Women shouldn’t have voted for Hillary because of her snizz. They should have voted for Hillary because Trump is gonna offshore the actual running of the country to Pence, who thinks the Taliban are too permissive when it comes to women’s rights.
Excellent post
Ok, here is a basic proposition:
In this country, in order to implement its ideas by governance, a political party’s candidates must first secure the votes to be elected.
Are we in agreement that this is a generally safe statement, making room for some unusual edge cases?
If we are, then let me suggest an obvious corollary: if a political party is unable to secure the votes for its candidates, then its ideas are much less likely to work, inasmuch as they are much less likely to be placed into operation.
Anyone disagree with these, as generally applicable truths?
This is almost a good point. People can weigh things differently. Maybe if one candidate was trying to improve the environment at the cost of the economy, and the other was doing the opposite, you’d have a point. The problem is, unlike most elections, there is no point where Trump can be argued to be the superior candidate. None. Zero. Well, unless you really value white supremacy, in which case we’ve clearly left the premise of the thread (and gotten considerably closer to the truth of the matter).
Completely agree.
(Emphasis added above.)
Equally qualified, being equally human. And there are some of us equally qualified humans who reject the twisted faux religious justifications for the anti-gay, anti-choice, poor-starving, environment screwing “morality” represented by the likes of Trump, McConnell, Ryan et al. And we get to exert our moral fiber, just like those mealy mouthed cravens do.
We just use bigger words, consistent logic and (for some of us) more traditional and better grounded theological interpretations.
Bricker… Does lawyer-mode ever turn off? The people you’re talking to are saying things that really aren’t that hard to understand. Please stop overcomplicating it, and engage with it. This has nothing to do with anything. Yeah, we’re in a democracy. Trump gets to push his agenda. We’re complaining that this is the case, because all of his ideas are fucking awful.
The fact is, Hillary won the popular vote. More people in this country voted for her than for Trump. So she didn’t lose anything. If it weren’t for the electoral college, she would be president. And I believe, and have always believed that the EC needs to be abolished.It makes no sense in modern day America.
I didn’t vote for him, so I almost agree.
But, in fact, there is a point in which I believe Trump offered a concrete plan, much more concrete than his opponent, and one I agreed with on the merits.
His intention to appoint judges who applied the text of the Constitution, as opposed to “living, breathing” Constitutional principles, is in my view exactly the needed commitment from the President, and his list of Supreme Court candidates is in my view an excellent one. While Clinton did not supply such a list, I was quite confident that nominations she would make would be drawn from the interpretive school that believed judges had a stronger role in shaping policy than simply being umpires.
Neither do you. But that is just a very simple response, to be more accurate the actual point is that as citizens we have some power anyhow, **and it does not stop just by voting. **
And yet, that is what I see what you are saying to Budget Player Cadet, only nicer. The OP is pointing at a mentality that in reality can not be justified, a prevalence of “lets break everything because the end of times is near” does demand that people that does have more experience and knowledge to tell them that they are indeed very foolish.
To be a good citizen IMHO does require also to not sit down and be quiet in front of ignorance of that magnitude that does affect everyone.
Why do you think you are qualified to judge that answer on their behalf?
No matter, actually. The actual question: no matter your belief, do you understand that as a practical matter you cannot force them to accept your judgement on their behalf?
We do know what they wanted.
They wanted to “Make America Great Again!”
The problem is, is that they do not know how to do that. They just want it done, and will vote for the guy that says he’ll do it. They don’t want any details, and they don’t want to have to work for it.
They don’t want to vote for the person who actually has a plan on how she’ll do it. It requires actual work on the part of the people, it’s boring.
It’s like taking weight loss drugs instead of proper diet and exercise. Yes, what you want is to “Make my belly thin again.” But one way will not work well and will kill you, and the other is actually healthy, but boring.
That’s my contention, Hillary was broccoli, trump was fen-fen.
How do you convince an anorexic not to take fen-fen? That’s the same question as to how to prevent a white middle class white guy to vote for clinton.
And, that is basically what you are saying. Don’t talk down to the anorexic. You are just being contemptuous in saying you know what they need. They know what they want. They want the Fen-fen. Why do you keep insisting that they need broccoli? That will just turn them off.
Then extrapolate that to realize that your actions are replacing my broccoli with fen-fen too.
No, no – it may be what you see, but not what I wrote. Remember these wise words: “Then, having humbly confronted your ignorance, you can begin your journey of learning and healing?”
That’s not an admonition to shut up. It’s an admonition to learn what the Trump voters responded to as opposed to dismissing their concerns as flawed.
If BPC has better ideas than Trump did, then his failure was conveying them in a way that resonated with Trump voters.
OK, let’s assume the truth of the above.
Since you also agree that in order to be in a position of providing the desperately needed broccoli and doing away with the deadly fen-fen cocktail, one must win the requisite support, we have a dual problem:
- Gain the support, and then
- Push broccoli, pull fen-fen
Do you agree?
Is that really it?
Because your complaints seem deeper than that.
If you are simply bitching and moaning, then I’m happy to leave you to it.
But your complaints seem more substantive than that: they appear to argue that no rational person could have any set of values and desired outcomes that made a vote for Trump logical.
We’re in a democracy, and Trump gets to push his agenda.
Is your complaint about the democracy or the agenda?
In a free and egalitarian democracy (without shenanigans of voter suppression at the polls), where everyone has interest in educating themselves well as to the reality of policy proposals and their likely consequences, yes.
In the current fractured environment, where people get their news from impenetrable bubbles in which they espouse and believe things that are categorically untrue, maybe not so much. Where people use their vote to harm others, really not so much. When people actively wish for other members of their society to be harmed by the actions of those who they wish to elect, defiantly not so much.
Otherwise, sure.
In the current fractured environment, which specific portions of what I said become untrue?
As a reminder, I said:
-
In this country, in order to implement its ideas by governance, a political party’s candidates must first secure the votes to be elected.
-
If a political party is unable to secure the votes for its candidates, then its ideas are much less likely to work, inasmuch as they are much less likely to be placed into operation.
Just stopping in to point out that this oft repeated meme is not nearly so clear cutas liberals would like to believe. Trump did win among those with high school education or less and some college (fully half the US population), but college graduates were a virtual tie (1/3rd of the US population). Hillary only won handily among post grads, which make up only 18% of the US population.
FWIW
No we just want to be left alone to live our lives as we see fit.
Many of us want that idealized 1950s life. Happy Days. We moved to the suburbs and left the big cities to you and your liberal ideas. Disaster ensued. There’s no bigger gap in wealth than in the big cities. So you come out to the suburbs and flyover country to impose your ideas on Trump voting America because you need constant validation and can’t stand to see us prosperous. If you truly believed in your own ideas, you would stay where you are and leave us alone.
Are any you of liberals moving to Islamic countries? You aren’t Islamaphobic, are you?
This is an absolutely useless and counterproductive post, wholly apart from its inaccuracies.
Happy Days was great, because it was a sitcom. Real life 1950s were great for some, but shitty for others, and we as a nation have largely rejected the social norms of that time for good reason.