Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So what could a GOP controlled congress and presidency and soon to be Supreme Court possibly do to aleviate the concerns of a portion of the country that was left behind by time and technology
The clock cant be turned back and efficiencies and technology cant be rolled back to allow for the return of jobs and industries that used to be lynchpins of the midwest. The market and the world wont allow for that.
Or is this just the last dying gasp of the middle class?
All I really see for the next for years is mostly social morality agendas being pushed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 18:34:02
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
We don't have one vast national federal body that administers the presidential election, it's not a national election in the sense of everyone in the nation getting put in one big pile of votes. It's a national election because it involves every state in the nation and the residents within those states get to determine how their state votes.
You've said that, doesn't mean it's not a bad system.
CNN is claiming that the final vote tallies will have Trump winning the popular vote. If Trump wins the popular vote and the electoral college does that change you opinion of the system? Having the president win the electoral collage but lose the popular vote has happened 4 times in the 240 year history of our country, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. Splitting the electoral college and the popular vote is a rare occurrence.
This may shock you, but if Trump won the popular and Hillary the EC, I'd still call it a bad system. It's a bad system no matter what.
And it's happened two times in the last two decades, it's not uncommon. Besides, just because something is uncommon, doesn't mean it's not bad.
CNN is calling the popular vote for Trump, not all voting counts have been finalized by all the states so your claim that it's happened twice in the last 2 decades isn't true yet.
The basis for your argument is that the Electoral College doesn't properly reflect the popular vote and I'm showing you factual indisputable evidence that in 93% of presidential elections the Electoral College reflects the exact outcome of the popular vote. So why is the electoral college a bad system when it does what you say you want it to do 93% of the time?
]
Because it makes it so only a few states ("Swing" states) matter, it causes voter disillusionment as people see their vote does not matter (because it many places, such as Texas Democrats, or Californian Republicans, it doesn't)., and does not properly represent the will of the people.
Also, do you have a source on that? Because I just checked CNN, and they have it for HRC. NYT and NPR have it for her as well.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So what could a GOP controlled congress and presidency and soon to be Supreme Court possibly do to aleviate the concerns of a portion of the country that was left behind by time and technology
The clock cant be turned back and efficiencies and technology cant be rolled back to allow for the return of jobs and industries that used to be lynchpins of the midwest. The market and the world wont allow for that.
Or is this just the last dying gasp of the middle class?
Well in terms of federal legislation it needs to be something the Republicans can get a least a few Democrat senators to agree with if they want it to get passed in the Senate.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So what could a GOP controlled congress and presidency and soon to be Supreme Court possibly do to aleviate the concerns of a portion of the country that was left behind by time and technology
The clock cant be turned back and efficiencies and technology cant be rolled back to allow for the return of jobs and industries that used to be lynchpins of the midwest. The market and the world wont allow for that.
Or is this just the last dying gasp of the middle class?
All I really see for the next for years is mostly social morality agendas being pushed.
Nothing. Which is why I'm going to be watching the next four with interest. If Trump and the Republicans don't do anything to actually benefit their supporters in an economic sense, what happens? Who do they blame? At what point, as others say, does this nation finally drink the snake oil and realize it's just turpentine and food coloring?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 18:38:14
WrentheFaceless wrote: So what could a GOP controlled congress and presidency and soon to be Supreme Court possibly do to aleviate the concerns of a portion of the country that was left behind by time and technology
The clock cant be turned back and efficiencies and technology cant be rolled back to allow for the return of jobs and industries that used to be lynchpins of the midwest. The market and the world wont allow for that.
Or is this just the last dying gasp of the middle class?
All I really see for the next for years is mostly social morality agendas being pushed.
Nothing. Which is why I'm going to be watching the next four with interest. If Trump and the Republicans don't do anything to actually benefit their supporters in an economic sense, what happens? Who do they blame?
They'll still blame the liberals, facts rarely matter to republicans.
Prestor Jon wrote: Why did Clinton win the Electoral votes for Virginia? Because she won a large majority of the votes in the populous urban areas of the state. The rural part of the state went for Trump but there were fewer people so Clinton won. That's fair and equitable.
No, it isn't.
Virginia gives up electoral votes to states that don't have enough citizens to make the minimum of three, which means our votes count for less. If Clinton does indeed win the popular vote, that would make it fourth time out of fifty-six times that the President that is elected had less people vote for him. That's a failure rate of 7% that isn't a fair representation of the will of the people and it's simply unacceptable.
Bear in mind, it makes no difference which party is the one that gets shafted by an arcane system from 18th century, it needs to be fixed. I've long railed against the Electoral College as it stands today, especially since I'm from one of the states that gives up some of our electoral votes. Granted, an amendment to the Constitution is unlikely (that it has almost passed before), my only hope in the immediate future is that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact gains more momentum.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Strange I have found the opposite. I was turned down from university when I had higher grades, was on more sports teams and had more volunteering/extra curricular then a number of my friends who got into the same university. The difference? They were minorities or females.
I have never gotten out of a speeding ticket, my wife has gotten out of literally 5+ that I know of.
I was turned down for scholarships because I wasn't a minority. I have been turned down for employment because the company was looking for more minorities.
If anything I would say that we have reached the end of the "White male" Privilege era. But as always YMMV
I'm sorry you personally feel that way, but the glass ceiling is alive and well, unfortunately, and I presume those traffic stops didn't needlessly escalate into unwarranted searches or violence either.
I don't want to say your frustrations are unfounded, because they aren't. But the potentially life-changing severity of those individual discriminations when compared to those of non-white-males is relatively tiny.
Vaktathi wrote: In a sense, I guess I could be construed as antifederalist, but I think the Presidency has moved in that direction. Its a national vote that most people see along natIonal party lines and most people vote for from a national perspective rather than a state perspective. The game is played at the state level but its not an office that operates at or which people view from the state level. The nature of the presidential office and practical functioning of the electoral college no longer support the rationale behind its existence, and ends up giving a disproportionately large voice to specific voters in specific locales while taking the bulk of most locales and populations for granted, effectively writing them off as irrelevant in most races.
. In a popular election candidates can target the most populous states and ignore the rest because candidates would only need focus on the shortest path the 50%+ of the voters. The Electoral College requires candidates to focus on the path to 270 electoral votes which spreads the campaign over more states.
And in the current system candidates can primarily target the most evenly contested and the smallest states (who have a disproportionately large amount of electors per capita) and only need focus on the shortest path to 50%+ of the electors.
In any of the countries in the world that choose a president with popular vote. Do anyone focus their attention on just a few small areas with large population? No of course they don't. Because it's worth campaigning everywhere in such a system. Unlike a electorate system, where you can just write off large swaths of the nation since you are guaranteed to win/lose them regardless.
It doesn't really matter that the popular vote and the electoral vote isn't split very often. It happens often enough that it's a problem.
I suppose the best compromise might be to simply have the electors distributed proportionally to the result in the state (Like a few states already does I think?). It would'n make a split popular/electoral vote impossible, but it'll be a lot less likely.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/10 18:50:49
WrentheFaceless wrote: So what could a GOP controlled congress and presidency and soon to be Supreme Court possibly do to aleviate the concerns of a portion of the country that was left behind by time and technology
Well they could get bright idea to try something as stupid as ban automation? Force factories to use humans as work force on the theory "that's going to get us more works!" while ignoring the fact that the products would not be cheap enough to be sold outside and expensive enough people will just buy from out of america.
Or they realize that and decide to lock up all imports and exports.
With republicans one can never be sure. They are out of time so bad it's not even funny.
Manchu wrote: Some images of the aftermath of last night's "protest" here in Richmond, VA - be advised, images contain cursing:
Somewhat disturbing, but sloppy graffiti is honestly pretty nonthreatening, all told. Nor is the message a particularly new one in some circles.
Let's not forget Trump has also made some pretty harsh statements himself.
"Die Whites Die" and "We're Coming For You" is pretty non threatening?
Not at all. On the other hand, merely chalking Trump's name has been declared a racist event on some campuses, requiring marches, safes spaces and further indoctrination...er discussion.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Insectum7 wrote: Let's not forget Trump has also made some pretty harsh statements himself.
No one has forgotten or will forget or be allowed to forget the outrageous things Trump said on the election trail. Tit for tat is not good enough, either as an excuse or an explanation. These people say Trump is not their president but I see these explicitly racist and violent messages and I'm not convinced - seems like Trump (and specifically the super horrible Trump they are thinking of) is exactly their role model.
I'm not trying to excuse the language and say that hateful vandalizing is fine, because it's not. But one group operates from a position of almost no power, and the other group is going to be the most powerful man in the world, backed by a congress that is ostensibly on his side. Angry kids aren't terrifying. Even organized militias are pretty small beans. President of the US with congress behind him? Holy ****. They're magnitudes apart. There are legitimate reasons to be angry and afraid.
Manchu wrote: Some images of the aftermath of last night's "protest" here in Richmond, VA - be advised, images contain cursing:
Somewhat disturbing, but sloppy graffiti is honestly pretty nonthreatening, all told. Nor is the message a particularly new one in some circles.
Let's not forget Trump has also made some pretty harsh statements himself.
"Die Whites Die" and "We're Coming For You" is pretty non threatening?
Not at all. On the other hand, merely chalking Trump's name has been declared a racist event on some campuses, requiring marches, safes spaces and further indoctrination...er discussion.
Source? That sounds ridiculous.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
We don't have one vast national federal body that administers the presidential election, it's not a national election in the sense of everyone in the nation getting put in one big pile of votes. It's a national election because it involves every state in the nation and the residents within those states get to determine how their state votes.
You've said that, doesn't mean it's not a bad system.
CNN is claiming that the final vote tallies will have Trump winning the popular vote. If Trump wins the popular vote and the electoral college does that change you opinion of the system? Having the president win the electoral collage but lose the popular vote has happened 4 times in the 240 year history of our country, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. Splitting the electoral college and the popular vote is a rare occurrence.
This may shock you, but if Trump won the popular and Hillary the EC, I'd still call it a bad system. It's a bad system no matter what.
And it's happened two times in the last two decades, it's not uncommon. Besides, just because something is uncommon, doesn't mean it's not bad.
CNN is calling the popular vote for Trump, not all voting counts have been finalized by all the states so your claim that it's happened twice in the last 2 decades isn't true yet.
The basis for your argument is that the Electoral College doesn't properly reflect the popular vote and I'm showing you factual indisputable evidence that in 93% of presidential elections the Electoral College reflects the exact outcome of the popular vote. So why is the electoral college a bad system when it does what you say you want it to do 93% of the time?
]
Because it makes it so only a few states ("Swing" states) matter, it causes voter disillusionment as people see their vote does not matter (because it many places, such as Texas Democrats, or Californian Republicans, it doesn't)., and does not properly represent the will of the people.
Also, do you have a source on that? Because I just checked CNN, and they have it for HRC. NYT and NPR have it for her as well.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: CNN projects that Trump will win the popular vote. Still has him behind fwiw.
If Republicans in CA are discouraged from voting because the are outnumbered by Democrats in CA or if Democrats in TX are discouraged from voting because they are outnumbered by Republicans in TX that won't change if you remove the electoral college. There will still be more Democrats in CA and more Republicans in TX, if anything it would do more to discourage voters on that basis. If all of the voters from multiple states like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho and Montana would be cancelled out just by the margin of victory of Democrats over Republicans in CA then why should people in those states bother voting?
Manchu wrote: Some images of the aftermath of last night's "protest" here in Richmond, VA - be advised, images contain cursing:
Somewhat disturbing, but sloppy graffiti is honestly pretty nonthreatening, all told. Nor is the message a particularly new one in some circles.
Let's not forget Trump has also made some pretty harsh statements himself.
"Die Whites Die" and "We're Coming For You" is pretty non threatening?
Weirdly it isn't, because they're in a position of nearly no power of force. If there was a group of radicals that organized into an anti-white militia and actually took violent action, the response to it would be so severe that it would only be counter-productive to the movement. The response would make things so much worse for the people that the militia represented, that it would be pointless.
I'm also somewhat used to that rhetoric in some of the music I listen to, so it's just not shocking to me that it exists. Or that, in a moment of anger, someone writes it on a wall.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 18:53:00
I always thought the electoral college was dumb, I remember back in like 7th grade when we learned about it, I got in an argument with my teacher about how it's a people don't need to vote at all if someone else is casting the actual votes that matter in the end. Maybe it mattered back in 1857, but in this day and age it seems pretty useless to me.
For a popular vote.. Instead of an actual number of votes per state where some states have much bigger populations than others, how about a percentage per state? ... then take an average, add up those percentages each candidate got for each state, and divide by 50. There's your winner. whoever has the highest average percentage wins.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So what could a GOP controlled congress and presidency and soon to be Supreme Court possibly do to aleviate the concerns of a portion of the country that was left behind by time and technology
Well they could get bright idea to try something as stupid as ban automation? Force factories to use humans as work force on the theory "that's going to get us more works!" while ignoring the fact that the products would not be cheap enough to be sold outside and expensive enough people will just buy from out of america.
Or they realize that and decide to lock up all imports and exports.
With republicans one can never be sure. They are out of time so bad it's not even funny.
Continually insulting people is how we ended up with Trump in the first place. Keep it up, and it'll be Ivanka 2024
Insectum7 wrote: I'm not trying to excuse the language and say that hateful vandalizing is fine, because it's not. But one group operates from a position of almost no power, and the other group is going to be the most powerful man in the world, backed by a congress that is ostensibly on his side. Angry kids aren't terrifying. Even organized militias are pretty small beans. President of the US with congress behind him? Holy ****. They're magnitudes apart. There are legitimate reasons to be angry and afraid.
It seems like you are in fact excusing racist language. And that is a general trend. It is increasingly seen as perfectly acceptable to demonize and threaten white people because, as you claimed, this is actually "non-threatening." The justification is exactly as you have written it out above: whites cannot be threatened because Donald Trump is in charge and Congress is behind him. First, please understand that this type of argument is actually big part of why Trump was elected. Second, Trump does not have Congress behind him - the "Republican" label doesn't mean much (on either part, increasingly) and, even if they were united, this country is not actually the failed state that alarmists have been portraying it as (on both sides) throughout the election.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 19:00:51
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
SemperMortis wrote: ...
Strange I have found the opposite. I was turned down from university when I had higher grades, was on more sports teams and had more volunteering/extra curricular then a number of my friends who got into the same university. The difference? They were minorities or females.
I have never gotten out of a speeding ticket, my wife has gotten out of literally 5+ that I know of.
I was turned down for scholarships because I wasn't a minority. I have been turned down for employment because the company was looking for more minorities.
If anything I would say that we have reached the end of the "White male" Privilege era. But as always YMMV
Based on complete data for three applicant cohorts to three of the most academically selective research universities, we show that admission bonuses for athletes and legacies rival, and sometimes even exceed, the size of preferences for underrepresented minority applicants. Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600-point scale, but recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, Hispanic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points.
"Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points... recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points".
Oh, and for those inclined to say that Affirmative Action isn't "racism" because anti-White discrimination isn't "Racism"? Affirmative Action penalizes Asians; Asians need better grades and higher test scores simply for being Asian.
Manchu wrote: Some images of the aftermath of last night's "protest" here in Richmond, VA - be advised, images contain cursing:
Somewhat disturbing, but sloppy graffiti is honestly pretty nonthreatening, all told. Nor is the message a particularly new one in some circles.
Let's not forget Trump has also made some pretty harsh statements himself.
"Die Whites Die" and "We're Coming For You" is pretty non threatening?
Not at all. On the other hand, merely chalking Trump's name has been declared a racist event on some campuses, requiring marches, safes spaces and further indoctrination...er discussion.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
SemperMortis wrote: ...
Strange I have found the opposite. I was turned down from university when I had higher grades, was on more sports teams and had more volunteering/extra curricular then a number of my friends who got into the same university. The difference? They were minorities or females.
I have never gotten out of a speeding ticket, my wife has gotten out of literally 5+ that I know of.
I was turned down for scholarships because I wasn't a minority. I have been turned down for employment because the company was looking for more minorities.
If anything I would say that we have reached the end of the "White male" Privilege era. But as always YMMV
Based on complete data for three applicant cohorts to three of the most academically selective research universities, we show that admission bonuses for athletes and legacies rival, and sometimes even exceed, the size of preferences for underrepresented minority applicants. Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600-point scale, but recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, Hispanic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points.
"Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points... recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points".
Oh, and for those inclined to say that Affirmative Action isn't "racism" because anti-White discrimination isn't "Racism"? Affirmative Action penalizes Asians; Asians need better grades and higher test scores simply for being Asian.
yes, but the asians tend to outscore everyone, so if it went by strictly SAT scores, almost all institutes of higher learning would be predominately asians. You'd think being a free market country, someone would have the bright idea to make some more colleges. Actual colleges though, not like the fraudulent one about to get sued for racketeering.
"Die Whites Die" and "We're Coming For You" is pretty non threatening?
Weirdly it isn't, because they're in a position of nearly no power of force. quote]
Unless they shoot you in the back of the head of course. Its strange if the white racists make these threats, the FBI rightfully steps in attempts to crush the area, but this is harmless?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
"Die Whites Die" and "We're Coming For You" is pretty non threatening?
Weirdly it isn't, because they're in a position of nearly no power of force. quote]
Unless they shoot you in the back of the head of course. Its strange if the white racists make these threats, the FBI rightfully steps in attempts to crush the area, but this is harmless?
This. A bunch of fat idiots with rifles occupied an EMPTY government building, and posters here were literally screaming for their blood.
Manchu wrote: Some images of the aftermath of last night's "protest" here in Richmond, VA - be advised, images contain cursing:
Somewhat disturbing, but sloppy graffiti is honestly pretty nonthreatening, all told. Nor is the message a particularly new one in some circles.
Let's not forget Trump has also made some pretty harsh statements himself.
"Die Whites Die" and "We're Coming For You" is pretty non threatening?
I saw a bunch of gak like that when David Duke was running for Governor in Louisiana.
Just some dumbass teenagers.
What if its Crenshaw Mafia, or Nuestra Familia, or the New Black Panthers painting it?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
3000
4000 
