To the Republic


Off-Topic Discussions

201 to 250 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think people would have come out to vote for Bernie, that some of those people that voted for Trump would have preferred to vote for Bernie instead, and while I can't be certain that he would have gotten as many votes as Obama did in 2008, I'm sure he could have gotten at least more then Mitt Romney did in 2012.

People wanted an outsider, you had a political revolution, and while it was quashed on the left people think they got what they wanted on the right. I can't imagine Trump working out though, he's going to take away people's health care within a few weeks of taking office, he'll take the US out of the Paris climate change accord, might cancel the Iranian deal, heck his first few weeks might be completely about breaking things rather then fixing anything. He's starting out as a deeply unpopular president, government is sitting at all time low approval ratings, and I can't imagine either number going up as their main priority has been to destroy Obama's legacy.


I've always thought and still maintain it's the people that keep voting against their own interests because they keep getting convinced some how that it's for their interests to do so. Or else do so for minimal short term gains.

Also I ran out of chocolate again...


4 people marked this as a favorite.

So, the narrative that people wanted Trump to "drain the swamp" and wanted outsiders....

5 members of congress were defeated in the primaries, 8 members were defeated in the general. Out of 469 races, 43 incumbents didn't run, giving us 423 incumbents running. 410 of those incumbents won. Normally congress (both houses) has about a 96% incumbent victory %, this was 97%, so it was pretty much normal.

If you're of the opinion that most districts are safe for one party or the other and the real contest is in the primaries, well, the incumbent winning % goes up to about 99%.

People didn't vote for change. They sent all the same congressional people back to Washington.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

So, the narrative that people wanted Trump to "drain the swamp" and wanted outsiders....

5 members of congress were defeated in the primaries, 8 members were defeated in the general. Out of 469 races, 43 incumbents didn't run, giving us 423 incumbents running. 410 of those incumbents won. Normally congress (both houses) has about a 96% incumbent victory %, this was 97%, so it was pretty much normal.

If you're of the opinion that most districts are safe for one party or the other and the real contest is in the primaries, well, the incumbent winning % goes up to about 99%.

People didn't vote for change. They sent all the same congressional people back to Washington.

And Trump is appointing DC Republican insiders to all his cabinet posts.

They're more overtly racist than the usual Repub offerings, so it is change of a sort.

Sovereign Court

I get that folks wanted change, especially an America first economy candidate. Sad thing is, they could have had Ron Paul who would be entirely more qualified than Trump. Instead we settle for the TV star. However, the right will probably consider Trump another God like Regan.


Well, since the Elections: What Next thread is still down and everyone seems to be taking it here:

NYC comrade interviewed by something called Elite Daily

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pan wrote:
I get that folks wanted change, especially an America first economy candidate. Sad thing is, they could have had Ron Paul who would be entirely more qualified than Trump. Instead we settle for the TV star. However, the right will probably consider Trump another God like Regan.

Two diametrically opposed Gods of Walls at that.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Eldred the Grey wrote:

I don't think it would work but in Scotland we operate by proportional representation which works for 6 million people but would it work for the states? Who knows.

Just my 2pence worth

EtG

Oh god, please no, I can barely handle one Pence.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Pan wrote:
I get that folks wanted change, especially an America first economy candidate. Sad thing is, they could have had Ron Paul who would be entirely more qualified than Trump. Instead we settle for the TV star. However, the right will probably consider Trump another God like Regan.
Two diametrically opposed Gods of Walls at that.

Well now all I can picture is some sort of Janus faced god of walls being worshiped 1,000 years from now in the civilization that grows from the ruins of ours.

Intoned in a robotic/gregorian chant by a steampunk/medieval robed figure: "His hair is black at times, and orange at others, and so you may know whether the wall is torn down or is built up. In both ways his hair is false, in color when it is black, and in shape when it is orange."


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, since the Elections: What Next thread is still down and everyone seems to be taking it here:

NYC comrade interviewed by something called Elite Daily

Yeah...this thread was really supposed to be more about the republic than all of the election issues from the most recent election...

However, I suppose people want somewhere to discuss the most recent election on these boards beyond just the republic and the electoral college.

I just hope we all can remain civil to each other and at least try to respectfully address others opinions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Well, since the Elections: What Next thread is still down and everyone seems to be taking it here:

NYC comrade interviewed by something called Elite Daily

Yeah...this thread was really supposed to be more about the republic than all of the election issues from the most recent election...

However, I suppose people want somewhere to discuss the most recent election on these boards beyond just the republic and the electoral college.

I just hope we all can remain civil to each other and at least try to respectfully address others opinions.

Yeah, I know. Have no idea why the What Next? thread was locked, but maybe I missed some deleted posts.

Anyway, I'm all for abolishing the electoral college and, while we're at it, the Senate. The presidency, too. Also, appointed Supreme Court justices. Elect that shiznit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, I know. Have no idea why the What Next? thread was locked, but maybe I missed some deleted posts.

Anyway, I'm all for abolishing the electoral college and, while we're at it, the Senate. The presidency, too. Also, appointed Supreme Court justices. Elect that shiznit.

BUT ONLY if the justices run with absolutely NO political affiliation as befits a truly neutral 'judge'. In fact, accepting any sort of endorsement should be an immediate disqualification.

We have political judges running on party dole here in our state, and it's very much a crap-shoot every election, and the rot goes deep in places...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Yeah, I know. Have no idea why the What Next? thread was locked, but maybe I missed some deleted posts.

Anyway, I'm all for abolishing the electoral college and, while we're at it, the Senate. The presidency, too. Also, appointed Supreme Court justices. Elect that shiznit.

BUT ONLY if the justices run with absolutely NO political affiliation as befits a truly neutral 'judge'. In fact, accepting any sort of endorsement should be an immediate disqualification.

We have political judges running on party dole here in our state, and it's very much a crap-shoot every election, and the rot goes deep in places...

Yeah the results of electing judges at the state level don't lead me to think it would really be an improvement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

America's republic is special and unique because it was the first nation in history to be founded on the idea of personal freedoms being paramount. Government was deliberately set up to be small and limited, which was an unheard of concept. For the entirety of human history power has sought to maintain and grow itself, and so when the founders carefully planned out the words of the Declaration and the Constitution it was with the express purpose of putting a muzzle on government power.

That is what makes the US exceptional. I've heard a lot of folks take exception to the notion of "American exceptionalism" because they believe it puts down other nations. This isn't a statement of brash unfounded pride to prop the US above the people of other nations; it simply refers to the concepts upon which the republic was built. In that regard, the US is undeniably unique and exceptional.

Pan wrote:
I get that folks wanted change, especially an America first economy candidate. Sad thing is, they could have had Ron Paul who would be entirely more qualified than Trump. Instead we settle for the TV star. However, the right will probably consider Trump another God like Regan.

I think you mean Rand Paul? (as a small "L" libertarian he was my 1st choice)

Most of the right do not like Trump because Trump is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination. He's been a democrat for most of his life and he still holds most of those "New York values" as Cruz put it. Trump got the vote because half of murrica was tired of being called racist and misogynist for rational disagreements with Obama and Hillary's policies. This is represented by the fact that nearly all the pollsters got it wrong due to people being afraid to voice their true opinions.

Yes, some silly hoo-hoos (I'm looking at you Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity...) will prop him up as some golden idol, but I sincerely doubt he'll maintain any historical hero status among the republican base in any similar fashion to Ronald Reagan. He has zero capacity to keep his foot out of his mouth and we have at least 4 years of that ingrained behavior to witness.


Irontruth wrote:


People didn't vote for change. They sent all the same congressional people back to Washington.

My incumbent Congresscritter won re-election.

Because she is so popular?
No, she was running unopposed.
Just like with the national election, you can't hold the candidates up and say, "this is what people want". They are crappy candidates that are selected by the ultra-wealthy and party elites. These are not free or fair elections, and they don't produce legitimate politicians that represent the will of the voters.
NOTE: I'm not saying that free and fair elections would necessarily produce different results, just that the current system is a not a reflection of voters will.

Sanders Derail:
Sanders would have crushed Trump easily. The numbers have show it from the beginning. The same numbers that showed Hillary and Trump close, but were dismissed. When I traveled around the Midwest, everyone LOVED sanders, and they were not the type you would normally associate with a Jewish socialist. All he would have had to do was talk about this life, his wife, and his family, and Trump would have shrunk down to the size of a GI Joe, and then imploded.


The original Constitution didn't even enshrine all white men as being equal, let alone women and people of color. Also, it came after the failed Articles of Confederation (a truly small and limited government). You're also failing to recognize how much of our system was actually based on English common and represented only minor tweaks to the overall system.

Lastly, something can't be both unique and exceptional. Or rather, one of the terms is redundant, and since unique is an absolute term, it should take precedence and just drop the "exceptional". Unless you're using "exceptional" to mean "superior", which case you're contradicting yourself since you say you're not trying to place the US above other nations.

Democracy isn't unique to the US. It didn't originate in the US. Actually, what makes us exceptional (rare/uncommon) is that we were one of the first people's to declare war against our rulers and win. But that doesn't really have that much to do with democracy. Most previous examples were conquered people's regaining their former kingdom/empire/etc or staving off a foreign invader.


It's very easy to Monday morning quarterback the entire election, and now that it's all over, many news outlets seem to be acting like a Trump victory was obviously inevitable. It's important to remember that this was a very close election. I'm not looking to start an argument with Fergie, who is right in that the current system is not a reflection of voters will, it's just that having voters is a revolutionary political development in the span of history.

. . .

That made sense, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
That made sense, right?

As much sense as anything else in the last week or two...

Shares homemade chocolate chip cookies with everyone

EDIT: France should really be mentioned if were are discussing the founding of American Democracy as well. Also, Capitalism is heavily wrapped up in those times as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
That made sense, right?

As much sense as anything else in the last week or two...

Shares homemade chocolate chip cookies with everyone

Look, if you're gonna insult me, you don't have to be all subtle about it! :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.

~brings enough oatmeal raisin walnut cookies for everyone~


Cookies? Let them eat cake!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:

The original Constitution didn't even enshrine all white men as being equal, let alone women and people of color. Also, it came after the failed Articles of Confederation (a truly small and limited government). You're also failing to recognize how much of our system was actually based on English common and represented only minor tweaks to the overall system.

Lastly, something can't be both unique and exceptional. Or rather, one of the terms is redundant, and since unique is an absolute term, it should take precedence and just drop the "exceptional". Unless you're using "exceptional" to mean "superior", which case you're contradicting yourself since you say you're not trying to place the US above other nations.

Democracy isn't unique to the US. It didn't originate in the US. Actually, what makes us exceptional (rare/uncommon) is that we were one of the first people's to declare war against our rulers and win. But that doesn't really have that much to do with democracy. Most previous examples were conquered people's regaining their former kingdom/empire/etc or staving off a foreign invader.

The words of the Constitution don't make mention of race or gender as having different tiers of rights - it simply stated that all men (mankind) are created equal (with the notable exception of the 3/5 compromise which is almost always taken out of context as a black person only being 3/5 a person instead of the voter-to-representative issue that came to life as a sort of "many states abhor slavery but we have to compromise for the time being so we can get all states on board" issue that it was. We had to stand united at that point in history, but mere decades later that all came crashing down) Whether equality was practiced or not isn't at issue - of course it was not. But the principles are there and were meant to be.

I somewhat agree with your comment about how we patterned our government after the English but that is to be expected since the vast majority of colonists were English, but inalienable rights and notions of limited government were indeed unique and not part of old world governance. In particular the notion of limited government was foreign to English law. The crown had virtually unlimited power to rule as they saw fit and routinely changed the law on their whims.

I don't see how something can't be unique and exceptional. It feels like you're semantically dancing around terms instead of taking them at face value. Mozart, Beethoven, and Bach all wrote exceptional music, and their masterpieces can certainly be termed unique. There is no contradiction or redundancy there.

The term "American exceptionalism" is not a subjective term; it is not about democracy, it has nothing to do with winning wars against former rulers (the US is certainly not the first to do that, as you claim), and it is not about one people being superior to another. It refers to the notions of individual freedom and limited government being enshrined in a nation's founding document. It is exceptional it its nature and unique in that it had never before been implemented.


No insult, but it feels like American exceptionalism is a little bit about one people being superior to another this time around. Not that it hasn't been before and won't be again, and not that we should hold the result against each other, etc.


I think it's important to remember that the goal of every Presidential election since the founding has NOT been to win the popular vote. That makes it difficult to say what would happen if the EC was abolished, because neither party has ever really had the goal of maximizing the popular vote. If that was the goal, the campaigns would be different, the issues would be different, the candidates would be different and I suspect the political parties themselves would be fundamentally different.

As it is, saying that a candidate lost the EC but won the popular vote is a bit like an American football coach arguing that they might have lost the game on points but they racked up the most yardage. That might be true, but the problem is they weren't playing against a team trying to get the most yardage, they were playing against a team trying to get the most points. If maximum yardage was the goal, the other team would have played differently.

European posters who follow Association football ("soccer"), please feel free to substitute "ball possession" for "yardage" in the above.

So while I'm disappointed in the election outcome, I'm not buying the "popular vote" argument. The only reasonable response to the argument that Clinton won the popular vote is that it clearly demonstrates she should have put more effort into winning the EC and less into the popular. The popular isn't how you win and that has been the case for over 200 years. If the other team isn't putting any special effort into winning the popular, why did you?

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Thing That Should Not Be wrote:


Trump got the vote because half of murrica was tired of being called racist and misogynist for rational disagreements with Obama and Hillary's policies. This is represented by the fact that nearly all the pollsters got it wrong due to people being afraid to voice their true opinions.

Obama and HRC's policies aside, Trump is a misogynist and racist. I believe they were afraid to voice their opinions because they knew they were indefensible. Most, I am willing to wager, voted despite Trump's worst policies and rhetoric because they wanted change and they were not going to get it from Clinton.

The American Republic may have started out with small and/or limited government in mind, but its become ever increasingly bigger. I believe that is quite problematic with a two party system. I don't feel like I have had fair representation from either D or R most of my life. /shrug


Pan wrote:
The Thing That Should Not Be wrote:


Trump got the vote because half of murrica was tired of being called racist and misogynist for rational disagreements with Obama and Hillary's policies. This is represented by the fact that nearly all the pollsters got it wrong due to people being afraid to voice their true opinions.

Obama and HRC's policies aside, Trump is a misogynist and racist. I believe they were afraid to voice their opinions because they knew they were indefensible. Most, I am willing to wager, voted despite Trump's worst policies and rhetoric because they wanted change and they were not going to get it from Clinton.

The American Republic may have started out with small and/or limited government in mind, but its become ever increasingly bigger. I believe that is quite problematic with a two party system. I don't feel like I have had fair representation from either D or R most of my life. /shrug

It might just be that none of the polling organizations called to ask their opinions, because they weren't "likely voters." Don't ask me.


I have a question for those saying Trump is unqualified: What are the chances we would be in a nuclear war with Russia by now if Hillary had been elected?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Zero.


What would her policy have been for dealing with Putin?

I'm asking because I know both her and Putin hate each other on just about every level imaginable. And I am not certain the two could speak civilly to each other for very long.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crusinos wrote:

What would her policy have been for dealing with Putin?

I'm asking because I know both her and Putin hate each other on just about every level imaginable. And I am not certain the two could speak civilly to each other for very long.

I can only imagine she would continue the transactional relationship she had with Putin during her tenure as Secretary of State. Have I missed a step?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope! Thank you. This has been informative!

I found out I was lacking some information.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Thing That Should Not Be wrote:
The words of the Constitution don't make mention of race or gender as having different tiers of rights - it simply stated that all men (mankind) are created equal

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Most, I am willing to wager, voted despite Trump's worst policies and rhetoric because they wanted change and they were not going to get it from Clinton.

This is it, I think. Based on the post-mortems, I think the folks who put Trump over the top are the ones tired of living hand to mouth and wanting decent jobs doing hard work that they can be proud of. When that's your context, you don't have to be racist, homophobic or bigoted to vote for the candidate talking about your problems rather than the candidate talking about fighting for transgender bathrooms, Syrian immigrants and BLM.

Many of these Trump voters are probably sympathetic to those issues -- Trump after all breached Clinton's "firewall" by winning counties that supported Obama in 2008 and 2012. It's unlikely something magical happened in 2016 to turn those counties racist overnight. However, that list of issues is probably less important to Rust Belt voters than reopening the mothballed factory that their parents and grandparents used to work at before all the jobs went away.

The big (and very doubtful) question is whether a President Trump can or will do anything to reopen that mothballed factory. But Trump is probably the first candidate since Bill Clinton to even bother acting like he cares whether the factory gets reopened. Hillary Clinton certainly didn't and I suspect that made the difference.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

But yeah, the idea that Sanders would have sailed to victory is enticing, but really hard to know. We don't know what the line of attack on Sanders would have been, or what unforced errors he would have made. He didn't really face a lot of attacks, even in the primary. Were there skeletons in his closet that could have been brought to light?

Some of the attacks on the east coast elite socialist Jew pretty much write themselves.

Not hard to know; demonstrably false.

A self-acknowledged democratic socialist who wrote an essay (fictitious, to be sure) about a woman being raped by three men — yes, it's far more nuanced than that, I know — and was co-sponsor on a bill to send nuclear waste to Texas was not going to have an easy time in any hotly-contested race, let alone one against a person who has never found a sound byte he couldn't twist to his advantage. And that's before you get to Sanders' religion/heritage, his age, and his lackluster appeal to people of color.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TigerTiger wrote:

The big (and very doubtful) question is whether a President Trump can or will do anything to reopen that mothballed factory.

He's the guy who closed it in the first place. Metaphorically speaking.

That's the thing... Clinton was essentially right about the 'baskets' of Trump supporters. In the 'deplorables' basket you have the racists, misogynists, and other bigots. In the other basket you have people who are willing to vote for a racist / misogynist / bigot because they think he will make things better for them economically.

The problem is, there is absolutely NO reason to believe that is true. Trump lied prolifically throughout the campaign and has never shown the slightest inclination to 'stick up for the little guy'. Rather, he has spent his entire life screwing over the little guy. The Republican party as a whole has spent the past 50+ years robbing from the poor to give to the rich. So how could they possibly believe Trump was the solution?

The 'deplorables' at least will largely get what they voted for. The 'others' have voted to make matters worse for themselves. Not to mention most of the rest of us.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Ironically isn't the republican party suppose to be the party all for keeping it the same and the dems are about change I mean Barack Obama slogan was?

That's exactly why I earlier referred to Clinton as the "conservative" candidate, and Trump as "reactionary." Things have shifted so far right that most Dems are now staunch conservatives, and the Republicans are off the edge of the earth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TigerTiger wrote:
Quote:
Most, I am willing to wager, voted despite Trump's worst policies and rhetoric because they wanted change and they were not going to get it from Clinton.

This is it, I think. Based on the post-mortems, I think the folks who put Trump over the top are the ones tired of living hand to mouth and wanting decent jobs doing hard work that they can be proud of. When that's your context, you don't have to be racist, homophobic or bigoted to vote for the candidate talking about your problems rather than the candidate talking about fighting for transgender bathrooms, Syrian immigrants and BLM.

Many of these Trump voters are probably sympathetic to those issues -- Trump after all breached Clinton's "firewall" by winning counties that supported Obama in 2008 and 2012. It's unlikely something magical happened in 2016 to turn those counties racist overnight. However, that list of issues is probably less important to Rust Belt voters than reopening the mothballed factory that their parents and grandparents used to work at before all the jobs went away.

The big (and very doubtful) question is whether a President Trump can or will do anything to reopen that mothballed factory. But Trump is probably the first candidate since Bill Clinton to even bother acting like he cares whether the factory gets reopened. Hillary Clinton certainly didn't and I suspect that made the difference.

OTOH, while nothing magically happened overnight in 2016, a lot has happened since 2012 - Black Lives Matter and all the protests around it came into existence, the same sex marriage decision and the religious freedom cases and laws, including the bathrooms bills. Social issues were a lot more prominent in the last few years.

And of course, in addition to talking about economic issues, Trump ran much harder on racism, misogyny and other forms of prejudice than either Romney or McCain did - both of them tried to keep it to the traditional dog whistle. So it's quite likely that made a difference too.
Presenting someone worried about economic trouble with a scapegoat to blame, particularly one he's already somewhat prejudiced against, is a classic strategy and it works very well.

As for caring about factories - I don't know about "pretending to care", but Obama actually acted to save a lot of factories back when the auto industry was collapsing. Doesn't matter I guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Ironically isn't the republican party suppose to be the party all for keeping it the same and the dems are about change I mean Barack Obama slogan was?
That's exactly why I earlier referred to Clinton as the "conservative" candidate, and Trump as "reactionary." Things have shifted so far right that most Dems are now staunch conservatives, and the Republicans are off the edge of the earth.

you said it.

Maybe it's time for me to reevaluate my political leanings.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
The 'deplorables' at least will largely get what they voted for. The 'others' have voted to make matters worse for themselves. Not to mention most of the rest of us.

When I was in line to vote, a number of people were talking about this. They voted for Trump for precisely two possibilities: Either he'll make things better for them for once, or they're taking everyone else with them when things finally hit the fan.

Either way, they decided they're tired of being ignored.


Quote:
That's the thing... Clinton was essentially right [...] you have the racists, misogynists, and other bigots [...] you have people who are willing to vote for a racist / misogynist / bigot because they think he will make things better for them economically [...] Trump has spent his entire life screwing over the little guy. The Republican party as a whole has spent the past 50+ years robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

I do hear all of this. But these aren't facts. They're an appeal to emotion, and a very particular and narrow appeal that starts from the premise that half the nation has been beyond the pale for the last 50+ years. That's a tough sell. No one who doesn't already agree with it is going to be persuaded by it. Unfortunately, righteous indignation doesn't win elections no matter how much it feels like it should.

Bill Clinton understood this. Hillary Clinton didn't. And now Donald Trump is President-elect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
OTOH, while nothing magically happened overnight in 2016, a lot has happened since 2012 - Black Lives Matter and all the protests around it came into existence, the same sex marriage decision and the religious freedom cases and laws, including the bathrooms bills. Social issues were a lot more prominent in the last few years.

Exactly. Instead of talking about the Americans who lose from globalization and free trade, both the Democrats and Republicans wanted to talk about social issues (from opposite ends of the spectrum). The Rust Belters watched the news and could only think, "No one even wants to talk about me and my problems."

Remember, Trump destroyed the Republican establishment before he destroyed the Democratic one.

Going back to the topic of the thread, none of this would matter much in a country where the popular vote decides the election. But since it is an electoral college, this stuff does matter. And going back to my first post in the thread, if the election was decided by the popular vote, both candidates would have run very different campaigns.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Crusinos wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
The 'deplorables' at least will largely get what they voted for. The 'others' have voted to make matters worse for themselves. Not to mention most of the rest of us.

When I was in line to vote, a number of people were talking about this. They voted for Trump for precisely two possibilities: Either he'll make things better for them for once, or they're taking everyone else with them when things finally hit the fan.

Either way, they decided they're tired of being ignored.

This is what I don't get. "Ignored"?

I mean, I get economic hardship. Times are tough. Times are tough everywhere. Though, even for rural areas, better than it looked a few years back. But ignored? Rural, white, swing state voters? Ignored?

It's very hard for me not to see that, especially in light of all the talk about social issues and political correctness and "telling it like it is", as just more of the assumption that white people's problems should paid more attention to than anyone else's.
It's not like urban minorities are having a great time of it.
For that matter, no one talks at all about rural minorities. They're far more ignored than rural whites.


Matt Filla wrote:
The Thing That Should Not Be wrote:
The words of the Constitution don't make mention of race or gender as having different tiers of rights - it simply stated that all men (mankind) are created equal
That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

You're absolutely right. I conflated texts when describing overarching concepts of 'Murrican Exceptionalism. You are correct to point it out, though in my first post I did cite both texts:

The Thing That Should Not Be wrote:
For the entirety of human history power has sought to maintain and grow itself, and so when the founders carefully planned out the words of the Declaration and the Constitution it was with the express purpose of putting a muzzle on government power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TigerTiger wrote:
Quote:
OTOH, while nothing magically happened overnight in 2016, a lot has happened since 2012 - Black Lives Matter and all the protests around it came into existence, the same sex marriage decision and the religious freedom cases and laws, including the bathrooms bills. Social issues were a lot more prominent in the last few years.

Exactly. Instead of talking about the Americans who lose from globalization and free trade, both the Democrats and Republicans wanted to talk about social issues (from opposite ends of the spectrum). The Rust Belters watched the news and could only think, "No one even wants to talk about me and my problems."

Remember, Trump destroyed the Republican establishment before he destroyed the Democratic one.

Of course Trump talked about social issues - Tougher policing to deal with black crime, his Wall to keep out immigrants, banning Muslims.

Hell, he earned his conservative credentials with birtherism.

And while he didn't talk as much about LGBTQ issues, he did pick Pence to prop him up on that end.

Sovereign Court

TigerTiger wrote:

Going back to the topic of the thread, none of this would matter much in a country where the popular vote decides the election. But since it is an electoral college, this stuff does matter. And going back to my first post in the thread, if the election was decided by the popular vote, both candidates would have run very different campaigns.

I agree and would love to see that campaign run.


Quote:
I agree and would love to see that campaign run.

I'm curious what the result would be but personally suspect it would be a bad idea. Although they are still premised on an EC as opposed to popular vote system, the county-by-county election result maps give one pause. If the President was always decided by the votes of Los Angeles, NYC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and DC and the rest of the country outside the mega-cities just had to live with the result... talk about the Districts and Panem.

There's a reason the founders created a union of sovereign states rather than a central government with administrative sub-districts. One civil war is enough.


TigerTiger wrote:
Quote:
I agree and would love to see that campaign run.

I'm curious what the result would be but personally suspect it would be a bad idea. Although they are still premised on an EC as opposed to popular vote system, the county-by-county election result maps give one pause. If the President was always decided by the votes of Los Angeles, NYC, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and DC and the rest of the country outside the mega-cities just had to live with the result... talk about the Districts and Panem.

There's a reason the founders created a union of sovereign states rather than a central government with administrative sub-districts. One civil war is enough.

Well, you'd still have a Congress to deal with, unless we changed things even more drastically.

And I'm pretty sure you need more than 5 cities to swing the election. :)
Even counting their urban areas.


thejeff wrote:
Crusinos wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
The 'deplorables' at least will largely get what they voted for. The 'others' have voted to make matters worse for themselves. Not to mention most of the rest of us.

When I was in line to vote, a number of people were talking about this. They voted for Trump for precisely two possibilities: Either he'll make things better for them for once, or they're taking everyone else with them when things finally hit the fan.

Either way, they decided they're tired of being ignored.

This is what I don't get. "Ignored"?

I mean, I get economic hardship. Times are tough. Times are tough everywhere. Though, even for rural areas, better than it looked a few years back. But ignored? Rural, white, swing state voters? Ignored?

It's very hard for me not to see that, especially in light of all the talk about social issues and political correctness and "telling it like it is", as just more of the assumption that white people's problems should paid more attention to than anyone else's.
It's not like urban minorities are having a great time of it.
For that matter, no one talks at all about rural minorities. They're far more ignored than rural whites.

The people in question want jobs back in their communities. That's most of what they care about.

What's the percentage of minorities in rural communities? I ask because I don't know. Every truly rural community I've visited has been 100% white.


Thejeff, I'm making the argument that in the context of the electoral college, Hillary Clinton made a strategic misstep in failing to address the economic plight of Rust Belt voters. I'm further suggesting that Trump used this gap to his advantage to win the election by seizing on the issue to win key firewall states. Finally, I'm suggesting, in the context of the electoral college, that the Democrats not make this mistake again.

I haven't articulated it fully yet, but I'm starting to suspect that Clinton's campaigning served mainly to run up the score (in popular vote terms) in states she was already going to win, while doing nothing or even costing her votes in states that were still up for grabs. I'd suggest the Democrats not make that mistake again either, because the popular vote is irrelevant in determining who wins the Presidency.

So with that said, could you elaborate on the argument you are making? It seems to be something about social issues and racists/bigots but I'm not following the finer points of your thesis.


On the other hand, you may just be commenting on things that interest you, which is also cool. This is the Paizo blogs after all, not the Federalist Papers.

And I can go on long riffs as to why my catfolk barbarian is fricking cool from a role-playing/awesome standpoint even though he 's completely unoptimized for the role.

201 to 250 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / To the Republic All Messageboards