EPTIf anyone was voting for Trump because they expected his team to be organized and meet deadlines, they are living in yet another reality that wasn't pushed by any media I'm aware of.
That said it doesn't really matter yet.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6242
| 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. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
If anyone was voting for Trump because they expected his team to be organized and meet deadlines, they are living in yet another reality that wasn't pushed by any media I'm aware of. That said it doesn't really matter yet. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On November 16 2016 08:40 LegalLord wrote: The government has to lead those industries towards the rural direction. That is a truly daunting task but to the extent that it can be done it should be. If the trade deals fall apart, for example, to some extent that will force companies to look elsewhere for business opportunities, possibly inward. I understand that this could be done, but is this a better long-term outcome than accepting urbanization/automation of rural industries? This is probably my total naivete on these matters speaking, but I'm unclear how appeasing the cultural security of a particular sub-population is worth shifting course. What do we gain as a society from preserving this idea of "rural America", as compared to accepting urbanization as the future? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On November 16 2016 11:42 TheYango wrote: I understand that this could be done, but is this a better long-term outcome than accepting urbanization/automation of rural industries? This is probably my total naivete on these matters speaking, but I'm unclear how appeasing the cultural security of a particular sub-population is worth shifting course. What do we gain as a society from preserving this idea of "rural America", as compared to accepting urbanization as the future? Well, first off, total urbanization isn't sustainable. You can't just have everyone live in urban areas. There are too many things that are integral to society that occur in rural areas, and you can't just ditch the individuals in these rural communities. You have to support these communities so people can live in the rural parts of the country to get the things done that need to be done to support society as a whole. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 16 2016 11:46 Stratos_speAr wrote: Well, first off, total urbanization isn't sustainable. You can't just have everyone live in urban areas. There are too many things that are integral to society that occur in rural areas, and you can't just ditch the individuals in these rural communities. You have to support these communities so people can live in the rural parts of the country to get the things done that need to be done to support society as a whole. That's basically it. Leaving most of the country barren while filling up the coasts is about as bad an idea as it sounds. A country that doesn't take care of its rural industries is going to very quickly find itself out of food, natural resources, and the like. Important stuff happens in the inner lands, even if the tendency of technological change leads those communities to get the short end of the stick. Imagine having to import all your food from South America and all your steel from China because you didn't foster your own agricultural and mining industries. That leaves your country extremely vulnerable to the winds of change in trade and that's not a good thing. And that really does happen. Culture also has a very long term value. A nation that doesn't have a strong sense of culture will have no reason to stay together if things start to look bad. This can be a truly deadly thing in the long run. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Still a hard transition to do of course. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Isn't it incredibly narrow-minded to tie this question to geography? Because from my perspective, when it comes to electing the president of the US, geography is a non-factor, one person = 1/n of the voice seems perfectly reasonable. Furthermore, there is no pandering in a neutral system like this, and if the idea is that population centers are more liberal and rural areas are more conservative, that also doesn't matter. The geographical location of people is consequential on their ideology, but why try to control for that? Their ideology is their ideology, there's no reason to try to dampen it artificially to try to "even out" the urban/rural divide. I see no interest in thinking about the presidency in terms of geography, I think it's an old tradition that has no advantage and doesn't do anything to strengthen the legitimacy of the democratic institutions. And the presidency is not really the level of government where the management of the sociocultural and socioeconomic concerns of specific regions should necessarily be emphasized, that shit should be played on a State level. So faced with the election of someone who had fewer votes, it seems reasonable to say that the "pandering" element is not all that important, when the quality of the democratic institutions is frankly shaken at its roots from the scale of the distortion between what "We the people" said they wanted and what actually ended up happening... | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
Making population centers the only ones that matter during an election would mean that a candidate would never leave the population centers because it wouldn't be efficient to do an event outside of an area with less then a million people there.Not even all urban centers would be worth it to campaign in even. The Midwest wouldn't get anyone going to it outside of say Chicago or Detroit All you would be doing is disenfranchising more people at the benefit of changing the people who are disenfranchised. Frankly the government institutions we have are federalist and not democratic and the EC reflects that well. Everyone that keeps insisting America is a democracy in any way needs to go back to civics classes. The EC only goes against the popular vote in very close edge cases. When one candidate is winning by millions and still loses then it'll be a problem. Not to mention how it'll never pass asking a majority of states to freely make themselves ilrelevent in a general election in order to make other states matter more. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14104 Posts
| ||
|
sharkie
Austria18625 Posts
On November 16 2016 08:44 LegalLord wrote: US left = Europe right. US right = Europe far-right US far-left = Europe left Roughly speaking, of course. So no more center left? Sounds like Europe | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On November 16 2016 15:20 Sermokala wrote: And another thing. the amount of people that vote or not shouldn't depend on the presidential election when so many local government issues on the state and city level that matter as much to peoples daily lives as the presidential election. I really want mandatory voting, or at least election day being a national holiday so there are no excuses not to vote. | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
Stay home, hit the streets and show activism when specific policies start to get proposed I say! | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4557 Posts
On November 16 2016 15:31 Jaaaaasper wrote: I really want mandatory voting, or at least election day being a national holiday so there are no excuses not to vote. In Belgium it's mandatory to turn up to the voting station, but not mandatory to vote. Slightly easier in a country with 11 million people of course. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4408 Posts
On November 16 2016 16:09 LemOn wrote: Yeah these protests seem really dumb to me - not accepting clear election results, and being people that didn't even vote lol. Stay home, hit the streets and show activism when specific policies start to get proposed I say! Should be over in a few days but they are apparently organising a massive protest for the inauguration. That could be the one to watch out for. | ||
|
zeo
Serbia6336 Posts
On November 16 2016 10:53 LegalLord wrote: Well he has to speak to the guy who got him into power, right? In all seriousness, word on the grapevine is that Trump wants to focus on ISIS more than on Assad - and that basically lets Russia continue on its way in Syria. In all likelihood Trump will mostly get enough neocons on his team to make some rather impressive military stupidity be visible in his presidency. It will be funny though, trying to reconcile Trump with the Republicans. How is ending the war in Syria/Iraq impressive military stupidity? The whole thing could have ended in 2012 when there were only 30k dead but Obama thought the rebels could take the whole country. Four hundred thousand people have died since then and a large part of those rebels spawned into ISIS. (edit: not to mention the migrant crisis) Assad still controls 8 out of the 10 largest population centers in Syria and it would take a full NATO invasion to defeat him now. If Trump can push through a deal with the Russians that would make Assad step aside after the war at least the war is finally over and US press could push a 'everybody wins' narrative. Miles better than the red line fiasco. | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
On November 16 2016 16:09 LemOn wrote: Yeah these protests seem really dumb to me - not accepting clear election results, and being people that didn't even vote lol. Stay home, hit the streets and show activism when specific policies start to get proposed I say! The "wait until something happens proposal??" :/ As soon as Bannon and Ebell got announced there was legitimate reason to protest. | ||
|
Laurens
Belgium4557 Posts
| ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On November 16 2016 15:31 Jaaaaasper wrote: I really want mandatory voting, or at least election day being a national holiday so there are no excuses not to vote. I saw the lines from voting centers. I think I might not have voted if it were going to take me more than several hours. It's either voter suppression or badly organized voting, both of which require attention. | ||
|
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
On November 16 2016 16:59 BlueBird. wrote: The "wait until something happens proposal??" :/ As soon as Bannon and Ebell got announced there was legitimate reason to protest. Well yeah but that's not why the protests happened. People went out with "trump's not my president" basically attacking people that voted for him when they didn't vote/voted 3rd party themselves, hard to not see it as total bullshit - if they went out because of those appointments or specifics he'll do instead of basically protesting the voting system they kept silent about all this time it'd be okay, it just seems like they were protests for the sake of protesting, not accepting election results which was the very thing they criticised trump for potentially doing | ||
| ||
