Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

In the end, the result is what mattered

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Well said AJ
    "The thing about quotes on the internet is that you cannot confirm their
    validity." - Abraham Lincoln.
    "Nothing's going to change while one side it lying about the cause and the other is lying about the solution" - Me

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
      We had a lively and heated election, thoroughly enjoyable for all.

      But we need to reflect for a moment on the outcome: once again, a superpower peacefully transferred power.

      Regardless of whether your candidate won or lost, whether you see Bobo leaving as a triumph or a tragedy, the most important thing is that the system worked.

      It is not perfect by any means, but throughout our history we have seen 45 peaceful transitions of one ruling group to another performed without bloodshed.

      That is the message for today: the system worked.
      Your sentiment is agreeable, but it is going to fall on deaf ears because the outcome was going to be delegitimized by the losing side, regardless of who won.

      Both sides established their claims early: the Democrats were supported by illegals voting in huge numbers, while Republicans were using foreign hackers to their own benefit. Both parties were laying the groundwork for calling the outcome into question weeks before the actual vote, much less the inauguration. Even today that debate rages on, with Russian hackers still a point of contention while even the winning party still tries to dismiss the oppositions votes as illegally inflated.

      Many Americans were prepared to believe in an illegitimate vote if their candidate didn't win. We did have a peaceful transfer of power, but it was one where the outcome was going to be tarnished in the public eye no matter who won. This was not a unifying experience for the republic.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
        Your sentiment is agreeable, but it is going to fall on deaf ears because the outcome was going to be delegitimized by the losing side, regardless of who won.

        Both sides established their claims early: the Democrats were supported by illegals voting in huge numbers, while Republicans were using foreign hackers to their own benefit. Both parties were laying the groundwork for calling the outcome into question weeks before the actual vote, much less the inauguration. Even today that debate rages on, with Russian hackers still a point of contention while even the winning party still tries to dismiss the oppositions votes as illegally inflated.

        Many Americans were prepared to believe in an illegitimate vote if their candidate didn't win. We did have a peaceful transfer of power, but it was one where the outcome was going to be tarnished in the public eye no matter who won. This was not a unifying experience for the republic.
        Elections are never unifying experiences, because one side (more if you count the fringe loonies) loses.

        The closest thing to a unifying election was when Reagan was re-elected.
        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
          Elections are never unifying experiences, because one side (more if you count the fringe loonies) loses.

          The closest thing to a unifying election was when Reagan was re-elected.
          I'd disagree, but not on some large and fundamental level. More in the sense that in many elections, the losing side was generally mollified with the knowledge that they had, in fact, lost. Knowing you didn't have the support of the majority of Americans was a tonic for the usual ego that dwells within the politico because elections were seen as a legitimate measure of American desire: the winner won because he had the backing of America.

          This election was different. The framework both sides laid down was that any loss they could face was due to non-American influences; illegal voters and foreign hackers stole the election from real citizens.

          A fair and free election can act as a unifier because it demonstrates that the system works and that, even if one lost, one could still win in the future. This election, though... this election was seen as dirty and tarnished even before the first ballots were being counted. Whoever ended up losing was going to throw a tantrum and claim they'd had the election stolen from them.

          Add to that the fact that the winner didn't win the popular vote and it only deepens that divide by making his victory seem more tenuous to the losers, who feel emboldened by it. In terms of the type of victory, it was the worst outcome: we had a president who was elected without a popular majority. Irrelevant to the system, but relevant to how millions of Americans view the legitimacy of the government.

          It would have been much better for the unity of the nation if Trump had won the popular vote as well, because it would have reinforced the legitimacy of his presidency to the losers - or at least, it would have in the past.

          But with both sides viewing the elections as tainted, even that may not have been enough.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            I'd disagree, but not on some large and fundamental level. More in the sense that in many elections, the losing side was generally mollified with the knowledge that they had, in fact, lost. Knowing you didn't have the support of the majority of Americans was a tonic for the usual ego that dwells within the politico because elections were seen as a legitimate measure of American desire: the winner won because he had the backing of America.

            This election was different. The framework both sides laid down was that any loss they could face was due to non-American influences; illegal voters and foreign hackers stole the election from real citizens.

            A fair and free election can act as a unifier because it demonstrates that the system works and that, even if one lost, one could still win in the future. This election, though... this election was seen as dirty and tarnished even before the first ballots were being counted. Whoever ended up losing was going to throw a tantrum and claim they'd had the election stolen from them.

            Add to that the fact that the winner didn't win the popular vote and it only deepens that divide by making his victory seem more tenuous to the losers, who feel emboldened by it. In terms of the type of victory, it was the worst outcome: we had a president who was elected without a popular majority. Irrelevant to the system, but relevant to how millions of Americans view the legitimacy of the government.

            It would have been much better for the unity of the nation if Trump had won the popular vote as well, because it would have reinforced the legitimacy of his presidency to the losers - or at least, it would have in the past.

            But with both sides viewing the elections as tainted, even that may not have been enough.
            Meh. A majority of eligible voters didn't bother to vote. The Hillabeast's claim of the popular vote becomes more dubious as ever more voter fraud turns up; the Chicago and Detroit investigations being prime examples.

            But the majority of America has long since moved on. The partisans on both sides are still sniping, but the bulk of America is business as usual.
            Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
              Meh. A majority of eligible voters didn't bother to vote. The Hillabeast's claim of the popular vote becomes more dubious as ever more voter fraud turns up; the Chicago and Detroit investigations being prime examples.

              But the majority of America has long since moved on. The partisans on both sides are still sniping, but the bulk of America is business as usual.
              Which could be said about anything political. The apathetic masses are always irrelevant in the end. Politics is always driven by the fools who care, not the idiots who couldn't care less.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                Which could be said about anything political. The apathetic masses are always irrelevant in the end. Politics is always driven by the fools who care, not the idiots who couldn't care less.
                Actually politics is run by money.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                  Actually politics is run by money.
                  And money is given by people who care. Dollar bills don't autonomously decide which wallet they want to slip into.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    And money is given by people who care. Dollar bills don't autonomously decide which wallet they want to slip into.
                    Not that sort of money.

                    The Hillabeast raised half a billion and still lost.
                    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                      Not that sort of money.

                      The Hillabeast raised half a billion and still lost.
                      She didn't just raise half a billion: she raised half a billion more than Trump.

                      If it had been money alone, it would have been a landslide for Hillary. So again, this election was not run by money, but by those caring fools with the deep pockets. Even a 50% higher war chest wasn't enough to overcome Hillary's many (many many manymanymany) faults.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        She didn't just raise half a billion: she raised half a billion more than Trump.

                        If it had been money alone, it would have been a landslide for Hillary. So again, this election was not run by money, but by those caring fools with the deep pockets. Even a 50% higher war chest wasn't enough to overcome Hillary's many (many many manymanymany) faults.
                        I didn't say that elections run on money.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                          I didn't say that elections run on money.
                          Actually politics is run by money.
                          So you stayed with the same opinion during your nap then changed it. /are you a Trump supporter?
                          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                          youíre entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                          Comment

                          Latest Topics

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X