Trump says he met with the 'president of the Virgin Islands'

[rogue06]

Actually, it ended up going pretty well, putting the Greens into the ruling coalition for the first time in history.

People have always been claiming that once the older (and more conservative) crowd dies, it'll mean great times for liberals. The problem is that, as you say, they become more conservative. The "insanely evil hate filled US conservatives" he says will die of old age? A lot of them were liberals in their youth!

That brings to mind the old saying about if you aren't liberal at age 20 you have no heart but if you're still liberal at age 40 you have no brains. Things like buying a house and having kids really tends to change your outlook. One of the most liberal groups in the U.S. are single women without children. One of the most conservative are married women with kids.

[Terraceth]

And I find it pretty interesting that the same group that chided the US for the Electoral College are singing the praises of the candidate who lost the popular vote being the PM.

Not sure this qualifies, as no party actually won the popular vote because no one got a majority. The technical "winners" of the popular vote were therefore whatever parties could muster up a coalition to get a majority government.


The situation would be more akin to something like the 1824 presidential election, where no candidate was able to get a majority of the electoral college vote and thus went to the House (if no one gets an electoral college majority, the House of Representatives votes on the top three candidates), with Jackson, Adams, and Clay being the top three candidates and thus the ones the House voted on. Clay had the lowest support and thus no real chance of winning in the House, put his support behind Adams (who received fewer electors than Jackson), and thus the Clay+Adams faction was able reach majority and elect Adams to the White House.

Although, interestingly, if we were to replace the electoral college with a popular vote as some have suggested, it's worth pointing out that it isn't the person who gets the most votes who wins the electoral college, but only a person who wins a majority. If you don't get the majority, then the whole issue goes to the House who vote on the top three candidates. So with this applicable to the popular vote, neither Trump nor Hillary get the majority, and the whole thing gets decided by the House, which was controlled by the Republicans so do the math as to who most likely ends up winning in that scenario. I suppose it could be changed further so that whoever gets the most votes wins, even if it's not a majority, but I think that's a not very common for any presidential system, and that most countries have some kind of "second election" system for such cases (e.g. France takes the top two candidates and does another election where they're the only two choices). One could do France's system, but then it's uncertain who would have won the popular vote in such a re-election.

I firmly believe that the sentiment that produced Donald Trump isn't done. Unless the Dems run another black candidate who will get the black vote out in record numbers, like when Obama ran, they certainly won't have enough to take a supermajority.

Depends somewhat on what he means by "supermajority." If by "supermajority" we simply mean having enough that you can thwart any filibuster (i.e. 60 people in the Senate), then even under Obama, the Democrats never had a supermajority in and of themselves (they had only 59 if you count Bernie Sanders, who while technically an Independent was a blatant Democrat) and had to get the Independent Joe Lieberman to go along with them, and getting his cooperation meant they had to change some provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Though I question how much Obama himself necessarily had to do with it, as these are all individual localized races. It probably had more to do with the general dislike of the Republicans at the time.

As for the sentiment that produced Donald Trump, we need to remember that the race really was relatively close in the end (even if the electoral college results don't reflect it--as I've noted, if 1% of voters changed their votes from Trump to Clinton in Florida and Pennsylvania, she wins) and that Clinton was a relatively unpopular candidate who even after the election had such a low approval rating it's entirely possible Trump would still win, and possibly take the popular vote this time, if the election were re-held. If the Democrats find someone without her baggage I think they could beat Trump. But like I said, 3 years is a long time in politics. A lot of things can happen to make any predictions at this time look laughable in retrospect.

[carpedm9587]

Folks, this is the difference between 'progressives' and 'conservatives'.

Conservatives disagree with progressives on how to fix problems in society, but they want to play by the rules of democracy, and are willing to live and let live where agreement can't be reached, or where the majority choice is different from theirs. They see progressives as mistaken but basically people with good intentions.

Progressives (as exemplified by Starlight here) see conservatives as "... irredeemably evil, and unsavable scum.", "...deplorable, stupid, ignorant, hate-filled, foolish and genuinely horrible people...". They have no interest in dialogue, discussion or agreeing to disagree "... dialogue is worthless."; "....beyond any kind of correction or censure...". They will impose their politics on everyone, to blazes with democracy or any freedom to live differently. They will (and do) shut down your speech, hound you out of jobs, slander, defame, and smear you; attack your family and children - because you are evil. Remember the progression in insults - first conservatives were bigots and homophobes; now they are worse than actual Nazis. Labels used to avoid reason and call up the most violent emotional reaction.

This interests me. It interests me because, when it became clear to me that Trump was likely to be elected, I decided I had sat on the political sidelines for too long, careful not to offend friend or client or family, and I turned my Facebook page into a political blog. I highlight news, foster discussion as much as possible, and have only one rule: play nice and be civil.

I have seen the post above (not word for word mind you, but the general theme of the post) from both sides of the political spectrum. An amazing number of conservatives think progressives/liberals are intolerant, vindictive, and all of the other things listed here. An amazing number of progressives/liberals think conservatives are the same. Conservatives often see themselves as willing to compromise, play fair, adhere to the norms of our democracy, and most progressives/liberals see themselves in much the same terms.

Many conservatives think progressives/liberals obstruct when they are not in power, and exclude the opposite side when they are. Many progressives/liberals think conservatives obstruct when they are not in power, and exclude the opposite side when they are.

So maybe, just maybe, there's a little bit of truth on both sides - and a lot of hyperbole as well? Maybe there's not a lot of listening on either side, these days? Perhaps the left and the right are seeing one another as political objects - rather than people with fears, needs, hopes, disappointments, and values?

Just a thought...

[carpedm9587]

That brings to mind the old saying about if you aren't liberal at age 20 you have no heart but if you're still liberal at age 40 you have no brains. Things like buying a house and having kids really tends to change your outlook. One of the most liberal groups in the U.S. are single women without children. One of the most conservative are married women with kids.

Out of curiosity, where do those stats come from?

[Cow Poke]

This interests me. It interests me because, when it became clear to me that Trump was likely to be elected, I decided I had sat on the political sidelines for too long, careful not to offend friend or client or family, and I turned my Facebook page into a political blog. I highlight news, foster discussion as much as possible, and have only one rule: play nice and be civil.

I have seen the post above (not word for word mind you, but the general theme of the post) from both sides of the political spectrum. An amazing number of conservatives think progressives/liberals are intolerant, vindictive, and all of the other things list here. An amazing number of progressives/liberals think conservatives are the same. Conservatives often see themselves as willing to compromise, play fair, adhere to the norms of our democracy, and most progressives/liberals see themselves in much the same terms.

Many conservatives think progressives/liberals obstruct when they are not in power, and exclude the opposite side when they are. Many progressives/liberals think conservatives obstruct when they are not in power, and exclude the opposite side when they are.

So maybe, just maybe, there's a little bit of truth on both sides - and a lot of hyperbole as well? Maybe there's not a lot of listening on either side, these days? Perhaps the left and the right are seeing one another as political objects - rather than people with fears, needs, hopes, disappointments, and values?

Just a thought...

Prolly

[carpedm9587]

Prolly

I'll take that as hopeful. So the next question is - what do we do about it?

[Cow Poke]

I'll take that as hopeful. So the next question is - what do we do about it?

This is a whole different venue than real life. In real life, I'm quick to discern who is really open to discussion and who is just wanting to do battle.

It appears there are about a dozen "regulars" here, and after a while, you pretty well know what everybody is going to say.

I took a break some time ago just because I got tired of the 'same ol same ol', and am probably going to take another break soon.

It gets tiresome.

[carpedm9587]

This is a whole different venue than real life. In real life, I'm quick to discern who is really open to discussion and who is just wanting to do battle.

It appears there are about a dozen "regulars" here, and after a while, you pretty well know what everybody is going to say.

I took a break some time ago just because I got tired of the 'same ol same ol', and am probably going to take another break soon.

It gets tiresome.

I have noted much the same - and my break lasted about a decade

But surely, even in this venue, there are things we can do to open up avenues of listening? To break down walls and strive to get some small part of the machine working properly again? Wouldn't THAT be a refreshing break from "same old, same old?"

I suspect the right and the left have more common ground than they truly know. In my experience, they differ more in "how do we get to X" than "what is X."

Perhaps a good first step would be to take this discussion out of a clearly "anti-trump" thread and put it in a more neutral place that doesn't inflame before the discussion even starts...

[Cow Poke]

I have noted much the same - and my break lasted about a decade

But surely, even in this venue, there are things we can do to open up avenues of listening? To break down walls and strive to get some small part of the machine working properly again? Wouldn't THAT be a refreshing break from "same old, same old?"

It could be that this forum is simply not conducive to that - it seems to draw those who want to expound on their own ideas, and not 'learn' or 'take away' anything else.

I suspect the right and the left have more common ground than they truly know. In my experience, they differ more in "how do we get to X" than "what is X."

I don't know - I think it comes down to more a "battle for the soul" of our Nation. Progressives want to do away with any reference or indication of Christianity, and Christians feel obligated to advance the cause of Christ.

Perhaps a good first step would be to take this discussion out of a clearly "anti-trump" thread and put it in a more neutral place that doesn't inflame before the discussion even starts...

It seems to me - and, yeah, it's just my opinion - that there's a real hatred for Trump. Not just a disagreement with his policies or his sordid past, but a deep-seated hatred. I never felt that for the Clintons, even though I thought they were evil.

Right now, there's a big "to do" going on about 80 miles from me where some idiot is driving around with a big "F Trump" sign on the back of her pickup truck, and "F you who voted for him". That kind of message, which will be seen by kids, is just insane. It's free speech, sure, but sheeeeesh.... how much hate to you have to have for that to overrule your sense of decency?

[carpedm9587]

It could be that this forum is simply not conducive to that - it seems to draw those who want to expound on their own ideas, and not 'learn' or 'take away' anything else.

You may be right. I started, last spring, inviting people I know who support Trump to lunch. The discussions have been very interesting. Online is not face-to-face, so may not be conducive to such discussions.

I don't know - I think it comes down to more a "battle for the soul" of our Nation. Progressives want to do away with any reference or indication of Christianity, and Christians feel obligated to advance the cause of Christ.

From your side of the equation, I can imagine it feels that way. I can tell you, from my side of that equation, that I want to do away with ANY reference to ANY religion from our government. The very root of our nation was founded on religious liberty: the freedom of all people to hold and express all religious views. To restrict ANY religious expression is anathema to me. So if a school or a court come down on a child for praying in a public classroom, I will be right there next to you protesting that view. If a school or court come down on a teacher for requiring students in the class to pray before class, I will be right there opposing someone who disagrees. The teacher has no right to do that. If the school or court comes down on a teacher for having "60 seconds of silence to reflect as they wish" at the start of each class - I will again be there right next to you, protesting the school/court.

Likewise, when explicit reflections of a particular religion are enshrined in a government context, I am against it because I want ALL religious beliefs to be freely expressed by the populace. The Laws of Moses in a courtroom or courthouse is a problem, unless it is in the context of a general display of various codes of law (e.g., Hamurabi's Code, Twelve tables of Roman Law, Sharia, Laws of Eshnunna, etc.). I even oppose "In God We Trust" on our money: it divides. It was added in the 1950s in a wave of "anti-communist" sentiment, but it excludes a portion of the populace, namely atheists. ANY government intrusion on how an individual worships (or doesn't) is anathema to me. Imagine being required by government, each and every day, to handle and use money that says, "God is a myth." I suspect you would find it offensive. Leaving references to god off of our money renders the money neutral - anyone can use it - it denies and promotes nothing, which is exactly what the government's role in religions SHOULD be. The issue of religion has nothing to do with our money.

Perhaps that puts me in the category of wanting to "do away with any reference to christianity" to you. From my side of that argument, it puts me in the position of wanting ALL religions (including the religion of atheism) to be on a level playing field with respect to our government. You should have every right, as a citizen, to advance the cause of Christ. Government should not.

It seems to me - and, yeah, it's just my opinion - that there's a real hatred for Trump. Not just a disagreement with his policies or his sordid past, but a deep-seated hatred. I never felt that for the Clintons, even though I thought they were evil.

I don't know if I would describe my feelings about Trump as "hatred," but I acknowledge I want to see him fail spectacularly, even if it hurts us in the short term. My reasons have everything to do about messaging, and have little to do with his political positions. If it is of interest, I'd be willing to share those. For the record, I was not a fan of Clinton either, though perhaps not for the usual reasons.

Right now, there's a big "to do" going on about 80 miles from me where some idiot is driving around with a big "F Trump" sign on the back of her pickup truck, and "F you who voted for him". That kind of message, which will be seen by kids, is just insane. It's free speech, sure, but sheeeeesh.... how much hate to you have to have for that to overrule your sense of decency?

We seem to share a common sentiment here. "Free Speech" is a much miss-applied concept. Article 1 prevents government from infringing on the free speech of individuals. Lately it is used to insist that anyone can say anything anywhere without consequence. I find that kind of sticker unacceptable, and I think people would be well within their rights to protest and make it clear that such language is unacceptable. Unfortunately, people at the extreme edges of our society are taking "trolling" from an online phenomenon and bringing it into the real world. That is what that bumper sticker is - trolling. So we are left in a catch-22: if we react and protest, we are "feeding the troll" (as they say). If we do not, we are permitting an outrageous thing to happen unresponded to. The solution is not easy - but I think we can take an approach that counters the message without challenging the messenger and giving them the attention they want. Maybe a bumper sticker that says, "God says: love the person with a F**k Trump bumper sticker."

However, I agree that the bumper sticker is inappropriate and offensive. Much as I oppose Trump, it is over the top.