EPTAbout voter turnout:
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6173
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
About voter turnout: | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8156 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:23 oneofthem wrote: the people deserve the kind of rulers they get, that's about it. has this been true at any point in history..? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:03 kongoline wrote: no they are not, actually Germany might be the sole reason we are in this mess, they are indirectly responsible for brexit and rise of Trump's popularity, people were fine with normal liberal government but some of Merkel ideas make her look like far-left nut job which caused tensions and divided people in Europe. Well let's be honest, it's not like Merkel unilaterally made those decisions. That may have been the straw that broke the camel's back for a lot of Europeans and to a lesser extent Americans, but we have been heading in this direction for a while now. As of a few years ago one could start to perceive that these tensions with the current governing body of the Western nations were due to come to a boil. To blame Merkel is to take blame away from her co-conspirators who were every bit as culpable, but far less publicly scorned for their involvement. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:23 oneofthem wrote: the people deserve the kind of rulers they get, that's about it. Beside the email stuff, Hillary Clinton's biggest blunter is to call Trump supporters "deplorable" and to say that Trump is a super racist when he just said that he wants to keep radical Islam and illegal immigration away from the USA. People have the internet, people have the television, people have the media at the hand. When Hillary is making all those baseless accusation, people will do research on those. And when they found out how wrong Hillary was, it is only natural that people will be pushed away. | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:31 RealityIsKing wrote: Beside the email stuff, Hillary Clinton's biggest blunter is to call Trump supporters "deplorable" and to say that Trump is a super racist when he just said that he wants to keep radical Islam and illegal immigration away from the USA. People have the internet, people have the television, people have the media at the hand. When Hillary is making all those baseless accusation, people will do research on those. And when they found out how wrong Hillary was, it is only natural that people will be pushed away. While I agree that 'deplorable' was an awful move, Trump is racist, if you listened to his rhetoric. And even though a huge percentage of his statements were false, even when compared to Clinton, the internet didn't really help people understand that. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
Outdated? Fair? Unfair? Never should have been that way in the first place? | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:37 The_Templar wrote: While I agree that 'deplorable' was an awful move, Trump is racist, if you listened to his rhetoric. And even though a huge percentage of his statements were false, even when compared to Clinton, the internet didn't really help people understand that. No, I just said that he said illegal immigrants, which he did. And then CNN, Washington Post, Huff Post, NBC, BuzzFeed, etc. just cut off that part and immediately went on calling him racist. Then we later found out through Emails that Hillary have a lot of the media colluded together to make her look good. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:37 The_Templar wrote: While I agree that 'deplorable' was an awful move, Trump is racist, if you listened to his rhetoric. And even though a huge percentage of his statements were false, even when compared to Clinton, the internet didn't really help people understand that. Playing the race card as hard as Hillary did is really quite obnoxious to a lot of us. I'm not going to play the "who is more Hitler than the other" game because it is completely and utterly moot at this point. But at times the perception of Hillary abusing race and other identity politics tensions for personal gain gave me just as strong a visceral reaction as the racist/sexist/xenophobic rhetoric they were opposed to. It didn't sound like the words of a champion for equal rights, it sounded like someone who saw tensions and thought they might be useful to get her elected. I hope the new Democratic leadership will cease and desist with that game. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:41 travis wrote: So all this electoral college talk on social media. Without discussing how silly the *timing* of it is, what is y'alls opinion on the electoral college? Outdated? Fair? Unfair? Never should have been that way in the first place? Historically important, and while I can say that I would support removing it, the arguments in favor of it are stronger than you would be led to believe by the popular response here when people are angry that their candidate lost. Given how much political consensus it would take to change it and how rarely it matters, I feel there are bigger fish to fry. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
They will blame James Comey and the FBI. They will blame voter suppression and racism. They will blame Bernie or bust and misogyny. They will blame third parties and independent candidates. They will blame the corporate media for giving him the platform, social media for being a bullhorn, and WikiLeaks for airing the laundry. But this leaves out the force most responsible for creating the nightmare in which we now find ourselves wide awake: neoliberalism. That worldview – fully embodied by Hillary Clinton and her machine – is no match for Trump-style extremism. The decision to run one against the other is what sealed our fate. If we learn nothing else, can we please learn from that mistake? Here is what we need to understand: a hell of a lot of people are in pain. Under neoliberal policies of deregulation, privatisation, austerity and corporate trade, their living standards have declined precipitously. They have lost jobs. They have lost pensions. They have lost much of the safety net that used to make these losses less frightening. They see a future for their kids even worse than their precarious present. At the same time, they have witnessed the rise of the Davos class, a hyper-connected network of banking and tech billionaires, elected leaders who are awfully cosy with those interests, and Hollywood celebrities who make the whole thing seem unbearably glamorous. Success is a party to which they were not invited, and they know in their hearts that this rising wealth and power is somehow directly connected to their growing debts and powerlessness. For the people who saw security and status as their birthright – and that means white men most of all – these losses are unbearable. Donald Trump speaks directly to that pain. The Brexit campaign spoke to that pain. So do all of the rising far-right parties in Europe. They answer it with nostalgic nationalism and anger at remote economic bureaucracies – whether Washington, the North American free trade agreement the World Trade Organisation or the EU. And of course, they answer it by bashing immigrants and people of colour, vilifying Muslims, and degrading women. Elite neoliberalism has nothing to offer that pain, because neoliberalism unleashed the Davos class. People such as Hillary and Bill Clinton are the toast of the Davos party. In truth, they threw the party. Trump’s message was: “All is hell.” Clinton answered: “All is well.” But it’s not well – far from it. Neo-fascist responses to rampant insecurity and inequality are not going to go away. But what we know from the 1930s is that what it takes to do battle with fascism is a real left. A good chunk of Trump’s support could be peeled away if there were a genuine redistributive agenda on the table. An agenda to take on the billionaire class with more than rhetoric, and use the money for a green new deal. Such a plan could create a tidal wave of well-paying unionised jobs, bring badly needed resources and opportunities to communities of colour, and insist that polluters should pay for workers to be retrained and fully included in this future. It could fashion policies that fight institutionalised racism, economic inequality and climate change at the same time. It could take on bad trade deals and police violence, and honour indigenous people as the original protectors of the land, water and air. Source | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8156 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:41 travis wrote: So all this electoral college talk on social media. Without discussing how silly the *timing* of it is, what is y'alls opinion on the electoral college? Outdated? Fair? Unfair? Never should have been that way in the first place? Well we've just had 2 pages discussing this now, so I'm not going to repeat everything since it won't bring anything new to the table. but tl;dr: It's outdated, unfair, undemocratic, and frankly ridiculous. The fact that nearly half the population feels like it doesn't matter if they vote (and it doesn't if you're in a democratic or republic safe state), not to mention the fact that Hillbilly Joe down in mini state Wyoming gets more saying in who becomes president than PhD graduate Jenny in NYC. The purpose of EC (besides the now outdated logistical reason) is to have presidential candidates more focused on the smaller states, which doesn't even work as the candidates doesn't care about the smallest states or the biggest cities, and rather focus on the middle of the tree ones and the crucial swing states. And that's not even touching on the ridiculousness of the first past the post system that's also tied into the whole thing. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12318 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote: Playing the race card as hard as Hillary did is really quite obnoxious to a lot of us. I'm not going to play the "who is more Hitler than the other" game because it is completely and utterly moot at this point. But at times the perception of Hillary abusing race and other identity politics tensions for personal gain gave me just as strong a visceral reaction as the racist/sexist/xenophobic rhetoric they were opposed to. It didn't sound like the words of a champion for equal rights, it sounded like someone who saw tensions and thought they might be useful to get her elected. I hope the new Democratic leadership will cease and desist with that game. Which would you prefer, someone who sounds like he truly champions equal rights, or someone who desists with that game? You can't have both, and they speak to different mindsets. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:41 travis wrote: So all this electoral college talk on social media. Without discussing how silly the *timing* of it is, what is y'alls opinion on the electoral college? Outdated? Fair? Unfair? Never should have been that way in the first place? It's fine, keep it. It's good enough at keeping the emphasis on the collective states and not the populous coasts. I'm all for state provisions against faithless electors; we don't need any of that. On November 10 2016 23:44 LegalLord wrote: Playing the race card as hard as Hillary did is really quite obnoxious to a lot of us. I'm not going to play the "who is more Hitler than the other" game because it is completely and utterly moot at this point. But at times the perception of Hillary abusing race and other identity politics tensions for personal gain gave me just as strong a visceral reaction as the racist/sexist/xenophobic rhetoric they were opposed to. It didn't sound like the words of a champion for equal rights, it sounded like someone who saw tensions and thought they might be useful to get her elected. I hope the new Democratic leadership will cease and desist with that game. She deserves credit for doing a superb job exposing the transparency of identity politics, albeit by practicing it inartfully rather than exposing and campaigning against it. I can imagine middle America now views people slandered with the 'racist' labels as probably the bigger defenders of equal rights/colorblind society. How much of the white backlash came when voters realized Hillary wasn't talking about that other white KKK racist down the street voting for Trump, but that she was talking about them? | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
Well anyways my 2 cents on it (as someone who rarely agrees with the vote of rural states), is that the EC is more fair than not having the EC. The U.S. is supposed to be a union of states. States are supposed to be represented. Popular vote would make sense as the decider if there was only one giant state, and everyone was governed under the same laws and rules. But states have a certain level of sovereignty of their own. Going only by the popular vote is like telling the people of north dakota(for an example), "even though your state is 1/50th of the union, your vote only matters 1/500th." City regions would always dominate. Electoral college actually kind of compromises the issue by not giving north dakota 1/50th, but also not giving it 1/500th either. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:52 Nebuchad wrote: Which would you prefer, someone who sounds like he truly champions equal rights, or someone who desists with that game? You can't have both, and they speak to different mindsets. Someone who sounds like he truly champions equal rights, and desists with the game of trying to use those tensions to play people into a "your opponent is Hitlerer than the original Hitler" frenzy. People aren't stupid, they can see when one candidate cares more about their identity-based issues than the other, without anyone having to go out and actively "prove" that that candidate really is that racist. But when you play that identity politics game the way Hillary Clinton did - you know damn well she doesn't care (because she was never a champion of these things until the polls told her she should be), she just wants the minority/female vote - you piss off that portion of the population who just doesn't want to deal with that shit anymore. That's the issue here. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
On November 10 2016 23:37 The_Templar wrote: after decades of abuse people were desensitized to <words> so one's rhetoric would mean nothing as far as quality-ascribing(to ones personality/character) goes.While I agree that 'deplorable' was an awful move, Trump is racist, if you listened to his rhetoric. And even though a huge percentage of his statements were false, even when compared to Clinton, the internet didn't really help people understand that. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
1. the racial lines vs trump had good responses. the khan family stuff, anti-hispanic rhetoric etc, all tested very well. 2. demographic destiny, more people of color in electorate than ever. there is a lot of upside if you can have activation of that group into politics. 3. trump negatives simply seemed very bad to the elites deciding on strategy. culture bubble is pretty real. 4. BLM enthusiasm was seen as very important. the hardcore sanders group was too far gone, no one expected to get the last 30% of those. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I'm all for Dems doubling down on socialism and socialist solutions. But make no mistake, if you want to connect Brexit & Trump, you have to talk about home rule or disenfranchisement. If you don't have lobbyists, or are a member of Dems minorities + women coalition, your thoughts on Obamacare, trade, and immigration don't matter. It's not just economics, and I have yet to hear the masses inveighing against privatization, deregulation, and austerity (to the extent they even exist both as trends and as something Hillary championed). | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Also, apparently turnout (votes as a percentage of eligible voters) actually went up from 2012. That's strange considering how the absolute number of votes has dropped significantly. | ||
| ||
