By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
tsogud on 18 December 2019
scottslater said:
RolStoppable said:

scottslater said:

lol, right... There is a difference between facing disagreement and being attacked... There is no denying that most centrist and right-leaning individuals fear being attacked far more than left-leaning individuals because that is the way it is right now in most public forums.  How many Democrat politicians are attacked at their homes, while out to dinner, etc? How many people wearing a hat or pin that supports a Democrat fear being attacked? Just in the last couple weeks you have had CHILDREN attacked for wearing something that supports Trump.

If I was a moderate Trump supporter there is no way that I would support anything that is coming from the Media, far left politicians, etc.  A vote for Trump doesn't mean you support Trump but rather don't support what the other side is "offering" right now.  If you don't see the trend of Centrists, Independents, Moderate Democrats, etc supporting "Trump" right now then you are in denial or don't pay attention.  The Far Left is in full attack mode and many of the "silent" voters cannot and will not support that. 

@scottslater About the only reason why someone would have to fear being attacked is because they know deep down within that they have no substantial counter-arguments. Your response highlights the paranoia that is widespread among people who vote far-right - which in the USA feeds into the spectrum of the Republican party; by screaming "Fake news!" over and over again, Trump has accomplished the feat that a significant portion of the USA doesn't believe in rebuttals with facts anymore because every fact against Trump must be fake by default. I doubt that children were attacked for wearing something that supports Trump; if such a case exists, then it would be the parents of those children that were attacked for using their children as political tools.

As far as I know, the Democrats gained seats during the mid-term election, so the trend you speak of seems to be imaginary. I certainly believe that many votes that Trump got were votes against Hillary Clinton, but that didn't carry on until mid-term.

Are you serious right now? You just choose to ignore the recent rally in Minnesota where multiple people were physically assaulted as they left the rally? Or the students across the nation physically assaulted when they have Conservative speakers or setup a table to try and share their point of view?  A 14-year-old was recently attacked on their bus for wearing a MAGA hat.  Another was a 16-year-old High School student who wore a pin that said "Women for Trump" and was assaulted by a faculty member who removed it then wore it upside down like a trophy.  These type of cases are happening all over the nation.  There is a difference between fearing being assaulted and "not being able to argue your side".  And usually it is "Leftist" that call people names like bigot or racist because that is the only way they know how to "talk" to someone that doesn't share their point of view.

The mid-term election was easy for the Dems to win for multiple reasons, mostly because during a non-presidential election cycle it's common for supporters of the current President to not show up at polls.  If you actually do research you will see that the House of Representatives almost always changes to the other party opposite of the President during a midterm election.  If anything, the results from the 2018 midterm election were very underwhelming for Democrats.  And most of the seats that the Dems did win they won in the 2016 Presidential vote.

Wow. You really just believe everything you see on the internet? He was attacked because he said a racial slur (the n-word) to a couple of students. There was no hat. And that wasn't the first time that kid had initiated a fight with others. It's well documented and the school put out a statement about the situation.

Can't speak for the other instances but if I were to guess it's probably not what you describe it is considering you didn't research what actually happened with the first example.

Regardless, the politics of the right (specifically the far-right) throughout American history have been rooted in violence and bigotry. Every single account of domestic terrorism in 2018 have been from far-right individuals or linked to far-right extremism. That's not a coincidence.

Last edited by tsogud - on 18 December 2019

 

Around the Network
TK-Karma on 18 December 2019
padib said:
SpokenTruth said:

1). Have you considered the anti-Trump sentiment in the media is simply a reflection of the majority of the population itself? Clinton did win the popular vote by 3 million, did she not? Have you considered that Trump does and says things that are extremely unbecoming of the President of the United States of America and the negative coverage is self-induced?

2). Unimportant? Abusing the power of your office for personal gain is unimportant?  And try telling Ukrainians being killed by Russian military aggression that the $400 million is unimportant.

3). How does a media that reflects the angst of the majority of the people a demonstration of how undemocratic the American process is?  Further, what democratic process does you even refer to?  Elections?  Rather ironic given this impeachment is all about the president soliciting foreign interference in the upcoming election.

4). Interesting how you only perceive the division from one side.  You see the left against the right but not the right against the left.  Unity is not one sided. Nor did any of this division start under Trump. 

5). No, he had his own interests at heart and used Republican populism as the means to put himself in power to achieve it.  No dissolution from his organization and brands. Emoluments violations. Too many others to list. 

6). Kindly enumerate them.  Specifically, what he did that no other president would do. Cited numbers too, if you have them.

7). Being passed by is rather vague.  Passed by in what, exactly?  If you mean economically, it's inevitable given the population disparity and our reliance on them for our own economy. Further, what does it matter to a Canadian how the US economy ranks compared to the Chinese economy?

8). Hyper-consumerism has been a problem for decades and is a symptom of our hyper-capitalistic economy. Something Trump very much sides with. As for the media, isn't that an issue with your country importing our media?  We can't send you CNN until you subscribe to CNN.  We can't send you the Washington Post unless you subscribe to the Washington Post.  Again, matters of our capitalistic society.

@padib 

I'm not talking about Ukraine, I'm talking about America. If we were talking about the wellbeing of Ukraine it's be a whole different story, and I probably wouldn't be talking to you about it because I have friends who actually live in Ukraine who I can talk about it with, and have a very interesting discussion about it with.

My point is simple: America is false to presume it is democratic, when the president was being pushed out by politicians and by the media since the day he was elected. That does not represent the majority, what does is the electoral result.

Whether a country is democractic or not is a function of the systems in place that are used to distribute and maintain decision-making power. Systems like elections, checks and balances, constitutions etc. form this framework. The attitude (ie. stubborness on either side of the aisle) of the people in the system is not relevant in whether the country is democratic or not, as long as they still carry out the responsibilites prescribed by the system/frameworks.

Further, there are many different variants of democracy, so not even a single system is uniquely "democratic" over others. If you consider the election as the singular, be-all-end-all factor of democracy, that's a fairly simplified take on it and not how the US system is designed. This is because such a simple approach is more easily exploitable and has a higher likelihood of fostering problems, like fascism stemming from populist leaders who actively seek to ignore/remove the system/frameworks. Hence, where we are today :)

Though I totally agree that mainstream media is super toxic and does not help the situation, for anyone at all.



Baalzamon on 18 December 2019

So maybe this is an overdone discussion point, but when people continue to say how Trump lost the majority vote therefore the general consensus of the entire country is they don't like him...I live in a liberal state (MN), and the majority of people make comments that Californians are "crazy" and way beyond what the rest of us consider normal on a political scale.

While I realize they are part of the country, they stretch further than probably any state one way.

Eliminate California, and Trump won the popular vote. So when you take 49 out of 50 states...which people from 49 of 50 states identify a lot closer to...he won the popular vote.

It is sort of the electoral college argument...that is the whole purpose of it. It is why it was designed in the first place. So our entire election isn't decided by just California, Florida, New York etc.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

SanAndreasX on 18 December 2019
Baalzamon said:
So maybe this is an overdone discussion point, but when people continue to say how Trump lost the majority vote therefore the general consensus of the entire country is they don't like him...I live in a liberal state (MN), and the majority of people make comments that Californians are "crazy" and way beyond what the rest of us consider normal on a political scale.

While I realize they are part of the country, they stretch further than probably any state one way.

Eliminate California, and Trump won the popular vote. So when you take 49 out of 50 states...which people from 49 of 50 states identify a lot closer to...he won the popular vote.

It is sort of the electoral college argument...that is the whole purpose of it. It is why it was designed in the first place. So our entire election isn't decided by just California, Florida, New York etc.

California is still a part of the United States whose people deserve to have their individual voices heard. They pay taxes just iike every other state. 13 out of every 100 dollars that goes into the Treasury comes from California taxpayers, which is by far the largest share and actually higher than their proportion to their population. Florida, and to a lesser degree Texas, are actually punching below their population weight when it comes to tax dollars contributed to the Treasury. They're just as American as someone in Alabama. So no, you can't just "eliminate California." And California couldn't have swayed the popular vote in any case without millions of people voting for Clinton across the country. 

Trump lost the popular vote, full stop. And while the popular vote may not determine the president, a president that doesn't have a popular mandate is going to have a hard time, because there are plenty of other ways people can obstruct his policies in Congress and especially at the state level.

Last edited by SanAndreasX - on 18 December 2019

SuaveSocialist on 18 December 2019
Baalzamon said:

Eliminate California, and Beloved Leader won the popular vote. 

And that right there is the best argument against voter suppression I've ever seen.  



Around the Network
Baalzamon on 18 December 2019

I don't see where in my post I suggested not allowing Californians to vote. I'm merely saying that popular vote is irrelevant in our country for a reason. California has a boatload of electoral votes available to them, and those votes will always always always be democrat (and they shouldn't be taken away from them). But fortunately, we had founding fathers who were smart enough to give other areas a reasonable say in the presidential election so if one very small area is so extremely concentrated with one side, it doesn't decide an entire election. The entire middle of the country (minus minnesota) would have ZERO ability to elect anybody they want anymore. I don't mind Democrats or Republicans, but oh my...if we were down to a 1 party system where Republicans just couldn't exist (or vice versa), I'd be awfully worried of all the change that would occur.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Baalzamon on 19 December 2019
Bandorr said:
Baalzamon said:
I don't see where in my post I suggested not allowing Californians to vote. I'm merely saying that popular vote is irrelevant in our country for a reason. California has a boatload of electoral votes available to them, and those votes will always always always be democrat (and they shouldn't be taken away from them). But fortunately, we had founding fathers who were smart enough to give other areas a reasonable say in the presidential election so if one very small area is so extremely concentrated with one side, it doesn't decide an entire election. The entire middle of the country (minus minnesota) would have ZERO ability to elect anybody they want anymore. I don't mind Democrats or Republicans, but oh my...if we were down to a 1 party system where Republicans just couldn't exist (or vice versa), I'd be awfully worried of all the change that would occur.

Land doesn't vote.

This is a density map.  The "entire middle of the country" doesn't get to elect anyone - because it has no one. People vote, land doesn't. California gets a lot of votes because it has a lot of people - not because it is a lot of land.

If texas flipped blue - democrats would have a majority.. because they would have control of states with the most people.

You are complaining about a very blue state, but it would be the exact same if they moved into those middle of the country states.

But....land does vote. That's what apparently doesn't make sense to you. We decided to appropriate a certain amount of electoral votes to EVERY state to guarantee that every single state, regardless of population actually can have a true impact in an election.

So when I look at that map, I see a country that is largely...red. The blue is then obviously the highly populated areas (especially the east and west coast but also generally metro areas).

How exactly do you think people in all that red (encompassing about 80%...I'm guessing here percent of the actual land in our country) feel when we take away the electoral college and tell them that it is virtually impossible for somebody they like to ever be elected again.

That's the genius of the electoral system, while it sides heavily towards population still being meaningful (via more electoral votes), those other areas still feel like they can truly have an impact on an election.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

OTBWY on 19 December 2019

Trump got impeached LMAOOOOO



Baalzamon on 19 December 2019

I'm really not trolling you, you simply don't understand the electoral college.

If our vote was truly decided by POPULATION alone, every election would be decided by popular vote. That is it.

We fortunately do not have a system designed in that way. We have a system designed to utilize population, but ALSO to respect differing opinions among different states that may not have quite as enormous of a population.

Yea, if you win all the most populous votes, you will win the election. But our very election results show exactly what this system means (numerous times in the near past mind you). We do pay heed and care about the lower density areas.

Heck, we even provide the lower density areas with representatives, as different districts get to vote for who represents them, and it once again isn't just decided by the whole population (or else MN would just have 100% liberals elected for other elections as well).



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

pokymon90 on 19 December 2019
Bandorr said:
Baalzamon said:

But....land does vote. That's what apparently doesn't make sense to you. We decided to appropriate a certain amount of electoral votes to EVERY state to guarantee that every single state, regardless of population actually can have a true impact in an election.

So when I look at that map, I see a country that is largely...red. The blue is then obviously the highly populated areas (especially the east and west coast but also generally metro areas).

How exactly do you think people in all that red (encompassing about 80%...I'm guessing here percent of the actual land in our country) feel when we take away the electoral college and tell them that it is virtually impossible for somebody they like to ever be elected again.

That's the genius of the electoral system, while it sides heavily towards population still being meaningful (via more electoral votes), those other areas still feel like they can truly have an impact on an election.

California votes: 13,237,598.  Alaska votes: 298,566

If 100 people voted on what to eat, why would the one person that voted chicken get to decide for the other 99? They wouldn't.

Nobody is saying that the 99 have to eat chicken, they are saying you can't feed me fucking beef when I am a vegetarian.

We need to make this federal government smaller. More state's rights the better. We are a union of multiple countries, the federal government should not be in control of half(probably more) the shit they are. That's the point. Californian's should be able to vote on Californian issues in state elections. Alaska should vote on Alaskan issues. 

New laws at the federal level SHOULD HAVE wide support from the whole country, not a couple states, because they will be negative to some, and positive to others.

What is the downside of having states have more rights than they are afforded now? Less centralized? Perfect, that's what we need. This big federal government looming over the country isn't good.