Discussion of the 2016 election results.

[kuhla]

I think this is a major event in history so it would be stupid to not discuss it at all. That being said, if this starts getting emotional I will lock and delete it. Calm, logical discussion only.

 

Regarding the presidential election, I felt this person made a reasonable summary regarding what happened.

 

source - https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5bzot4/donald_trump_would_have_lost_if_bernie_sanders/

Although this has been a sad and troubling day for many people, I think it has been an extremely valuable catalyst for reflection on the current state of the Western world.

Support for Trump, much like Brexit, was based upon an extremely widespread feeling that average people are not getting their fair share of the benefits of globalization. This is neither a specifically Democrat or Republican problem, and people have been saying it one way or another for years.

It was also the foundation of Sanders' campaign. The difference is that Sanders blamed deregulation and big corporate bonuses while Trump blamed immigration and open borders. I'm sure that there are elements of truth to both of these positions.

What Trump has shown us is that this issue is now so potent that a candidate, regardless of his flaws or his 'unelectability', can become president almost entirely by promising to change the status quo.

While personally I deplore Trump for his positions on race, gender and religion, I also do not believe that this is the end of the line for the liberal ideals of tolerance, progress and diversity. I do not believe that the Democratic party is dead, but I believe that it needs to heed the call of the electorate, and focus on delivering a message that combines these ideals with policies that ensure the average, working class American is not left behind either. By appealing to intellectual elites and refusing to drastically overhaul the 'establishment' the Democrats have missed a big opportunity for real grassroots change.

In short, I think that Sanders-brand progressive liberalism is the only future for the Democratic party.

 

malaphax and I were discussing some of the same points last week. The DNC has made a lot of mistakes and I'm not really talking about policy positions here. They have to seriously consider making some changes in attitude, management, demographic focus, etc. if they want to guarantee wins in the future.

 

Example: I'm still amazed at how the entire Debbie Wasserman Schultz situation was handled.

 

Some other bits from reddit that I thought made reasonable points.

 

source - https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/5byrar/people_crying_leaving_clinton_headquarters_cnn/d9scko8/

 

 

___________
[–]Hedg3h0g2 4505 points 11 hours ago

Honestly what this vote tells me is that people are so tired of the political elite forcing their candidates on them that they are willing to vote for even someone as controversial as Trump over a pre-approved candidate. Like HRC has the charisma of a potato to not be able to stand up against a man that alienated several voter groups completely. As a non-American that watched the election semi-seriously.
___________
[–]The_Capulet 817 points 10 hours ago

This is exactly it.

There are a big group of people who are genuinely Trump supporters to their core. But on their own, Trump wouldn't have come close to winning.

Donald Trump, for a lot of Americans, is the Anti-establisment vote.

He's revenge.
___________
[–]jimmy_three_shoesI voted [score hidden] 4 hours ago*

Both my sister and I voted for Bernie in the Michigan primary, and we were having a political discussion on Monday night, and I told her the election would be a lot closer than pollsters are claiming it will be.

White, working-class voters and the rural poor (CNN's "Silent Majority") don't feel like the Democrats give one single shit about them. Many of the programs that the Democrats invoke (or at least Campaign on) are centered on the Urban poor. The rural poor don't either qualify for these programs, or they're not anywhere close to benefit from them; all while having their taxes raised.

The Republicans don't offer any relief programs except for promises of tax cuts, but that's at least something.

 

Switching focus, a lot of the California propositions went the way I expected them to.

[kuhla]

Switching focus, a lot of the California propositions went the way I expected them to.

 

https://www.ocvote.com/fileadmin/live/gen2016/results.htm

 

Looks like Ed Royce is going to stick to his seat a bit longer.

 

II-City of Fullerton, By-District Elections. Yes with 53%. Here comes the gerrymandering.

[Malaphax]

**Local

The local by district vote is not only clinically stupid but it will almost assuredly cause even more stupidity in the Fullerton City Council.

 

Here's one of the drafts I found on the Fullerton districts being proposed (PDF Warning):

http://docs.cityoffullerton.com/weblink/1/edoc/587510/Draft%20Map%207.pdf

Link to full list: http://docs.cityoffullerton.com/weblink/Browse.aspx?dbid=1&startid=571142&row=1&cr=1

 

Notice that they've cut downtown Fullerton up into no less than 3 pieces. We wouldn't want one of our largest and most profitable areas of the city being fairly represented would we?

 

 

**California

California Results: http://graphics.latimes.com/la-na-pol-2016-election-results-california/

 

I'm disgusted by the passage of prop 63 (even more gun control) because on it's face it looks like some of the other useless gun legislation we've already got as California law.

RANT: For reference we have our wonderful micro-stamping law, which was passed way back in 2007 and still is not in effect BECAUSE THE PATENT IS PRIVATELY HELD AND NOT CURRENTLY FUNCTIONAL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_A.B._1471

We just end up with a list of "safe" guns that you can purchase in California and if what you want isn't on the list you can't buy it. /END RANT

 

The idea of a Walmart Employee (Walmart is a large national supplier of ammunition) running a background check on every individual buying more then 50 rounds at a time is neither reasonable nor effective. 50 rounds is plenty to shoot up a school but not enough to enjoy an hour at your local gun range.

 

On the bright side all California legislature will need to be posted for 72 hours on the internet before it can be voted on. I'm very interested to see how this turns out, it looks like one of the best steps towards a transparent government.

 

 

**National

Republicans won both houses and the presidency. Whatever happens in the next 2 years they have no one but themselves to blame. I'm curious what will happen if congress continues being unproductive (historically speaking) and what the Republicans will blame it on if that happens (thanks Obama?).

 

It also shows that their strategy of targeting off-year and local elections has been dramatically more effective at capturing and holding seats than the Democratic strategy.

I'm curious if this is the "last gasp" of the white majority electorate, or if this is another issue that the news media and pollsters have their collective heads in the sand about.

 

At this point the democrats are going to need to tap into the popularism of Bernie Sanders' campaign and find a younger candidate who can rally the masses. I'm seeing mentions of Tulsi Gabbard on reddit, and just from skimming her wikipedia article I can understand why she would present a formidable candidate.

[kuhla]

I'm disgusted by the passage of prop 63 (even more gun control) because on it's face it looks like some of the other useless gun legislation we've already got as California law.

RANT: For reference we have our wonderful micro-stamping law, which was passed way back in 2007 and still is not in effect BECAUSE THE PATENT IS PRIVATELY HELD AND NOT CURRENTLY FUNCTIONAL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_A.B._1471

We just end up with a list of "safe" guns that you can purchase in California and if what you want isn't on the list you can't buy it. /END RANT

 

The idea of a Walmart Employee (Walmart is a large national supplier of ammunition) running a background check on every individual buying more then 50 rounds at a time is neither reasonable nor effective. 50 rounds is plenty to shoot up a school but not enough to enjoy an hour at your local gun range.

 

I meant to write something here but forgot..... It's California so I expect anti-gun legislation of any kind, even if it is illogical, even if it is bad legislation, to pass. It sounds like the ammo thing is going to be a 4-year permit? I'm guessing as long as you have it, you can purchase?

 

 

At this point the democrats are going to need to tap into the popularism of Bernie Sanders' campaign and find a younger candidate who can rally the masses. I'm seeing mentions of Tulsi Gabbard on reddit, and just from skimming her wikipedia article I can understand why she would present a formidable candidate.

 

Hmm. Interesting. Vice-presidential pick for Sanders. Iraq veteran. Hindu. Samoan descent. Not the usual combination.

 

On the bright side all California legislature will need to be posted for 72 hours on the internet before it can be voted on. I'm very interested to see how this turns out, it looks like one of the best steps towards a transparent government.

 

Same. I would have expected massive opposition of that prop to bury it but no. I think there is definitely the possibly that it makes zero difference but only time will tell.

[Malaphax]

I meant to write something here but forgot..... It's California so I expect anti-gun legislation of any kind, even if it is illogical, even if it is bad legislation, to pass. It sounds like the ammo thing is going to be a 4-year permit? I'm guessing as long as you have it, you can purchase?

So you need to pass a test and receive a permit to even be eligible to purchase a firearm in California. Then you can only buy 1 firearm per month, which is all stored in a database (another issue another time) and now we're going to add another permit to purchase ammo for the gun that you need to be licensed in order to purchase. Also don't ever expect to carry your firearm, open or concealed in certain areas of California, regardless of Heller some counties don't give a shit.

 

Seems pretty reasonable to me.

[kuhla]

So you need to pass a test and receive a permit to even be eligible to purchase a firearm in California. Then you can only buy 1 firearm per month, which is all stored in a database (another issue another time)....

 

....been there and done that already and it's not that bad but.....

 

....and now we're going to add another permit to purchase ammo for the gun that you need to be licensed in order to purchase.

 

....I want to know if this is just a permit I take with me (after getting it) and present it to buy ammo or is there an actual check done by the employee behind the counter to some electronic system to verify?

 

Also don't ever expect to carry your firearm, open or concealed in certain areas of California, regardless of Heller some counties don't give a shit.

 

It's not Heller anymore. It's Peruta 2016 that re-fucked us. That's the one they keep citing as the new cause for deny/slowing permits. OC Sheriff even flat out tells you that is the case to look at now as precedent.

[Malaphax]

I have no idea how they'll implement it but I expect their system to be so poorly designed that large retailers like Walmart and Big5 will probably just stop selling ammunition in the state, and all the gun haters will give themselves high fives and handjobs celebrating.

 

malaphax's ranting and raving to follow:

 

 

I love how an 9th circuit court manages to completely override a supreme court case... makes perfect sense...

 

Look I know our laws change, and courts "re-interpret" (read: make) them all the time. My issue is that every time they do that it's with the hopes that during the time it takes for someone to push this case all the way back up to the Supreme Court (or have the Supreme court deny hearing it) they get to do whatever they want.

 

I'm of the opinion that Heller at least makes sense, but when you have laws on the books saying you can't openly carry a firearm, and then pass laws where you can't concealed carry a firearm... wait how am I supposed to carry a firearm again? Oh I'm not? What about that thing called the Bill of Rights? Oh that doesn't apply? Good to know.

 

The best part is that other states have much simpler and easier processes for purchasing, owning and carrying firearms (concealed and open) but heaven forbid we should be allowed the same freedoms as individuals in other states, that would be abhorrent.

 

 

 

[Malaphax]

Transcript of Trump's inauguration speech, with annotations from NPR.

 

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/20/510629447/watch-live-president-trumps-inauguration-ceremony