Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Election Night & Hangover Week Thread

Election Night & Hangover Week Thread (Page 2)
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 08:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I think the freak outs are mostly because of the insecurity. We know that Trump cannot possibly do all that he promises without running an insane deficit, so what will he actually do? The things he has promised run the range from left to right, so he could act anywhere along that range by simply picking which of his promises to implement.
The only problem is that every ... single ... time ... the GOP has managed to get complete control over the 3 branches of the federal government since the Reagan Administration they have managed to make the deficit skyrocket. Why? Because I've said it before and I'll say it again. The GOP is an "anti-tax" party. They are not an "anti-spending" party. And they are only an "anti-deficit" party when a Dem is in the White House.

OAW
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 08:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Obama didn't come in with the decades of deceitful baggage. That's why he's going to be leaving office with generally favorable personal reviews, even if many are tired of his administration. I may disagree with Obama on many issues, but I don't think he's evil — I just think he's often wrong. Hillary? She just feels evil.

Your feeling is valid and yours, I can't and vote dispute your feeling, but I will say that I think that this feeling has probably been established within a number of people based on faulty arguments. If you go to a site like Politifact you'll see even Obama has plenty of lies or only partial truths to his name, despite having the perception of being relatively non-corrupt.

My point is that in US politics you just seem to accumulate this deceit with shelf-life. It's, unfortunately, normal, it's just a matter of tolerance and perception. Why, for example, aren't more people on the right saying that getting us into war in Iraq was based on outright lies and deceit at least at the same level as any Hillary-gate? Why aren't we calling for Cheney and company to be arrested like some are calling for Hillary?

I mean this rhetorically, I'm not particularly interested in rehashing this particular debate (I'm assuming you aren't either).
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 08:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Some general observations as the post-election numbers come in ....

- Trump won 58% of the white vote. Compared to McCain's 55% and Romney's 59% he performed like a typical GOP presidential candidate. At the same time at this point Trump has received approximately 1.7 million LESS votes than Romney. So the notion that Trump somehow mobilized white voters in droves is simply not supported by the numbers. Nor is the notion that Trump's blatantly xenophobic, bigoted, and misogynistic campaign rhetoric was prompting some sort of massive white backlash. In fact, these factors may have actually hurt Trump with white voters overall ... just not enough to jeopardize the natural advantage any GOP candidate has with this demo.

- Turnout among African-Americans, Latinos, and millennials was down ... especially in battleground states. I haven't seen definitive figures but news reports are seem to be consistently saying this. These were key demographics within the Obama Coalition. To what degree, if any, GOP voter suppression efforts played in that development remains to be seen. But regardless, Clinton underperformed Obama by 5-6 percentage points with these demos.

- The anticipated upswing for Clinton among women voters never materialized. While she won the female vote overall Trump won the white female vote 53% - 43%. Clinton actually underperformed Obama by 1 percentage point with white females.

- The"Bradley Effect" appears to have been in full force. The major polls predicted Clinton's vote totals quite accurately. OTOH, they were off when it came to Trump's vote totals by 2-3 percentage points. This suggests that at the end of the day a clear majority of white voters supported the GOP candidate at the usual levels. But some were unwilling to indicate this to pollsters given Trump's baggage.

- Bottom line? This seems to be more of a case of the Obama Coalition dropping the ball than some sort of massive wave of support for Trump. Had those voters who supported Obama turned out and supported Clinton at the same levels as they did in for him 2012 she would have trounced Trump just as Obama did to Romney. Or if the "glass ceiling" and "sexism" factors had actually resonated with white women ... especially younger ones ... enough to affect their actual vote then we would be having a very different conversation right now. Whether this was due to Clinton being a fatally flawed candidate or if certain Obama supporters were simply not convinced a voter for her was essentially a vote for a "third time" of Obama POLICIES will be the subject of much debate among Dems for the foreseeable future.

OAW


I don't mean any disrespect, but I'm getting kind of tired of the sort of analysis that takes our votes and chops them up into segments without really learning any actionable pieces of information. Are politicians supposed to have magic Hispanic and African American pandering modes that, when executed perfectly, guarantee them certain votes?

It is clear to anybody what the basic divides are, and that there are a number of them.

To me the bottom line is that voters vote for their self interests, and many voters felt that Trump empathized with their anger and just got them. I think the take home is that politicians need to figure out where the public is at, but not by segmenting them.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 08:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
I didn't say it makes sense. It's perception.

In an age where everyone prepares carefully scripted, half-hearted apologies for everything, even his refusal to apologize over mistakes somehow became an admirable quality. It's a STRONG anti-political correctness backlash that we're seeing.
Yes, but I think it's more telling about the political culture of the electorate (and you in case you share this) that someone who literally was caught on tape lying (and denied it afterwards), who sang praises for the Clintons 4 years ago (and invited the Clintons to his wedding after making a generous donation to the Clinton Foundation), is perceived as being more truthful than Clinton. That someone who is clearly an atheist garnered the votes of the vast majority of Christian conservatives. And while I agree that insincere apologies for one's mistakes aren't nice, I don't see how not apologizing for one's mistakes has become a virtue. I think Trump's election is an affirmation of the worst qualities of the populace, and the confirmation that you can literally nominate anyone for as long as this person has the right letter after his name, people will vote for him.
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
Voters wanted someone unstained. The fact that I'm using "unstained" in regards to a man like Trump just tells you how soiled the entire political machine has become.
How can you call Trump unstained? I understand the desire for “an outsider” to come in and fix the system, but how can someone who is so politically unprincipled fix anything?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
I think the freak outs are mostly because of the insecurity. We know that Trump cannot possibly do all that he promises without running an insane deficit, so what will he actually do?
No, I don't think it is just his unpredictability: depending on who you talk to (women, members of the LGBT community), they are really afraid that his Presidency will turn back the hands of time and nix several accomplishments of the Obama years. And given that Republicans are in control of the Executive and the Legislative branches but seemingly unable to control Trump, this makes for a very dangerous next few years.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 08:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Is there a single reason people think Hillary lost for? (That doesn't also apply to Trump)
At least among people I've talked to, people really don't like her.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 09:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
I didn't say it makes sense. It's perception.
Or delusion.

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
In an age where everyone prepares carefully scripted, half-hearted apologies for everything, even his refusal to apologize over mistakes somehow became an admirable quality. It's a STRONG anti-political correctness backlash that we're seeing.
Right, but what people don't seem to get is there's a difference between being an asshole and being honest. After all, if you like a straight shooter, you shouldn't mind Hillary calling you a basket of deplorables, right?


Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
In that case, progressives must have been wrong about what they thought voters wanted to hear. They had just as long to put their message out there — Americans just didn't want to hear it anymore. And honestly, that just seems to be what we do every eight years, on average.
I would definitely say that's the case.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 09:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The only problem is that every ... single ... time ... the GOP has managed to get complete control over the 3 branches of the federal government since the Reagan Administration they have managed to make the deficit skyrocket. Why? Because I've said it before and I'll say it again. The GOP is an "anti-tax" party. They are not an "anti-spending" party. And they are only an "anti-deficit" party when a Dem is in the White House.

OAW
Well, the only thing that could be worse is if they do try to reduce spending. Which Ryan has a hard on for. The best way to help the poor is to cut the social safety net.

Granted, if they do Trump's dumb tax cuts, no amount of cutting will likely stench the bleeding.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 09:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
At least among people I've talked to, people really don't like her.
(That doesn't also apply to Trump)
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 09:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, I don't think it is just his unpredictability: depending on who you talk to (women, members of the LGBT community), they are really afraid that his Presidency will turn back the hands of time and nix several accomplishments of the Obama years. And given that Republicans are in control of the Executive and the Legislative branches but seemingly unable to control Trump, this makes for a very dangerous next few years.
Sure, but Trump is just another Republican in that sense. What do you think Cruz or Rubio would have done about LGBT rights? I actually think that Trump may be better than a generic Republican on those issues, because his heart is clearly not there, and there is a limit on the number of waking hours for him to do things. He wants to limit immigration and he wants to "get the jobs back", and that will be his priority.

Having Republicans in control of Congress (and a favorable outlook in the Senate for 2018) is more worrying from that perspective.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 10:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Sure, but Trump is just another Republican in that sense. What do you think Cruz or Rubio would have done about LGBT rights?
Yes, you are right, but that is why I have qualified my comment with “just”, Trump's unpredictability is definitely part of it, but there are factors beyond that. While Cruz and Rubio share many of Trump's (self-professed as of 2016) political stances, Trump's lack of principles goes further, because it doesn't just imply he will be unpredictable (in that you are right), but it also says that 40 + x % of the American populace has preferred someone with no principles over people who do (I'm including the primaries here).
Originally Posted by P View Post
I actually think that Trump may be better than a generic Republican on those issues, because his heart is clearly not there, and there is a limit on the number of waking hours for him to do things. He wants to limit immigration and he wants to "get the jobs back", and that will be his priority.

Having Republicans in control of Congress (and a favorable outlook in the Senate for 2018) is more worrying from that perspective.
In terms of priorities, that's hard to say. It depends strongly IMO how much work Trump will delegate to others, and where he will actively want to put his hands in. If you think of abortion, for instance, I agree that he probably doesn't put it very highly on his list of priorities, but perhaps someone in his Administration he delegates this to might. Ditto for Supreme Court nominees, it is not clear whether fulfilling a campaign promise is more important to him than selecting someone who is to his personal liking.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 10:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Right, but what people don't seem to get is there's a difference between being an asshole and being honest. After all, if you like a straight shooter, you shouldn't mind Hillary calling you a basket of deplorables, right?
That's a good point, people who profess to dislike political correctness and complain about the influence of what they call social justice warriors got really bent out of shape over this. (Or when a football player kneels during the National Anthem.) It's easy to complain about this as long as it is something you disagree about.

Just to be clear, I do think it was a mistake to castigate these people, because it shuts down communication. And we need communication if we want to bridge the deep divide between men and women, people from different ethnic backgrounds and with different sexual identities.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 11:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Is there a single reason people think Hillary lost for? (That doesn't also apply to Trump)
People thought she already had it in the bag and didn't bother to go vote.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 11:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
why did they believe him?
They're in despair and need something, or someone, to believe in.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 9, 2016, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
After all, if you like a straight shooter, you shouldn't mind Hillary calling you a basket of deplorables, right?
Then the regressives on the Left don't appreciate "straight shooters"? No one likes being called names, especially not when it's a candidate for office.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 12:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't mean any disrespect, but I'm getting kind of tired of the sort of analysis that takes our votes and chops them up into segments without really learning any actionable pieces of information. Are politicians supposed to have magic Hispanic and African American pandering modes that, when executed perfectly, guarantee them certain votes?
The "actionable piece of information" is that people who are inclined to support what is fundamentally a COALITION party vote their individual "self-interest" at their political peril. In a coalition there will be times when the standard bearer of the party will not be your favorite. But you have to be strategic and focus on POLICY and not PERSONALITY. If people who are supporters of Obama's policies failed to support Clinton because they don't "like" her ... even though she's in agreement with him on 98% of the issues ... then they have fully exercised their right to vote as they please and totally forfeited their right to complain about the outcome. A coalition party simply can't afford to split its vote among its different constituent groups if it wants to win when the competition represents a fairly homogenous plurality of the electorate.

OAW
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 01:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
People thought she already had it in the bag and didn't bother to go vote.
This feels right, and is apparently why Brexit passed. But I keep remembering the polls showing a majority dislike both major candidates.

Perhaps Hillary turned off traditional dem supporters a little more than Trump turned off traditional rep supporters.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 01:51 AM
 
If Trump can get term limits set (which he said he was addressing in the first 100 days), he'll have done more for the US than any president in the last 100 years.


One thing that people haven't considered is his work ethic, he's a hardcore workaholic, probably worse than any other person elected to the office in living memory.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 05:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
One thing that people haven't considered is his work ethic, he's a hardcore workaholic, probably worse than any other person elected to the office in living memory.
Bill Clinton was a workaholic, at least at the start. The issue is that that tends to wear you out if you try to do it for four or eight years at the stress level that a president is under. W then made it a point to try to work normal hours when there was no specific disaster, but I don't think that worked out for him either.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
People thought she already had it in the bag and didn't bother to go vote.
In Pennsylvania? No. Wisconsin maybe, that was the one that truly came out of left field.

Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
This feels right, and is apparently why Brexit passed. But I keep remembering the polls showing a majority dislike both major candidates.

Perhaps Hillary turned off traditional dem supporters a little more than Trump turned off traditional rep supporters.
I think it more likely that she needed the enthusiasm more. The US is apparently full of Republicans who will show up and vote for their man no matter who he is.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, you are right, but that is why I have qualified my comment with “just”, Trump's unpredictability is definitely part of it, but there are factors beyond that. While Cruz and Rubio share many of Trump's (self-professed as of 2016) political stances, Trump's lack of principles goes further, because it doesn't just imply he will be unpredictable (in that you are right), but it also says that 40 + x % of the American populace has preferred someone with no principles over people who do (I'm including the primaries here).
If we are talking primaries we can sit here all day analyzing that, but for this election, it is a little easier: Trump made a play for a small selection of states in the rust belt and trusted that the fact that he got the Republican nomination would be enough to win him the rest. That worked. Clinton tried to copy the Obama playbook and win the same states with the same demographic groups. For that you need charisma, and she apparently didn't have enough.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
In terms of priorities, that's hard to say. It depends strongly IMO how much work Trump will delegate to others, and where he will actively want to put his hands in. If you think of abortion, for instance, I agree that he probably doesn't put it very highly on his list of priorities, but perhaps someone in his Administration he delegates this to might.
The rumor is that his pick for Attorney General is Rudy Giuliani. Not someone I think would make abortion his top priority.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Ditto for Supreme Court nominees, it is not clear whether fulfilling a campaign promise is more important to him than selecting someone who is to his personal liking.
He put out a list of 21 possibilities - he can conceivably pick any of those 21 without being painted as a liar. In general, I think he will nominate someone like Roberts rather than another Scalia or Thomas.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 06:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
The rumor is that his pick for Attorney General is Rudy Giuliani. Not someone I think would make abortion his top priority.
Yeah, although the main question remains: how much control will Trump exert over his Administration's agenda, and how much will he leave to his ministers and Secretaries? (Even if abortion isn't the best example in view of who is rumored to become AG.)
Originally Posted by P View Post
He put out a list of 21 possibilities - he can conceivably pick any of those 21 without being painted as a liar. In general, I think he will nominate someone like Roberts rather than another Scalia or Thomas.
That's a good point, I almost forgot about the list. In hindsight, it's a smart move, as long as he sticks to it, he will fulfill a campaign promise.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 08:27 AM
 
Results are coming in slowly now. Michigan still hasn't been called. Clinton is about 12'000 votes behind with some 190'000 votes left to count. In the popular vote count, Clinton remains up by 200'000 votes or so.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 11:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The "actionable piece of information" is that people who are inclined to support what is fundamentally a COALITION party vote their individual "self-interest" at their political peril. In a coalition there will be times when the standard bearer of the party will not be your favorite. But you have to be strategic and focus on POLICY and not PERSONALITY. If people who are supporters of Obama's policies failed to support Clinton because they don't "like" her ... even though she's in agreement with him on 98% of the issues ... then they have fully exercised their right to vote as they please and totally forfeited their right to complain about the outcome. A coalition party simply can't afford to split its vote among its different constituent groups if it wants to win when the competition represents a fairly homogenous plurality of the electorate.

OAW
I remember in the Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry contests, much talk went to which person you'd rather hang out with (the "cool" candidate), and whether it was bad to choose leaders based on that parameter, like it's nothing more than a popularity contest. But... doesn't it always fall out that way? Let's reminisce:

Obama: cooler than Romney or McCain
(W) Bush: cooler than Kerry or Gore
(B) Clinton: cooler than Dole or (HW) Bush
(HW) Bush: cooler than Dukakis
Reagan: cooler than Mondale or Carter
Carter: cooler than Ford
... before that was before my time, making it harder for me to give an opinion on which candidate came across as cooler, but history class did teach me that JFK beat Nixon on the coolness factor, as well as other races such as Warren G Harding.

My point is that I understand the logic that issues should be the deciding factor, and a coalition strategy to optimize issues-based outcomes should be convincing, but Occam's razor suggests it is a pointless endeavor. The cooler candidate will win even with a worse platform (or no platform).
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 11:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
My point is that I understand the logic that issues should be the deciding factor, and a coalition strategy to optimize issues-based outcomes should be convincing, but Occam's razor suggests it is a pointless endeavor. The cooler candidate will win even with a worse platform (or no platform).
You are right. As depressing as that is. But as a member of a minority group in the American electorate we don't have much choice other than a coalition strategy in a presidential system such as we have. Warts and all. Now if we had a parliamentary system that would be a different ball of wax. But I don't see that happening anytime in the foreseeable future.

OAW
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
I remember in the Bush v Gore and Bush v Kerry contests, much talk went to which person you'd rather hang out with (the "cool" candidate), and whether it was bad to choose leaders based on that parameter, like it's nothing more than a popularity contest. But... doesn't it always fall out that way? Let's reminisce:

Obama: cooler than Romney or McCain
(W) Bush: cooler than Kerry or Gore
(B) Clinton: cooler than Dole or (HW) Bush
(HW) Bush: cooler than Dukakis
Reagan: cooler than Mondale or Carter
Carter: cooler than Ford
... before that was before my time, making it harder for me to give an opinion on which candidate came across as cooler, but history class did teach me that JFK beat Nixon on the coolness factor, as well as other races such as Warren G Harding.

My point is that I understand the logic that issues should be the deciding factor, and a coalition strategy to optimize issues-based outcomes should be convincing, but Occam's razor suggests it is a pointless endeavor. The cooler candidate will win even with a worse platform (or no platform).
This is known as the beer test (as in, who would you rather have a beer with), and I think it is mostly a feature of the TV era. And while I'm sure it is part of the winning formula - it certainly helped Bill Clinton, for instance - it is not the only factor, and this year was mostly "none of the above" on that front.

Also remember that we have now had two instances of an EC-popular vote split in recent memory. In fact, Dems have won the popular vote every time since 1992 except for 2004 (and 1992 itself of course had Perot to complicate the math). No wonder that compact isn't getting anywhere in red states.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 12:13 PM
 
Would the one EC per Congressional district plan be better? One election outcome would be different.
Mitt Romney would be president right now (if we linked electoral votes to congressional results)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ional-results/





     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 12:24 PM
 
Putting even more power into the hands of gerrymandering state politicians? No. Other than that, I could see the benefit in the plan over the current setup, but I don't see how it would be better than a straight popular vote in any situation.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
Putting even more power into the hands of gerrymandering state politicians? No. Other than that, I could see the benefit in the plan over the current setup, but I don't see how it would be better than a straight popular vote in any situation.
Because the election would be decided by LA, NY, Chicago....
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 12:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
You are right. As depressing as that is. But as a member of a minority group in the American electorate we don't have much choice other than a coalition strategy...
or just make sure the candidate selected passes the cool test
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 01:02 PM
 
They shouldn't have to, is what's sad. Presidential politics shouldn't come down to high school cliques. Drinking beer is not a requirement, especially to be ranked over education, experience, intelligence.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
They shouldn't have to, is what's sad. Presidential politics shouldn't come down to high school cliques. Drinking beer is not a requirement, especially to be ranked over education, experience, intelligence.
It's folly to dismiss the real world in favor of an idealized hypothetical. We shouldn't have to tie our shoes either, because the invention of velcro should have decimated the old guard of shoelace fashion. But first impressions matter, and you'd probably better not walk into a job interview in velcro shoes if you want the job. Is it that hard to find a candidate with both?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Would the one EC per Congressional district plan be better? One election outcome would be different.
Mitt Romney would be president right now (if we linked electoral votes to congressional results)
Bad idea. If this were done, the party that controlled Congress would always get the President too. Government works better with checks and balances, including splitting the power. It's harder to screw people over when the President and Congress argue a lot.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Your feeling is valid and yours, I can't and vote dispute your feeling, but I will say that I think that this feeling has probably been established within a number of people based on faulty arguments. If you go to a site like Politifact you'll see even Obama has plenty of lies or only partial truths to his name, despite having the perception of being relatively non-corrupt.

My point is that in US politics you just seem to accumulate this deceit with shelf-life. It's, unfortunately, normal, it's just a matter of tolerance and perception. Why, for example, aren't more people on the right saying that getting us into war in Iraq was based on outright lies and deceit at least at the same level as any Hillary-gate? Why aren't we calling for Cheney and company to be arrested like some are calling for Hillary?

I mean this rhetorically, I'm not particularly interested in rehashing this particular debate (I'm assuming you aren't either).
You're correct — I'm not into rehashing that debate either.

I'm not saying I agree with the perception of Obama's level of honesty. What I'm saying is that he was relatively inexperienced coming into office when compared with someone like a Clinton. With Hillary, there was enough baggage carried over from decades of political controversies that the public perception of her was that of a longstanding liar.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
- Turnout among African-Americans, Latinos, and millennials was down ... especially in battleground states. I haven't seen definitive figures but news reports are seem to be consistently saying this. These were key demographics within the Obama Coalition. To what degree, if any, GOP voter suppression efforts played in that development remains to be seen. But regardless, Clinton underperformed Obama by 5-6 percentage points with these demos.
And now definitive figures are available. Turnout was down across the board ....

The 2016 election was, everyone seems to agree, one of the most bizarre and disturbing and fascinating in anyone’s memory, mostly because of the walking goat rodeo who will be our next president. This summer the Pew Research Center reported higher levels of interest and engagement than in any election they had studied over the last two decades.

Yet voter turnout actually declined. What happened?

First, let’s look at the numbers. While there are still a few votes left to count, the latest totals show just under 120 million votes cast for president. That’s down from 2012, which was in turn down from 2008 — and don’t forget that the population is always increasing. While turnout hit a recent peak of 61.6 percent of the voting-eligible population, this year it was only 56 percent. Here’s a chart (I’ve used data from Professor Michael McDonald’s United States Elections Project; note that these are the votes for president, which is slightly different than the total number of ballots cast):


Right now, Republicans have an interest in characterizing Trump’s win as the result of a vast outpouring of support. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan called it “the most incredible political feat I have seen in my lifetime.” They’ll claim that it provides Trump (and them) a mandate to do whatever they want, because the American people rose up as one and demanded it.

But that’s plainly not true. While Trump managed to gain an electoral college victory, not only did he get fewer votes than Hillary Clinton — a fact that, remarkably, seems to merit nothing more than a footnote in almost every discussion of the election — he got fewer votes than Mitt Romney in 2012, fewer votes than John McCain in 2008, and fewer votes than George W. Bush in 2004. In total, fewer than 26 percent of eligible American voters cast their ballots for the man who will occupy the Oval Office come January.

There’s no doubt that Trump brought out some voters who hadn’t voted in the recent past. And his electoral college win was built in large part on his ability to perform particularly well in some key Rust Belt areas — enabling him to win the previously Democratic states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa. But overall, Trump had just about as weak a performance as you can have and still become president.

What’s also important here is how poorly Hillary Clinton did. She got 6 million fewer votes than Barack Obama did in 2012, and nearly 10 million fewer than he did in 2008:


To simplify things into their broadest terms, in recent elections the Republican always gets around 60 million votes; the question is whether the Democrat can bring out more voters or not. If they can, as Obama did twice, they win. If they can’t, as Clinton and John Kerry failed to, they lose.

So why did this happen? There are many explanations and many factors that likely played some part. First, Clinton didn’t inspire the same kind of enthusiasm among Democrats as Obama had. Second, it seems likely that FBI Director James B. Comey’s well-timed announcement that the bureau was investigating Anthony Weiner’s laptop, leading to days of screaming headlines about “CLINTON EMAIL REVELATIONS!!!” led some voters to conclude that both candidates were corrupt and there wasn’t much point in going to the polls.

Third, this was the first presidential election since conservatives on the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, which allowed Republican-controlled states to pass a series of measures meant to suppress the votes of those who were likely to vote Democratic, particularly African Americans, Latinos and college students. In some of those states on which Trump built his victories, Republican-designed voter suppression laws, including ID mandates, limits on early voting and a reduction in polling locations, seem to have had their intended effect. As Ari Berman noted:

27,000 votes currently separate Trump and Clinton in Wisconsin, where 300,000 registered voters, according to a federal court, lacked strict forms of voter ID. Voter turnout in Wisconsin was at its lowest levels in 20 years and decreased 13 percent in Milwaukee, where 70 percent of the state’s African-American population lives.
And the Trump campaign itself had an explicit strategy to demoralize Democrats, developed by Trump campaign CEO Stephen Bannon. As Bloomberg Businessweek reported two weeks ago:

Instead of expanding the electorate, Bannon and his team are trying to shrink it. ‘We have three major voter suppression operations under way,’ says a senior official. They’re aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans.
How much credit they can take is open to debate, but there’s no doubt that they got the result they were after.
Why did Trump win? In part because voter turnout plunged. | WashingtonPost.com

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 03:58 PM
 
Yeah, even Dems didn't want to vote for Hillary and stayed home, specifically the Bernie bros and gals. Also, Clinton pulled in a substantially lower % of blacks and latinos. Both of those combined led to a Trump victory.

Now if they'll stop throwing a tantrum, instead of trying to overthrow the lawful democratic process, everyone will be much better off. The longer they bitch and riot, the worse it will be for them in the long run.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, but I think it's more telling about the political culture of the electorate (and you in case you share this) that someone who literally was caught on tape lying (and denied it afterwards), who sang praises for the Clintons 4 years ago (and invited the Clintons to his wedding after making a generous donation to the Clinton Foundation), is perceived as being more truthful than Clinton. That someone who is clearly an atheist garnered the votes of the vast majority of Christian conservatives.
First of all, no, I've never been a Trump-lover. I think he's likely the most flawed candidate Republicans have ever put forward, but he's flawed in a different way compared to most politicians.

He's a businessman, not a public official. His prior business practices can remain largely secretive. He's able to shape his narrative any way he wants, almost without threat of repercussion, because fewer of his dealings were a matter of public record except for tax information and his many interviews.

And while I agree that insincere apologies for one's mistakes aren't nice, I don't see how not apologizing for one's mistakes has become a virtue. I think Trump's election is an affirmation of the worst qualities of the populace, and the confirmation that you can literally nominate anyone for as long as this person has the right letter after his name, people will vote for him.
That's the argument that the left brought into the election, but it's missing the point that they're not being exposed to outside of their echo chamber. This election wasn't just a cyclical, 8-year swap (though that plays into it). It was a backlash against political correctness. This Reason article did a pretty good of summing it up, I thought. People are tired of being looked down on, and this was a massive push-back against elitists.

No, refusing to apologize for mistakes is not an admirable quality. It's a crappy quality in any human being. I'm repulsed by Trump's behavior, both before and during the process. I'm actually terrified of how he's going to represent us in the next four years. I'm hoping that enough advisors can come in and shape his behavior going forward.

Also, remember that establishment Republicans hated Trump throughout the primaries, and most of them voted with a grimace. It wasn't just about toeing the party line. The party line was obliterated.

How can you call Trump unstained? I understand the desire for “an outsider” to come in and fix the system, but how can someone who is so politically unprincipled fix anything?
Again, I'm not calling him unstained. He is relatively unstained because he enters in without a political background. And yes, not being investigated by the FBI twice during the election did help him.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Or delusion.
That too.

Right, but what people don't seem to get is there's a difference between being an asshole and being honest. After all, if you like a straight shooter, you shouldn't mind Hillary calling you a basket of deplorables, right?
I think people are perfectly fine with insults so long as it's not about them, and if the comments line up with their ideology, it's perfectly fine to be offensive. It's a narrow view of the world, but take a look on Facebook for ten minutes and you realize that 90% of our social connections don't care about humanizing the other side.
     
Jawbone54
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Louisiana
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 04:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yeah, even Dems didn't want to vote for Hillary and stayed home, specifically the Bernie bros and gals. Also, Clinton pulled in a substantially lower % of blacks and latinos. Both of those combined led to a Trump victory.

Now if they'll stop throwing a tantrum, instead of trying to overthrow the lawful democratic process, everyone will be much better off. The longer they bitch and riot, the worse it will be for them in the long run.
People are protesting downtown a few miles from here right now.

I know they have a legal right to protest, and I didn't mine them protesting his rallies, or the days leading up to the election. The problem is that now they just look like a bunch of sore losers who are protesting the other half of the country, which is a terrible way to start the next four years.

I get that Trump is the most polarizing politician in modern history, but I don't recall conservatives protesting anything when Obama won, and I certainly don't remember anything like this:

‘Die Whites Die’: Anti-Trump Rioters Vandalize NOLA Monuments

Shock Video: Black Mob Viciously Beats White Trump Voter » Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

‘People Have to Die’: Anti-Trump Protester Calls For Violence on CNN | Mediaite

Anti-Trump protests turn violent in Oakland, while Cher and Madonna attend NYC march | Daily Mail Online

     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 04:23 PM
 
They're going to wake a sleeping, well-armed giant if they keep this up, and then they'll truly have something to be afraid of. So far mobs have only gone after meek looking individuals and beaten them half to death, wait until they try to go ham on someone who is armed and has the will to fight back.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 04:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Bad idea. If this were done, the party that controlled Congress would always get the President too. Government works better with checks and balances, including splitting the power. It's harder to screw people over when the President and Congress argue a lot.
Then, each state gets one EC vote regardless of population. That puts all 50 sates (and DC) on equal footing. This way the people North Dakota get as much attention as Texas.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 08:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
You're correct — I'm not into rehashing that debate either.

I'm not saying I agree with the perception of Obama's level of honesty. What I'm saying is that he was relatively inexperienced coming into office when compared with someone like a Clinton. With Hillary, there was enough baggage carried over from decades of political controversies that the public perception of her was that of a longstanding liar.

What controversies prior to this election come to mind?

I think the other important factor here is that she is a woman. I'm sure many on the right here will disagree with that, but it really is true.

As a woman, she has to show a lot of toughness and resiliency, or else claims that she is overly emotional and soft become political vulnerabilities (where you couldn't make these arguments the same way with a man). So, she has developed that bad-ass tough sort of persona (I wonder how much of it is really her), and I think it is possible to conflate that hardness with corruption, ill-intent, and hiding things.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Would the one EC per Congressional district plan be better?
Are you proposing an even more cumbersome system just because it gives your party an edge? Or because you genuinely think it is better? Gerrymandering would become an even larger problem than it is today, and that under that new system in none of these elections would the President (under your alternative system) have received the majority of the votes. Such a system is not stable, the representative of the people, the President, should represent the majority of the people. Just count the votes. It's simple to understand, easier to predict what is going to happen and you won't have any non-sense about battleground states anymore.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 10:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Then, each state gets one EC vote regardless of population. That puts all 50 sates (and DC) on equal footing. This way the people North Dakota get as much attention as Texas.
That makes no sense. Then for all eternity the President would be a representative of the interior states with a comparatively small population, he'd always represent a fringe minority.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 10, 2016, 10:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Jawbone54 View Post
First of all, no, I've never been a Trump-lover. I think he's likely the most flawed candidate Republicans have ever put forward, but he's flawed in a different way compared to most politicians.
You didn't answer my question, you completely evaded it. Humor me for a second and try to put the shoe on the other foot. For the other 50 %, the 90 % Republicans made a faustian bargain to win the election (only 10 % voted for another candidate) that has removed the ethical core from the GOP. He is the embodiment of the derision that Republicans will vote for anyone with an R next to his or her name, no matter how unqualified that person is, no matter that this person embodies none of the qualities which are purported to be important, no matter that this person was praising his opponent 4 years ago and is vilifying her now.

You wrote that one of the reasons people voted for Trump is that they didn't like being looked down upon. They feel that Trump and his supporters are the ones who look down upon them after making some progress during the Obama administration. Homosexuals who are happy that they can get married now face a VP who resurrects the rhetoric of the 1990s. People who, thanks to Obamacare, have health insurance (or whose health insurance got cheaper) are worried that this is going away. There has been anecdotal evidence in an uptick in racial tensions (of course, we need to see whether this can be confirmed quantitatively, but in view that this is exactly what has happened after Brexit, I think it is plausible that this will be confirmed here by data as well). During the elections, Jewish reporters received anti-semitic tweets and messages, many of them explicitly outed themselves as Trump supporters. They are the ones who feel looked down upon now.

Centrist Republicans and “true” Conservatives (I only put it in quotation marks because usually these people have a very narrow and personal definition of what that means) who opposed Trump have a really hard time to oppose him now, because of the GOP's gains in the election. After all, who wants to argue with success? A loss would have been seen as a rejection of the GOP base of Trump's faux conservatism, and allowed the party to modernize in order to make it more attractive to women and non-whites. Because demographically speaking, the current GOP strategy is a losing strategy.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 12:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think the other important factor here is that she is a woman. I'm sure many on the right here will disagree with that, but it really is true.
No, it's not. It's just another excuse to try to claim some victim status, to blame this on anyone but the person responsible. In fact, the only real sexism I've seen is from some on the Left who are attempting to "slut shame" Melania for posing nude in her youth. Clinton wasn't elected because she's unlikable, has been involved in too many political scandals, and (with the help of the DNC) screwed over Sanders (causing a low turnout among young socialists). None of that had anything to do with her sex.

That last part is the worst, because it's led to a rift in the party that may be beyond repair, and is much deeper than most want to admit.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 12:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You didn't answer my question, you completely evaded it. Humor me for a second and try to put the shoe on the other foot. For the other 50 %, the 90 % Republicans made a faustian bargain to win the election (only 10 % voted for another candidate) that has removed the ethical core from the GOP. He is the embodiment of the derision that Republicans will vote for anyone with an R next to his or her name, no matter how unqualified that person is, no matter that this person embodies none of the qualities which are purported to be important, no matter that this person was praising his opponent 4 years ago and is vilifying her now.
I can tell you haven't listened to Trump's speeches over the last month, at all. His rhetoric has changed and he's been working much harder to consolidate the party by assuring Repubs that he's changed, over and over again. Even to the point that Ryan and the established party leaders even kind of like him now. Did you see where he called all the leadership up on stage, thanking them for their aid and praising them? He hasn't been antagonistic towards them for many weeks now, and it shows. Much like most of the media, you're evaluating this with older, out-of-date perceptions.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 02:27 AM
 
Yes, I have seen Trump's last pre-election videos and his acceptance speech where he called for unity. In fact, I have commented about it here. There is one where he mocks his team who told him to stay on message. I don't believe in this thinly veiled veneer of civility after a year and a half of comments. I wrote that we should wait 6 months and see what Trump and his administration have actually done. Talk is cheap, especially when you have just won.

It only took a few protests to get a glimpse of the real Trump. I personally think there are better ways to react than protest against the President-elect, but his accusations that the protesters are being instigated by the media defeats his rhetoric of being the President for all Americans. Giving him the keys to the US of A won't magically mellow his character, he will be his old self but with a lot more power.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 02:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I wrote that we should wait 6 months and see what Trump and his administration have actually done.
[Looks at calendar]

It's been six months already?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 03:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
[Looks at calendar]

It's been six months already?
?? Have you read that post? I think you got that reversed.
I wrote that I don't put much stock in what Trump says now, but look at what he is doing over the next half year it so. Actions speak louder than words. I just don't think it is likely he will be able to reach out to the other half of the country as that would mean we would see a whole different Trump.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 07:47 AM
 
Chris Wallace admitted he should have asked Hillary if she would accept the results.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 09:23 AM
 
I love how many on the Left are concerned about a Trump presidency being volatile and damaging. So naturally they riot and burn shit.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 11, 2016, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Yes, I have seen Trump's last pre-election videos and his acceptance speech where he called for unity.
Those aren't what I was talking about. Oh, and they ARE being instigated by the media and the Left's politicians, as if that will change the results. All they're doing is making Trump's cabinet choices and decisions more drastic, to try and stop the chaos. They want the nat'l guard patrolling their cities? Well, this is a good way to do it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:57 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,