Cont: The Trump Presidency X: 10-10 'til we do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
We need that upheaval at the ballot box, not in the street after the fact.
Click to expand...
And if people feel that the ballot box is useless?
Click to expand...
Then they are the same idiots that stayed home in 2016 and gave us Trump by some vary narrow margins in three states.

If someone thinks Trump or Clinton, no difference, those folks are blind or ignorant or both.
Click to expand...
Yes, someone who foolishly stayed home on 2016 (or spoiled their ballot or voted for a 3rd party) because they thought Clinton and Trump were somehow the same truly was an idiot.

But what about those people who WERE politically engaged? the people who actually supported the Democrats in the 2016 election but found that:
- They couldn't vote due to voter suppression
- They did vote, but their vote didn't matter because a combination of gerrymandering and the foibles of the electoral college (as well as interference by foreign governments) gave political power to a party that did not represent a majority or plurality of voters

The U.S. is no longer a full democracy. Its a flawed democracy (rapidly approaching the level of a failure). The government is run by people who represent a minority, yet that government is acting as if it has a popular mandate, ignoring any and all attempts at bipartisanship. And the current actions by the government 1) are extremely long lasting (the judges that are appointed will be able to restrict the rights of women for decades to come, and the increased debt will affect future generations), and 2) self-perpetuating. (Voter suppression and gerrymandering now allows the government to set up further suppression and gerrymandering in the future.)

The American revolution supposedly started because some people didn't like "taxation without representation". That's where they are right now. Given the fact that the U.S. is currently under 'minority rule' right now, I can't really fault people for being upset enough to want to take actions that go beyond just 'go to the ballot box'.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
In the run-up to the Midterms, the number of blatant lies Trump tells per day is sharply increasing:
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/...idterms-approach-lies-and-fear-mongering.html
....
Click to expand...


Worse than that, when the President lies, the whole mechanism of government tries to make it true.
The mystery tax cut is only the latest instance of the federal government scrambling to reverse-engineer policies to meet Trump’s sudden public promises — or to search for evidence buttressing his conspiracy theories and falsehoods.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e8-83a2-d1c3da28d6b6_story.html?noredirect=on
 
Segnosaur said:
The U.S. is no longer a full democracy. Its a flawed democracy (rapidly approaching the level of a failure). The government is run by people who represent a minority, yet that government is acting as if it has a popular mandate, ignoring any and all attempts at bipartisanship. And the current actions by the government 1) are extremely long lasting (the judges that are appointed will be able to restrict the rights of women for decades to come, and the increased debt will affect future generations), and 2) self-perpetuating. (Voter suppression and gerrymandering now allows the government to set up further suppression and gerrymandering in the future.)
Click to expand...


"Cry Me a River" -- Ella Fitzgerald

Good song. One of my favorites!
 
Belz... said:
That's a stupid insult, given that "democrat" is a person who is democratic.
Click to expand...

Have you interacted with any Trump supporters?


I'm not sure the highlighted is an insurmountable problem in that case.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

"Billions of dollars are, and will be, coming into United States coffers because of Tariffs. Great also for negotiations - if a country won’t give us a fair Trade Deal, we will institute Tariffs on them. Used or not, jobs and businesses will be created. U.S. respected again!"

Maybe someone should tell him about the Smoot Hawley Act and how that worked out.

https://www.ft.com/content/fee4e0ca-26ab-11e8-9274-2b13fccdc744

“The result was disaster: country after country erected their own barriers in retaliation, global trade plummeted, and American exporters saw their suffering intensify. By 1933, US exports and imports had fallen by about 60 per cent.”
Click to expand...

LOL the idiot still thinks tariffs are not paid for by Americans and/or American companies. Ford recently said they took a $1 billion hit to their bottom line due to tariffs, Caterpillar didn’t give an exact number but also said they are suffering major cost increases.

The obvious solution for these companies is going to be to move their production outside the US so they don’t get hit by the tariffs. If the orange idiot decides to put tariffs on vehicles/equipment as well it drives up costs not just for consumers but in mining, construction, etc killing job growth.
 
Segnosaur said:
Yes, someone who foolishly stayed home on 2016 (or spoiled their ballot or voted for a 3rd party) because they thought Clinton and Trump were somehow the same truly was an idiot.

But what about those people who WERE politically engaged? the people who actually supported the Democrats in the 2016 election but found that:
- They couldn't vote due to voter suppression
- They did vote, but their vote didn't matter because a combination of gerrymandering and the foibles of the electoral college (as well as interference by foreign governments) gave political power to a party that did not represent a majority or plurality of voters

The U.S. is no longer a full democracy. Its a flawed democracy (rapidly approaching the level of a failure). The government is run by people who represent a minority, yet that government is acting as if it has a popular mandate, ignoring any and all attempts at bipartisanship. And the current actions by the government 1) are extremely long lasting (the judges that are appointed will be able to restrict the rights of women for decades to come, and the increased debt will affect future generations), and 2) self-perpetuating. (Voter suppression and gerrymandering now allows the government to set up further suppression and gerrymandering in the future.)

The American revolution supposedly started because some people didn't like "taxation without representation". That's where they are right now. Given the fact that the U.S. is currently under 'minority rule' right now, I can't really fault people for being upset enough to want to take actions that go beyond just 'go to the ballot box'.
Click to expand...

^+1
 
Segnosaur said:
Yes, someone who foolishly stayed home on 2016 (or spoiled their ballot or voted for a 3rd party) because they thought Clinton and Trump were somehow the same truly was an idiot.

But what about those people who WERE politically engaged? the people who actually supported the Democrats in the 2016 election but found that:
- They couldn't vote due to voter suppression
- They did vote, but their vote didn't matter because a combination of gerrymandering and the foibles of the electoral college (as well as interference by foreign governments) gave political power to a party that did not represent a majority or plurality of voters

The U.S. is no longer a full democracy. Its a flawed democracy (rapidly approaching the level of a failure). The government is run by people who represent a minority, yet that government is acting as if it has a popular mandate, ignoring any and all attempts at bipartisanship. And the current actions by the government 1) are extremely long lasting (the judges that are appointed will be able to restrict the rights of women for decades to come, and the increased debt will affect future generations), and 2) self-perpetuating. (Voter suppression and gerrymandering now allows the government to set up further suppression and gerrymandering in the future.)

The American revolution supposedly started because some people didn't like "taxation without representation". That's where they are right now. Given the fact that the U.S. is currently under 'minority rule' right now, I can't really fault people for being upset enough to want to take actions that go beyond just 'go to the ballot box'.
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of this.

However, I think that the idea that someone who votes for a third party they agree with over one of the two major parties is spoiling their ballot is a problem. The bigger problem, of course, is that it is effectively true and it's the reason we are pretty much stuck with the two parties we have. I'd like to see it fixed, but neither of the parties that have power are interested in allowing more competition.

The foibles of the electoral college are fairly easily fixed, in theory. Simply requiring all states to use a proportional system rather than winner-takes-all would fix a lot.

With all of the discussions of the alt-right and extreme left going on, it also occurs to me that the system we have makes it hard for the parties to disavow the extremists on their fringe in a meaningful way. Most Republicans may hate the Nazi groups, but they need them to keep voting for them. Similarly, most Democrats may not desire communism or extreme socialism, but they need their votes. (And no, I'm not trying to compare Nazis with socialists, here.)
 
TomB said:
However, I think that the idea that someone who votes for a third party they agree with over one of the two major parties is spoiling their ballot is a problem. The bigger problem, of course, is that it is effectively true and it's the reason we are pretty much stuck with the two parties we have. I'd like to see it fixed, but neither of the parties that have power are interested in allowing more competition.
Click to expand...
There are benefits and drawbacks of a '2 party' system. While you may complain about a lack of competition, it does make your choices clearer and eliminates the chance of vote splitting.

The foibles of the electoral college are fairly easily fixed, in theory. Simply requiring all states to use a proportional system rather than winner-takes-all would fix a lot.
Click to expand...
Not so easy to fix as you might think.

Technically, requiring all states to use proportional representation would work, but how would you force that? You'd probably need a constitutional amendment, and I can't see the more rural states (who currently have more influence) giving up their power in the name of "fairness".

With all of the discussions of the alt-right and extreme left going on, it also occurs to me that the system we have makes it hard for the parties to disavow the extremists on their fringe in a meaningful way. Most Republicans may hate the Nazi groups, but they need them to keep voting for them. Similarly, most Democrats may not desire communism or extreme socialism, but they need their votes. (And no, I'm not trying to compare Nazis with socialists, here.)
Click to expand...
Actually, I don't think its fair to say at this point that the Democrats need "communists".

I also don't think its accurate to say "republicans may hate the Nazi groups". After all, we know from Trump that they're fine people. They may hate being called Nazis, but the republicans seem to be keen to continue the association (while paying lip service to democracy.)
 
Segnosaur said:
<snips>
They did vote, but their vote didn't matter because a combination of gerrymandering and the foibles of the electoral college (as well as interference by foreign governments) gave political power to a party that did not represent a majority or plurality of voters
<snips>
Click to expand...

I have it from the absolute highest authority in the land, and heard it many, many times, that its virtually impossible for republicans to win the electoral college.
 
If America did have a civil war, would Mexico and Canada talk about national emergencies as Americans gathered at the borders? Don’t try to come to Australia by boat unless you want to languish forgotten in an island detention centre.
 
Segnosaur said:
Technically, requiring all states to use proportional representation would work, but how would you force that? You'd probably need a constitutional amendment, and I can't see the more rural states (who currently have more influence) giving up their power in the name of "fairness".
Click to expand...
The states can decide individually to throw their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote, and when enough states (those totaling > 270 electoral votes) do so, we're done.

"The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Explanation It has been enacted into law in 12 states with 172 electoral votes (CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). Map showing status in states. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 98 more electoral votes. It has passed at least one house in 11 additional states with 89 electoral votes (AR, AZ, CO, DE, ME, MI, NC, NM, NV, OK, OR) and has been approved unanimously by committee votes in two additional states with 26 electoral votes (GA, MO). The bill has recently been passed by a 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, 34-23 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House, and 26-16 in the New Mexico Senate. "

www.nationalpopularvote.com
 
Sideroxylon said:
If America did have a civil war, would Mexico and Canada talk about national emergencies as Americans gathered at the borders? Don’t try to come to Australia by boat unless you want to languish forgotten in an island detention centre.
Click to expand...

An American civil war right now would sure make Canadians more than a bit apprehensive.
 
TofuFighter said:
I have it from the absolute highest authority in the land, and heard it many, many times, that its virtually impossible for republicans to win the electoral college.
Click to expand...

Right! Because, after all, the electoral college penalizes the rural states, which tend to go Republican.

So, for Trump to overcome that obvious penalty, I mean, that's really something, right?
 
Paul2 said:
The states can decide individually to throw their electoral votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote, and when enough states (those totaling > 270 electoral votes) do so, we're done.

"The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Explanation It has been enacted into law in 12 states with 172 electoral votes (CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). Map showing status in states. The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 98 more electoral votes. It has passed at least one house in 11 additional states with 89 electoral votes (AR, AZ, CO, DE, ME, MI, NC, NM, NV, OK, OR) and has been approved unanimously by committee votes in two additional states with 26 electoral votes (GA, MO). The bill has recently been passed by a 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, 34-23 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House, and 26-16 in the New Mexico Senate. "

www.nationalpopularvote.com
Click to expand...
I'm not opposed to the concept.

But, if you look at the current map, the states where the law has been passed are states that usually vote Democrat. (the most notable ones are California and NY). On the other hand, states where the issue hasn't even been looked into include solidly republican states like Texas. (And while some of the other solid republican states may have had hearings on the bill, that is far from having a bill enacted into law.)

The Democrats may end up with a disadvantage... many/most states that were solidly democratic will follow the law and vote according to popular vote, while states that were republican will stick to the "all or nothing local vote".

The law supposedly comes into effect only when its passed by enough states representing a majority of the votes (Although I don't know what would happen if the law is passed and one or more states later decide to opt out.)
 
Belz... said:
I was assuming that he was too stupid to make the difference, since it doesn't register as an insult to me, as I said earlier.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Don't think anyone goes far wrong by assuming Trump is ignorant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom