Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
And you know what? Many of Trump's views are mainstream today, as much as the educated class tries to ignore that.
@Pseudopartian-
Yeah. That too. I mean I wouldn't use those to argue "Hillary did nothing wrong" either and I think those are morally bad besides any pragmatic considerations.
But yeah, the fact that a lot of Sanders people talk exclusively about the white working class and never talk about restrictions preventing minorities from voting is why I'm not completely on board with the "Sanders wing of Progressivism"(note- Sanders himself has been very open about the Democratic Party continuing to commit to racial and social justice. Some of his supporters though, not so much.).
edited 15th Nov '16 9:42:26 AM by Hodor2
How is that any different from how things are now?
The sad part is a lot of America demonstrably still wants that, or at best, is indifferent to it.
edited 15th Nov '16 9:41:07 AM by Draghinazzo
I hesitate to call them mainstream before Trump brought them to the front. So many of the "average" people who votes for him are in denial about the racisim, sexisim, etc. They still know those things are "wrong" but they are desperate not to conceive themselves as such and that they voted "on the issues".
Anyway, as the EC goes: I know it's a last desperate hope. If they don't turn faithless now they will have outlived the last justification for keeping them around.
edited 15th Nov '16 9:44:25 AM by Elle
@Bense: saying other countries would want the Electoral College is AWFULLY ARROGANT given that they probably gave our system a look when forming their own systems and rejected them at the start. The impression I'm getting from foreign tropers here is that we're looked on as being bizarrely behind the times in that respect.
And, quite frankly, you think the forty nine percent being able to override the fifty one percent is fair, and that we should never, ever consider changing anything about our system, even though the world has changed vastly from the late 1700's and we have very real differences regarding what we need to do.
Also, the idea that we have the best system and therefor can't improve on it (and of course what is regarded as improvement varies from person to person) is idiotic. Our political and governmental structure isn't a clock. It's how we organize our society. That statement stops people from considering how we might make the world better as time goes on and things continue to change.
Switching gears a little bit, what CAN the left do to improve the lot of rural folks? West Virginia for example. Coal ain't coming back, no matter what laws are in place. The economics are totally against them, and even if it isn't, the mining would be done by machines today, not miners. What can we actually do to help?
It's pretty funny from an outsider's POV. The US system seems more like a list of what not to do.
edited 15th Nov '16 9:46:14 AM by nightwyrm_zero
I disagree that the Federal system is antiquated, and believe that many of our current problems are precisely because the federal government is trying to do too much - far more than it was ever intended for it to do. We are a large and diverse nation, and locals often have the best understanding of local issues. States are where you have the most say in your leaders, and where they are most accountable to you personally.
Something I read the other day was to the effect that conservatives are fine with having Texas be Texas and New York being New York, while progressives insist that everyone be New York, and that if you don't want to be New York then the reason must be because you're an uneducated bigot.
Yes we're all citizens of the United States of America. Don't leave off the "United States" part, please.
edited 15th Nov '16 9:46:21 AM by Bense
The fewer votes you have, the more impact each individual one has, which means that a very small number of people can completely fuck things up for the rest. If you're worried about uninformed voters voting for stupid things for stupid reasons, the electoral college is a WAY worse system than just a straight-up popular vote because the ignorance of each individual counts for so much more.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.-fear rising-
@Nightwyrm: Massive educational grants for retraining. Public transportation initiatives that reach rural areas. A push toward minimum basic income because the move to automation is inevitable. Just a few ideas.
If this is to be resolved in our lifetimes, it may need to fall to the initiatives of private citizens rather than government. Anyone know any rich gazillionaires? :P
edited 15th Nov '16 9:50:23 AM by Elle
I think the point is pretty clear now that not only is the EC undemocratic, but it actually facilitates the outcomes it's supposed to prevent.
That being said there is very little we can do in the short term to change that and since we have to work with the system we have, which means winning at least some of the white rural/working class back.
I still think that a more economically populist platform, with a focus on a strengthened safety net, workers protections, and infrastructure for the whole nation, would in the sort of vein of what Bernie Sander's was doing is the best shot the democrats have at winning in 2020. That being said I'd rather not have Bernie Sanders as the candidate and hope we can get some one else to pick up the torch.
@Bense: The federal government finds itself doing so much because many states have failed in their duty to provide for their citizenry. If the states will not fulfill their duty then someone else must pick up the slack.
There is a reason why many of these conservative small government states are also have some of the highest levels of poverty and are the largest recipients of federal money.
edited 15th Nov '16 9:55:46 AM by Mio
Given that the "United States" frequently pursue bigoted policies against all other pressures, I'm have a little trouble believing in the "United" part, Bense. And, again, the vote is an individual's right, a point that you have never directly addressed.
Also, keep in mind that half the eligible voters didn't bother to vote. If the EC contributes to voter apathy, what good is it? How would you even go about changing it so that more people feel invested in our country if they can point to the EC as a reason their vote doesn't matter?
You keep hammering on about state's rights and ignoring the individual's rights that the rest of us are talking about.
Also, as someone from Texas: Having civil rights and a living wage and getting rid of the EC available to everyone ain't gonna make us New York. And need I remind you, every Democratic voter here is basically entirely overruled by the Republicans. Fucking CONSTANTLY. Look at New York and you'll find that the opposite is true. The EC hurts basically everyone.
edited 15th Nov '16 10:01:01 AM by AceofSpades
edited 15th Nov '16 10:05:56 AM by Pseudopartition
Elle: I live in Texas, so I am going to remain very, very skeptical of state's rights. The Republicans are still going to use it as bludgeon.
Gotta wonder what's going to happen to North Carolina, though, since all those business pulled out over the bathroom rights thing. (I'm getting the state right, right?) We may see more people pressuring businesses over this stuff enough that supporting such policies becomes economically ruinous.
Which isn't going to help the divide thing I guess but I have little sympathy this afternoon.
You sound dangerously close to advocating for states' rights, which are often just used to be able to throw minorities under the bus.
Some things should not be decided by states, period.
See my above comment.
Gay marriage shouldn't be a states' right. Discriminating on someone based on their sexuality or ethnicity shouldn't be a states' right. Slavery should not be a states' right.
You get the picture.
No offense but it really sounds like you're lionizing the way America works at present without bothering to consider the negative effects the systems it employs has on the less fortunate.
If "being Texas" means throwing minorities to the wolves then no you don't get a free pass to do that.
edited 15th Nov '16 10:15:23 AM by Draghinazzo
FYI, the Democrats were already leaning on a form of states' rights to push the legalization of marijuana (which Obama & co. more or less implicitly endorsed), and to a certain degree it was baked into Obamacare's looser guidelines. So the whole debate is kind of moot; the precedent has been set, the die been cast, and states' rights are a thing that is going to stick around.
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)The EC may need to be modified. It doesn't need to be trashed. The big states have so much power as it is in practical terms. Giving them more simply because it suits your political interest is frankly nonsense. Hillary's lead is entirely from California, and in most other states except there and a handful of others, it was really close one way or the other.
She screwed up by making assumptions about the Blue Wall. She understands that and is out. Trump has won, and the best Dems and liberals can do now is focus on the down ticket for 2018.
I'd note that you also tend to have a great say in your local leadership on a city or county level, however Republicans will often overrule laws made at a city do county level for being to progressive.
If a state gets to be what it is ("let Texas be Texas" and all) why can't a city be what it is? Why must a city submit to a state but a state doesn't have to submit to the nation?
edited 15th Nov '16 10:13:49 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
