Talk:2016 U.S. presidential election

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Optics on Hillary[edit]

I'm new to editing here, so I want to ask, even though RW has lots of views, can things get too biased? I feel that the information on both the advantages and disadvantages read more like a supporter of Trump or Bernie jotted down their thoughts. Could it be possible that it can be edited to make it an equal balance of fair criticism and good motives? Director Black (User talk:Director Black|talk]]) 19:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you're supposed to put new comments at the bottom of the page. But let's talk about your question. You basically want affirmative action for good things about Hillary? What about Romney or Trump? Are we supposed to balance out the bad stuff with the good stuff just because? You're starting to sound like CNN. PB (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


Most of the following will apply: participants will be rich or #very# rich (or know such people); several will be looking towards 2020; assorted feet will be put in mouths (possibly those of the owners of said feet); several financial shenanigans; an assortment of other shenanigans and dubious or inappropriate contacts, viewpoints and things done in the past. Various full birth certificates will be demanded or displayed.

At what point during the next 19 months will the RW 2020 Presidential Election page be set up? (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

When it's relevant to have it?--Miekal 16:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
'Wide eyed surprise' - Is it not already relevant - the first election in which voters of the post-2000 disputed election will vote? (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
No.--Miekal 16:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps in 48 hours time? (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wet cement?[edit]

I added a few paragraphs on the litmus of the right. I'm thinking, now, that this is essay material and I should move it. Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

'Natural born Americans'[edit]

As this phrase has just been invoked - what exactly is meant by the term - given that claimants 'in living memory' have been born in Mexico and 'not-yet-a-state' Arizona?

Natural born in the sense of 'not by assisted conception and related concepts/the trick-question method of the Scottish play), or in the old sense of being non-legitimate (in which case #all# US Presidents would be illegitimately in office)?

Knowingly-creatively-misinterpreting the text can be fun (and sometimes profitable). (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are the following two things removed?[edit]

First in the "disadvantages" section of the Green Party candidate the following:

"People who like woo will be upset by her personal anti-woo statements. People who dislike woo will remember the past woo-peddling of the green party and the general woo-friendliness of green parties on the world stage. "

And second in the issues section the following:

"In vein with the bloody stupid "who would you rather have a beer with?" question that the media seems to think (dis)qualifies people for president, the fact that Hillary Clinton lacks charisma and does not produce the type of enthusiasm seen at Bernie Sanders rallies has been blown up into an issue. Whether this is anything but the Careless Nuisance Network and Faux Noise trying to fill their twenty four hour newscycles will only become apparent in November."

I am open to it being changed in wording, but what is so bad about those points being raised in any form? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 15:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

a) conjecture
b) Already addressed in the wikitable, the 2000 election article, the Hillary article, the Trump article, and billions of other websites.
As I'm (mostly) responsible for the bricks of text on the election, my concern is keeping it clean and concise (a la the 2012 election article). Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Free College a "regressive tax"?[edit]

Now how is that?

College is either paid for by tuition (which is the same regardless of income and thus hits the rich more than the poor). Or by taxes, which are paid for by everybody roughly progressive with regards to their income (their are bits and quirks highly dependent on policy details and the state in question but let's leave it out for now). How is College paid for through the general tax, or better yet through a higher tax on - say - capital gains (which the poor dont tend to have) a regressive tax? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I totally agree with the argument, but I get where it's coming from. The U.S. has a lot of income-based financial aid, so, as is, the effective college tuition people pay is somewhat progressive. And the other aspect is that primary schools in the U.S. could use a lot of improvement. For anyone not familiar with the U.S. system: public schools get most of their funding from property taxes. This means the more impoverished the area, the worse the public schools tend to be. The rich often send their children to private schools, except in ultra-rich areas like Beverly Hills where the public schools are really good (again, because of the sky-high property values). Proposals to distribute tax revenue more evenly among schools tend to be met with cries of "socialism" and "fuck you; I got mine". (Abolishing the federal Department of Education, which has some effect at spreading out federal tax dollars to schools, has been a right-wing bugaboo since the day it was created.) --Ymir (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I think schools should get funding based on the amount of minority and poor parent graduates they produce. That's a free market based solution to discrimination... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I must point out that school tuition actually hits the poor more than the rich, not the other way around, Laurogeita Hamabost, assuming no scholarships or financial aid. With need-based financial aid available, then it becomes a little more progressive. If what you are saying is that schools should be funded by a regressive tax, I must say I strongly disagree. Education is vital in a modern economy, and introducing such a system of funding would exacerbate income inequality. And what do you mean by "schools should get funding based on the amount of minority and poor parent graduates they produce"? Should they receive more or less funding from the government? Nerd (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Jill Stein and motherly values[edit]

I'm not quite sure why that link to snapshot of a tweet from Jill Stein counts as a disadvantage. She was criticizing Hillary Clinton. Nerd (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Attention Nerd and Typhoon[edit]

Take it to the Democratic Nomination page, chums. We wouldn't want to see any edit wars spilling over in here. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary and centrism[edit]

The section on Hillary's centrist views vis–à–vis Trump and Sanders has been reverted many times. While I authored that bit myself, I am open to it being removed (not particularly vital), though I am curious as to why some found it objectionable. Plutoniumboss (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Vice President picks[edit]

No mention of both Kaine and Pence? Typhoon (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

There. I think this is better. Typhoon (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Moved from the talk page of Laurogeita Hamabost[edit]

Can I get a source on the picks for VP that Sanders supporters wanted? Last time I checked they were spamming Warren's facebook page with insults after she endorsed Hillary, which is why I added that they would disagree with any pick that wasn't Bernie himself. Typhoon (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"The base" consists of more than Sanders supporters. While a middle aged white male from a swing state might look politically prudent, I think many Democrats and Democrat leaning people would have welcomed a gutsier choice like Sanders (further to the left than any candidate since L.B. Johnson), Villaraigosa (a Latino) or Warren (the leader of the progressive wing before most people had even heard the name Sanders and also a woman). Just because some trolls on the Internet say something does not mean that this is the opinion of people in the real world. Maybe Kaine is qualified, maybe he isn't, but choosing a middle aged white man from the South will probably not energize any base. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
So I've looked at twitter and so far Sanders has voiced absolutely no opinion about Hillary's pick. I think his opinion has more weight than the opinion of a fractured Sanders fanbase that can't decide whether Warren is a "shill" or not. And since you can't give me a definitive source on those VP's it now looks that those are only your personal picks. Typhoon (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Could we please have that debate at the talk page designed for it? My talk page is not the place for this. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If you say so. Typhoon (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, adding lists of people you think would be better suited as VP is cumbersome, since we then would have to add a Advantages/Disadvantages sections for them too. It would be better to just say that Sanders supporters would have preffered someone even more progressive/less white, etc. without dropping names that even they can't agree on. Typhoon (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not about Sanders supporters. It's strategically unwise in an election where the opposition runs an all male all white hard right ticket to throw out the potential advantage of a Latino, a black person, a genuine leftist or two women on the ticket. I think the "he's making history" line of the 2008 Obama campaign cost McCain two or three points right out of the gate. I don't understand why Hillary thinks running up the score in Virginia is more important than that. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. That last line is completely speculative and really requires sourcing. If there isn't sourcing that makes it fact, it should be removed. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I think you forget that the minority vote is pretty much a Democratic lock at this time, unless Trump/Pence do something remarkable to sway them. Clinton has a real chance to pick a good amount of NeverTrumper conservatives for the general vote with Kaine, which would be a nice advantage to her in swing states like Georgia. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Since when is Georgia a swing state? Also trying to shore up votes down the center will make working families for whom its two different flavors of shit more likely to stay home. Obama for instance did not win a much bigger share of African Americans in 2008 than Clinton had in 1992 or 1996. But he had a much higher turnout among them. Having a higher turnout among young African Americans (a group Clinton has trouble connecting to) could make or break Clinton's victory in some urban areas or the South. It's way more important than the already courted enough fifty year old white dude vote. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:20, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Uh, have you not been keeping up? Georgia has been a swing state since May.
Also, you're assuming that the Clinton has to sway people her way. She doesn't. She just has to make herself look less shitty than Trump. People will vote for the lesser of evils. When you have things like the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce endorsing Hillary with their first presidential endorsement ever...well, let's have the article tell it.
"We are at the Republican convention to announce that we proudly endorse Hillary Clinton for president of the United States," Palomarez said. "We believe she's the best person for the job. She's got experience. She's got the temperament and track record." He said the chamber broke its 38-year tradition of neutrality in the elections because "these are extraordinary times." He said the decision to break with history and back one of the candidates "is an unprecedented step for our organization and not one we took lightly." The chamber's board leans Republican, and debate over endorsing Clinton was "lively, robust." The board also is 50 percent men and 50 percent women. "We believe they call for extraordinary measures," Palomarez said. "We believed Hillary Clinton was the right person for this job."
No, I do not think she will have any problem picking up the Hispanic and African-American vote in wide, wide percentages. --Castaigne2 (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
In time of voter suppression and Tuesday elections you will have to have enthusiasm and not just "meh, lesser of two evils I guess" if you want to get votes. The total number of votes is not a static thing. Obama created enthusiasm among African Americans. It created the Obama landslide of 2008. People who rarely or never vote voted in droves. It's kind of like that one evolution experiment where the bacteria learned to process citrate. Instead of moving around the same 50% of the population who bother to vote, the strategy should be to get ten percent or so out of the fifty percent who usually don't vote. It's the "eating the plate" of politics. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hillary has so far generated more enthusiasm than Bernie has, as can be seen by her winning the primary by millions more voters. Typhoon (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
No, enthusiasm is not necessary this time. Revulsion is. Fear is also a good reason. Revulsion and fear will drive voters towards Clinton, mainly because those voters don't want to possibly end up in internment camps or ghettos. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It's curious that you continue to avoid adding sources for your claim that Sanders wanted those people instead of Kaine, or any authoritatie source from the Bernie camp advocating for those candidates too. Meanwhile, you added [citation needed] tags over easily provable statements and then sysop locked the page for an entire day to prevent me from adding those sources, justifying it with a charge of "edit warring" even though it was ME who looked up you to get a consensus on this on both your talkpage and this talkpage. Typhoon (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It's also hilarious that after expanding this article with edits that no one is contesting I was locked out after going through all these channels to reach a consensus for any disagreements, only to see the only person disagreeing with me using his sysop to push his edits while ignoring my repeated asking for sources. Typhoon (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What's up with the funspace thing?[edit]

Why was any attempt at humor on this article extirpated and a funspace parallel article created? There does not seem to have been consensus or even discussion prior to that move. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It's Plutoniumboss we're talking about, after all. The man YOLO edits abrasively for a living. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
As usual, you buried the lede. I moved as much of my own material to funscape as Lauro's. Critique the edit, not the editor. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Evening at the improv[edit]

I made a funspace article to move some of Laurogeita's....interesting...additions? I hoped this article would have pride of place among the other U.S. Election articles. I put a lot of months into it, a lot of my heart into it. I'd hate to see it all go down the shitter because Reverend Black shares your taste in dad jokes. Plutoniumboss (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Baby boomers[edit]

I think this section can go. It reads like the rant of a salty Sanders supporter. The election is four months away, and I'm embarrassed for the state of the article at present... Plutoniumboss (talk)

Salty Sanders supporters? What's wrong with pointing out the fact that the vast majority of candidates in this election are ancient? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
A lot of your edits are written with an Anti-Hillary, or at the very least pro-Sanders slant. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
They are what? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Look, Steve Austin, just take it out. It's unsourced and immature and adds nothing. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Trump has been playing Team Fortress 2 and decided to apply it to his campaign...[edit]

"and one of his biggest outlays is $208,000…for hats." — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 23:45, 29 July 2016‎

Shrug.gif WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The bottom even kookier than the top?[edit]

So apparently $hill Stein has chosen her running mate. If you listen to The Young Turks (here), he seems even crazier than his boss. At any rate, we should edit the page. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Life on Mars[edit]

If Donald Trump gets elected how soon will there be a human colony on Mars (or anywhere else vaguely habitable)? (talk) 22:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

When you stop touching yourself at night. Plutoniumboss (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
You mean earlier or later than with Hillary?--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 12:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC) 12:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
A case of 'stop the world I want to get off'? (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Tannu Tuva is nearer #and# off the railway networks (so no surprise visits from brightly clothed ex-politicians). (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

repeated information should definitely be trimmed[edit]

These navboxes on Pence and Kaine has very little to do with their worthiness as a VP candidate. They should be moved to their respective articles on the wiki. Plutoniumboss (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No they shouldn't. It's a two person ticket, so we should list the (dis)advantages of both entries on the ticket. You are literally the only person who has a problem with this and instead of starting the debate on this talk page (like you should have) you come to my talk page first as if I was the problem. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You'll survive. Plutoniumboss (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You want to change the article, you have to bring arguments. I can just sit you out if need be and you refuse to make your case as happened previously. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too sure. I usually get my way in the end. Plutoniumboss (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"Disincentivize radicals"[edit]

One of the craziest elections in US history and all we have to show for it in the end is a plain ol' liberal president. It's kind of diabolical, when you think about it: it shows that a system designed to disincentivize radicals works as intended.

I didn't delete it just because it used to be "left-wing" instead of "liberal". I deleted it because it's the appeal to moderation fallacy in action, as well as an example of the USA's miscalibrated political spectrum. It implies that Bernie Sanders is radical when he'd be a regular social democrat elsewhere. It implies the two-party system works even though it's precisely because of that system that the Republican Party has been able to shift the Overton Window well to the right by international standards. It implies that "lesser evil vs far-right party" is an ideal state of affairs. And that's why I'd rather remove the entire line. Colossal Squid (talk) 04:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

A two party system does not disincentivize radicals. It merely makes two groups that are very alike in almost all respects play up their minor disagreements as huge philosophical chasms between them. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


Is this the first election where the intent is to #lose# as many votes as possible? (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It is an interesting thought — the number of people who don't vote is already alarmingly large in the US. I wonder if that number will grow after this election cycle? And I wonder what'll happen with the undecideds — more, fewer? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Pumpkins of the US unite[edit]

... and support the carved pumpkins - see on your favourite browser

Running mate King Log. (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Just over a week to go[edit]

... until the Zombie 2016-Election-Deconstruct-the-Presidential-Election discussions start. (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)



Trump Uni trial starts in 20 days. Let's see Trump rule from jail. Smee Hee (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep dreaming libtard. Most legal experts don't agree. We can add that to the many predictions about Trump you people got wrong. But there is a place in the jailhouse for violent murderous scum rioting in the streets who, in your words, aren't willing to accept the outcome of a democratic election. Bitch. Burkean (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know the rules. Maybe he can do that. In any case a Trump presidency is a godsend for comedians. Maybe the election was rigged by comedians. (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
"Until the polls say otherwise, you can bank on Hillary winning the 242 electoral votes that have all been Blue since 1988, spanning six elections" - fail. She only managed 228— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
No point. They're in complete denial. Their entire worldview is rampant with setbacks, from the so called refugee problem, to the collapse of the EU, and now Trump pounding Clinton. They literally think he's going to jail? Comedians will have a field day? Like anyone cares. This election proves nobody gives a shit what the comedians say because they've been making fun of Trump nonstop and he still kicked her ass. Of course, they've been saying Trump will fail at this and that point, and he hasn't. So I look forward to them continuing their track record of being totally wrong and getting egg thrown in their face again and again. Burkean (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Continue cheering and gloating, but it sickens me that people from both sides (especially minorities) are now suffering from violence and destruction to their property. I'm just really hoping this trend is short-term and stops. (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The violence being perpetrated is by anti-Trump rioters. They are the ones threatening people's lives and destroying property in the vast majority of cases. Burkean (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The violence is also being perpetuated by people who were pro-Trump who are "encouraged" to do as they please because "their guy" won. This is post election hooliganism, and it makes no sense that anyone (and I mean ANYONE, Trump or Clinton voter alike) should have to be afraid of who gets into office because of what some morons on the street may do. So, will you please acknowledge that, even as Hillary voters have behaved hypocritically, it is also the case that Trump voters have acted in ways that are just as harmful to democracy and equally wrong? Also, take it from this conservative, avoid gloating and be graceful. Do as the liberals and Hillary supporters may have failed to do for the other side when they had the power. Please Don't continue the game of failing to realize the humanity and American identity of the other side, or we risk reducing our politics to a game of numbers (as opposed to a game logical argument, compromise, and agreement), and from there becoming like the Middle East and losing our Democracy to sectarianism. (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Krashlia
You, like other people, try to claim either that most of the violence comes from Trump people, or that it's even steven. The truth is almost all of the violence has come from Trump supporters, the evidence shows it, and liberals have had to try really hard to find examples of things that come close to anything like what the anti trump people have done, usually including things like graffiti and vandalism when anti trump people were actually assaulting people. And you have no doubt seen the violence which has come after the election which has been almost exclusively anti trump. The evidence speaks for itself.
Very telling that you don't site anything, of course what you could site would be these isolated incidents which convince liberals that it's all a wash. Or we get the sad pathetic tactic of claiming that even if the violence was anti trump, that it was his fault for saying things they don't like. And you're going to lecture me on how I should think and what I should do? When their side is doing exactly what liberals and cucks said Trump people would do if shit in the face won? I'd say it's time for those people to look in the mirror instead of blaming everything on the right. Whether or not they like what they see is their problem.
Trump needs to think carefully, but he should not be considering people's feelings when our opponents (or, at least my opponents) are talking about people as though they are nazis and subhuman, and then claimed they are the ones being denigrated! It's like those folks who say that despite the rampant amount of crime committed by blacks against whites, you still have to talk about Dylann Roof as though it's equal. When white on black crime can't even be accurately measured by statistics because it's so small. If you actually are a conservative (I'm guessing #nevertrump), you should stop concern trolling and start asking yourself "what can I do to help secure the border?" "what can I do to keep my communities safe?" "A friend of mine has been, I believe, unjustly accused of rape. It is my duty to stand up for him, consequences be damned". Ask not, etc. Then, I might take your recommendation seriously. Otherwise, I'll just paraphrase one of America's great liberals and say get out of the way if you can't lend your hand for the times they are a changin! Burkean (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
What I love about conservatives: the way they instantly feel like they were right by people agreeing with their shitty views. No, sorry, Burkean, you're still a moron. A intellectually vacant president only has negative consequences, and doesn't make you right about jack shit. I do appreciate how your personal petty shittiness contributed to the the misery of others. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, no. I agreed with Trump when I thought for sure he would lose and said so on this wiki. The fact that all you have left is "you're a moron and the president elect is dumb" shows you are completely out of ammunition and totally unwilling to accept the results of the election, much like a spoiled child. And the whole of liberalism these last few generations has been "we got the numbers so we must be right!" Burkean (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Very little will change, I don't know what all the fuss is about. Trump is already doing a reversal/flip-flop on policy. His "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" was reversed (his website recently removed the "total ban" statement.) Trump has done a 180 degrees turn on that policy and now says Muslims can come to the US, but there will be "extreme vetting" (despite the fact there already is vetting.) Trump called Obamacare a "disaster", now he says he finds some of it appealing and is open to keeping parts of the 2010 health bill. Another flip-flop. As for the wall, that will probably never happen either. Trump is basically another Obama, but he fooled a lot of people into thinking he was an anti-establishment candidate.Creationistsareloons (talk) 11:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh my God so he will not be able to do everything he wants exactly the way he wants because politics so it will be exactly the same? Whatever. Thank you for at least acknowledging the ridiculous fear mongering of liberals, even though you totally ignore how many of Trump's policies are quite a departure, even if they do in fact become somewhat watered down. People said he couldn't be the nominee. That happened. People said he could never be elected President. That happened. People said folks rioting and being violent after Trump was elected was a paranoid right wing fantasy. Then that happened. Now, they're saying that he won't change anything. Sensing a pattern yet? Burkean (talk) 20:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
'IPs Wiki Law No 1' - there is an inverse relationship between the swearwords used/'look at me-ism' of a title and the intelligence of the proposition (due allowance being made for humorous postmodernist snark and similar).
Plenty of fuck's on rationalwiki that are just for fuck's sake and have very little to do with anything clever or snarky. But of course, when the fuck did I say I was looking for extra credit on account of how clever I was? Oh, that's right, I didn't. fuck fuck shit ass cunt bitch motherfucker shit. Burkean (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

And remember - politicians come and go, but Sir Humphrey Appleby is #Permanent# Secretary and the civil service and others can procrastinate in the long term. (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I much prefer Major Gowen. "They aren't niggers, Fawlty. These are wogs!" Appleby is basically a business as usual politician. The spawn of wanker and poof. Burkean (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Pranker or woof? (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Neither, both and a great deal more of something else. The twat fuckery will not cease! Burkean (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

2020 Presidential Election[edit]

When will the page be started? (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

As soon as liberals admit that the 2016 election is over. Burkean (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Question - will they occur - or is it too early to tell? (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The page should be started in 2018-2019. There's no reason to start it now. Diacelium (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
The question was #will# not when. (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Given events and possible future events there is reason to doubt (and a nod at 'that line' from Arturo Ui). (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
No, no it wasn't. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems some people wish (for various reasons) to assume the possibility of worst-case scenarios. (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"three fifths of a vote" - embarrassing and unscholarly[edit]

This whole subsection of the article represents everything that RationalWiki is NOT supposed to be. As far as I can tell, what sets this wiki apart from your average peddler of woo and silliness is that every statement that is made can be fact-checked and subjected to scrutiny, but still turn up a substantial degree of evidence. However, the notion that the ouctome of the 2016 election was due to large-scale disenfranchisement of minority voters is, at the very least, highly questionable and certainly should not be promoted as fact. Also, I looked at a few of the sources used to advance this argument. None, from what I can tell, contain any hard statistics from peer-reviewed journals (or even, from any academic source whatsoever) that would lead to the conclusion that minorities, poor voters, and democratic voters were being turned away from the polls en masse. In fact, the little research that has been done about this issue (mostly concerning voter ID laws) have usually found that it's all much ado about nothing. In fact, the one recent study which did claim that voter ID laws were discriminatory and led to a huge reduction of Democratic votes, was subsequently found to be methodologically flawed and has been rejected by the wider scholarly community. Link:

I would suggest taking a look at Wikpedia's article related to voter ID laws. Summing up the general scholarly consensus, it would seem that while there may be a slight reduction in minority turnout due to restrictive measures imposed by Republican state legislatures, this reduction is often offset by mobilization efforts on the part of the Democratic party officials in those states. Obviously, voter ID laws are a serious problem and don't really serve a good purpose (unless you believe in spurious rightwinger claims about voter fraud) but unquestioningly accusing them of determining the outcome of an election - when the evidence does not seem to corroborate - is hardly what Rationalwiki stands for. But that's just my two cents. (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hillary lost because of Stein voters?[edit]

"Oh, and it's worth mentioning that in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, if everyone who voted for Jill Stein voted for Clinton, she'd have won those states and thus the presidency. We hope you learned life's most important lesson: Never give your money to a hippie."

When I saw this, I knew it had to be changed. This statement is incredibly biased, shortsighted, and wrong in virtually every way. Why, you ask?

  • If every Democrat in Florida voted for Gore, he would've won FL in a landslide.[1] The same paradigm applies with these states, where massive numbers of longtime Democrats voted for Trump.[2] In fact, the source I just linked states the number of "Obama-Trump voters range from about 6.7 million to 9.2 million". SEVEN MILLION. That's an incredible national swing. The article also states "Given the extremely close margins in some states, particularly the Rust Belt trio of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, these voters played a crucial role in handing over the White House to the GOP." (emphasis added). So by the logic of that statement at the top, Hillary lost more because of Democrats who defected to TRUMP rather than those very few who went to Stein. Even The New York Times agrees, stating "Mr. Trump won 20 percent of self-identified liberal white working-class voters, according to the exit polls, and 38 percent of those who wanted policies that were more liberal than Mr. Obama's."[3]
  • Maybe the reason why Hillary Clinton lost was... um.... oh, Hillary Clinton! Perhaps it was because she had a historic unfavorability rating, with the majority of the country disliking her.[4] Maybe that's what caused millions of Democrats to defect to a pussy-grabbing racist buffoon with a ferret on his head and 5 bankruptcies, or to stay home and not vote, or to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Maybe it wasn't the voters' fault they decided not to vote for a candidate who held they viewed as corrupt and establishment. Perhaps a candidate who had much more crossover vote from the other side and independents would've had a much better chance to win the election. Nate Silver himself states "40 percent of Sanders’s primary and caucus voters identify as independent, as Republican or with some party other than Democrats".[5]
  • Why should Green Party members feel compelled to vote for the Democratic candidate? More broadly, why should far-left liberals (a decent chunk of the left) feel obligated to vote for a candidate who is centrist on a variety of issues and does not represent their beliefs and ideals? It's unnatural in much the same way asking hardcore libertarians to vote for the Republican would be: "Why? I don't agree with them on the issues!". The argument for swinging the election to the better choice of the two can be made, but it asks voters give up their opinions to vote for someone they greatly dislike just to stop someone even worse. It's hardly a compelling argument, indeed far less convincing than nominating a reliable liberal candidate with popular views on most issues.

PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick point, if there were a runoff, whom do you think Stein voters would have voted for in the runoff? Evil Zionist (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)