can be dangerous in that you can read them and see what you want to see in them. I don't think any religion is a religion of violence, but I think they can be used to persuade violence.

To reduce all violence done in the name of Islam to mental illness and economic conditions is not only far too reductionist but deeply insulting to the Islamic faith. It makes Islam into an empty vessel, an urn to be filled rather then a lamp that gives light. As someone that takes my own faith very seriously, I cannot endorse such a stance, for it would exculpate Islam by destroying it.

Why? Why can't it be said that people looking for answers can be persuaded to violence by perverting sacred texts? The same was done in the Crusades to the same ends. Is it that insulting to say that words are used fluid and different meanings can be gleaned from the same book?

 Breotan wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
....even the people who voted for Trump as a last futile "from hell's heart, I stab at thee"..

I think that's a good description of many Trump voters from Ahab

Raises hand.

I've fully admitted earlier in this thread that my vote was specifically anti-Hillary. I don't think my desire to prevent her coronation comes as a surprise to anyone. The real surprise is that there were enough voters out there who felt the same way to actually pull it off.

Hillary's shortcomings as a candidate were vastly underrated by her supporters. I know a lot of Trump voters that are relatives, friends and coworkers, they don't all like Trump but they all loathed Hillary. She's not a good candidate especially at this current moment in time and being "less terrible than Trump" wasn't enough to motivate enough people to vote for her. Look at who's beaten Hillary, Obama, a state legislator and community organizer that was a Senator for Illinois for a couple years and is an excellent public speaker and Donald Trump a pseudo Republican populist plutocrat with good stage presence and offensive behavior. If the Democrats wanted to get candidate that had an enthusiastic groundswell of support they shouldn't have let the Clintons takeover the DNC to boost Hillary's candidacy with blatant favoritism.

Well, guess the God Emperor is now in charge. of 'Murica.

The bright side is that, since the Republican control nearly everything, they have all the tools in hand to do exactly what they want. And they won't be able to blame the democrats when/if it fails.

Heh, who I am kidding. They will do it anyway and their mindless cheerleaders will drink their lies as if it was beer.

The dark side is that you will enjoy Whembly trying to justify all the horrible things they will be doing for four years.


Four years of corruption, lies, destroying the planet and bashing the already miserable poors and defenseless people. For the Red Team, enjoy your victory. For the Blue Team, enjoy your nightmare.

Such a great day to have faith in mankind.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
On the other hand Travis and Bastrop counties both admitted last week that cartels were actively operating in their counties. They had to because of the bodies found on the side of the road.

We need secure borders, and the US just voted to secure its borders. FINALLY.

Yes, it voted to secure its borders based on a vague promise of some sort of undefined physical barrier (which have been shown to be extremely expensive, easily defeatable by elements that wish to do so, and extremely controversial in the long run, in multiple real world instances) with zero details on how it will be built and maintained, and the promise this will all be done on the dime of a foreign government.

In other words, they voted for something that sounded like what they wanted, but is far more fairy tale and pixie dust than reality. We have zero real details on what any sorts of actual measures will be taken, how they will be implemented, and where the resources will come from.

horsegak. There is already a wall on a large portion. They voted for security and ending the open borders. Its not vague, you just don't like it.

We'll see if anything actually happens. I expect we'll see some budget shuffling and maybe a nice bump to the border patrol, but probably no fortress america wall any time soon

.Agreed.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
....even the people who voted for Trump as a last futile "from hell's heart, I stab at thee"..

I think that's a good description of many Trump voters from Ahab

Raises hand.

I've fully admitted earlier in this thread that my vote was specifically anti-Hillary. I don't think my desire to prevent her coronation comes as a surprise to anyone. The real surprise is that there were enough voters out there who felt the same way to actually pull it off.

Hillary's shortcomings as a candidate were vastly underrated by her supporters. I know a lot of Trump voters that are relatives, friends and coworkers, they don't all like Trump but they all loathed Hillary. She's not a good candidate especially at this current moment in time and being "less terrible than Trump" wasn't enough to motivate enough people to vote for her. Look at who's beaten Hillary, Obama, a state legislator and community organizer that was a Senator for Illinois for a couple years and is an excellent public speaker and Donald Trump a pseudo Republican populist plutocrat with good stage presence and offensive behavior. If the Democrats wanted to get candidate that had an enthusiastic groundswell of support they shouldn't have let the Clintons takeover the DNC to boost Hillary's candidacy with blatant favoritism.

Yep. The "Anti-Hillary" movement was way bigger than the "Pro-Trump"

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So she won tge popular but lost the EC? It's crazy that this has happened twice in the last two decades. You'd almost think that it's ans outated system thwt no longer works...

That's how federalism works.

You could mitigate the chance of it happening by introducing some Leveling seats a.k.k Adjustment seats. A group of electors distributed with the whole nation as one district, in order for the allocation of electors to match the popular vote. Such systems exist in Scandinavia (and I believe in Germany) in order to retain local representation, but still having the overall result conform with the overall popular votes. In Norway recently though, despite the Adjustment seats, the winning coalition got more seats with slightly less votes.

Good luck on making any changes to the American voting system though. As I understand, there's a metric f-ton of red tape and qualified majorities (unanimous decision by all states even?) needed.

All that presupposes that the idea that the election results have to reflect the popular vote is the correct and necessary idea. We don't need that reform because the popular vote and the electoral vote don't need to match. What you're basically arguing for is that we need to award bonus electoral points for margin of victory which is completely unnecessary. Hillary won California, she got all their electoral votes, whether she won by one vote or one million doesn't matter. More populous states have more electoral votes the system is already weighted in the favor of populous states we don't need to increase that favoritism even more. There are states where generations of people have never seen a presidential candidate in person because the states don't have enough electoral votes to be an important swing state, we don't need to devalue those states even further. Most often the candidate that wins the electoral vote will also win the popular vote by virtue of winning a lot of states, on some occasions a candidate will win the electoral college without winning the or popular vote based on the margin of victory in some states and that's ok, it doesn't change the outcome in states and it doesn't change the fact that populous states have more electoral importance than sparsely populated states. There is no problem to fix.

It would be a way of ensuing votes across the election is more evenly weighted.

How is the system weighted in favour of the populous states when they receive proportionally less electors per capita? If anything it's the other way around.
California for example has roughly one elector per 160k votes and Texas only one elector per over 200k votes. Meanwhile Alaska is only around 80k voters per elector and Hawaii an elecor per 100k voters.

Prestor Jon wrote:
If the Democrats wanted to get candidate that had an enthusiastic groundswell of support they shouldn't have let the Clintons takeover the DNC to boost Hillary's candidacy with blatant favoritism.

I completely agree and the manufactured 'shock' over the Trumpidency by the mainstream without any attempt to address the Clinton coronation is absurd. I think this election could be considered a referendum on the Clintons as much as any other factor.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

This is a dangerously misguided idea, comparing shooters motivated by metal illness to shooters that believe, with excellent reasoning, that their faith endorses certain kinds of violent acts.

What makes Christinaity so different from Islam, that it could not possibly be motivated by violence? The Crusades were a time where Christians believed "with excellent reasoning, that their faith endorses certain kinds of violent acts." How is that any different from what's currently going on with ISIS? The knights were purging infidels from the holy lands. God, doesn't that sound familiar?

Let's step away from Islam for a moment. I am an orthodox Jew, one might even go so far as to say that I am a Jewish Fundamentalist (depending on definitions). As such, I believe, as a moral certainty, that my God instructs that there are times when violence is not only appropriate, but obligatory.

I don't believe this because of voices in my head, or delusions, but words on a page. Very important words in very important books. Ignoring those words doesn't make them go away: we must accomodate ourselves to them, or deny them (and our faith).

I'm going to try very had not to insult you, so please bear with me. I believe religious texts are fluid in meaning, I think they're a great source for inspiration, but much like the philosophical works of Nietzche, I think they can be dangerous in that you can read them and see what you want to see in them. I don't think any religion is a religion of violence, but I think they can be used to persuade violence.

To reduce all violence done in the name of Islam to mental illness and economic conditions is not only far too reductionist but deeply insulting to the Islamic faith. It makes Islam into an empty vessel, an urn to be filled rather then a lamp that gives light. As someone that takes my own faith very seriously, I cannot endorse such a stance, for it would exculpate Islam by destroying it.

Why? Why can't it be said that people looking for answers can be persuaded to violence by perverting sacred texts? The same was done in the Crusades to the same ends. Is it that insulting to say that words are used fluid and different meanings can be gleaned from the same book?

Religion aren't immune to being interpreted to condone/promote violence depending on who's doing the preaching. Currently, the world seems to be having a problem with fundamentalist Islam being used to promote/condone violence, that doesn't make Islam a unique religion or somehow more prone to violence than other religion but it's a reality that needs to be dealt with at this time. One major difference between current Islamic terrorists and the Crusades is that it's 2016 and Europe isn't invading Syria because Deus Vult whereas Muslim radicals are going on murder sprees in France while yelling Allahu Akbar. Different cultures are always going to clash but apparently some cultures/religions haven't recognized that we're not living in medieval times anymore.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Hillary's shortcomings as a candidate were vastly underrated by her supporters. I know a lot of Trump voters that are relatives, friends and coworkers, they don't all like Trump but they all loathed Hillary. She's not a good candidate especially at this current moment in time and being "less terrible than Trump" wasn't enough to motivate enough people to vote for her. Look at who's beaten Hillary, Obama, a state legislator and community organizer that was a Senator for Illinois for a couple years and is an excellent public speaker and Donald Trump a pseudo Republican populist plutocrat with good stage presence and offensive behavior. If the Democrats wanted to get candidate that had an enthusiastic groundswell of support they shouldn't have let the Clintons takeover the DNC to boost Hillary's candidacy with blatant favoritism.

Yeah I think this is obviously far more important than pollsters accounted for. There's going to be a lot of blame tossed around by Dems in an attempt to explain what happened there, but from my point of view the race was less Trumps to win, and more Hillary's to lose. She's a terrible campaigner. Smart, experienced, driven. . . but just at a loss in voter psychology.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Yep. The "Anti-Hillary" movement was way bigger than the "Pro-Trump"

Although there was a pro-Trump movement, without question.

I imagine the general split was anti-Hillary among more educated Trump voters, and pro-Trump among the less educated.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
On the other hand Travis and Bastrop counties both admitted last week that cartels were actively operating in their counties. They had to because of the bodies found on the side of the road.

We need secure borders, and the US just voted to secure its borders. FINALLY.

Yes, it voted to secure its borders based on a vague promise of some sort of undefined physical barrier (which have been shown to be extremely expensive, easily defeatable by elements that wish to do so, and extremely controversial in the long run, in multiple real world instances) with zero details on how it will be built and maintained, and the promise this will all be done on the dime of a foreign government.

In other words, they voted for something that sounded like what they wanted, but is far more fairy tale and pixie dust than reality. We have zero real details on what any sorts of actual measures will be taken, how they will be implemented, and where the resources will come from.

horsegak. There is already a wall on a large portion. They voted for security and ending the open borders. Its not vague, you just don't like it.

We'll see if anything actually happens. I expect we'll see some budget shuffling and maybe a nice bump to the border patrol, but probably no fortress america wall any time soon

.Agreed.

Lets ask China how effective a massive wall was at keeping out foreign invaders.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Yep. The "Anti-Hillary" movement was way bigger than the "Pro-Trump"

The medias didn't help. And of course, Whembly did a great job to give a perfect picture of what happened at a national state here on this forum, by reporting all of their Right Wing propaganda like a good Republican supporter.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

This is a dangerously misguided idea, comparing shooters motivated by metal illness to shooters that believe, with excellent reasoning, that their faith endorses certain kinds of violent acts.

What makes Christinaity so different from Islam, that it could not possibly be motivated by violence? The Crusades were a time where Christians believed "with excellent reasoning, that their faith endorses certain kinds of violent acts." How is that any different from what's currently going on with ISIS? The knights were purging infidels from the holy lands. God, doesn't that sound familiar?

Let's step away from Islam for a moment. I am an orthodox Jew, one might even go so far as to say that I am a Jewish Fundamentalist (depending on definitions). As such, I believe, as a moral certainty, that my God instructs that there are times when violence is not only appropriate, but obligatory.

I don't believe this because of voices in my head, or delusions, but words on a page. Very important words in very important books. Ignoring those words doesn't make them go away: we must accomodate ourselves to them, or deny them (and our faith).

I'm going to try very had not to insult you, so please bear with me. I believe religious texts are fluid in meaning, I think they're a great source for inspiration, but much like the philosophical works of Nietzche, I think they can be dangerous in that you can read them and see what you want to see in them. I don't think any religion is a religion of violence, but I think they can be used to persuade violence.

To reduce all violence done in the name of Islam to mental illness and economic conditions is not only far too reductionist but deeply insulting to the Islamic faith. It makes Islam into an empty vessel, an urn to be filled rather then a lamp that gives light. As someone that takes my own faith very seriously, I cannot endorse such a stance, for it would exculpate Islam by destroying it.

Why? Why can't it be said that people looking for answers can be persuaded to violence by perverting sacred texts? The same was done in the Crusades to the same ends. Is it that insulting to say that words are used fluid and different meanings can be gleaned from the same book?

Religion aren't immune to being interpreted to condone/promote violence depending on who's doing the preaching. Currently, the world seems to be having a problem with fundamentalist Islam being used to promote/condone violence, that doesn't make Islam a unique religion or somehow more prone to violence than other religion but it's a reality that needs to be dealt with at this time. One major difference between current Islamic terrorists and the Crusades is that it's 2016 and Europe isn't invading Syria because Deus Vult whereas Muslim radicals are going on murder sprees in France while yelling Allahu Akbar. Different cultures are always going to clash but apparently some cultures/religions haven't recognized that we're not living in medieval times anymore.

I agree. I think their religion and culture needs to evolve from the Medieval Ages, especially regarding women and LGBTQ, but I also recognize that the actions of one muslim =/= the actions of all, and I fear witch hunts like Trump supports will only further exacerbate things.

It just occurred to me: Donald Trump and Theresa May.

Is that going to be the new Reagan and Thatcher?

What a time to be alive! Hopefully Hillary is sharpening an old toothbrush in preparation for prison. (wishful thinking of course)

A few of his policies will be implementable, and the sillier ones (the wall, for example) will not. I think we'll end up in a good position.


Immigration: It's not about vetting the Muslim immigrants coming in through traditional channels - rather, it's about not bringing hordes of migrants into this country. Hillary wanted over half a million of them in her first term and cited Merkel as a great figure. No thanks, Hilldog.

Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.

Citizenship: I predict a 180 at this point when he realizes that he can't "round them up" - an accelerated path to citizenship or something of the sort, solidifying their vote in 2020.

Obamacare: Kill it...kill it with fire.



These are the issues that are important for me. I read an analysis by a staunch Dem friend of mine who predicted this over a year ago. His thesis was essentially that Trump will be elected simply because the Left has bullied conservatives and moderates (especially White moderates) to the point where it's impossible to admit in public that you're voting for Trump. I've seen tons of Trump signs defaced in this area - not a single Hillary sign touched. The Left can blame themselves for this, but they should really be celebrating, because we're going to make America great again.

 Sarouan wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Yep. The "Anti-Hillary" movement was way bigger than the "Pro-Trump"

The medias didn't help. And of course, Whembly did a great job to give a perfect picture of what happened at a national state here on this forum, by reporting all of their Right Wing propaganda like a good Republican supporter.

I think that's a bit much. If you're telling me the DNC didn't try to swindle America by rigging the primaries against Bernie, I think you're full of it. The DNC bet on the wrong horse, no matter how much "propaganda" the Republicans put out.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
On the other hand Travis and Bastrop counties both admitted last week that cartels were actively operating in their counties. They had to because of the bodies found on the side of the road.

We need secure borders, and the US just voted to secure its borders. FINALLY.

Yes, it voted to secure its borders based on a vague promise of some sort of undefined physical barrier (which have been shown to be extremely expensive, easily defeatable by elements that wish to do so, and extremely controversial in the long run, in multiple real world instances) with zero details on how it will be built and maintained, and the promise this will all be done on the dime of a foreign government.

In other words, they voted for something that sounded like what they wanted, but is far more fairy tale and pixie dust than reality. We have zero real details on what any sorts of actual measures will be taken, how they will be implemented, and where the resources will come from.

We'll see if anything actually happens. I expect we'll see some budget shuffling and maybe a nice bump to the border patrol, but probably no fortress america wall any time soon.

I'd be happy with the federal govt treating secure borders as a serious legitimate concern and creating a metaphysical version of the wall by putting knowledgeable and capable people in charge of border security and equipping them with the resources needed to enact practical solutions. There's a lot of other policies such as labor laws, drug laws and immigration laws that factor into illegal immigration that goes beyond just needing more effective and comprehensive border security. I'd really like to see an intelligent holistic approach that goes beyond catchy bumper sticker slogans.

Exactly.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
On the other hand Travis and Bastrop counties both admitted last week that cartels were actively operating in their counties. They had to because of the bodies found on the side of the road.

We need secure borders, and the US just voted to secure its borders. FINALLY.

Yes, it voted to secure its borders based on a vague promise of some sort of undefined physical barrier (which have been shown to be extremely expensive, easily defeatable by elements that wish to do so, and extremely controversial in the long run, in multiple real world instances) with zero details on how it will be built and maintained, and the promise this will all be done on the dime of a foreign government.

In other words, they voted for something that sounded like what they wanted, but is far more fairy tale and pixie dust than reality. We have zero real details on what any sorts of actual measures will be taken, how they will be implemented, and where the resources will come from.

horsegak. There is already a wall on a large portion. They voted for security and ending the open borders. Its not vague, you just don't like it.

We'll see if anything actually happens. I expect we'll see some budget shuffling and maybe a nice bump to the border patrol, but probably no fortress america wall any time soon

.Agreed.

Lets ask China how effective a massive wall was at keeping out foreign invaders.

HA! Have an exalt

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

This is a dangerously misguided idea, comparing shooters motivated by metal illness to shooters that believe, with excellent reasoning, that their faith endorses certain kinds of violent acts.

What makes Christinaity so different from Islam, that it could not possibly be motivated by violence? The Crusades were a time where Christians believed "with excellent reasoning, that their faith endorses certain kinds of violent acts." How is that any different from what's currently going on with ISIS? The knights were purging infidels from the holy lands. God, doesn't that sound familiar?

You mistake me: I do not deny that Christians can be motivated to violence by their faith, nor that Christian faith can (and has) justified great atrocities. But this is my point; faith can motivate terrible deeds.

My argument is that these specific examples are examples of motivated by clinical psychosis, rather then doctrine.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Let's step away from Islam for a moment. I am an orthodox Jew, one might even go so far as to say that I am a Jewish Fundamentalist (depending on definitions). As such, I believe, as a moral certainty, that my God instructs that there are times when violence is not only appropriate, but obligatory.

I don't believe this because of voices in my head, or delusions, but words on a page. Very important words in very important books. Ignoring those words doesn't make them go away: we must accomodate ourselves to them, or deny them (and our faith).

I'm going to try very had not to insult you, so please bear with me. I believe religious texts are fluid in meaning, I think they're a great source for inspiration, but much like the philosophical works of Nietzche, I think they can be dangerous in that you can read them and see what you want to see in them. I don't think any religion is a religion of violence, but I think they can be used to persuade violence.

It is no insult to me, I simply disagree. But... well, you seem rather to be proving my point here: you're exculpating Islam by denying that it can have any Truth, any meaning that is not subject to redefinition.

Let me be clear: I believe in magic. That eternal moral law was given to a particular people by a particular God. That, as we say on Passover, "if the Eternal, our God, had not taken us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, then I and my children and my children's children would still be slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt."

In fairness, I also have an advanced degree in genetics and genomics, so I am very comfortable with the Jewish notions of compartmentalizing the spiritual and the scientific.

 jreilly89 wrote:

To reduce all violence done in the name of Islam to mental illness and economic conditions is not only far too reductionist but deeply insulting to the Islamic faith. It makes Islam into an empty vessel, an urn to be filled rather then a lamp that gives light. As someone that takes my own faith very seriously, I cannot endorse such a stance, for it would exculpate Islam by destroying it.

Why? Why can't it be said that people looking for answers can be persuaded to violence by perverting sacred texts? The same was done in the Crusades to the same ends. Is it that insulting to say that words are used fluid and different meanings can be gleaned from the same book?

The problem here is that both of us are viewing the faith of others in terms of our own faiths. I hope it is no insult to suppose that you are not a particularly devout person, nor that you have little trouble overlooking Biblical law that discomfits you.

That's fine, but it is important to understand that just as every faith has people like you in it, it also has people like me. People that believe that there is a time for every purpose under heaven, including a time to kill.

If you accept that, then it becomes very important exactly who and when one's faith and doctrine demand such violence.

I actually really liked Trump's victory speech. Was anyone else postively surprised by that?
I thought he was going to gloat about his victory and spew some more crazy stuff, but he actually said really nice things.
Also, the kid in the background trying to not fall asleep was hilarious.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

Lets ask China how effective a massive wall was at keeping out foreign invaders.

Even in that example The Wall was more of an internal policy tool for internal direction, and during its actual construction there was less foreign aggression because nobody really wanted to mess with the sea of humanity constructing it.

 Zywus wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Zywus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So she won tge popular but lost the EC? It's crazy that this has happened twice in the last two decades. You'd almost think that it's ans outated system thwt no longer works...

That's how federalism works.

You could mitigate the chance of it happening by introducing some Leveling seats a.k.k Adjustment seats. A group of electors distributed with the whole nation as one district, in order for the allocation of electors to match the popular vote. Such systems exist in Scandinavia (and I believe in Germany) in order to retain local representation, but still having the overall result conform with the overall popular votes. In Norway recently though, despite the Adjustment seats, the winning coalition got more seats with slightly less votes.

Good luck on making any changes to the American voting system though. As I understand, there's a metric f-ton of red tape and qualified majorities (unanimous decision by all states even?) needed.

All that presupposes that the idea that the election results have to reflect the popular vote is the correct and necessary idea. We don't need that reform because the popular vote and the electoral vote don't need to match. What you're basically arguing for is that we need to award bonus electoral points for margin of victory which is completely unnecessary. Hillary won California, she got all their electoral votes, whether she won by one vote or one million doesn't matter. More populous states have more electoral votes the system is already weighted in the favor of populous states we don't need to increase that favoritism even more. There are states where generations of people have never seen a presidential candidate in person because the states don't have enough electoral votes to be an important swing state, we don't need to devalue those states even further. Most often the candidate that wins the electoral vote will also win the popular vote by virtue of winning a lot of states, on some occasions a candidate will win the electoral college without winning the or popular vote based on the margin of victory in some states and that's ok, it doesn't change the outcome in states and it doesn't change the fact that populous states have more electoral importance than sparsely populated states. There is no problem to fix.

It would be a way of ensuing votes across the election is more evenly weighted.

How is the system weighted in favour of the populous states when they receive proportionally less electors per capita? If anything it's the other way around.
California for example has roughly one elector per 160k votes and Texas only one elector per over 200k votes. Meanwhile Alaska is only around 80k voters per elector and Hawaii an elecor per 100k voters.

We don't vote nationally we vote by state. More populous states have more electoral votes than less populous states. The electoral college doesn't award electors based on raw population it awards electors to states based on the number of congressional representatives per state. The number of congressional representatives per state is a adjusted every 10 years when the national census is taken. Electoral votes are then adjusted to reflect any changes in congressional representation. The proportional weight of California over Wyoming is the same on election day as it is on any given day in Congress and the running of the federal govt. You're advocating that we need to award extra weight to California over Wyoming on election night because for some reason California should have a greater voice on election night than it does in regular federal governance. There's no compelling reason for that. Populous states are treated fairly on election night just as they are treated fairly in Congress.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
What a time to be alive! Hopefully Hillary is sharpening an old toothbrush in preparation for prison. (wishful thinking of course)

A few of his policies will be implementable, and the sillier ones (the wall, for example) will not. I think we'll end up in a good position.


Immigration: It's not about vetting the Muslim immigrants coming in through traditional channels - rather, it's about not bringing hordes of migrants into this country. Hillary wanted over half a million of them in her first term and cited Merkel as a great figure. No thanks, Hilldog.

Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.

Citizenship: I predict a 180 at this point when he realizes that he can't "round them up" - an accelerated path to citizenship or something of the sort, solidifying their vote in 2020.

Obamacare: Kill it...kill it with fire.



These are the issues that are important for me. I read an analysis by a staunch Dem friend of mine who predicted this over a year ago. His thesis was essentially that Trump will be elected simply because the Left has bullied conservatives and moderates (especially White moderates) to the point where it's impossible to admit in public that you're voting for Trump. I've seen tons of Trump signs defaced in this area - not a single Hillary sign touched. The Left can blame themselves for this, but they should really be celebrating, because we're going to make America great again.

I hope so. My one hope is they keep Mike Pence in check. I think any non-straight, non-white person is in for a rough future.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
On the other hand Travis and Bastrop counties both admitted last week that cartels were actively operating in their counties. They had to because of the bodies found on the side of the road.

We need secure borders, and the US just voted to secure its borders. FINALLY.

Yes, it voted to secure its borders based on a vague promise of some sort of undefined physical barrier (which have been shown to be extremely expensive, easily defeatable by elements that wish to do so, and extremely controversial in the long run, in multiple real world instances) with zero details on how it will be built and maintained, and the promise this will all be done on the dime of a foreign government.

In other words, they voted for something that sounded like what they wanted, but is far more fairy tale and pixie dust than reality. We have zero real details on what any sorts of actual measures will be taken, how they will be implemented, and where the resources will come from.

horsegak. There is already a wall on a large portion. They voted for security and ending the open borders. Its not vague, you just don't like it.

It not that I dont like it, and hell, I've never been more physically removed from a border than I am now, its that a wall is an ineffectual feel good measure (such walls that do exist dont seem to stop much as most people and illicit goods go through normal crossings, and are much more simple demarcation than imposing defense) and anything approaching the wall concepts that have been discussed would be a decades long project at enormous expense with very little or no real likely real impact on whats actually crossing those borders, and relies on fantasy land reimbursement from Mexico that will never happen . With regards to "ending open borders", there's a lot of jabber about that but little on what people actually mean by that, and if we want to preserve our freedom of trade and travel with the rest of the world, then most suggestions coming out of Trumps camp would be total nonstarters.