Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 29 November 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Optics on Hillary

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. PBfreespace (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Predictions

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? 82.44.143.26 (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? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No.--Miekal 16:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps in 48 hours time? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wet cement?

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'

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). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are the following two things removed?

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"?

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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...

"and one of his biggest outlays is $208,000…for hats." ^{— Unsigned, by: 2.217.114.148 / talk / contribs} 23:45, 29 July 2016‎

Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The bottom even kookier than the top?

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

If Donald Trump gets elected how soon will there be a human colony on Mars (or anywhere else vaguely habitable)? 86.146.99.9 (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'? 82.44.143.26 (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). 109.153.101.195 (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

repeated information should definitely be trimmed

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"

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)

Question

Is this the first election where the intent is to #lose# as many votes as possible? 109.150.11.166 (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

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

Running mate King Log. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)