US Politics 2016: Delay the Electoral College Vote?

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

The Washington Post article I linked earlier provides a quantitative comparison: the ratio of conservatives to liberals in the general population is roughly 1:1, not 1:5. And of course, there is the election of Trump itself.

The ratio of conservatives to liberals among uneducated white men is roughly 3:1. And the ratio of conservative to liberal among educated non-whites is roughly 3:1. So we already know that within certain demographics there is a big difference in the C:L ratio compared to the national average. There is also a big C:L ratio difference between urban and rural populations. So there is nothing all that special or noteworthy or inherently problematic about Academics having a C:L ratio different to the national average.

The reason conservatives are anti-intellectual is because the more educated people become the less conservative they become, on average. So why would conservatives support something which turns people away from their ideology?

[Rippounet]

Just read the Vanity Fair article on Trump Grill. Well worth the read. The writer was obviously trolling Trump, knowing perfectly well that he would react like the six-year old kid he really is.
It's going to be fun (as a European) to witness journalists (and probably celebrities and politicians as well) provoking the US president on a weekly basis. Once everyone realizes that he's an advanced form of internet/twitter troll, there should be tens of thousands of people dying to get his attention and be mentioned in one of his angry tweets. Journalists may have a monthly contest or something: whoever gets the best insult from Trump pays for a meal (perhaps at Trump Grill, to make it extra-fun).
Has it occurred to anyone that the US presidency just became the most successful reality show in history? It the stakes weren't so great, what with that moron having the nuclear codes and all, I think I could become a genuine fan. Seriously, this is like the biggest troll in history, like Ben Franklin without the subtlety.
A few centuries from now, historians will describe this as the best joke ever. And I'm not kidding: my dissertation included a few pages of Reagan jokes for the lulz. Historians working on Trump will have to dedicate entire chapters to Trump's twitter posts alone. If we survive this, our grandchildren will think of us as the lucky ones who had the funniest US president EVER!

[karaddin]

11 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Not only do I think that view is unethical but I think it is highly dangerous for the US in the long run as likely the relative military power of the United States will decline. I think it would be a very dangerous world if the only international order was that big and powerful nations do what in the hell they please without the restraint of international laws and norms.

This is why I think some of the recent movies by the US regarding IP and data security law, and expecting their law to apply internationally, have been terrible long term decisions. I'm blanking on the specific case, I think maybe related to Silk Road? Where the court ruled that it was fine for US law enforcement to hack the servers of a company based in another country and possibly not even trading in the US. Yes, Russia and China and the US would still do this even without the rulings, but having an open court ruling like that makes it very very hard to try claim any moral high ground when criticising Russia and China doing exactly the same thing. Its not just the one case, there is also subpoenas to companies with data stored outside the US etc, but this in particular was the worst.

[Fragile Bird]

Vanity Fair apparently had an excellent business day today, with a sharp uptick in subscriptions....

There was a discussion about Trump's tweets on Don Lemon's show on CNN tonight. Apparently VF editor Graydon Carter made comments about the size of DT's fingers a number of years ago, and the tweets are part of a long running battle. 

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

It's also difficult to prove.

For example you seem to be suggesting that academia "sided" with globalisation and "downplayed" its problems before these became obvious.
That's a pretty bold claim to make.
In order to substantiate such a claim you'd have to read thousands of articles and hundreds of books published over a significant period of time. Then you'd have to attempt to establish bias through a thorough analysis of both form and content. It should take you at least three years, possibly as much as five or six (assuming you're a full-time researcher of course).

And all this time I'd be sitting right here with a 50-page magazine on economics which conclusively proves you're wrong...

Alternatively, one could simply extrapolate from support for globalization across educational levels. It's not perfect, but it is pretty good. Also, this is an instance where the truth almost doesn't matter; perception is much more important.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

But earlier in this discussion you argued that Democrats aren't better at fighting inequality than Republicans (a claim I find very interesting). Now you're saying that liberals and conversatives have different visions for America. How do you reconcile your two claims?

There are many non-economic issues that liberals and conservatives disagree on. Also, the fact that they aren't better doesn't mean that they go about it the same way: they target different groups for redistribution of resources.

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

How does the election of a man who got the votes of about 20% of Americans prove anything?

In the American system, the raw percentage of votes is not a meaningful parameter. He got enough in enough places to win.

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The ratio of conservatives to liberals among uneducated white men is roughly 3:1. And the ratio of conservative to liberal among educated non-whites is roughly 3:1. So we already know that within certain demographics there is a big difference in the C:L ratio compared to the national average. There is also a big C:L ratio difference between urban and rural populations. So there is nothing all that special or noteworthy or inherently problematic about Academics having a C:L ratio different to the national average.

There is one thing: unlike most of these groups, academia derives much of its income either directly or indirectly from state and federal governments.

[mormont]

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

It is amusing, but do not underestimate it.

I'm not underestimating it. I'm pointing out that it's absurd to say that this single-headed monster 'academia' created it.

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

 It's nice to have something where, for the vast majority of people (in the US, not on this board), the subtleties are irrelevant and one can clearly point out a problem.

It would be nice, for you, if you could do this: as yet, it hasn't happened.

6 hours ago, Altherion said:

Of course there are -- now, after it is done and the negative consequences are clear to the most casual observer.

No, there were critics and proponents all along.

The above statement, frankly, suggests that you simply don't know what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but at this point your criticisms of 'academia' just don't amount to anything but hot air.

[Mladen]

9 hours ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

U.S done many wrongs in interfering other elections. Does not mean it is right for the U.S election is interfere with.

Of course it doesn't and no one said it is OK. But the irony should not escape to US citizens. And as was said earlier, they must be aware of what the government has been doing outside its borders and what harm it did. Now, you can all sympathize with millions and millions who suffered because USA decided who should govern what country.

[Inigima]

13 hours ago, Altherion said:

Academia both educates the next generation and tries to shape society -- and it does so using state and federal funds. It has become clear that the vision which is currently dominant there is quite different from the one that most of the country has. Trump is not reluctant about picking fights with anyone who annoys him and that is a concern, but academia is uniquely vulnerable even if we disregard his temper.

On what basis do you make the claim that academia "tries to shape society"? I graduated in '05, so unless college has changed dramatically in the last ten years or so, they pretty much just teach the subject matter, not push an ideology

[TheKitttenGuard]

2 hours ago, Risto said:

Of course it doesn't and no one said it is OK. But the irony should not escape to US citizens. And as was said earlier, they must be aware of what the government has been doing outside its borders and what harm it did. Now, you can all sympathize with millions and millions who suffered because USA decided who should govern what country.

The statements of Karma and others point to some people are OK with it.  

These things are not great at generating sympathy for prior wrongs the country done to others. It comes through as schadenfreude and result in less empathy and sympathy in the end.

The International U.S political consultation system has been more efficient than the coups and dirty tricks the CIA had deploy.  So U.S influence in other countries will continue for a good while.

[MerenthaClone]

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

On what basis do you make the claim that academia "tries to shape society"? I graduated in '05, so unless college has changed dramatically in the last ten years or so, they pretty much just teach the subject matter, not push an ideology

We live in a society were teaching evolution and anthropogenic global warming are pushing an ideology, as fucked up as that concept is.  Teaching the subject matter is, by definition in those fields, pushing a "political" ideology.  It shouldn't be, but it is.  

[LongRider]

2 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

We live in a society were teaching evolution and anthropogenic global warming are pushing an ideology, as fucked up as that concept is.  Teaching the subject matter is, by definition in those fields, pushing a "political" ideology.  It shouldn't be, but it is.  

Seen by some as pushing an ideology, by others it's known as teaching science.  But yeah, I know what you're saying, unfortunately. 

[Mladen]

18 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

The statements of Karma and others point to some people are OK with it.  

These things are not great at generating sympathy for prior wrongs the country done to others. It comes through as schadenfreude and result in less empathy and sympathy in the end.

The International U.S political consultation system has been more efficient than the coups and dirty tricks the CIA had deploy.  So U.S influence in other countries will continue for a good while.

No one doubts that...

And now you got me thinking of Boston Legal Thanks... Who is to say that political debates can't lead to something good...

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Risto said:

Of course it doesn't and no one said it is OK. But the irony should not escape to US citizens. And as was said earlier, they must be aware of what the government has been doing outside its borders and what harm it did. Now, you can all sympathize with millions and millions who suffered because USA decided who should govern what country.

And can I ask, why do you think all Americans are unaware of past American interventions. And why do you think, we all don't have a problem with it?

Me personally, there is a reason I've been raising hell, about guys like John Bolton.

Ironically enough, the people most likely to be clueless about past American interventionism and not have a problem with it, probably most likely voted for Donald Trump. And they are probably more likely to be open to the use of military force. 

As far as I can tell, there aren't many Trump supporters here.

[Mladen]

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

And can I ask, why do you think all Americans are unaware of past American interventions. And why do you think, we all don't have a problem with it?

Me personally, there is a reason I've been raising hell, about guys like John Bolton.

Ironically enough, the people most likely to be clueless about past American interventionism and not have a problem with it, probably most likely voted for Donald Trump. And they are probably more likely to be open to the use of military force. 

As far as I can tell, there aren't many Trump supporters here.

I am not saying ALL Americans are unaware of the interventions. I am saying that it just is not prevalent knowledge as it should be. It is far from deciding factor in any sort of elections and Obama didn't pay, at least politically, for the mess created in Lybia. Or Clinton family's dalliances on Kosovo. Bush was criticized for the war, but it was more of the fact that American soldiers were dying in Iraq. There is a bit unhealthy dose of self-centerism in USA, and sometimes it has to be pointed out. Not to rub someone's noses, just to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

It is sad that people who actually knew what Clintons have been doing around the world, actually voted for them. What they have done to Serbia alone should have secured them ticket straight to Hague in cells next to Milosevic and Sadam, But, we all know how justice works...

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

LOL. There is more.

So, I guess when the author of:

https://www.amazon.com/Bullish-Bush-Owenership-Society-Stronger/dp/B008SMNO4Q

Speaks, we all better listen. And he says:

LOL, again.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/15/trump-adviser-kudlow-top-white-house-economist/95482914/

That Moore wouldn't happen to be the known idiot and fraud Stephen Moore, would it?

3 hours ago, Risto said:

Of course it doesn't and no one said it is OK. But the irony should not escape to US citizens. And as was said earlier, they must be aware of what the government has been doing outside its borders and what harm it did. Now, you can all sympathize with millions and millions who suffered because USA decided who should govern what country.

You'd be surprised how oblivious most people here are. Iran is the perfect example. There aren't many people that are aware (or care) about how we toppled the democratically elected government of Iran in the 1950's.

And let's not even begin with what we've done in Central and South America and how little is known about our adventures there among the general public. 

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Just read the Vanity Fair article on Trump Grill. Well worth the read. The writer was obviously trolling Trump, knowing perfectly well that he would react like the six-year old kid he really is.

It really is a perfect example of just how thin skinned this clown is. 

[Commodore]

55 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

We live in a society were teaching evolution and anthropogenic global warming are pushing an ideology, as fucked up as that concept is.  Teaching the subject matter is, by definition in those fields, pushing a "political" ideology.  It shouldn't be, but it is.  

The left has their head up their ass pushing stuff like this. They aren't responding to the actual needs/concerns of voters.

Evolution, gun control, transgender bathroom access, global warming. It's so far removed from everyday life. 

Trump keeps it simple; bring back jobs, destroy ISIS, stop illegal immigration, build up the military. The voters may be wrong and his solutions may not work, but he knows what they want and tries to please them (in rhetoric if not action).  

This is why Bernie would have been a better nominee, he recognized some of this at a basic level. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Commodore,

So, simple lies are better than complex truths?

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Commodore said:

The left has their head up their ass pushing stuff like this. They aren't responding to the actual needs/concerns of voters.

Evolution, gun control, transgender bathroom access, global warming. It's so far removed from everyday life. 

Trump keeps it simple; bring back jobs, destroy ISIS, stop illegal immigration, build up the military. The voters may be wrong and his solutions may not work, but he knows what they want and tries to please them (in rhetoric if not action).  

This is why Bernie would have been a better nominee, he recognized some of this at a basic level. 

So evolution and climate change shouldn't taught in the classroom?  Kind of a fucked up point to be making when anyone without their cranium stuck in their rectum knows that it's the right that has tried to keep evolution out of science classrooms for years with legislation... and in its place wants a religious explanation for a biological phenomenon.  

 

Furthermore, the point was made in regards to what's going on in the class room.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Risto said:

It is far from deciding factor in any sort of elections and Obama didn't pay, at least politically, for the mess created in Lybia.

And many of us considered this to be a total fuck up. Obama considered it to be a mistake and he would later say so.

Also, one thing that has tended to be a criticism of Hillary Clinton, among her own supports, is her tendency towards interventionism. And I certainly concur with that assessment.

Just now, Risto said:

Or Clinton family's dalliances on Kosovo.

Politeness isn't my strong suit, so I'm going to be blunt here: I'm not sure how I feel about Kosovo, but what I'm pretty sure of is that I've seen some real bull on the matter by some Serbian ultra nationalist.

Just now, Risto said:

Bush was criticized for the war, but it was more of the fact that American soldiers were dying in Iraq. There is a bit unhealthy dose of self-centerism in USA, and sometimes it has to be pointed out. Not to rub someone's noses, just to walk a mile in someone else's shoes.

And with the criticism about Bush's interventionism there was more there than just US soldiers being killed, though that was part of it. A big part of the criticism of that intervention was a critique of the wacko notion that you can install some kind of functioning democracy in a country that has no history of having one. And another criticism was the fact that said intervention likely destabilized the whole region. So, there was more to the critiques of Bush's foreign policy choices than the fact that US soldiers were killed.

As far as their being self-centerism in the USA, I don't disagree. But, the most people like to have that, voted for Trump.

Just now, Risto said:

It is sad that people who actually knew what Clintons have been doing around the world, actually voted for them. What they have done to Serbia alone should have secured them ticket straight to Hague in cells next to Milosevic and Sadam, But, we all know how justice works...

I don't think so.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Commodore,

So, simple lies are better than complex truths?

Welcome to politics