I voted this morning

[KEW]

To carry that thought through, it's potentially giving as little as 11 states the power to "change the terms of the deal" from when the other 39 states joined the US and ratified the Constitution. That's a long way from what's prescribed for amending the Constitution, in what is a pretty fundamental way.

That is the provocative issue. (it will be more than 11 because there are already 11 + DC and they do not yet have 270 EC votes) The interesting point is the the "11" are disempowering the EC of the other states by yielding the control of their own states EC to the people of all states.

I don't know what percent of voters don't vote because they expect their vote to be rendered pointless in a heavily red or blue state, but voter participation and the people's involvement in the election would go up.

 

[panteragstk]

I've read most of the posts, but the one that I agree with the most was where someone said that it shouldn't be an all or nothing with the electoral votes per state. If we kept the electoral votes, but sectioned them to where it was maybe county based or even a group of counties then electoral votes could be split up within a state.

Texas has 38 votes. If we had 38 "districts" that were independent of each other then "winning Texas" wouldn't be a thing. We'd have a lot more even numbers.

Democrats got ~43% of votes in TX and Republicans got ~52%.

That would get Democrats 16 votes and Republicans 19. If every state did that things wouldn't seem so "pointless" in the non swing states.

 

[majorloser]

We should remind them that the USA is a constitutional republic...not a democracy.


I believe that, like all things, the electoral process needs to be looked at but I'm not sure changing it is a good idea.

What I believe should be changed is the debate process and who is allowed to participate. This two parties bickering thing is getting old.

majorloser 2020

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I'd be the first to nuke DC off the face of the earth

 

[Rickster71]

We Liberals Have to Stop Being so Damn Smug
Confessions of a liberal filled with dread at the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency.

Wyatt Redd | November 16, 2016

I didn’t vote for Trump. I consider myself a liberal with a small “l.” I believe in the value of basic humanity, diversity, and the freedom of religion enshrined in the constitution.

Donald Trump was a candidate who seemed to respect none of those values, and the idea of him ascending to the Oval Office filled me with dread. That’s why I was relieved on Election Day to see that most of the polls gave him a tiny chance of winning.

But like everyone else, I watched on election night as the seemingly impossible happened: Trump became the 45th man elected to the Presidency. So what happened?

To put it bluntly, we were too smug.


American Liberalism has, for the last eight years especially, dominated the landscape of popular culture. It’s long been an article of faith among conservative partisans that liberal bias pervades everything from Hollywood to the evening news. They argue that the liberal establishment has worked to stamp out any expression of alternative viewpoints.

And as painful as it might be, it’s time to emphatically recognize that there is some truth to that argument.

As someone who agrees with the slant you hear expressed among most mainstream media outlets, even I can admit that the American Left probably does as much to police free speech as to defend it. You see it in the “safe spaces” on college campuses, where real discussion is stifled in the name of sensitivity.

There are ideas that are so hateful and destructive to a free and equal society that they should be challenged wherever they appear: things like racism, misogyny, and nativism. Trump, in the minds of many, said things on the campaign trail that ticked all those boxes. And as a result, it became easy (and far too tempting) to dismiss his supporters as representing the death rattle of a time in America when these ideas were mainstream. And it was a vision of America we were glad to see buried with them under another four years of the status quo.

Even in her attempt to plead for some empathy for Trump voters, Hillary Clinton called half of them “Deplorables” and many of us on her side nodded our heads and smirked to hear our own views of them expressed so candidly. Meanwhile, there was no media backlash to a presidential candidate calling a quarter of the country “irredeemable” (except, of course, on Breitbart).

That’s why the possibility of Trump’s election wasn’t reflected in the polls. So many who wanted to vote for him were afraid that expressing that preference publicly would get them called racists and misogynists. And it would have. The media implicitly or explicitly agreed that Trump voters were “deplorable.”

These people weren’t voting for Trump because they were racists. Sure, some undoubtedly were. But most just wanted the Democratic Establishment to stop sacrificing them on the altar of globalism while dismissing their cries of protest as xenophobia. The unemployed autoworker in Michigan was tired of hearing college kids tell him how he needed to check his white privilege, when he rightfully felt like he wasn’t benefiting much from it.

There’s a deep and pervasive smugness in American Liberalism. There’s a sense that you either agree with us or you’re wrong. The people who elected Trump felt unheard because the Liberal Establishment media chose not to give them a chance to be heard. In response, they threw a brick through a window.

We liberals have to be willing to listen to these people again, or it won’t be the last time this happens.

--
Wyatt Redd

 

[Irvrobinson]

As soon as Clinton used the term deplorable, I knew she had a Mitt Romney moment. Deep down I suspected that would cost her (and us) the election. I didn't want to believe it, but I knew it.

 

[rojo]

I'm still struggling to understand what happened to Romney. He had binders full of women! How could he lose? Gosh, sure wish I had binders full of women. That would be swell.

 

[GO-NAD!]

One of Trumps policies - which has implications for us Canucks, as well - is opposition to TPP. I haven't read the agreement, so I wasn't sure how it would benefit the developed countries, such as the US, Canada, Australia, etc. I didn't know that it incorporated labour and environmental standards that would have helped level the playing field.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/11/tpps-death-wont-help-the-american-middle-class/507683/

So, not ratifying TPP might not benefit American or Canadian workers after all (from the article): "If the U.S. does not want to hold other countries accountable for better labor standards, another way to attract corporations to hire Americans would be to lower labor or regulatory standards at home. This is something Trump and the GOP have pledged to do."

Does he want to join a race to the bottom?

Hey, Rick, I think you'd look good on a beach, dismantling an old ship with a gas axe...with all the protection that a loincloth and a pair of flip-flops can provide.

 

[Chu Gai]

The TTP at least to me is far too complex and also encompasses other issues and agreements outside of itself for me to comment intelligently on.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The TTP at least to me is far too complex and also encompasses other issues and agreements outside of itself for me to comment intelligently on.

I'm certainly no expert either. But, I support free trade - in principle, at least. As always, the devil is in the details.

 

[herbu]

How is it that a city can publicly announce, "We're not going to enforce this particular law"? How is it that the president can tell the Attorney General, "Do not enforce that particular law"?

In our system, I don't think the Executive Branch has that authority. And while a city or state can have a law/policy more strict than the federal law, I don't think they're allowed to have one that is more lenient. (Please correct me if I'm mistaken.)

It seems to me we have been moving in the direction of anarchy. If you don't like a law, work to get the law changed. In the meantime, you don't get a pass to violate it. If you don't like a situation, you have the right to protest. But you don't have the right to destroy property, kill people or violate my rights. This is one thing people voted against.

I hope we see a move back toward law and order. The fight w/ the "Sanctuary Cities" will be particularly interesting to watch, and pretty easy to predict. Trump and Congress will withhold federal funds. The cities will claim they're killing children and old people. I will think, "So after repeated warnings you intentionally break a law, and the consequences are not your fault?". To me it's just like someone who is caught robbing a bank, then blames the cops because his kids don't have a daddy while he's in prison.

 

[cel4145]

The fight w/ the "Sanctuary Cities" will be particularly interesting to watch, and pretty easy to predict. Trump and Congress will withhold federal funds.

Let's remember that Trump doesn't have a mandate on immigration by virtue of being elected. He won by electoral college, not popular vote. Given how narcissistic Trump seems to be, and depending if he hopes to get reelected, I think Trump might be more hesitant to take aggressive action directly against the sanctuary cities if it significantly hurts his approval rating. More likely it would be US immigration acting unilaterally in those cities without state and local assistance, much like the DEA conducted raids against marijuana dispensaries in CA, but took no action against state and local government.

 

[Swerd]

Texas has 38 votes. If we had 38 "districts" that were independent of each other then "winning Texas" wouldn't be a thing. We'd have a lot more even numbers.

Democrats got ~43% of votes in TX and Republicans got ~52%.

That would get Democrats 16 votes and Republicans 19. If every state did that things wouldn't seem so "pointless" in the non swing states.

I think that would be a step in the right direction toward a fully nationwide popular vote to decide national elections.

All states and Washington DC now get at least 3 Electoral College votes, 1 or more for each Congressional District and 2 more for Senators. So for Texas, there could be 36 districts (such as Congressional Districts) plus 2 statewide districts.

The only problem I see is that Congressional District lines are decided politically at the state legislature level. They have been subject to severe (in some cases) gerrymandering. If a Congressional District's lines are drawn to make the district safe for one party or the other in Congressional elections, I see no reason why it wouldn't have the same outcome in a Presidential election. In theory, this problem could be solved, but I wouldn't trust elected politicians to do it.

An alternative is to divide a state's electoral college votes in proportion to the statewide popular vote. Nebraska and Maine now do that. That would avoid the gerrymandered district problem.

 

[shadyJ]

One especially stupid thing about this election that I have been thinking about is how little it took to drive Americans into the arms of a textbook fascist. I enjoy the occasional history book and documentary, especially about the first half of the 20th century. The factors that gave rise to the fascists of the 1930s and late 20s were fairly extreme. It took tremendous economic hardship to drive Germany, Italy, and Spain into giving fascists power (well Spain didn't exactly just hand the fascists power, but economic hardship caused many Spaniards to support the fascists). But what about America? 5% unemployment, $2 gas, market indicators like the DJIA at very healthy levels, relatively high consumer confidence, and a strong dollar. I get that there are parts of the country which have been somewhat left behind from this prosperity, but if they think things are bad for them now, just wait for another nasty recession combined with rapid inflation.

So some parts of the country decided to take a wrecking ball to the entire country itself, which was always a possibility in a democracy. What a lot of these infants don't realize is that it is hard to hold everything together. Don't like our bureaucratic institutions? Well hey, guess what keeps everything running. Hillary most certainly represented the status quo in this election, and while the status quo could certainly have used some improvement, it wasn't all that bad, especially when compared to most other nations. And the hardship experienced in those places that went for Trump is NOTHING compared to that which gave rise to the fascists of Europe in the late 20s and 30s. Perhaps too much of America became too comfortable, and their idea of hardship and suffering became too shallow. I think the imminent Trump administration is going to change that; the cabinet position favorites and staff picks that Trump is considering make the Bush administration look like the Algonquin Roundtable.

It took the apocalypse of World War 2 to forever purge many of the tenants of fascism from European government (even the ardent nationalist opponents of immigration in Europe otherwise hold positions would be considered far left in the US). The US didn't suffer anything like Europe in the 1940s, and this is partly why the right is still so strong here. It may take extreme circumstances for a nationwide learning experience. If the catastrophe of the Bush administration wasn't enough to teach America about the ineptitude of Republican policy, I suppose something more severe is needed; after all, eventually Europe learned from their mistakes (after tens of millions of deaths).

 

[cel4145]

One especially stupid thing about this election that I have been thinking about is how little it took to drive Americans into the arms of a textbook fascist....

While I can appreciate where you are coming from with this, I'm not ready to call Trump a fascist...yet. Certainly, a prolonged national crisis might encourage him to take more executive power. But for now, the white nationalism label that has been thrown around would be more accurate than fascism, although it's certain immediately left of fascism on the political spectrum. For textbook fascism,

• The republicans would have to embrace totalitarianism.
• You need that national economy that is not really capitalism nor socialism where those companies who are inline with doing what the the government wants can continue to exist, and those that are not are absorbed by the government socialist style.

Personally, I don't really think Trump is himself a fascist. But I do think he's heading us further down the road toward becoming an oligarchy. The wealth that would result from the extra GDP he aims to create (assuming he can do so) won't be heading toward the middle or lower classes.

 

[shadyJ]

While I can appreciate where you are coming from with this, I'm not ready to call Trump a fascist...yet. Certainly, a prolonged national crisis might encourage him to take more executive power. But for now, the white nationalism label that has been thrown around would be more accurate than fascism, although it's certain immediately left of fascism on the political spectrum. For textbook fascism,

• The republicans would have to embrace totalitarianism.
• You need that national economy that is not really capitalism nor socialism where those companies who are inline with doing what the the government wants can continue to exist, and those that are not are absorbed by the government socialist style.

Personally, I don't really think Trump is himself a fascist. But I do think he's heading us further down the road toward becoming an oligarchy. The wealth that would result from the extra GDP he aims to create (assuming he can do so) won't be heading toward the middle or lower classes.

It looks to me like you are identifying fascism with German national socialism-style fascism. I believe that fascism is a bit broader than that. White nationalism is definitely not excluded from fascism, in fact, it is a fascist value. Here is a little bit of a read, but I highly recommend Umberto Eco's classic essay on the subject, well worth everyone'e time.

 

[cel4145]

It looks to me like you are identifying fascism with German national socialism-style fascism. I believe that fascism is a bit broader than that. White nationalism is definitely not excluded from fascism, in fact, it is a fascist value. Here is a little bit of a read, but I highly recommend Umberto Eco's classic essay on the subject, well worth everyone'e time.

Yes. For "textbook fascism" that you described, I was thinking more of the Italian/German fascism of WW II infamy.

I like Eco. I'll have to add that piece to my rather lengthy reading list

 

[highfigh]

One especially stupid thing about this election that I have been thinking about is how little it took to drive Americans into the arms of a textbook fascist. I enjoy the occasional history book and documentary, especially about the first half of the 20th century. The factors that gave rise to the fascists of the 1930s and late 20s were fairly extreme. It took tremendous economic hardship to drive Germany, Italy, and Spain into giving fascists power (well Spain didn't exactly just hand the fascists power, but economic hardship caused many Spaniards to support the fascists). But what about America? 5% unemployment, $2 gas, market indicators like the DJIA at very healthy levels, relatively high consumer confidence, and a strong dollar. I get that there are parts of the country which have been somewhat left behind from this prosperity, but if they think things are bad for them now, just wait for another nasty recession combined with rapid inflation.

So some parts of the country decided to take a wrecking ball to the entire country itself, which was always a possibility in a democracy. What a lot of these infants don't realize is that it is hard to hold everything together. Don't like our bureaucratic institutions? Well hey, guess what keeps everything running. Hillary most certainly represented the status quo in this election, and while the status quo could certainly have used some improvement, it wasn't all that bad, especially when compared to most other nations. And the hardship experienced in those places that went for Trump is NOTHING compared to that which gave rise to the fascists of Europe in the late 20s and 30s. Perhaps too much of America became too comfortable, and their idea of hardship and suffering became too shallow. I think the imminent Trump administration is going to change that; the cabinet position favorites and staff picks that Trump is considering make the Bush administration look like the Algonquin Roundtable.

It took the apocalypse of World War 2 to forever purge many of the tenants of fascism from European government (even the ardent nationalist opponents of immigration in Europe otherwise hold positions would be considered far left in the US). The US didn't suffer anything like Europe in the 1940s, and this is partly why the right is still so strong here. It may take extreme circumstances for a nationwide learning experience. If the catastrophe of the Bush administration wasn't enough to teach America about the ineptitude of Republican policy, I suppose something more severe is needed; after all, eventually Europe learned from their mistakes (after tens of millions of deaths).

First, Trump has supporters throughout the country, not just in selected areas. Second, most people didn't vote for him because of any "racist" comments, they voted for him because they agree that Washington is bloated, inefficient and needs to be, in Hillary's word WRT teen-aged Black 'thugs', "brought to heel". Washington insiders have become wealthy taking money from lobbyists and that needs to stop. They fall all over themselves coming up with new ways to spend money, not caring that it comes from people who don't need/can't afford higher taxes. Yes, (some) people need assistance, but Congress sticks their collective nose where it's not needed, isn't wanted and without the knowledge of what they're mandating.

If one person causes problems, deal with that person but if a group causes wide-spread problems around the World, they need to be treated differently and an open-doors policy for immigration is a good way to wind up with a lot of dead people.

The Mexican President has said that he'll call Mexicans back to Mexico if Trump is elected- I don't think that will hurt the US as much as it will hurt the people he wants to call back. I have seen comments about the US being behind many countries in the areas of education and health care- that may be if the US is compared with many countries, but Mexico has areas where many people have NEVER had any schooling and NEVER had health care- that's one of the reasons they came here.

I'd like to see how much money the drug cartels pay to the Mexican government to leave them alone and only make token gestures to say they're working on the problem. Mexico's government has had corruption problems for quite a while and I'm not sure it's going to change soon.

 

[everettT]

Good read on the real unemployment rate in the US.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-but-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-9-8-not-5/

 

[cel4145]

First, Trump has supporters throughout the country, not just in selected areas. Second, most people didn't vote for him because of any "racist" comments, they voted for him because they agree that Washington is bloated, inefficient and needs to be, in Hillary's word WRT teen-aged Black 'thugs', "brought to heel".

Based on what you have just said, if David Duke ran for president on the same platform of changing up Washington, and the Republicans had elected him, then it would be OK that people had voted for him

 

[Irvrobinson]

One especially stupid thing about this election that I have been thinking about is how little it took to drive Americans into the arms of a textbook fascist. I enjoy the occasional history book and documentary, especially about the first half of the 20th century. The factors that gave rise to the fascists of the 1930s and late 20s were fairly extreme. It took tremendous economic hardship to drive Germany, Italy, and Spain into giving fascists power (well Spain didn't exactly just hand the fascists power, but economic hardship caused many Spaniards to support the fascists). But what about America? 5% unemployment, $2 gas, market indicators like the DJIA at very healthy levels, relatively high consumer confidence, and a strong dollar. I get that there are parts of the country which have been somewhat left behind from this prosperity, but if they think things are bad for them now, just wait for another nasty recession combined with rapid inflation.

So some parts of the country decided to take a wrecking ball to the entire country itself, which was always a possibility in a democracy. What a lot of these infants don't realize is that it is hard to hold everything together. Don't like our bureaucratic institutions? Well hey, guess what keeps everything running. Hillary most certainly represented the status quo in this election, and while the status quo could certainly have used some improvement, it wasn't all that bad, especially when compared to most other nations. And the hardship experienced in those places that went for Trump is NOTHING compared to that which gave rise to the fascists of Europe in the late 20s and 30s. Perhaps too much of America became too comfortable, and their idea of hardship and suffering became too shallow. I think the imminent Trump administration is going to change that; the cabinet position favorites and staff picks that Trump is considering make the Bush administration look like the Algonquin Roundtable.

It took the apocalypse of World War 2 to forever purge many of the tenants of fascism from European government (even the ardent nationalist opponents of immigration in Europe otherwise hold positions would be considered far left in the US). The US didn't suffer anything like Europe in the 1940s, and this is partly why the right is still so strong here. It may take extreme circumstances for a nationwide learning experience. If the catastrophe of the Bush administration wasn't enough to teach America about the ineptitude of Republican policy, I suppose something more severe is needed; after all, eventually Europe learned from their mistakes (after tens of millions of deaths).

ShadyJ, I'm none too happy with Trump either, but I think you've got more than a little carried away here. Taking a wrecking ball to the entire country? Textbook fascism? A long diatribe comparing the election to politics before WWII? Measuring the well-being of the working-class population by the DJIA? I'm not sure what you have your finger on the pulse of, but it doesn't feel like the US.