|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
Plansix I agree that turn out is a huge factor, maybe even a bigger factor, but stealing voters also has an extreme effect on results
|
I read his letter, seems like the right response.
TLDR for his letter,
Friends wanted to go to a party as rappers and do a song and dance
He was an idiot to do it, says he didn't understand how bad it was being 19
Took ownership of it, admitted how dumb it was and how it does not reflect who he is now.
I think I will believe him that this was just him being a dumbass 19 year old unless more things come out about him being a racist
|
On February 07 2019 02:29 travis wrote:
Plansix I agree that turn out is a huge factor, maybe even a bigger factor, but stealing voters also has an extreme effect on results
I think it is far more important in state and local races where there is a limited voter pool and folks are more likely to switch sides. Also each state has small pool of potential demographics. For the national race for President, it is less important than trying to build a strong collation of voters that will turn out across a number of states. Especially in the current climate when the Republicans voter demographics become more myopic than they were prior.
A prime example of this is immigration, the great political football since the 1980s. The voters who care about illegal immigration and put it at the top of their list are working class voters in communities that don't have immigrant populations. In any community that has immigrants, illegal or otherwise, the it is far less of a polarizing issue. On that specific topic it is impossible to bridge the gap, because the two different regional demographics don't want the same thing. They cannot appeal to one without losing the other. So the only answer, nationally, is turn out. Which is good because immigrants traditionally reside in more populated areas anyways.
On February 07 2019 02:33 IyMoon wrote:I read his letter, seems like the right response. TLDR for his letter, Friends wanted to go to a party as rappers and do a song and dance He was an idiot to do it, says he didn't understand how bad it was being 19 Took ownership of it, admitted how dumb it was and how it does not reflect who he is now. I think I will believe him that this was just him being a dumbass 19 year old unless more things come out about him being a racist
No one would suspect that he was a top secret KKK member or anything. But he had this thing sitting around in his history for this entire time and only brought it up because he is now worried people will find out. I don't know if he should resign or not. But he is the AG of the state and it might be tough for black folks living there to feel confident in a goverment that seems to have a whole lot of white dudes that though black face was a fun costume when they were younger.
Edit: Also, folks need to understand that blackface was a popular form of entertainment through the 20th century. It was used by whites to portray an imaged version of being black based on some of the worst stereotypes about blacks from the pre-industrial era. When people use it today, they adopting the costume used to preform racism as entertainment.
|
No female candidate will have a chance against Trump. Yes, Warren caving in against Trump and doing the DNA test shows she lacks the spine to stand up to Trump. But the nature of the US voter is such that no female will win. Any female will be viciously attacked and be subject to double standards that are there against female politicians (or any form of public female leadership). Female politicians have an impossible line to walk. They have to be charming, but they cannot go too far, or they are too 'seductive'. They have the be funny and humorous, but they cannot take it too far or they are too playful. They have to be serious and stern, but if they take it too far, they will be too uptight and boring. They have to be dominant, but they have to be careful not to come across as too aggressive and masculine.
In the US against Trump in the current landscape of media? Not a chance.
|
On February 07 2019 02:52 Polypoetes wrote:
No female candidate will have a chance against Trump. Yes, Warren caving in against Trump and doing the DNA test shows she lacks the spine to stand up to Trump. But the nature of the US voter is such that no female will win. Any female will be viciously attacked and be subject to double standards that are there against female politicians (or any form of public female leadership). Female politicians have an impossible line to walk. They have to be charming, but they cannot go too far, or they are too 'seductive'. They have the be funny and humorous, but they cannot take it too far or they are too playful. They have to be serious and stern, but if they take it too far, they will be too uptight and boring. They have to be dominant, but they have to be careful not to come across as too aggressive and masculine.
In the US against Trump in the current landscape of media? Not a chance.
At risk of coming across wrong, I would say there are two distinct types of female politicians:
1. Clinton/Warren/Harris
2. AOC/Pelosi/Klobuchar
(1) deeply struggles against masculinity whereas (2) makes their own version of it. I have a hard time describing what exactly this is, but it feels like there are 2 entirely different approaches. (2) does well and I think would do well against Trump. But (1) is like a "build order loss" against Trump.
|
I'm not sure Harris will have any problem with Trump. Being a trial attorney(aka a DA) as a woman already requires deal with a lot of sexist dudes and all sexist double standards. She won't have the same problems as Clinton, that is for sure.
|
my 2c regarding Virginia,
Depending on when these dudes wore blackface way back when, I am tempted to give them a pass. My understanding is that not too long ago, blackface was seen as racist, but not like "actually racist". Or something like that. If I am given the choice between some idiot democrat or some idiot republican, I am going to choose my idiot. But my outrage ends as soon as it means having a republican governor.
|
On February 07 2019 02:52 Polypoetes wrote:
No female candidate will have a chance against Trump. Yes, Warren caving in against Trump and doing the DNA test shows she lacks the spine to stand up to Trump. But the nature of the US voter is such that no female will win. Any female will be viciously attacked and be subject to double standards that are there against female politicians (or any form of public female leadership). Female politicians have an impossible line to walk. They have to be charming, but they cannot go too far, or they are too 'seductive'. They have the be funny and humorous, but they cannot take it too far or they are too playful. They have to be serious and stern, but if they take it too far, they will be too uptight and boring. They have to be dominant, but they have to be careful not to come across as too aggressive and masculine.
In the US against Trump in the current landscape of media? Not a chance.
Clinton got more votes than Trump and 70K votes in certain states turned the election in favor for Trump. 70K is nothing.
|
On February 07 2019 02:52 Polypoetes wrote:
No female candidate will have a chance against Trump. Yes, Warren caving in against Trump and doing the DNA test shows she lacks the spine to stand up to Trump. But the nature of the US voter is such that no female will win. Any female will be viciously attacked and be subject to double standards that are there against female politicians (or any form of public female leadership). Female politicians have an impossible line to walk. They have to be charming, but they cannot go too far, or they are too 'seductive'. They have the be funny and humorous, but they cannot take it too far or they are too playful. They have to be serious and stern, but if they take it too far, they will be too uptight and boring. They have to be dominant, but they have to be careful not to come across as too aggressive and masculine.
In the US against Trump in the current landscape of media? Not a chance.
Ahm..
You do realise that more people voted for Clinton, who's most likely female, yes? It's just that the less important people voted for Clinton rather than Trump. You know. The votes that don't really matter anyway, compared to the ones that do.
Not sure how you spun that into "females can't win against Trump" - it's simple. Prevent politicians from manipulating the ballot through actively trying to prevent certain people from voting, and actively prevent gerrymandering. Trump didn't win because Clinton was female or because he got more votes - he won because the the voting districts were well gerrymandered and of course because the electoral college is a pretty retarded system.
|
On February 07 2019 05:29 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 02:52 Polypoetes wrote:
No female candidate will have a chance against Trump. Yes, Warren caving in against Trump and doing the DNA test shows she lacks the spine to stand up to Trump. But the nature of the US voter is such that no female will win. Any female will be viciously attacked and be subject to double standards that are there against female politicians (or any form of public female leadership). Female politicians have an impossible line to walk. They have to be charming, but they cannot go too far, or they are too 'seductive'. They have the be funny and humorous, but they cannot take it too far or they are too playful. They have to be serious and stern, but if they take it too far, they will be too uptight and boring. They have to be dominant, but they have to be careful not to come across as too aggressive and masculine.
In the US against Trump in the current landscape of media? Not a chance. Ahm.. You do realise that more people voted for Clinton, who's most likely female, yes? It's just that the less important people voted for Clinton rather than Trump. You know. The votes that don't really matter anyway, compared to the ones that do. Not sure how you spun that into "females can't win against Trump" - it's simple. Prevent politicians from manipulating the ballot through actively trying to prevent certain people from voting, and actively prevent gerrymandering. Trump didn't win because Clinton was female or because he got more votes - he won because the the voting districts were well gerrymandered and of course because the electoral college is a pretty retarded system.
You can't gerrymander the electoral college. And unless you want to tell the entire countryside that their political views can be ignored then the electoral college isn't a retarded system.
I agree its not perfect but the electoral college has value as a system to empower areas of the country that wouldn't have power without it.
Clinton was a perfect storm to lose to Trump. It wasn't even just her fault but a series of events that led her to lose. Some that she had the power to influence and some she didn't. Just saying it was beacuse she was female is at best dishonest.
|
On February 07 2019 06:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 05:29 m4ini wrote:On February 07 2019 02:52 Polypoetes wrote:
No female candidate will have a chance against Trump. Yes, Warren caving in against Trump and doing the DNA test shows she lacks the spine to stand up to Trump. But the nature of the US voter is such that no female will win. Any female will be viciously attacked and be subject to double standards that are there against female politicians (or any form of public female leadership). Female politicians have an impossible line to walk. They have to be charming, but they cannot go too far, or they are too 'seductive'. They have the be funny and humorous, but they cannot take it too far or they are too playful. They have to be serious and stern, but if they take it too far, they will be too uptight and boring. They have to be dominant, but they have to be careful not to come across as too aggressive and masculine.
In the US against Trump in the current landscape of media? Not a chance. Ahm.. You do realise that more people voted for Clinton, who's most likely female, yes? It's just that the less important people voted for Clinton rather than Trump. You know. The votes that don't really matter anyway, compared to the ones that do. Not sure how you spun that into "females can't win against Trump" - it's simple. Prevent politicians from manipulating the ballot through actively trying to prevent certain people from voting, and actively prevent gerrymandering. Trump didn't win because Clinton was female or because he got more votes - he won because the the voting districts were well gerrymandered and of course because the electoral college is a pretty retarded system. You can't gerrymander the electoral college. And unless you want to tell the entire countryside that their political views can be ignored then the electoral college isn't a retarded system. I agree its not perfect but the electoral college has value as a system to empower areas of the country that wouldn't have power without it. Clinton was a perfect storm to lose to Trump. It wasn't even just her fault but a series of events that led her to lose. Some that she had the power to influence and some she didn't. Just saying it was beacuse she was female is at best dishonest.
The EC basically says fuck off to 40 states while putting all the power in 10. Switching to pop vote still says fuck off to the same amount of states, but puts the power in population centers
|
On February 07 2019 02:52 Polypoetes wrote:
No female candidate will have a chance against Trump. Yes, Warren caving in against Trump and doing the DNA test shows she lacks the spine to stand up to Trump. But the nature of the US voter is such that no female will win. Any female will be viciously attacked and be subject to double standards that are there against female politicians (or any form of public female leadership). Female politicians have an impossible line to walk. They have to be charming, but they cannot go too far, or they are too 'seductive'. They have the be funny and humorous, but they cannot take it too far or they are too playful. They have to be serious and stern, but if they take it too far, they will be too uptight and boring. They have to be dominant, but they have to be careful not to come across as too aggressive and masculine.
In the US against Trump in the current landscape of media? Not a chance.
It's getting worse for Warren, she probably has 0 chance.
Warren listed race as 'American Indian' on Texas bar registration
I greatly disagree with you analysis that no women could win. Hillary did pretty well vs Trump and so many people (dems included) hated Hillary and only voted anti-trump.
|
On February 07 2019 06:26 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 06:22 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 05:29 m4ini wrote:On February 07 2019 02:52 Polypoetes wrote:
No female candidate will have a chance against Trump. Yes, Warren caving in against Trump and doing the DNA test shows she lacks the spine to stand up to Trump. But the nature of the US voter is such that no female will win. Any female will be viciously attacked and be subject to double standards that are there against female politicians (or any form of public female leadership). Female politicians have an impossible line to walk. They have to be charming, but they cannot go too far, or they are too 'seductive'. They have the be funny and humorous, but they cannot take it too far or they are too playful. They have to be serious and stern, but if they take it too far, they will be too uptight and boring. They have to be dominant, but they have to be careful not to come across as too aggressive and masculine.
In the US against Trump in the current landscape of media? Not a chance. Ahm.. You do realise that more people voted for Clinton, who's most likely female, yes? It's just that the less important people voted for Clinton rather than Trump. You know. The votes that don't really matter anyway, compared to the ones that do. Not sure how you spun that into "females can't win against Trump" - it's simple. Prevent politicians from manipulating the ballot through actively trying to prevent certain people from voting, and actively prevent gerrymandering. Trump didn't win because Clinton was female or because he got more votes - he won because the the voting districts were well gerrymandered and of course because the electoral college is a pretty retarded system. You can't gerrymander the electoral college. And unless you want to tell the entire countryside that their political views can be ignored then the electoral college isn't a retarded system. I agree its not perfect but the electoral college has value as a system to empower areas of the country that wouldn't have power without it. Clinton was a perfect storm to lose to Trump. It wasn't even just her fault but a series of events that led her to lose. Some that she had the power to influence and some she didn't. Just saying it was beacuse she was female is at best dishonest. The EC basically says fuck off to 40 states while putting all the power in 10. Switching to pop vote still says fuck off to the same amount of states, but puts the power in population centers
No it doesn't. It tells the states that are the most partisan to fuck off and forces them to entreat with the ones that aren't. Just imagine the fuckanery that would go on with the 40 states that don't matter on the presidential stage that send 80 senators to Washington. The population centers would either get fucked over again or those 40 states might as well just form their own country.
|
On February 07 2019 06:26 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 06:22 Sermokala wrote:On February 07 2019 05:29 m4ini wrote:On February 07 2019 02:52 Polypoetes wrote:
No female candidate will have a chance against Trump. Yes, Warren caving in against Trump and doing the DNA test shows she lacks the spine to stand up to Trump. But the nature of the US voter is such that no female will win. Any female will be viciously attacked and be subject to double standards that are there against female politicians (or any form of public female leadership). Female politicians have an impossible line to walk. They have to be charming, but they cannot go too far, or they are too 'seductive'. They have the be funny and humorous, but they cannot take it too far or they are too playful. They have to be serious and stern, but if they take it too far, they will be too uptight and boring. They have to be dominant, but they have to be careful not to come across as too aggressive and masculine.
In the US against Trump in the current landscape of media? Not a chance. Ahm.. You do realise that more people voted for Clinton, who's most likely female, yes? It's just that the less important people voted for Clinton rather than Trump. You know. The votes that don't really matter anyway, compared to the ones that do. Not sure how you spun that into "females can't win against Trump" - it's simple. Prevent politicians from manipulating the ballot through actively trying to prevent certain people from voting, and actively prevent gerrymandering. Trump didn't win because Clinton was female or because he got more votes - he won because the the voting districts were well gerrymandered and of course because the electoral college is a pretty retarded system. You can't gerrymander the electoral college. And unless you want to tell the entire countryside that their political views can be ignored then the electoral college isn't a retarded system. I agree its not perfect but the electoral college has value as a system to empower areas of the country that wouldn't have power without it. Clinton was a perfect storm to lose to Trump. It wasn't even just her fault but a series of events that led her to lose. Some that she had the power to influence and some she didn't. Just saying it was beacuse she was female is at best dishonest. The EC basically says fuck off to 40 states while putting all the power in 10. Switching to pop vote still says fuck off to the same amount of states, but puts the power in population centers
The EC really says “I was created so the less populated states would ratify the Constitution and wouldn’t be ruled by New York and Boston.”
The same hold true for today, but you can add California and a couple other states. States sort of do it to themselves because they vote so predictable for one party over and over, while also complaining that their votes don’t matter(they matter, but people focus to much on the executive branch).
|
On February 07 2019 06:22 Sermokala wrote:
You can't gerrymander the electoral college. And unless you want to tell the entire countryside that their political views can be ignored then the electoral college isn't a retarded system.
I agree its not perfect but the electoral college has value as a system to empower areas of the country that wouldn't have power without it.
You only think it's fine becuase it gives disproportionate power to your favoured political party, above a representative of the population of the whole. There's nothing special about the rural voters that should be favoured over urban voters. If those rural states happen to be urban and those urbanised states happened to be rural, but with the same political parties and what they favour were the same, you wouldn't care for the entire countryside.
|
On February 07 2019 06:45 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2019 06:22 Sermokala wrote:
You can't gerrymander the electoral college. And unless you want to tell the entire countryside that their political views can be ignored then the electoral college isn't a retarded system.
I agree its not perfect but the electoral college has value as a system to empower areas of the country that wouldn't have power without it.
You only think it's fine becuase it gives disproportionate power to your favoured political party, above a representative of the population of the whole. There's nothing special about the rural voters that should be favoured over urban voters. If those rural states happen to be urban and those urbanised states happened to be rural, but with the same political parties and what they favour were the same, you wouldn't care for the entire countryside.
No, he thinks it is fine because he has been educated on how the US government works and why it is designed the way it is designed. We literally teach it in schools. Unlike a lot of other people who look at a system and say “That is weird, not democracy and therefore stupid.” This could be applied to many governments without a full understanding of how they work.
For example:
The UK system of government is stupid because they need a blessing from the Queen to do things and have something call the shadow cabinet, which sounds like a bunch something people playing Eve Online would be super into on the role play forums. And apparently someone can put 60 years of international agreements to a popular vote with zero plan for implementation.
Now, I know that isn’t true because I’m not a potato. I would appreciate people from the EU to hold off the US governmental systems just because the makeup of our country is wildly different than any nation in Europe.
|
Winner takes all for EC votes in a state is dumb, at the very least. I think everybody can agree on that unless they got their big boy partisan pants on.
|
Campaign in your state to divide delegates to the EC proportional the outcome of the vote. It is a state decision, not a federal one.
|
So, Plansix, with your example of a woefully mischaracterised system of government of UK, where has anybody mischaracterised electoral college? Your explanation of everything related to USA, as USA is special as the explanation is getting rather wearisome.
Also please don't use EU as a shorthand for rest of the world lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
