[Dusclops]

(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".

[Joe]

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: I'm not sure what you're saying about imaginary scenarios, could you explain?

"the absolute worst happening" is an imaginary scenario, and I wouldn't use it as a comparison for anything - you're just saying since things aren't going to be literally the worst thing you can think of, someone is overreacting. it's ridiculous because it's not a real situation, you made it up, so it's like a false comparison.
Also "it's not as bad as ______" doesn't mean it isn't bad and we can't / shouldn't work to change something.

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: 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'.

what you seem to be doing is taking her concerns and statements and reducing them to an overreaction, which you have observed in many other people, even though their concerns about the election are all individual and unique as well. It's a lazy way of forming arguments, because you can generate a stock response to a tone (tone-policing) rather than addressing what someone is actually saying.

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: 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?  

I don't think many people have an idea of a solution, and I don't think they need an idea of a solution for their concerns to matter. However, these protests are very important to connecting people with one another, which will build a base of power that can resist whatever happens in the future / hopefully make progress without depending on the government to be "on their side".

It also sends the message to fascists that their behavior won't be tolerated.

As for calls to action, I have seen some more serious ones.

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: What does congress have to do with the electoral college?

good question! as you may know, the delegates of a state are its total congressional delegates + senate delegates, and the districts for the electoral college are the same as state congressional / congressional districts I believe.

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: 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.

redistricting occurs every 10 years, and I remember reading a piece a while ago about the reason why republicans have been making so many wins in the past few elections was because of gerrymandering during the last redistricting (when they had a majority).

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: 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.

of course "hot-button" issue in my second sentence referred to the construction of hot button issue -> I don't have to worry about it, which seems fallacious. Like you said, whether something is a hot-button issue shouldn't impact your position on it.

obviously, you get to have any opinion you want on anything, but not if you want to be correct.

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: Crazy thing about Trump is we don't know

I know the rhetoric he uses, who supports him, who's in his cabinet, what he's announced that he plans on doing, and how he's handled the position in the past week (extremely poorly), and I can make a prediction about what his cabinet is going to do for him.

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: Agreed, what would you plan for creating this movement? Specifically in the situation we're in now

I recently read one of Pablo Iglesias' books, "politics in a time of crisis" that seemed to be illuminating, although I am not sure about all of his points.

I would also encourage a lot of direct action as active resistance to tyranny, while producing media to show people this action. We also ought to take the DNC for progressives (apparently happening right now), if it's the path of least resistance for having our interests represented, but I don't think a populist movement can revolve around a pre-established party, mostly because of what the name represents to independents. It's going to take a lot of time for the dems to win their trust and as someone who doesn't need to affiliate as a democrat it's not my battle to fight.

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: 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"

I'm sure syntactically it would, but the actual meaning behind the statements, reasons why it isn't the end of the world, etc would be very different and so a comparison like that doesn't really make sense except superficially.

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: 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.

I think we should put actual numbers to what "a little more political representation per population" actually is. For starters, I don't think the +2 electoral votes are the only factor, but factors aside we can look at what the % of influence people in some states have vs others:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/fa...1450119297
here, we can see >3x as much influence in certain states than others. so that's not a small amount of influence, that's one person's vote being worth more than 3 people from a different state.

but that's really not the only unfair thing about the elections. keep in mind that only 19% - less than 1/5 of people living in the united states - actually voted for donald in the election, which is an unbelievably low turnout and calls into question whether this system we have in place actually serves the interests of the people whose lives it attempts to control. Considering the response to this election, it doesn't.

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: Not sure what you're trying to say here. Being "awful" draws the middle in?  That doesn't make sense, could you explain.

in a hypothetical argument between 2 people, where one seeks to compromise, the other can take more extreme positions to sway the position of "compromise" over to their side. This of course changes with a mediator who can take the side of whoever doesn't seem to be using underhanded tactics, but if the mediator swears to stay "neutral" (i.e. in the center) the tactic is still effective. This is how I feel about pretty much anybody who claims to stay neutral.

there is also the popular saying, 'those who pick no sides in a conflict have chosen the side of the oppressor'

But I realize that by making this point I was misrepresenting your argument, sorry bout that.
 

(11-18-2016, 07:45 AM)Dusclops Wrote: 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.

(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: note that this influence doesn't translate to actually making their lives better, see the ridiculous unemployment rates

your point that it represents the interests of these people -at all- is negated by the reality of how badly they have it. My point is that the electoral college is not the right way to go, but I don't think "just abolish the electoral college" is enough. we need to do a lot more than that.

(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: 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".

He already has been given a chance by the electoral college, and I gave him a chance back when he started running in the republican primaries. He's done.

[Croaks]

I don't think we need to get rid of an electoral college, but we need to reform it. Just get rid of the winner-takes-all system.

[Joe]

(11-19-2016, 03:10 AM)Croaks Wrote: I don't think we need to get rid of an electoral college, but we need to reform it. Just get rid of the winner-takes-all system.

honestly, removing the electoral college wouldn't be a radical move - we eliminated the electoral colleges for senate and congressional elections >100 years ago, might as well be time to do that with the presidential one.

although I would also be up for not having winner-takes-all system, having runoff voting, making a brand new system of government, etc

[Dusclops]

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: Also "it's not as bad as ______" doesn't mean it isn't bad and we can't / shouldn't work to change something.

I see what you mean by how it was wrong to compare the stripping of LGBT and women's rights to the end of the world and that even though it isn't as bad as the worst possible thing it isn't bad.  However that doesn't address my point in how it won't happen.  Since so many voters values those rights and representatives value their incumbency, it follows that congress won't pass laws and policies or repeal the ones already in place that support those rights. 

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: what you seem to be doing is taking her concerns and statements and reducing them to an overreaction, which you have observed in many other people, even though their concerns about the election are all individual and unique as well. It's a lazy way of forming arguments, because you can generate a stock response to a tone (tone-policing) rather than addressing what someone is actually saying.

You're right, it was wrong of me to devalue and dismiss her opinion
@Circ, I'm sorry it was wrong of me

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: I don't think many people have an idea of a solution, and I don't think they need an idea of a solution for their concerns to matter. However, these protests are very important to connecting people with one another, which will build a base of power that can resist whatever happens in the future / hopefully make progress without depending on the government to be "on their side".

It also sends the message to fascists that their behavior won't be tolerated.

As for calls to action, I have seen some more serious ones.

Definitely make sure the government know you're upset and won't tolerate fascism.  However saying "no" isn't good enough.  The option isn't "yes or no" it's "yes or an alternative".  The protest and resistance don't have a call to action and I think that's the flaw that will make them ineffective.  
Also not having the government on your side could be a self defeating action.  Lobby your representatives, become engaged in the government. Protesting can make your voice hear, but I don't see it being good enough.  This being said, I think Trump is the product of lack of civil engagement and people turning to the federal government for all their needs.

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: good question! as you may know, the delegates of a state are its total congressional delegates + senate delegates, and the districts for the electoral college are the same as state congressional / congressional districts I believe.

No, the electoral college is decided by a popular vote of the state and the winner gets all the electoral votes.  Except for Maine and Nebraska which get split electoral votes based on the popular votes in congressional districts. 

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: redistricting occurs every 10 years, and I remember reading a piece a while ago about the reason why republicans have been making so many wins in the past few elections was because of gerrymandering during the last redistricting (when they had a majority).

It's true that republicans could have gerrymandered hard, but that would be for securing them the House, not president.

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: obviously, you get to have any opinion you want on anything, but not if you want to be correct.

But really, who's correct? How do we know if either one of us is correct about our opinions.  
Anyways who said I wasn't worried about any issues?

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: I know the rhetoric he uses, who supports him, who's in his cabinet, what he's announced that he plans on doing, and how he's handled the position in the past week (extremely poorly), and I can make a prediction about what his cabinet is going to do for him.

But are ALL his plans bad?  There are some plans, such as investing in infrastructure, that don't sound evil to me.  His agenda isn't specifically racist, anti-refugee, or civil rights.  Since he needs the support of congress to put plans into action I don't see congress going along with his fascist agenda, as a mentioned before.  This being said I'm not completely letting my guard down,  there is still potential he turns Hitler on us.   I understand the values of your proactive approach,  strike before he does.  However I don't think he has the means to and I think creating division would create more harm than good.

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: I would also encourage a lot of direct action as active resistance to tyranny, while producing media to show people this action.  We also ought to take the DNC for progressives (apparently happening right now), if it's the path of least resistance for having our interests represented, but I don't think a populist movement can revolve around a pre-established party, mostly because of what the name represents to independents. It's going to take a lot of time for the dems to win their trust and as someone who doesn't need to affiliate as a democrat it's not my battle to fight.

I think it would be better to tackle the oligopoly the Repubs and Demos have.  Get more opinions on the stage at debates and give people options.  On top of that introducing ranked choice voting to avoid the counter-voting that happens would be a good idea.  That's my progressive plan.

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: I think we should put actual numbers to what "a little more political representation per population" actually is. For starters, I don't think the +2 electoral votes are the only factor, but factors aside we can look at what the % of influence people in some states have vs others:
here, we can see >3x as much influence in certain states than others. so that's not a small amount of influence, that's one person's vote being worth more than 3 people from a different state.

This is true that Wyoming has 3 times national influence per person, but the state has 0.6% of the national voice for having 0.2% of the national population. It's not like they have an overwhelming influence at all.  I say let them have it, it would encourage them to actually feel like they matter (a little bit more) in the national decision. 

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: but that's really not the only unfair thing about the elections. keep in mind that only 19% - less than 1/5 of people living in the united states - actually voted for donald in the election, which is an unbelievably low turnout and calls into question whether this system we have in place actually serves the interests of the people whose lives it attempts to control. Considering the response to this election, it doesn't.

This election had record low turnouts in general.  If people cared more they would've voted more.  I'm sure voter intimidation happened, towards both sides, but it didn't happen to everybody that decided not to vote.  Early voting is a thing in most state giving people the time to vote.  In the few states that don't have early voting the citizens should have advocated to make it happen.

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: in a hypothetical argument between 2 people, where one seeks to compromise, the other can take more extreme positions to sway the position of "compromise" over to their side. This of course changes with a mediator who can take the side of whoever doesn't seem to be using underhanded tactics, but if the mediator swears to stay "neutral" (i.e. in the center) the tactic is still effective. This is how I feel about pretty much anybody who claims to stay neutral.

there is also the popular saying, 'those who pick no sides in a conflict have chosen the side of the oppressor'

But I realize that by making this point I was misrepresenting your argument, sorry bout that.

I appreciate the idea, I'd never really thought about neutrality in that way.  However I don't see how it pertains to the argument.  My point was the college creates a balance between influence of highly populated areas and not so populated areas.  

(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: note that this influence doesn't translate to actually making their lives better, see the ridiculous unemployment rates
your point that it represents the interests of these people -at all- is negated by the reality of how badly they have it. My point is that the electoral college is not the right way to go, but I don't think "just abolish the electoral college" is enough. we need to do a lot more than that.

Really to address the problem of poverty in an area more focus needs to be put on the local government.  Giving them a bigger weight of influence doesn't mean they're going to get what they want, especially when their more is still greatly outweighed.

(11-16-2016, 01:41 AM)Joe Wrote: He already has been given a chance by the electoral college, and I gave him a chance back when he started running in the republican primaries. He's done.

But you haven't given him a chance as President.  I'm not saying give him your utmost trust and loyalty, but people need to at least try respect him.  Its not like he cheated his way in and some people actually support him for reasons other than his anti muslim, mexican, and politically correct actions.  

On the topic of the electoral college I have recently become aware of how the college creates swing state (not that i didn't know about swing states, but i didn't put two and two together).  That would be an issue that needs to be addressed, I think ranked-choice voting would help.  

On Trump, I'm really upset he's ignoring climate change and investing in oil.

[Joe]

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: I see what you mean by how it was wrong to compare the stripping of LGBT and women's rights to the end of the world and that even though it isn't as bad as the worst possible thing it isn't bad.  However that doesn't address my point in how it won't happen.  Since so many voters values those rights and representatives value their incumbency, it follows that congress won't pass laws and policies or repeal the ones already in place that support those rights. 

call me skeptical but I really feel like representatives don't need to worry about it, because of said gerrymandering and the extremely low turnover rate in the congress - "red states" during presidential elections are also going to typically send red politicians to the houses of government, and yes these people have been drafting bills and policies to repeal civil rights protections / find new ways to fuck us over civilly.

beyond that, I'm not going to argue how a scenario you came up with won't happen, because it's not the scenario I envision - I actually don't envision a particular scenario because I don't trust my ability to predict the future that well, and because I think "one-futurism" is a counterproductive way to think about problems.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: Definitely make sure the government know you're upset and won't tolerate fascism.  However saying "no" isn't good enough.  The option isn't "yes or no" it's "yes or an alternative".  The protest and resistance don't have a call to action and I think that's the flaw that will make them ineffective.  

on the contrary, I have seen many campaigns to build an alternative at the moment with #sanctuarycampuses and #sanctuarycities but I am a tad disappointed, which is why I've started on some community organizing. A lot of people didn't know what to do and I think that's to be expected when fascists and neo-nazis enter the white house, however.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: Also not having the government on your side could be a self defeating action.  Lobby your representatives, become engaged in the government. Protesting can make your voice hear, but I don't see it being good enough.  This being said, I think Trump is the product of lack of civil engagement and people turning to the federal government for all their needs.

While protests are alright for getting attention I'm more interested in the role they play in community building / building relationships between people, because ultimately any organization or movement consists of those relationships. What I mean is that protests have been prompting a lot of cohesion between disparate groups (think, LGBT rights and immigrant rights groups working together) recently which would be a great thing in other circumstances, now it just feels necessary.

I do not think that established political or media power are the only forms of power, and while policy is a useful tool it is one in a very large box. Like I've said before, I'm a huge proponent of direct action at the moment - physically enacting the change you want to see - however I think that a coalition between grassroots organizers and establishment politicians would be most effective. Unfortunately, there is a lot more that establishment politicians could be doing right now that aren't, so I guess I would say the responsibility is really on them right now however it is up to us to light the fire under their asses, like it was suggested in this tweet storm: https://twitter.com/tedr/status/800854113139335168

What annoys me here is that established politicians absolutely know of things they can do, they can for example look to how the republicans circa 2009, with a minority, managed to be so obstructionist and follow that model, they can demand recounts or contest the nomination in other ways, but they really have been dragging their feet after so many elite politicians and other characters came out against a trump presidency.

I also want to point out that lack of engagement with establishment politics doesn't entail failure on the part of constituents, it may be that they're shut out of system completely - the system in this case consisting of Washington politics as well as the media coverage of said politics, which as you may know is incredibly consolidated between a few financial interests that are also entirely motivated politically. What I mean is that "apathy," while a completely legitimate feeling of disenfranchisement that we can't hold individuals responsible for having goes hand in hand with actual voter suppression, in fact may be a consequence of that suppression. So to blame this on said apathy sounds like putting the cart before the horse.

It's funny how so much seems to come down to money in politics.

But there is perhaps a contradiction between your arguments that people aren't engaging civilly and are also actively turning to the federal government for all their needs, which sounds an -awful lot- like civil engagement to me. I think you should define those terms properly or use different ones to clarify.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: It's true that republicans could have gerrymandered hard, but that would be for securing them the House, not president.

You're right, it was the other methods of voter suppression that got them to the presidency, as well as the electoral college.

(11-18-2016, 08:49 AM)Joe Wrote: obviously, you get to have any opinion you want on anything, but not if you want to be correct.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: But really, who's correct? How do we know if either one of us is correct about our opinions.  
Anyways who said I wasn't worried about any issues?

If your opinion is not based on facts, then it is not true, or it is at least not verifiable and so not useful.
And I certainly didn't say you weren't worried about any issues, just one issue in particular, which you seemed to cite it being "hot-button" as grounds to dismiss. Now we know that you wouldn't do that.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: But are ALL his plans bad?  There are some plans, such as investing in infrastructure, that don't sound evil to me.

What are his "plans" besides empty rhetoric and a policy consisting entirely of major tax cuts to people in his industry? Take this piece of news from today for instance and compare it to the Sanders infrastructure plan (also presented in the article, I hope) for an idea of what a good infrastructure plan vs a bad plan with an ad campaign looks like.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: His agenda isn't specifically racist, anti-refugee, or civil rights.

I've read over the republican policy platform and yes, it is those things. It includes "heavy vetting," as well as an outright ban on refugees from syria, it also includes the use of conversion therapy (which is definitely an agenda of the republican establishment), and so on.
Actually, one of his people accidentally leaked major DHS plans for a selfie op a couple days ago, so we know exactly what the plan is on that front.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote:  Since he needs the support of congress to put plans into action I don't see congress going along with his fascist agenda, as a mentioned before.

which as I said before is a republican-controlled congress and I don't see you addressing that point, especially considering some of the most worrying policies were in the platform so we can assume all republicans will try to support them.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: This being said I'm not completely letting my guard down,  there is still potential he turns Hitler on us.   I understand the values of your proactive approach,  strike before he does.  However I don't think he has the means to and I think creating division would create more harm than good.

he already has "turned hitler" by making Bannon his chief of staff, that his organizers are discussing concentration camps for muslims, and so on.
I do not know what you mean by "creating division" unless you mean by disagreeing with you or other centrist positions I am creating division, I would say said centrists are creating division by pushing for actions marginalized people who value their lives cannot take.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later

[Joe]

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: I think it would be better to tackle the oligopoly the Repubs and Demos have.  Get more opinions on the stage at debates and give people options.  On top of that introducing ranked choice voting to avoid the counter-voting that happens would be a good idea.  That's my progressive plan.

the question you want to answer then is how the debates became 2-party in the first place, and the answer is that the debates were started as a coalition between two parties so they could shut out third parties by default. I'm

Ranked choice voting would be a cool idea but where's the base for that? Are you organizing to enact ranked-choice voting, or just saying its a good idea? Because I would absolutely start organizing for that, if I knew others who were as well.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: This is true that Wyoming has 3 times national influence per person, but the state has 0.6% of the national voice for having 0.2% of the national population. It's not like they have an overwhelming influence at all.  I say let them have it, it would encourage them to actually feel like they matter (a little bit more) in the national decision. 

Do you think bringing up one particular state is an effective assessment of the total impact of that extra influence on the election?

Don't you think it would be more effective to add up the electoral college votes from states that had >130% representation (the median), as well as take a measure of the voting demographics in said states (white) to see what the degree of undue influence actually is? It seems to have swung this election, from the near 2-million vote disparity between donald and clinton

And my other question is that you seem to have said the electoral college's influence was definitely something that mattered, as it was a good thing to have. Why are you now telling me it is an underwhelming influence, and that it only encourages voters to feel like they matter a little bit more?

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: This election had record low turnouts in general.  If people cared more they would've voted more.  I'm sure voter intimidation happened, towards both sides, but it didn't happen to everybody that decided not to vote.  Early voting is a thing in most state giving people the time to vote.  In the few states that don't have early voting the citizens should have advocated to make it happen.

If I didn't have the time/resources to vote, would I have the time/resources to campaign for early voting, or for elections as a national holiday?

I do not buy the argument that "voter intimidation happened towards both sides" on account of the fact that voter intimidation was only encouraged by one person and his followers, who are republicans.

There are plenty of other reasons why people wouldn't vote, such as not being registered, not having enough information about voting, or the prior reasons I gave.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: I appreciate the idea, I'd never really thought about neutrality in that way.  However I don't see how it pertains to the argument.  My point was the college creates a balance between influence of highly populated areas and not so populated areas.  

right, my apologies but I would say that balance is still superficial, because we could also say any other distribution had a balance between highly populated and not so populated as well, if we just set it as the default condition. I guess I'd like to know what you mean by "balance" in this context.

Also, I am still going to stick by my case that people cast votes and land doesn't.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: Really to address the problem of poverty in an area more focus needs to be put on the local government.  Giving them a bigger weight of influence doesn't mean they're going to get what they want, especially when their more is still greatly outweighed.

as they say, "all politics are local". I agree that giving them more influence isn't going to get them exactly what they want, for the reason you stated, as well as the lack of 3rd parties, but also another: that by choosing between sets of policies which other people decided on, they will not be able to make their own policies and so they will only have the power to agree, or disagree. But never to speak.

Any degree of electoral influence is only a certain degree of the power to pick someone else's policies. So long as the party's constituents are not the party itself, and that the party controls lives which are neither, we do not have democracy.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: But you haven't given him a chance as President.  I'm not saying give him your utmost trust and loyalty, but people need to at least try respect him.  Its not like he cheated his way in and some people actually support him for reasons other than his anti muslim, mexican, and politically correct actions.  

I also haven't given him a chance as supreme dictator for life, because I do not think he should be supreme dictator for life. Why do I need to try and respect him? is there something inherently respect-worthy about becoming president? What is that? Is the value of respecting the president somehow more than the people who are at risk by his policies?

I would say he did cheat his way in, in that he was in court and settled the cases, did not release his tax returns, the election was interfered with by hackers, and voting machines were quite possibly directly hacked in three states. Also, podesta collaborated with CNN to make him a "pied piper candidate" who'd beat the other republicans but then be weak against Hillary. Not all of these things mean he cheated, but players on several sides did.

(11-22-2016, 06:13 AM)Dusclops Wrote: On the topic of the electoral college I have recently become aware of how the college creates swing state (not that i didn't know about swing states, but i didn't put two and two together).  That would be an issue that needs to be addressed, I think ranked-choice voting would help.  

On Trump, I'm really upset he's ignoring climate change and investing in oil.

he's not just ignoring climate change, he's denying climate change, pretending to change his mind on climate change by saying he has an "open mind on the PCA" and jumping right back to denying it again after a bunch of media outlets reported on it. It's disgusting.

[Dusclops]

Yay school is done, sorry for the delayed reply

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: yes these people have been drafting bills and policies to repeal civil rights protections / find new ways to fuck us over civilly.

I would like to see some examples of said bills

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: on the contrary, I have seen many campaigns to build an alternative at the moment with  #sanctuarycampuses and #sanctuarycities but I am a tad disappointed, which is why I've started on some community organizing. A lot of people didn't know what to do and I think that's to be expected when fascists and neo-nazis enter the white house, however.

I love the sound of local governments stepping up and implementing their own policies, even at the expense of cut funding.  However they shouldn't be going against mandates from the National Gov.  If the National Gov is saying "we'll give you money if you deport your illegals"  The Local Gov is completely allowed to deny it.  I think I'd say I'm against the National Gov having the authority to deport immigrants, and the States/municipalities should.  If the National Gov wants to create categorical grants for deportation,  that is also acceptable, I would even say encouraged.  The next question would be where they are deported to, to another "sanctuary state" or to another country completely?

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: While protests are alright for getting attention I'm more interested in the role they play in community building / building relationships between people, because ultimately any organization or movement consists of those relationships.

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: I'm a huge proponent of direct action at the moment - physically enacting the change you want to see - however I think that a coalition between grassroots organizers and establishment politicians would be most effective.

I guess I overlooked this aspect of protesting.   It does look like we're in agreement that protesting is a good first step, but certainly not enough to meet a goal.

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: Unfortunately, there is a lot more that establishment politicians could be doing right now that aren't, so I guess I would say the responsibility is really on them right now however it is up to us to light the fire under their asses, like it was suggested in this tweet storm: https://twitter.com/tedr/status/800854113139335168

I agree, however I think we would get more results by lighting the fire in our own states rather than DC

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: What annoys me here is that established politicians absolutely know of things they can do, they can for example look to how the republicans circa 2009, with a minority, managed to be so obstructionist and follow that model, they can demand recounts or contest the nomination in other ways, but they really have been dragging their feet after so many elite politicians and other characters came out against a trump presidency.

I'm curios which 'established politicians' you're talking about.  Democrats or Republicans?  I really don't like how there is so much opposition to a recount,  I think a recount is fair.  In fact it should be expedited so it happens before inauguration. That being said I don't think a recount means the Trump transition team should be obligated to stop their transition.

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: I also want to point out that lack of engagement with establishment politics doesn't entail failure on the part of constituents, it may be that they're shut out of system completely - the system in this case consisting of Washington politics as well as the media coverage of said politics, which as you may know is incredibly consolidated between a few financial interests that are also entirely motivated politically.

It's funny how so much seems to come down to money in politics.

The Washington politics is indeed a more exclusive political system. "Exclusive or shut out" is a pessimistic way of describing it.  A more realistic way to describe Washington politics is to say "limited access".  If the National Gov has to balance the opinions of every American, it will be harder to having individual values heard.  This is why the interest groups are so important,  they create the relationships and volume needed to make actions happen in Washington.  If people want to make an affect on Washington they ought to do it through these groups.  It's not like special interests groups and lobbyist are dark evil beings,  it's just that the self-interested entities (corporations and the such)  have better means to use them.  
You're right about the money, though.  I can't say that's the way the world should be,  but it works a lot better than physically beating each other to death.

On the media coverage, it's a shame that the media covers so much National Politics, which gets overdone and reiterated too much IMO, and not enough on state and local politics, which are much more accessible, and cheaper, than National Politics.

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: But there is perhaps a contradiction between your arguments that people aren't engaging civilly and are also actively turning to the federal government for all their needs, which sounds an -awful lot- like civil engagement to me. I think you should define those terms properly or use different ones to clarify.

Sure I'll clarify. Community is a very subjective word,  that could range from exclusively between you and your next door neighbor, to our Milky Way community in interstellar space, its kind of fun to think about.  I don't consider the deserts of Arizona or the metropolitan cities of New York to be in my community.  So what I mean by civil engagement is being engaged in a community that spans from your section of a city to the State government.  After that I would say the scope is too broad to make an impact.  Is calling and interacting with a congressman considered civic engagement, technically yes, but for how long are you going to be engaged? And at what affect?  Engagement at the local and state level is much more effective, and ought to be.  These groups you organise are good, but where does your attention lie?

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: If your opinion is not based on facts, then it is not true, or it is at least not verifiable and so not useful.

What about opinions based on theory and or logic

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote:  
you seemed to cite it being "hot-button" as grounds to dismiss. Now we know that you wouldn't do that.

I think we should track to when I first mentioned the "hot-button" issue, which was abortion.  Really, I didn't dismiss it,  I actually acknowledged it as an issue policy maker might make policies on.  There wasn't any of my opinion included other than i think the debate is still on the table,  rather than some other civil rights that I think are settled. Abortion would be a fun topic to debate about, maybe another time.

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: What are his "plans" besides empty rhetoric and a policy consisting entirely of major tax cuts to people in his industry? Take this piece of news from today for instance and compare it to the Sanders infrastructure plan (also presented in the article, I hope) for an idea of what a good infrastructure plan vs a bad plan with an ad campaign looks like.

The article shows neither tax plan.  Only a fraction of Trump plan, which is the incentive for corporations to fund infrastructure.  I really can't make a solid opinion on the infrastructure plan until some numbers come out, but so far I like the overall design.  Yeah it gives tax breaks, but it also has corporations paying for the development, rather than the Government.  If the tax breaks are less of an opportunity cost than the actual cost of the construction, that nets favorably for the government.  I doubt the tax breaks will be greater than the money put into the construction, if they are that's not entirely bad either. For if the tax breaks are less than the investment, then corporations are going to have to make up lost income money somehow.  They will definitely push costs onto consumers.  So where does the money come from,  tax money or consumer money? or worst case more deficit spending.

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: I've read over the republican policy platform and yes, it is those things. It includes "heavy vetting," as well as an outright ban on refugees from syria, it also includes the use of conversion therapy (which is definitely an agenda of the republican establishment), and so on.
Actually, one of his people accidentally leaked major DHS plans for a selfie op a couple days ago, so we know exactly what the plan is on that front.

Have you considered the reasons for this vetting though?  Refugees have cause a ruckus in parts of Europe.  Plus there is a Islamic organization(s) who hates America, I don't really want those kinds of people in our country, would you?  I'm all for allowing good, civil, middle easterners into our country.  I would even argue a peaceful change in hegemony is just a social phenomena and evolutionary inevitability.
Conversion therapy, that's something I haven't really thought too much about.  It would be an interesting discussion, perhaps another time.


damn character count

[Dusclops]

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: which as I said before is a republican-controlled congress and I don't see you addressing that point, especially considering some of the most worrying policies were in the platform so we can assume all republicans will try to support them.

I just don't see that, redpill me.
 
[/quote]

(11-22-2016, 08:39 AM)Joe Wrote: I do not know what you mean by "creating division" unless you mean by disagreeing with you or other centrist positions I am creating division, I would say said centrists are creating division by pushing for actions marginalized people who value their lives cannot take.

 
It's the solidarity that is created from opposing the other side at any cost.  Both sides of the arguments do this.  One side yells "you're all mean and cruel" while the other side yells "you're all ignorant and naive".  
If you're going to call me a centrist I'll gladly take the label.  An open ear to both side and a mind in the middle to consider them both.   Sounds democratic to me. With ears to both side, eyes are pointed ahead.  I should start writing centrist slogans
I wouldn't say i'm pushing for these actions though,  I'd need you to explain to me the "centrist push" or is it the same as the "pull of the center" you were talking about earlier
 

(11-25-2016, 05:27 AM)Joe Wrote: I'm [for] Ranked choice voting would be a cool idea but where's the base for that? Are you organizing to enact ranked-choice voting, or just saying its a good idea? Because I would absolutely start organizing for that, if I knew others who were as well.

 
For now I'm saying it's a good idea, but would love take part in making it a reality.  You seem to have experience in starting a movement.  Do you want to talk about making it happen?
 

(11-25-2016, 05:27 AM)Joe Wrote: Do you think bringing up one particular state is an effective assessment of the total impact of that extra influence on the election?

 
I thought you were pointing out Wyoming by saying "we can see >3x as much influence in certain states than others."  and seeing as Wyoming is the only state with >3x influence.
 

(11-25-2016, 05:27 AM)Joe Wrote: Don't you think it would be more effective to add up the electoral college votes from states that had >130% representation (the median), as well as take a measure of the voting demographics in said states (white) to see what the degree of undue influence actually is? It seems to have swung this election, from the near 2-million vote disparity between donald and clinton

 
ok, using this and this as my source of numbers we can see that states with >130% representation have 66 electoral votes while states with <130% have 508 electoral votes.  Now if we average the percentage of white population of those groups,  >130% has 73.35% and <130% has 65.97%,  a 7.38% difference.  I noticed states with >130% have 3.88 votes per state while <130% have 14.941 votes per state.  Also I noticed 130% can't be the median since there are 17 states with >130% and 34 state with <130%.  I'm not really that knowledgable at statistics, but I don't see these numbers being significant.
 

(11-25-2016, 05:27 AM)Joe Wrote: And my other question is that you seem to have said the electoral college's influence was definitely something that mattered, as it was a good thing to have. Why are you now telling me it is an underwhelming influence, and that it only encourages voters to feel like they matter a little bit more?

 
Like any form of assistance, a little bit is better than none.
 

(11-25-2016, 05:27 AM)Joe Wrote: If I didn't have the time/resources to vote, would I have the time/resources to campaign for early voting, or for elections as a national holiday?
 
There are plenty of other reasons why people wouldn't vote, such as not being registered, not having enough information about voting, or the prior reasons I gave.

 
Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I can't see why someone wouldn't have the time or resources to vote in the first place.  If they choose to do something other than vote that shows where their values are.  Tell me more about why someone wouldn't be able to vote.
 

(11-25-2016, 05:27 AM)Joe Wrote: right, my apologies but I would say that balance is still superficial, because we could also say any other distribution had a balance between highly populated and not so populated as well, if we just set it as the default condition. I guess I'd like to know what you mean by "balance" in this context.

 
Sure,  It tends to be true that higher volume metropolitan, urban, and suburban areas have very different values and interests than low population rural, desert, and forested areas.  These interest not only differ, but often conflict.  "In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in state of nature"- James Madison, Federalist No. 51.  In this case, just because an idea has the population behind it, it gets but into praxis, even though it might harm others and not be the best idea for the whole.
So to balance it more, the low populated areas are given a slight boost in influence, not even enough to give them a real advantage. Also it is to be noted, this boost is only given in one of many elections.  In all other houses, except for the senate, the lower population definitely has less representation.
You probably think that this is the very means by which whites oppress non-whites, and while there is a correlation for this, I don't think the system was invented for racial suppression, actually when it was made race wasn't a factor, as only land owning white men could vote.  If more non-whites moved into the 130% areas three things would happen.  1) There would be more representation for their values. 2)  Their values would probably change to fit the work options in the area 3) The overall values of the area would change with increase understanding of people that comes with the relationships built with new people.
 

(11-25-2016, 05:27 AM)Joe Wrote: Also, I am still going to stick by my case that people cast votes and land doesn't.

 
Well like a said before,  values and interests change with location and occupation, so I would say, at least for the election for president, the land does vote.  Anyways we're the United States of America, not the People's Republic of America. This form of election strengthens the sovereignty of the States.
 

(11-25-2016, 05:27 AM)Joe Wrote: as they say, "all politics are local". I agree that giving them more influence isn't going to get them exactly what they want, for the reason you stated, as well as the lack of 3rd parties, but also another: that by choosing between sets of policies which other people decided on, they will not be able to make their own policies and so they will only have the power to agree, or disagree. But never to speak.
 
Any degree of electoral influence is only a certain degree of the power to pick someone else's policies. So long as the party's constituents are not the party itself, and that the party controls lives which are neither, we do not have democracy.

 
So it makes sense that if you want to your voice heard, and "speak" you should get involved with the local government.  The National Gov isn't going to be able to uphold values and interests of individuals people.

[Dusclops]

(11-25-2016, 05:27 AM)Joe Wrote: I also haven't given him a chance as supreme dictator for life, because I do not think he should be supreme dictator for life.  Why do I need to try and respect him? is there something inherently respect-worthy about becoming president? What is that? Is the value of respecting the president somehow more than the people who are at risk by his policies?

 
In a metaphysical way, I would say there is no property of a person that is inherently respect-worthy,  but I assume you have a respect for our country since you value a good democracy and healthy nation, although our means differ.  And since you respect the country it should follow that you have respect for the leaders of the country, even if your opinions differ from them.  I honestly don't think your evaluation of worth of respect is so corrupted by confirmation biases. 
 

(11-25-2016, 05:27 AM)Joe Wrote: I would say he did cheat his way in, in that he was in court and settled the cases, did not release his tax returns, the election was interfered with by hackers, and voting machines were quite possibly directly hacked in three states. Also, podesta collaborated with CNN to make him a "pied piper candidate" who'd beat the other republicans but then be weak against Hillary. Not all of these things mean he cheated, but players on several sides did.

 
The first two points you made aren't illegal and i don't see how they would condoned as cheating.  The next points about interference and hacking could be true, but I don't think hard evidence or proof has been published, though I haven't been looking. Maybe found its been found, but obviously not enough to make a case.  Unless the illuminati is keeping the case silenced. 
 

(11-25-2016, 05:27 AM)Joe Wrote: he's not just ignoring climate change, he's denying climate change, pretending to change his mind on climate change by saying he has an "open mind on the PCA" and jumping right back to denying it again after a bunch of media outlets reported on it. It's disgusting.

 
This is a issue I think the National Gov should be taking up, but I heard a statement on the radio that reveals a wonderful silver lining.
If the National Gov isn't mandating the environmental regulations and or dismantles the EPA then this leaves an opportunity for the States to step up to the plate. And as i've mentioned before, it is easier to get stuff done if people go to the local and state governments for policy changes.