[james-watson]

> I stated we could have mass violence in this country if the election were overturned this late after the election.

"Could"?

There will be a civil war if Trump's presidency is revoked. Count on it.

By the way, how many Democrats are there in the Army, Navy and Air Force? How about the National Guard? Law enforcement? How many Democrats own guns?

Democrats are funny people. "Mass violence is better than a Trump presidency."

Be careful what you wish for.

[krapp]

>Democrats are funny people. "Mass violence is better than a Trump presidency."

And yet Republicans have been using crypto-revolutionary language for years, especially after deciding to make the Tea Party their proxy in order to gin up fears of Obama's "radical marxist ideology".

This isn't a matter of only one party or the other wanting bloodshed. The Second Amendment has deeply ingrained into the American political consciousness the premise that revolutionary violence is not only justifiable but periodically necessary for a free state - that ideal, coupled with the polarized political atmosphere that requires everyone to view their opponents as evil and their every political action illegitimate, makes violence seem inevitable.

Luckily for our Republic, far more American armchair revolutionaries are willing to talk about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants than are willing to do the gardening themselves.

[EdHominem]

> the polarized political atmosphere that requires everyone to view their opponents as evil and their every political action illegitimate

I think you'll find that the game theory behind a winner-take-all simple majority vote leads almost inevitably to exactly that.

The one dynamic responsible is what I call "the Price is Right phenomenon". In that game show we're both guessing a price and the closest guess wins. If you bet $2 and my guess is $4, I'm still going to say $2.01 because I've captured the middle-ground. If the price is $2.04, far closer to your best guess than mine, I'll still still win. Whereas if I expressed my true beliefs I'd have lost.

Note that I also win if the price is $200.04. This parallels the support you get and accept, because in a one-dimensional political system (all a single vote can express) all you have is left and right. All nuance in the other side is lost in the fact that they'll outlaw your gay marriage, or they'll let your daughter get an abortion, whichever way you swing.

This leads to hypocrisy such as saying "A vote for a third party is a vote wasted" and then being upset at a party for accepting the support of unsavory characters (who you've just told not to waste their votes.) In a two-party system, which is what first past the post produces, your enemies are, by necessity, friends with your enemies.

It's not people who suck, or that we deserve ourselves, it's specifically the system we use. With a broken system there is no way to properly state your preferences, and to the degree you can you may have to pull the lever one way to try to go the other. In any and all other aspects of lives we demand better. We don't let the bank or the grocery store offer us such poor options for expressing our preferences. We're doomed to live this until we have more input than 0 or 1 (and hardly that, in a swing state...)

Investigate Approval Voting and push for it in all public elections in your name.

[groovy2shoes]

> the polarized political atmosphere that requires everyone to view their opponents as evil and their every political action illegitimate

I don't recall such an atmosphere being present in prior elections. I don't recall ever witnessing so much divisiveness among Americans as I have the last few weeks. This election was particularly heated, and, frankly, I blame the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for that.

The Clinton campaign somehow managed to convince roughly half of the country that the other half are actually akin to, and just as evil as, Hitler supporters. Such thinking has no basis in fact. It's her characterization of half of the population of the US as "deplorables" that caused such enormous divisiveness among Americans. In response to the election, many democrats have resorted to name-calling (racist, sexist, etc.), fraudulent claims of violence and rape, actual violent attacks on alleged Trump supporters, and temper-tantrums in general. This reaction only serves to fuel the division. And, because of Clinton's tactic of demonizing her critics and non-supporters, her supporters feel absolutely justified in these actions. After all, if you had a chance to stop the Nazis from taking over, wouldn't you do anything in your power to do so? Hillary, whether she intended to or not, gave her supporters a free pass to be utterly ruthless towards everyone else without compromising their consciences or their morals.

It seems to me like many of Hillary's supporters never even gave Trump a fair listen, given that all of their arguments against a Trump presidency seem to be counterfactual bullshit straight out of the campaign propaganda machine. There are plenty of legitimate arguments to be made against Trump, but vague accusations that he's a "white supremacist" and a "sexist" and a "Nazi" seem to be par for the course, and have no empirical foundation whatsoever.

Everybody needs to take a deep breath, take off the propaganda goggles, and have a look at the reality around them. Instead of writing off your fellow Americans as bigots, give them a chance to explain where they're coming from. Seek some understanding of your compatriots instead of being so quick to deride them.

[EdHominem]

> It's her characterization of half of the population of the US as "deplorables"

Let me help you read that quote: "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic"

Half of Trump's supporters. That's roughly 20% of the country. And yes, if they're racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, they are deplorable.

> Everybody needs to take a deep breath, take off the propaganda goggles, and have a look at the reality around them.

Cough, yes. You really should lay off the propaganda.

> Instead of writing off your fellow Americans as bigots, give them a chance to explain where they're coming from.

No. If you're telling me what to do in my bedroom, I don't give a rat's ass. If you're racist, I don't care what anecdotes made you that way. If you're trying to tell me who I can marry, I don't care in the slightest why you feel that way.

You don't want me in your kitchen telling you what to do, so don't pitch a fit when I don't care for you telling me how to run my life.

Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.

> Hillary, whether she intended to or not, gave her supporters a free pass

You're equating mean words with Trump's racist scapegoating, his stated intent to kill families of terrorists, deport people born here, etc. Get a sense of scale.

> never even gave Trump a fair listen

A fair listen doesn't mean hang on his words, it means to listen until he's made it obvious that he's clearly unfit for the position.

Maybe you believe he's smarter than all the generals, etc, but if I heard that ignorant bravado from a coworker or a presidential candidate I'd put them in the stupid pile.

For years before the election he went on about Obama's birth certificate. Him and the racists. But yeah, you can tell yourself that he had a real legalistic reason for asking Obama but not Clinton, Bush, etc.

> frankly, I blame the Democratic party and the Clinton campaign for that

I'm sure you do.

[groovy2shoes]

> You don't want me in your kitchen telling you what to do, so don't pitch a fit when I don't care for you telling me how to run my life.

> Stop trying to control people and they'll stop pushing back.

Ironically, I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump as a kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the far left making conspicuous attempts to control other people. The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" have, for the last several years, been loudly and publicly shaming people who don't share their opinions. These are the same people who decry bullying and use their hashtags to raise awareness about "cyberbullying", and then turn around and try their best to get some "toxic male" who criticized Anita Sarkeesian in a tweet fired from his job. The same people who emphasize diversity and equality while systematically silencing and excluding anyone with so-called "privilege". The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists" (who may or may not actually be racists — the word gets tossed around so often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless) all the while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an actual black supremacist movement.

The reasons for Trump's election are varied, complicated, and much more nuanced than "toxic masculinity and white privilege".

I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it. The power of the president is constitutionally limited for this very reason, checks and balances and all that. And, frankly, once we got through the primaries, I wasn't going to like the outcome of this election no matter what. President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the DNC to give him the shaft), or even Rand Paul (too bad he's a boring, down-to-earth guy lacking in outrageous, showy behavior or anything particularly radical to put forward... and, for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC... I wouldn't be surprised at this point (cash rules everything and whatnot)). I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the president. Shit's tense right now.

[EdHominem]

> I'd wager that a significant number of votes were cast for Trump as a kneejerk reaction (i.e., pushback) to some extremely vocal groups on the far left making conspicuous attempts to control other people.

Right. I totally agree. I mentioned this just upthread, though in a slightly different context.

The 90% of sane voters are defined by the crazy 5% at either end, because you're either in one party or the other...

Some candidates and some parties are better about not endorsing these loons though, which is all we can ask for. At least to not have their nonsense codified.

> The "Social Justice Warriors", the "PC Police", and the "Special Snowflakes" have, for the last several years, been [...]

Even though I'm closer to their side than the KKK types at the other end, I too see them as a toxic corruption of the proper message. I do think we need to get rid of bullies, but I don't think that simply having an unpopular attitude is a problem unless you act upon it to actually discriminate, etc.

I don't know the anti-Sarkeesian tweets you mention but I've seen many other baseless fits pitched, so I can imagine.

> The people who are "helpfully" pointing and wagging fingers at "racists" (who may or may not actually be racists — the word gets tossed around so often nowadays that it's bordering on meaningless)

Yes, and being someone who cares about actual racism, this bothers me. We can't get proper treatment for real issues if we're executing people for tweets.

> [...] while wearing T-shirts emblazoned with references to an actual black supremacist movement.

Yeah, I don't know how people can openly support any racist group in the name of wiping out racism.

> I don't like the outcome of the election any more than you do, but it's made even worse by all the tantrums being thrown over it.

I remember just as many tantrums from the candidates in the previous elections. (Asking for recounts, mocking the person asking for recounts, etc.) The protests are somewhat new, but they're a peaceful expression of disgust, not riots or anything. They seem totally reasonable, considering the toxic messages flying around.

> President Bernie would've been nice (too bad the Clintons colluded with the DNC to give him the shaft)

I agree, but I'll point out that both political parties are intended to do this. Because similar candidates are "spoilers" in a first-past-the-post election you need a way to weed out people like you but with slightly less chance of winning. The only issue is that they did it behind closed doors.

This won't be fixed until we have a better process, such as Approval voting, that isn't vulnerable to these problems.

> for all I know, Trump colluded with the RNC

I have no faith that he wouldn't have, but it seems unlikely given how much nasty infighting there way.

> I'm more worried about the American people at this point than I am about the president.

Well ultimately, that's the right stance. The president, even elected and in power, can't do anything on his own. Everything he hopes to accomplish can only be enacted by the people. If we do terrible things under his rule it'll be because we were already willing to and just waiting for someone to come along and justify it.

[MisterBastahrd]

The vast majority of Trump voters wouldn't walk past the end of their own block to protest an accurate vote count.