Avatar image for doofasa
#4301 Posted by Doofasa (2173 posts) - - Show Bio

@boschepg: All good mate and what you've said makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.

Avatar image for doofasa
#4302 Posted by Doofasa (2173 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrmonster: To be honest I don't know that much about Bush Snr but he seems to have the respect and admiration of both sides of the political spectrum. A rare thing nowadays.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#4303 Edited by just_sayin (3466 posts) - - Show Bio

Willie, we are in agreement that white nationalism is wrong. No one should hate someone because of their ethnicity. No one should be penalized because of their skin color. When a Republican declares himself a white nationalist it is just as wrong as when Democrats got into bed, under the white sheets of the KKK.

  • It is just as bad as when Democrats advocate penalizing Asian Students 230 points on their SAT to reduce the percentage of Asians getting into universities.
  • It is just as wrong as when Mayor DeBlasio says the city needs to have fewer Asians getting into its technology and engineering focused high school programs.
  • It is just as bad as penalizing whites and Asians in employment opportunities, receiving Federal grants, and in awarding contracts. These too are racist and wrong.
  • It is wrong for college campuses to have "no whitey" days where white people are asked to not attend classes they paid for, or to have "safe spaces" that forbid the presence of white people. These are expressions of racism too.
  • It is just as wrong as when liberals advocate anti-Semitic policies and endeavors such as the BDS movement or not wanting Israel to have the right to name its own capital or wanting the UN to maintain an item on its agenda concerning Israel, or standing on stage holding Louis Farrakhan's hand while he says that Israelis are apes and pigs.

I am glad we agree that white nationalism is wrong. I hope you will work on your fellow liberals regarding their multitude of racist beliefs and polices too.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4304 Posted by decaf_wizard (17006 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for just_sayin
#4305 Posted by just_sayin (3466 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4306 Posted by decaf_wizard (17006 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for just_sayin
#4307 Posted by just_sayin (3466 posts) - - Show Bio

@just_sayin said:
@decaf_wizard said:

@just_sayin: So I assume your a civnat type then

I don't know what a civnat is.

Civic Nationalist

I don't know enough from my quick google search to say. What I read had a lot of the right buzz words - freedom, liberty, equality around a common national or political identity. But I don't know more than a quick wikipedia search could provide. How does civic nationalism differ from other political viewpoints?

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4308 Edited by decaf_wizard (17006 posts) - - Show Bio

@just_sayin said:
@decaf_wizard said:
@just_sayin said:
@decaf_wizard said:

@just_sayin: So I assume your a civnat type then

I don't know what a civnat is.

Civic Nationalist

I don't know enough from my quick google search to say. What I read had a lot of the right buzz words - freedom, liberty, equality around a common national or political identity. But I don't know more than a quick wikipedia search could provide. How does civic nationalism differ from other political viewpoints?

Its a more direct response/alternative to ethnic nationalism, claiming that (one or any number of these things) shared value structure, and beliefs (occasionally religious ones) are what nationalism should be based on rather than race or ethnicity. For example a very very strongly civic nationalist nation would refuse permanent entry to a Saudi muslim because their values are both incompatible with the ideals of the country and its national identity and thus they would not be welcome to become citizens or residents, rather than refusing the same things because they are middle eastern.

To apply the famous Ship of Theseusto thismetaphor/parodox: Does a ship that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. Civic Nationalism is the idea that the shape of the ship (the values) is the most important. Ethnic Nationalism is the idea that the nature of the object is functionally different if the materials (the people who make up the nation) are different, and is usually based around a shared heritage (genetic or otherwise), culture, and language

Avatar image for heroup2112
#4309 Edited by HeroUp2112 (18328 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

House Democrats unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal

I'm offering a break from the Trump is God/Trump is the Devil diatribe. Here's some actual political action going on. Feel free to discuss.

Anything that tackles private money influencing politics, lobbyists, and corruption in general is welcome. But, I'm sure they will f***k it up. I just have little confidence that the current system in Washington is up to the task of passing meaningful and intelligent legislation on anything as complex as money/corruption, especially given that those parties that have the most to lose are the ones lining the pockets of the politicians passing the laws. But, whatever, I hope I get proven wrong.

I'm not a fan at ALL of the idea of voting over the internet but I like the rest of it. Sadly, it probably would never get through the Republican held Senate and then Trump. More's the pity.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#4310 Edited by mrmonster (15572 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...

Avatar image for just_sayin
#4311 Posted by just_sayin (3466 posts) - - Show Bio

@just_sayin said:
@decaf_wizard said:
@just_sayin said:
@decaf_wizard said:

@just_sayin: So I assume your a civnat type then

I don't know what a civnat is.

Civic Nationalist

I don't know enough from my quick google search to say. What I read had a lot of the right buzz words - freedom, liberty, equality around a common national or political identity. But I don't know more than a quick wikipedia search could provide. How does civic nationalism differ from other political viewpoints?

Its a more direct response/alternative to ethnic nationalism, claiming that (one or any number of these things) shared value structure, and beliefs (occasionally religious ones) are what nationalism should be based on rather than race or ethnicity. For example a very very strongly civic nationalist nation would refuse permanent entry to a Saudi muslim because their values are both incompatible with the ideals of the country and its national identity and thus they would not be welcome to become citizens or residents, rather than refusing the same things because they are middle eastern.

To apply the famous Ship of Theseusto thismetaphor/parodox: Does a ship that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. Civic Nationalism is the idea that the shape of the ship (the values) is the most important. Ethnic Nationalism is the idea that the nature of the object is functionally different if the materials (the people who make up the nation) are different, and is usually based around a shared heritage (genetic or otherwise), culture, and language

Well, I do think we should share a basic common set of core values, but I would be uncomfortable saying any particular race or religion could not come to the US. I am comfortable with subcultures in the US, where say people who originate from China or any other country/region gather together as long as it is voluntary and doesn't try to take away another's rights. The kind of core values I would want to see would be that all citizens respect individual rights and pursue justice for all citizens.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#4312 Posted by mrmonster (15572 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...

And another one bites the dust.

Avatar image for willpayton
#4313 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@heroup2112 said:

House Democrats unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal

I'm offering a break from the Trump is God/Trump is the Devil diatribe. Here's some actual political action going on. Feel free to discuss.

Anything that tackles private money influencing politics, lobbyists, and corruption in general is welcome. But, I'm sure they will f***k it up. I just have little confidence that the current system in Washington is up to the task of passing meaningful and intelligent legislation on anything as complex as money/corruption, especially given that those parties that have the most to lose are the ones lining the pockets of the politicians passing the laws. But, whatever, I hope I get proven wrong.

I'm not a fan at ALL of the idea of voting over the internet but I like the rest of it. Sadly, it probably would never get through the Republican held Senate and then Trump. More's the pity.

Yeah any voting system that's purely electronic and doesnt have some kind of paper trail that can be audited is inherently flawed. I mean, online voting is one of those things that seems like a great idea... we do buy stuff online and it's all usually pretty secure, etc. But, the stakes are just higher and therefore there's more incentive for bad actors to try and hack these voting systems. And, with an entirely electronic system, there's always at least one weak point where you dont know what's going on and have to trust some entity. There was a good video on Computerphile about this, in case any one wants to learn more about the possible dangers of electronic voting systems.

Avatar image for willpayton
#4314 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

And another one bites the dust.

It's funny how a lot of Trump apologists at least in the past used to say that he's such a good businessman, therefore he was going to be good as President. But seriously, any CEO that was as incompetent as Trump and has a record of hiring so many either unqualified people, criminals and traitors, or qualified people who quit less than a year in because they cant stand to work with that CEO, would himself get fired by the company's board of directors very quickly.

Trump just keeps proving that his one and only skill is convincing the gullible to follow him. And, there are A LOT of gullible people in the U.S.

The only people who are sticking in there are doing so because they think there will be some benefit for them. I guarantee almost everyone that works with Trump hates his guts. Once he's out of office, expect an endless stream of interviews, articles, books, or whatever from people disclosing all the shit that went on behind the scenes. They will all stab Trump in the back so fast it'll make his head spin. I also would not be surprised if Melania divorces his sorry ass after he gets booted from office.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#4315 Posted by mrmonster (15572 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrmonster said:

And another one bites the dust.

It's funny how a lot of Trump apologists at least in the past used to say that he's such a good businessman, therefore he was going to be good as President. But seriously, any CEO that was as incompetent as Trump and has a record of hiring so many either unqualified people, criminals and traitors, or qualified people who quit less than a year in because they cant stand to work with that CEO, would himself get fired by the company's board of directors very quickly.

Trump just keeps proving that his one and only skill is convincing the gullible to follow him. And, there are A LOT of gullible people in the U.S.

The only people who are sticking in there are doing so because they think there will be some benefit for them. I guarantee almost everyone that works with Trump hates his guts. Once he's out of office, expect an endless stream of interviews, articles, books, or whatever from people disclosing all the shit that went on behind the scenes. They will all stab Trump in the back so fast it'll make his head spin. I also would not be surprised if Melania divorces his sorry ass after he gets booted from office.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, especially the part about how any CEO who ran Corporate HQ the way Trump runs the White House would be fired.

If the staff members for any CEO were getting charged with felonies as often as Trump's campaign staff, no one would be shouting "FAKE NEWS!", we'd all be saying "Wow, only a very corrupt CEO would hire this many criminals." And then the board of executives would vote him off the company.

Avatar image for saintwildcard
#4316 Posted by SaintWildcard (21844 posts) - - Show Bio
Loading Video...

Hearing from someone close that the dumbass doesn't like to read.

Avatar image for saintwildcard
#4317 Posted by SaintWildcard (21844 posts) - - Show Bio

Trump Law: For every Trump action, there is a Trump Tweet that contradicts that

Avatar image for willpayton
#4318 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

If the staff members for any CEO were getting charged with felonies as often as Trump's campaign staff, no one would be shouting "FAKE NEWS!", we'd all be saying "Wow, only a very corrupt CEO would hire this many criminals." And then the board of executives would vote him off the company.

Of course, oddly enough, a CEO at a publicly held company is held to much higher standards than we apparently hold the President of the Untied States... the guy who can launch nuclear weapons and start WW3 any time he chooses.

For example, any CEO who makes false statements about his company or its financial status would quickly be sued by the stock holders, go under investigation by the SEC, and then probably get fired. Look at what happened to Elon Musk recently when he just said that he was planning to take the company private. All Hell broke lose immediately afterwards, the SEC sued him for fraud, he had to step down as Chairman of the board of directors, and had to pay $20 million.

I mean, apply that standard to Trump... a guy who is a habitual liar and was lying from day one. He would not have made it to day two without being in deep trouble if he was a CEO.

Sadly we have a system where a pathological liar can continue to serve as President, and not only is there no legal problem with that, millions of Americans still support the guy and even call him "honest". This is why we have so much trouble making progress as a society. For all the people who are out there increasing our knowledge through science, working towards a better world, or even just going about their daily lives to keep their families fed, you have many more who are actively supporting and making excuses for a guy who's destroying out democracy and the systems we have in place to serve it.

Avatar image for willpayton
#4319 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

Loading Video...

Hearing from someone close that the dumbass doesn't like to read.

While that's a short part of that interview, wow it's kind of amazing how much you learn in those couple of minutes that are deeply worrying.

Imagine that one of your loved ones is going into surgery and you learn that the doctor performing it doesnt like to read, just operates on impulse, and he regularly asks his staff to do illegal things. Would you think "yeah, that's my kind of doctor", or would you immediately get rid of that guy and get someone who can do the job and is not dangerously incompetent and immoral?

Does anyone really think that we should hold a guy with the most powerful job in the world to any lesser standard than a surgeon or engineer? Personally I'd want only the best, smartest, most diligent, and most moral person for that job.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#4320 Edited by mrmonster (15572 posts) - - Show Bio

He does know that the Paris Accords have nothing to do with the city itself, right? That's just where it was signed.

Avatar image for saintwildcard
#4321 Posted by SaintWildcard (21844 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrmonster: I think you're reading to much into that. He's talking about how the taxes that are being enforced to combat climate change are causing protest in Paris.

Avatar image for saintwildcard
#4322 Posted by SaintWildcard (21844 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton: I always thought there was some truth to the reports, especially since it kept being reported every few months, it's truly shocking how much this guy just doesn't want to do this job. How anyone can defend that and say he's a genius, after hearing such a thing, it just ain't right.

Avatar image for willpayton
#4323 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

He does know that the Paris Accords have nothing to do with the city itself, right? That's just where it was signed.

Does Trump actually think people will believe that the French were chanting "we want Trump"? Such nonsense.

I think they might have been chanting "we want Trump in prison".

Avatar image for mrmonster
#4324 Posted by mrmonster (15572 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrmonster: I think you're reading to much into that. He's talking about how the taxes that are being enforced to combat climate change are causing protest in Paris.

Fair point, but still, you have to admit that it's kind of a weird thing to say, and this is coming from someone who's actually been pretty supportive of the French protesters.

Avatar image for saintwildcard
#4325 Edited by SaintWildcard (21844 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrmonster said:
@saintwildcard said:

@mrmonster: I think you're reading to much into that. He's talking about how the taxes that are being enforced to combat climate change are causing protest in Paris.

Fair point, but still, you have to admit that it's kind of a weird thing to say, and this is coming from someone who's actually been pretty supportive of the French protesters.

I think there are worst parts to the continuation to the tweet. Where he praises his own tax cuts and says that Paris should do the same or some shitm when his tax cuts are super unpopular to the point where no one who ran dared bring them up in ads

Avatar image for heroup2112
#4326 Edited by HeroUp2112 (18328 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:
@willpayton said:
@heroup2112 said:

House Democrats unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal

I'm offering a break from the Trump is God/Trump is the Devil diatribe. Here's some actual political action going on. Feel free to discuss.

Anything that tackles private money influencing politics, lobbyists, and corruption in general is welcome. But, I'm sure they will f***k it up. I just have little confidence that the current system in Washington is up to the task of passing meaningful and intelligent legislation on anything as complex as money/corruption, especially given that those parties that have the most to lose are the ones lining the pockets of the politicians passing the laws. But, whatever, I hope I get proven wrong.

I'm not a fan at ALL of the idea of voting over the internet but I like the rest of it. Sadly, it probably would never get through the Republican held Senate and then Trump. More's the pity.

Yeah any voting system that's purely electronic and doesnt have some kind of paper trail that can be audited is inherently flawed. I mean, online voting is one of those things that seems like a great idea... we do buy stuff online and it's all usually pretty secure, etc. But, the stakes are just higher and therefore there's more incentive for bad actors to try and hack these voting systems. And, with an entirely electronic system, there's always at least one weak point where you dont know what's going on and have to trust some entity. There was a good video on Computerphile about this, in case any one wants to learn more about the possible dangers of electronic voting systems.

I know almost nothing about computer security but wasn't the big buggaboo about the 2016 race about the Russians hacking things? Ya'd think people might remember that.

Avatar image for willpayton
#4327 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

I know almost nothing about computer security but wasn't the big buggaboo about the 2016 race about the Russians hacking things? Ya'd think people might remember that.

Yeah, I do seem to vaguely remember something about that. But, as I recall that was just some fake news, and nothing ever came of it. Right?

Hahah... =)

But, yeah, attacks on voting systems usually dont get very far because different states use different systems and they all have paper trails to fall back on if some irregularities do happen. So, realistically, a mass attack on a presidential vote is not going to happen. HOWEVER, given that we have a few key states where even a vote change of a few thousand votes could chance who wins the entire election (thank you Electoral College!)... well, the opportunity is certainly there. Now, put in paperless electronic voting, and things get real messy very quickly. I mean, states like Florida are comically incompetent at counting votes (as they demonstrate every... single... time). Now imagine all that, but with a system with no redundancy whatsoever. That'd be a nightmare scenario, especially when we have politicians like Trump who even before the vote was saying that it was rigged and AFTER the vote (even though he won) made the false accusation about "millions" of people fraudulently voting... well, a Constitutional crisis starts to seem like a real thing, in every single election from then on.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for heroup2112
#4328 Posted by HeroUp2112 (18328 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

I know almost nothing about computer security but wasn't the big buggaboo about the 2016 race about the Russians hacking things? Ya'd think people might remember that.

Yeah, I do seem to vaguely remember something about that. But, as I recall that was just some fake news, and nothing ever came of it. Right?

Hahah... =)

But, yeah, attacks on voting systems usually dont get very far because different states use different systems and they all have paper trails to fall back on if some irregularities do happen. So, realistically, a mass attack on a presidential vote is not going to happen. HOWEVER, given that we have a few key states where even a vote change of a few thousand votes could chance who wins the entire election (thank you Electoral College!)... well, the opportunity is certainly there. Now, put in paperless electronic voting, and things get real messy very quickly. I mean, states like Florida are comically incompetent at counting votes (as they demonstrate every... single... time). Now imagine all that, but with a system with no redundancy whatsoever. That'd be a nightmare scenario, especially when we have politicians like Trump who even before the vote was saying that it was rigged and AFTER the vote (even though he won) made the false accusation about "millions" of people fraudulently voting... well, a Constitutional crisis starts to seem like a real thing, in every single election from then on.

Loading Video...

That's what I'm saying. To open to the possibility of hacking, no paper trail, candidates accusation of fraud, the whole thing, just a horrible idea. Btw...it might need to be updated somehow but the Electoral College was instituted for a very good reason and is still better than a pure popular vote. Let's dance!

Avatar image for mimisalome
#4329 Edited by mimisalome (5342 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

That's what I'm saying. To open to the possibility of hacking, no paper trail, candidates accusation of fraud, the whole thing, just a horrible idea. Btw...it might need to be updated somehow but the Electoral College was instituted for a very good reason and is still better than a pure popular vote. Let's dance!

If you it set up in a way that even a portion of it elude transparency, like having a single company managed it's entire operation then I would think so.

But one could imagine a set-up similar to the crypto-currency mechanism where every transaction are cross referenced to a shared network that everyone can monitor in real time, while still offering some level of anonymity for the users.

Not saying that crypto-currency is immune to hacking and manipulation, but there are ways to which they can argue that it is as functional and secure at least on some level of confidence applied to other comparable public transactions. where honesty and consistency is observe.

Avatar image for willpayton
#4330 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

That's what I'm saying. To open to the possibility of hacking, no paper trail, candidates accusation of fraud, the whole thing, just a horrible idea. Btw...it might need to be updated somehow but the Electoral College was instituted for a very good reason and is still better than a pure popular vote. Let's dance!

True that the EC was put into place for a reason, but I'd argue that 1) that reason is no longer valid, and 2) the way the EC is implemented these days actually subverts the original intent. For example, the EC was put in place specifically to prevent dangerous populist demagogues like Trump from taking power. If it was working as envisioned, the EC should have stepped in and not put Trump into power. I mean, the EC exists specifically because the founders didnt have full trust in the populace, and wanted a "backup plan", so to speak.

I'd propose a popular vote by way of an instant-runoff type voting system. This way the will of the people is respected AND we get rid of the "spoiler effect". Do that and we go a long way towards better government that reflects the will of the people and allows for new voices to emerge at the national level more easily.

Avatar image for willpayton
#4331 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

Now that Trump is directly implicated as having committed a crime by the Cohen sentencing memo, and the Mueller investigation is presumed to be coming to an end soon (with all that that implies), he's again turning up the rhetoric and lashing out.

Starting to look more and more like Nixon every day.

If that's the case, we can expect more flailing around and erratic actions from Trump as he realizes how screwed he is and tries to use his power to prevent the inevitable. And given how thrashed the GOP got in this last election... I have to wonder if they will want to go down with that ship, in the case that he starts to try to obstruct the investigation again. I still have no idea if there will actually be an impeachment... that being a political act, and not a legal one, but you have to say it becomes more likely every day.

Avatar image for mimisalome
#4332 Posted by mimisalome (5342 posts) - - Show Bio

@heroup2112 said:

That's what I'm saying. To open to the possibility of hacking, no paper trail, candidates accusation of fraud, the whole thing, just a horrible idea. Btw...it might need to be updated somehow but the Electoral College was instituted for a very good reason and is still better than a pure popular vote. Let's dance!

True that the EC was put into place for a reason, but I'd argue that 1) that reason is no longer valid, and 2) the way the EC is implemented these days actually subverts the original intent. For example, the EC was put in place specifically to prevent dangerous populist demagogues like Trump from taking power. If it was working as envisioned, the EC should have stepped in and not put Trump into power. I mean, the EC exists specifically because the founders didnt have full trust in the populace, and wanted a "backup plan", so to speak.

I'd propose a popular vote by way of an instant-runoff type voting system. This way the will of the people is respected AND we get rid of the "spoiler effect". Do that and we go a long way towards better government that reflects the will of the people and allows for new voices to emerge at the national level more easily.

Wait wouldn't the term populist apply more to Hillary?

Since as they said she won the popular vote?

Specially considering that she puts heavy emphasize on identity "us-against-them" politics where he painted those who are against her as chauvenist and sexist and misogyists.

And portrayed Trumps and his supporters as white supremacist racist, capitalist one percenters (essentially an elitist)

I agree that representation by State would be ill define by todays standards. (Though geographical representation is practical in determing collective local concerns ).

Representation based on social sectors would be more appropriate in my opinion (business people should be represented, worker should be represented, military, science and education community, youth, etc).

But that doesn't mean resorting to popular vote.

Otherwise, the interest of minorites would be undermine if a majority mob could decides what is good for the rest of the society.

Avatar image for willpayton
#4333 Posted by willpayton (22083 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@heroup2112 said:

That's what I'm saying. To open to the possibility of hacking, no paper trail, candidates accusation of fraud, the whole thing, just a horrible idea. Btw...it might need to be updated somehow but the Electoral College was instituted for a very good reason and is still better than a pure popular vote. Let's dance!

True that the EC was put into place for a reason, but I'd argue that 1) that reason is no longer valid, and 2) the way the EC is implemented these days actually subverts the original intent. For example, the EC was put in place specifically to prevent dangerous populist demagogues like Trump from taking power. If it was working as envisioned, the EC should have stepped in and not put Trump into power. I mean, the EC exists specifically because the founders didnt have full trust in the populace, and wanted a "backup plan", so to speak.

I'd propose a popular vote by way of an instant-runoff type voting system. This way the will of the people is respected AND we get rid of the "spoiler effect". Do that and we go a long way towards better government that reflects the will of the people and allows for new voices to emerge at the national level more easily.

Wait wouldn't the term populist apply more to Hillary?

Since as they said she won the popular vote?

No

Specially considering that she puts heavy emphasize on identity "us-against-them" politics where he painted those who are against her as chauvenist and sexist and misogyists.

And portrayed Trumps and his supporters as white supremacist racist, capitalist one percenters (essentially an elitist)

Again, no.

I agree that representation by State would be ill define by todays standards. (Though geographical representation is practical in determing collective local concerns ).

Representation based on social sectors would be more appropriate in my opinion (business people should be represented, worker should be represented, military, science and education community, youth, etc).

That makes no sense. People are not what "sector" you want to put them into. I am not a sector, I can be a business person, AND be in the military, AND be into science, AND many other things.

But that doesn't mean resorting to popular vote.

We wouldnt want to resort to democracy. That'd be crazy.

Otherwise, the interest of minorites would be undermine if a majority mob could decides what is good for the rest of the society.

Rule by a minority doesnt guarantee the interests of all minorities, or even most, in fact quite the opposite. It only guarantees the interests of ONE minority. And in the process it also subverts the interests of the majority. But if you dont get that, there's no point in arguing over it.

Avatar image for outside_85
#4334 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:
@heroup2112 said:

That's what I'm saying. To open to the possibility of hacking, no paper trail, candidates accusation of fraud, the whole thing, just a horrible idea. Btw...it might need to be updated somehow but the Electoral College was instituted for a very good reason and is still better than a pure popular vote. Let's dance!

True that the EC was put into place for a reason, but I'd argue that 1) that reason is no longer valid, and 2) the way the EC is implemented these days actually subverts the original intent. For example, the EC was put in place specifically to prevent dangerous populist demagogues like Trump from taking power. If it was working as envisioned, the EC should have stepped in and not put Trump into power. I mean, the EC exists specifically because the founders didnt have full trust in the populace, and wanted a "backup plan", so to speak.

I'd propose a popular vote by way of an instant-runoff type voting system. This way the will of the people is respected AND we get rid of the "spoiler effect". Do that and we go a long way towards better government that reflects the will of the people and allows for new voices to emerge at the national level more easily.

Wait wouldn't the term populist apply more to Hillary?

Since as they said she won the popular vote?

Thats no what a populist is. A populist is a politician who says things that are popular without nessessarily wanting to actually do anything about, or understand why things are that way. Like take the migrant caravan, FOX does a piece on it, and Trump is immediately promising to do something about it even when the caravan was still at the bottom end of Mexico. Another example is the various governments in Greece since the financial crisis who all started off as angry protestors who wanted to take the nation back from the EU and return to how things had used to be. This lasted right up to the point where they sat down with the EU and realized that if they didn't stick with it, the nation would go completely bankrupt in short order.

Specially considering that she puts heavy emphasize on identity "us-against-them" politics where he painted those who are against her as chauvenist and sexist and misogyists.

And portrayed Trumps and his supporters as white supremacist racist, capitalist one percenters (essentially an elitist)

Likely because they were, like it's not like Trump ever tried to hide he is all of those things, only thing different is that he boasts about it while others would have tried to hide it.

Trump is a billionare, he's surrounded by billionare friends, he's stocked his cabinet with more billionares and more than a few of his and the GOP's policies are quite more beneficial to people with lots of money compared to people with normal salaries.

Point is, Hillary was simply pointing things out that were obvious.

I agree that representation by State would be ill define by todays standards. (Though geographical representation is practical in determing collective local concerns ).

Representation based on social sectors would be more appropriate in my opinion (business people should be represented, worker should be represented, military, science and education community, youth, etc).

I have to agree with Will about the point of elections coming in two rounds, in round one you get all the candidates and you have the EC to essential weed out weak and undesirable candidates, and then you have a direct run-off afterwards featuring only the best candidates for the job which gets decided by direct voting.

I dont think representation based on sectors would work... because their importance to the country wavers up and down depending on what people higher up feel about it. Like science under the current administration might as well not show up at meetings, and army guy would be taking up half the seats because his budget dwarfs everyone elses.

But that doesn't mean resorting to popular vote.

Otherwise, the interest of minorites would be undermine if a majority mob could decides what is good for the rest of the society.

I have to say I find this view kinda baffling, because you are saying that the majority of voters are not supposed to be the guiding needle of the country, and instead they have to let a smaller minority run things because the majority might not agree with them? I'm kinda confused at this, because we are talking about the United States of America and not some Middle-Eastern kingdom or banana republic in Africa or South America? Because a lot of those have 'minority' leaders of one kind or the other who basically trample over the majority because 'they know best'... and the result is a very wealthy elite sitting on top of the land and a majority living in poverty.

Look, the way this is handled elsewhere, is that the minorities simply make allies with people that share their opinions on certain issues, if not with other minorities then with parts of a larger group that then promises the minority their concerns will be addressed. Like take Theresa May's Conservatives, after her disastrous snap election over Brexit, her party wasn't big enough to form a government on their own, so she had to strike a deal with a smaller party from Northern Ireland to provide the mandates in return for looking our for their interests.

Avatar image for mimisalome
#4335 Edited by mimisalome (5342 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton:

"No"

"Again, no"

Very detailed and in-depth explanation Will, I appreciate your hardwork and effort.

That makes no sense. People are not what "sector" you want to put them into. I am not a sector, I can be a business person, AND be in the military, AND be into science, AND many other things.

Who said that you can only vote and elect for one sector?

Will, you need to use some creativity and imagination.

There is already an administration model where a government could allow slots for sector-based representations (lets say more 50 slots besides the traditional district/State geographical-based representatives).

Voters could then fill these slots with whatever political, economic, or interest group parties they want to represent them. So they can have a party list group that represents women's rights, party list group that represent environmentalist, party list group that represents teachers interests, engineering, businesses, vegan, comicbook lovers, etc at most 50 parties if they want.... (or none at all if they are too lazy to write anything on the ballot)

We wouldnt want to resort to democracy. That'd be crazy.

Total Democracy is pretty idealistic, and such system will be bogged down by too much bureaucracy and red tape, this is why representative-system of government bridge the gap between a functional and practical governance and government where the general public could still act as the ruling class.

Much more popular vote is too susceptible to populism.

Just look at the many third world countries in asia and latin america run by popular strong man presidents.

Their presidential elections are all based on popular votes if you notice.

Rule by a minority doesnt guarantee the interests of all minorities, or even most, in fact quite the opposite. It only guarantees the interests of ONE minority. And in the process it also subverts the interests of the majority. But if you dont get that, there's no point in arguing over it.

I don't understand why you think I suggest "rule by minority"

What i proposed is rule via representation.

Representation where even the smallest sector of society had an equal say to the policies of the goverment

Avatar image for mimisalome
#4336 Posted by mimisalome (5342 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85:

I dont think representation based on sectors would work... because their importance to the country wavers up and down depending on what people higher up feel about it. Like science under the current administration might as well not show up at meetings, and army guy would be taking up half the seats because his budget dwarfs everyone elses.

Higher Ups?

Im pretty sure there is an equal co-administration bodies as defined by the separation of power.

Executory is not higher than the representative branch or the judiciary branch.

Also sectoral representative wouldn't remain irrelevant as long as they have the ability to create, proposed, and affect legistlations and government budgets.

I have to say I find this view kinda baffling, because you are saying that the majority of voters are not supposed to be the guiding needle of the country, and instead they have to let a smaller minority run things because the majority might not agree with them?

You are baffled because you are misrepresenting my statement.

I don't proposed "a smaller minority" to run things.

What i am proposing is giving the minorities an equal chance of representation in the government.

Popular vote would deny them that because any attempt of voting by the minorities will be buried by the overwhelming number of the majority.

Avatar image for he11b3rt
#4337 Posted by He11b3rt (3 posts) - - Show Bio

@just_sayin: by offering equality to other ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds isnt taking any rights away from you. Free speech is fine but their are exceptions where what you say may insight violence and hurt people which is why situations that involve "Free speech" should have accountability ...hate speech should have a very elaborate written policy so as to consider what is acceptable and what is not as to not infringe upon someone's right to express themselves. A perfect example of situations where speech or in this case, suggestive thought gone wrong is charles manson, "expressed" his views that convinced people to murder on his behalf, Hitler convinced a nation to commit genocide ...now granted this case didnt include all non jew germans but he had to have gained support from the people to get into the position he was to start the genocide of millions...so policies and boycotting a nation like Israel (and im referring to the citizens in general just supporters, citizens in favor of the current stance of the Israeli government)who is committing so many atrocities against Palestinian people is very problematic and to demand accountability for their actions is not anti semitic at all and to call it racist while i dont think you are i will give you the benefit of the doubt, kinda paints a perception about yourself that can be construed as you potentially being some kind of ethno/white nationalist. As for your core values subcultures comment, for you to say something like that again makes me feel you do not have a very well understanding of the the U.S. core values or again if it is not yoour intention to portray yourself in a nationalist like type your not doing a very good job. The U.S. core values are all the same all around but the culture depending on the regions has always been different just because you have a certain set of norms that you were raised under (or a better term to have used would have been sub values) doesnt mean thats how it was all around the U.S.. If this place was as awesome as most patriotic people would make it out to be, than our laws, our bill of rights would be a few pages long...everyone in this country gets discriminated upon and its pertinent and critical that everyone of all walks if life has a rule set in place so that they do not endure hardship and inequality as we once did from the Brittish. In fact if you really take the time to read most if these amendments created for women, people of color and lgbt community youll see they do not infringe on your rights in the manner how mainstream media makes it out to be in fact the requests are usually very reasonable...and in the end i havent found any kind of legislation in majority if these documents that presents anything problematic towards the first amendament other than things that would insight violence and oppression which even then its classified as a case to case basis so because you expressed your way in a manner that didnt insight anything violent and someone else did they would be held accountable. Some if these bills a oretty elaborate and complex and always being amended or refined so as to loosen the constraints without compromising the quality if their effectiveness ...at least the progressive people's philosophy would make that happen

Avatar image for he11b3rt
#4338 Posted by He11b3rt (3 posts) - - Show Bio

@saintwildcard: i think your reading to much into Trump supporter's excuse that he is as clever as they wanna make him out to be the guy clearly can barely read https://youtu.be/bd79UsXSLWg

Let alone sign a document lol

https://youtu.be/JKdpf0F0XBw

I doubt he even has a working understading of anything at all especially climate change other than what they tell him to say ..hes lime a parrot ...fox news reports a "fact" trump repeats it and when asked to elaborate he just babbles on and on about nothing...he friekan thought finland literally rakes all their forests and thats why our forest fires are increasing at an alarming rate theirs are not...not climate change lol

Avatar image for outside_85
#4339 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85:

I dont think representation based on sectors would work... because their importance to the country wavers up and down depending on what people higher up feel about it. Like science under the current administration might as well not show up at meetings, and army guy would be taking up half the seats because his budget dwarfs everyone elses.

1) Higher Ups?

Im pretty sure there is an equal co-administration bodies as defined by the separation of power.

Executory is not higher than the representative branch or the judiciary branch.

Also sectoral representative wouldn't remain irrelevant as long as they have the ability to create, proposed, and affect legistlations and government budgets.

I have to say I find this view kinda baffling, because you are saying that the majority of voters are not supposed to be the guiding needle of the country, and instead they have to let a smaller minority run things because the majority might not agree with them?

2) You are baffled because you are misrepresenting my statement.

I don't proposed "a smaller minority" to run things.

What i am proposing is giving the minorities an equal chance of representation in the government.

Popular vote would deny them that because any attempt of voting by the minorities will be buried by the overwhelming number of the majority.

1) Higher ups as in the president and his or her administration? Or were you suggesting they were abolished?

2) Let me just point out you are not giving anyone an 'equal chance' by inflating the significance of minority voters or by weakening those of the majority. But if your concern is that these special minorities wont be represented at all, simply reserve a set amount of seats for them that they can decide for themselves who among them gets, while everyone else fight it out for the remaining seats as normal.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#4340 Edited by mrmonster (15572 posts) - - Show Bio

@willpayton said:

Now that Trump is directly implicated as having committed a crime by the Cohen sentencing memo, and the Mueller investigation is presumed to be coming to an end soon (with all that that implies), he's again turning up the rhetoric and lashing out.

Starting to look more and more like Nixon every day.

If that's the case, we can expect more flailing around and erratic actions from Trump as he realizes how screwed he is and tries to use his power to prevent the inevitable. And given how thrashed the GOP got in this last election... I have to wonder if they will want to go down with that ship, in the case that he starts to try to obstruct the investigation again. I still have no idea if there will actually be an impeachment... that being a political act, and not a legal one, but you have to say it becomes more likely every day.

My only question is how his base will rationalize it. At first it was "There was no collusion"; then it was "Collusion is not a crime"; now it's "So what if it was a crime, a sitting president can't be indicted" (note: yes he can). I wonder what it'll be next.

And that's just the Russia stuff; that's not even counting the felony level campaign finance violations.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4341 Posted by decaf_wizard (17006 posts) - - Show Bio
Avatar image for outside_85
#4342 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

So it turns out your chance of getting into med school depends on race.

Asian: 20% if you score par

White: 29% if you score par

Hispanic: 60% if you score par

Black: 80% if you score par

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

But no clearly affirmative action isn't a problem guys

The obvious question would be to ask how many of these different groups apply? Because it's fine to get upset over the 80% black compared to a 29% white score... but it's a non-problem if there is only 10 black applicants and 600 whites.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#4343 Posted by just_sayin (3466 posts) - - Show Bio

@he11b3rt said:

@just_sayin: by offering equality to other ethnic backgrounds, religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds isnt taking any rights away from you.

Agreed. When liberals demand that a Christian baker must be forced engage in labor against his will to provide a cake for the celebration of a religious event, a wedding, that is morally wrong and taking away his right to determine what labor he wishes to engage in. No one has a right to my labor. I'm no one's slave and neither are you. Liberals feel they have the right to compel someone to violate his religious beliefs and force him to engage in labor he does not want to do.

Free speech is fine but their are exceptions where what you say may insight violence and hurt people which is why situations that involve "Free speech" should have accountability ...hate speech should have a very elaborate written policy so as to consider what is acceptable and what is not as to not infringe upon someone's right to express themselves. A perfect example of situations where speech or in this case, suggestive thought gone wrong is charles manson, "expressed" his views that convinced people to murder on his behalf, Hitler convinced a nation to commit genocide ...now granted this case didnt include all non jew germans but he had to have gained support from the people to get into the position he was to start the genocide of millions...

Unfortunately to many on the left "hate speech" is anything they don't agree with. Short of someone ordering someone to kill someone or physical harm to them, I believe we must tolerate speech we don't agree with.

so policies and boycotting a nation like Israel (and im referring to the citizens in general just supporters, citizens in favor of the current stance of the Israeli government)who is committing so many atrocities against Palestinian people is very problematic and to demand accountability for their actions is not anti semitic at all and to call it racist while i dont think you are i will give you the benefit of the doubt, kinda paints a perception about yourself that can be construed as you potentially being some kind of ethno/white nationalist.

I can understand that you find the actions of the Israeli government objectionable. However, I don't believe the BDS movement is anything but an expression of Antisemitism. If you don't agree, then explain this to me - with all of the atrocities committed by countries all over the world, why is the only nation that the BDS movement asks people to divest from is the Jew nation? Israel doesn't permit slavery like some countries do. Does the BDS movement target any of the nations that sell children into slavery, or is it just the Jew nation? (Hint - its just the Jews). According to BDS supporters its OK to buy from countries that use slave labor.

Israel is tolerant of different lifestyles. Does the BDS movement target any of the nations that kill people for being gay, or is it just the Jew country? (Hint: its just those Jews). Buying from countries that will kill someone for just being gay is OK, just don't buy Jew.

In Israel, Palestinians can run in elections, and several have been elected. Does the BDS movement target any of the countries around the world that kill or imprison political opponents, or is it just the Jew one that they target? (Hint: its only the Jews).

In Israel women can work, drive and have recognized rights. Does the BDS movement target any of the countries around the world that deny women equal rights, or is it just the only country ruled by Jewish people that's targeted? (Hint: they target the one of a kind Jew nation). It seems odd that BDS supporters couldn't find anything bad enough in any other country in the whole world to divest from. But it can find plenty of bad in the Jew country to encourage others to divest from it.

Why would saying it is wrong to support Antisemitic policies be associated with "ethno/white nationalism"? I am not following you.

In fact if you really take the time to read most if these amendments created for women, people of color and lgbt community youll see they do not infringe on your rights

Reverse discrimination laws discriminate against someone's ethnicity. That's racism. Even the argument that that kind of racism is good and needed is wrong. It is always wrong to discriminate on the basis of someone's ethnicity. Are there past injustices. Sure. But racism is not the answer to past racism. If it was wrong then, it is wrong now. To suggest that it is "just" to discriminate against a poor Appalachian student when he applies for college because he is white - is a racist position. You are rationalizing hate. "Diversity" admission policies that discriminate against white people and Asians do create "victims". It prohibits them from entering schools, that if they were another race, they would have been permitted to attend. You may not like to think of it as racism, but it sure as hell is. The same applies to reverse discrimination policies in employment hiring, grants, and in government set asides where you are penalized and in some instances not even allowed to apply for the opportunity if you are the wrong ethnicity.

Avatar image for decaf_wizard
#4344 Edited by decaf_wizard (17006 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:

So it turns out your chance of getting into med school depends on race.

Asian: 20% if you score par

White: 29% if you score par

Hispanic: 60% if you score par

Black: 80% if you score par

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

But no clearly affirmative action isn't a problem guys

The obvious question would be to ask how many of these different groups apply? Because it's fine to get upset over the 80% black compared to a 29% white score... but it's a non-problem if there is only 10 black applicants and 600 whites.

Those stats strictly deal with your chances of getting in based on scoring par based on race on an individual basis. And these are the top medical schools in the US. To quote

For those applicants to US medical schools last year with average GPAs (3.40 to 3.59) and average MCAT scores (27 to 29), black applicants were almost 4 times more likely to be admitted to medical school than Asians in that applicant pool(81.2% vs. 20.6%), and 2.8 times more likely than white applicants (81.2% vs. 29.0%). Likewise, Hispanic applicants to medical school with average GPAs and MCAT scores were more than twice as likely as whites in that applicant pool to be admitted to medical school (59.5% vs. 29.0%), and nearly three times more likely than Asians (59.5% vs. 20.6%). Overall, black (81.2%) and Hispanic (59.5%) applicants with average GPAs and average MCAT scores were accepted to US medical schools for the 2015-2016 academic year at rates (81.2% and 59.5% respectively) much higher than the 30.6% average acceptance rate for all students in that applicant pool

Avatar image for outside_85
#4345 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:

So it turns out your chance of getting into med school depends on race.

Asian: 20% if you score par

White: 29% if you score par

Hispanic: 60% if you score par

Black: 80% if you score par

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

But no clearly affirmative action isn't a problem guys

The obvious question would be to ask how many of these different groups apply? Because it's fine to get upset over the 80% black compared to a 29% white score... but it's a non-problem if there is only 10 black applicants and 600 whites.

Those stats strictly deal with your chances of getting in based on scoring par based on race on an individual basis. And these are the top medical schools in the US

And a % figure is meaningless when you dont know the size of the pool of applicants.

Avatar image for just_sayin
#4346 Edited by just_sayin (3466 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:
@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:

So it turns out your chance of getting into med school depends on race.

Asian: 20% if you score par

White: 29% if you score par

Hispanic: 60% if you score par

Black: 80% if you score par

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

But no clearly affirmative action isn't a problem guys

The obvious question would be to ask how many of these different groups apply? Because it's fine to get upset over the 80% black compared to a 29% white score... but it's a non-problem if there is only 10 black applicants and 600 whites.

Those stats strictly deal with your chances of getting in based on scoring par based on race on an individual basis. And these are the top medical schools in the US

And a % figure is meaningless when you dont know the size of the pool of applicants.

No not really. The article deals with all medical schools enrollments in Michigan as cited by AAMC records. Unless you are arguing that there is only two black doctors in the state, the observation that there is discrimination in admissions is valid.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#4347 Posted by mrmonster (15572 posts) - - Show Bio

A reminder that Presidential scandals once looked like this.

Loading Video...

Now they look like this.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for outside_85
#4348 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:
@outside_85 said:
@decaf_wizard said:

So it turns out your chance of getting into med school depends on race.

Asian: 20% if you score par

White: 29% if you score par

Hispanic: 60% if you score par

Black: 80% if you score par

http://www.aei.org/publication/acceptance-rates-at-us-medical-schools-in-2015-reveal-ongoing-discrimination-against-asian-americans-and-whites/

But no clearly affirmative action isn't a problem guys

The obvious question would be to ask how many of these different groups apply? Because it's fine to get upset over the 80% black compared to a 29% white score... but it's a non-problem if there is only 10 black applicants and 600 whites.

Those stats strictly deal with your chances of getting in based on scoring par based on race on an individual basis. And these are the top medical schools in the US

And a % figure is meaningless when you dont know the size of the pool of applicants.

No not really. The article deals with all medical schools enrollments in Michigan as cited by AAMC records. Unless you are arguing that there is only two black doctors in the state, the observation that there is discrimination in admissions is valid.

How big is the pool then? How many black applicants were there? Give us some hard numbers. Because like I said, 80% is not showing us anything if a black applicant is actually a rarity.

Avatar image for outside_85
#4349 Posted by Outside_85 (23518 posts) - - Show Bio

A reminder that Presidential scandals once looked like this.

Loading Video...

Now they look like this.

Loading Video...

Ahh, remember the days when the worst thing the President could do was salute with a latte or wear a tan suit at a press briefing? Anyone miss those times? Because I do.

Avatar image for mrmonster
#4350 Posted by mrmonster (15572 posts) - - Show Bio

@mrmonster said:

A reminder that Presidential scandals once looked like this.

Loading Video...

Now they look like this.

Loading Video...

Ahh, remember the days when the worst thing the President could do was salute with a latte or wear a tan suit at a press briefing? Anyone miss those times? Because I do.

Believe me, I do to. I long for the days back when we didn't have to seriously consider if our president was a felon.