Welp

[Lysergic]

[Orpz]

[PowersThatBe]

America RN.

[Elixir]

I am sorry for all of your losses.

[BananaCucho]

I even voted for Clinton cause they said the state would be close

Fuck this shit

[Shifty]

After all the things he has said and done, it really happens? Unbelievable.

[BananaCucho]

After all the things he has said and done, it really happens? Unbelievable.

ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT would have slaughtered him. But dems chose the most hated, politically scandalous candidate to run this year and threw their support behind her. Like really what the fuck were they thinking.

Time for them to be humbled big time. Realize they can't just continue to prop up their elitist friends and go against the will of the people in the party.

[Yukitaka Oni]

Wut happen on the voting day?

[Lysergic]

[BananaCucho]

Wut happen on the voting day?

Your fuckboi Trump won

[Yukitaka Oni]

Your fuckboi Trump won

TRUMP 4life ^)O.o)^ ^(O.o(^
Now build a wall.....and then through the course of history....crash it.....like Berlin Wall....so we can teach the world that America learn nothing from history....

[Cryptonic]

ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT would have slaughtered him. But dems chose the most hated, politically scandalous candidate to run this year and threw their support behind her. Like really what the fuck were they thinking.

Time for them to be humbled big time. Realize they can't just continue to prop up their elitist friends and go against the will of the people in the party.

It truly is the DNC fault. She might have stood a chance if they didn't do everything they could to piss off every republican enough and motivate them to go vote.

[PowersThatBe]

I think all of us Bernie supporters are saying told you so right now, and are extremely pissed.

[Gyrlander]

I guess things are going to get both horrible and interesting now.

[Bunny]

I'm sure it will all be fine. It's like when the liberals were voted in and everyone whined just like this.

[Cryptonic]

I'm sure it will all be fine. It's like when the liberals were voted in and everyone whined just like this.

Trudeu is the worst President Canada has ever had.

[Yukitaka Oni]

Trudeu is the worst President Canada has ever had.

His dad ftw but his son....eh......hm.....dunno v(x.o(<

[Bunny]

Trudeu is the worst President Canada has ever had.

Don't shame me for voting for our glorious president justin

[DarknessB]

It truly is the DNC fault. She might have stood a chance if they didn't do everything they could to piss off every republican enough and motivate them to go vote.

Not even just Republicans -- independents broke for Trump fairly heavily (at least relative to the overall popular vote totals). The combination of an extremely uncharismatic / unpopular candidate, a bunch of scandals that kept popping up, and general malaise over the existing state of affairs (with Hillary being viewed as continuation of that) was a fatal combination. I agree that if the Democrats had run just about anyone else, they probably would have won, and fairly easily too.

[DarknessB]

ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT would have slaughtered him. But dems chose the most hated, politically scandalous candidate to run this year and threw their support behind her. Like really what the fuck were they thinking.

Time for them to be humbled big time. Realize they can't just continue to prop up their elitist friends and go against the will of the people in the party.

The whole thing was pretty bad karma for the Democrats. Republicans used to be the party of "it's my turn" (nominating candidates out of long-term loyalty to the party vs. who would be best going forward) -- that usually doesn't work out too well, and for good reason. People don't like a candidate shoved down their throats. The DNC, entire media, etc. were so invested in Hillary winning that it pissed off enough people and galvanized the anti-Hillary voters.

Even the most ardent Trump supporter probably doesn't think he's great substantively, but they viewed him as the lesser of evils compared to Hillary. That's what happened in a nutshell.

[Orpz]

Clinton getting blown the fuck out in the Rust Belt is pretty much the only indication anyone should need of how awful of a candidate she was.

[DarknessB]

Clinton getting blown the fuck out in the Rust Belt is pretty much the only indication anyone should need of how awful of a candidate she was.

Last time Republicans won Pennsylvania or Michigan was 1988 (28 years!). Last time Republicans won Wisconsin was in the 1984 blowout (32 years!). Those are some core blue states to choke away, not to mention losing Florida (which went for Obama twice), Ohio (ditto), and North Carolina (once).

Hillary didn't even visit Wisconsin during the campaign, I believe. Just didn't have an understanding of the map really, or was too confident in the polling leads. There was an inordinate amount of time wasted trying to make red states blue like Arizona and the like. Given the way the map looked, Hillary needed to sure up the rust belt / swing states above instead of going for the equivalent of FPS.

[Cryptonic]

Last time Republicans won Pennsylvania or Michigan was 1988 (28 years!). Last time Republicans won Wisconsin was in the 1984 blowout (32 years!). Those are some core blue states to choke away, not to mention losing Florida (which went for Obama twice), Ohio (ditto), and North Carolina (once).

Hillary didn't even visit Wisconsin during the campaign, I believe. Just didn't have an understanding of the map really, or was too confident in the polling leads. There was an inordinate amount of time wasted trying to make red states blue like Arizona and the like. Given the way the map looked, Hillary needed to sure up the rust belt / swing states above instead of going for the equivalent of FPS.

Yea, she got too comfortable looking @ the polls she asked MSM to oversample on.

[DarknessB]

Yea, she got too comfortable looking @ the polls she asked MSM to oversample on.

Yeah, I get that there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in the country overall, but the oversampling effect is becoming pretty pronounced in many of polls, and ones that aren't as one-sided, are deemed to be Republican-biased pollsters. I think half of the idea of polls is to influence how others are going to vote -- in terms of, Hillary is going to win so you'd better get on that bandwagon. Looks like people saw through it though.

[Sino]

instead of going for the equivalent of FPS.

you'd better get on that bandwagon.

So in short, this election was the biggest and longest mafia game ever played.

[DarknessB]

So in short, this election was the biggest and longest mafia game ever played.

Nah, we tried an Election Day S-FM, but it got canceled due to the host getting sick:
https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...M-Election-Day

There are some great one-liners from that game though, including a strangely prescient post by Orpz (#226 in that game):

People are taking Donald Trump seriously. I have no faith in the democratic system.

[PowersThatBe]

I'm sure it will all be fine. It's like when the liberals were voted in and everyone whined just like this.

This is not the same! The republicans have the power and want to take marriage equality away, planned parenthood will be taken away, and everything Obama has done will be overturned. This is not politics as usual.

[Sino]

Nah, we tried an Election Day S-FM, but it got canceled due to the host getting sick:
https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...M-Election-Day

There are some great one-liners from that game though, including a strangely prescient post by Orpz (#226 in that game):

Lol, FB's comments #230 and #232 may also apply now.

[Orpz]

This is not the same! The republicans have the power and want to take marriage equality away, planned parenthood will be taken away, and everything Obama has done will be overturned. This is not politics as usual.

And America will thank them for it. I mean, Michigan voted for the party responsible for one of its towns' water supply being poisoned with lead.

[Gyrlander]

This is not the same! The republicans have the power and want to take marriage equality away, planned parenthood will be taken away, and everything Obama has done will be overturned. This is not politics as usual.

This is similar to Spain politics in respect to the education reform.

[Mugy]

It's looking like Hilary won the popular vote, even with minor parties spoiling her.

Your electoral college is doing a great job ^_^

This is not the same! The republicans have the power and want to take marriage equality away, planned parenthood will be taken away, and everything Obama has done will be overturned. This is not politics as usual.

It's like a perfect storm. The first time politics in the US won't be in deadlock for years with a republican supreme court, senate, and house of representatives. With Trump as president.


I'm now glad the Australian senate is making it impossible for the current Australian government to do anything. I prefer gridlock now after seeing what has happened in the US.

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

Trump was without a doubt the better candidate over Clinton.

Losing both the house and the senate sucks though.

Wonder who's gonna get elected to the SC.

[Mugy]

Hypothetically, if there wasn't a two term limit? Would Obama have won vs Trump?

[PLZLEAVEDUCKK]

Hypothetically, if there wasn't a two term limit? Would Obama have won vs Trump?

easily, and he was a garbage president.

[Orpz]

Hypothetically, if there wasn't a two term limit? Would Obama have won vs Trump?

I doubt it, actually. He was cool as fuck but his presidency was still pretty flawed. Trump's campaign would have more ammo on him than Clinton, and this would be made even worse by the fact that everyone voting is old enough to remember Obama's presidency.

Joe Biden would have probably stomped Trump though.

[DarknessB]

It's looking like Hilary won the popular vote, even with minor parties spoiling her.

Your electoral college is doing a great job ^_^

Eh, the U.S. is, through its founding and by its very nature, a coalition of states. A straight popular vote would result in no one giving a shit about most of the states and only focusing on votes in urban areas and surrounding suburbs. I know most of us are probably city dwellers but that doesn't do anyone any favors in terms of having everyone's voice heard. At the end of the day, Hillary lost 30/50* states to Trump including eminently winnable states in the Midwest. As much as it's unsettling that Trump won while losing the popular vote, it'd be similarly unsettling if Hillary had won with only majority support in the northeast and west coast.

* The District of Columbia is filled with bureaucratic hacks and ends up voting Democratic by something like 95-5 each year (this year it was 93-4) so I'm not even counting that in my totals, but if you so insist, lost 30/51 states.

[Mugy]

Eh, the U.S. is, through its founding and by its very nature, a coalition of states. A straight popular vote would result in no one giving a shit about most of the states and only focusing on votes in urban areas and surrounding suburbs. I know most of us are probably city dwellers but that doesn't do anyone any favors in terms of having everyone's voice heard. At the end of the day, Hillary lost 30/50* states to Trump including eminently winnable states in the Midwest. As much as it's unsettling that Trump won while losing the popular vote, it'd be similarly unsettling if Hillary had won with only majority support in the northeast and west coast.

* The District of Columbia is filled with bureaucratic hacks and ends up voting Democratic by something like 95-5 each year (this year it was 93-4) so I'm not even counting that in my totals, but if you so insist, lost 30/51 states.

That reasoning is inherently flawed as it ignores the reality of population distribution. Even if you take the population of the 100 largest cities it is still only 19.4% of the popular vote.

What has been demonstrated, time and time again in reality is that candidates become obsessed with swing states.

[Mugy]

Another issue I see is why do imaginary state lines, a lot of them straight arbitrary lines determine how much power a person has in voting?

Even if you ignore population distribution, and say they only become interested in 50% of the population which in theory live in big cities, why is that a bad thing? Are you saying places where population density is less, people should have more power? To me that argument is ludicrous. People are still people, whether or not they live closer or farer from each other.

[yzb25]

Eh, the U.S. is, through its founding and by its very nature, a coalition of states. A straight popular vote would result in no one giving a shit about most of the states and only focusing on votes in urban areas and surrounding suburbs. I know most of us are probably city dwellers but that doesn't do anyone any favors in terms of having everyone's voice heard. At the end of the day, Hillary lost 30/50* states to Trump including eminently winnable states in the Midwest. As much as it's unsettling that Trump won while losing the popular vote, it'd be similarly unsettling if Hillary had won with only majority support in the northeast and west coast.

* The District of Columbia is filled with bureaucratic hacks and ends up voting Democratic by something like 95-5 each year (this year it was 93-4) so I'm not even counting that in my totals, but if you so insist, lost 30/51 states.

Yeah, pop. minorities get shit on in true democracies, but you don't solve that by trying to indirectly inflate the votes of minorities. I thought the constitution existed to make sure minorities don't get shit on too hard, anyway.

Also, what special representation do smaller pop. states need? Like, the needs of each state are mainly determined by the post-globalism, culturally-indistinguishable individuals within the state - their needs have little to do with the local geography or culture of the state. In other words, by representing the needs of the individuals in the big pop. states, surely you mostly represent the individuals in the small states? I'm viewing this as a Briton though - I don't know if it's accurate to view the low-pop states as microcosms of the big-pop states lol.

I respect your shitty voting system has a history and stuff, but as far as I can tell it's not amendment-tier stuff. You guys should seriously consider an actual democracy =P. It's just if someone suggested men should get their votes amplified by 1% or blacks should get their votes amplified by 5/6 times or the rich should have their votes amplified by a 100 times there would be an outcry lulz.

P.S. Not disputing the Hillary part.

[Mugy]

Yeah, pop. minorities get shit on in true democracies, but you don't solve that by trying to indirectly inflate the votes of minorities. I thought the constitution existed to make sure minorities don't get shit on too hard, anyway.

Also, what special representation do smaller pop. states need? Like, the needs of each state are mainly determined by the post-globalism, culturally-indistinguishable individuals within the state - their needs have little to do with the local geography or culture of the state. In other words, by representing the needs of the individuals in the big pop. states, surely you mostly represent the individuals in the small states? I'm viewing this as a Briton though - I don't know if it's accurate to view the low-pop states as microcosms of the big-pop states lol.

I respect your shitty voting system has a history and stuff, but as far as I can tell it's not amendment-tier stuff. You guys should seriously consider an actual democracy =P. It's just if someone suggested men should get their votes amplified by 1% or blacks should get their votes amplified by 5/6 times or the rich should have their votes amplified by a 100 times there would be an outcry lulz.

P.S. Not disputing the Hillary part.

If the issue is majority rule, then minority rule is better?
???

[DarknessB]

Another issue I see is why do imaginary state lines, a lot of them straight arbitrary lines determine how much power a person has in voting?

Even if you ignore population distribution, and say they only become interested in 50% of the population which in theory live in big cities, why is that a bad thing? Are you saying places where population density is less, people should have more power? To me that argument is ludicrous. People are still people, whether or not they live closer or farer from each other.

There's significant historical and cultural meaning to states (particularly non-western ones) and power being dispersed among them. Plus, you'd need a constitutional amendment to change the system and good luck getting the smaller states to vote en made to make themselves meaningless.

[Mugy]

There's significant historical and cultural meaning to states (particularly non-western ones) and power being dispersed among them. Plus, you'd need a constitutional amendment to change the system and good luck getting the smaller states to vote en made to make themselves meaningless.

I accept that in reality, it's never gonna change.

I'm just on the side of the argument that's saying there SHOULD be change

[DarknessB]

Yeah, pop. minorities get shit on in true democracies, but you don't solve that by trying to indirectly inflate the votes of minorities. I thought the constitution existed to make sure minorities don't get shit on too hard, anyway.

Also, what special representation do smaller pop. states need? Like, the needs of each state are mainly determined by the post-globalism, culturally-indistinguishable individuals within the state - their needs have little to do with the local geography or culture of the state. In other words, by representing the needs of the individuals in the big pop. states, surely you mostly represent the individuals in the small states? I'm viewing this as a Briton though - I don't know if it's accurate to view the low-pop states as microcosms of the big-pop states lol.

I respect your shitty voting system has a history and stuff, but as far as I can tell it's not amendment-tier stuff. You guys should seriously consider an actual democracy =P. It's just if someone suggested men should get their votes amplified by 1% or blacks should get their votes amplified by 5/6 times or the rich should have their votes amplified by a 100 times there would be an outcry lulz.

P.S. Not disputing the Hillary part.

The electoral college is in the Constitution, son -- so it's the definition of amendment-tier stuff. And, the U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

[yzb25]

The electoral college is in the Constitution, son -- so it's the definition of amendment-tier stuff. And, the U.S. isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.

Woahhhhh "constitutional republic"? Wikipedia time.

Bah you guys shit all over your constitution and your amendments all the time. You may as well compromise your integrity for the greater good LOL

[DarknessB]

Woahhhhh "constitutional republic"? Wikipedia time.

Bah you guys shit all over your constitution and your amendments all the time. You may as well compromise your integrity for the greater good LOL

It's really not complicated stuff, certainly not requiring Wikipedia. In fact, the U.S. founders were afraid of direct democracy (having the unwashed masses decide things -- wow, that's some dangerous stuff that only the ancient Greeks would be dumb enough to do) and originally, the state legislatures voted for President, not the people themselves. In turn, the people's direct voice was to elect the state legislatures -- i.e. you pick the people to represent you and trust their decisions. This is all a long way of saying that direct popular voting isn't necessarily the best system. Your country uses the parliamentary system, for example.

[DarknessB]

Re: the differences in states point, the states in different regions of the U.S. have very different needs from economic, social, and cultural perspectives. Wyoming is nothing like New York, for example, in terms of just about anything. There are lots of different interests in terms of investments in infrastructure, different industries, the value of regulations, etc. If you think the U.S. is divisive now, it'd be far worse if those smaller population states had literally no role to play geopolitically.

Suggesting the 20 Hillary states have more of a legitimate right to appoint a leader than the 30 Trump states is a questionable premise merely because Hillary got 0.2% more votes nationally (something like 200,000 overall). Also, if you exclude California, where Hillary got something like 2.5 million more votes, Trump lead the popular vote by 2.3 million votes. I.e. it's literally all California and then some.

[yzb25]

It's really not complicated stuff, certainly not requiring Wikipedia. In fact, the U.S. founders were afraid of direct democracy (having the unwashed masses decide things -- wow, that's some dangerous stuff that only the ancient Greeks would be dumb enough to do) and originally, the state legislatures voted for President, not the people themselves. In turn, the people's direct voice was to elect the state legislatures -- i.e. you pick the people to represent you and trust their decisions. This is all a long way of saying that direct popular voting isn't necessarily the best system. Your country uses the parliamentary system, for example.

Yeah, definitions seem vague anyway - it's basically just saying it's a system where the big boy (head of state) and the politicians represent the people, in some subjective sense. That's the case in a democracy anyway, which suggests democracy can be seen as a subtype of constitutional republics.

I don't know which system is the best system, but there are ideals worth appealing for. For example, I think most people share the ideal that every individual should get an equally small choice in determining some kind of ultimate decision regarding government, in some abstract sense - like who will be the next president. And that's what people generally refer to when they go "bu-bu-but it's a democracy!" - they're not actually envisioning mob rule.

Anyway, our parliamentary system sucks pretty hard, honestly.

[Mugy]

Re: the differences in states point, the states in different regions of the U.S. have very different needs from economic, social, and cultural perspectives. Wyoming is nothing like New York, for example, in terms of just about anything. There are lots of different interests in terms of investments in infrastructure, different industries, the value of regulations, etc. If you think the U.S. is divisive now, it'd be far worse if those smaller population states had literally no role to play geopolitically.

Suggesting the 20 Hillary states have more of a legitimate right to appoint a leader than the 30 Trump states is a questionable premise merely because Hillary got 0.2% more votes nationally (something like 200,000 overall). Also, if you exclude California, where Hillary got something like 2.5 million more votes, Trump lead the popular vote by 2.3 million votes. I.e. it's literally all California and then some.

Maybe it's a different culture, but from where I am(New Zealand, and I imagine, most of the west), we don't have that kind of difference between places to the point where places with larger population need less representation to make the country happy.

Maybe you shouldn't be the "United" states of America :P

[Orpz]

Really makes you think

[DarknessB]

Yeah, definitions seem vague anyway - it's basically just saying it's a system where the big boy (head of state) and the politicians represent the people, in some subjective sense. That's the case in a democracy anyway, which suggests democracy can be seen as a subtype of constitutional republics.

I don't know which system is the best system, but there are ideals worth appealing for. For example, I think most people share the ideal that every individual should get an equally small choice in determining some kind of ultimate decision regarding government, in some abstract sense - like who will be the next president. And that's what people generally refer to when they go "bu-bu-but it's a democracy!" - they're not actually envisioning mob rule.

Anyway, our parliamentary system sucks pretty hard, honestly.

Sure, everyone should get to have some influence in the decision, but a straight popular vote doesn't take place in many context and the whole system doesn't fall apart. The entire premise of districts within a state or states for that matter are two good examples. How about cities? If you live on the border between two cities, two states, or two districts, you're essentially assigned to vote in one, but have no influence in the other, even if you're greatly affected by what happens in both.

This is all to say, it's never completely equal and people should get over that IMO. Popular voting doesn't make sense in all contexts, especially where you're talking about hundreds of millions of votes.