Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,367 Year: 4,624/9,624 Month: 399/1,096 Week: 104/119 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House The Trump Presidency

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 13 of 4573 (796854)
01-05-2017 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
01-04-2017 10:04 PM


quick counterpoint
Faith writes:
First it was how they hacked our voting machines, which happens to have been an impossibility.
Faith writes:
Anyway here's some evidence from voter fraud expert Bev Harris. Mostly it's about how the votes are easy to manipulate
Message 454
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 01-04-2017 10:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 01-05-2017 2:18 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 33 of 4573 (796915)
01-07-2017 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by jar
01-06-2017 10:27 AM


Re: The Trump Wall
. And even when the river is on a border there are often boat ramps that also have direct access to the interior of the US over things called roads.
I also heard about some bright young men who have recently developed a 'flying machine'.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by jar, posted 01-06-2017 10:27 AM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 120 of 4573 (797340)
01-17-2017 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by ramoss
01-17-2017 3:13 PM


Re: Trump Promises Health Care for All
It's vapor ware, for now. Trump I suspect will talk a great deal, won't deliver, and hopefully won't ruin things too much.
He's not the legislature, so he doesn't need to deliver anything but a signature. He could opt to opine to, strong arm or otherwise persuade the legislature to deliver something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ramoss, posted 01-17-2017 3:13 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 279 of 4573 (798650)
02-04-2017 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by marc9000
02-04-2017 9:31 AM


Castro
I don't think you'll find anything on the net that indicates Trump admires anything about the way Putin treats his people.
quote:
He does have an 82% approval rating
quote:
{Putin has} great control over his country
quote:
It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond
quote:
Look at Putin -- what he's doing with Russia -- I mean, you know, what's going on over there. I mean this guy has done -- whether you like him or don't like him -- he's doing a great job in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia period,
quote:
Putin has big plans for Russia. He wants to edge out its neighbors so that Russia can dominate oil supplies to all of Europe...I respect Putin and Russians but cannot believe our leader (Obama) allows them to get away with so much...Hats off to the Russians
quote:
I think our country does plenty of killing also {defending Putin's killings of journalists and political opponents
quote:
I will tell you, in terms of leadership, he's getting an A
quote:
. If he says great things about me, I'm going to say great things about him. I've already said, he is really very much of a leader. I mean, you can say, 'Oh, isn't that a terrible thing' -- the man has very strong control over a country.
So he certainly has admiration for Putin, yes?
Sanders admired Castro for the way he treated his people, the way he governed his society.
He actually said
quote:
In 1961, [America] invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world {that} all the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society. You know, not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect — they are certainly not — but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say the people in these nations feel the same.
So they expected this tremendous uprising in Cuba, it never came. And if they are expecting a tremendous uprising in Nicaragua they are very very mistaken
So the point of is comments is clear - he was saying that a civil uprising / coup / revolution doesn't happen because America doesn't like leaders but because the people don't like their leaders. Since Castro was doing things that kept the people placated such as feeding them and providing education and healthcare the Bay of Pigs action was doomed.
As for Nicaragua, Bernie was right. The people didn't do a tremendous uprising. Reagan knew it too presumably which is why he funded a terrorist group to try and achieve those ends. In the end it was a political coalition that won an election, not a revolution, that overthrew the Sandinistas - in part due to people fearing the US funded terrorists continuing to engage in actions that were killing tens of thousands of people if the Sandinistas stayed in power.
Context. Both Trump and Sanders have it at their disposal. Trump is praising Putin for his strong leadership and internal approval while disagreeing with some of his actions, Sanders is acknowledging Castro improved life for the common people and suggesting this would inhibit a revolution against him by sufficiently giving him internal approval while acknowledging Castro was not perfect and held power undemocratically.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by marc9000, posted 02-04-2017 9:31 AM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by marc9000, posted 02-05-2017 1:49 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 287 by marc9000, posted 02-05-2017 1:52 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 288 of 4573 (798786)
02-05-2017 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by marc9000
02-05-2017 1:49 PM


Re: Castro
He has admiration for him as a leader
Yes, that's what I said:
quote:
Trump is praising Putin for his strong leadership
Sanders' praise of Castro wasn't the same, he praised him for the actions he took
He said his own people were disinclined to rebel because he had placated them.
Sanders saying that Castro wasn't perfect with no specificity, isn't much of a statement, nobody's perfect.
He was talking about the probability of revolution in Nicaragua, based on the reasons for the failure to incite one in Cuba. His point was that the idea the people would rise up because Americans thought Castro was evil was deluded on the grounds that the Cubans thought of him more as the lesser possible evil (better the devil you know).
Trying to spin it otherwise is hardly honest, is it?
showed a longing for Castro's power and action.
No it didn't. It showed he thought that providing food, education and healthcare was a disincentive for a popular uprising. Quite rightly.
Trump neither desires or needs any of Putin's ideas
Well crony capitalism is hardly Putin's idea, but its part of his and Trump's MO.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by marc9000, posted 02-05-2017 1:49 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by marc9000, posted 02-05-2017 3:07 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 292 of 4573 (798809)
02-05-2017 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by marc9000
02-05-2017 3:07 PM


Re: Castro
Haha, that does go both ways.
Yes, I said this already:
quote:
Context. Both Trump and Sanders have it at their disposal.
Maybe a revolution didn't happen because Cubans weren't allowed to have guns.
Doubtful. Since this is in fact not true. Castro armed his workers in preparation for US attacks creating a large militia. If anything, the Bay of Pigs was even more doomed on the grounds there was a large citizen militia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by marc9000, posted 02-05-2017 3:07 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by marc9000, posted 02-05-2017 4:07 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 295 of 4573 (798819)
02-05-2017 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by marc9000
02-05-2017 4:07 PM


Re: Castro
His workers, but not the general public.
Since most people worked, they constituted the majority of people in Cuba - and thus the general public.
This isn't really the thread to continue this discussion - the point remains that Sanders wasn't praising Castro, he was saying that the Nicaraguan people were unlikely to engage in the predicted popular uprising much like the predicted popular uprising of Cuba where Castro had initiated universal healthcare, universal education and reduced unemployment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by marc9000, posted 02-05-2017 4:07 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(5)
Message 443 of 4573 (800090)
02-19-2017 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by marc9000
02-19-2017 8:42 PM


Re: Reaction to the Trump Press Conference
The New York Times institutionally refuses to condemn Duranty
This is not true. Not only did they run an editorial describing it as some of the worst reporting in the NYT, but they also hired a historian to write a piece to justify revoking the Pullitzer prize - which they sent to the Pullitzer people. The Chairman and Publisher has publicly condemned the work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by marc9000, posted 02-19-2017 8:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 622 of 4573 (803016)
03-22-2017 6:47 PM


Trump vs Trump
quote:
I am the only person on that stage who said we should not go into Iraq
Are you for invading Iraq?
A: Yeah, I guess so
quote:
I'm very pro life
I'm very pro choice...I am pro choice in every respect
quote:
She has no natural talent to be President
She's very talented and she has a husband I also like very much
quote:
Hilary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of the United States
Hilary Clinton? How did she do as Secretary of State? Probably above and beyond everybody else
quote:
This guy used a filthy disgusting word on television and he should be ashamed of himself
I'm going to bomb the shit out of them
We'll beat the shit out of them
Political Bullshit!
You're not going to raise that fucking price
quote:
He said I was in favour of Libya? I never discussed that subject...we would be so much better of if Gaddafi were in charge
Gaddafi, in Libya, is killing thousands of people...we should stop this guy...and save these lives
quote:
They're here illegally...they have to go back
We have to show some compassion - we just can't throw everybody out. How do you throw somebody out that's lived in the country for twenty years?
quote:
I'm a Conservative person
The Republican Party is too crazy right. What's going is just nuts
In many cases I probably identify more as a Democrat...the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans
quote:
I don't know anything about David Duke okay?
What do you see as the biggest problem with the Reform Party right now?
Well you've got David Duke just joined. A bigot, a racist, a problem

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 1151 of 4573 (818104)
08-23-2017 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1150 by New Cat's Eye
08-23-2017 12:22 PM


Re: very fine people on both sides!?
Your side is prejudging individuals on an unverified perception of being members of a group and that is wrong. If we can't agree on that first, then there isn't much I can say about Charlottesville that wouldn't just be repeating obvious truths - and I'd rather debate than circlejerk.
Well if Black Lives Matter leaders organise a Black Lives Matter march and the crowd that gathers chants Black Lives Matter slogans, carries Black Lives Matter banners at a site where a Black person lost their life through police action - it seems reasonable to infer that as a general rule, anybody marching is likely to agree with the core points of the BLM movement.
I think the same applies when White Supremacist leaders organise a right-wing protest, chant white supremacist slogans and carry white supremacist flags...
Would you agree with this principle?
Obviously it is possible for some people in a march to disagree with those marching - but these would be an anomaly.
The sentiment from your side is still that if I'm not talking about FUCKING NAZIS then I cannot be talking about anyone that protested the statue removal at Charlottesville - I can't agree to that.
Yes, all of the white supremacists are stupid assholes that we should all oppose and tell to fuck off. I'm just not willing to assume that every single person who wanted to protest the removal of the statue was a white supremacists.
But this wasn't just a protest regarding the removal of a statue. It was a white supremacist protest that used the removal of a statue as a rallying call. There may be people who mistakenly joined thinking it was about the removal of a statue -- but look at the videos. Charlottesville's population is 20% black and 5% Asian. How many non-white faces do you see Marching with the protestors? I see a few, but for the most part they seem to be at the edges - so its difficult to say if they are marching with or just watching.
Charlottesville wasn't a general protest that White Supremacists turned up at. It was a White Supremacist march that maybe some non-white-supremacists turned up to. Such people could see the symbols they were marching with, hear the people they marching with. I don't know about you, but I would have stopped marching even if I agreed with the statue thing because I'd have figured out this wasn't about 'uniting the right' or 'preserving history' but about 'far right solidarity / defiance' and would have distanced myself from it.
Anyone who didn't risks getting lumped in with the far right - and they have just as much responsibility as those that lump them with the far right. Just as someone who marches with BLM might be lumped as a BLM supporter even if there was another theme they were protesting and they disagree with BLM.
It may be 'not technically accurate' to say every individual there agrees with far right views - but by marching with them, they were still supporting a far right march, the far right agenda.
Considering this grouping, though, I have a question: What, exactly, is a "white nationalist"? Like, if there is a white guy, and he loves his country, does that make him a white nationalist? 'Cause that isn't a big deal, why would they be being lumped in as well?
There is sometimes a fine line between nationalism, far-right white nationalism, jingoism and patriotism. It depends on the context.
If the country's independence is threatened, or it is a puppet state of an Empire then nationalism may be a perfectly understandable independence movement. The Scottish Nationalists for instance tend towards the idea of an independent Scotland.
However, in an independent country, such nationalism doesn't make sense. To be counted as a nationalist in this context, you have to be beyond normal 'patriotism' - to the point of xenophobia, racism, and well...into the far-right end of the spectrum basically.
I can't believe that it has to be said that prejudice is wrong.
Also, I never said that the people that I am unwilling to assume are bad are actually good guys - I'm just not prejudging them at all.
Sure - but if environmentalists organise a protest regarding the building of a pipeline or a highway and you turn up to that particular protest because you think the pipeline should be replaced by an oil catapult, or the highway isn't going to be wide enough - you're probably undermining your own position and its reasonable for people to count you amongst the 'environmentalists' when pointing at the crowd.
Prejudging people may be bad, but effective communication sometimes means grouping individuals even as we understand opinions can be nuanced.
quote:
If you have 10 people and 1 nazi shows up, you do not, actually, have 11 nazis.
If you have 10 nazis and 1 non-nazi standing together in solidarity - it is reasonable to conclude that over there are about a dozen nazis. It's something we all do - including you. For example:
quote:
The counter protesters lumped everyone into one group and called for violence against them all. They should be ashamed of themselves.
From Message 1114.
ALL the counter protesters ALL lumped everyone into one group and they ALL called for violence against ALL the Unite the Right? That is clearly not true, right? That counter-protester in the wheel chair who was surrounded by torch wielding Unite The Right crying for 'Victory' and loudly cooperating to block off escape routes while she tried to find a way out of the situation was calling for violence? Clearly not. But if you want to argue that 'as a group' the counter-protesters called for violence you might have some grounds for the argument. I'd still think you were wrong, but not as wrong as you are. And those that stand with those calling for violence are de facto supporting the calls for violence just as much as those standing with Nazis are de facto Nazi supporters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-23-2017 12:22 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1339 of 4573 (821796)
10-12-2017 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1338 by Taq
10-12-2017 5:19 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Land doesn't vote. People do.
The President is elected by the States, however - not the people.
Since then, laws in some states require the elector to vote the same as the people, so that has lost some bite over the years.
Only a little though, in the ideal world such things are dreamed up. After all, if such an elector were to vote against the people of their State, it'd still count. They'd only be breaking State law. Seems like a price worth paying to deny Napoleon or Hitler or whatever. Ideal world full of ideal people, of course.
I just took a look at the 2012 Presidential election results, and Obama won by 5 million in the popular vote and 332 to 206 in the Electoral College. Hillary won by 3 million votes, and lost the Electoral College. That seems pretty screwed up.
Only if the People pick the President, but they don't. The States pick the President {via the electors}, the People pick the legislature. The latter being more important but for some reason grossly overlooked.
You could change it, of course. But that would require picking the right legislature.
For fun this is the most unfair it could be:
Wyoming
DC
Vermont
North Dakota
Alaska
South Dakota
Delaware
Montana
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Maine
Hawaii
Idaho
Nebraska
West Virginia
New Mexico
Nevada
Utah
Kansas
Arkansas
Mississippi
Iowa
Connecticut
Oklahoma
Oregon
Kentucky
Louisiana
South Carolina
Alabama
Colorado
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Maryland
Missouri
Tennessee
Arizona
Indiana
Massachusetts
Virginia
New Jersey.
Win those and those alone and you have 20-25% or so of the popular vote. That's about 20-30 million vs 90-100 million votes. So you lose by about 70 million votes. But you have enough electoral votes to win the Presidency.
Losing by the popular vote has occurred about 7% of the time - it's part of the system.
So the questions are - should the Presidency be decided by the States, and how should the electors be divided if so. If not and it goes to popular vote - the problem of spoilers still exists so the question should be - shouldn't there be transferable votes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1338 by Taq, posted 10-12-2017 5:19 PM Taq has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1357 of 4573 (821971)
10-16-2017 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1355 by Percy
10-14-2017 2:42 PM


Re: Democrats need to stop blaming others for their loss.
If that's the reason Clinton lost, that she's responsible for the fact that too many voters, in effect, threw a tantrum, picked up their votes and went home, then I think we have to blame the voters.
Well that's one way of looking at it. But Clinton was not entitled to those votes. She had to earn them - even if she could rely on most Democrats voting for her. The voters voted the way felt they should. The politician's job is to persuade people that they should vote for them. If they can't do this, they're out of the job.
We could also blame the system, looking at it another way. The idea that people vote for the presidential candidate the way they do {one vote, winner takes all simple majority style} is fraught with possible problems.
Had they polled their party for who would people vote for if they stood they might have got a different picture in this election - you can vote 'yes' for as many candidates as you like. for example - if there were a million voters in the primaries:
700,000 say they would vote for Clinton
but
900,000 say they would vote for Sanders
vs
600,000 have Clinton as their preferred Candidate
vs
400,000 have Sanders as their preferred Candidate.
Or, by having a transferable vote - allow Clinton and Sanders to both run for President and have the actual election decide who is the nationwide preferred candidate.
This is obvious to everyone. How many Sanders supporters who didn't vote for Clinton do you think are now saying, "Yep, Trump's president now, and I'm happy with that, because I sure taught Clinton a lesson!"
Even knowing the present outcome, I likely would not have voted Clinton. I reserve my votes for candidates that I want to win, not the lesser of the two evils most likely to win. I take responsibility for the actions of the candidates I vote for - and I would not be happy to take responsibility for Clinton.
The end result is that Trump got 57% of the vote.
So if he makes it 4 years and elects to run a second time, the Democrats had better field a candidate that appeals to more people than their last effort.
If Trump getting 57% of the vote, while another candidate was preferred by more citizens - I can only suggest you kick up a fuss and hope to make Presidential electoral reform a key factor in the legislature elections.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1355 by Percy, posted 10-14-2017 2:42 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1358 by xongsmith, posted 10-16-2017 5:53 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 1359 by Percy, posted 10-16-2017 6:17 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 1369 by Taq, posted 10-17-2017 6:50 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1360 of 4573 (821978)
10-16-2017 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1359 by Percy
10-16-2017 6:17 PM


the blame
This was not the right election for a protest vote.
I disagree. It was a prime election for a protest. A disagreeable 'lesser evil' candidate and a 'it would be awful if this person won' candidate. The perfect time to lodge a protest vote against the Democrats for putting forward candidates that one votes for merely to avoid the other person getting in.
Clinton earned Democratic votes by winning the Democratic primaries.
Nope. She earned the nomination by winning the Democratic primaries. She did not earn the votes of all Democrats by doing this.
There must be extremely few, if any, Sanders or Stein voters (or vote withholders) out there who are satisfied with the result that Trump is president.
And likewise, there must very few Clinton voters who are satisfied with that outcome. Maybe next time, instead of getting being the candidate they prefer they will try and find a candidate that has a better chance of winning the current election. Probably not, but now the cost is not just a theoretical one so if they don't do better they'll have to feel the pain again until they do learn the lesson - if they ever do.
They might have "voted the way they felt", but they got a result opposite to what they intended.
It depends on what result they intended. If they intended to not vote for someone they don't like. They got the result they intended. Not everybody votes with the intention of keeping 'that guy' out.
If your vote contributes to a result opposite (Trump elected) to the one you intended (Clinton elected but clearly seeing the tally of a large number of protest votes), that's a pretty strong indication that you miscast your vote.
My reading of the situation, and my feeling if I was in the electorate is that I did not intend for Clinton to become President. Otherwise, I'd have voted for her. I'm not voting for a third party (or declining to vote) to send a message to the Democrats who I hope to win. I'm hoping the Democrats losing sends a message to the Democrats.
The Democrats losing then, is stage 1 of what I intend (though it would be a bonus if somehow the third party I voted for won!). Whether the message gets through, remains to be seen.
Yeah, I'm familiar with the ideas for alternative systems of voting, but the odds of any of them being adopted in my lifetime are nil, so it isn't a topic that interests me.
That's fine - but one can still lay blame at the feet of the system in any case - whether you anticipate it being changed and whether arguing for it to change interests you.
Well, purists always have their reasons, but when the barbarians are at the gates, one doesn't refuse to fight because one wanted a different general, not if one doesn't want to be quite correctly blamed if a barbarian victory results.
Nobody is suggesting not fighting the Barbarians. One is suggesting we try to fight the Barbarians in the long term by sacrificing short term goals if winning those short term goals push us closer and closer to becoming the Barbarians.
Trump received 57% of the electoral vote and 46.1% of the popular vote.
Only former actually matters. If you think differently, you are talking about electoral reform. I'm all for that, but it matters not a jot when it comes to decisions about prior elections.
First, you just finished emphasizing the electoral college vote while ignoring the popular vote, but here you properly put it in terms of appealing to "more people" not "more electors," (of course the latter isn't possible in any planned way).
The electors decisions are very rarely based on appeal. They are also not based on popular votes across the nation.
You have to appeal to the people more widely than your opponent to win more of the electors votes.
In the 2016 election Clinton appealed to nearly three million more people than Trump.
Which was not sufficient. So as I said, the Democrats will have to field a candidate that has more appeal. I'd suggest they start by finding one that doesn't have people who agree generally with the party refusing to vote for the Democratic party's chosen candidate.
It isn't that Clinton didn't appeal to enough people, it's the way their votes mapped onto the electoral college that caused the loss.
If she appealed to more people, or more accurately, had she not turned as many people off as she did - it would have overcome this.
And running against charismatic populists is fraught with peril, as the Italians discovered repeatedly with Silvio Berlisconi, and as the Austrians just discovered with Sebastian Kurz, though maybe not so much charisma for Mr. Kurz.
Yes, it is. Maybe there are lessons to be learned...
And second, this just repeats Stile's position using different language, that Clinton wasn't "good enough," and that that's the lesson of the Democrat's 2016 loss. As I've argued at length in messages upthread, that's the wrong lesson.
It's your funeral. To solve your problems as you see them, you need electoral reform.
To solve the problems as I see them you need electoral reform, and a candidate which more Democrats will vote for in the Presidential election rather than the first preferred candidate. If your first preferred candidate would get less votes than the second preferred candidate in the Presidential Election - you should be nominating the second preferred candidate. They might be less people's number one choice - but the people who put them at number two will still vote for them which is not true for the preferred candidate -- thus you get more votes in the main election.
So we both agree - electoral reform. In yours, it's a case of replacing the electoral college with a popular vote. A difficult path requiring agreement all over the legislative houses as well as the President.
Mine requires changing Party nomination procedures - the Primaries. Something they do every year in some way anyway. Instead of one person, one vote - you can vote once for as many candidates as you like. The aim being to vote for all the candidates you would, if nominated, vote for in the Presidential election.
I'm not getting involved in a strange argument about being 'good enough' - I'm pointing out that if you want to win elections, picking the person who wins the most votes in Democratic primaries as it is currently structured is sub-optimal.
It's not Clinton's fault for losing per se - ultimately it's the voting system of the Democratic Party's fault for picking Clinton. This is not a rewording of Stile's argument.
I would be surprised if the Democrats had no potential candidate that could not defeat Trump in a categorical manner - regardless of statistical noise. Maybe, if statistical noise had tipped another way Clinton could have won - but she sat right there in that fuzzy area where traffic jams, weather, local news about her chances of success could have a real impact depending on how they went. So yes, likely there was a better Candidate out there - if there wasn't - then instead of the nomination system, it's the Democratic Party as a whole that is to blame.
Unless we think Trump was simply an unbeatable political behemoth. At that point - it starts to really look bad for the voters. and given the numbers - the Trump voters are the only ones to blame, not the protesters.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1359 by Percy, posted 10-16-2017 6:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1362 by Percy, posted 10-17-2017 8:46 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1361 of 4573 (821980)
10-16-2017 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1358 by xongsmith
10-16-2017 5:53 PM


Re: Democrats need to stop blaming others for their loss.
excuse me...didn't you mean Electoral College votes?
Those *are* the votes. They are the only ones that matter. The States pick the President via the electoral college votes. How those electoral college votes are decided is up to the State. Trump won the most votes. He won 57% of them. Since there is only one election and one set of votes that picks the POTUS it seems redundant to say which votes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1358 by xongsmith, posted 10-16-2017 5:53 PM xongsmith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 1368 of 4573 (822018)
10-17-2017 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1362 by Percy
10-17-2017 8:46 AM


Re: the blame
. I wouldn't ask you to go off and read a research paper or a website or a thread at some other forum or another thread at this forum or even this entire thread, but it does seem reasonable to request that you read the messages I just finished posting to Stile in just the past week.
I read them. Maybe not all of them, there was a fair amount of bickering about things in a metadebate type fashion but I tried to follow the argument.
"Now I know that your response to Stile when he raised this very same objection was such and so...", and then continue on from there. But you seem to want me to repeat with you the very same discussion I just had with Stile.
I'd actually rather you didn't. But this is a political discussion, so there is going to be a fair amount of opinion expressed here - so I'm not going to not profer my opinion just because someone else has given similar opinions and you've disagreed with it.
The main gist of the counter argument to this I've seen from you is 'But Trump is awful' and 'the result is counter to short term interests' kind of thing - which is already built into my response.
You're as remarkably blas about Trump as Stile. The international community, including the UK, understands the disaster that is Trump.
I'm not blas. Trump is a disaster. I'm not sure why you'd think I'd think otherwise, but let me correct any misapprehension in this regard explicitly here.
It remains a mystery why you and Stile think think four years of Trump is a reasonable tradeoff to get the message to the Democrats that Clinton wasn't a good enough candidate. It's not true and not the right message.
Which is why I expanded on my views - to help clarify any points which were mysterious.
Well if you want to be that way about it then in that case nominations earn no votes.
Yes, that's what I am saying.
The reality is that both parties run multiple candidates through the primaries, but once one is nominated the parties get behind their respective candidates.
The Party can do what it likes - and this is certainly a pragmatic choice for the careers of those involved. But that lays no obligation on the voters who are not obliged to vote for a Democrat President just because the Democrats nominated a person.
There were at least 12 Republican candidates in the primaries. There is a far clearer message for supporters of the losing Republican candidates to send to the Republican party by withholding their vote for Trump, that they were not going to stand for loathsome,, misogynistic, lying, ignorant, megalomaniacal, egotistical, insulting, jingoistic, immature, vindictive, impulsive, thin-skinned, inconstant, bullying candidates. If a message needed to be sent it was to the Republicans, not the Democrats.
I don't see why it cannot be both.
Clinton was the best candidate the Democrats had, and what is this nonsense of finding a candidate who had a better chance of winning? I hope you don't mean Sanders or Stein or some mythical candidate to emerge from the woodwork, because that's absurd.
Well that's your opinion. For instance:
PolitiFact | Bernie Sanders says he polls better against Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton does
A number of polls suggested in a Trump vs election - Sanders was favoured by a larger margin than Clinton. The point where it becomes less clear is - what would have happened to Sanders {or some other candidate} post nomination.
I think those that think as you do would have still voted for him. He's a Democrat, so get behind him to get avoid Trump at the very least.
The question is about those that elected to not vote for Clinton who normally vote Democrat compared with those that would not vote for Sanders who would normally vote Democrat. A difficult task to untangle absolutely, but I think the Steiners would be more inclined to switch to Sanders as would some of those that chose to not bother voting at all. As for those that went and voted Trump, maybe some of those would have gone Sanders had he voted. If they were in the 'we need change not status quo' category rather than voting along political lines - and simply see the Democrats as normally the party to get this done.
Clinton was the best candidate the Democrats had
This is not something that can be certainly said. My entire thesis is that the system for picking a nominee doesn't necessarily lead to the best candidate where 'best candidate' is the one most likely to win the Presidential election. It only selects who is the preferred candidate for Primary voters.
Calling Clinton the "lesser evil" candidate is to completely mischaracterize the two candidates. Clinton may not have been the first choice of some Democrats, but she *is* a Democrat with a successful record in both elected and appointed office, not a "lesser evil" or even any kind of evil at all
Well that's your opinion, but your opinion is only one element at play. It's the opinion of the people as a whole that has more sway in this.
Ignoring the fact that a significant number of traditionally Democrat Party voters explicitly said they actively disliked Clinton, whether it was her vote on the Iraq war, her time as Secretary of State or whatever it was.
Personally, she is far too right wing for my tastes.
Sanders, in contrast did not vote for DOMA - has been very publicly pro-gay rights for decades and actively supported gay marriage for longer than Clinton who was publicly opposed to it until just a few years before the election (during Obama's tenure and push towards it). Sanders was more of a leader - ahead of the curve where Clinton was following political expediency. Things of this nature all go into the equation.
Plus Clinton won the popular vote and only lost because of the unpredictable way the votes cast sometimes map onto the electoral college. She had an excellent chance of winning the election.
She had a reasonable chance, let's say an excellent one. It doesn't matter. What matters is if someone had a better chance. If 100% of California had voted for her - it would have got her a long way to winning the popular vote but it would obviously not be sufficient to do what you need to to win the Presidency - win the States not merely the people.
To argue that the Democrats could have found a candidate who had an even more excellent chance is to engage in fantasy.
Very certain words, in an uncertain sphere. Let's see who the next candidate the Democrats pick is. I would expect that same person is around today, is politically active today - probably a Senator or Representative. They *could* have picked that person. If that person defeats Trump next time - can you say for certain they did not have a better chance of winning in 2016?
What's this rot that you and Stile are all about that the Democrats need to be taught a lesson? What exactly is it that they did wrong before the election that needs remediation?
I thought i was quite explicit. The less they need to learn is how to pick a candidate that excites people and/or that doesn't turn a significant number of people off. To listen to the swing voters. And so on.
Well, now let's not be silly. Are you seriously arguing that significant numbers of those Democrats who either didn't vote for Clinton or withheld their vote preferred that Trump be elected?
I'm saying they preferred not to give their vote to Clinton.
Those would be pretty unusual Democrats
There are clearly enough of the kind that would not cast a vote for Clinton be they independent but Democrat leaning or Democrat registered or whatever to have made a difference.
You're hypothetical scenario is that you're a Democrat who doesn't want Clinton to become President, even though the only alternative is Trump?
Democrat leaning. The Democrat party is too right wing for me to call myself one. And yes, I would not have wanted a Clinton Presidency.
So it's okay with you that Trump became President, because at least that awful Clinton didn't become President and now the Democratic party can learn from that?
No. It's not OK that Trump became President.
Nor is it OK that Clinton was the only viable alternative.
I would hope that in losing, or in only just winning, the Democrats might make changes so that they better represent my views next time. I don't intend to participate in shifting the Overton window, as it were, rightwards. Put forward a candidate I can vote *for* and I'll vote for them.
Can you or someone remind me what was so horrible about Clinton, the only candidate with both elected and appointed experience, and the only candidate who wasn't insane?
Well I gave some examples of this up there I suppose but I'm not interested particularly in a 'Why was Clinton problematic' debate. My vote isn't given to 'who is the candidate closes to my views who has a reasonable chance of winning the election' so comparing Clinton to Trump is not important to me. It's that difference of perspective you need to shift to to understand what my particular view - even if you disagree with it.
The electoral college system is the reality. Blame it if you like, but you may as well blame the air because it isn't going to change.
You are the one blaming it with your Clinton only lost because of the way the the electoral college maps to the people argument. By 'the system' I was talking about alternate ways of voting - either in the Primaries or the main election or both. Even the States can adopt different rules - proportional votes to the electoral college rather than winner takes all - for example; this would reduce the power of swing States.
By what crazy logic would electing Clinton have pushed us closer to becoming Trumpists, who, if I haven't said it already, isn't really a Republican.
She is more right wing/conservative than Obama - pushing us towards the right when in my view the centre of US politics is too far to the right already. Not sure how that is crazy logic.
Trump is not step 1 toward a greater America. We're going to have to find the will, the resolve and the resourcefulness to survive these four years of chaos and hope that there's enough left at the end to pick up the pieces and move forward.
I'd suggest voting for a Democratic legislature to counteract him.
This ignores the fact that the final tally of the votes in the electoral college is just the final step of a long process that began with people casting votes at polling stations.
I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out that nationwide numbers are not relevant. What matters is how the States decide to distribute their electoral votes.
It makes no sense to focus exclusively on the final electoral college tally and ignore the fact Clinton won the popular vote by the largest margin of a losing candidate in the country's history, or ignore the fact that the number of votes that carried Trump over the top in the electoral college was miniscule.
I'm neither focussed exclusively on one thing, nor ignoring the margins in the swing states.
It remains, however, that the people of the USA do not elect a President. The States do, consulting their population in isolation to the others. Again, if you regard this as problematic there are a number of solutions - but ridding 'winner takes all' from the States would certainly help. It still won't effect 2016, but it seems sensible to me. Still you aren't interested in such discussions so considering them a hard fact the very fact that Trump's margins were small in many swing States plays into my hands:
Had the Democrats not nominated a candidate who turned off the percentage she did, as small as that might well be - those margins would have evaporated.
Uh, yeah, that's what I just said.
That's good isn't it?
You must have been trying to say something else, because as written this looks just dead wrong. The way the vast majority of electors cast their votes is definitely based upon the way popular votes were cast.
Popular votes within their State. Not across the nation. If electors cast their votes based on the nationwide popular vote the result would have been different wouldn't it?
Yes, and very true, and pretty much what I've been telling you. Candidates for President campaign for popular votes, not electoral college votes, though the popular votes eventually map onto electoral college votes.
Well they do both - but there's a reason they focus on swing States. If they want to win anyway. And that's because they know the electoral college votes are what matters for victory.
Usually winning the popular vote coincides with winning the States, but it would be a mistake to go for the popular vote at the expense of winning the States.
You're just a faux-general planning his strategy based on the last war, always a mistake. Certainly the Democrats should try to win the next election by an even greater popular vote margin than in 2016, and certainly they should seek the strongest candidate, but making plans for 2020 based on how 2016 was lost would be a mistake
I'm not sure learning lessons from failure is best characterised as a mistake.
and they should also better allocate resources toward gaining popular votes where it will help the most with the electoral college
Exactly. And this includes selecting a candidate who won't cause people to vote third party or decline to vote.
Again, this was not the election to pick up your vote and go home. Too much was at stake, and there was never any doubt about this.
Again, I disagree.
Those Democrats who voted (or didn't vote) in a way that aided Trump's election obtained a result opposite to their intention
If their intention was to prevent Trump from winning, you are right. But my argument which you ignored here has been that this wasn't their intention.
How does one counter a snake oil salesman who's telling the crowd that his elixir will cure rheumatism and indigestion and the common cold?
I'd suggest 'Don't buy the snake oil - live with the common cold' is not the best counter strategy. I'd suggest 'here is something more effective than snake oil'.
That is, don't go status quo.
It's my funeral? Huh? Are you under some delusion that I'm a Democrat?
I was suggesting you are an American. If you don't want the lesson for the Democrats to learn to be to find a way to optimise candidate selection, you are the one that lives with the consequences when their best candidate loses to the worst candidate I've ever seen.
Ain't gonna happen. You're living in fantasy land.
You missed the point. I'm not suggesting you have to change the electoral college. My point was that the only solution to the problems you have put forward (that the popular candidate lost due to the electoral college) is unrealistic and that changing the Primary process is more realistic. So no, I'm not living in a fantasy land - solving the problem you keep raising may be a fantasy - solving the problem I am talking about is not.
Agreed, although I expressed it in different terms when I discussed this with Stile. I said first you select your nominee, then you strategize on how to win the popular vote in ways that wins the most electoral college votes.
Exactly. The latter is the same game every time - different players and different strategies but without the electoral reform of dramatically changing the college there's no imrovements that are possible to this part. I'm suggesting improvements to the selecting of the nominee to make the second part of the game easier.
It's the fault of the Democratic Party's voting system?
If it results in picking people that can't win the electoral college then it's certainly in consideration yes. I gave an alternative method which I think counters the problems encountered in this particular election where your preferred candidate lost due to people protest voting etc.
Says the person from the UK while being remarkably unspecific.
What has this got to do with it? You've referenced my posting time, my nationality and so on several times. Can we not deal with the discussion rather than the person here?
Do you have any good reason to suppose of all the people who could have run, Clinton is the one that would definitely have got the best result? I'm hoping that isn't just because she won the Primaries as that ignores the substance of my post about picking candidates who are more appealing to more people.
A non political argument.
Where shall we eat?
Dennys
Burger King
Crab Shack
Taco Bell
There are 10 of you. Standard vote - one person one vote, pick your preferred location:
Dennys 4
Burger King 3
Crab Shack 2
Taco Bell 1
Is Denny's the 'best' option?
Let's say instead you can vote for as many as you like. You pick whichever one you would be content with.
Dennys 4
Burger King 10
Crab shack 5
Taco Bell 2
Is Dennys still the best option? Seems to me that Burger King might be better even if it didn't win the '1st choice of the largest number of people' vote.
If you chose the former method and opt to go to Dennys, maybe 4 people decide to break off and go eat elsewhere. Is this really the optimal outcome?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1362 by Percy, posted 10-17-2017 8:46 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1378 by Percy, posted 10-18-2017 6:52 PM Modulous has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024