butterbumps! Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 11 hours ago, Altherion said: My personal opinion on the behavior of the Hamilton crew towards Pence is that it was unprofessional, self-serving and counterproductive to their stated aims, but not worthy of being disseminated as national news. I know we are both in agreement that the outrage cycle regarding Hamilton is distracting from much more alarming things going on in the Trump administration, but would you mind articulating what part of the address you believe is unprofessional, self-serving and counterproductive? Which variables do you find problematic? That they addressed it to his face? That they addressed it to his face at their show? Would you have the same reaction if they delivered the same address to an audience that did not include Pence present? Or if they addressed it to an empty audience outside of a showtime, recording it for viral dissemination? Was there an issue with the address itself? Quote As to how to convince them to see it your way... surely you must understand that this is a remarkably bad time to ask this question. They've just had their worldview validated by a victory which practically nobody believed was plausible. Against all odds, they triumphed not just over Clinton, but over the mainstream media and the part of the Republican establishment that despises them. The time to ask this question was a year ago; short of a mind control machine, there's no amount of propaganda that will convince them now I'm wondering if I misunderstood some of your previous posts discussing Brietbart/ Alt Right thinkers, and perhaps I asked the "wrong" question about breaking through to them, "wrong" in the sense that you might not have been going in that direction. What was your original point regarding pointing out the efficacy of Brietbart in transmitting to its audience, and how they aren't seeking to convince center-to-liberals as members of their audience? Quote That said, the effect of the victory will eventually wear off -- faster or slower depending on Trump's success, but such things always diminish eventually. There are a few fairly common ideas to winning hostile people over to your side: 1) Tone down the hostility on your side. As long as people see that they're being demonized, they will respond in kind. Articles literally titled There’s No Such Thing as a Good Trump Voter are not helpful. 2) Alter your side's rhetoric to minimize explicitly demanding more privileges for a specific group defined by immutable qualities. Note that, for example, Martin Luther King Jr. and his cohort made their movement about civil rights (not black rights) even though it was completely obvious to everyone whose rights were being determined there. 3) Gain their trust. Before you can convince them to see it your way, you have to convince them that you understand their concerns and empathize with them. The media spent the past election campaign either demonizing these people or treating them as an exotic type of curiously angry fauna. 1. About Bouie's Trump voter piece, are you in disagreement with the message (which is far more nuanced), or the title (or both)? IIRC, the message wasn't uniformly condemnatory toward Trump Voters. That is, the conclusion isn't that Trump voters are irredeemable, or wholly bad people. Rather, it holds Trump voters accountable for having -- at minimum-- enabled/ endorsed bigotry. Which, he argues, is a really bad thing. The piece is a reaction to the glut of "Trump voters deserve empathy!" pieces that invaded even the most left-wing publications (including ones like Mother Jones), and especially toward the post-election commentary that has been getting dangerously close to letting Trump voters off the hook by overlooking the bigotry-toleration aspect of their vote. Point being, articles and columns (and even people of influence like Sanders and Warren) advocating for Trump voter empathy, and sweeping the bigotry under the rug, were the rule, rather the exception. That is what Bouie is speaking to here, reminding us that wait, no, they were, in fact totally willing to vote bigotry into office, and they are accountable for this. 2. Why do you believe it's wrong (or less effective) to advocate for more privileges (or more accurately, more "rights") for groups as opposed to a more general appeal to "civil rights."? If you go to a doctor to treat a broken wrist, should the doctor refuse to give your wrist the special attention it needs because "all bones matter"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 7 hours ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said: What about the people who build the machinery and infrastructure that let's them run the most efficient agricultural system in the history of hte world? What about the people who drill the oil that let's them run those machines? What about the people who mine the phosphates that fertilize the ground? Or the people who make the chemicals that let the crops grow free of pests and weeds? Or the people at universities who study biology and chemistry and engineering who help to continuously improve agriculture? What about their interests? Why are those interests less important than the people who raise the food? Last I checked, we're nowhere close to mass famine (in the US at least), and it's at least as much due to the other people I've mentioned as it is to the actual farmers. It's almost like we're a huge, complex, interconnected economy and trying to isolate one group and call them more important is a fool's errand. On a separate note, clearly we should follow the system the Venetians used to select their Doge: from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doge_of_Venice#Selection_of_the_Doge You're right I'm wrong. We should chuck the Electoral College and go to pure popular vote for President. Relying upon urban populations to pick the President without reference to Rural voters will have no blowback or negative impats at all. Having Presidents who can be safely focused on Urban issues to the exclusion of Rural issues will be wonderful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 What rural issues are so unique and so divorced from urban issues that they'd risk being ignored entirely by going to a popular vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 If the EC was eliminated to 'one citizen one vote' then who's to say that Prez campaigns wouldn't expand out to the small states? If their votes are there for the taking, and who wouldn't want them in the final total, then taking ones message to them may be the thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davos Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, butterbumps! said: What rural issues are so unique and so divorced from urban issues that they'd risk being ignored entirely by going to a popular vote? Off the top of my head, there are land use issues, water issues, agricultural subsidies, and rural infrastructure/services. I'm not sure rather moving to a popular vote presidential ballot would greatly effect how much attention these get but it certainly wouldn't help them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, LongRider said: If the EC was eliminated to 'one citizen one vote' then who's to say that Prez campaigns wouldn't expand out to the small states? If their votes are there for the taking, and who wouldn't want them in the final total, then taking ones message to them may be the thing to do. With limited funds for campaigns candidates get the most bang for their buck by concentrating where people are. That's urban areas. WWTR, And I forgot the other reason you're right. Rural voters vote against their interests all the time. Of course they're better served by allowing those who know better than they do what their interests really are to have control over their political futures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: And I forgot the other reason you're right. Rural voters vote against their interests all the time. Of course they're better served by allowing those who know better than they do what their interests really are to have control over their political futures. Well it seems that rural interest are going to be very well represented over about the next 8 years or so. Let's see how that works out for them. And how that works out for the rest of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Scot, all popular vote rule would do is make rural voters exactly as important as they ought to be, that is, the same as everybody else. They are already over-represented in the Senate with Alaska and Wyoming sending the same number of senators to Washington as California and Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: With limited funds for campaigns candidates get the most bang for their buck by concentrating where people are. That's urban areas. Both candidates went past the urban areas to states that weren't swing states, Clinton to Arizona, Trump to Wisconsin and Michigan. Didn't pay off for Clinton in EC votes but may have for the popular vote and Trump may have changed some votes by visiting his states. If the EC were to be eliminated, then campaigns would have to change in ways that can't currently be predicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the Greenleif Stark Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 If we got rid of the EC, don't you think the candidates would just sell themselves to the unions across the country? As is the case in most gubernatorial elections....at least here NJ anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butterbumps! Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 22 minutes ago, davos said: Off the top of my head, there are land use issues, water issues, agricultural subsidies, and rural infrastructure/services. I'm not sure rather moving to a popular vote presidential ballot would greatly effect how much attention these get but it certainly wouldn't help them. Broadly, I think those categories concern urban and suburban voters too, though the specific priorities undoubtedly differ by region. Would going to a popular vote necessarily hurt the uniquely rural aspects of those concern categories? And are they incompatible with urban concerns? I guess I'm just wondering what is so overwhelmingly unique and isolated about rural concerns that justifies urban votes to count for less than their rural counterparts'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 8 minutes ago, the Greenleif Stark said: If we got rid of the EC, don't you think the candidates would just sell themselves to the unions across the country? As is the case in most gubernatorial elections....at least here NJ anyways Oh yes the unions. Because big business would never ever try to buy candidates. And they would never ever try to affect policy outcomes. Because they are just a bunch of good little libertarians that really believe in a hands off approach to government. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 19 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said: Scot, all popular vote rule would do is make rural voters exactly as important as they ought to be, that is, the same as everybody else. They are already over-represented in the Senate with Alaska and Wyoming sending the same number of senators to Washington as California and Florida. Should the Senate be determined by population too? And if so why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 34 minutes ago, davos said: Off the top of my head, there are land use issues, water issues, agricultural subsidies, and rural infrastructure/services. I'm not sure rather moving to a popular vote presidential ballot would greatly effect how much attention these get but it certainly wouldn't help them. Those are certainly important but the EC isn't counted by rural vs urban area. It's by state. There are some states more rural than others, to be sure. But most states tend to have both rural and urban populations so this doesn't do much to help any of these rural concerns you mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 1 minute ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said: Should the Senate be determined by population too? And if so why? In Wyoming there is one senator for every 270,000 people, in California there is one senator for every 19,000,000 people. So Californians are under-represented in the Senate compared to small states. Small states tend to be whiter and more conservative, so you can see how this is problematic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arch-MaesterPhilip Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 Just now, Weeping Sore said: In Wyoming there is one senator for every 270,000 people, in California there is one senator for every 19,000,000 people. So Californians are under-represented in the Senate compared to small states. Small states tend to be whiter and more conservative, so you can see how this is problematic. But the purpose of the Senate is to represent the States, not the people. So population doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 45 minutes ago, davos said: Off the top of my head, there are land use issues, water issues, agricultural subsidies, and rural infrastructure/services. I'm not sure rather moving to a popular vote presidential ballot would greatly effect how much attention these get but it certainly wouldn't help them. These issues also concern many urban voters as well. Many are concerned with the disappearance of family farms, greenbelts and open space, land use, water and even agriculture issues. Plus, many urban folk are from rural spaces and haven't forgotten that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 It seems to me that way things are now, that structurally, both the House of Reps and the Senate are likely to over represent rural interest. That would seem to bolster the case for getting rid of the EC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 11 minutes ago, Arch-MaesterPhilip said: But the purpose of the Senate is to represent the States, not the people. So population doesn't matter. Because abstract administrative entities are more important than flesh-and-blood human beings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 21, 2016 Share Posted November 21, 2016 44 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said: Scot, all popular vote rule would do is make rural voters exactly as important as they ought to be, that is, the same as everybody else. They are already over-represented in the Senate with Alaska and Wyoming sending the same number of senators to Washington as California and Florida. I already said you're right I'm wrong. Rural voters don't matter and rural interests should be ignored by the Executive in favor of Urban issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.