To the Republic


Off-Topic Discussions

251 to 300 of 472 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Crusinos wrote:
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.

Still small, but growing - particularly Latinos. Seems like roughly 25%, but concentrated - blacks in the old South, Hispanics in the south West.

I do get. They want the good jobs back. So do the working poor in the cities. And pretty much everywhere. It's just that the working poor in the cities tend to be minority (or at least that's the assumption.)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I suppose the problem is they've actively rejected every attempt at outreach by the Democratic party. I lived in white rural communities, the argument wasn't "Boy, I don't think this school program puts the correct emphasis on practical skills," it was a lot closer to "Those people are just gonna raise my taxes and give it to blacks, steal my guns, and promote abortion." People are saying that their rational arguments were ignored, and it's not true, rational arguments weren't presented.


thejeff wrote:
Crusinos wrote:
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.

Still small, but growing - particularly Latinos. Seems like roughly 25%, but concentrated - blacks in the old South, Hispanics in the south West.

I do get. They want the good jobs back. So do the working poor in the cities. And pretty much everywhere. It's just that the working poor in the cities tend to be minority (or at least that's the assumption.)

They want the jobs back for the cities as well. Because do you know how many of those jobs affected rural areas? Yeah, that inner city office may employ a few hundred people. But they can easily buy products from the local community that causes more jobs in the rural areas.

After all, think about this: We have three factories open up in an inner city, and one of them needs wood. Sure, it can buy from some place out of state... but a rural community can raise some of the wood and sell it to them for cheaper. As well as run the shipping company that delivers the wood. You're talking about creating jobs for wood conservationists, wood cutters, laborers, drivers, managers, gas station attendants (the trucks need fuel!), and so on. A rural community of three hundred people may end up with thirty jobs that didn't exist before.

And when those factory workers decide to take vacations? Sure, they can't afford to hop an airplane. But some of them will decide to travel, and they'll notice this nice rural community that is mostly unspoilt by urbanization. Perfect vacation spot!

A lot of rural communities are aware of how connected they are to the cities. If the cities fail, they could fail as a side-effect. They want jobs back, period.

As for rural minorities: 25% in concentrated populations means most rural communities are not going to see any minorities. Nobody will care what they say because there's far more communities speaking over them.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Here it was always said that "If he doesn't win Florida, he can't win" and that kind of still looks right to me (though I haven't checked what his total tally of electoral college votes is for a while). Is that still true?

If it is, it seems to me that the real failure of the Clinton campaign was in not winning the race that everyone knew was going to be pivotal. Presumably every close election throws up some surprises in various states - losing the predictable crucial states seems far more of a "failing" to me than being caught out by a swing that everybody else missed also.


Steve Geddes wrote:

Here it was always said that "If he doesn't win Florida, he can't win" and that kind of still looks right to me (though I haven't checked what his total tally of electoral college votes is for a while). Is that still true?

If it is, it seems to me that the real failure of the Clinton campaign was in not winning the race that everyone knew was going to be pivotal. Presumably every close election throws up some surprises in various states - losing the predictable crucial states seems far more of a "failing" to me than being caught out by a swing that everybody else missed also.

The failing is not offering any alternative to Trump.

The key strategy she used for countering Trump's play towards the working class was to point out he's a racist, sexist bigot. Okay, fine. But anyone who didn't know that by now didn't have the technology to hear her speeches anyway. And she never offered any reassurance that her policies would be economically viable, ignored valuable supporters, and didn't even campaign in the states she lost. Her efforts were wasted.

So, what resulted? Her followers, seeing only one hope for economics and ignored by a candidate, mostly didn't vote on the Presidential race.

I ended up voting third party for the same reason. Just assume I'm going to vote for you because of your party? No thank you.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Crusinos wrote:

The failing is not offering any alternative to Trump.

The key strategy she used for countering Trump's play towards the working class was to point out he's a racist, sexist bigot. Okay, fine. But anyone who didn't know that by now didn't have the technology to hear her speeches anyway. And she never offered any reassurance that her policies would be economically viable, ignored valuable supporters, and didn't even campaign in the states she lost. Her efforts were wasted.

So, what resulted? Her followers, seeing only one hope for economics and ignored by a candidate, mostly didn't vote on the Presidential race.

I ended up voting third party for the same reason. Just assume I'm going to vote for you because of your party? No thank you.

I clearly didn't explain my point very well. I was speaking almost from a theoretical perspective not a 'what made a difference to you' viewpoint. Obviously there are many individual reasons for each voting decision - if she'd been more focussed on the working class vote she may well have picked up some votes there and would no doubt have lost some votes elsewhere.

My point is that, after the election, there's a lot of people (at least here in Australia) saying "The Clinton campaign never even visited Wisconsin! No wonder!" which is easy to say after the result, but there's always going to be surprises and it appeared Wisconsin was safe, so one can understand why you would devote resources elsewhere rather than shoring up the vote in an area that it appears you're not going to need. To me, she fought very hard for Florida and lost it - that's a failure of campaigning in my view that's bigger than being surprised elsewhere (particularly if Trump ends up winning by less than 29 votes). Similarly, I think putting resources into Arizona was a bigger error than neglecting the midwest - you make your decisions based on the information you have at the time, not with the luxury at looking back at where you did poorly.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Crusinos wrote:

So, what resulted? Her followers, seeing only one hope for economics and ignored by a candidate, mostly didn't vote on the Presidential race.

I ended up voting third party for the same reason. Just assume I'm going to vote for you because of your party? No thank you.

That makes sense if you think there's no difference between the two candidates. If you have no preference between the major parties' candidates and are dissatisfied with both, you may as well lodge a protest vote with a minor party. I personally find that difficult to understand, since I think they were clearly very, very different so I struggle to see how one could come to the view they were equally desirable. Every voter makes their own decision though.


Well, the key issue is that the 2016 election was just a repeat of the 2008 Democrat primaries.

In both cases, she fought with more traditional politician strategies, ignored key states that could have been part of her power base, and really offered no viable alternatives to the change that her opponents were offering. In both cases, she was up against a well-organized grassroots campaign that didn't make the same assumptions she did. And in both cases, she was up against highly charismatic people who had a seriously massive flaw they turned to their advantage (Obama was extremely inexperienced as a politician, and Trump's ego).

She already had all of the evidence she needed that her campaign style wouldn't win. And she had eight years to examine and learn from what happened.

2016 was not a lack of foresight for Hillary. It was a lack of hindsight.


Steve Geddes wrote:
Crusinos wrote:

So, what resulted? Her followers, seeing only one hope for economics and ignored by a candidate, mostly didn't vote on the Presidential race.

I ended up voting third party for the same reason. Just assume I'm going to vote for you because of your party? No thank you.

That makes sense if you think there's no difference between the two candidates. If you have no preference between the major parties' candidates and are dissatisfied with both, you may as well lodge a protest vote with a minor party. I personally find that difficult to understand, since I think they were clearly very, very different so I struggle to see how one could come to the view they were equally desirable. Every voter makes their own decision though.

For outcome? I honestly did see no difference. No matter who was elected, my area was likely screwed. We've dealt with a long economic recession. There are people soon to hit adulthood that don't remember a time before it. And there's no sign either party is going to do anything about it.

I don't have to discuss the Republicans. Anyone on here knows why they wouldn't improve things.

The Democrat party had Democrats running against Obama in some areas. No matter what, as far as I could see the President would be dealing with a divided, depressed Democrat party and a united Republican party. No matter what they wanted to accomplish, likely the Republicans would end up running the show simply because the Democrats did not have things together this election.

At least, that's how it looked from the ground, when I was standing there with a ballot in front of me and trying to make a decision. Whether or not it's entirely factual is open to speculation.


Since we are talking about the most recent election, and to bring it back to the Republic and the US's form of representation via the EC and congress...this guy gets it in regards to what happened in regards to the most recent election to elect the electors for the real election in December...

Obama explains where the Democrats went wrong

Quote:

"I believe that we have better ideas, but I also believe that good ideas don't matter if people don't hear them. And one of the issues that Democrats have to be clear on is that given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere, we have to show up everywhere," Obama said. "We have to work at a grassroots level, something that's been a running thread through my career."

.........

"I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win Iowa, it was because I spent 87 days going to every small town, and fair, and fish fry, and VFW hall. And there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points," Obama explained. "There're some counties that maybe I won that people didn't expect — because people had a chance to see you and listen to you and get a sense of who you stood for and who you were fighting for."

So, Obama said, the challenge facing the Democrats "is how do you dig in there and create those kinds of structures so that people have a sense of what it is that you stand for."

In a Republic like the US, even if you think someplace is set in stone...you can't absolutely ignore it. It gives people, all the people, more power overall than simply a popular vote won by majority (and DEFINATELY more than a popular vote won by the person with the highest percentage of votes which can lead to some very bad results in a binary system).

Obama is a very smart guy and was right about how to go about this in 2008, in 2012, and I think he's right about it in 2016.

This is also one of many reasons I think Bernie would have crushed Trump. Trump went to areas which were traditionally Blue and did grassroot campaigning there, in some cases extremely heavily which was ridiculed by the incredulity of the media. Clinton didn't do this type of campaigning much, but Sanders DID. In fact, much of his campaigning was exactly like this. It's an example that Obama himself set, showing that you can win in a Republic by actually trying to sway those who many might normally ignore.

One has to look at this NOT as simply winning those in the cities (which, if you look at a map, is what the Clinton campaign won...their votes are focused on the big population centers and cities) and ignore everyone else and consider them as non-necessary.

That said, it's still not over until it's over. This is a Republic and the real Presidential election still has not occurred. As we are the US republic, it is the representatives that choose our next president, either from the EC, or if that cannot have a majority, from the House.

As I said, I think this election shows that the EC is working exactly as intended from the beginning.

In some ways, one of the most enduring presidents of our time also won because of this EC concept and because the other party was divided. Abraham Lincoln is one who utilized the EC very successfully (though some might say it caused extreme controversy at the time to the point of leading the US into a Civil War). I think, though the US went through a horrendous time, the results of having Lincoln in the end have proven to bring an even greater minorities (the actual minorities who were not White) needs and freedoms into the lime light over time.

I think the Republic is great idea, and though there are some really horrible things that happen still (in fact, even now in my life I have things that trouble me), I still truly think it's the greatest nation on earth (as I said, as an American, others can feel as they want about their own nations).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Crusinos wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Crusinos wrote:

So, what resulted? Her followers, seeing only one hope for economics and ignored by a candidate, mostly didn't vote on the Presidential race.

I ended up voting third party for the same reason. Just assume I'm going to vote for you because of your party? No thank you.

That makes sense if you think there's no difference between the two candidates. If you have no preference between the major parties' candidates and are dissatisfied with both, you may as well lodge a protest vote with a minor party. I personally find that difficult to understand, since I think they were clearly very, very different so I struggle to see how one could come to the view they were equally desirable. Every voter makes their own decision though.

For outcome? I honestly did see no difference. No matter who was elected, my area was likely screwed. We've dealt with a long economic recession. There are people soon to hit adulthood that don't remember a time before it. And there's no sign either party is going to do anything about it.

I don't have to discuss the Republicans. Anyone on here knows why they wouldn't improve things.

The Democrat party had Democrats running against Obama in some areas. No matter what, as far as I could see the President would be dealing with a divided, depressed Democrat party and a united Republican party. No matter what they wanted to accomplish, likely the Republicans would end up running the show simply because the Democrats did not have things together this election.

At least, that's how it looked from the ground, when I was standing there with a ballot in front of me and trying to make a decision. Whether or not it's entirely factual is open to speculation.

I think you had to resort to informed guesswork, just like anyone else. Apologies if that came across as critical - I didn't intend any judgement, just surprise (because I think they are vastly different people and that therefore they would likely be vastly different presidents). I didn't mean to present anything as a fact though.


Good news everyone! I have PB now. :) (Peanut Butter, extra crunchy)

Now I can die happily with the rest of you...


Thomas Seitz wrote:

Good news everyone! I have PB now. :) (Peanut Butter, extra crunchy)

Now I can die happily with the rest of you...

[ninja dragon]~quietly sneaks in, removes your crunchy peanut butter and replaces it with creamy peanut butter, then quietly sneaks back out~[/ninja dragon]


Dammit Sharoth!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*Sips tea*

I think the point the Clinton campaign was trying to make was that a continuation of current policies would be a good thing. We started with the Great Recession, and have managed to get a lot of people on health care, cut the deficit every year, advance in technology, and generally do a lot better than before.

That said, the effects of the recovery certainly haven't been felt everywhere, and I can understand people who want to hear about getting more, decent-paying jobs. I mean, quite frankly, things are currently set up so that people tend to be rewarded in ways that are very different from the value of the work they do.

Actual wages (adjusted for inflation) have been basically flat for decades, even as worker performance has shot up thanks to technology. Similarly, a handful of people in a room programming could be earning tens or hundreds of millions of dollars because tech is so good at scaling, and that's money that generally isn't being paid out as wages to other people.

The idea that new jobs just 'appear' as technology advances is half-true at best. Sure, some jobs do... but not always enough to replace the jobs that are lost. If you're struggling to put food on the table, worried about losing your house, feel like you can't give your kids a good education, and you can't even move to where the good jobs are because the cost of living is so high...

Well, is it surprising that people might want to focus on issues that are a little closer to home? I think the Democratic Party needs to go back to the economy and come up with a way to get jobs created and people working. Not just in big cities, but in rural areas and small communities as well.


Red,

I know living in a mostly rural state that the economic futures people of those places are of much greater concern than some others. However I do keep wondering why they vote for people that offer them things but in reality do little to actually improve their long term goals.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thomas Seitz wrote:

Red,

I know living in a mostly rural state that the economic futures people of those places are of much greater concern than some others. However I do keep wondering why they vote for people that offer them things but in reality do little to actually improve their long term goals.

Hope. When you are down and out you rarely can think clearly. Any hand offered to you is better than none. Or at least it feels that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think you had to resort to informed guesswork, just like anyone else. Apologies if that came across as critical - I didn't intend any judgement, just surprise (because I think they are vastly different people and that therefore they would likely be vastly different presidents). I didn't mean to present anything as a fact though.

There is no harm done.

I just wish this was an election where I could have felt good about who I did vote for. That was not an option.

Thomas Seitz wrote:
I know living in a mostly rural state that the economic futures people of those places are of much greater concern than some others. However I do keep wondering why they vote for people that offer them things but in reality do little to actually improve their long term goals.

Because then, we wouldn't vote for anyone. One party offered hope, but not much else. The other party didn't even offer that. No true solutions have been put on the table by anyone.

As Sharoth said, any hand offered to you is better than none.


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.

Speaking of which, I seem to recall rpg.net being rather nervous that the Republicans are very close to being able to rewrite the Constitution since they have control of all three house. Iffy on the details but Constitution mandated Conversion therapy? Fully legal deporting of muslims/latinos/etc? Over turning Roe vs. Wade? Before you scoff, we scoffed at the thought of Trump getting in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MannyGoblin wrote:
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.

Speaking of which, I seem to recall rpg.net being rather nervous that the Republicans are very close to being able to rewrite the Constitution since they have control of all three house. Iffy on the details but Constitution mandated Conversion therapy? Fully legal deporting of muslims/latinos/etc? Over turning Roe vs. Wade? Before you scoff, we scoffed at the thought of Trump getting in.

If that occurs they will get more then protests.


IMHO the Democratic party had better do some serious soul searching before the 2018 midterms and definitely before the 2020 elections if they want to win. If the Republican party can pull off even 1/4 of what they said they will do then they will be even that much harder to remove. The Democratic party can't be cowards and back down from this but they also need to pick their battles very carefully because they will become the scapegoats to the Republican party. I will be voting Democrat myself. But I really want the Democratic party to be more worth voting for this time around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
MannyGoblin wrote:
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.

Speaking of which, I seem to recall rpg.net being rather nervous that the Republicans are very close to being able to rewrite the Constitution since they have control of all three house. Iffy on the details but Constitution mandated Conversion therapy? Fully legal deporting of muslims/latinos/etc? Over turning Roe vs. Wade? Before you scoff, we scoffed at the thought of Trump getting in.
If that occurs they will get more then protests.

That may not be enough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MannyGoblin wrote:
Speaking of which, I seem to recall rpg.net being rather nervous that the Republicans are very close to being able to rewrite the Constitution since they have control of all three house. Iffy on the details but Constitution mandated Conversion therapy? Fully legal deporting of muslims/latinos/etc? Over turning Roe vs. Wade? Before you scoff, we scoffed at the thought of Trump getting in.

Actual amending of the Constitution isn't likely. It's a long, complicated process, requiring 2/3 majority in both houses, which the Republicans do not have and then ratification by 3/4 of the states. Not likely to happen with anything controversial.

Reinterpreting the Constitution through the Supreme Court is far more likely. For the moment, even with getting to name Scalia's replacement, through unprecedented obstruction by the Republican Senate, the Court will be roughly the same as it's been for the last few terms with Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote. If one of the liberal Justices passes away, that changes and things could get ugly.

251 to 300 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