View Full Version : Seriously, 45 has the intelligence of maybe a 12 year old-and not a very bright one
He wants the new Ford class aircraft carriers to go back to using steam plane launchers because the digital ones are just "too complicated". I guess like healthcare or something...
http://time.com/4775040/donald-trump-time-interview-being-president/
"It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out. And I said–and now they want to buy more aircraft carriers. I said what system are you going to be–"Sir, we’re staying with digital." I said no you’re not. You going to goddamned steam, the digital costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it’s no good."
Our Steampunk Commander in Chief...
"What is digital?" Is he kidding?
My kid could program a computer when she was 12 years old, spoke 4 languages, and could navigate a vessel in complex circumstances. So please, don't insult 12 year olds.
My kid could program a computer when she was 12 years old, spoke 4 languages, and could navigate a vessel in complex circumstances. So please, don't insult 12 year olds.
My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that 12 year olds are stupid. Although I couldn't speak multiple languages or navigate a vessel in complex circumstances I DID know how to program a computer when I was 12. My elementary school's TRS 80 was awesome! So apparently I got the whole "digital" thing better than 45, even at that age. So, yeah, I get it. Plenty of 12 year olds are smart. Many of them way smarter than I was at that age. Almost all of them way smarter than 45 is currently. Maybe a better thread title would be "45 has the intelligence of a really dim 12 year old".
Maybe a better thread title would be "45 has the intelligence of a really dim 12 year old".
If we are going to be ageist in our comparisons, I think his behaviour and use of language are more on the level of a 90 year old with mentation issues, whether due to poor sleep, low testosterone, substance abuse issues, low blood sugar, dehydration, or some other underlying medical issue.
I see grumpy little old men and women every week on medical calls who present just like Trump.
I know that my ex's grandfather was suspected of having many mini-strokes which led to grumpy and disorganized behavior. However I kinda don't want to lump 45 in with ANY group, makes that group look really bad. He is his own special snowflake of acid rain!
I heard audio once of Trump doing his normal rambling - but slowed down like 25%. His wording and inflection sounded exactly like you'd expect some old townie drunk in a bar at 1AM to sound like. It was hilarious.
I heard audio once of Trump doing his normal rambling - but slowed down like 25%. His wording and inflection sounded exactly like you'd expect some old townie drunk in a bar at 1AM to sound like. It was hilarious.
Hey, if there is a way to make me laugh when HE speaks rather than cringe.............I'll take it!
I understood the new systems to be better thought of as electromagnetic than digital. They're supposed to be easier on airframes than the old steam piston systems.
He's a sick man........(mentally). How the heck did we get to this place?
Do any of you remember an older comic whose forte' was talking fast, but saying absolutely nothing.........at the same time just hooking you into his conversation enough to make you think that YOU were the one that was having trouble........All-the-while, he was making absolutely no sense? Just like Trump.
Williamsmith
5-12-17, 8:13am
No one would argue that the President lacks Churchillian eloquence. Certainly this piece is intended to highlight that deficiency; with malevolent bias. The mainstream typist did nothing to paraphrase conversational medium. Especially members of the mainstream media are offended by the lack of polished communication skills.
After all, our last Commander In Chief could have expounded on how to hard boil an egg with compelling arguements about time, directions and history. Apparently enough of the country saw a genuine motivation to lead in another direction that overshadowed the communication skill deficits.
The question many have answered and many have not identified is, "Would you rather have skill and alacrity in communication but no immediate presence or the other way around. Because few politicians exist today with both. Very few.
Incredulous as it seems, our President became the 45th despite his perceived and real impoverished language skills. Apparently, this has not hurt his credibility with a large per cent age of the population. And this due to his ability to connect and "communicate" his motivation for being President. Something, I would argue many of his predecessors failed miserably at.
To dismiss this as some latent mental disease manifesting itself is one way of rationalizing and another is to reflect the same ignorance on those who did and still do support him.
He's still better than Hillary.
Teacher Terry
5-12-17, 11:48am
He is either stupid or mentally ill and we are the laughing stock of the world-but hey I guess that is better then Hillary??? A large part of our population is not very bright or educated so this explains how he got in. He got the average joe to believe that he cared about him-what a joke. In business he stiffs small contractors all the time by refusing to pay his bills after the work is completed. Also many people do not educate themselves on the issues and only know what Fox news tells them. This whole thing would be funny except for the fact that our country is facing serious issues and this unglued man could easily start another war.
Our reputation in the world is nearly shot since this grifter was chosen by the Electoral College--what an embarrassment he is.
Is Trump stupid? Well, with all due deference to the twelve-year-old prodigies out there, he did manage to maneuver himself into the presidency.
Is Trump insane? It will probably take more than the amatuer diagnoses offered up by our therapeutic culture to establish that.
Is Trump dishonest? I think that would have to be evaluated relative to the depressing standard of contemporary American politics. It does seem clear that he lies less eloquently than his predecessors.
Does the hysterical, hate-addled hypocrisy of much of his opposition make Trump right? No. It's certainly possible for both sides to be wrong.
http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/DC051117-1000.jpg
No one (especially in the media) wants to come out and say that he won because of all the ignorant people who voted for him. Yes, there were probably a few who just wanted a change....of any kind), but I really think it was because of the ignorant masses.I was listening to an NPR segment this morning and the question was "Would this latest thing with firing Comey change his supporters minds". The answer was.......probably not, since it's an entire mind difference.
No one wants to come out and say that the less-bright/less educated masses that voted for him ain't changing their minds. And the number of ignorant masses is growing (being born) every day. That's why we're in this gridlock.....and I'm not sure it will ever change now. Many of the republicans in Congress aren't necessarily ignorant, but they are intolerant and inflexible and uncompromising....which is also a quality of the masses who voted for Trump.
There has become so much that is funky in today's world here.
No one (especially in the media) wants to come out and say that he won because of all the ignorant people who voted for him. Yes, there were probably a few who just wanted a change....of any kind), but I really think it was because of the ignorant masses.I was listening to an NPR segment this morning and the question was "Would this latest thing with firing Comey change his supporters minds". The answer was.......probably not, since it's an entire mind difference.
No one wants to come out and say that the less-bright/less educated masses that voted for him ain't changing their minds. And the number of ignorant masses is growing (being born) every day. That's why we're in this gridlock.....and I'm not sure it will ever change now. Many of the republicans in Congress aren't necessarily ignorant, but they are intolerant and inflexible and uncompromising....which is also a quality of the masses who voted for Trump.
There has become so much that is funky in today's world here.
No one (excluding yourself) wants to call Trump voters ignorant? It's hard to see how anyone outside solitary confinement could say that. All you need to do is google any variation on "ignorant Trump voters" for a wealth of media invective directed at his voters.
I would go so far as to opine that much of the wind filling the Trump campaign's sails was resentment of the sneering condescension directed at "the ignorant masses" by people you would expect to know better, given their assumption of superiority.
I would go so far as to opine that much of the wind filling the Trump campaign's sails was resentment of the sneering condescension directed at "the ignorant masses" by people you would expect to know better, given their assumption of superiority.
Bingo! Cause and Effect
goldensmom
5-12-17, 1:51pm
Wow! The level of superiority exhibited in this thread is astounding. Here is a good saying - ‘the measure by which you judge, by that measure you will be judged’.
Teacher Terry
5-12-17, 1:58pm
In the past if my guy lost it was no big deal and I moved on. Either party could competently run the government. What we have now is totally different. He could start a nuclear war. There is no end to the harm that he could cause the world and if people can't see how big this is then there is no point in trying to explain it.
BikingLady
5-12-17, 2:02pm
I D K about any of the political events happening now. I feel like everything I learned since 5th grade from the Environment to the Office of the President was or must be wrong:( Common curtesy, politeness, ethics all seem to have left or what is, is now the new norm. I stopped watching sitcoms and tv in general years ago when the actors seemed to yell at each other, sadly this happened to my feelings on the state of the political going ons. Now sure where that leaves me, because I do care about issue, I do care about the state of the USA and World. All sides are yelling so nothing is getting done or heard.
Personally I've always wanted the president to be the smartest guy in the room. And hopefully to not be inclined towards temper tantrums. The power the president has to make decisions that literally have life and death consequences is not something I want to trust to someone who isn't bright and calm under pressure. But apparently, if I understand correctly, there are voters who viewed 45's stupidity as a feature, not a bug.
I have very little faith his supporters will change their minds about him. I've always subscribed to the notion discussed in this article:
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/14/520087940/why-more-details-may-be-counterproductive-when-battling-fake-news
(http://www.npr.org/2017/03/14/520087940/why-more-details-may-be-counterproductive-when-battling-fake-news)
True believers rarely, if ever, change their minds even when presented with evidence they should. Something that shakes their emotional core, not rational thinking, is usually the only way to alter their opinions.
ApatheticNoMore
5-12-17, 2:27pm
Smart enough is required (and at a certain point isn't what one is looking for there political EXPERIENCE rather than smart?), but smartest doesn't mean moral, doesn't mean cares about other human beings, doesn't mean decent, and those are pretty important attributes that at a certain sufficiently qualified to handle the job point is what we should be looking for first and foremost. There are diminishing returns on smart in a politician, but not on decent.
So at a certain point smartest in the room is just some giant finger size contest and that's the whole of it (alright Einstein himself did seem to have a moral compass as far as the big picture goes. But smart doesn't assure it). So mostly has to have some grasp of the issues, delegate well, and mostly I'd like as close as we can get to a decent person, who I somewhat agree with. Obviously Trump doesn't fit the bill.
He could start a nuclear war. There is no end to the harm that he could cause the world and if people can't see how big this is then there is no point in trying to explain it.
Every President since Truman could have started a nuclear war, but none did. Kennedy came close and is still considered a revered icon. What has this President done to make you worry so?
He's still better than Hillary.
I dont think he's going to accomplish much due to the rancor in Washington, but neither would Hillary.
So far he has gotten a Supreme Court pick in. And he may have more. And many on the lower courts. That's what I was voting for.
That and the dems picked Hillary. I didn't agree with a lot that Sanders said, but in the beginning I didn't think he was that crooked.
ApatheticNoMore
5-12-17, 2:59pm
Every President since Truman could have started a nuclear war, but none did. Kennedy came close
I thought that when reading this as well ... Kennedy came close, or are people not aware how close it is said to have come.
I think it's more likely that the Koreans will start a nuclear war.
Hopefully Trump can use his Art Of The Deal skills to get the Chinese to handle things, it's their back yard after all.
The "Trump will start a nuclear war" thing seems to be part of the same anti-Russian narrative that's been gathering steam since well before the election.
I get so tired of people saying, "But Hilary's worse!" Come on, she lost. She's no longer in the picture. Why is that a viable defense for what's going on? What difference does it make to those of us who didn't vote for her OR Trump?
It's like your kid sibling who gets caught and in trouble then points the finger at you and says, "But he's worse!"
I think it's more likely that the Koreans will start a nuclear war.
Agreed! If we ever have a nuclear war, my money's on Little Kim lobbing a nuke over the border in South Korea if he can't get a rocket all the way across the Sea of Japan.
Hey, if there is a way to make me laugh when HE speaks rather than cringe.............I'll take it!
Found it: http://indianexpress.com/article/trending/viral-videos-trending/watch-this-slo-mo-version-of-donald-trump-speaking-sounds-like-a-3am-drunk-rant-and-its-going-viral/
Wow! The level of superiority exhibited in this thread is astounding. Here is a good saying - ‘the measure by which you judge, by that measure you will be judged’.
I hope Trump will be judged--and soon. We have protocols in place when that kind of thing is necessary. We can't let the country devolve into a Russian satellite state. He was a crooked businessman and now he's a crooked politician with way too much power, backed by a gaggle of spineless sycophants.
He'll go down swinging.
Wow! The level of superiority exhibited in this thread is astounding. Here is a good saying - ‘the measure by which you judge, by that measure you will be judged’.
Let me understand this goldensmom.........so you think because some of us feel he is a horrible person to be president, you think we're acting superior? I honestly can't understand any intelligent person here not feeling even a bit bothered by Trump's behavior, talk, lack of political savvy, etc., etc., etc. Are we supposed to not react to how our president represents us? I'm a bit baffled by your comment.
goldensmom
5-12-17, 3:58pm
Let me understand this goldensmom.........so you think because some of us feel he is a horrible person to be president, you think we're acting superior? I honestly can't understand any intelligent person here not feeling even a bit bothered by Trump's behavior, talk, lack of political savvy, etc., etc., etc. Are we supposed to not react to how our president represents us? I'm a bit baffled by your comment.
Sorry you are baffled.
goldensmom
5-12-17, 3:58pm
I hope Trump will be judged--and soon. We have protocols in place when that kind of thing is necessary. We can't let the country devolve into a Russian satellite state. He was a crooked businessman and now he's a crooked politician with way too much power, backed by a gaggle of spineless sycophants.
He'll go down swinging.
Yes, Donald Trump will be judged as will we all be judged in some way and at some time by someone; some will be judged with mercy and some without mercy. If we judge severely without mercy that is exactly how others will judge us. Be kind to each other.
I am not Goldensmom but ... would you be willing to post your comments on a large billboard and not expect a negative response? I am really surprised at some of the comments made as truly out of character of what I have read from these posters over the years.
If anyone gets me to act contrary to my best motives, s/he has won. I won't let anyone defeat me that way. Trust your political process and the many capable leaders in your country.
Let me understand this goldensmom.........so you think because some of us feel he is a horrible person to be president, you think we're acting superior? I honestly can't understand any intelligent person here not feeling even a bit bothered by Trump's behavior, talk, lack of political savvy, etc., etc., etc. Are we supposed to not react to how our president represents us? I'm a bit baffled by your comment.
Sorry you are baffled.
I think goldensmom is simply too nice to tell you. I don't think her comment was directed at anyone thinking he was a horrible person, it's more likely the bit about not understanding how any intelligent person could not be just as bothered as you. You gotta admit that's a pretty superior attitude, and if it helps I could probably help you understand, some of us ignorant deplorables simply aren't as emotional as our betters. I honestly believe that's why we can't be Democrats, our limited, yet rational minds won't allow it. ;)
I get so tired of people saying, "But Hilary's worse!" Come on, she lost. She's no longer in the picture. Why is that a viable defense for what's going on? What difference does it make to those of us who didn't vote for her OR Trump?
It's like your kid sibling who gets caught and in trouble then points the finger at you and says, "But he's worse!"
Because Hillary and Trump are the only ones that had a real chance at winning.
Because Hillary and Trump are the only ones that had a real chance at winning.
I understand that, but HOW does that diminish any of the stuff that is currently happening at the WH????
Teacher Terry
5-12-17, 4:29pm
It has nothing to do with not being rational versus emotional. How can any rational person vote for Trump after seeing how he acted during the campaign?
I think goldensmom is simply too nice to tell you. I don't think her comment was directed at anyone thinking he was a horrible person, it's more likely the bit about not understanding how any intelligent person could not be just as bothered as you. You gotta admit that's a pretty superior attitude, and if it helps I could probably help you understand, some of us ignorant deplorables simply aren't as emotional as our betters. I honestly believe that's why we can't be Democrats, our limited, yet rational minds won't allow it. ;)
I'm arguably great at logic, but it's hard not to get emotional when everything decent is being torn down around you--environmental laws, fair immigration policies, safety regulations, school equity, tax fairness, affordable health care, voting rights...and the man in charge is openly courting the worst kinds of dictators (Duterte! Putin!) and snubbing longtime allies like Angela Merkel. There seems to be a new outrage every day. I'd really like to think we will survive this.
It has nothing to do with not being rational versus emotional. How can any rational person vote for Trump after seeing how he acted during the campaign?
Good point--his mocking of a disabled newsman would have been enough for me. Or his many recorded misogynistic boasts. And he's ramped way up from there.
I realize that I shouldn't have used the word "intelligence". I should have used a different word, like maybe anyone who has any sensitivity to Trump's inconsistencies and logic.
Would that be less of a superior attitude? Another thing is much gets lost on the flat screen. It probably sounded a lot more arrogant, than I really sound. Yes, we can have a big difference in what we perceive as acceptable. I don't have any feelings of kindness or mercy for Trump. Because of who he appears to be to me, I think he's a very selfish, self centered, manipulative person who, like Jane said, is tearing down many things that are good in this world.
What happens to countries who have citizens who can't or won't speak out about injustice when they see it? How can we just sit back and be "kind"?
I think goldensmom is simply too nice to tell you. I don't think her comment was directed at anyone thinking he was a horrible person, it's more likely the bit about not understanding how any intelligent person could not be just as bothered as you. You gotta admit that's a pretty superior attitude, and if it helps I could probably help you understand, some of us ignorant deplorables simply aren't as emotional as our betters. I honestly believe that's why we can't be Democrats, our limited, yet rational minds won't allow it. ;)
What can I say? We have different genetics and different minds. Some of us have more emotion than others. It's not always bad. In fact, I would have missed out on helping a lot of people in my nursing career if I hadn't had such an emotional nature.
It doesn't mean I can't accept "facts", or be scientific in my assessment of some things. In fact, in many areas, I'm very analytical. It doesn't have to be extremes on either end of the continuum. And you are not an ignorant deplorable, nor am I better than you.
I come to this as an old-fashioned conservative. I'd love to see another Reagan on the scene (or better yet, another Coolidge).
I hold the view that Donald Trump was a bad candidate and is shaping up to be a bad president. I thought the best choice last November was the guy who didn't know what Aleppo was. It doesn't follow from that, however, that I believe all Trump voters are irredeemable, deplorable, racist ignoramuses who are incapable of determining their own best interest. That view strikes me as almost comically supercilious. It certainly doesn't seem to be a winning electoral tactic. Smug isn't a strategy.
On the other hand, I also have a problem with anti-anti-Trumpism simply on the grounds that it upsets all the right people. The enemy of my enemy may simply be another enemy, and there's little to be gained for the conservative cause (at least as I conceive it) by supporting Trump against people dramatically styling themselves as "the resistance". Opposing identity politics with a different version of the same thing doesn't interest me. If the GOP is rendered useless as the best vehicle for American Conservatism, we may need to find a different one.
early morning
5-12-17, 5:22pm
LDAHL, while I disagree with your politics (personally, I think Reagan was the worst president we had in the last century), I agree that not ALL Trump voters are
irredeemable, deplorable, racist ignoramuses who are incapable of determining their own best interest. I actually know quite a few who are horrified by his actions of late and several have actually voiced their embarrassment at having been taken in by his celebrity status and "businessman of the people" pose. They aren't likely to become liberal, and that's ok - but I think they will be less likely to jump on a bandwagon just because it seems to have picked up steam (unless of course it's digital, lol...).
LDAHL, while I disagree with your politics (personally, I think Reagan was the worst president we had in the last century), I agree that not ALL Trump voters are
. I actually know quite a few who are horrified by his actions of late and several have actually voiced their embarrassment at having been taken in by his celebrity status and "businessman of the people" pose. They aren't likely to become liberal, and that's ok - but I think they will be less likely to jump on a bandwagon just because it seems to have picked up steam (unless of course it's digital, lol...).
When I hear people who voted for him be horrified by his actions, it is those people who I feel better about........because they are responding in a manner that seems reasonable to me. Those people give me hope that Trump can't pull the wool over everyone's eyes. (So is this statement by me bad?) When Trump says things that make no sense, or indicate he doesn't know what's going on, or doesn't care for the condition of many of the people who voted for him, but people continue to say he's doing a great job..........that really concerns me....that they're holding on to him, when he is distancing himself from them and their possibilities.
It has nothing to do with not being rational versus emotional. How can any rational person vote for Trump after seeing how he acted during the campaign?
I saw a poll from the last couple of days saying the Trump approval rating among Republicans is 84%, even though his overall approval is at record low. It's not so much that people voted for him, but that he continues to have support from his base in spite of all that's transpired since the election. Or maybe it's just that they don't like the liberal view point and are aligning themselves with the ideology of the party party rather than a person. I personally think T is way over his head intellectually, morally, and especially with technical issues, but there is a large bunch of people whose brains are wired differently. who had a different upbringing, or came from a different sort of culture that thinks he is doing just fine. I can only grasp part of that, but I don't think it can be totally explained away thinking they are irrational and I'm not.
Ultralight
5-12-17, 6:06pm
I saw a poll from the last couple of days saying the Trump approval rating among Republicans is 84%, even though his overall approval is at record low. Depressing but not surprising at all.
What can I say? We have different genetics and different minds. Some of us have more emotion than others. It's not always bad. In fact, I would have missed out on helping a lot of people in my nursing career if I hadn't had such an emotional nature.
It doesn't mean I can't accept "facts", or be scientific in my assessment of some things. In fact, in many areas, I'm very analytical. It doesn't have to be extremes on either end of the continuum. And you are not an ignorant deplorable, nor am I better than you.
We all have emotions and are influenced by them daily. It's fashionable in some circles to pretend otherwise--unless you're talking about "acceptable" (manly) emotions like anger. Lack of feelings is kind of a convenient fiction like "identity politics." I don't know what that is--if it means you are an advocate for certain policies that affect you, we all practice identity politics. (I have as many identities as Sybil, by that measure.)
gimmethesimplelife
5-12-17, 8:36pm
Uh....the Orange Thug. Cringe, shudder. I still maintain that it is very important to have an outfit for Impeachment Day that is above your station in life and to celebrate with your neighbors and serve foods from ethnic groups that Trump has disparaged on the Joyous Day Trump Gets Kicked To The Curb. This is about the only nice thing I can say about him at this point, anything else would not be appropriate to express given my role as a Moderator here. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
5-12-17, 8:42pm
It has nothing to do with not being rational versus emotional. How can any rational person vote for Trump after seeing how he acted during the campaign?Bingo! Rob
gimmethesimplelife
5-12-17, 8:42pm
I understand that, but HOW does that diminish any of the stuff that is currently happening at the WH????Very good point, KayLR. Rob
I just saw a video produced by Atlantic Magazine that reported that white working-class males who voted for Trump were influenced by two things: 79% agreed with the statements "Things have changed so much that I feel like a stranger in my own country" and "The American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence." (That last statement is a real howler given what we know now.) At any rate, Atlantic points to "cultural anxiety" as the key to Trump's election.
"The American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence."
A great many of my Pueblo friends have expressed this belief to me. Of course, from their perspective, the Navajo are the foreign influence...
I'd like to start a thread sometime about some of the things I think about.......like the possibility that many of our problems come from thinking that we should all be the same and get along. That sort of goes hand-in-hand with there seem to be very different brains in people........some are open to differences and welcoming and some are more animalistic and defensive. (And I don't use that term in a negative way)......very much like the 2 branches of chimpanzees.........the regular ones and the bonobos.
But that needs to be a different thread. The things I think about are not a judgement on something, but rather just an interest in the etiology of some behaviors/conditions.
I'd definitely be a bonobo--but the dishes would never get done...:laff:
A great many of my Pueblo friends have expressed this belief to me. Of course, from their perspective, the Navajo are the foreign influence...
Are Pueblo descendants of Anasazi, or were they a "foreign influence" as well?
catherine
5-13-17, 11:14am
I just saw a video produced by Atlantic Magazine that reported that white working-class males who voted for Trump were influenced by two things: 79% agreed with the statements "Things have changed so much that I feel like a stranger in my own country" and "The American way of life needs to be protected from foreign influence." (That last statement is a real howler given what we know now.) At any rate, Atlantic points to "cultural anxiety" as the key to Trump's election.
I definitely see cultural anxiety as a real possibility in why Trump got elected. I'd like to see that video. I think the bonds between Trump and his electorate are very emotional and personal, which is why they are forgiving him for his personal shortcomings--the womanizing, crudity, lying.. all kinds of things are forgivable when you have a Savior promising you redemption from a world you are increasingly afraid of.
It's a short video: https://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/526566/why-the-white-working-class-voted-for-trump/?utm_source=atlfb
I definitely see cultural anxiety as a real possibility in why Trump got elected. I'd like to see that video. I think the bonds between Trump and his electorate are very emotional and personal, which is why they are forgiving him for his personal shortcomings--the womanizing, crudity, lying.. all kinds of things are forgivable when you have a Savior promising you redemption from a world you are increasingly afraid of.
Even laundering money for the Russian, apparently. I can't fathom what they're afraid of, probably because--as a woman--I'm one of the "other."
ApatheticNoMore
5-13-17, 12:51pm
But most of the people voting for Trump weren't even poor working class people, but actually fairly well off.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
I'd like to start a thread sometime about some of the things I think about.......like the possibility that many of our problems come from thinking that we should all be the same and get along. That sort of goes hand-in-hand with there seem to be very different brains in people........some are open to differences and welcoming and some are more animalistic and defensive. (And I don't use that term in a negative way)......very much like the 2 branches of chimpanzees.........the regular ones and the bonobos.
But that needs to be a different thread. The things I think about are not a judgement on something, but rather just an interest in the etiology of some behaviors/conditions.
I think people just need to get out more. Seriously. Travel the world. Meet the "other". I personally consider my life to be richer for having done so, and for living in a city where white people are only a plurality of the population. My mega-corp employer has about 100 employees here. Roughly 20 of them are transfers from other offices around the world. (and likewise I can think of at least 10 people who have transfered from the US to other offices outside the country.) One of the great things about working for this employer is having coworkers from all over that I can talk to on a regular basis. If people spent more time meeting and getting to know "the other" they would not seem nearly so frightening.
It seems to me that liberals attribute way too much to externalities such as race and gender. If you didn't vote for our first black President you were a racist, if you didn't vote for Hillary you were a sexist. What a narrow view...
Teacher Terry
5-13-17, 7:26pm
Ih ave traveled overseas and grew up in a town that was racially mixed. I agree that it broadens your view point and makes yo more accepting of people from other cultures.
I think people just need to get out more. Seriously. Travel the world. Meet the "other". I personally consider my life to be richer for having done so, and for living in a city where white people are only a plurality of the population. My mega-corp employer has about 100 employees here. Roughly 20 of them are transfers from other offices around the world. (and likewise I can think of at least 10 people who have transfered from the US to other offices outside the country.) One of the great things about working for this employer is having coworkers from all over that I can talk to on a regular basis. If people spent more time meeting and getting to know "the other" they would not seem nearly so frightening.
That's always been my experience. In my last job, I worked with people from China, Mexico, Canada, and Pakistan. I think most tech offices around here are pretty diverse that way.
It seems to me that liberals attribute way too much to externalities such as race and gender. If you didn't vote for our first black President you were a racist, if you didn't vote for Hillary you were a sexist. What a narrow view...
It's also a narrow view taking particular actions and applying them to entire group of people irregardless of whether they performed those actions or not. Some liberals did do what you said. I would say most don't. I could say conservatives attribute way too much to externalities such as race and gender, but that's only true for some conservatives so that statement wouldn't hold up, either.
ApatheticNoMore
5-14-17, 11:33am
Who are we even talking about here? The Trump primary voter with a median household income of 72k, ok maybe they can travel (that's a decent income some places, as long as it's not somewhere coastal probably). But maybe they do, well off voters voting for Trump were not necessarily voting cultural issues.
The stereotyped poor white Trump voter laid off from a coal mining job or unable to find anything but dead end jobs well into middle age? (72k is the median household income of a Trump primary voter but of course many may fall well below, and I'm not sure the general election breakdown). How does anyone expect them to travel? Do people not get being poor in America? It's not that way.
And people probably don't get this either: but there is no guarantee that low paid jobs even have ANY vacation time (even paid sick time sometimes :\). So use their non-existent vacation time to travel, and their non-existent wealth to buy plane tickets apparently? In one breath Trump voters are poor disgruntled working class whites whom the economy has left behind, and in another have enough money and leisure to be traveling the world. Which one is it? I live somewhere with income diversity so the idea that people are poor in America isn't totally alien to me. Of course I also know what an upper middle class lifestyle accouterments yearly foreign travel is, just as much as the fairly new shiny car in the parking lot that gets a weekly car wash to stay so shiny, but it's not where my sympathies lie.
---
Workplace as diverse, in many ways my current workplace is as diverse as any I've ever worked for, and they make an effort to be so. But they DON'T hire H1Bs, probably would be less diverse in many ways if they did (because many Americans who weren't senior level wouldn't get a chance and that's a lot of people not getting a chance there. Tech "diversity" is usually white, asian, and indian males - not exactly all that representative of the broader population at all).
It's also a narrow view taking particular actions and applying them to entire group of people irregardless of whether they performed those actions or not. That's true, guilty as charged. I guess my broader point is that academia and media, which both skew liberal, consistently represent complex subjects in a way they feel most comfortable. Their output is then ingested by others who not only feel most comfortable with the result, but also feel justified by the implied authority of their source regardless of it's inability to stand up to reason. Complex social and political issues involve much more than race, gender or sexual preference, but who would know based upon individual commentary?
That's true, guilty as charged. I guess my broader point is that academia and media, which both skew liberal, consistently represent complex subjects in a way they feel most comfortable. Their output is then ingested by others who not only feel most comfortable with the result, but also feel justified by the implied authority of their source regardless of it's inability to stand up to reason. Complex social and political issues involve much more than race, gender or sexual preference, but who would know based upon individual commentary?
Agreed. Although for media I'd argue it's usually more based on what sells rather actual ideology. And a lot of what is reported is fringe and not mainstream. Not all muslims are terrorists. Not all gun owners are shooters. Actually only tiny, tiny portions are. But that's what makes the headlines and opinion columns and viewpoints do get skewed as a result.
Who are we even talking about here? The Trump primary voter with a median household income of 72k, ok maybe they can travel (that's a decent income some places, as long as it's not somewhere coastal probably). But maybe they do, well off voters voting for Trump were not necessarily voting cultural issues.
The stereotyped poor white Trump voter laid off from a coal mining job or unable to find anything but dead end jobs well into middle age? (72k is the median household income of a Trump primary voter but of course many may fall well below, and I'm not sure the general election breakdown). How does anyone expect them to travel? Do people not get being poor in America? It's not that way.
And people probably don't get this either: but there is no guarantee that low paid jobs even have ANY vacation time (even paid sick time sometimes :\). So use their non-existent vacation time to travel, and their non-existent wealth to buy plane tickets apparently? In one breath Trump voters are poor disgruntled working class whites whom the economy has left behind, and in another have enough money and leisure to be traveling the world. Which one is it? I live somewhere with income diversity so the idea that people are poor in America isn't totally alien to me. Of course I also know what an upper middle class lifestyle accouterments yearly foreign travel is, just as much as the fairly new shiny car in the parking lot that gets a weekly car wash to stay so shiny, but it's not where my sympathies lie.
---
I was actually not thinking about families taking annual luxury vacations to Paris or London or whatever, but rather, more like the trips a woman I used to know took. She would work 4 months of the year at an Alaskan fish cannery so that she could save up money to spend the rest of the year traveling all over the world, staying in hostels and such. Adding family commitments would probably make that a non-starter but plenty of young people could do it if they chose. I was never that extreme, but 25 years ago I was living in NYC, only earning 22,000/year and only got 2 weeks of vacation time, but I still managed to go lots of places and meet lots of people.
My point, though, wasn't really that people should go on vacation, but rather, if they met more people from other countries/cultures they would probably discover that they aren't as scary as the people on fox news and breitbart tell them they are. I read an article a while back where the author had looked at the election results by county and found that the counties that were the most strongly trump supporting were counties where the population is mostly white and where most people still live within 30 (or some other small number) miles from where they grew up. These results didn't seem particularly surprising given the xenophobic isolationist rhetoric trump used throughout the campaign.
My point, though, wasn't really that people should go on vacation, but rather, if they met more people from other countries/cultures they would probably discover that they aren't as scary as the people on fox news and breitbart tell them they are.
When I was in London recently, a very multicultural city, the cab driver pointed out a "dangerous neighborhood" along the way to our flat, where "those people" live.... "Best to avoid."
My daughter and I were sort of saddened by this. So we walked down there the next day - it was a primarily Muslim neighborhood, full of happy people, great restaurants, and quite welcoming to random tourists dropping by. So I'm not sure what the cabbie was on about, but I'm still a bit sad. Anyways, we had a great lunch, and my daughter found some folks to speak Coptic with.
creaker, that video of Trump slowed down IS hilarious...not only does he sound like a 3a.m. drunk, but his gestures seem like it,too. (wonder if we all would sound and look like that if video were slowed?)
flowerseverywhere
5-14-17, 7:10pm
Who are we even talking about here? The Trump primary voter with a median household income of 72k, ok maybe they can travel (that's a decent income some places, as long as it's not somewhere coastal probably). But maybe they do, well off voters voting for Trump were not necessarily voting cultural issues.
The stereotyped poor white Trump voter laid off from a coal mining job or unable to find anything but dead end jobs well into middle age? (72k is the median household income of a Trump primary voter but of course many may fall well below, and I'm not sure the general election breakdown). How does anyone expect them to travel? Do people not get being poor in America? It's not that way.
And people probably don't get this either: but there is no guarantee that low paid jobs even have ANY vacation time (even paid sick time sometimes :\). So use their non-existent vacation time to travel, and their non-existent wealth to buy plane tickets apparently? In one breath Trump voters are poor disgruntled working class whites whom the economy has left behind, and in another have enough money and leisure to be traveling the world. Which one is it? I live somewhere with income diversity so the idea that people are poor in America isn't totally alien to me. Of course I also know what an upper middle class lifestyle accouterments yearly foreign travel is, just as much as the fairly new shiny car in the parking lot that gets a weekly car wash to stay so shiny, but it's not where my sympathies lie.
---
Workplace as diverse, in many ways my current workplace is as diverse as any I've ever worked for, and they make an effort to be so. But they DON'T hire H1Bs, probably would be less diverse in many ways if they did (because many Americans who weren't senior level wouldn't get a chance and that's a lot of people not getting a chance there. Tech "diversity" is usually white, asian, and indian males - not exactly all that representative of the broader population at all).
the trump voters are all of the above
repeal of the estate tax which kicks in at 5 million appeals to the very wealthy
repealing regulations and peeling back environmental regulations, business owners and developers
repealing climate and trade agreements, union workers and manufacturers
promising better healthcare, cheaper, covering more people everyone
promising to appoint a special prosecutor to lock her up, anti Clinton fans
pledges to halt refugees and immigration, some racists some fearful people and some who thought they were taking jobs and some people who want a "Christian" America.
pandering to evangelicals, by dangling the anti abortion carrot
promising more better paying jobs, lots of people
calling people names and being rude and mean also attracted some people who are bitter about not being super wealthy or are just mean people
and some lifelong republicans who may not have liked him but felt he was better than any democrat.
there is no stereotypical Trump or Hillary voter. Both of them alienated some lifelong democrats and republicans. but I think that is one of our biggest problems now. Trying to pigeonhole people who are diverse in every way who voted for each candidate. The candidate who promised to bring people together has fueled so much name calling, distrust and hate and Trump haters have taken the bait.
the trump voters are all of the above
repeal of the estate tax which kicks in at 5 million appeals to the very wealthy
repealing regulations and peeling back environmental regulations, business owners and developers
repealing climate and trade agreements, union workers and manufacturers
promising better healthcare, cheaper, covering more people everyone
promising to appoint a special prosecutor to lock her up, anti Clinton fans
pledges to halt refugees and immigration, some racists some fearful people and some who thought they were taking jobs and some people who want a "Christian" America.
pandering to evangelicals, by dangling the anti abortion carrot
promising more better paying jobs, lots of people
calling people names and being rude and mean also attracted some people who are bitter about not being super wealthy or are just mean people
and some lifelong republicans who may not have liked him but felt he was better than any democrat.
there is no stereotypical Trump or Hillary voter. Both of them alienated some lifelong democrats and republicans. but I think that is one of our biggest problems now. Trying to pigeonhole people who are diverse in every way who voted for each candidate. The candidate who promised to bring people together has fueled so much name calling, distrust and hate and Trump haters have taken the bait.
Maybe if the candidate who promised to bring people together had won the election that would be true. But as a trump hater I can assure you that it's entirely his actions that cause me to hate him. And as much as you and LDAHL would like to believe that there is no commonality among segments of our population there is. No not all trump voters are racist xenophobes. But a big enough chunk are for it to be noteworthy. And if being associated with them by virtue of having voted for the same clown, is upsetting, all I can say is bummer. You supported a candidate that appealed to racist xenophobes. Own the fact that you picked a candidate that actively went after those voters.
I felt the same way about Obama jp1, so I understand.
flowerseverywhere
5-15-17, 7:41am
Maybe if the candidate who promised to bring people together had won the election that would be true. But as a trump hater I can assure you that it's entirely his actions that cause me to hate him. And as much as you and LDAHL would like to believe that there is no commonality among segments of our population there is. No not all trump voters are racist xenophobes. But a big enough chunk are for it to be noteworthy. And if being associated with them by virtue of having voted for the same clown, is upsetting, all I can say is bummer. You supported a candidate that appealed to racist xenophobes. Own the fact that you picked a candidate that actively went after those voters.
I did did not vote for Trump and I hate him to. But I have attempted to ask people who supported him as well as read multiple news articles and even posts here and I don't believe there is a one size fits all. Someone even told me she voted for Trump because her son, a career military man. He had reached as far as he could go but she felt if Trump beefed up the military there would be a greater chance he would be promoted. Another man told me he was sick of refugees and illegals taking all the welfare and Medicaid money. And some just hated the idea of Hillary. If you read the comments on fax news you will find Jew and African American haters, but overwhelminglyly it is Muslims, illegal immigrants and refugees they really hate. So yes, there is a share of bigots and racists.
Maybe if the candidate who promised to bring people together had won the election that would be true. But as a trump hater I can assure you that it's entirely his actions that cause me to hate him. And as much as you and LDAHL would like to believe that there is no commonality among segments of our population there is. No not all trump voters are racist xenophobes. But a big enough chunk are for it to be noteworthy. And if being associated with them by virtue of having voted for the same clown, is upsetting, all I can say is bummer. You supported a candidate that appealed to racist xenophobes. Own the fact that you picked a candidate that actively went after those voters.
There may be "commonality" among certain populations. Racists, xenophobes and snobs seem to be spotting "noteworthy" traits all the time. That doesn't mean, however, that we should judge the content of a person's character in groups larger than one. That is what racists, xenophobes and snobs do.
I made the unusual (for me) decision to vote third party in the last election not because I despised the supporters of the two major party candidates: although they seemed to differ mainly in their choice of petty name-calling. I did it because I disliked the candidates.
I did did not vote for Trump and I hate him to. But I have attempted to ask people who supported him as well as read multiple news articles and even posts here and I don't believe there is a one size fits all. Someone even told me she voted for Trump because her son, a career military man. He had reached as far as he could go but she felt if Trump beefed up the military there would be a greater chance he would be promoted. Another man told me he was sick of refugees and illegals taking all the welfare and Medicaid money. And some just hated the idea of Hillary. If you read the comments on fax news you will find Jew and African American haters, but overwhelminglyly it is Muslims, illegal immigrants and refugees they really hate. So yes, there is a share of bigots and racists.
I'm sorry if my post made it seem like I thought you had voted for trump. I fell into lazy writing of using the generic "you" instead of "one".
And I agree that there is no "one size fits all" description of trump voters. But there is probably a five (or six or whatever number) sizes fits most description that is far less than a "62,979,636 sizes fits all".
There may be "commonality" among certain populations. Racists, xenophobes and snobs seem to be spotting "noteworthy" traits all the time. That doesn't mean, however, that we should judge the content of a person's character in groups larger than one. That is what racists, xenophobes and snobs do.
All trump voters can be put into 3 groups. Those that voted for him because of his racism and xenophobia. Those that voted for him despite his racism and xenophobia. And those that were so unaware that they somehow didn't know about his racism and xenophobia but still cared enough to show up and vote.
If pointing that out makes me a snob I'm ok with that.
All trump voters can be put into 3 groups. Those that voted for him because of his racism and xenophobia. Those that voted for him despite his racism and xenophobia. And those that were so unaware that they somehow didn't know about his racism and xenophobia but still cared enough to show up and vote.
If pointing that out makes me a snob I'm ok with that.
Or they didn't consider his positions on immigration to be racist or xenophobic, or they were troubled by what they considered to be his racism or xenophobia, but still considered him less objectionable than Clinton for any number of reasons. Our big political parties encompass such a diversity of opinions and attitudes, that it's possible to find unsavory types (especially with "unsavory" being a fairly subjective term) in either of them. Trying to associate all the members of a party with the least appealing ones seems at best like a waste of time and at worst an exercise in Trumpian thinking.
I still maintain that if you want to impugn someone's morals or motivations you should do it on an individual rather than a group basis.
All trump voters can be put into 3 groups. Those that voted for him because of his racism and xenophobia. Those that voted for him despite his racism and xenophobia. And those that were so unaware that they somehow didn't know about his racism and xenophobia but still cared enough to show up and vote.
If pointing that out makes me a snob I'm ok with that.
One of the great things about getting older is the benefit of experiencing long years of familiar themes. People have been presenting Republican voters in this manner since at least the Reagan years, and yet so many think it's some sort of new, unique observation. With the proper perspective, it's actually even entertaining.
One of the great things about getting older is the benefit of experiencing long years of familiar themes. People have been presenting Republican voters in this manner since at least the Reagan years, and yet so many think it's some sort of new, unique observation. With the proper perspective, it's actually even entertaining.
I remember that with each new success his critics became more frenzied. He was stupid, he was reckless, he was "divisive" and "uncooperative". Anyone who voted for him was a dupe or selfish. People who didn't like him called him a "cowboy", apparently not getting that most Americans like cowboys. Of course, now that he's safely dead, I'm hearing that "Reagan couldn't get elected today".
I miss the Gipper.
http://www.cagle.com/working/040607/koterba.gif
I remember that with each new success his critics became more frenzied. He was stupid, he was reckless, he was "divisive" and "uncooperative". Anyone who voted for him was a dupe or selfish.
In a world as dynamic as ours, there are very few things that never change. The modern liberal's view of the perceived opposition being one of the standouts.
In a world as dynamic as ours, there are very few things that never change. The modern liberal's view of the perceived opposition being one of the standouts.
As a great man once said, "There you go again ".
flowerseverywhere
5-15-17, 6:46pm
In a world as dynamic as ours, there are very few things that never change. The modern liberal's view of the perceived opposition being one of the standouts.
that pompous statement is exactly what I have been pointing out. "The modern liberal view". So there is only one and you are the expert. Amazing.
The conservative leader Ann Coulter's definition of the modern liberal, in her own words:
"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."
"Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots."
ad nauseum. It is no accident that with this and similar propaganda emanating 24/7 from Fox News, along with the astro turf Freedom/Patriot/Tea Party groups funded by the Koch brothers and their ilk, that the problems of our nation are now conveniently blamed on a monolithic group called "liberals."
Meanwhile our kleptocracy continues to consolidate its power under the billionaires and millionaires now in the executive and legislative branches. The appointment of 1 or 2 more right wing judges should seal the deal.
that pompous statement is exactly what I have been pointing out. "The modern liberal view". So there is only one and you are the expert. Amazing.Well, you know how we racist, xenophobic, ignorant (and lets not forget pompous) conservatives are. Just read any of the post election threads in this forum and you'll see the popular consensus leads you not to expect much from us. :(
...... The appointment of 1 or 2 more right wing judges should seal the deal.
Yes, that may put us back on the path of a Constitutional Republic. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Yes, that may put us back on the path of a Constitutional Republic. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
During an interview with Fox News to discuss his first 100 days as president, Trump denounced the constitutional system of checks and balances as “archaic.”
“It’s a very rough system. It’s an archaic system,” Trump said. “It’s really a bad thing for the country.”
I suppose a "Constitutional Republic" doesn't really require the original Constitution - just a constitution.
During an interview with Fox News to discuss his first 100 days as president, Trump denounced the constitutional system of checks and balances as “archaic.”
“It’s a very rough system. It’s an archaic system,” Trump said. “It’s really a bad thing for the country.”
I suppose a "Constitutional Republic" doesn't really require the original Constitution - just a constitution.
He is a lifelong Democrat now posing as a Republican, so no surprise there.
In a world as dynamic as ours, there are very few things that never change. The modern liberal's view of the perceived opposition being one of the standouts.
I suppose it's comforting to know that people on both sides of the political spectrum feel the same way about each other. Maybe conservatives are human after all... :~)
Williamsmith
5-16-17, 12:13am
During an interview with Fox News to discuss his first 100 days as president, Trump denounced the constitutional system of checks and balances as “archaic.”
“It’s a very rough system. It’s an archaic system,” Trump said. “It’s really a bad thing for the country.”
I suppose a "Constitutional Republic" doesn't really require the original Constitution - just a constitution.
The full context of the interview if read, mentions nothing about the "Constitution". The context of the interview and the response was centered on Congressional rules. Those particular rules were referred to as "archaic". Those rules and rule making in general are left up to Congress but not directed by the Constitution.
Therefore the mainstream typists, are feeding bits of contrived news to its consumers, who lick the bowl clean and regurgitate fiction until it becomes urban legend. The human condition, being what it is, lends minds towards confirmation bias. In other words, you make your mind up first and then look for evidence to support your own perceived reality. Fact or fiction is inconsequential.
We do this in minor aspects of our lives and we carry it on in important descision making like voting or jury deliberations. We hang people, place them before firing squads, electrocute them, decapitate them, inject them with lethal doses of chemicals and crucify them to mention a few......and we assume whole segments of society to be ignorant dolts with the same process.
Splinters and logs.
gimmethesimplelife
5-16-17, 2:15am
Today I read an article on yahoo.com to the effect that Trump was now on a downward spiral due to his allegedly revealing information to Russians and I called a few people on the neighborhood phone tree so the story would get spread around.....I only hope this story is true. It's so humiliating to speak to my family in Austria with them having such better citizenship and them constantly making references to how inadequate US citizenship is in comparison to other countries. I keep my mouth shut in deference and respect to my family's better citizenship but sometimes it's hard. I just want to scream at them that it's not my fault I was born in a country in which human life is not worth socialized medicine. All I can do is be part of the resistance for the time being......Rob
Today I read an article on yahoo.com to the effect that Trump was now on a downward spiral due to his allegedly revealing information to Russians and I called a few people on the neighborhood phone tree so the story would get spread around.....I only hope this story is true. It's so humiliating to speak to my family in Austria with them having such better citizenship and them constantly making references to how inadequate US citizenship is in comparison to other countries. I keep my mouth shut in deference and respect to my family's better citizenship but sometimes it's hard. I just want to scream at them that it's not my fault I was born in a country in which human life is not worth socialized medicine. All I can do is be part of the resistance for the time being......Rob
I am a Dutch immigrant w/most of my family over there. We ARE the laughing stock of Europe for sure.......Le sigh.
BikingLady
5-16-17, 5:12am
So What is this Convention of the States that is the "headlines" this morning? Is this pro or con of Mr. T?
flowerseverywhere
5-16-17, 7:10am
Well, you know how we racist, xenophobic, ignorant (and lets not forget pompous) conservatives are. Just read any of the post election threads in this forum and you'll see the popular consensus leads you not to expect much from us. :(
that is not what I said. If it makes you feel happy to make assumptions do so.
that is not what I said. If it makes you feel happy to make assumptions do so.
Excepting the pompous part, I didn't suggest you did unless you consider yourself the consensus view. Assumptions are often bi-directional.
The conservative leader Ann Coulter's definition of the modern liberal, in her own words:
"Liberals hate America, they hate flag-wavers, they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam, post 9/11. Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do."
Ann Coulter is no more a "conservative leader" than you or I or Stephen Colbert are. She exists on the fringes of punditry, earning a good living out of shocking the sensibilities of the Left. The latest Berkeley freak-out was money in the bank for her.
During an interview with Fox News to discuss his first 100 days as president, Trump denounced the constitutional system of checks and balances as “archaic.”
“It’s a very rough system. It’s an archaic system,” Trump said. “It’s really a bad thing for the country.”
I suppose a "Constitutional Republic" doesn't really require the original Constitution - just a constitution.
I heard a lot of similar complaints about the Electoral College from people frustrated with the results.
I think a system that frustrates the ambitions of such a wide range of people is worth preserving.
He is a lifelong Democrat now posing as a Republican, so no surprise there.
So what does that say of the people who made him the nominee of the Republican party? They wanted a Democrat who was posing as a Republican?
I heard a lot of similar complaints about the Electoral College from people frustrated with the results.
I think a system that frustrates the ambitions of such a wide range of people is worth preserving.
I just thought it interesting why he thought it was archaic. Trump seems to approve of governments that have diminished or removed checks and balances.
I didn't realize what an impact the Electoral College had on the one person = one vote concept until this election. Apparently that isn't the case.
So what does that say of the people who made him the nominee of the Republican party? They wanted a Democrat who was posing as a Republican?I don't think so. I honestly believe people were fed up with the status quo and saw a non-politician as the best option. In many cases, a vote for Trump was a message to the Republican Party in much the same way that a vote for Sanders was a message to the Democratic Party.
On the Republican side, that message was strong enough to win the election. Who'd a thunk it?
I just thought it interesting why he thought it was archaic. Trump seems to approve of governments that have diminished or removed checks and balances.
I didn't realize what an impact the Electoral College had on the one person = one vote concept until this election. Apparently that isn't the case.
One person, one vote still applies, it's just that people have forgotten that the Federal Government is a client of the States and the Electoral College transmits the individual state's wishes to the Feds.
It's one of those checks and balances that brilliantly protects the individual states from the power centers such as New York and California. It's just that the average joe doesn't realize it.
gimmethesimplelife
5-16-17, 10:03am
I came across a recipe for a Moroccan tagine that sounds relatively easy to make and the spice combo involved sounds tasty and not too expensive to put together.....I think it will be perfect for an upcoming (I sure hope so, anyway) Impeachment proceeding(s). It is very important for me to get the details right when life events such as this hopefully upcoming Impeachment that showcase human rights and human dignity. I want everything to be right on this day, down to the last tiny inconsequential detail. Rob
I think a system that frustrates the ambitions of such a wide range of people is worth preserving.
Does this apply to all systems? Or do you pick and choose your frustrating systems? After all, communism obviously frustrated the ambitions of a wide range of people.
Does this apply to all systems? Or do you pick and choose your frustrating systems? After all, communism obviously frustrated the ambitions of a wide range of people.
I was speaking more of the ambitions to wielding power. I think the founders understood that making it difficult for any individual or group to exercise unchecked power was essential to protecting our liberties.
I came across a recipe for a Moroccan tagine that sounds relatively easy to make and the spice combo involved sounds tasty and not too expensive to put together.....I think it will be perfect for an upcoming (I sure hope so, anyway) Impeachment proceeding(s). It is very important for me to get the details right when life events such as this hopefully upcoming Impeachment that showcase human rights and human dignity. I want everything to be right on this day, down to the last tiny inconsequential detail. Rob
I doubt you would find Mike Pence or Paul Ryan any more appetizing.
I was speaking more of the ambitions to wielding power. I think the founders understood that making it difficult for any individual or group to exercise unchecked power was essential to protecting our liberties.
How is it unchecked power if both sides are playing by the same rules in an election.
ApatheticNoMore
5-16-17, 1:28pm
Does this apply to all systems? Or do you pick and choose your frustrating systems? After all, communism obviously frustrated the ambitions of a wide range of people.
that may have been among it's few positives :)
How is it unchecked power if both sides are playing by the same rules in an election.
In the case of the Electoral College, it mitigates against one or two populous regions from dominating the others. Does that violate a strict one-man-one-vote principle? Yes it does.
In the case of the Electoral College, it mitigates against one or two populous regions from dominating the others. Does that violate a strict one-man-one-vote principle? Yes it does.
Except that that isn't really what it does. At least not any more. What it does is insure that the only states that receive attention from presidential candidates are those that have roughly equal numbers of conservatives and progressives.
Except that that isn't really what it does. At least not any more. What it does is insure that the only states that receive attention from presidential candidates are those that have roughly equal numbers of conservatives and progressives.
Wouldn't that be the case whether we had an EC or not? Campaigns would go where they could shift the most undecided votes into their column.
Wouldn't that be the case whether we had an EC or not? Campaigns would go where they could shift the most undecided votes into their column.
Not necessarily. Just because a state leans solidly one way or the other doesn't mean there will be less undecideds. Just that there aren't enough undecideds to tip the balance in a winner take all situation. California is solidly blue, but 21% of voters are in the middle. Ohio is more equally split between republican and democrat but has only 18% undecided. In a one person one vote situation 21% of California is a whole lot more people than 18% of Ohio. But both states, and in fact pretty much all the states, have enough undecideds that candidates would likely care about the whole country if they were planning to run in a one person one vote presidential election.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/
As a legal concept, one person one vote has never applied to Presidential contests due to the Electoral College and it is not used in the Senate due to it's limit of two representatives per state. The concept is only used as a means to ensure adequate representation in the House of Representatives where districts are drawn and re-drawn to represent the changes in population.
I suppose in a pure Democracy, one person one vote would rule the day in all contests, but by remarkable foresight, we are not that.
How is it unchecked power if both sides are playing by the same rules in an election.
They share :-) Don't know about you, but both "sides" are more likely to sit down to dinner with each other than to sit down and socialize with someone like me.
Not necessarily. Just because a state leans solidly one way or the other doesn't mean there will be less undecideds. Just that there aren't enough undecideds to tip the balance in a winner take all situation. California is solidly blue, but 21% of voters are in the middle. Ohio is more equally split between republican and democrat but has only 18% undecided. In a one person one vote situation 21% of California is a whole lot more people than 18% of Ohio. But both states, and in fact pretty much all the states, have enough undecideds that candidates would likely care about the whole country if they were planning to run in a one person one vote presidential election.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/state/
I see your logic, and it makes a lot of sense. Even a solid blue state could have some stubbornly GOP counties.
Absent an EC, clever campaigns would probably focus on media markets with the highest proportions of historically switchable votes.
As a legal concept, one person one vote has never applied to Presidential contests due to the Electoral College and it is not used in the Senate due to it's limit of two representatives per state. The concept is only used as a means to ensure adequate representation in the House of Representatives where districts are drawn and re-drawn to represent the changes in population.
I suppose in a pure Democracy, one person one vote would rule the day in all contests, but by remarkable foresight, we are not that.
Yes, so important it is to have a small random subset of states be more important than all the others for purposes of electing the president, including the three most populous ones that have over 25% of the nations population. It must be nice for the voters of Indiana and Ohio and so forth to know that unlike their fellow citizens in CA and TX and NY their votes actually matter and could possibly affect the outcome of the election.
Yes, so important it is to have a small random subset of states be more important than all the others for purposes of electing the president, including the three most populous ones that have over 25% of the nations population. It must be nice for the voters of Indiana and Ohio and so forth to know that unlike their fellow citizens in CA and TX and NY their votes actually matter and could possibly affect the outcome of the election.
Your vote mattered in California, mine mattered in Ohio. California delivered 20% of the electoral votes Clinton needed to win the election while Ohio delivered 6% of the electoral votes she needed to lose. California's out-sized influence dwarfed Ohio's and she still lost, maybe she should have paid more attention to the smaller states.
Your vote mattered in California, mine mattered in Ohio. California delivered 20% of the electoral votes Clinton needed to win the election while Ohio delivered 6% of the electoral votes she needed to lose. California's out-sized influence dwarfed Ohio's and she still lost, maybe she should have paid more attention to the smaller states.
sure, everyone's vote matters. Even wyomingans' votes matter. Seven times more than mine in fact. But my point is that she wasn't at all concerned about the needs of California voters. Nor was trump. Because both knew how Election Day was going to turn out here so they could both safely ignore the most populous state in the nation. And the second most populous. And the third.
sure, everyone's vote matters. Even wyomingans' votes matter. Seven times more than mine in fact. But my point is that she wasn't at all concerned about the needs of California voters. Nor was trump. Because both knew how Election Day was going to turn out here so they could both safely ignore the most populous state in the nation. And the second most populous. And the third.Maybe if California were a bit more politically diverse.....
Maybe if California were a bit more politically diverse.....
We're diverse, just not equally distributed. What if Wyoming was the only state that was up for grabs and the candidates all put all their efforts into wooing the 20%, or whatever, of undecided Wyoming residents to the exclusion of everyone in every other state?
We're diverse, just not equally distributed. What if Wyoming was the only state that was up for grabs and the candidates all put all their efforts into wooing the 20%, or whatever, of undecided Wyoming residents to the exclusion of everyone in every other state?If 80% were already decided, where's the payoff in wooing them?
If 80% were already decided, where's the payoff in wooing them?
If the other states were all lopsided either red or blue in amounts that were each half of the EC and the election would be decided by the 3 WY electoral votes the incentive would be to figure out how to win over those 120,000 undecided WY voters to the exclusion of every other voter in the country. Obviously this would be an extreme situation, but I don't see any difference from what we have now except for the degree of what currently happens.
gimmethesimplelife
5-17-17, 8:07am
I doubt you would find Mike Pence or Paul Ryan any more appetizing.I wouldn't - you are right. But at least both Pence and Ryan know how to behave in public and would not cause more needless daily drama and embarrassment as Trump does, plus both would know how to behave with world leaders. It's a little bit of an improvement but certainly not anything I would be happy about/not live in fear of. Rob
If the other states were all lopsided either red or blue in amounts that were each half of the EC and the election would be decided by the 3 WY electoral votes the incentive would be to figure out how to win over those 120,000 undecided WY voters to the exclusion of every other voter in the country. Obviously this would be an extreme situation, but I don't see any difference from what we have now except for the degree of what currently happens.
But if a State has already made up its statistical mind, what is really gained from the attention of a candidate? For either the State or the candidate?
I have just lived through the opposite scenario in one of those Midwestern swing states that Trump won by a whisker. Clinton was later criticized for not spending enough time here. If that's why she lost my state, its probably not so much about undecideds she failed to convert as the unexcited Democrats who didn't show up at the polls. Her bright young things in Brooklyn had apparently run the numbers and thought her time was better spent elsewhere.
Personally, I think I would have liked the peace and quiet of living in a state everybody takes for granted. Let them pester Wyoming next time.
I wouldn't - you are right. But at least both Pence and Ryan know how to behave in public and would not cause more needless daily drama and embarrassment as Trump does, plus both would know how to behave with world leaders. It's a little bit of an improvement but certainly not anything I would be happy about/not live in fear of. Rob
Normally, I would say who cares what the Austrians or the Dutch or any other ankle-biting little country who only exist because we've kept the Russians from devouring them for the last seventy years think. Geopolitics isn't a middle school cafeteria. But Trump is becoming an exception to that rule for me. Possibly betraying intelligence sources so you can look like a big man in front of some dictator's factotum is pretty extreme. At some point important allies will stop working with us.
Normally, I would say who cares what the Austrians or the Dutch or any other ankle-biting little country who only exist because we've kept the Russians from devouring them for the last seventy years think. Geopolitics isn't a middle school cafeteria. But Trump is becoming an exception to that rule for me. Possibly betraying intelligence sources so you can look like a big man in front of some dictator's factotum is pretty extreme. At some point important allies will stop working with us.
It's kind of like having a spouse who regularly gets drunk, pees himself, and makes a crude pass at your best friend. No one wants to be humiliated in public. And certainly his actions are becoming a threat to more than the daily functioning of our government--though that would be bad enough.
I agree with gimmethesimplelife--Pence and Ryan are odious creatures, but at least they have a basic grasp of how government works, and probably wouldn't pee themselves in public.
But if a State has already made up its statistical mind, what is really gained from the attention of a candidate? For either the State or the candidate?
Personally, I think I would have liked the peace and quiet of living in a state everybody takes for granted. Let them pester Wyoming next time.
But if it were not for the EC then a state having it's statistical mind made up wouldn't matter. Every undecided in every state would.
And I agree somewhat with your last statement. Our campaigns are waaaaaaay too long. I mean, jeeeez, Trump is already holding campaign events for 2020, ignoring the fact that the oddsmakers have him at 60% likelihood of impeachment. And that was before it came to light that he's giving foreign intelligence secrets to the russians. Surely the odds have gone up.
But if it were not for the EC then a state having it's statistical mind made up wouldn't matter. Every undecided in every state would.
That would be true to the extent that undecideds were dispersed evenly geographically. To the extent they clustered in reachable media markets, you would probably see less decisive areas getting more attention. Personally, I think most forms of campaign effort serves more to reinforce people inclined to vote for you anyway. I can't recall ever seeing a political ad, negative of positive, that actually changed my mind about a candidate. Most campaign rallies or events seem to me to be aimed at reinforcing the commitment of supporters than gaining new ones.
I do agree there is a possibility of a Trump impeachment or 25th Amendment ouster, especially if the Republicans endure the kind of midterm beating the Democrats took under Obama.
Teacher Terry
5-17-17, 12:33pm
Rob, you are right that at least Pence would not embarrass us or give away secrets, etc. Jane, I loved your analogy:))
I do agree there is a possibility of a Trump impeachment or 25th Amendment ouster, especially if the Republicans endure the kind of midterm beating the Democrats took under Obama.
I must admit I'd forgotten about the 25th Amendment option until reading Ross Douthat's article yesterday. Surprisingly, I find it oddly satisfying.
I must admit I'd forgotten about the 25th Amendment option until reading Ross Douthat's article yesterday. Surprisingly, I find it oddly satisfying.
Short of Trump going mad-dog crazy and frothing at the mouth or proposing single-payer, I don't see his cabinet going Ides of March on him.
Impeachment might happen if it looks like there are some provable offenses and ousting him is necessary to save the country and/or the party.
BikingLady
5-17-17, 2:41pm
This is all so crazy.....................on so many levels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.