Bro Bernie totally still has a chance bro

This is the same kind of overconfidence that made newspapers print "Dewey defeats Truman" in 1948. They all looked like the biggest idiots of the country by the end of the day.

I think Clinton will probably win this one, but acting like it's a foregone conclusion before the first results even come in is just asking to get yourself made into a fool.

I think Clinton will probably win this one, but acting like it's a foregone conclusion before the first results even come in is just asking to get yourself made into a fool.

Exactly. On the bright side, if people with strong views on either side are open to eating socks, at least we can get something fun out of this.

Bet: I'll record myself eating 15 of the spiciest kind of wings (Afterburners) from Wings Over if Clinton loses Pennsylvania.

In 24h, Donald Trump might be in jail.

In 24h, Donald Trump might be in jail.

Exactly. On the bright side, if people with strong views on either side are open to eating socks, at least we can get something fun out of this.

One reason I want trump to win. I live in Austin, the liberal capital of Texas (and actual capital of Texas). Oh how juicy it'll be to tell a liberal that's lost faith in the US government "so why don't you Move to Somalia?".

@MGSB: Haha, the People's Republic of Austin, giving Texas Democrats a terrible name.

That said, if you take out Austin and Orange County- Texas Democrats and California Republicans are exactly what this country needs to get things working again.

Not to say either group has got it exactly right, but at least they bother to engage in discourse instead of being ready to throw their friends and family with differing political opinions under the bus as "deplorables" and whatnot.

Edited 11/8/2016 19:29:36

It's not about the conclusions, it's about the process.

Ideas need to live and die in the light of public discourse. And dialogue isn't just both sides talking- it's both sides listening, too. Calling the other side a "hate group" or calling for their (political or physical) elimination is not the hallmark of a democratic and free society.

I just wish we went back to listening more as a country. There's smart people all over the political spectrum- hell, I'll be the first to concede that there's probably someone much smarter than me supporting most of the policies I find to be flawed. We just have to all be ready to acknowledge that- our odds of being wrong are higher than we think they are, and the only way to really work through that is by listening to (and engaging with) other people and their ideas.

And you know what? If Tim Tebow is motivated to do good in the world because of his faith, I'm not gonna rail against that. It's a part of who he is and it makes him happy. I don't believe in any gods- hell, I'm strongly convinced that there ain't one- but if religious politicians are willing to operate within the confines of a free and religiously diverse society that doesn't try to shove anyone under the bus on religious grounds, I'm not coming after them. Hell, I'll cheer 'em on as they put a blanket on that hungry kid or unite the community.

I haven't lived a strongly religious lifestyle, but I know that to some people that's their whole life- the church is their community. And it's not my place to deny that.

Edited 11/8/2016 19:39:59

NASTY WOMAN DEFEATS TRUMP

in 24h trump might be in jail

That's fair. But we also have to remember that a lot of people are living out their lives on the strongly-held assumption that their religion is true- and we can't change that reality.

I support a secular society for sure, but there's still a place for religion in politics as long as people are willing to entertain the reality that they might actually be wrong (which is tough) or at least acknowledge the interests of other groups in society.

Sure, but all politics is about imposing your value system (or well, imposing some aggregate of people's value systems) on the public. Religious and secular viewpoints can both be extremely impactful and also deeply wrong.

For me, it's important to exclude the smallest number of voices from the decision-making/discussion process.

Makes sense. There is a high likelihood we will have 90% certainty by this evening but there is still the slight chance you alluded to that this could drag on.

^We need more Massachusetts Republicans. They have sanity and do not support:

Hey, that's kinda me (though unenrolled). That said, they don't get very far on the national stage. Too centrist. Not far enough right to stand a chance against the Ted Cruz's of the country. Just look at what Romney had to do to his platform to get mainstream GOP backing and how he then fared at the national level.

Agree that those type of politicians are needed... problem is, our current political climate does not support them on either side of the fence.

Edited 11/8/2016 20:12:44

^What if most people vote for legalizing rape (or de facto doing that)? What about executing homosexuals? Executing apostates? Executing secular people for being secular? Legalizing cannibalism? Exterminating a small group of people?

Democracy must be constrained by a fundamental respect for human rights and equal worth- or it invalidates its own basis. To implement policies of that sort is to exit a free and democratic society.

At the end of the day, democracy's not about making the right decisions- you can't look at this election and tell me that democracy optimizes for that- but instead about giving everyone a chance to be heard and allowing for us to actually engage in discussion about our values, beliefs, and viewpoints as a society so that we can move forward together.

Like Gandhi once put it- freedom means nothing without the freedom to make mistakes.

Speaking about the election. An American gave me this link: https://www.gofundme.com/i-want-to-escape-the-planet

If you're free to only make the "correct" decision, you're not free at all.

It also hides a fundamental reality of democracy- we're probably wrong a lot of the time. Instead, why not face that head-on? Why not engage in dialogue from the perspective that there are real flaws in our positions?

Edited 11/8/2016 20:23:11

This is the kind of Thread I'd read out loud. Primarily to showcase my Tabby voice. Secondly, to show everyone how god damn stupid people sound.

I'm in STEM. Voting rights should most certainly NOT be limited to those in STEM and STEM-related fields. It should be open to all. Period.

I would agree with saying that more STEM-centric people are needed in political positions. However, the lower-end jobs don't pay enough (compared to STEM fields) and I don't think STEM-centric people want to deal with the bullshit and lack of logic that comes with politics.

so you are in favor of censoring people because they disagree with your opinion?

JEB SURGE

I never said anything about intelligence. It's you who (incorrectly) assume STEM=intelligence. If anything, such bias is just as good a reason to remove voting rights as believing in the existence of ethnic groups.

In order for successful governance you need many viewpoints and many ways of thinking. You can't get that when you only allow people in one occupation or one way of thinking to have a say in matters.