|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: US election aftermath
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
The constant thing about politics is that successful politicians create coalitions. You get group A who are concerned about one thing, group B who are concerned about another and so on and so forth and this coalition carries you over the line. These coalitions are invariably unstable and gradually bits fall away until the other lot win. So the task for any defeated political party is to put together a new coalition and the way to do that is to force apart the coalition currently in power.
So Kelly is quite correct not to tell her Catholic friend that she is propping up a sexist institution. That helps precisely no-one. As far as the electorate is concerned it must be remembered that one catches more flies with honey, than with vinegar.
As far as the Senate and the House are concerned, there are two words that the Democratic leadership should have woven into samplers and hung over their beds. Scorched Earth.
When Obama was elected the Republicans announced that their aim was to make him a one term President. The Democrats should return the compliments with knobs on. It was in the interests of democracy that Hilary should concede graciously and Obama should be gracious about the transition. Everyone else should take heed of the good advice of Crowley to Aziriphale in 'Good Omens'; "You're there to thwart the wiles of the devil. You see a wile, you thwart, correct?" The object of the exercise is to break apart Trump's coalition and to force him to choose between the various incompatible goals he has set forth. At some point, some talking head is going to tell the Democrats to be statesmanlike and bipartisan. The Democrats should tell him or her to go and get fucked. At some point a Democratic Senator or Congressman is going to express similar sentences and it should be made clear to them, that this is not how we do things any more. No surrender, no retreat, no compromises.
The electorate were played. The politicians were not. Temper your responses accordingly.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I understand the reasoning, Callan, but in my naivete I hope the primary goal would remain doing what is best for the nation and the world, even over and above thwarting Trump. I grant you, the two goals may run in tandem.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I would have thought that the national interest was best served by not having a Russian Asset in the White House. Everything else is a matter of detail.
I don't wish to sound alarmist - bugger that, I wish to sound extremely alarmist. I honestly think that the survival of The West as we have known it since World War II is at stake. Read this. I have a horrible feeling that it may well be too late. But as a wise friend once said to me, in admittedly less geopolitically significant circumstances, if we fight we could lose. If we don't fight we'll definitely lose.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I didn't vote for the guy, and we have the option of impeachment. I don't want to destroy more of the country's mental infrastructure than necessary in the process of protecting it.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
If I knew what you meant by 'mental infrastructure' I could either agree or disagree with you. I'm not trying to be facetious, just asking for a clarification.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I mean that if we take illegitimate means to get rid of him, either in the sheerly illegal sense or (more likely) in the "let's change our whole history of how we deal with election results" sense, we will probably end up doing more harm in the long run than if we used traditional means of bridling Trump.
For example, the folks who want to abolish the electoral college. A time of crisis is generally not the best time to make new experiments. It also leads people to consider other aspects of government equally changeable, which is a problem if you want a quiet life and not 15 constitutions in a hundred years.
I'm not against change of any sort. I'm just wary of taking extreme measures now under these circumstances. Better to see if the usual measures (congressional gridlock, protests, Supreme Court checks, etc.) can do the job.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Ah, in which case I agree completely. The rule of law is one of the things we are fighting for.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Interesting insight reported in the Economist editorial this week:
Trump's supporters took him seriously but not literally;
Trump's opponents took him literally but not seriously.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I doubt if he himself could tell you. The Orange One said anything he needed to, to get the approbation of his audience. It changed, at need, daily if necessary. The idea that people should remember from day to day, or expect him to stand upon a solid principle, startled and enraged him -- even having his statements on videotape had no impact. The only core he has is himself, his own good.
And what this means is that the people who do have a solid principle can sneak in and drive their agenda through. As long as your plan doesn't impact the Donald's bottom line or ego, you're good to go.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Though the problem is watching out for that ego. It could easily become a question of who can flatter him the most.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think it's still hard to tell which statements we should be taking literally.
People have motives to make ourselves out to be better people than we are. We don't have motives to make ourselves out to be worse people than we are.
Nobody who isn't racist is going to pretend to be racist; nobody who isn't sexist is going to pretend to be sexist; nobody who respects liberal democracy and the rule of law is going to pretend not to respect liberal democracy and the rule of law.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
quote:
Nobody who isn't racist is going to pretend to be racist; nobody who isn't sexist is going to pretend to be sexist; nobody who respects liberal democracy and the rule of law is going to pretend not to respect liberal democracy and the rule of law. [/QB]
Umm... unless it is your goal to get those racists, sexists and pocket fascists to vote for you. And of course if you have no morals. Then you say what you need to say, to get them to do what you want. Afterwards, you may or may not throw them over the side. Depending upon your own needs and convenience.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
What Brenda said! Politicians do and say all sorts of things to get elected. You have to wait and see what they actually do in office. Then there are the questions of what deals they've made, who they owe, what their party demands, what their constituents want, and what the politicians actually believe. I think sometimes all of that gets so mixed up that they don't know what's real.
ETA: And, in everyday life, people often act like the bad thing they're not, or allow others to believe that, so they can get through the moment with the people they're around. Ever laugh at a prejudiced joke? Stayed silent? I have.
[ 15. November 2016, 23:08: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I do believe that our current president-elect has them all beat hollow, for lying without fear or memory. Even when it's on videotape, he'll change. I wonder if anyone will ever believe a politician ever again.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Nobody who isn't racist is going to pretend to be racist; nobody who isn't sexist is going to pretend to be sexist; nobody who respects liberal democracy and the rule of law is going to pretend not to respect liberal democracy and the rule of law.
Umm... unless it is your goal to get those racists, sexists and pocket fascists to vote for you. And of course if you have no morals. Then you say what you need to say, to get them to do what you want. Afterwards, you may or may not throw them over the side. Depending upon your own needs and convenience. [/QB]
I agree. However... if you are willing to say anything to pander to racists & sexists, you're saying racism and sexism aren't very much of a concern for you-- certainly far less than getting elected. And yes, politicians will say/do a lot of disreputable things to get elected. But precisely how far they will go to be elected says a lot. If you're willing to pander to racists to get elected, I say that in and of itself makes you a racist, simply because you're demonstrating that pandering to racists is less significant to you than getting elected. Even if "some of your best friends are black".
--------------------
"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
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
There are people like this. Who, after an comments that I am sure you will agree are inarguably racist, can still plead: "I am truly sorry for any hard feeling this may have caused! Those who know me know that I'm not of any way racist!"
In other words, their definition of the word is quite different. Perhaps they think of racism solely as lynching black people, or beating them up in the street, and everything that doesn't involve bloodshed doesn't count.
--------------------
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 Callan:
So the task for any defeated political party is to put together a new coalition and the way to do that is to force apart the coalition currently in power.
So Kelly is quite correct not to tell her Catholic friend that she is propping up a sexist institution. That helps precisely no-one. As far as the electorate is concerned it must be remembered that one catches more flies with honey, than with vinegar.
As a practical matter I think the Catholic Church can be an important part of this coalition. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has just elected Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles, a Mexican American immigrant, to be their next VP, and that makes him likely to be their president three years later. I don't imagine he was chosen simply because he's Mexican American, but that does send a message, and he's going to defend immigrants as best he can.
At the same time, though, replace the word "sexist" with "racist" in your statement above and tell me how it would sit with you to consider being in a coalition with an institution you considered racist. Then think about looking a black or brown person in the eye and telling them they needed to just be cool with a racist institution.
I'm going to tolerate being in a coalition with a sexist institution. It's just reality, and I'll have to live with it for the time being. But there is no way on earth I will back down from my position about the sexism in some of the groups I'll be making common cause with over the next few years. I'll do my best not to choke on the irony that sexism is a primary reason we are facing at least four years of shameless kleptocracy, abuse of power, and outright stupidity.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm going to tolerate being in a coalition with a sexist institution. It's just reality, and I'll have to live with it for the time being. But there is no way on earth I will back down from my position about the sexism in some of the groups I'll be making common cause with over the next few years. I'll do my best not to choke on the irony that sexism is a primary reason we are facing at least four years of shameless kleptocracy, abuse of power, and outright stupidity.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
A home run. See it soar into the stands.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Nobody who isn't racist is going to pretend to be racist; nobody who isn't sexist is going to pretend to be sexist; nobody who respects liberal democracy and the rule of law is going to pretend not to respect liberal democracy and the rule of law.
Umm... unless it is your goal to get those racists, sexists and pocket fascists to vote for you. And of course if you have no morals. Then you say what you need to say, to get them to do what you want. Afterwards, you may or may not throw them over the side. Depending upon your own needs and convenience.
I quite hope he'll throw them over the side. And I'm sure that if they no longer are of any use to him for either power or money or ego-validation he'll do just that. If he thinks the white supremacists are beginning to take him for granted he'll go all liberal until they're properly grateful again.
But if he has no morals he's hardly going to have much respect for the rule of law.
(Why is this different from the conservatives claiming Obama was going to lock up his political opponents? Well, Obama never said he was going to lock up his political opponents, and Trump did.)
[ 16. November 2016, 10:40: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hilda of Whitby
Shipmate
# 7341
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Interesting insight reported in the Economist editorial this week:
Trump's supporters took him seriously but not literally;
Trump's opponents took him literally but not seriously.
Peter Thiel, Silicon Valley tech zillionaire and Trump supporter, said this in a speech before it showed up in the Economist.
Interesting viewpoint, but I am rather skeptical. Thiel may just be speaking for himself.
Trump constantly said throughout his campaign that he would personally stop a large manufacturing factory (Carrier) from moving its operations from Indianapolis, Indiana to Monterrey, Mexico. He said this time and again.
There was a front-page article in the NY Times 4 days ago about the employees at the Carrier Indianapolis factory. The jobs at Carrier are high-paying and it will not be possible for the employees to make that kind of money and/or receive those kind of benefits at other jobs in the Indianapolis area. Jobs like working at the local Walmart distribution warehouse, for example--wages there are $12 per hour, and Carrier is paying people $23 per hour --- thanks to unions (United Steelworkers, for one).
Many of the employees voted for Trump precisely because they took him at his word that he'd stop the Carrier factory from moving. They also stated that if it didn't happen, they'd vote for someone else next time. According to the article, it is quite clear that the move to Mexico is a done deal. Trump cannot stop it by fiat. Carrier reports to its stockholders, not the president of the US.
Trump promised he'd bring back manufacturing jobs, build a wall, deport people, register Muslims, crack down on minorities, and so on. Most of these promises will probably turn out to be verbal vaporware, like so much of what comes out of Trump's mouth, but he got into office because of those promises. I think a large number of his voters took him literally and will expect that these promises will come to pass. If not, they'll turn on him.
--------------------
"Born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world is mad."
Posts: 412 | From: Nickel City | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
quote:
(Why is this different from the conservatives claiming Obama was going to lock up his political opponents? Well, Obama never said he was going to lock up his political opponents, and Trump did.) [/QB]
Tch. It is only mid-November. Obama has a good two months, to initiate the Muslim Caliphate, take away all the guns, impose sharia law, make everybody either gay or lesbian, lock up his opponents, and build prison camps in the parking lots of WalMart. But he had better get it in gear. Personally I would be content if he rammed Merritt Garland through into the Supreme Court. There's a petition on, urging him to do that.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm going to tolerate being in a coalition with a sexist institution. It's just reality, and I'll have to live with it for the time being. But there is no way on earth I will back down from my position about the sexism in some of the groups I'll be making common cause with over the next few years. I'll do my best not to choke on the irony that sexism is a primary reason we are facing at least four years of shameless kleptocracy, abuse of power, and outright stupidity.
A home run. See it soar into the stands.
I think we've all seen a team make a home run but lose the game.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'm going to tolerate being in a coalition with a sexist institution. It's just reality, and I'll have to live with it for the time being. But there is no way on earth I will back down from my position about the sexism in some of the groups I'll be making common cause with over the next few years. I'll do my best not to choke on the irony that sexism is a primary reason we are facing at least four years of shameless kleptocracy, abuse of power, and outright stupidity.
A home run. See it soar into the stands.
But if the institution that is so fraught with sexism stands to change if we engage with the person in front of us, doesn't it stand to reason to build that person up with good things to take back into that institution with her? Like a sense of her own worth and power, and the respectful interchange of ideas?
Maybe institutions need to be tolerated, but eventually you need to think about how you deal with people. Because people can change.
I stand to go back to my Head Start assignment next week.( Aside-- it's been interesting to me how issues in federal childcare mirror women's rights issues in general). The woman I described in my what- if was not hypothetical, she represents a composite of all the women I will be facing when I go back-- Catholic, Latina, pro- life, pro birth control! Anti- misogyny, definitely anti-racism, anti- Trump, pro- Hillary. Whateverthehell about the institution of Catholicism, they deserve a lot more than my tolerance.
If they are still there. My fear is, despite the soothing words of the state of CA about no change in immigration policies, they might clear out anyway.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Sioni: the answer in such cases is NOT to stop swinging.
[ 16. November 2016, 14:37: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Kelly and Callan: replace "sexism" with "racism" in what you've written on this page and tell me if you're just as comfortable with it. Which racist institutions will you collaborate with for the next four years?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
None. I was talking about people. I would have no problem at all collaberating with the women I described, and if you knew them, you would't either.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Callan:
So Kelly is quite correct not to tell her Catholic friend that she is propping up a sexist institution. That helps precisely no-one. As far as the electorate is concerned it must be remembered that one catches more flies with honey, than with vinegar.
Indeed you do. However, the plan appears to be double down on the othering of Trump supporters hoping that this time shame works. Secret ballot makes that problematic. The more Trump's foes demonize Trump and his supporters the less Trump actually has to do. Heck, the mass freakout has already given some Trump voters what they wanted. Already, they are thinking, "What will they do if he wins twice?"
quote:
originally posted by Callan:
When Obama was elected the Republicans announced that their aim was to make him a one term President. The Democrats should return the compliments with knobs on.
No doubt they will. Problem is it won't have the same effect as when the Republicans did it. Republicans knew when they used that tactic the Democrats would return the favor when they were in the minority yet they did it anyway. Why? Republicans don't care about passing legislation as much as Democrats. Plus, Obama set the precedent of overcoming gridlock by using executive order. Now, Trump can accomplish much of what he wants to do by cancelling Obama's executive orders and issuing his own. Most of what he wants to do with immigration won't require a vote from congress. Much of what you fear regarding foreign policy doesn't require a vote from congress. Democrats passed much of ACA using a parliamentary trick. Republicans can use the same trick to repeal it. Wait...it gets worse. Of the things Trump needs congressional approval to implement, much of it is stuff Democrats want to get done more than Republicans (trade, infrastructure, increasing the minimum wage, etc...). Are they going to refuse to work with him on issues important to the voters who switched to Trump after voting Democrat in the last 7 elections? Furthermore, when it boils down to it, Trump is a moderate on most political issues. Trump could play both sides against the middle a la Bill Clinton.
What about the 2010 midterm election where a wave of Tea Party anger swept tons of Republicans into office? Could that happen? It's possible. The presidents party usually loses seats in congress after in midterm elections. Plus, Trump most certainly will do stupid stuff that inspires anger. Now, here is the problem. After 2010, the Republicans won control of a surprising number of state legislatures. They redrew the district maps to create as many safe house seats as possible. In the Senate, 33 seats will be contested. Of those, 33 seats only 8 are currently held by Republicans. Of those 8 held by Republicans, only 1 of them is in a state won by Clinton. Of 25 held by Democrats, 10 of them are in states carried by Trump. You do the math. Again, Trump is the president so it's certainly possible.
quote:
originally posted by Callan:
I would have thought that the national interest was best served by not having a Russian Asset in the White House. Everything else is a matter of detail.
Trump did ask individual nations in NATO to increase their defense spending. Hard to see why the United States should be more worried about Russian encroachment into the Baltic than Germany. Just looking at a map, there is the Atlantic Ocean and every single member of NATO between the US and Russia. I'm thinking the whole rest of Europe can check Russian aggression regardless of what the United States does.
quote:
originally posted by Callan:
Read this.
I love stuff like that, thanks!!! Let me leave you this in return. Start with Open Letter and Gentle Introduction. At least one small corner of the alt right believes exactly what your guy thinks it believes. Conspiracies are so fun!
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I can't provide a link from the UK, but John Oliver's "Last Week Tonight" (HBO) on Trump's victory, aftermath, and "what to do" is a comic-serious masterpiece.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
John Oliver and company deserve an assist in getting Trump elected.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
W Hyatt
Probably. Access is denied to that link in the UK.
Beeswax Altar
If true, that would suggest either xenophobia (how dare a Brit make fun of OUR candidate) or a loss of belief in the First Amendment as a freedom for folks of contrary views. And it was on HBO, for goodness sake.
Plus he told the truth. Oh wait. Maybe that was the big error?
--------------------
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
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Oh..John Oliver's company includes Americans as well. Nobody said they didn't have a right to say what they said. Of course, you can't control how others are going to react to what you say. Maybe, continuing to call 60 million people names will work this time. How sure is everybody it will work this time? What if it doesn't? What if Donald Trump is as bad as he can be while obeying the law? What if the name calling is every bit as effective as it was this election? What then?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar
Now, here is the problem. After 2010, the Republicans won control of a surprising number of state legislatures. They redrew the district maps to create as many safe house seats as possible. In the Senate, 33 seats will be contested. Of those, 33 seats only 8 are currently held by Republicans. Of those 8 held by Republicans, only 1 of them is in a state won by Clinton. Of 25 held by Democrats, 10 of them are in states carried by Trump. You do the math. Again, Trump is the president so it's certainly possible.
Can you help me please. What are the problems with setting up an independent federal electoral commission to draw boundaries, staff polling booths, maintain electoral rolls etc, purely for federal elections of course. Are these legal problems or political?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Hilda wrote:
quote:
Trump promised he'd bring back manufacturing jobs, build a wall, deport people, register Muslims, crack down on minorities, and so on. Most of these promises will probably turn out to be verbal vaporware, like so much of what comes out of Trump's mouth, but he got into office because of those promises. I think a large number of his voters took him literally and will expect that these promises will come to pass. If not, they'll turn on him.
I dunno. I think Trump's supporters are the kind of people who are easily impressed by symbolic gestures. So, even if he doesn't build that wall, if he throws a bit more money at Homeland Security to fortify the border here and there, and then fires off a few obnoxious tweests about how this is gonna keep out all the rapists and drug-dealers(thus provoking outrage from liberals and Democrats in the media), a lot of his fans will probably think he's really taking action on the issue.
Granted, if you were expecting Trump to save your particular factory, and if that factory shurs down on his watch, you're gonna be pretty disillusioned with him. But if you were just expecting him to protect jobs in general, and he slaps on a tariff on something or other(see GW Bush and steel), and the media reports that this has kept a few factories afloat somewhere in the Rust Belt, you'll probably be satisfied enough to vote for him again.
[ 16. November 2016, 20:32: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Sioni: the answer in such cases is NOT to stop swinging.
The problem with going to the latest post first and then scrolling up is that you might see posts out of context...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
BA--
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Hard to see why the United States should be more worried about Russian encroachment into the Baltic than Germany. Just looking at a map, there is the Atlantic Ocean and every single member of NATO between the US and Russia. I'm thinking the whole rest of Europe can check Russian aggression regardless of what the United States does.
Pssst...they can also come across the Pacific, you know...
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Gee D--
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Can you help me please. What are the problems with setting up an independent federal electoral commission to draw boundaries, staff polling booths, maintain electoral rolls etc, purely for federal elections of course. Are these legal problems or political?
There's be cultural problems: distrust of the federal gov't, attitudes about states' rights, hating being told what to do. Those things are really entrenched.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
AIUI Congress could regulate and run congressional elections, but it cannot regulate presidential elections.
It's an old sport in Canada to think that's nuts, as there has been a single national electoral office, Act of Parliament and staff for federal elections since 1920.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
BA--
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Hard to see why the United States should be more worried about Russian encroachment into the Baltic than Germany. Just looking at a map, there is the Atlantic Ocean and every single member of NATO between the US and Russia. I'm thinking the whole rest of Europe can check Russian aggression regardless of what the United States does.
Pssst...they can also come across the Pacific, you know...
And the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska is all of 51 miles wide.
[Mind you, I do think other members of NATO should dig more into their pockets to pay for the overall costs.]
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Oh..John Oliver's company includes Americans as well. Nobody said they didn't have a right to say what they said. Of course, you can't control how others are going to react to what you say. Maybe, continuing to call 60 million people names will work this time. How sure is everybody it will work this time? What if it doesn't? What if Donald Trump is as bad as he can be while obeying the law? What if the name calling is every bit as effective as it was this election? What then?
I prefer Oliver's own explanation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Thanks Golden Key - I was thinking purely of federal elections, not presidential (which I understand is constitutional) or state.
SPK - we have different commissions for state and federal elections. Much data exchange between them of course and other co-operation. All have independence with judicial oversight.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Gee D--
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thanks Golden Key - I was thinking purely of federal elections, not presidential (which I understand is constitutional) or state.
Ok, so you mean members of Congress? Representatives and senators? They represent the (people of) the states, so the same things I mentioned would apply. 2 senators per state, and representatives according to the state's population.
Plus we bundle our elections together, and take care of many things at the same time. So, in the recent election, San Franciscans voted for president, members of Congress, California legislators and officials, California legal measures, San Francisco officials, and San Francisco legal measures.
ISTM that your suggestions would be best implemented by a separate election. That would cost extra. And an extra election would probably draw fewer voters.
FWIW.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Oh, yes, I know the constitution of the houses of Congress, but am questioning the ability of Congress to establish a federal electoral commission to oversee elections, maintain the rolls, staff to booths, count the votes, draw the electoral boundaries etc. Here, all that is done by such a commission for federal elections, and by state equivalents for state elections.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
{Don't know if anyone's posted this...}
From Hillary's campaign blog, posted the day after the election:
"Thank you. I am so grateful to stand with all of you."
[Tear]
--------------------
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
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It is quite telling, in lots of disturbing ways, that Bannon appears to be at very least courting white supremicists and anti-semites whilst at the same time (along with some of those groups) supporting Zionism and Israel.
Indeed, in that radio programme I posted before, Richard Spencer specifically references Israel as a model for his white-only homeland.
It is also pretty telling that even Glenn Beck thinks the alt-right are beyond the pail.
But then Mad Mel and Dershowitz think we should all calm down and give Bannon the benefit of the doubt. So that's ok then.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I apologise for using this thread to ask a question which may be off-piste, since I am not generally engaged in the thread. So . .
Does anyone know of research that indicates what effect third-party candidates had on the election result?
I'm just interested.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I apologise for using this thread to ask a question which may be off-piste, since I am not generally engaged in the thread. So . .
Does anyone know of research that indicates what effect third-party candidates had on the election result?
I'm just interested.
Did Gary Johnson and Jill Stein tip the 2016 election?
The answer, according to that article, is no, they did not. I didn't give it that close a read, so can't comment.
[ 17. November 2016, 10:33: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is quite telling, in lots of disturbing ways, that Bannon appears to be at very least courting white supremicists and anti-semites whilst at the same time (along with some of those groups) supporting Zionism and Israel.
None of which will fly in any cordial relationship between Trump and Putin. But I doubt whether Trump has thought that through. On the evidence of the campaign and his business life, he's not that good at thinking things through. Despite the admitted succcess of his "aim-low" campaign tactics, I think he doesn't have a lot of patience with the complexities of normal diplomatic considerations.
--------------------
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
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
Hmm...there is a lot of twitter chatter about the Muslim registry thing being planned. Included in the chatter is a video on Fox New of a surrogate suggesting as precedent Japanese internment camps and saying its OK to take away constitutional rights and protections of some "until we know what the threat is". To Fox news credit, the host told him how wrong the precedent was and how wrong he was about the constitutional rights idea.
If the Trump administration attempts to implement this, there will be a boycott USA backlash. Get ready for adverts saying "How can you go to the Magic Kingdom while America does this?"
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
