US Election

  • No one is posting because they are too busy watching election results. We likely won't see one this wild again. Enjoy. 😰

  • @g_bartsch

    I'm watching it live-streaming on my/our Oz ABC News24 in a web-panel, whilst on the rhs i'm trying to keep my mind on the V fora, & other pages... but it's tricky.

  • @Steffie

    I'm just watching this page:

    Major media talking heads are seriously biased and I cannot bear them.

    Stock market futures looked early for a Dem win but have cooled their jets seriously:

    We may witness an upset.

  • @g_bartsch

    An upset, no. A diabolical catastrophe, yes.

  • Moderator

    @Steffie - Well, yeah. Never seen people spontaneously take to the streets across the nation in response to a presidential election before. That's a first.

    He's definitely getting off on the "RIGHT" foot, moving to limit press access to his White House visit tomorrow, and assigning a climate skeptic to oversee the EPA transition team.

  • I reckon it's only bad news for those undeserving few miserables, like women, or LGBTI, or people with functional neurons, people of ethnically diverse backgrounds, those who believe in science not fairy tales or conspiracy theories, those in possession of serviceable ethics, weirdos who think that facts & truth matter, or that honesty & integrity should count, that bullying should not be lauded & rewarded... et al.

    Thankfully i don't live in USA & am not a Yank, but this bastard's ascension is still bad news for my Oz. Global climate change action will further stall, global military tensions will rise, global humanitarian causes will become even more fraught. In my own backyard, our domestic RWNJs, sadly in power here, will be further emboldened to oppress asylum seekers & refugees [from our already existing shockingly poor base], marriage-equality [= same-sex marriage] will continue to be denied, women's rights, protection & shelter will be further undermined, press freedom will continue to be undermined, FoI will continue to be a bad joke, oh there's so much more but i just can't bear it.

    I do get it that the US electorate was pissed off & rebellious, but to so comprehensively choose to cut off their nose to spite their face [I was going to say shoot themselves in the foot, but USA already has a bad enough situation with gun worship & violence] with a proven liar, fraud, [probable] tax cheat, racist, misogynist, sexual assaulter etc, is just so damn crazy. There's no chance he will, or can, honour most of his "promises", but the angry electorate's unwillingness to see & acknowledge their new emperor is stark naked, is quite breathtaking.

    The mood here in Oz is stark, sombre & unbelieving. It must be ghastly in the USA [or at least, in the few blue pockets].

  • Moderator

    @Steffie - He won the electoral college, but lost the popular vote. Hence, he will be "president" of a nation, the majority of whom despise him. This can also be the case in parliamentary systems, where governing coalitions elevate a prime minister who enjoys only minority support. It's not REALLY supposed to happen here.

    That said, by percentage, we had the lowest voter turnout since 2000, so roughly 25% of the electorate, abetted by nearly 50% layabouts, elected him. Part of it is down to the quality of his opposition. He is the most unpopular candidate EVER to be elected to the presidency, and Hillary was only marginally less unpopular. This being the case, and the fact that her constituency was not a herd of rabid, aggrieved mouth-breathers, meant that she was unable to generate the enthusiasm for her candidacy which would have enabled his defeat.

  • @Ayespy

    Yes... but so so sad.

  • Moderator

    @Steffie - You don't have to tell me. My entire universe is black at the moment. I have trouble concentrating, and cannot see humor in anything. My gallows humor is kind of legend, actually. It has deserted me.

  • @Ayespy said in US Election:

    That said, by percentage, we had the lowest voter turnout since 2000, so roughly 25% of the electorate, abetted by nearly 50% layabouts, elected him

    This is what I cannot understand. With such a contentious vote why abstain? Surely if one disliked both candidates one could vote on party preference? Or, surely one could dislike one more than the other?

  • Moderator

    @g_bartsch - Americans are extremely lazy about their civic responsibilities. Having two hated candidates just makes them that much less motivated.

  • Moderator

    @Steffie - Just struck me: I've a nephew who, with his wife, lives in Melbourne. He's prolly 45, and I think retired US Navy. Now works in AU in defense and aerospace.

  • @Ayespy - Interesting.

    It seems to me civic duty is something different than self preservation which is why I assumed people would have been eager to get out and vote for the candidate whose win would mean they would be screwed less.

    So if Americans are lazy in civic duties this means those non-voters have no right to complain if the country goes in a direction they don't like?

    Still, fascinating to learn this.

  • Moderator

    @g_bartsch - They are not only lazy about civic responsibility, but also engage in low-effort thinking, ie: "They're all just as bad, so why bother?"

    This could not be further from the truth, but it IS the truth of the lazy and low-effort thinkers. We also refer to them as low-info "voters" when they do vote. They engage in false equivalences and failure to parse data as a habit of thought - often as a mental defense against trying to defend something they actually KNOW is bad. They simply resort to: "Well, the other side is just as bad." "Both parties are rotten to the core." "All politicians lie," etc.

    And, no, if they didn't vote they have no room to complain. They also have no room to complain if they did vote, their guy won, he does exactly what he said he'd do, and the results are catastrophic. They complain anyway. When their chosen course of action leads to disaster, they always blame someone who was not involved for failing to prevent the outcome they sought.

  • @g_bartsch Non-voting is not a simple matter of laziness.
    There are principled non-voters - those who have rationale for consistently abstaining from political voting
    There are protest non-voters - not voting because of dissatisfaction with a given election (candidates, issues, etc.)
    There are resigned non-voters - believing their vote will not affect the outcome. Many times this is poll driven ( as it almost certainly was in this case) - Polls show a lopsided contest, so voters stay away in droves as the outcome is a foregone conclusion
    There are disinterested non-voters - people who don't care about the outcome of a given election.
    Non of these are necessarily lazy - just willing to accept the consequences of their decision not to vote, same as those who are willing to accept the consequences having voted for the losing candidate

  • @booBot -- How dare you! As an LGBTI woman i challenge any logical, intellectual or ethical basis for your disgusting words. Shame on you for you bigotry & ignorance. How do you sleep at night, or look yourself in the mirror, with such a toxic attitude?

  • @booBot No, that's fine. Hitler shared the same disgust and everyone liked that fella.

  • @booBot Hmmm, landscape versus portrait pictures.

  • as much as i enjoy fighting over our differences, i want to support @robertbrenner , who made a nuanced view of an emotional topic. i would also like to talk bout voting. there are other ways to affect political change than voting. economic decisions influence politics, arguably more than votes. i live in the us. i voted, not for trump. as much as i dislike his opinions/history/everything, i like that he opposes the trans-pacific partnership. every four years the us gets scared that this year is different because x, y, and z. i got scared. fear fueled my vote. i saw my prefered candidate lose nomination, and i voted anyway. as a us citizen i would like to remind everyone that the election is designed to be fair by allowing everyone to be unhappy a year later, regardless of the outcome.

  • @booBot Trump put restrictions on banksters? If only! He's surrounded by bankers from Goldman Sachs, possibly the largest criminal gang in the world, Mind you, Clinton's no better, her campaign was funded by bankers. I'm a Brit, but if I were American I'd have voted for Bernie in the Democrats nomination process. As he didn't get it, I wouldn't have voted for either Trump or Clinton, can't make up my mind which of them is worst. Their equally repulsive. And I, a heterosexual male, find your comment about LGBT people unpleasant.


Looks like your connection to Vivaldi Forum was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.