Talk:2016 U.S. presidential election

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

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.

PBfreespace (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)