U.S. Presidential Election Day Megathread [Official]

[Wells]

Also @Skroe, you'll be tickled to hear the rumors that Flynn is explicitly blacklisting anyone who outranked him militarily. So no Mattis or McRaven.

[Paranoid Android]

Also @Skroe, you'll be tickled to hear the rumors that Flynn is explicitly blacklisting anyone who outranked him militarily. So no Mattis or McRaven.

That dude is fucking crazy. I think Flynn made a speech at RNC or I heard him when he was being a surrogate and that guy fucking scared me.

[Spectral]

I'll just leave this - neo-nazi salutes, rhetoric and all - here.

I didn't watch the video because I'm not interested in his rhetoric, but I must say, Spencer wears a suit nicely.

[Wells]

I didn't watch the video because I'm not interested in his rhetoric, but I must say, Spencer wears a suit nicely.

I bet its a Hugo Boss.

[ringpriest]

I agree with the object-level point about the electoral college being bad. This still doesn't make the whining any less unsavory - everyone was clear on the rules, played by the rules, campaigned based on those rules, and we got the result we got. When people complain that they won by the standard of different rules that don't actually exist and wasn't what people were targeting during the actual election, they're being absurd.

It really doesn't matter anymore, but could you clarify where in "the rules" it says it's okay for the sitting director of the FBI to shout "Clinton is totally a crook!" twelve days before the election, only to quietly mutter "okay, that claim was sort-of BS" three days before the election? (And while you're at it, please clarify where "the rules" say that one candidate gets years worth of media coverage of a fake scandal that does not exist, while the other one has actual things he has done ignored or brushed aside by the same media.)

This is entirely orthogonal to my post. I'm tempted to rant about how Clinton was plainly protected by inappropriate interactions between her husband and the DoJ, but in any case, this is all quite different from people that are still complaining about the EC as though it was a weird footnote that no one was familiar with.

To go back to the football analogy, arguing about Comey is like arguing about whether there was holding on a given play while arguing about the EC is arguing that touchdowns shouldn't be worth 6 points.

But both arguments are about the rules of the game - one just doesn't have much of a leg to stand on. The electoral college is an explicit part of the written election process in the United States, yes - and if that's all you were referring to, then yes, I suppose I am coming in at right angles. But it doesn't seem to me (admittedly, at a removed perspective) that everyone complaining is doing so only about the popular vote / electoral vote dichotomy - Trump did not play by "the rules" even if we limit them to written election law:

"FEC goes after Donald Trump for more than 1,000 violations of campaign finance laws"

And that's before touching on things like Republican-led voter suppression:
"GOP States Keep Ignoring Court Orders to Restore Voting Rights"

What's going to destroy the United States of Trump, when it might possibly have otherwise survived is the already-progressing effort to normalize his nascent authoritarian regime (not that the U.S. style of government didn't have it's own problems before Trump, some of them running along similar lines, but, imnsho, it's the difference between the air quality from out-of-control industrial pollution on the one hand, and trying to breathe on Jupiter on the other) and pretending that his shady technical victory was anything else is part of that damned journey's beginning.

- - - Updated - - -

He's only violating the rules of the position and set to violate Constitutional law. It's no big deal.

If the GOP wants to ditch Trump and install PresidentCaesaropope Pence, he's giving them all the rope they could possibly need - I really think he has never wanted to actually have to work at being President, and would love any excuse possible to: 1) get out of it, and 2) have it plausibly not be his fault. (Or maybe he thinks the pseudo-Christian right, or some other group, will have him killed if they can't get rid of him legitimately.)

[Thepersona]

I bet its a Hugo Boss.

i see what you did there
those waffen SS sure looked fabulous

[Wells]

i see what you did there
those waffen SS sure looked fabulous

It was intentional on multiple levels. There was a big element of looking pure and mighty, standard Nazi stuff, but it was also a nostalgia trip. The German Army going into WW1 was a marvel. One of the finest military forces ever. A big part of fascism is idolizing the "good ol' days", and the 3rd Reich intentionally modeled a lot of their forces to recall that same military force.

[Elegiac]

It was intentional on multiple levels. There was a big element of looking pure and mighty, standard Nazi stuff, but it was also a nostalgia trip. The German Army going into WW1 was a marvel. One of the finest military forces ever. A big part of fascism is idolizing the "good ol' days", and the 3rd Reich intentionally modeled a lot of their forces to recall that same military force.

However, there is one key point of divergence between Trump and Hitler that I would like to stress.

From sources regarding Hitler as well as his own writings, one gets the sense that he was propelled by a genuine - if extremely warped - sense of what we might call social justice; a legitimate belief that the health of the German nation and its people was paramount and that policy should be geared towards its benefit.

Trump, on the other hand, is manifestly a narcissist and is propelled entirely by the impulse to aggrandize himself regardless of whose expense it comes at. There is no demonstration of at least a basic intent to serve the public good.

So which is worse; policy directed by warped whims of enlightened despotism, or one dictated by schizophrenic pursuit of fame and fortune?

[Thepersona]

However, there is one key point of divergence between Trump and Hitler that I would like to stress.

From sources regarding Hitler as well as his own writings, one gets the sense that he was propelled by a genuine - if extremely warped - sense of what we might call social justice; a legitimate belief that the health of the German nation and its people was paramount and that policy should be geared towards its benefit.

Trump, on the other hand, is manifestly a narcissist and is propelled entirely by the impulse to aggrandize himself regardless of whose expense it comes at. There is no demonstration of at least a basic intent to serve the public good.

So which is worse; policy directed by warped whims of enlightened despotism, or one dictated by schizophrenic pursuit of fame and fortune?

i think that Trump is much more similar (regarding your train of thought) to Mussolini than Hitler in that regard. but the base (read: alt right) is more similar to the german base of 1933-1936 germany

[Wells]

However, there is one key point of divergence between Trump and Hitler that I would like to stress.

From sources regarding Hitler as well as his own writings, one gets the sense that he was propelled by a genuine - if extremely warped - sense of what we might call social justice; a legitimate belief that the health of the German nation and its people was paramount and that policy should be geared towards its benefit.

Trump, on the other hand, is manifestly a narcissist and is propelled entirely by the impulse to aggrandize himself regardless of whose expense it comes at. There is no demonstration of at least a basic intent to serve the public good.

So which is worse; policy directed by warped whims of enlightened despotism, or one dictated by schizophrenic pursuit of fame and fortune?

Yeah, to be clear, I don't think Trump is text book fascism. Proto-fascist is probably more accurate, but really, when your president is either a fascist or a proto-fascist does it matter which one?

As for whether "Trump is Hitler"? I doubt it. Trump is a lot of things, but he's not competent. My concern is more that his brand of absolute shit gets normalized and then when the more charming, gregarious actual fascist comes along societal norms won't oppose him.

The danger with fascism and authoritarian strong men is there's no real difference between the warning signs for something that you can easily recover from and Hitler. You have to fight every instance like its as bad as it could be.

[downnola]

The danger with fascism and authoritarian strong men is there's no real difference between the warning signs for something that you can easily recover from and Hitler. You have to fight every instance like its as bad as it could be.

Well said.

[Macaquerie]

However, there is one key point of divergence between Trump and Hitler that I would like to stress.

From sources regarding Hitler as well as his own writings, one gets the sense that he was propelled by a genuine - if extremely warped - sense of what we might call social justice; a legitimate belief that the health of the German nation and its people was paramount and that policy should be geared towards its benefit.

Trump, on the other hand, is manifestly a narcissist and is propelled entirely by the impulse to aggrandize himself regardless of whose expense it comes at. There is no demonstration of at least a basic intent to serve the public good.

So which is worse; policy directed by warped whims of enlightened despotism, or one dictated by schizophrenic pursuit of fame and fortune?

So basically what you're saying is that, we can say what we will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos!

[Orlong]

"FEC goes after Donald Trump for more than 1,000 violations of campaign finance laws"

Except they arent. Even according to your salon article (the left wing equivalent of Breitbart or Alex Jones):

While the notice from the FEC doesn’t necessarily implicate Trump’s campaign in illegal activity, it does demand Trump refund any donations over the legal limit within 60 days.

“If any apparently excessive contribution in question was incompletely or incorrectly disclosed, you must amend your original report with the clarifying information,” the FEC wrote to the Trump campaign.

And 90% of the accusations in the article ore related to Trump SuperPACs which are not controlled or directed by the candidates that they raise money for

[Wells]

The Trump Foundation admitted to self-dealing in their most recent tax forms. Every day Trump reveals himself to be more of what he accused Clinton of being.

[Shadowmelded]

The Trump Foundation admitted to self-dealing in their most recent tax forms. Every day Trump reveals himself to be more of what he accused Clinton of being.

Imagine if Clinton was as brazen as this.

[Wells]

Imagine if Clinton was as brazen as this.

Yeah, it would be a feeding frenzy if she admitted to embezzlement like this.

[Elegiac]

So basically what you're saying is that, we can say what we will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos!

*shrugs* You know what they say about doing good things for bad reasons.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it would be a feeding frenzy if she admitted to embezzlement like this.

Why do I feel like we're on the cusp of another Gilded Age presidency.

[Masark]

Why do I feel like we're on the cusp of another Gilded Age presidency.

The abundance of literal gilding?