2016 USA Presidential Elections

[Spectre]

I think he meant the amount of coal energy in the mix.

This will partially address mpicco's earlier post as well (the remainder of which I will address later, when I get home and am not on a break from work): Few people actually want a coal plant around and most of us would rather they go away. The reality of the situation, unfortunately, is that a lot of our current generation capacity is indeed powered by coal. We would like to replace them, but here's where the problems come in.

1. Sadly, natural gas often is not in the same place as where you want to put a power generation plant. This means you have to transport the gas from where it's being recovered from the earth to where you want to use it. Tanker trucks aren't going to be enough to feed a typical power plant, so you're going to want to build a pipeline. Oooops, Democrats are blocking the pipeline and telling you that you must use the much slower and much less safe trucks. Well, there goes that idea. If you can't build pipelines, you can't build a new power plant to replace an old coal one.

2. Since you can't easily replace these coal-fired generating stations, we could at least retrofit them with better pollution controls. However, the current Administration policy is to require them to fit ridiculous levels of pollution controls, basically things that are impractical to use in reality (much like the Carter Administration's proposed backwards 'safety motorcycle') and are extremely expensive. That was okay for the Administration because the goal was to get the coal plants to shut down... without there being a replacement in place. Or really caring about how all the electricity consumers served by the plant would be affected. Hello, skyrocketing utility bills and power scarcity. Let them use windmills (a la, 'let them eat cake') seems to be their mantra.

So if you can't build replacement plants, we can't build hydro or nuclear, renewables aren't reliable enough and we desperately need the base load generation these plants give us plus the administration is trying to shut them down, what the hell are we supposed to do? Build more windmills? Oh, wait, can't do that, that kills birds and affects the environment. Democrats won't stand for it.

Most of those coal plants are just running out their current operating permit then are planned to be shut down without replacement, which will create a big hole in our generating capacity.

This is just one aspect of the stupidity the American people were voting against last night.

 

[ahpadt]

I think he meant the amount of coal energy in the mix.

Quite. On a more broad level I am interested in fossil fuel energy generation, which in the US is clearly far too high.

 

[Spectre]

Quite. On a more broad level I am interested in fossil fuel energy generation, which in the US is clearly far too high.

To be blunt, even some of the Texas oil barons would like to see us burning less fossil fuels - they have far better and more lucrative uses than basically being set on fire.

But, as I've said, if we're basically not allowed to replace them (or even just build new plants to add generation) with anything that would work, what the hell can we do?

 

[_HighVoltage_]

The apocalyptic predictions are quite ridiculous. Several of my coworkers are walking around like they just got diagnosed with terminal cancer. Last night Canada's immigration website crashed.

Folks, relax. This isn't the end of the world. Trump is not going to bring back the bubonic plague or start a nuclear war. Roe v Wade isn't going away and Trump is pro-LGBT. He isn't going to wipe out social programs. Obamacare is despised by everyone, Republican or Democrat, so getting rid of it is good. He wants a border wall and Clinton wanted a border fence - calm down! He won't be rounding up illegals and deporting them.

Honestly, why is everyone so freaked out? At least we know that he's not going to get blackmailed by Russia and he owes no favors to the Saudis. Nor is the Donald financially motivated - he's already a billionaire and the amount of dirt and libel he's endured leads me to believe he actually wants to make a positive difference. I get why Europeans might be uneasy - Trump wants you to pull your own weight for once, which is evidenced by the fact that most world leaders that congratulated him stressed our close alliance - but Americans shouldn't be so concerned.

Just had another thought about the concerns that Trump will start WW3: he is against policing the world and toppling regimes; he wants more countries to solve their own problems instead of us doing it for them; he and Putin both just said that they want to work to restore relations; he doesn't want to be so involved in the ME; he is okay with Russia being the ones fighting ISIS; etc. Doesn't sound anything like WW3 to me.

It's been a very sobering morning for me. I think I agree with you on these with one caveat - that it will largely depend on Congress to reel him in (see one of Spectre's earlier posts that they might not, and that is a little scary). I still think Trump has a terrible and very fickle temperament, and if Congress doesn't do its job of keeping an eye on him all those things you listed are not that unlikely. But if the system of checks-and-balances between the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches does its job, then Trump will not bring the apocalypse.

Here is the shortlist of my worries:
- The 1st amendment...he has said some pretty wild things about who he would like to censor, or related to immigration - ban specific ethnic groups/religions on a temporary basis. As someone with Jewish ancestry you should sympathize with that, and remember that during WW2 the U.S. had serious debates and concerns about accepting Jewish refugees.
- His ideas about isolationism - that we should leave NATO, renegotiate NAFTA and other trade deals. Other countries "pulling their own weight" is not that simple. First, if that means something like a flat-membership-fee most other countries can't afford what the U.S. can. And if you say, "Sucks for you all," consider the consequences. U.S. becomes independent and isolated from military/trade agreements. That didn't work out really well for the Soviet Union regardless of how big it was. More importantly, it will have a negative impact on U.S. businesses. It's not as simple as "Mexico and China killing us with trade" because we buy a lot of their products. We export too, not as much but it's not insignificant. A bad trade deal, or severing business ties with a country may not hurt, say a large company like GM, but it may impact the profit margin of a medium-size business who was relying on exporting its product to Mexico. To sum up, threatening to leave a trade/military agreement is a dangerous proposition. Renegotiating terms is not bad per se, but even though we have the biggest dick in the world, we can't use it to fuck other countries and just expect them to take it (excuse my crude language).

- My last fear is the environment. I don't know what he can possibly do in 4 years (hopefully just 4), but I find his belief that climate change is a "hoax" dangerously irresponsible.

I refuse to blame any person for the way they voted/didn't vote, to do so would go against the American experience. I am upset that half of the nation, that I have grown to love, decided to overlook Trump's hatred, sexism, and xenophobia. I can only hope, and in fact - I choose to believe, that a majority of them did not approve or agree with the hateful things he has said.

 

[NecroJoe]

I choose to believe, that a majority of them did not approve or agree with the hateful things he has said.

...which is completely valid, as Hillary won the popular vote.

 

[DanRoM]

Lack of such a system, by the way, would seem to be why there are growing noises (or so the media reports) of discontent from the smaller countries in the EU, as they feel they aren't getting a voice and are being overridden by Germany, France, etc.

In the EU, every country has veto power, as recently demonstrated by Belgium in the CETA matter.

 

[Spectre]

In the EU, every country has veto power, as recently demonstrated by Belgium in the CETA matter.

Correct, but the operative word is "feel". It is being reported that this is what people there are feeling, whether or not there is any basis in fact for it - they *feel* they aren't getting a voice and that they're being ignored and overruled by the bigger countries in the EU. See the recent refugee crisis, for example. And the veto power isn't absolute or anywhere close to absolute or universal - witness the EU telling member nations that 'you WILL' accept X number of refugees even if you can't support them.'

 

[DanRoM]

This thread is not about Europe, so I won't go into detail about how wrong you are.

 

[narf]

The US system is designed so that minority rights are (in theory) protected while still bowing to the will of the majority. The reason the Electoral College exists is so that a Presidential candidate can't just win by going to a couple of big heavily populated states and getting their votes while ignoring all the smaller states. In fact, the Electoral College was a condition required by the smaller states before they would sign on with the then-new Constitution. The smaller states did not want to be completely crushed by the more populous ones. This is the same reason we have a Senate as well as a House of Representatives, actually. The Senate is (in theory) the smaller states' defense against 'the tyranny of the majority' as every state has equal say there. Despite what some Brits think, the Senate was not created because we thought a House of Lords was needed. The whole system is designed as a set of checks and balances to allow (again) majority rule while maintaining minority rights.

To use modern terms, under a popular vote only system, only issues important to California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and a few more would ever be addressed by any President or candidate because a candidate only has to win those states to win the popular vote. Under the electoral college system, candidates can't just write off, say, Maine or Rhode Island or Kansas or Vermont and refuse to deal with them because they don't have enough population. As this election just showed, every electoral vote counts and even small states' interests must be considered as a result. Failure to do so... well, last night Hillary found out what happened when she told the union workers to go fuck off up in the Rust Belt, didn't she? Under a popular vote only system, essentially California, Texas and New York would be running the country and setting internal policy. Who here thinks that this combination would be a good idea? I live in Texas, I like Texas policies for the most part, but even I think this would be a horrible idea.

Lack of such a system, by the way, would seem to be why there are growing noises (or so the media reports) of discontent from the smaller countries in the EU, as they feel they aren't getting a voice and are being overridden by Germany, France, etc.

There's so much in here, where to start...

The rule of a few large states is similarly possible under the winner takes all per state ec, it just happens that the large states don't swing the same way.
The skew of electors per voter towards the smaller states makes that a bit less likely, sure... And much less fair, considering a vote in small states is worth three votes in large states.

The reason the ec exists is slavery.

It wasn't intended to be winner takes all per state, states perverted it into that to increase their influence - everyone had to follow to level that playing field again.

As for only going to a few populous states with a direct election - that's the status quo already, with the focus on a few states considered to be up for grabs, and ignoring states considered safe.
In fact, with a direct election you have to focus on every state because every vote counts equally. You can't ignore safe states. People in safe states can't stay home even if they support the safe candidate for that state. You can't ignore hopeless states either, and people in a state supporting a candidate that could never win that state still have a relevant vote.



As it sits now, the vast majority of votes is irrelevant. That's not democracy.

 

[TC]

Was it already mentioned that the voting system itself is kinda BS to begin with? Clinton won the popular vote. More people voted Clinton than Trump. But why should that mean that she won. That'd be too easy.

One thing to consider. If we would have used the popular vote to decide, then people would have voted differently.

What I mean is, a lot of Americans are in states that have no chance of swinging to the other party. The voters in those states know that and often talk about how "their vote doesn't matter", like Republicans in California for example. You also get a lot of people, like Rick , who felt their state was safe and used their vote to support a 3rd party.

If we used the popular vote, many of these people would have made different decisions on voting day. So ultimately I think the popular vote stats are inherently flawed and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

[Firecat]

As a minority from one of the groups that Trump targeted.....I woke up today wondering if I had a place in his America.

I'm still not sure. My only hope is that all the vitriol was part of an act to win. So if he doesn't follow through with a lot of his promises, he has an opportunity to be a good President. Guess we will have to wait and see. Or as he would say, we will be kept in suspense.

Congress is another story......still full of corporatist. Special interest. Sycophants and zealots.

- - - Updated - - -

One thing to consider. If we would have used the popular vote to decide, then people would have voted differently.

What I mean is, a lot of Americans are in states that have no chance of swinging to the other party. The voters in those states know that and often talk about how "their vote doesn't matter", like Republicans in California for example. You also get a lot of people, like Rick , who felt their state was safe and used their vote to support a 3rd party.

If we used the popular vote, many of these people would have made different decisions on voting day. So ultimately I think the popular vote stats are inherently flawed and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

We should have instant run-off voting.

 

[jack_christie]

 

[argatoga]

Ten trillion images

Would you make a separate thread for image dumps? They make threads unreadable.

- - - Updated - - -

As a minority from one of the groups that Trump targeted.....I woke up today wondering if I had a place in his America.

I'm still not sure. My only hope is that all the vitriol was part of an act to win. So if he doesn't follow through with a lot of his promises, he has an opportunity to be a good President. Guess we will have to wait and see. Or as he would say, we will be kept in suspense.

This is encouraging, I'd rather have an official statement however.

Donald Trump statement on banning Muslims from US has disappeared from his website. The president-elect no longer has the 7 December 2015 statement.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-president-election-muslim-ban-immigrants-website-statement-removed-a7408466.html

 

[Crazyjeeper]

So I've stayed out of this until know but now that it is over, I have a few thoughts.

1. The United States is not and has never been a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. As originally designed, the state legislatures chose senators further insulating the people from the levers of power.

2. Everyone keeps saying Trump is a racist. Can someone find me a quote where he says "I hate (group of people)"? All I recall is a photo of him eating a taco salad on May 5 and saying "I love Hispanics"

 

[argatoga]

So I've stayed out of this until know but now that it is over, I have a few thoughts.

1. The United States is not and has never been a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. As originally designed, the state legislatures chose senators further insulating the people from the levers of power.

Democracy is an encompassing term that includes Republics, Parliamentary systems, and direct Democracies. Direct or Classical Democracy is where everyone votes without a representative. A Republic (which I agree we are) means the state is based on the Roman Republican system. In the US there is nearly a 1:1 relationship for example.

Anyhow, the realignment of the two parties is now well underway. After the defeat of the establishment Democrat candidate and losses in the House and Senate they are in disarray,

and this is the Republican President:

 

[Firecat]

At the end of the day, one million times better than a Ted Cruz presidency.

 

[Cryptopygia]

At the end of the day, one million times better than a Ted Cruz presidency.

Probably the only thing everyone can agree on.

 

[Spectre]

At the end of the day, one million times better than a Ted Cruz presidency.

Yeah, initially I supported Cruz... but then he went off the rails pretty damn fast and into "ugh, why did I support this guy again?" territory.

I'm reasonably sure he's not going to get re-elected here in Texas. He pissed off way too many people.

 

[LeVeL]

My facebook feed is overflowing with retardation. It was amusing this morning but now it's just annoying. People are acting as if Hitler rose from the dead and brought the bubonic plague with him.

 

[93Flareside]

If orange man can run the country, good for him. If he can't but, surrounds himself with those that can help aide him, awesome. I really could not care less who's at the top so long as they can either operate things decently or find people that can.