-
How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fiction?
I had this crazy dream, where the first presidential debate took place between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. It was a huge media sensation, because Hillary kept dodging Donald, stating it would be a waste of time -- nothing productive would come of it due to Donald's rash behavior.
Well, she finally acquiesced and a debate was scheduled.
[NOTE: THIS IS FICTION!] It was a dream, so there's no transcript. I used a little creativity in reconstructing what I can recall.
SCENE: First presidential debate of 2016. Donald Trump walks in from the right wing (of course) and Hillary from the other side. Both are smiling, waving to the audience, and nodding to the moderators. First moderator addresses Donald Trump and he is given the go for his opening speech.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRUMP: Thank you, very much. Thank you. Hillary, I am so glad to see you here. Quite frankly, I didn't think you would come under the circumstances. [pause]
CLINTON: I see. And so I'm supposed to ask what are the circumstances?
TRUMP: Well, it would be the honest thing to do, if you can do it. We all know you have a little problem with honesty, and I'm toning it way down, WAY down. *laughs* But no matter, I'm very grateful you are actually here. Do you know why? I'll tell you why, Mrs. Lying, Cheating, Criminal Hillary Clinton. You have broken laws, laws that have punitive consequences, and corrupt individuals in the US government have been remiss in exercising proper legal action. I am a very responsible man, and where I see irresponsibility within my grasp, I take the charge to correct it. And therefore, I'm exercising my due right as a US citizen to put you under citizen's arrest.
MODERATOR: Mr. Trump, this is completely inappropriate and uncalled for. You will cease--
TRUMP: No, I'm not ceasing anything.
[Two very large men now appear on stage in what appear to be some kind of police-like uniforms and approach Hillary. At this moment, Hillary looks like a deer caught in headlights. Frozen with eyes open wide.]
TRUMP: Hillary Rodham Clinton, you stand accused of perjury and criminal acts against the United States Government--
MODERATOR: Mr. Trump!
CLINTON: [Hillary shakes her head, manages to get some words out.] This is despicable!
TRUMP: AND--and I'm exercising my right to a citizen's arrest. Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are to be taken into custody until such time as a hearing may be granted for your criminal case. I have that right. I HAVE THAT RIGHT.
CLINTON: You have NO authority to undertake this completely illegal and unauthorized action. It's tantamount to kidnapping!
MODERATOR: Mr. Trump, if you do not back off we are calling in the police!
TRUMP: No need -- they are here. MY police! It's over. Hillary Clinton's permission to continue her scandalous and criminal behavior ends here and now. I'm going to be your next president -- there is no other candidate. Hillary is under arrest. Take her away!
[The two burly men step forward and grasp a struggling Hillary by the upper arms.]
CLINTON: Unhand me! You have NO AUTHORITY! SOMEBODY HELP ME!! [the men start dragging her, kicking and screaming, off the stage]
MODERATOR: I'm calling in the police [dialing 911 on his cellphone]. Mr. Trump you'll be under arrest if you don't stop this immediately!
TRUMP: You want to be complicit in allowing Hillary Clinton, a criminal, to roam freely about the public? Be my guest. We can arrest you as well!
[The whole scene quickly descends into tremendous chaos. Audience members supportive of Trump jump in to assist his guards with restraining Hillary. One of them snatches away the phone of the moderator before he can finish making the call.]
TRUMP: *tap, tap* [on the microphone] So. Sorry for that folks, but this was necessary. Nobody else was taking necessary action. I did. I'm a man of action, and you'll see more of this when I'm president. Of course, this was supposed to be a debate, but we all know this wasn't going to go anywhere. I won't waste your time, but will use it productively. That's what I do. We're going to talk about all the great things I'm going to do as pres---
[The microphone at Trump's podium goes dead.]
TRUMP: [shouting] Oh that's nice. Who did that??!! [he lunges over to Hillary's empty podium] *tap, tap* Is this thing on? Good. So as I was--
[The microphone at Hillary's podium goes dead. Trump motions to someone off the stage, who then comes trotting out wearing a black uniform with a hand-held megaphone.]
TRUMP: You see folks? I come prepared. Always. That's how I'll serve as your next commander in chief, always prepared, unlike that weakling Muslim Barack HUSSEIN Obama, who has ties to terrorists.
[By this time there are people running about the audience section, and the moderators are busy chatting with building staff about the uncontrollable situation.]
TRUMP: You moderators there. Yes, you. [one of them looks at Trump] Step up. Let's get this party started. Ask me some questions. Let's not waste any more time. I've got things to do. We're getting down to business.
[The moderator gives a disgusted look at Trump shaking her head from side-to-side.]
TRUMP: OK, so you're a loser, afraid to step up. Who's next? Who is going to man up and ask me some questions? Anyone? No one? OK, well like I said I always come prepared. I have a speech right here [rustles through some papers from his breast jacket pocket].
MODERATOR: [speaking to the camera] Well folks, as you can see, another Trump debacle. This planned presidential debate has turned into chaos. I'm afraid we won't be able to continue the broadcast at this time. Please tune in--
TRUMP: [having seized the opportunity, lunged forward towards the moderator with the camera.] Oh no, you're not getting off that easy! We have a scheduled program here, and we're following through with it--
MODERATOR: Mr. Trump! We've had enough of this!
[Before Trump can say another word, he's caught off guard. A group of 5 policemen have come onto the stage, one of them pointing at Trump.]
And well... you can imagine the rest. ;)
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
myu
...Trump motions to someone off the stage, who then comes trotting out wearing a black uniform with a hand-held megaphone...]
That was good! The funny thing is that line about a black uniform and a hand-held megaphone reminded me of Pink Flloyd's, The Wall.
Something like...(and with apologies to Roger Waters)
Hush now baby, baby, don't you cry.
Donald’s gonna make all your nightmares come true.
Donald’s gonna put all his fears into you.
Donald’s gonna keep you right his under his wing.
He won't let you fly, but he might let you sing.
Donald’s gonna keep baby cozy and warm.
Ooh baby, ooh baby, ooh baby,
Of course Donald’s gonna help build the wall.
Hush now baby, baby don't you cry.
Donald’s gonna check out all your girlfriends for you.
Donald won't let anyone dirty get through.
Donald’s gonna wait up until you get in.
Donald will always find out where you've been.
Donald’s gonna keep baby healthy and clean.
Ooh baby, ooh baby, ooh baby,
You'll always be baby to me.
Donald, did it need to be so high?
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
^ Holy crap, duckmcf! Spot on, man. Awesome analogy to The Wall. Scary and unsettling, isn't it?
What really got me was Chris Christie. Not far off what my dream touched on, his speech spent some time fixated on Hillary. As Attorney General, he would "put her behind bars," virtually throwing out due process. And the audience starts chanting "Lock her up! Lock her up!" "Build up the wall! Build up the wall!" (I added the 2nd verse obviously, but sure felt like that would be the next thing).
Friggin' witch hunt mentality. Distorting truths and throwing out the entire US Constitution like it's nothing but some antique wall paper.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
myu
I had this crazy dream ...
Before Trump can say another word, he's caught off guard. A group of 5 policemen have come onto the stage, one of them pointing at Trump.
And well... you can imagine the rest. ;)
First question I always have in dream interpretation is how often do your sleeping imaginings achieve fruition in reality?
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
"We of this generation who are privileged to help make a better world for ourselves and for posterity should remember that, while we must not be visionary, we must have vision so that peace should not be punitive in spirit and should not be provincial or nationalistic or even continental in concept, but universal in scope and -- and humanitarian in action, for modern science has so annihilated distance that what affects one people must of necessity affect all other peoples."
Vote Republican!
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Other than being a citizen of the world, I really don't have a dog in this fight.
I'm as reasonably sure as I can be that my life won't change a jot no matter who wins.
That said, here's a couple of things that I'd thought I'd mention.
The Wall.
The US has ~12,000 miles of coastline. There's a basic logic disconnect if you think that building a wall between the US and Mexico will make a scrap of difference to illegal immigration. Hell, I read on the news today that a couple of kids wandered into the US from Canada following Pokemon. The authorities can't even keep illegal drugs out of jails, what makes you think that they can seal the boarder tight as a drum? I'm sure Trump knows this. Perhaps he's using the concept of a big beautiful wall as a metaphor so that in peoples minds the link is made between a big, strong and unyielding wall and the man himself. NONE SHALL PASS!
The Fear.
After years of the media pumping fear into everybody on every topic left and right, that same media now has it's collective nickers-is-a-twist / panties-in-a-bunch that a charismatic businessman is riding the fear wave, that they created, to a likely victory.
I mean what did they think was going to happen? Fascism didn't spring up in Europe because everyone was feeling good.
The Numbers.
Since the year 2000 how many people in western countries have been killed by organised terrorism? Perhaps 5000, let's call it 10,000. Now, not wanting to minimise those people and their families real suffering that resulted from those attacks, but in the same period how many people were killed by, smoking/cars/domestic violence/obesity/etc., etc. My point being that the death toll from terrorism is much less than from these other factors and I think we loose perspective.
On the other hand, Siria is a mess. It's likely that the west will be asked to resettle 1m+ people in the coming years. What percentage of these refuges will be battle hardened terrorists, hell bent on kicking their cause along in the west? 1%, 0.1%, 0.01%? I would hope that our collective intelligence agencies are up to the task, but say they catch 90% of that 0.01%. That leaves 10 people let in to wreak havoc as best they can. Is 10 an acceptable number? Obviously 0 is the number everyone wants, but to achieve that are we collective content to close our boarders to the remaining 99.99% of the refugees that are suffering?
I don't have the answers to any of these questions. They're difficult and morally challenging questions on multiple levels. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you need to be skeptical of anyone in politics that tells you the answer to these questions is simple, and all you have to do is follow him/her.
Anyway, I'm old enough to remember that the world ridiculed the US for electing Ronald Reagan, twice.
Now he's fondly remembered as a good economic manager who more-or-less won the cold war.
Who knows, maybe Trump could also turn out to be a great president. Or maybe not. Or maybe he won't get the chance.
What ever happens, it'll be fun to watch from 10,000 miles away.
Cheers
Noel
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
duckmcf
Anyway, I'm old enough to remember that the world ridiculed the US for electing Ronald Reagan, twice.
Now he's fondly remembered as a good economic manager who more-or-less won the cold war.
Who knows, maybe Trump could also turn out to be a great president. Or maybe not. Or maybe he won't get the chance.
What ever happens, it'll be fun to watch from 10,000 miles away.
Reagan can be seen quite differently, depending upon what lenses you choose to look through. Emotional or factual?
Well, it seems FACTUAL is out of fashion these days, especially with the Republican party. So, Reagan is a hero to them.
Reagan was great for his first few years in office, because he rallied the SPIRIT of the American people. But after that subsided, what was next? Economics. And he failed miserably, setting in motion a wave of deregulation that has brutally contaminated our ability to keep pollution to a minimum, and an enormous budget deficit that took a full term of George H W Bush to repair... which then, Bill Clinton took credit (although he did keep it going to depart 8 years later with a BUDGET SURPLUS, so he has kudos in there). Reagan CAPITALIZED on what was already happening in Europe. He placed the last straw on the camel's back, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" and then it fell... so he gets credit, despite not doing much prior to that famous quote. It was going to fall anyway.
We've heard the RNC speeches and there's no substance of facts or tangible policies offered. Only emotion. "Believe me" is what Trump says repeatedly. Just trust him, even though he has no plans. That sure worked out well with 6 bankruptcies to his name. Then Mike Pense who is the biggest flip-flopper since John Kerry. He's completely against LGBT... and there was Trump saying he'll support them while reciting the letters uncomfortably (because he's not very familiar with it, thinking he might get it wrong).
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
myu
Reagan can be seen quite differently, depending upon what lenses you choose to look through. Emotional or factual?
Well, it seems FACTUAL is out of fashion these days, especially with the Republican party. So, Reagan is a hero to them.
Reagan was great for his first few years in office, because he rallied the SPIRIT of the American people. But after that subsided, what was next? Economics. And he failed miserably, setting in motion a wave of deregulation that has brutally contaminated our ability to keep pollution to a minimum, and an enormous budget deficit that took a full term of George H W Bush to repair... which then, Bill Clinton took credit (although he did keep it going to depart 8 years later with a BUDGET SURPLUS, so he has kudos in there). Reagan CAPITALIZED on what was already happening in Europe. He placed the last straw on the camel's back, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!" and then it fell... so he gets credit, despite not doing much prior to that famous quote. It was going to fall anyway.
I live around 10,000 miles from DC and so I'll have to take your word on the facts vs. legend of The Ronald. :)
I also agree that peoples views are skewed based on their political bias.
Normalising for Republicans, I guess what I was getting at is that Reagan is remembered more fondly than say, George W. Bush or Richard Nixon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
myu
We've heard the RNC speeches and there's no substance of facts or tangible policies offered. Only emotion. "Believe me" is what Trump says repeatedly. Just trust him, even though he has no plans. That sure worked out well with 6 bankruptcies to his name. Then Mike Pense who is the biggest flip-flopper since John Kerry. He's completely against LGBT... and there was Trump saying he'll support them while reciting the letters uncomfortably (because he's not very familiar with it, thinking he might get it wrong).
I completely agree. Trump is using weapons grade persuasion techniques that Hillary is having trouble countering.
Facts don't matter. Policies don't matter. It's all about the messaging and conditioning.
The branding of "Crooked Hillary", is really a killer blow!
Her counter of "Crazy Racist" looked good, but it doesn't seem to have stuck.
Unless Hillary and her team pulls a massive rabbit out their collective hats, right now I just can't see how The Donald can loose.
Fingers crossed that the US and the rest of the world don't loose as a result of his win.
Cheers
Noel
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
While there is validity to the viewpoint of emotional vs factual lenses, I would submit that there is also the political / philosophical lenses. The liberal vs conservative divide is enormous right now, because of the media to a great extent. Both sides use emotion and rhetoric as weapons, and neither side has a monopoly on facts.
Reagan, for example, had a Democrat controlled Congress. They "compromised" to spend like drunken sailors on each others' pet projects. Reagan spent on the military (which the Soviets couldn't keep pace with, and lending to their collapse), and the Democrats spent on social programs.
Clinton got a Republican controlled Congress midway through his first term. Newt Gingrich and Co were the architects of the "contract with America" and the balanced budget. The surplus Clinton enjoyed was partly due to that, but partly due to the "peace dividend" post Soviet collapse.
In both cases, each side bears responsibility for the good and bad. But individuals will still place the blame on the "other" party and credit to "theirs".
At the end of the day, they're all politicians - which is to say professional liars and manipulators who will do anything to further their self interest. Thinking your side is the "honest", or "correct" side is merely a sign that you're not honest with yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c18TkF5n1UA
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
^^^^^ Fricken nailed it!
Nice work!
Cheers
Noel
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
^ Each have lied. There's no doubt about that. But the context and gravity of those lies... that's the key. One can spin some lies to look more serious than they are. But in the end it's really about the CAUSE and EFFECT factor. Many more people have been hurt by Trump's lies than Hillary's lies.
But point blank, one must recognize that BUSINESS experience pales in comparison to POLITICAL experience when it comes to serving in public office. Bloomberg can attest to that, having been both a billionaire entrepreneur and the major of New York City. Donald Trump is too ill equipped to take on the role of president. He doesn't know the ropes. The claim that being an outsider is an advantage is baseless. He'll need at least 4 years on the job learning the ropes before he could really make proper decisions. We don't have 4 years to waste with an on-the-job trainee.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
duckmcf
I live around 10,000 miles from DC and so I'll have to take your word on the facts vs. legend of The Ronald. :)
I also agree that peoples views are skewed based on their political bias.
Normalising for Republicans, I guess what I was getting at is that Reagan is remembered more fondly than say, George W. Bush or Richard Nixon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
myu
We've heard the RNC speeches and there's no substance of facts or tangible policies offered. Only emotion. "Believe me" is what Trump says repeatedly. Just trust him, even though he has no plans. That sure worked out well with 6 bankruptcies to his name. Then Mike Pense who is the biggest flip-flopper since John Kerry. He's completely against LGBT... and there was Trump saying he'll support them while reciting the letters uncomfortably (because he's not very familiar with it, thinking he might get it wrong).
I completely agree. Trump is using weapons grade persuasion techniques that Hillary is having trouble countering.
Facts don't matter. Policies don't matter. It's all about the messaging and conditioning.
The branding of "Crooked Hillary", is really a killer blow!
Her counter of "Crazy Racist" looked good, but it doesn't seem to have stuck.
Unless Hillary and her team pulls a massive rabbit out their collective hats, right now I just can't see how The Donald can loose.
Fingers crossed that the US and the rest of the world don't loose as a result of his win.
Cheers
Noel
If you're interested and can view them, watch the speeches from the DNC (Democrat) sessions held this week. Then watch the RNC (Republican) ones. It will astound you to hear the differences.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Well, it has all become clear now... that Trump really wasn't in this for the presidency, but for media attention and brand recognition. He has partnered with lauded media professionals now, people who have no political campaign experience but tons of mileage on generating media attention and advertising revenue. Trump now has his partners... and will be geared up to cash out in a huge way once the election is done. He really doesn't care about the presidency. He never did. Why? BECAUSE HE HAS NEVER BEEN A PUBLIC SERVANT. Being one is the antithesis to his lifestyle. Yes, going down in history as a US president is a pretty big deal, but Trump wouldn't want to sacrifice his freedom. Because as president, you are hostage to an intense focus of demand on your time. Plus, there's the HUGE HEADACHE that would befall him regarding his assets. All Trump holdings would have to be moved into a blind trust... which would require selling. And his children wouldn't likely follow suit on that. If not, then the president becomes extremely biased, forced to make decisions on policies that affect his assets. Total conflict of interest. No... Trump doesn't want to face that.
This was all about his name, his ego... nothing more. He took all of those Trump supporters for one big ride... to nothing.
To-Trump-Even-Losing-Is-Winning
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Win (unlikely) or lose (likely) the impact of Trump will probably be positive in the long run. Trump (politically) is just a product of the underlying problems/issues that has driven his campaign and clearly visible to both parties. The political reality is now how to address this in a positive fashion to ensure there isn't a repeat and the concerns of those people eased. That he has a chance to win at all doesn't say much for the Democrats either.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Donald Trump still won't release his tax returns, and WILL NOT in time for the election. NO US PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE has ever done this before. Why? Because it signals a disingenuous position.
He did reveal his debt obligations. And it's to HUNDREDS of very small banks/lenders. Why? Because the larger banks WILL NOT DO BUSINESS WITH TRUMP, due to his defaulting history. His bankruptcies that cost them millions.
And... people are still voting for this man, with his track record of financial debauchery. He became a billionaire by first becoming a millionaire through conventional, practical means -- developing properties and weaseling out great deals for himself based on the timing (all started by a "small loan" from his father... and then largely fueled by his inheritance). But when the development business wouldn't tolerate his dynamic, his scheming to "play poker" with investor funds, and cheat people out of their money, they stopped cooperating. Once Trump had a good solid half billion to his name, he turned around and made a media empire. He had the "showmanship" to do The Apprentice. And license his name for development projects where he has NOTHING to do with it but licensing his name. Meaningless. THAT is how he became a billionaire. By "illusion."
So this is the man that a large portion of people would want to see as our president. It's deplorable.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Well, let's shift from fiction to FACT.
Trump does not deny that he had a nearly 1 BILLION dollar loss in the mid 1990's... so much so, that he'd not have to pay Federal income tax for over 18 years.
Amazing.
Well, he Christie and Giuliani spin this as "He's so smart!"
REALLY?
Huh. Nearly 1 billion in losses is not being smart, in my book. And no wonder why Trump has REFUSED to release his tax returns and is threatening litigation against the NY Times for leaking this. Well, if he's so smart and this is so positive, why would he even bother to sue? Total conflicting action against the alleged perception. A joke!
Avoiding taxes... well, yes, he may have been able to do this legally for most of it, but it's not Trump's brilliance. It's his accountant!
Seriously, I just can't believe how idiotic the support has been for him. If this happened to Clinton, Trump and his supporters would be all over her as an "idiot" and "deceptive" and "not patriotic for avoiding taxes."
This is all so despicable.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
I've been watching and following the politics here. First time voter from California. I'm pretty certain that California is firmly blue and I intend to vote for Hillary.
For me, Trump is a total disaster, a train wreck.
Although we cannot say that he cheated on his taxes in the 90's, he utilized the tax loopholes to his maximum advantage. He cooked the numbers to show very high depreciation on his properties, effectively showing nearly a billion dollar loss.
He also evaded property taxes by challenging the local tax authorities on the appraised values of his properties going for a 1/3rd of what the property was actually worth ( sometimes even going as low as 1/10th for many of his golf courses and hotels).
Although we can't call him a crook for all this, he certainly doesn't win any points with me for being a patriot or a public servant.
He's a greedy selfish manipulator who is an ill tempered narcissist.
For all of Hillary's flaws I'd pick her over him any day.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
This current election cycle makes it very difficult to take the US seriously anymore. Maybe Trump does have a plan to make the US "great" again, but I think that the damage has been done and when he wins the best he can hope for is to steer it in the direction of mediocrity.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scrawler
This current election cycle makes it very difficult to take the US seriously anymore. Maybe Trump does have a plan to make the US "great" again, but I think that the damage has been done and when he wins the best he can hope for is to steer it in the direction of mediocrity.
We're doomed for a terrible 4 years ahead. I cannot believe the Electoral College failed us. They're supposed to protect the country when a majority of people make a bad choice, or the Electoral Voting initially conflicts with the popular vote... and they should recast to match the will of the people. But they failed to do so. Corrupt b@stards, the lot of them.
Trump's actions since winning have proven that he's going to make a terrible mess of things. He is "SWAPPING THE SWAMP" instead of draining it. He's putting people in positions with blatant conflicts of interest. Climate change deniers in charge of the EPA. Department of Energy to be led by someone who wants to destroy it. Secretary of State with significant monetary interests, who will set policies to make himself and his cronies rich. And Trump himself, who won't divest himself of his assets that will create an immediate conflict of interest. He's going to get mighty rich off of being president. Because he never has enough money. And he could give a rat's ass about the public. But those morons still believe in him, despite all the writing on the wall. Even Trump admitted that his whole "Lock her up" threat was hollow... didn't mean it. It rallied people behind him so he could get elected and that served his purpose. Now? "I could care less." Those are his words. You ask his followers about that, and they brush it off as "oh, he's just trying to make nice, but he'll have others do the witch hunting for him." How far do you go with attributing a thief as someone who is just genuinely interested in borrowing things from you, so don't stop them -- in fact, help them carry your stuff to their truck. It's just absolute insanity. I'm disgusted to no end.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
myu
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scrawler
This current election cycle makes it very difficult to take the US seriously anymore. Maybe Trump does have a plan to make the US "great" again, but I think that the damage has been done and when he wins the best he can hope for is to steer it in the direction of mediocrity.
We're doomed for a terrible 4 years ahead. I cannot believe the Electoral College failed us. They're supposed to protect the country when a majority of people make a bad choice, or the Electoral Voting initially conflicts with the popular vote... and they should recast to match the will of the people. But they failed to do so. Corrupt b@stards, the lot of them.
The will of what people? Wyoming electors should recast their votes because the will of their people doesn't match the will of the people of Vermont?
The Electoral College reflects the will of the people, and is designed to temper the weight of the populous States.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I do believe in the principles of the Constitution.
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...sx6pzf7nj.jpeg
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...sd5uosgza.jpeg
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
myu
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scrawler
This current election cycle makes it very difficult to take the US seriously anymore. Maybe Trump does have a plan to make the US "great" again, but I think that the damage has been done and when he wins the best he can hope for is to steer it in the direction of mediocrity.
We're doomed for a terrible 4 years ahead. I cannot believe the Electoral College failed us. They're supposed to protect the country when a majority of people make a bad choice, or the Electoral Voting initially conflicts with the popular vote... and they should recast to match the will of the people. But they failed to do so. Corrupt b@stards, the lot of them.
The will of what people? Wyoming electors should recast their votes because the will of their people doesn't match the will of the people of Vermont?
The Electoral College reflects the will of the people, and is designed to temper the weight of the populous States.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I do believe in the principles of the Constitution.
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...sx6pzf7nj.jpeg
http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/a...sd5uosgza.jpeg
Yep. The political effects of going to a popular vote would almost certainly be profound.
I should acknowledge, though, that it feels sickening to know that some people's votes count more than others, especially when, according to a recent article in the Stanford Law Review, voting power is effectively weighted along racial lines.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
See the Hildago Plateau? I call that home.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
Yep. The political effects of going to a popular vote would almost certainly be profound.
I should acknowledge, though, that it feels sickening to know that some people's votes count more than others, especially when, according to a recent article in the Stanford Law Review, voting power is effectively weighted along racial lines.
I don't know why it would feel sickening. Does it feel sickening that California gets more electoral votes than Montana? How is that fair? What good is the more heavily weighted vote of a Hillary supporter in Wyoming compared to the diluted vote of a Trump supporter in New York?
I'm not sure what you mean with your last sentence though. African Americans have more "voting power" than Asian Americans. Is that unfair? One African American vote counts the same as one Asian American vote.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
The will of what people? Wyoming electors should recast their votes because the will of their people doesn't match the will of the people of Vermont?
The Electoral College reflects the will of the people, and is designed to temper the weight of the populous States.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I do believe in the principles of the Constitution.
Hey dneal,
You're about half-way there.
The "principles of the Constitution" you are supporting are some of the left-over bits that went along with some state's residents not having the vote but counting as 3/5th of a person for population purposes. The Electoral College was an important compromise in order to get the Constitution ratified two centuries ago, but it never got revisited or updated when the US decided to broaden the voting pool in subsequent years.
You're correct that in the 18th century there was a real concern by Southern agricultural states in the US that in a popular vote they would never achieve a majority and they'd see their institutions and way of life threatened, especially with regards to slave ownership. As giving the vote to slaves was a total non-starter, compromises were developed that based political institutions on population instead of voter enrollment. One of these compromises was every state getting to send two Senators, selected by the state legislature, to form the upper house of Congress. Another was counting slaves as 3/5th of a person, increasing the state population numbers for Representative seats. The Electoral College, as a sort of meta-compromise, took both of these compromises (2 Senators/state and Representatives based on population) and made selection of the President of the United States dependent on those numbers and not a straight popular vote, which at the time would be heavily weighted towards the Northeast.
Certainly, this is an effective compromise if your entering assumption is that only white men are fit to vote, but your white male population is unevenly distributed across state boundaries and you need to unify those states.
It is a bit harder to justify nowadays when all citizens get the vote. For instance:
-California has around 18,000,000 registered voters and gets 55 Electoral College electors.
-Vermont has around 300,000 registered voters and gets 3 Electoral College electors.
-In CA each elector represents over 300,000 voters but in VT each elector represents only 100,000 voters.
-Are VT voters three-times the citizen of voters in CA?
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
Yep. The political effects of going to a popular vote would almost certainly be profound.
I should acknowledge, though, that it feels sickening to know that some people's votes count more than others, especially when, according to a recent article in the Stanford Law Review, voting power is effectively weighted along racial lines.
I don't know why it would feel sickening. Does it feel sickening that California gets more electoral votes than Montana? How is that fair? What good is the more heavily weighted vote of a Hillary supporter in Wyoming compared to the diluted vote of a Trump supporter in New York?
I'm not sure what you mean with your last sentence though. African Americans have more "voting power" than Asian Americans. Is that unfair? One African American vote counts the same as one Asian American vote.
Well of course in a popular vote, you wouldn't have to worry about your vote being "diluted" by your geographic location. It would count as much as any other vote.
I believe the FountainPenKid was referring to the convoluted gerrymandering that occurs in some states. In practice you draw the district boundaries so as to place all high-population minority populations into one or as few districts as possible and then generate as many as possible other districts to capture low-population affluent white residential areas. This allows you to have high voter turnout, but ensure that minority issues never gain a majority. In practice you end up with district maps that look much like you'd expect based on geography/neighborhoods and then there will be one serpentine district snaking across the city/counties/state that twists and turns to encompass all the areas where minority populations reside. If you are curious how this works and want more detail, North Carolina has really taken gerrymandering to a new level in recent years. I'd encourage you to take a look.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chemyst
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
Yep. The political effects of going to a popular vote would almost certainly be profound.
I should acknowledge, though, that it feels sickening to know that some people's votes count more than others, especially when, according to a recent article in the Stanford Law Review, voting power is effectively weighted along racial lines.
I don't know why it would feel sickening. Does it feel sickening that California gets more electoral votes than Montana? How is that fair? What good is the more heavily weighted vote of a Hillary supporter in Wyoming compared to the diluted vote of a Trump supporter in New York?
I'm not sure what you mean with your last sentence though. African Americans have more "voting power" than Asian Americans. Is that unfair? One African American vote counts the same as one Asian American vote.
Well of course in a popular vote, you wouldn't have to worry about your vote being "diluted" by your geographic location. It would count as much as any other vote.
I believe the FountainPenKid was referring to the convoluted gerrymandering that occurs in some states. In practice you draw tsthe district boundaries so as to place all high-population minority populations into one or as few districts as possible and then generate as many as possible other districts to capture low-population affluent white residential areas. This allows you to have high voter turnout, but ensure that minority issues never gain a majority. In practice you end up with district maps that look much like you'd expect based on geography/neighborhoods and then there will be one serpentine district snaking across the city/counties/state that twists and turns to encompass all the areas where minority populations reside. If you are curious how this works and want more detail, North Carolina has really taken gerrymandering to a new level in recent years. I'd encourage you to take a look.
Actually the 'racial weighting' I was refering to was that caused directly by the electoral college...less populous, overrepresented states tend to be significantly more white than the most populous ones, meaning, when things are calculated out, blacks in this country, de facto, have less voting power than whites. This doesn't take into account the gerrymandering you mention, nor the voter supression laws etc. etc.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chemyst
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
The will of what people? Wyoming electors should recast their votes because the will of their people doesn't match the will of the people of Vermont?
The Electoral College reflects the will of the people, and is designed to temper the weight of the populous States.
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I do believe in the principles of the Constitution.
Hey dneal,
You're about half-way there.
The "principles of the Constitution" you are supporting are some of the left-over bits that went along with some state's residents not having the vote but counting as 3/5th of a person for population purposes. The Electoral College was an important compromise in order to get the Constitution ratified two centuries ago, but it never got revisited or updated when the US decided to broaden the voting pool in subsequent years.
You're correct that in the 18th century there was a real concern by Southern agricultural states in the US that in a popular vote they would never achieve a majority and they'd see their institutions and way of life threatened, especially with regards to slave ownership. As giving the vote to slaves was a total non-starter, compromises were developed that based political institutions on population instead of voter enrollment. One of these compromises was every state getting to send two Senators, selected by the state legislature, to form the upper house of Congress. Another was counting slaves as 3/5th of a person, increasing the state population numbers for Representative seats. The Electoral College, as a sort of meta-compromise, took both of these compromises (2 Senators/state and Representatives based on population) and made selection of the President of the United States dependent on those numbers and not a straight popular vote, which at the time would be heavily weighted towards the Northeast.
Certainly, this is an effective compromise if your entering assumption is that only white men are fit to vote, but your white male population is unevenly distributed across state boundaries and you need to unify those states.
It is a bit harder to justify nowadays when all citizens get the vote. For instance:
-California has around 18,000,000 registered voters and gets 55 Electoral College electors.
-Vermont has around 300,000 registered voters and gets 3 Electoral College electors.
-In CA each elector represents over 300,000 voters but in VT each elector represents only 100,000 voters.
-Are VT voters three-times the citizen of voters in CA?
They're not "left over bits", and "it never got revisited or updated" implies that it should have been. I disagree. The point has always been that we are a union of states and those smaller states (like Delaware too) wanted a means to retain relevancy. The 3/5ths compromise was as much about taxation as it was representation.
There has always been a method for changing the election to a popular vote. If it were that important to the people, and amendment would have been adopted long ago. Perhaps those smaller states still see the relevance of the constitutional principle...
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chemyst
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
Yep. The political effects of going to a popular vote would almost certainly be profound.
I should acknowledge, though, that it feels sickening to know that some people's votes count more than others, especially when, according to a recent article in the Stanford Law Review, voting power is effectively weighted along racial lines.
I don't know why it would feel sickening. Does it feel sickening that California gets more electoral votes than Montana? How is that fair? What good is the more heavily weighted vote of a Hillary supporter in Wyoming compared to the diluted vote of a Trump supporter in New York?
I'm not sure what you mean with your last sentence though. African Americans have more "voting power" than Asian Americans. Is that unfair? One African American vote counts the same as one Asian American vote.
Well of course in a popular vote, you wouldn't have to worry about your vote being "diluted" by your geographic location. It would count as much as any other vote.
I believe the FountainPenKid was referring to the convoluted gerrymandering that occurs in some states. In practice you draw the district boundaries so as to place all high-population minority populations into one or as few districts as possible and then generate as many as possible other districts to capture low-population affluent white residential areas. This allows you to have high voter turnout, but ensure that minority issues never gain a majority. In practice you end up with district maps that look much like you'd expect based on geography/neighborhoods and then there will be one serpentine district snaking across the city/counties/state that twists and turns to encompass all the areas where minority populations reside. If you are curious how this works and want more detail, North Carolina has really taken gerrymandering to a new level in recent years. I'd encourage you to take a look.
I dislike gerrymandering, and prefer Jefferson's idea of geographic division. I don't know why you assume I don't know how this works.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chemyst
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
Yep. The political effects of going to a popular vote would almost certainly be profound.
I should acknowledge, though, that it feels sickening to know that some people's votes count more than others, especially when, according to a recent article in the Stanford Law Review, voting power is effectively weighted along racial lines.
I don't know why it would feel sickening. Does it feel sickening that California gets more electoral votes than Montana? How is that fair? What good is the more heavily weighted vote of a Hillary supporter in Wyoming compared to the diluted vote of a Trump supporter in New York?
I'm not sure what you mean with your last sentence though. African Americans have more "voting power" than Asian Americans. Is that unfair? One African American vote counts the same as one Asian American vote.
Well of course in a popular vote, you wouldn't have to worry about your vote being "diluted" by your geographic location. It would count as much as any other vote.
I believe the FountainPenKid was referring to the convoluted gerrymandering that occurs in some states. In practice you draw tsthe district boundaries so as to place all high-population minority populations into one or as few districts as possible and then generate as many as possible other districts to capture low-population affluent white residential areas. This allows you to have high voter turnout, but ensure that minority issues never gain a majority. In practice you end up with district maps that look much like you'd expect based on geography/neighborhoods and then there will be one serpentine district snaking across the city/counties/state that twists and turns to encompass all the areas where minority populations reside. If you are curious how this works and want more detail, North Carolina has really taken gerrymandering to a new level in recent years. I'd encourage you to take a look.
Actually the 'racial weighting' I was refering to was that caused directly by the electoral college...less populous, overrepresented states tend to be significantly more white than the most populous ones, meaning, when things are calculated out, blacks in this country, de facto, have less voting power than whites. This doesn't take into account the gerrymandering you mention, nor the voter supression laws etc. etc.
Minorities will always have less "voting power" than majorities. It's math, not racism.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chemyst
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
Yep. The political effects of going to a popular vote would almost certainly be profound.
I should acknowledge, though, that it feels sickening to know that some people's votes count more than others, especially when, according to a recent article in the Stanford Law Review, voting power is effectively weighted along racial lines.
I don't know why it would feel sickening. Does it feel sickening that California gets more electoral votes than Montana? How is that fair? What good is the more heavily weighted vote of a Hillary supporter in Wyoming compared to the diluted vote of a Trump supporter in New York?
I'm not sure what you mean with your last sentence though. African Americans have more "voting power" than Asian Americans. Is that unfair? One African American vote counts the same as one Asian American vote.
Well of course in a popular vote, you wouldn't have to worry about your vote being "diluted" by your geographic location. It would count as much as any other vote.
I believe the FountainPenKid was referring to the convoluted gerrymandering that occurs in some states. In practice you draw tsthe district boundaries so as to place all high-population minority populations into one or as few districts as possible and then generate as many as possible other districts to capture low-population affluent white residential areas. This allows you to have high voter turnout, but ensure that minority issues never gain a majority. In practice you end up with district maps that look much like you'd expect based on geography/neighborhoods and then there will be one serpentine district snaking across the city/counties/state that twists and turns to encompass all the areas where minority populations reside. If you are curious how this works and want more detail, North Carolina has really taken gerrymandering to a new level in recent years. I'd encourage you to take a look.
Actually the 'racial weighting' I was refering to was that caused directly by the electoral college...less populous, overrepresented states tend to be significantly more white than the most populous ones, meaning, when things are calculated out, blacks in this country, de facto, have less voting power than whites. This doesn't take into account the gerrymandering you mention, nor the voter supression laws etc. etc.
Minorities will always have less "voting power" than majorities. It's math, not racism.
You are now just ignoring what I wrote.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chemyst
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fountainpenkid
Yep. The political effects of going to a popular vote would almost certainly be profound.
I should acknowledge, though, that it feels sickening to know that some people's votes count more than others, especially when, according to a recent article in the Stanford Law Review, voting power is effectively weighted along racial lines.
I don't know why it would feel sickening. Does it feel sickening that California gets more electoral votes than Montana? How is that fair? What good is the more heavily weighted vote of a Hillary supporter in Wyoming compared to the diluted vote of a Trump supporter in New York?
I'm not sure what you mean with your last sentence though. African Americans have more "voting power" than Asian Americans. Is that unfair? One African American vote counts the same as one Asian American vote.
Well of course in a popular vote, you wouldn't have to worry about your vote being "diluted" by your geographic location. It would count as much as any other vote.
I believe the FountainPenKid was referring to the convoluted gerrymandering that occurs in some states. In practice you draw tsthe district boundaries so as to place all high-population minority populations into one or as few districts as possible and then generate as many as possible other districts to capture low-population affluent white residential areas. This allows you to have high voter turnout, but ensure that minority issues never gain a majority. In practice you end up with district maps that look much like you'd expect based on geography/neighborhoods and then there will be one serpentine district snaking across the city/counties/state that twists and turns to encompass all the areas where minority populations reside. If you are curious how this works and want more detail, North Carolina has really taken gerrymandering to a new level in recent years. I'd encourage you to take a look.
Actually the 'racial weighting' I was refering to was that caused directly by the electoral college...less populous, overrepresented states tend to be significantly more white than the most populous ones, meaning, when things are calculated out, blacks in this country, de facto, have less voting power than whites. This doesn't take into account the gerrymandering you mention, nor the voter supression laws etc. etc.
Minorities will always have less "voting power" than majorities. It's math, not racism.
You are now just ignoring what I wrote.
I'm not ignoring what you wrote. You're dodging the logical conclusion.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
They're not "left over bits", and "it never got revisited or updated" implies that it should have been. I disagree. The point has always been that we are a union of states and those smaller states (like Delaware too) wanted a means to retain relevancy. The 3/5ths compromise was as much about taxation as it was representation.
There has always been a method for changing the election to a popular vote. If it were that important to the people, and amendment would have been adopted long ago. Perhaps those smaller states still see the relevance of the constitutional principle...
Well they are left over bits if you believe that slavery should have been abolished (Amendment XIII), negating the need for the various political compromises and contortions made to accommodate it.
They are also left overs if you believe the it was correct to expand the voting pool beyond white men to encompass African-Americans (Amendment XV) and women (Amendment XIX). At that point it becomes less and less conscionable to count some citizens more than others.
Ideally any of those three amendments would have been the correct place to strike or modify the Electoral College. Even when the people decided that Senators should be directly elected (Amendment XVII), would have been a reasonable place to make the necessary modifications. Unfortunately, it was not done at those times and revising the Constitution has become progressively more challenging as time has gone on.
You are correct, there is a process to amend the Constitution and make Presidential elections a popular vote, but as the status quo had already solidified and concentrated power there is less and less interest in doing this among those profiting from the system as set up centuries ago under different conditions. Notably, this is likely to only increase as the nation becomes more diverse and white nationalists feel more and more threatened. They will have less and less interest in equal enfranchisement and the central prairie states will gain more and more importance to the white nationalism as a key veto voting bloc.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Minorities will always have less "voting power" than majorities. It's math, not racism.
I believe "minorities" in this case is being used in common shorthand for "non-white".
Your statement is also very silly considering that only last month in the US, a minority of voters had more voting power than the majority of US voters based on their use of a racist system.
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chemyst
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
They're not "left over bits", and "it never got revisited or updated" implies that it should have been. I disagree. The point has always been that we are a union of states and those smaller states (like Delaware too) wanted a means to retain relevancy. The 3/5ths compromise was as much about taxation as it was representation.
There has always been a method for changing the election to a popular vote. If it were that important to the people, and amendment would have been adopted long ago. Perhaps those smaller states still see the relevance of the constitutional principle...
Well they are left over bits if you believe that slavery should have been abolished (Amendment XIII), negating the need for the various political compromises and contortions made to accommodate it.
They are also left overs if you believe the it was correct to expand the voting pool beyond white men to encompass African-Americans (Amendment XV) and women (Amendment XIX). At that point it becomes less and less conscionable to count some citizens more than others.
Ideally any of those three amendments would have been the correct place to strike or modify the Electoral College. Even when the people decided that Senators should be directly elected (Amendment XVII), would have been a reasonable place to make the necessary modifications. Unfortunately, it was not done at those times and revising the Constitution has become progressively more challenging as time has gone on.
You are correct, there is a process to amend the Constitution and make Presidential elections a popular vote, but as the status quo had already solidified and concentrated power there is less and less interest in doing this among those profiting from the system as set up centuries ago under different conditions. Notably, this is likely to only increase as the nation becomes more diverse and white nationalists feel more and more threatened. They will have less and less interest in equal enfranchisement and the central prairie states will gain more and more importance to the white nationalism as a key veto voting bloc.
I looks to me that you are assigning a racist motive to the electoral college, and I don't see a convincing argument for that. My reading of the federalist papers leads me to believe the electoral college has the same purpose as the make up of the congress - a means to acknowledge more influence of more populated states (the house) and balance the interests of the less populated states (the senate) in order to mitigate a "tyranny of the majority".
As I said earlier, I dislike gerrymandering from either party; and the Republicans were the party in control during the last round of districting. Where you see lines drawn by race, I see lines drawn by party. If those minority voters were more likely to vote Republican, do you think their votes would be as "diluted"? If the Democrats held power at the time, and drew lines maximizing their voter pools which also could be correlated by race, would that be racist as well?
-
Re: How far can it go? [presidential race] Who knows. Until then, how about some fict
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chemyst
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dneal
Minorities will always have less "voting power" than majorities. It's math, not racism.
I believe "minorities" in this case is being used in common shorthand for "non-white".
Your statement is also very silly considering that only last month in the US, a minority of voters had more voting power than the majority of US voters based on their use of a racist system.
I think the use of the term "minority" is more clear than "voting power". An individual black, asian, hispanic, white, etc... voter in California had just as much "voting power" as any other voter in California. Each individual had one vote. Generalizing it to simply "non-white" is disingenuous, avoiding the problems that arise once you start down that path (i.e.: you can continue to classify each "minority" group and discover you have different "minorities" within the larger category of minorities).
Each California voter, regardless of race, had less "voting power" than a voter in Wyoming. Just because Wyoming is predominately white does not mean there's some racial conspiracy to dilute the vote of minorities in California (or any other state). A minority voter in Wyoming has as much voting power as a white voter in Wyoming - each is one vote. It seems to me the implication from Fountainpenkid is that it's racism for the minority votes in Wyoming to be ineffective, diluted, or having less "voting power" than whites in Wyoming. It's no more racist than a white voter in a predominately black district being a minority vote.
The "logical conclusion" I was referring to earlier is that no matter how you think you can "undilute" votes by changing or eliminating the electoral college, the fact will always remain that a minority will be exactly that and have "less voting power" in the aggregate when viewed in terms of ethnicity. That of course ignores other ethnic groupings, where I pointed out that Asians are a smaller population than blacks, and the perceived "problem" remains unsolved (e.g.: black and hispanic voters overwhelmingly opposed "gay marriage" with California propositions 22 and 8. Were the courts therefore racist in striking down those propositions?)
Let's even take the argument to the absurd to illustrate the point clearly. As an individual, I'm the epitome of the minority. My voting power is diluted in a sea of 329,999,999 others. How do we balance my vote against the rest of the population?
