11-18-2016, 07:45 AM
(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: his cabinet contains white supremacists.
I had hope Trump wasn't going to be too radical, but with his recent cabinet selection my hope is really back and forth.
(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: I don't think it's fair to make up an imaginary scenario and then say since things aren't that scenario, "so many people" are overreacting.
It's also kind of weird that you'd say "so many people" are overreacting when you're explicitly responding to someone who you think is overreacting.
I'm not sure what you're saying about imaginary scenarios, could you explain?
Am I not allowed to mention the rest of the world when talking to one person? Is it wrong to group someone with a group of people I think are over reacting? Also 'overreacting' is really a relative term and to say who is overreacting or underreacting is an opinion. Others can take it how they want and they are welcome to try to change my mind about my 'threshold'.
Also while seeing the news about protest I've noticed people protesting against Trump as a 'symbol of hate' and the flaws of the electoral college. I couldn't agree more, he's very xenophobic and the college has some flaws (though i think they benefits outweigh the flaws), but what I haven't seen much call to action, other than a few petitions to change the electoral college, which wouldn't change the results of the election. Do they want trump impeached or just have their voice heard?
(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: their constituents are privileged by the electoral college, which they gerrymandered pretty hard 6 years ago. Their constituency is not progressives and these people were not elected by progressives.
What does congress have to do with the electoral college? The college isn't gerrymandered, it's by state.
The congressional districts were gerrymandered but the ruling of Baker v Carr should hold the states accountable for fair redistricting. If that isn't really the case and corrupt gerrymandering has happened I haven't researched about recent redistricting and aren't aware of it. Not saying its impossible though.
(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: does something being a "hot-button issue" mean you get to fence-sit? If we lived under a monarchy and a certain group of radical liberals decided to try out this thing called democracy, would democracy be a hot-button issue?
I can be on the fence about an issue regardless if it's a "hot-button issue". I could be on the fence about the repealing of prohibition in 2016 if i wanted to. *sips beer*
and yes, democracy was a hot-button issue.
(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: what makes you think the acceptance speech is not also marketing? He's trying to seem presidential, but the fact remains he's not nor ever will be. He doesn't actually know what the office entails, as indicated in his campaign or the slew of news articles that came out recently about how confused he was talking to Obama.Crazy thing about Trump is we don't know
(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: I don't think "unity from both sides" is the right answer, so long as we have elites who intend on making life harder for everybody else. The unity I -could- get behind is some kind of explicitly anti-racist (+ sexist, xenophobic etc) populism that works for the working class that the DNC has been ignoring. But that sort of movement needs to be built rather than wished for.
Agreed, what would you plan for creating this movement? Specifically in the situation we're in now
(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: I'm sorry, but this is really a personal attack and completely misrepresents her argument.
Obviously that statement could've been written better, since it was neither an attack or response to an argument and people are taking it in a way i didn't mean.
All I was saying that, if Clinton was elected many Trump supporters would be overreacting and her response to them would be similar to my responses now (and as if Clinton were elected) something along the lines of "Don't overreact, this isn't the end of the world"
(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: Pardon my ignorance, but wasn't that because votes are cast by people, and not land?
And no, people in the country aren't suddenly going to get ignored if we didn't have an electoral college. They'd just get the amount of political influence relative to how many of them there actually are.
That how it is now with the college. States get political influence based on the population in the states. States with smaller populations only get a little more political representation per population because of the guaranteed +2 electoral votes.
(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: A "balance" between democrats and republicans is not a balance at all, since one party could just get increasingly awful (like the republicans have been doing for the past 16 years) to drag the "middle" over to their side.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Being "awful" draws the middle in? That doesn't make sense, could you explain.
(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: Plus, the interests of less populated areas are already neglected. Unemployment there is insane, income is very low, and so on. it would just give them less influence over the outcome of elections and more influence to people who live in the cities, which also contain more people and (surprise) contain more marginalized people.
note that this influence doesn't translate to actually making their lives better, see the ridiculous unemployment rates
Exactly, abolishing the college would give them less influence than the little they already have. If the college wasn't a the policy then candidates could disregard them entirely to win a popular vote.
In conclusion, My faith in trump's... future administration... has started to diminish in the last week. If he does start to enforce policies that infringe on civil rights I do expect backlash from the people and would support it. But for now it's too early and I'm going to say what a lot of people don't want to hear "give the guy a chance".