"SEND HER BACK!" Will they defend this?

[Segnosaur]

Diamond and Silk are hosted on FoxNation streaming service. They are very pro-Trump.

I don't think whataboutism is their role in the Trump World.
It seems to me that
a. they are supposed to to show that Trump has Black supporters
and
b. that African Amercians are kind of stupid

I really hope that the two are just playing an act, in which case I hope they cash in big time.

Why would you hope that?

They have thrown their 'support' (even if its an act) to someone who is: 1) a racist/bigot, 2) a con-artist, 3) harming many US citizens by attacking Obamacare, increasing taxes on lower classes, and relaxing pollution controls. Why would you hope that they would get rewarded for that, even if they weren't true believers?

Its like saying "I hope IBM cashed in big time over their collaboration with Nazi Germany".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

He is paying attention. He’s just trolling you. It’s a more subtle form of Bob-ing.

Don’t feed the troll.

When someone claims a person cares about a subject when that person merely pointed out it wasn't relevant, (post #154) it confirms your observation.

 

[Segnosaur]

If you express hatred for the United States and you are an immigrant legal or not the response is acceptable. Go back to where you came from. If you were born and raised here and express hatred for the United States then find somewhere else to live.

The individuals in question never expressed hatred for the United states. They expressed hatred/contempt for the current sitting president of the United states. Which of course is not the same thing. There is no requirement that all residents must express loyalty to the president.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I don't think whataboutism is their role in the Trump World.
It seems to me that
a. they are supposed to to show that Trump has Black supporters
and
b. that African Amercians are kind of stupid

I really hope that the two are just playing an act, in which case I hope they cash in big time.

It's like a lot of things in orbit of Trump, it plays on our rubbernecker driving past the car crash tendencies.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

The US doesn't have it for the electoral college or the Senate. It doesn't have it for congress either, although it is less disproportionate.

If you look at statewide votes cast for Congressional candidates vs. the proportions sent by party, some divergences are just stupefying. Yay, dems locked into 3 or 4 districts sending up 80+% blowouts and a whole swathe of red skating by at 55% with a few strongholds posting up to 60% or so.

 

[pgwenthold]

The individuals in question never expressed hatred for the United states. They expressed hatred/contempt for the current sitting president of the United states. Which of course is not the same thing. There is no requirement that all residents must express loyalty to the president.

Moreover, "love it or leave it" is a false dichotomy. For example, there is a third option: work to change it. Among the ways to do that is to become part of the government, where you gave the direct ability to affect change.

Just a reminder, we are talking about a duly elected member of congress.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I also thought that citizens of Washington DC had no senate or Congress representatives with voting powers?

DC, and the various territories have "Shadow Congresspeople" which can show up, debate, talk, argue their points but can't vote on anything which is either the best job in the world or the worst job depending on how you look at it.

 

[pgwenthold]

The individuals in question never expressed hatred for the United states. They expressed hatred/contempt for the current sitting president of the United states. Which of course is not the same thing. There is no requirement that all residents must express loyalty to the president.

Whenever I hear this "you don't respect the office of President " it makes me think of Captain Kirk in Trouble with Tribbles. To paraphrase

"I have a lot of respect for the office of the President. It's the person doing the job that I don't respect."

I would argue it's because of my "respect for the office of the President" that I have no respect for the idiot in it. If you have any respect for the office, how can you accept a fool doing it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Holy cow. Is that the incident Zig is yammering on about?

"Go home" in that situation meant "return to your country of origin"?

That's just pathetic.

The incident I just looked at, Gorka tells the reporter to go home and the reporter tells Gorka to get a job.

If someone wants to find a different version, that's fine but I think this is straying off topic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Just a reminder, we are talking about a duly elected member of congress.

Who actually won the popular vote for their election.

 

[pgwenthold]

Who actually won the popular vote for their election.

That, too

 

[smartcooky]

The electoral college is proportional.

And I would argue that the senate is proportional as well, but by a different metric than central-government parliamentarians are used to.

No it isn't

Wyoming is represented by 2% of the Senate but it has 0.18% of the US population
Pop 578,000
2 Senators
289,000 per Senator

Alabama is represented by 2% of the Senate but it has 1.5% of the US population
Pop 4,900,000
2 Senators
2,450,000 per Senator

California is represented by 2% of the Senate but it has 12% of the US population
Population 39,600,000
2 Senators
19,800,000 per Senator

The Senate is not proportional by any stretch. It is very badly skewed because of disproportionate representation and gerrymandering.

 

[Minoosh]

The individuals in question never expressed hatred for the United states. They expressed hatred/contempt for the current sitting president of the United states. Which of course is not the same thing. There is no requirement that all residents must express loyalty to the president.

And also, criticism = hatred, don't you know.

 

[jimbob]

The electoral college is proportional.

And I would argue that the senate is proportional as well, but by a different metric than central-government parliamentarians are used to.

Not by any commonly accepted use of the term, and *certainly* not in the sense that The Atheist was using it, which was the conventional way.

Successful derail, though.

 

[theprestige]

No it isn't

Wyoming is represented by 2% of the Senate but it has 0.18% of the US population
Pop 578,000
2 Senators
289,000 per Senator

Alabama is represented by 2% of the Senate but it has 1.5% of the US population
Pop 4,900,000
2 Senators
2,450,000 per Senator

California is represented by 2% of the Senate but it has 12% of the US population
Population 39,600,000
2 Senators
19,800,000 per Senator

The Senate is not proportional by any stretch. It is very badly skewed because of disproportionate representation and gerrymandering.

Not by any commonly accepted use of the term, and *certainly* not in the sense that The Atheist was using it, which was the conventional way.

Successful derail, though.

Good points. I was considering an argument that the representation of the Senate is proportional to the statehood of the states, but you're right that this is not a good way to look at it.

It's more accurate to think of the Senate as anti-proportional. Which is relevant and appropriate to the US system of government, but you're right that it's not proportional.

Also, it's kind of silly to complain about a derail in a sidebar you're actively contributing to, but if you insist you should probably blame The Atheist, who actually started the sidebar.

Oh, I thought the senate was two seats from each state.

I also thought that Wyoming had about 600k populaiton but three electoral college votes, whilst California had about 67 times the population, but only 55 electoral college votes?

I also thought that citizens of Washington DC had no senate or Congress representatives with voting powers?

ETA: For comparison, the UK parliamentary system is generally considered to not be proportional although it has a boundary commission redrawing the constituency boundaries to try and even out the number of voters per MP.

This, on the other hand, is entirely silly.

 

[smartcooky]

ETA: For comparison, the UK parliamentary system is generally considered to not be proportional although it has a boundary commission redrawing the constituency boundaries to try and even out the number of voters per MP.

And this is the essential difference between your and our electoral commissions, and the US equivalents, which are mostly the State Legislatures and Commissions. Only one state (Iowa) has Non-partisan staff develop the maps, but then they are voted on by the State Legislature anyway. Some states don't have commissions as the whole state is one district - Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Vermont, Delaware and DC.

Here, and in the UK, the Electoral Commission operate in the blind as to who the voters are and who they vote for. They only have population figures, and have no information on the demographic makeup of those populations. As a result, they must base their boundary settings and adjustment purely on the numbers.

In the US, the system is corrupt. You have partisan hacks drawing boundaries, using demographic and vote preference information to arrange their voting districts in such a way that "the other party" voters are lumped together in huge majorities in a small number of districts, while "our party voters" are all spread out in small majorities in a large number of districts. The end result is that one party might get, say, 40% of the votes, but 60% of the seats.

And it ain't just Republicans who do this, Democrats do it too.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Because the human brain can comprehend the shift in what is permissive when dozens of cameras sending the behavior to millions of people watching results in no observable harm and perhaps even accrue some benefit to the person who performed the behavior.

Now layer on the social dynamics of what wealth and power the people engaging in the behavior have attached to themselves.

But yeah, there's an unsettling wrinkle in the inexplicable need to laboriously peel the onion back this far.

In addition to this, target key people like Omar (she's the easiest because she looks the most other) and start tagging her with key words or claims. Repeat them over and over.

Omar said bad words
Omar hates this country
Corrupt
Commie
Israel hater
Muslim
Pals around with terrorists​

Bloomberg OpEd:

After all, the hosts at Fox and Friends contributed on Sunday by just having a few laughs about the president’s tweets. Meanwhile, Matt Wolking, the self-described “Deputy Director of Communications - Rapid Response” for the president’s 2020 campaign, did his part by responding so rapidly to the widespread criticism that he simply pretended the media misrepresented what Trump tweeted. And by my count only one Republican legislator criticized Trump all day. Representative Chip Roy of Texas crossed lines to offer what was ultimately a tepid critique of Trump’s Twitter storm. Other than Roy, crickets.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It would create others, but it's debatable whether it would be worse.

Might be worse for fear mongering conservatives that believe their own fear mongering.

But for the rest of us, sanity would return.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The US has two forms of proportional representation, though.

We all know what he meant. And everyone here knows the point you are trying to make. Go argue the EC and Senate seats in the thread it belongs in.

 

[dudalb]

No it isn't

Wyoming is represented by 2% of the Senate but it has 0.18% of the US population
Pop 578,000
2 Senators
289,000 per Senator

Alabama is represented by 2% of the Senate but it has 1.5% of the US population
Pop 4,900,000
2 Senators
2,450,000 per Senator

California is represented by 2% of the Senate but it has 12% of the US population
Population 39,600,000
2 Senators
19,800,000 per Senator

The Senate is not proportional by any stretch. It is very badly skewed because of disproportionate representation and gerrymandering.

The whole idea of each state having two senators was to prevent the big states from being able to trample over the small states.
Also how the hell does gerrymandering impact a senate election? I think you are confusing it with the House of Representatives where Gerrymandering congressional districts does have a negative impact. But not Senate elections where districts are irrevelent.