[Verasev]

Shit, I can't even start drinking once Trump wins the damn election. This sucks. So what, realistically, do you think four years of Trump would entail, besides the that portion of his supporters that are basically the scum of the earth feeling all nice and empowered?

[Dr Lancer-X]

Verasev, on 03 November 2016 - 03:11 AM, said:

Shit, I can't even start drinking once Trump wins the damn election. This sucks. So what, realistically, do you think four years of Trump would entail, besides the that portion of his supporters that are basically the scum of the earth feeling all nice and empowered?

That's the best part! I've no idea! And neither does anyone else! Including Trump!

It'll be very exciting. Who knows what will happen to your country next.

On the bright side at least Trump is a lot less inclined to wage war than Clinton is. Honestly, I think the main negative effects of a Trump presidency will be felt after he leaves office, not during.

[CJA]

• people that voted for trump for a particular socially abhorrent reason will feel confirmed
  
• if a person can be this awful and become the President, it's okay to be even more awful by extrapolating down from that 'maximum'
  
• judgment from the rest of the world

you're right, it's pretty much about the effect of a Trump victory on the American people.

As an aside, one of my coworkers claims that a piece of his father's art that hangs in Trump Tower was sold to him, but the seller (and therefore the artist) was never paid.

[Dr Lancer-X]

CJA, on 03 November 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

• people that voted for trump for a particular socially abhorrent reason will feel confirmed
  
• if a person can be this awful and become the President, it's okay to be even more awful by extrapolating down from that 'maximum'
  
• judgment from the rest of the world

the rest of the world won't be laughing so hard once you Make America Great Again

Someone on 4chan said:

Can't wait for 4 years of posting a laughing reaction image with the text '>make america great again' every time something bad happens

me neither

[Dr Lancer-X]

Nate Silver correctly predicted both the Cubs winning the World Series AND Trump winning the Presidency. All the way back in May! Is there anything this man can't do?

[Miloo]

Dr Lancer-X, on 28 October 2016 - 06:48 AM, said:

That's the best part! I've no idea! And neither does anyone else! Including Trump!

It'll be very exciting. Who knows what will happen to your country next.

On the bright side at least Trump is a lot less inclined to wage war than Clinton is. Honestly, I think the main negative effects of a Trump presidency will be felt after he leaves office, not during.

Lol, good find.

This post has been edited by Miloo: 10 March 2022 - 03:30 PM

[Verasev]

So now that we have moved into a post fact based electoral process and candidates can do or say whatever they want what do you think the next election and candidates will be like? Will we see a presidential candidate openly declare their rival to be the literal antichrist?

This post has been edited by Verasev: 03 November 2016 - 12:13 PM

[Dr Lancer-X]

Verasev, on 03 November 2016 - 10:10 PM, said:

So now that we have moved into a post fact based electoral process and candidates can do or say whatever whatever they want what do you think the next election and candidates will be like? Will we see a presidential candidate openly declare their rival to be the literal antichrist?

I was about to say "too late", but.. while a lot of people have called Obama the Antichrist, McCain and Romney certainly didn't. But things are getting close to that.

I don't think this will continue into the future - it's not so much a slippery slope as it is a playground swing. Things have moved way too far in one direction and people don't like it. I very much believe there will be a swing backwards in the other direction.

Of course, this post of mine may become ironic in 4 years. I'm okay with that too. =P

[KKairos]

Both candidates are pretty Satanic, at least generally speaking.

[Dr Lancer-X]

Trump is Lucifer, Hillary is Satan.

[Verasev]

O_o wiki leaks just cited something from r/the_donald. What the hell is going on?

https://mobile.twitt...247777756860417

[Dr Lancer-X]

hillary's campaign should have known better than to pick a fight with 400lb internet autists by slandering their holy frog

[Verasev]

Meanwhile, also in the_Donald:

https://www.reddit.c...eres_no_way_to/

Apparently, there is something satanic going on... I wonder if, with the return of a political name from the 90's (the Clinton's), we'll see a return of the secret satanic sects panic from the same period. Quick, where's Marilyn Manson? I'll bust out my old Vampire, the Masquerade books!

Edit: also, I really hate the way they bandy about the term autist.

This post has been edited by Verasev: 04 November 2016 - 08:58 PM

[Dr Lancer-X]

Verasev, on 05 November 2016 - 06:56 AM, said:

Meanwhile, also in the_Donald:

https://www.reddit.c...eres_no_way_to/

Apparently, there is something satanic going on... I wonder if, with the return of a political name from the 90's (the Clinton's), we'll see a return of the secret satanic sects panic from the same period. Quick, where's Marilyn Manson? I'll bust out my old Vampire, the Masquerade books!

the spiritual cooking stuff is funny, but i want to know more about Chicago Hot Dog Friday and the "Waitresses".

i will admit it's been a long time since we've had a good satanic scare, but i don't think it's going to win the election. the trump campaign itself is sensible enough not to run with it - there's no value here. podesta can do all the spiritual cooking he likes. even though he's clearly an integral part of the clinton campaign it's not his name on the ballot.

the best part is that none of this shit would be taken seriously if we hadn't heard the revelations about the president of s korea. but now that we have heard it, the fact that the president of a modern developed country could be controlled by a cabal of new age cultists is no longer outside the realm of possibility.

this election is truly the best. i feel privileged to have been around to witness it. i'll be telling my grandchildren about this election.

Verasev, on 05 November 2016 - 06:56 AM, said:

Edit: also, I really hate the way they bandy about the term autist.

they're using it as a term of endearment though, which is kind of nice. autistic is the new OCD though - taking a serious mental disorder and using it to describe how you're slightly obsessed with keeping your bookshelf in alphabetical order has turned into calling yourself autistic because you're poor at reading social cues but very good at staying up all night reading tens of thousands of clinton emails. no diagnosis necessary.

[Exophase]

Can't wait for this to finally be over. It's going to be a long night.

Somehow I don't feel good about voting before election day, so I got out and voted today (before work even, I got up early for it which suits me badly ;p)

It felt pretty bad not voting for the candidate who is by far my favorite. But at least I'll still have Terryn's respect. On the other hand, I did vote for the green candidate for senate in Ohio (Joe DeMare) because democrat Ted Strickland is down like 15 points behind the republican incumbent Rob Portman, and I don't know if I'd really prefer want Strickland to win anyway. And to round things out, I voted for republican Beverly Goldstein over Marcia Fudge for rep in my district - she seems pretty moderate and reasonable in everything I've read on her and I really don't like Fudge. But again, it doesn't actually matter, my district has absolutely zero chance of voting her in.

[Verasev]

Voted. My wife cancelled my vote out because she's more concerned about being pro-life than about basic decency I guess. I'm pretty pissed. Oh, well, my state is a solid red state so it was always gonna be a whisper against a whirlwind anyway.

I was happy with the amendments up for vote. I hope the tax increase on cigs for pre k children's education goes through as well as the limits on campaign donors.

This post has been edited by Verasev: 08 November 2016 - 03:55 PM

[Exophase]

Verasev, on 08 November 2016 - 10:52 AM, said:

Voted. My wife cancelled my vote out because she's more concerned about being pro-life than about basic decency I guess. I'm pretty pissed. Oh, well, my state is a solid red state so it was always gonna be a whisper against a whirlwind anyway.

I was happy with the amendments up for vote. I hope the tax increase on cigs for pre k children's education goes through as well as the limits on campaign donors.

In before the "so I married a conservative" thread?

Hope your amendment goes through. I voted on my district's props but it didn't have anything very exciting.

[Exophase]

Anyone see this article?

http://www.huffingto...4b0d9ce6fbc6f7f

HuffPo has really jumped the shark this cycle. It's sad how many people in general have been slagging 538 (and Nate Silver in particular) given how robust and transparent their model is. They get these attacks that are completely bereft of any understanding of statistics and it's sad.

[Dr Lancer-X]

Exophase, on 09 November 2016 - 03:51 AM, said:

Anyone see this article?

http://www.huffingto...4b0d9ce6fbc6f7f

HuffPo has really jumped the shark this cycle. It's sad how many people in general have been slagging 538 (and Nate Silver in particular) given how robust and transparent their model is. They get these attacks that are completely bereft of any understanding of statistics and it's sad.

Yes, I thought it was pretty funny (especially the slapfight the author had with Nate Silver on Twitter later). It reminds me of the attacks Scott Adams was getting early on - not even for supporting Trump, just for suggesting that there might be some method behind Trump's apparent 'madness' - no no no no no, Trump is a psychotic orange-haired clown with no coherent policies and no chance whatsoever of winning and anyone that suggests otherwise is blasphemy!

Can't believe the HuffPo used to be my main source for America-centric news. That said, if Trump wins this election I will have to give them some of the credit because it's precisely attitudes like the one they have that drives people to support Trump in the first place. I believe Trump would have a much harder time winning in a fair environment where the media dispassionately evaluates each candidate based on their policies and track records.

[Verasev]

How are you gonna be able to convince people to buy dispassionate analysis? I mean you can get people to say that's what they want but then they all have their own unique, personal visions of what that "dispassionate" analysis looks like. I think we are too far gone for that sort of thing. I think this election will get people sick of that behavior temporarily but only temporarily.

This post has been edited by Verasev: 08 November 2016 - 11:50 PM

[Dr Lancer-X]

Verasev, on 09 November 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

How are you gonna be able to convince people to buy dispassionate analysis? I mean you can get people to say that's what they want but then they all have their own unique, personal visions of what that "dispassionate" analysis looks like. I think we are too far gone for that sort of thing. I think this election will get people sick of that behavior temporarily but only temporarily. Undoing that tendency permanently would require some technological enhancements to human cognition, I think.

Well yeah, that's the problem. I'd sort of hope maybe some consumers would demand it, but how would they even be able to tell what it is? Is it even possible to cover both candidates totally neutrally and still provide useful information? Maybe not.

EDIT: Anyway, by my estimation Trump needs New Hampshire, Nevada and Florida to win. He was polling slightly ahead in Florida and Nevada and slightly behind in New Hampshire just before election day, and if he loses any of those he's out of the running - however, votes counted so far look good for Trump in NH and FL. (He'll lose Virginia but he doesn't need it) I'm starting to think we might see the dreaded popular vote / electoral college split after all.

EDIT 2: He's slipped behind in Florida! EDIT 3: aaand back ahead again EDIT 4: aaand behind again. Clinton's pulled ahead in NH as well. Like I said before, if Trump loses any of those three states he's toast.

[Verasev]

Oh, man, djdhdnd i just dkdjd make up your mind florida.

[Dr Lancer-X]

Remember how nice 2012 was? How it didn't come down to Florida at all? That was pretty nice.

Whose idea was it to let that crazy state filled with crazy old people decide the election?

EDIT:

Quote

(He'll lose Virginia but he doesn't need it)

I guess I might need to make a correction here, since right now he's winning Virginia but losing New Hampshire, which is unexpected (still early results though) - if he wins Virginia and Florida he's won, no need for Nevada. If he loses Virginia he needs New Hampshire and Nevada.

EDIT 2: Wildcard idea- Clinton loses Virginia and Florida, but wins North Carolina or Ohio or both and ends up with a narrow electoral college win and a popular vote loss. You heard it here first, folks.

[Verasev]

I can't believe he's winning virginia. If hillary wins the electoral college vote and loses the popular vote 1: that is the end of the electoral college system and 2: there will be some kind of mostly inneffectual violence.

Edit: oh my God, my state is gonna be blue this election.

This post has been edited by Verasev: 09 November 2016 - 01:49 AM

[Dr Lancer-X]

Verasev, on 09 November 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

I can't believe he's winning virginia.

I quite carefully put together an electoral map in preparation for today based on polling, and it's turning out to be worthless.

EDIT: If we take the races as they are now (Clinton winning OH, NH, Trump winning FL, NC, VA) then Clinton wins no matter how NV votes. Surprising that the race comes down to Ohio - Clinton's probably less worried as she can win with any of a number of these states while Trump needs to win pretty much all of them.

So Clinton's still winning, even though according to my electoral map she should be losing because she's losing FL and VA and who ever thought Ohio would be competitive?

EDIT 2: Ohio is back in Trump's column, at least for now... ah, screw it, following this shit is impossible. nytimes is giving Virginia to Clinton despite her being behind - I guess it's a matter of red districts reporting in first or something like that?

[Dr Lancer-X]

I guess if anyone needed more proof HuffPo's 98% figure was a total joke they have it.

[Exophase]

Dr Lancer-X, on 08 November 2016 - 09:54 PM, said:

I guess if anyone needed more proof HuffPo's 98% figure was a total joke they have it.

I'm hoping Trump just narrowly loses so we get Hillary but Sam Wang will still have to eat a bug.

[Dr Lancer-X]

Cannot believe Pennsylvania is tied. If Trump really wins with 295 electoral college votes I think the way polls are conducted in America is going to need a rethink.

nytimes: Trump has a 77% chance of winning. I think they might be extrapolating a bit much from the results that are in, but still interesting.

[Exophase]

Dr Lancer-X, on 08 November 2016 - 10:05 PM, said:

Cannot believe Pennsylvania is tied. If Trump really wins with 295 electoral college votes I think the way polls are conducted in America is going to need a rethink.

Don't know what you're looking at but Politico has Hillary up to 9.5% with 44.4% reporting in Pennsylvania.

Florida is basically clinched for Trump.

Virginia swung back to Hillary in the final hour and she'll probably keep the lead. Still, no way did I think it'd be so close there. McMullin may seriously be spoiling Trump in Virginia.

[Dr Lancer-X]

Exophase, on 09 November 2016 - 01:13 PM, said:

Don't know what you're looking at but Politico has Hillary up to 9.5% with 44.4% reporting in Pennsylvania.

Florida is basically clinched for Trump.

Virginia swung back to Hillary in the final hour and she'll probably keep the lead. Still, no way did I think it'd be so close there. McMullin may seriously be spoiling Trump in Virginia.

It's the same reason Virginia had a pretty strong swing to Trump, then swung back - the order of the districts reporting (Fairfax is heavily Dem and reported last). There's several large counties expected to go heavily for Trump that haven't been counted at all yet. Pennsylvania is a coin flip.

By the looks of it Trump doesn't need Virginia at all, which is good for Trump because he won't get it. He doesn't even need Pennsylvania but I think the people who predicted Trump landslides would really like it if he got Pennsylvania.