TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
... this country has indeed went to shit, hopefully it'll get better now. I doubt it though, the leftists have hit this country with pretty much a kill shot. It'll take more than bum like trump to turn it around.
The Political & Philosophy Thread
- Thread starter End of Glory
- Start date
Dak
mentat
Yeah, because protesting never accomplished anything. Ever heard of MLK? Cesar Chavez?
I've lived in the South for nearly 25 years. I've heard of MLK. I lived in Yuma for ~7. I've heard of Chavez. Chavez would have loved Trump. Build a wall, made in Murka, etc.
IIRC Democrats lost something like 1000 seats on the local/state/federal level since Barack Obama won in 2008. That could be easily construed as a mandate. I think Representatives at all levels know what the score is.
Most accurate things you've ever said.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
You sure don't act like it with your dumb fuck statement of "what's the point of protesting?" nonsense.
When you lose the popular vote by 3 million, there is no mandate (especially when you add in about seven million more votes for third party candidates). Furthermore, the idea that Trump has a mandate because of Republicans are in office throughout the nation doesn't hold since Trump's positions are in many cases opposed to those of Republican orthodoxy.
As for the Democratic party, for the most part, they're bought by their financiers, just like Republicans. I have no allegiance to them, nor do I feel a need to defend them. I would expect that part of the reason for their failures is gerrymandering and part of the reason is Democrats being out of touch with too many of the peoples' concerns.
Dak
mentat
There are more effective means of action than milling about in a street.
The first portion is irrelevant since the popular vote difference disappears when you either subtract 1 state or subtract a few concrete jungles. The latter would make a really good point, except that the stuff that protestors are marching about are not the things that markedly diverge from typical Republican positions. Where Trump diverges is much more in line with Bernie Sanders, who was probably pretty popular with the protestors.
Establishment Democrats have demonstrated that they are more concerned about non-Americans than Americans for the better part of the new millennium, among other issues (not that Republicans are better in practical terms). The "gerrymandering" complaints are a red herring, both parties do it and have done it. Each side only complains when they suck at it.
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
Is it true that more people walked in protest against him than actually turned up to the inauguration?
Dak
mentat
If you count the "sister walks" in other locations, it's certainly probable*. Obviously easier for me to drive downtown than go to DC.
Last edited:
rms
Active Member
estimates ive heard/read was 200k for inaug, 500k for protest. let alone all the protests in cities all over the world
starting to really wonder who voted for the dude haha it's insane
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
rms
Active Member
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
Satanstoenail
My Larpstyle determines my Derpstyle
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
What blatant sophistry. If you subtract 3 million from 66 million, then it is the same as 63 million. No shit, Sherlock. 66 million is still more than 63 million and you can't have a mandate when your primary opponent gets almost 5% more votes than you.That's a fair point. However, it still doesn't address Trump having a mandate when he lost the popular vote. Perhaps you could make a case for the house where they have a sizable lead in seats, but not the president.
How is it a red herring? I never denied that both parties do it. Lately, the Republicans have been the ones doing it most and with advancements in technology, have been able to be more precise in drawing the lines than ever before. I don't deny the Democrats would probably do the same thing given the chance.
Dak
mentat
It's already been mentioned that campaigns may have looked different were the Presidency been based on popular vote rather than state by state FPTP. It is, at the least, no less "sophist" to put weight on the "popular vote" than it is to put weight on the majority in the majority of states. I appreciate the federal system that provides some protection to people spread across the national landscape from the large clusters living in the handful of megalopoli.
It's a red herring in the context of both the presidency and in claiming it creates representation issues.
crimsonfloyd
Active Member
"May have looked differently" could go either way. Perhaps Clinton's win would have been even more convincing. All we can go on is what did happen and it's nonsense to talk a "mandate" when you were clearly beaten in the popular vote. And as for what you think about the electoral college, it's immaterial to conversation.
It wasn't in the context of the presidency. I brought up Trump's claims of a mandate. You countered by bringing up Republican victories in gubernatorial and congressional elections. (If anything, THAT was the red herring). I brought up gerrymandering in relation to congress, not the president. At least try and remember your own argument and if you insist on engaging in morally bankrupt sophistry, at least be smart enough to not draw attention to your own fallacies.
CiG
Approximately Infinite Universe
One of my closest friends on Facebook is "depressed" because she couldn't make it to the DC gathering of the angry sheep protest.
Your election cycle this time around has made me lose so much respect for many of my American friends. Who gets depressed over not being able to protest at an inauguration?
Your election cycle this time around has made me lose so much respect for many of my American friends. Who gets depressed over not being able to protest at an inauguration?
Dak
mentat
I wasn't beaten in any vote, as I didn't vote for either poor option.
Broad wins outside the presidency do provide support to the idea of a "mandate" as conceived. You brought up gerry mandering to under cut gains outside the Presdency directly, which support the "mandate" for Trump. If the opposite situation were the case, you'd be crowing about a mandate right now.
Obama and the Democratic party thought they had a "mandate" in 2008 with his resounding win and taking Congress, and promptly proved that idea to be incorrect. I guess we will see if a similar dynamic occurs.
Broad wins outside the presidency do provide support to the idea of a "mandate" as conceived. You brought up gerry mandering to under cut gains outside the Presdency directly, which support the "mandate" for Trump. If the opposite situation were the case, you'd be crowing about a mandate right now.
Obama and the Democratic party thought they had a "mandate" in 2008 with his resounding win and taking Congress, and promptly proved that idea to be incorrect. I guess we will see if a similar dynamic occurs.
rms
Active Member
just politically speaking, I don't recall a moment in my lifetime of this many people showing up across the U.S., let alone predominantly women
