The US Election, Part XI

[Volourn]

"terrifying"

 

L0L One of those words that have been dumbed down, abused, and is starting to lose all real meaning.

[imaenoon]

Kind of like sexism, Volourn. Now someone at thinkprogress (which is associated with the center for American progress) has accused Tim Ryan, a *Democrat* who dared challenge Pelosi as leader of House Democrats, as sexist simply for throwing in his hat in the ring to oppose her. This is precisely how to destroy the meaning and eventually the impact of a word. Even better, the word become weapon became an avenue of attack on people in the Democratic party. I can actually get behind some of what Tim Ryan says, but, and I admit this is crazy, I don't want the Speaker and the Minority leader to have the same last name or it'll be confusing as hell.

 

EDIT: linky https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/800415311983874048?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Edited November 22, 2016 by imaenoon

[Nonek]

I'd have thought the anal inflammation over the untermensch not voting as instructed would have started to subside by now, ah well good luck President Fart.

[Zoraptor]

We've got 4 more years (four more years!) of posterial discomfit to come, I'm very much afraid. They've only just got started on how Hillary won the popular vote* and it isn't even decided by how much she won yet.

 

*so she was the right choice and should have won, nothing needs to change just wait for Trump to self destruct and it'll be Kaine/ Brazile all the way in 2020!

[Guard Dog]

That image highlights the problem with racism and xenophobia perception, nowadays. To wit:

 

"Why are you complaining about racism? It's not like you were recently lynched or something."

 

 

 

 

And this here is just what's wrong with the Electoral College. You know what's more important than individual rights? State's rights. Because government can totally be trusted as long as it isn't federal.

 

 

No it can't. But it takes a hell of a lot fewer angry citizens to so something about State government problems than Federal government problems. 

 

All this talk about the EC is entirely academic. to get rid of it we would need 3/4 of the States to agree. That means the citizens of those states literally voting for their own marginalization. Talk about a tough sell.

[Guard Dog]

Not to mention "oppressed minorities" and "SJW's" don't have have an actual history of enslavement, holocausts, etc. A bunch of white people in a room yelling "hail" and doing Nazi salutes is a tad more terrifying than spoiled college kids crying about an election.

Nah, there was only like 20 or so. We could all go kick their asses. Well, ten years ago I could have. But I'll still show up if ya'll will! 

[Pidesco]

 

That image highlights the problem with racism and xenophobia perception, nowadays. To wit:

 

"Why are you complaining about racism? It's not like you were recently lynched or something."

 

 

 

 

And this here is just what's wrong with the Electoral College. You know what's more important than individual rights? State's rights. Because government can totally be trusted as long as it isn't federal.

 

 

No it can't. But it takes a hell of a lot fewer angry citizens to so something about State government problems than Federal government problems. 

 

All this talk about the EC is entirely academic. to get rid of it we would need 3/4 of the States to agree. That means the citizens of those states literally voting for their own marginalization. Talk about a tough sell.

 

 

Actually they'd be voting to equate everyone's votes. The marginalization of voters in presidential elections happens now, and would be solved without the EC. At the very least, forcing the EC to vote as proportionally as possible to each state's popular vote should be a no brainer.

[imaenoon]

Yep, losing the popular vote ensures that you'll only be a one term president. (I need that blue text thing the other uses.)

 

Anything can happen in politics, but dog guy above is right that the electoral college is pretty safe as it sounds. It doesn't matter how much Hillary had in her margin. I would say this is somewhat analogous to Europe where The people in Paris and Berlin (and other population centers) get to decide things in every small city on the continent. It's not in the self interest of the vast majority of states that large cities (not even the entire state just small cities) like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Chicago, and New York City get the last word. Seriously Trump didn't just win the majority of states. He won the majority of counties in many of the states he lost. Land does not equal people, but regions should have some sort of equalizing say.

 

Trump might well implode. He's pretty sketchy. However, his victory is largely due to his native skill. He was in on the strategy and that strategy won. Not only that, but the moaners who complain about the popular vote might want to reckon that both campaign ran to win the electoral college. If the goal were the popular vote, they would both had different strategies.

 

In all charity, I would suggest the other side start fighting the next battle rather than trying to relive the won they just lost. Hillary Clinton was a bad candidate. The Democrats did extremely poorly considering the seats up for grabs without even reckoning the presidential race. They should concentrate on why they didn't resonate better with the public rather than on weeping because they didn't bragging rights for the first female president. They should be glad Clinton isn't as charismatic at Obama. Otherwise they'd have another popular president who ushered in horrible performances for her party nationwide. It'll be easier to run for the seats next election as the opposition.

 

EDIT: meant land does *not* equal people.

Edited November 22, 2016 by imaenoon

[Zoraptor]

 

Actually they'd be voting to equate everyone's votes. The marginalization of voters in presidential elections happens now, and would be solved without the EC. At the very least, forcing the EC to vote as proportionally as possible to each state's popular vote should be a no brainer.

 

 

Proportional states' votes in the EC would be more likely, but still not that likely. You'd have to have some sort of simultaneous adoption else you'd have, say, California going proportional while Texas keeps giving its votes to the R candidate wholesale which gives the R candidate a big advantage. I know a couple of states do it anyway, but they're small states.

 

Complaining about the EC is a bit like complaining that someone with more wins finishes behind someone else in a football league or the Golden State Warriors not being NBA champions despite having the most wins. It is what it is, everyone knows the rules beforehand and while it may not be a perfectly fair system, it is balanced.

[Hurlshort]

When Clinton became the frontrunner, I was positive that any reasonable candidate the Republicans put forth could beat her. Then it ended up as Trump and I hedged my bets. Now I am fairly comfortable saying in 4 years any reasonable democrat can beat Trump, but I am not going to put money down on a reasonable choice. Pelosi 2020?

[ShadySands]

Please god no

 

Plus, wouldn't she be like 80?

Edited November 23, 2016 by ShadySands

[Hurlshort]

Age does not seem to be a worry among the two parties anymore.

[Volourn]

Well.. people are living longer and healthier (Hilary concerns aside I guess lol) so age shouldn't be a main concern. Health should be. Pelosi could live to 100. 8shrug* Of course,k she would make a horrible Pres for nearly identical reasons why Hillary can't. No, not because she is a women. There are PLENTY of female politicians who would make worthwhile presidents.

[imaenoon]

Well, the candidates from the two major parties were older than sin. Trump has a lot of frenetic energy, and I actually don't doubt that he has had some drug experiences that could curl your nose hairs. There's just some unhealthy pallor to his skin. Hillary Clinton kind of reminds me of that frog she's always on about, although he smiles more often. They're both creepy. ...And the frog weirds me out also.

[Pidesco]

 

Actually they'd be voting to equate everyone's votes. The marginalization of voters in presidential elections happens now, and would be solved without the EC. At the very least, forcing the EC to vote as proportionally as possible to each state's popular vote should be a no brainer.

 

 

Proportional states' votes in the EC would be more likely, but still not that likely. You'd have to have some sort of simultaneous adoption else you'd have, say, California going proportional while Texas keeps giving its votes to the R candidate wholesale which gives the R candidate a big advantage. I know a couple of states do it anyway, but they're small states.

 

Complaining about the EC is a bit like complaining that someone with more wins finishes behind someone else in a football league or the Golden State Warriors not being NBA champions despite having the most wins. It is what it is, everyone knows the rules beforehand and while it may not be a perfectly fair system, it is balanced.

I was kinda agreeing with you until the last three words. It's not, in any way balanced. It's a way of effectively discarding, perhaps 80% of votes. (Made up number. The actual percentage may be worse)

 

I don't understand why Americans who vote aren't more up in arms about it.

[licketysplit]

 

 

Actually they'd be voting to equate everyone's votes. The marginalization of voters in presidential elections happens now, and would be solved without the EC. At the very least, forcing the EC to vote as proportionally as possible to each state's popular vote should be a no brainer.

 

Proportional states' votes in the EC would be more likely, but still not that likely. You'd have to have some sort of simultaneous adoption else you'd have, say, California going proportional while Texas keeps giving its votes to the R candidate wholesale which gives the R candidate a big advantage. I know a couple of states do it anyway, but they're small states.

 

Complaining about the EC is a bit like complaining that someone with more wins finishes behind someone else in a football league or the Golden State Warriors not being NBA champions despite having the most wins. It is what it is, everyone knows the rules beforehand and while it may not be a perfectly fair system, it is balanced.

I was kinda agreeing with you until the last three words. It's not, in any way balanced. It's a way of effectively discarding, perhaps 80% of votes. (Made up number. The actual percentage may be worse)

 

I don't understand why Americans who vote aren't more up in arms about it.

 

Because it makes sense. We'd have 4 states choosing our pres every single time without the EC. With all due respect mate, we don't want to be Sweden. 

[Agiel]

General James Mattis has been floated as a possible SecDef under Trump. Purportedly from their meeting, Trump was honestly shocked when Mattis told him that he was against waterboarding.

 

Emphases and annotations mine:

 

 

Mattis as defense secretary: What it means for us, for the military, and for Trump

Ive known and admired General James Mattis (USMC, ret.) for years, and have written about him in a couple of books and in this blog. A few years ago, after Mattis was given the bum’s rush into retirement by the Barack Obama administration, I described him as “a tough-minded realist, someone who’d rather have tea with you than shoot you, but is happy to end the conversation either way.” Or, as he instructed his Marines in Iraq, “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”

Another memorable comment of his in Iraq, from my book Fiasco, was, “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you **** with me, I’ll kill you all.”

By contrast, I think President-elect Donald Trump will be a historic shambles, the Herbert Hoover of the 21st century. So it was with some surprise that I read Sunday morning that Mattis has become the frontrunner to become defense secretary. Trump tweeted Sunday morning that, “General James ‘Mad Dog” Mattis, who is being considered for Secretary of Defense, was very impressive yesterday. A true General’s General!*”

So, if Mattis is picked, how is his tenure running the Defense Department likely to go?

Mattis vs. Trump: Some big differences.

First, his dealings with the White House. Mattis says what he thinks. That is President-elect Trump’s reputation, but I think the fact of the matter is Trump actually says what sounds good. There’s a big difference. What’s worse, Trump seems to value unquestioning loyalty more than he does hard facts.

There are other big, even huge, differences between Mattis and Trump. Mattis, for example, is an avid reader. He prepared a reading list for his officers before deploying to Iraq in 2004 and required that it be studied. Tip to OSD-Policy: Start reading the works of Sir Hew Strachan, Mattis’ favorite strategist.

Mattis is against isolationism and a fan of what he calls “continued American engagement in the world.” He also believes that “compromise [is] … a fundamental necessity at the heart of democratic government.” (Warning to Pentagoners: Mattis also is anti-PowerPoint, which he says “makes us stupid.”) And Trump avoided the draft, while retired Marine Colonel Gary Anderson calls Mattis “the finest combat leader we’ve produced since Korea.”

Mattis also is a fiscal conservative. This is not a bad thing to have for someone running the Pentagon. It also may make Mattis skeptical of some of Trump’s promise to cut taxes while boosting defense spending and making American infrastructure great again.

Most of all, I would say, Mattis is meditative. In reviewing the case of Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, an Army artillery battalion commander who fired a handgun next to the ear of a detainee he was interrogating, Mattis wrote, “this shows a commander who has lost his moral balance or watched too many Hollywood movies.” (After leaving the Army, West went on to become a one-term Republican congressman from Florida and then, of course, a Fox news commentator.)

Mattis at the Pentagon

All that said, having a retired general run the Pentagon is not a natural fit. There is, of course, the precedent of George C. Marshall, but he was not a combat general, despite having served in France in World War I. Marshall was a great staff officer who basically ran World War II for the U.S. government. (Like Mattis, Marshall was also a straight shooter. Twice he sharply disagreed with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in White House meetings. Once he did this when he was a mere brigadier. FDR, recognizing the need to hear dissent, responded by promoting Marshall.)

But, if you’re going to put a general in there, Mattis is a good choice**. He is a rarity in that he is a genuine strategic thinker, pushing himself and others to stretch their minds. This tendency is not always welcomed.

Having Mattis run the Defense Department would put the Marines in their most powerful position ever — they’d have the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman Joint Chief of Staff, and the commandant. If I were the Army I’d hunker down and plan for the future for a few years.

The relationship between SecDef and chairman of the Joint Chiefs would be especially interesting. Joseph Dunford, the CJCS, served under Mattis in Iraq in 2005.

Mattis likely would provide a firewall between Dunford and the Trump White House, suspicious of generals promoted by Barack Obama. As I’ve said before, even in retirement, Mattis having worn four stars will outrank Lieutenant General Flynn’s retired three stars. Mattis also is far smarter, and better educated, than Flynn. That will help contain Flynn.

A quiet but significant result of Mattis being picked could be that career Pentagon officials who otherwise might decline to serve in a Trump administration instead might be encouraged to stay on by the presence of Mattis, who is extremely popular among the rank and file. His Chuck Norris-like reputation is likely be worn down by the realities of the job. But Mattis admires the way Robert Gates operated as defense secretary, and that is a good model to have.

Obama’s rocky military relations come home to roost

A final thought: Pentagon civilians who were part of the Obama administration, such as Rosa Brooks, long have warned that Obama’s White House handled the Pentagon badly. I especially thought that the termination of Mattis’ time at Centcom was handled badly — basically, he was travelling when he was told: Hey, they just announced your successor. But I didn’t think we would see the chickens come home to roost so directly. When they terminated Mattis, I wrote of the Obama national security team, “They strike me as politicized, defensive and narrow. These are people who will not recognize it when they screw up, and will treat as enemies anyone who tells them they are doing that. And that is how things like Vietnam get repeated. Harsh words, I know. But I am worried.” Syria? That isn’t something you solve with Bidenesque schmoozing.

Who would have thought that the best thing for one’s career was to be pushed out by the White House? That’s effectively true of David Petraeus as well. Now he reportedly is being considered for secretary of State. If he is tapped, that will mean that one of Trump’s first act is to give high positions to three generals pushed out by Obama’s White House.

 

*I've spoken with quite a few enlisted guys in my time and I'm not entirely sure the term "a general's general" carries positive connotations for them, neither would any of them say this was an adequate description of Mattis.

 

**Believe it or not, I tend to be someone who strongly believes in civilian checks on military power and abiding by institutional norms (keep in mind that normally someone would have to be out of the service for at least six years prior for this posting, but as was the case for Marshall and for Flynn when he was supposedly on the shortlist for SecDef, this requirement may be waived), so in spite of Mattis' sterling record I remain somewhat wary about his potential appointment.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Agiel

[imaenoon]

 

I don't understand why Americans who vote aren't more up in arms about [the electoral college].

Because it makes sense. We'd have 4 states choosing our pres every single time without the EC. With all due respect mate, we don't want to be Sweden.

 

Forget states. look at the counties in California for one example. The sliver of coast provided the margin, but much of the state went to Trump. When it is all said and done, New York City itself will have provided damn near the popular vote margin by itself. In fact, it might have done so outright. Once again, I can understand the argument of devaluing the votes, but regions of a country should not be completely railroaded.

 

I've said all along that whoever won the electoral college won the election. That's how it works. Yeah, a lot of Trump supporters are making a lot of noise. I'm sure some of the people complaining about the electoral college now would be doing the same if the situation were reversed, but not all of them. I would be against any change to the electoral college as it stands now.

[redneckdevil]

Keep the EC and get rid of the winning take all. Fair balance and everyone has a voice.

[Namutree]

Chomsky in 2010:

 

Good thing this hasn't happened. 

[Pidesco]

You forgot the blue text.

[Pidesco]

 

 

 

Actually they'd be voting to equate everyone's votes. The marginalization of voters in presidential elections happens now, and would be solved without the EC. At the very least, forcing the EC to vote as proportionally as possible to each state's popular vote should be a no brainer.

 

Proportional states' votes in the EC would be more likely, but still not that likely. You'd have to have some sort of simultaneous adoption else you'd have, say, California going proportional while Texas keeps giving its votes to the R candidate wholesale which gives the R candidate a big advantage. I know a couple of states do it anyway, but they're small states.

 

Complaining about the EC is a bit like complaining that someone with more wins finishes behind someone else in a football league or the Golden State Warriors not being NBA champions despite having the most wins. It is what it is, everyone knows the rules beforehand and while it may not be a perfectly fair system, it is balanced.

I was kinda agreeing with you until the last three words. It's not, in any way balanced. It's a way of effectively discarding, perhaps 80% of votes. (Made up number. The actual percentage may be worse)

 

I don't understand why Americans who vote aren't more up in arms about it.

 

Because it makes sense. We'd have 4 states choosing our pres every single time without the EC. With all due respect mate, we don't want to be Sweden. 

 

 

Instead you have, like 10% of the population choosing the president. How is that better?

 

"For the people and by the people" not "for the states and by the states."

[BruceVC]

 

Chomsky in 2010:

 

Good thing this hasn't happened. 

 

Chomsky is such a hypocrite... "  down with Capitalism. down with the free market...down with the West " he cries and bemoans the " truly benighted state of the West "

 

And he does all this and shares his " great insights " while living and thriving in the USA .....you know the place that is the...... home of the free market and foundation of Western ideology 

 

He is so false its almost nauseating ...almost 

Edited November 23, 2016 by BruceVC

[Namutree]

You forgot the blue text.

Are you saying Trump is honest?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Or charismatic, for that matter?