|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: US election aftermath
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
But a larger question remains about Trumps large business holdings across the world. Some people feel if he does not put his assets in a blind trust he will be running up against the foreign gifts clause
Trump can't put his assets in a blind trust. His assets are a large number of buildings with "Trump" written on them in big letters. He knows where they are, and everyone else knows where they are. Nobody can credibly pretend that they think that a big "Trump" building has nothing to do with him.
It is, I think, a genuine puzzle what the "correct" behaviour is in his case. Suppose one were to ask him to sell all his holdings and place his money in an actual blind trust. One could do that, but that would leave the Trump organization owned and run by his children. And again, everyone knows that. All the same potential conflicts of interest exist.
So do you make them quit and sell up too?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I've wondered what he'd do if given the stark choice of a) keeping his assets, but giving up the presidency; and b) being president, but selling off all his assets, along with divesting the kids of any control over them.
An empire that's taken him decades to build, or "most powerful man in the world" for 4 years?
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
On November 8, 50% of USA citizens didn't care enough about their country to vote.
The Americans I know who don't vote tell me that they don't vote because they don't think voting really matters; rich and powerful people will remain rich and powerful and the rest of us will get screwed no matter what.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
On November 8, 50% of USA citizens didn't care enough about their country to vote.
The Americans I know who don't vote tell me that they don't vote because they don't think voting really matters; rich and powerful people will remain rich and powerful and the rest of us will get screwed no matter what.
By not voting they guarantee they will make no difference. It takes more than just voting, it takes being informed and getting involved. And the lack of willingness to but in that effort is what will doom democracy.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
What will doom American democracy is them being right to a certain degree.
More encouraging news about the direct aftermath of the election: women are deciding they need to run for office. I can't find the article I was reading earlier today, but here's the USA Today article.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
And, if you pair what Ruth said with people being exhausted, over-worked, financially-challenged, "the sandwiched generation" (taking care of both their parents and their own kids), etc., it makes sense.
What are the voting rates in other Shipmates' countries? IIRC, the rate for Brexit was unusual.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What are the voting rates in other Shipmates' countries? IIRC, the rate for Brexit was unusual.
Here's a chart for post-war UK general elections. Turnout plummeted to 60% in 2001 and has recovered a bit since.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It is, I think, a genuine puzzle what the "correct" behaviour is in his case. Suppose one were to ask him to sell all his holdings and place his money in an actual blind trust. One could do that, but that would leave the Trump organization owned and run by his children. And again, everyone knows that. All the same potential conflicts of interest exist.
Policies that benefit (or potentially harm) the interests of family members, especially spouses or children, are usually considered conflicts of interest.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
By not voting they guarantee they will make no difference. It takes more than just voting, it takes being informed and getting involved. And the lack of willingness to but in that effort is what will doom democracy.
There's a standard line of "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain". (Often said somewhat humorously.)
That's helped nudge me, on occasion, when I felt the way Ruth described or I was borderline too sick to go out.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
According to Wikipedia, voter turnout dropped rather dramatically in Canada and then went back up again in 2015 (which is for some reason not on the chart). Even the low numbers were higher than in the US.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
From my Country to the North of You, we are all terribly confused and upset by messages of healing, which are fairly presidential mixed with a lot of Oooooh looka me on Twitter taking on the establishment. Great start. I love all his far-right wing billionaire friends he has placed in his cabinet and in other places of power. And the poor and disenfranchised think he is on their side? Fat chance, I say. Your rich will get richer and your middle class and poor will get poorer. Make America Great Again? A slogan for a hat would be: Let the 1% get richer!
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Make America Unequally Fat Again.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Make America Unequally Fat Again.
MAUFA - Mafia with I
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Over where I work we are trying to come up for a collective super-villain name for Tiny Fingers' cabinet. "Basket of Deplorables" is last month, and "Legion of Super Villains" is protected by trademark. We are thinking of combining them to be "Legion of Deplorables," which would give us a nice logo for their Secret HQ building. (In spite of being secret these things always have huge gaudy logos.) Next up: the costumes and combat armor.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
And the poor and disenfranchised think he is on their side? Fat chance, I say.
Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll be another Castro.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Hell is that way =>
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I think the electoral college actually discourages the vote.
For instance, in my state it has voted Democrat ever since Richard Nixon. I live in a part of the state that is heavily Republican, but it always gets out voted by the western part of the state--the city vote. Therefore, I can understand how other people may think their vote doesn't count.
Myself, I always vote and most often vote Democratic.
States with smaller populations actually have more power in the electoral college. On average, a state is awarded one electoral vote for every 565,166 people. However, Wyoming has three electoral votes and only 532,668 citizens (as of 2008 estimates). As a result each of Wyoming's three electoral votes corresponds to 177,556 people. Understood in one way, these people have 3.18 times as much clout in the Electoral College.
So, why should a citizen in California want to vote if the election is decided or or small state has more voting power than a larger state?
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I think the electoral college actually discourages the vote.
For instance, in my state it has voted Democrat ever since Richard Nixon.
Is that different from anyone that lives in a safe parliamentary constituency? You might be right that electing a President by strict popular national vote would increase turnout a bit in safe states (in 2012, swing states had a 7% higher turnout than safe states).
By contrast, I don't find a significant correlation between security of constituency and turnout in the UK.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I think the electoral college actually discourages the vote.
The electoral college also provides perverse incentives for voter suppression by giving each state the same electoral "weight" regardless of whether 99% of its eligible voters actually vote or only 1% do. Some state-level Republicans have actually used this as a deliberate strategy, making voting more onerous and bureaucratic in ways that disproportionately affects likely Democratic voters. The key there is "disproportionately". They're willing to slightly depress their own supporter's turnout if they can depress their opponent's turnout to a greater degree. This works if you're controlling the entire voting system (like in a state-level election), but would be disadvantageous in a national popular election when competing with states that do not inflict a lot of needless red tape on their voters.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Dave W quote:
quote: Kwesi:
“Mother without sons.” I’m not criticising Hilary for not having given birth to a son, but she seemed aware that a large number of women have sons for whom they have aspirations. She talked about mothers having daughters who might become President etc., but not about the possibilities for sons whose disadvantages of social background, particulary in the black community, were far greater than the glass barrier she was assaulting.
Dave W Again, WTF? (See previous link for what she actually talked about.) The idea that this criticism (weak as it is, in my opinion) could be expressed as "mother without sons" is still repellent to me.
My reference to “Mother without sons” was not a reference to some sort of social reproductive deficiency on Hilary Clinton’s part, but to her political lacuna. She made a strong pitch on grounds of her sex and on expanding opportunities for girls. My point is that she ignored the fact that almost half the children born are male, and that women, mothers, have aspirations for their sons looking for jobs in the rust belt as well as for their daughters. Could it be that her difficulty in persuading most white women to vote for her was partly that her feminism in this regard made her blind to that fact? Where did male voters fit into the script? Similarly, Michelle Obama, who was the star performer of the campaign, talked about the future of her daughters. Fair enough, but the really disadvantaged group in the USA are black sons who seem to be shot with impunity by the police and persecuted by a racially- biased penal system that hands out severe sentences and crams them disproportionately into jails. Who spoke for them? Where was the outrage one should expect from the Democratic Party?
On a somewhat different point shipmates have rightly raised the question of turnout, but I would suggest have tended to draw the wrong conclusions. Blaming the electorate for Clinton’s defeat on the failure of Democrat sympathisers to vote is to miss the point. The real question is why so many Democrats were so unenthused, and culpability for that lies less with the electors than those responsible for the party’s campaign. It was quite clear from Sanders remarkable insurgent performance in the primaries that Hilary Clinton, awash with money and organisation, failed to inspire. Truman retained the presidency in 1948 in response to the request: ”Give ‘em Hell, Harry!” The Democrat base in particular needs to feel that the election is some sort of crusade promising better times, and especially so in the context of 2016. Unfortunately, Hilary Clinton, with her impressive curriculum vitae and establishment endorsement across the political spectrum (tacit in the case of the Republicans) offered nothing new, and temperamentally she is not a campaigner. She was not a good candidate for a contest, given the grotesque choice of the GOP, that should have been a cake-walk for the Democrats.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
My reference to “Mother without sons” was not a reference to some sort of social reproductive deficiency on Hilary Clinton’s part, but to her political lacuna. She made a strong pitch on grounds of her sex and on expanding opportunities for girls. My point is that she ignored the fact that almost half the children born are male, and that women, mothers, have aspirations for their sons looking for jobs in the rust belt as well as for their daughters. Could it be that her difficulty in persuading most white women to vote for her was partly that her feminism in this regard made her blind to that fact? Where did male voters fit into the script? Similarly, Michelle Obama, who was the star performer of the campaign, talked about the future of her daughters.
Yeah, because men have traditionally been completely left out of political discussions. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Do you have any notion of how sexist your stance is? Saying people who talk specifically about opportunities for girls don't care about boys is on a par with saying that women's history classes make it sound like men aren't historically significant.
quote:
Fair enough, but the really disadvantaged group in the USA are black sons who seem to be shot with impunity by the police and persecuted by a racially- biased penal system that hands out severe sentences and crams them disproportionately into jails. Who spoke for them? Where was the outrage one should expect from the Democratic Party?
From April 2015:
quote:
Hillary Clinton called on Wednesday for broad criminal-justice reform and renewed trust between police officers and communities, reflecting the former first lady’s evolution from supporting the policies instituted by her husband two decades ago in a period of high crime rates.
Clinton called for body cameras in every police department in the country, as well as an end to an “era of mass incarceration.” Her speech came two days after the funeral in Baltimore of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man who died while in police custody, and amidst ongoing civil unrest in that city.
...
The views Clinton expressed Wednesday aren’t new. In her first presidential campaign, Clinton called it a “disgrace” that “so many more African Americans” were incarcerated than whites, and as early as 2000 decried policing practices that appeared to target African Americans and Latinos. “Let us start by recognizing that crime is down dramatically — and lives have been saved in this city — because every day, brave men and women put on a uniform and place themselves in harm’s way to protect us,” she said in 2000. “And let us also recognize that far too many people believe they are considered guilty simply because of the color of their skin.”
Hillary Clinton didn't lose because of a lack of passion. Have you looked at the popular vote? She won it by over two million votes, and they're counting absentee ballots in California, which will go to her by better than 2-1. She lost because her votes are concentrated in urban areas. And she lost because sexism is still so unbelievably ingrained in our culture that people can't even see it when it's right there in front of them.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
What Ruth said, in spades.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
My reference to “Mother without sons” was not a reference to some sort of social reproductive deficiency on Hilary Clinton’s part, but to her political lacuna. She made a strong pitch on grounds of her sex and on expanding opportunities for girls. My point is that she ignored the fact that almost half the children born are male [snip]
It remains a repulsive phrase in service of a ridiculous caricature. quote:
It was quite clear from Sanders remarkable insurgent performance in the primaries that Hilary Clinton, awash with money and organisation, failed to inspire.
It may have escaped your notice but Sanders lost the nomination by a lot of votes (though I don't suppose you ever would have faulted him for not having any daughters.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Dear Accusers,
What we are trying to discuss here is why the Democrats failed to win the presidency in 2016 when confronted with a GOP candidate who was eminently unsuited to the office. That discussion must in some measure raise issues concerning the appeal of the Democratic candidate. Inevitably, that must include attitudes of the candidates towards gender issues, and why, given the publicity regarding Trump’s disgusting remarks about women, that white women were more likely to vote for him than Hilary Clinton. It was also observed that young women were not particularly enthused by her candidacy. The Centre for American Women and Politics concluded:
“With such factors at play (along with more generic electoral trends, like how tough it is for either party to win a “third term”), Clinton couldn’t just lure white women to the blue team based on a sense of sisterhood. She needed to inspire them. And that’s not what Clinton does. Even those who love her acknowledge that she is a lackluster candidate. She is too private, too reserved, too cerebral. It’s a key reason that Obama, with his scant political experience, beat her in 2008.” <http://presidentialgenderwatch.org/author/kdittmar>
That judgement regarding Hilary Clinton on gender issues, to my mind, can be applied to other issues influencing the core traditional Democratic base, which you may feel I’m pressing ad nauseam. Evidently you don’t like this messenger, but electoral politics is a brutal business and harsh question however unpalatably expressed have to be posed in defeat. Don’t assume that the messenger is at all happy with the content and tone of his/her message.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
OK, what Kwesi said represents something that is messed up, but it doesn't completely conflict with RuthW's conclusion.
Men who think they are threatened by a strong female are whiny little bitches. But those whiny bitches voted. And they voted for Trump. Not because he is admirable or strong, but because he did not threaten their fragile manhood.
Clinton did not represent a real threat, but some will have perceived it that way.
I am not sure, though, what she could have said if reality wasn't enough. A black president didn't erase racial inequity, so a female president certainly wouldn't marginalise men.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Evidently you don’t like this messenger, but electoral politics is a brutal business and harsh question however unpalatably expressed have to be posed in defeat. Don’t assume that the messenger is at all happy with the content and tone of his/her message.
Whoa there, pardner, you might want to learn to ride before getting on that high horse.
Your presentation is the problem.* You could have made your point without contentious and insulting language.
*And some inaccuracies, but tone is what kicked it of.
[ 29. November 2016, 04:59: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
What lB said.
Kwesi, your continuing posts show no acceptance of responsibility for your rudeness, no apology--just a sense of being annoyed that *we're* annoyed.
That makes this discussion more difficult.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
What lB said.
Kwesi, your continuing posts show no acceptance of responsibility for your rudeness, no apology--just a sense of being annoyed that *we're* annoyed.
That makes this discussion more difficult.
That is why Hell exists. If you (plural) want to take Kwesi to task for his attitude, do so there.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Eutychus quote:
That is why Hell exists. If you (plural) want to take Kwesi to task for his attitude, do so there.
At least if I end up there the righteous can gain solace from my endless torture!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Ok, let me try and draw a line under this. i would defend my right to offend, but not to be offensive. If I have transgressed that line, particularly in my original post, i unreservedly apologies. (Sensitivities in these matters operate differingly from culture to culture). You will appreciate that first post was pithy in order to avoid a lengthy discourse and to shift the focus of blame from Trump and his supporters to the failings of the Democrat campaign. I regret, too, any inaccuracies, as must always be the case, misunderstandings of intent, and agree that I should dismount the horse of self-pity. I stand by my charges, however, though they might have been more moderately expressed, and would welcome a chance to defend them in a less emotionally charged manner.
It is difficult the defend myself against the charge of misogyny as only women who know me can do that, but i like to think I am not so. What more can I say?
2016 has not been a good year for the open-hearted and the congenitally optimistic, as i see myself. Its been a year of barbed wire in Europe, the rise of divisive nationalism (Brexit , anti-immigrant sentiment, and the rise of the far right generally), and a “beautiful wall” between the USA and Mexico, together with the exacerbation of a variety of cultural and identity differences. The hope was that the USA would offer a ray of hope with the rejection of Trump. It was not to be. As Yeats wrote of his time, so in ours:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
It’s that, not misogyny, that drives my mood, sisters and brothers.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I have just been watching an African production of Julius Caesar. (Cinna the poet dies with a South African burning tyre around him.)
It joins up with the Noah comparison of Trump with African dictators, making the comparison itself of them with Julius Caesar.
One wonders what Shakespeare was comparing the events with - it seems rather glib to suggest a fear of the return of the Wars of the Roses, it seems more immediate than that. Who did he know who spoke like that?
And I am toying with a rewrite of Brutus' speech, full of beautifuls and bests and yuges, and sound and fury signifying nothing.
And then, 'The noble Donald has told you Clinton was ambitious - if it were so, it were a grievous fault, and grievously has Clinton answered it.'
[ 29. November 2016, 16:01: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
2016 has not been a good year for the open-hearted and the congenitally optimistic, as i see myself.
I am hardly little miss sunshine, but you are not alone in feeing dragged down by this year. The Ship is more liberal than conservative, so there are quite a few people here who feel the same frustration.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I went to my doctor for some minor issues, and they are doing something new: a two-question depression survey. The question was, "Have you felt very sad in the past few weeks?" I replied, "Of -course- I felt very sad the past few weeks!" The nurse admitted that this was not a good time to do the screening.
In other downers,
Obamacare is doomed. There'll be a lot more poor sick people in America.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
2016 has not been a good year for the open-hearted and the congenitally optimistic, as i see myself.
It has been much improved in Canada. Not perfect, but much much better since our federal election.
On a different USA election aftermath issue, if Russia and USA are now going to be closer, and Trump and Putin will soon pose, shirts off (shudder), horse riding or spearing some animal, does Russia deport Snowden into Trump's welcoming, ahem, hands?
[ 29. November 2016, 21:07: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Brenda Clough quote:
I went to my doctor for some minor issues, and they are doing something new: a two-question depression survey. The question was, "Have you felt very sad in the past few weeks?" I replied, "Of -course- I felt very sad the past few weeks!" The nurse admitted that this was not a good time to do the screening.
Not wishing to give Trump the honours of victory he thinks he deserves, I console myself with the observation of Marx: "“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." Hope it doesn't relate to a two-term presidency!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
I do not post here anymore and so accept my apologies for entering the thread at this point. I wrote a post but realized Jay said it better. No reason to sugar coat it.
Jay Smooth
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
On a different USA election aftermath issue, if Russia and USA are now going to be closer, and Trump and Putin will soon pose, shirts off (shudder), horse riding or spearing some animal, does Russia deport Snowden into Trump's welcoming, ahem, hands?
In the name of all that's holy, please refrain from painting such mental pictures, at least until the invention of giant brain scrubbers.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
It is difficult the defend myself against the charge of misogyny as only women who know me can do that, but i like to think I am not so. What more can I say?
I said your stance was sexist, not that you are a misogynist. The distinction is important.
You claim that she lacked passion - is that because Clinton's most passionate and meaningful appeals were to women and talked about girls? I wonder if you can even feel the appeal of that, not being one of us she was talking to. I was more than once moved to tears. You accuse her on the basis of her appeals to women of ignoring men and boys, as if caring especially about the future of people drastically under-represented in the American political process meant she didn't care about the ones who have been over-represented throughout our history.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Ruth, you were clearly inspired by Hilary Clinton's campaign. That does not, however, appear to have been the general experience of white women according to the CAWP (Centre for American Women and Politics) at Rutgers, as I earlier reported:
“With such factors at play (along with more generic electoral trends, like how tough it is for either party to win a “third term”), Clinton couldn’t just lure white women to the blue team based on a sense of sisterhood. She needed to inspire them. And that’s not what Clinton does. Even those who love her acknowledge that she is a lackluster candidate. She is too private, too reserved, too cerebral. It’s a key reason that Obama, with his scant political experience, beat her in 2008.” <http://presidentialgenderwatch.org/author/kdittmar>
What I'm asking you is why you think most white women reacted differently to yourself.
On a different point, I don't think it sexist to point to the judicial treatment of young black men, who seem to be more exposed than their sisters? Nor is it unfair to show concern for the situation of poor young white men who have been denied the work opportunities available to their fathers and grandfathers. It is not unfair and pragmatically advisable for candidates to show concern for their blighted aspirations. Not a few mothers would say amen to that.
In democratic politics it is advisable to make as wide a democratic appeal as possible. My question respecting the Hilary Clinton campaign is whether its overt feminism, however justified, failed to cover both gender bases. I don't think that's a sexist observation. At the same time i agree that males are over-represented in the political process so that too many ordinary brothers crowd out gifted sisters to the detriment of all. The defeat of Hilary Clinton, for me, is regretted not because she would have broken a glass ceiling but because she was the more able and better reflected my values to put it mildly. Of course, others may think differently.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Kwesi: may I quote a young family member re Hilary:
"I thought they were getting getting a woman president. Instead they got a man who sexually assaults women."
You don't have to be inspired to get that. Merely a human being.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
No Prophet, I would have thought so, too, but not sufficiently so according to Rutgers, respecting white females.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
A lot of the elect have been deceived, Brenda. The electorate too. Trump looks increasingly like a man who really didn't think it would come to this.
I wonder who is really going to be in charge?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
According to Wikipedia, voter turnout dropped rather dramatically in Canada and then went back up again in 2015 (which is for some reason not on the chart). Even the low numbers were higher than in the US.
Three reasons for that.
1) Canada has a multi-party system, and each riding has its own distinct culture. There are ridings which are Liberal/Tory battlegrounds (suburban Toronto), NDP/Liberal fights (Downtown Toronto), three-ways (BC Lower Mainland and Southwestern Ontario) and NDP/Tory contests (most of the Prairies and BC).
So each riding can get the competitors it wants, it doesn't have to stick with two national parties.
2) Canada has a strong history of waves with large turnovers of elected officials federally and in most provinces.
3) Riding boundaries are exclusively set by federal and provincial boundary commissions, chaired by a Superior Court Judge with academics as the co-commissioners. The chances of getting a blatantly partisan boundary proposal through are nil, I have presented to one of those commissions. Your proposal either makes sense geographically and fits the population quota or it will be dismissed, period.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stercus Tauri
Shipmate
# 16668
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I went to my doctor for some minor issues, and they are doing something new: a two-question depression survey. The question was, "Have you felt very sad in the past few weeks?" I replied, "Of -course- I felt very sad the past few weeks!" The nurse admitted that this was not a good time to do the screening.
In other downers,
Obamacare is doomed. There'll be a lot more poor sick people in America.
Our daughter put it quite simply. "Barack Obama gave us health care. Donald Fart will take it away".
--------------------
Thay haif said. Quhat say thay, Lat thame say (George Keith, 5th Earl Marischal)
Posts: 905 | From: On the traditional lands of the Six Nations. | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
No Prophet, I would have thought so, too, but not sufficiently so according to Rutgers, respecting white females.
Abortion played a part in the conservative states. Also in those states, a significant number of women think their place is below that of men's. So those women were not going to vote for Clinton anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
With the election, it's prosperity gospel for the win! Two out of three Americans identify with some of its tenets.
Still amazes me. The prosperity gospel is not only anti-Jesus, trickle down prosperity is demonstrably false.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Ruth, you were clearly inspired by Hilary Clinton's campaign. That does not, however, appear to have been the general experience of white women according to the CAWP (Centre for American Women and Politics) at Rutgers, as I earlier reported:
“With such factors at play (along with more generic electoral trends, like how tough it is for either party to win a “third term”), Clinton couldn’t just lure white women to the blue team based on a sense of sisterhood. She needed to inspire them. And that’s not what Clinton does. Even those who love her acknowledge that she is a lackluster candidate. She is too private, too reserved, too cerebral. It’s a key reason that Obama, with his scant political experience, beat her in 2008.” <http://presidentialgenderwatch.org/author/kdittmar>
What I'm asking you is why you think most white women reacted differently to yourself.
No. It was not "most white women". It was a subgroup of white women in particular battleground states. This was electoral math at it's finest. The majority of white women voted for Hillary.
I'm not suggesting that that does or should change the outcome-- unless some shenanigans, intentional are not, are proven to be at play (an incredibly slim chance). Those were the rules we signed on for. But it bears repeating that this is NOT what the majority of Americans, the majority of whites, the majority of women, or even the majority of evangelicals believe or want. Any notion that there's a "mandate" of any sort, even within one of those subsets, is simply not warranted. To get any sort of majority you really have to get very sub-sub group: "white rural evangelical men in the Bible belt".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Is there a Misery Gospel?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Any notion that there's a "mandate" of any sort, even within one of those subsets, is simply not warranted. To get any sort of majority you really have to get very sub-sub group: "white rural evangelical men in the Bible belt".
Trump won the majority of counties in the United States as highlighted in this map. That extends in to almost all areas except the coastal edges. I don't know what proportion he won of lower income brackets, but I would not be surprised if he captured a majority of people earning less than $50,000. Clinton certainly won the largest and most prosperous counties.
None of that is to say there is a mandate, although I think mandate is a nebulous idea. Executive action (widely used now and presumably will be under President Elect Trump) combined with a filibuster proof majority in Congress (a distinct possibility in 2018), would be the most effective mandate.
[ 01. December 2016, 01:02: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I don't know what proportion he won of lower income brackets, but I would not be surprised if he captured a majority of people earning less than $50,000. Clinton certainly won the largest and most prosperous counties.
According to these exit poll results, Clinton won the majority of votes of those earning $50K or less.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
