• Categories

Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

 
  1. christopher wrote
    I wish there were a centrist party in the U.S.

    There is. It's called the Democrats.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017
    Left VS right, liberal VS conservative, libertarians VS authoritarians. All that nonsense, which people love to label themselves as, seems separate to the rather pressing issue that the US has a mentally unstable clown as their president.
  2. While also leading to the fact that one of the sides feeling ignored and/or persecuted led to the said unstable clown to be elected as president. So, I gather discussing the issue of labels and political views is actually as pressing an issue.
    http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteven
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017
    Yes, agreed. It's a result of it, but we can be antiTrump without adhering to a particular political label I should clarify.
  3. Edmund Meinerts wrote
    christopher wrote
    I wish there were a centrist party in the U.S.

    There is. It's called the Democrats.

    It's true that compared to many European parties, US democrats are pretty centrist. But in the US, democrats are the left wing (not counting fringe parties that nobody takes seriously. The "tea party" makes the rest of the republicans look pretty centrist, too, but the whole debate in this country is republican vs democrat and both sides have been moving to the extremes. Hillary Clinton is a moderate who had to move far to her left to appease progressive democrats. Trump moved far right to get elected. He has a long history of disagreeing with the Republican Party on abortion, gun control, immigration policy, and LGBT issues. Then when he ran he totally reversed himself on all of that and became the most far right president we've ever seen.
    •  
      CommentAuthorchristopher
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017 edited
    Steven wrote
    Left VS right, liberal VS conservative, libertarians VS authoritarians. All that nonsense, which people love to label themselves as, seems separate to the rather pressing issue that the US has a mentally unstable clown as their president.


    You might think so, and your follow-up post is right: there are a lot of republicans that don't like Trump. I'm a conservative for the most part, and I think Trump is the biggest mistake the people of America have made in the last 50 years. But most republicans voted for him, and there are an awful lot of republicans that defend him now. I know quite a few of them. You might find it impossible to think that there are people who can support this man, but it's just because he's a republican. That's how far party loyalty goes here. He's on their side, so they don't care that he flies in the face of many values they've argued for forever. They don't care that behaves like an ill-tempered child. They don't care that he doesn't read, that he lies constantly, or that he's picking fights with everyone. And the democrats and liberal media hate him so bad that even when he does things that are good, they either ignore him or criticize him that he didn't do enough good. Our country is so divided along party lines that one party will fight the other on an issue for four years and decry that issue as terrible, and then as soon as they get in power they'll reverse themselves on that issue and the other side, rather than being glad that they've changed sides, will reverse themselves as well! They just fight over everything! Obama could do something that all republicans decried, but then Trump could do the very same thing and republicans would defend him, and democrats who defended Obama doing it suddenly think it's awful. One such case: golf. People don't care what a president does over here. All they care about is what party he belongs to. If he's in their party, then he's okay. If not, then he's terrible.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017 edited
    christopher wrote

    You might think so, and your follow-up post is right: there are a lot of republicans that don't like Trump. I'm a conservative for the most part, and I think Trump is the biggest mistake the people of America have made in the last 50 years. But most republicans voted for him, and there are an awful lot of republicans that defend him now. I know quite a few of them. You might find it impossible to think that there are people who can support this man, but it's just because he's a republican. That's how far party loyalty goes here. He's on their side, so they don't care that he flies in the face of many values they've argued for forever. They don't care that behaves like an ill-tempered child. They don't care that he doesn't read, that he lies constantly, or that he's picking fights with everyone. And the democrats and liberal media hate him so bad that even when he does things that are good, they either ignore him or criticize him that he didn't do enough good. Our country is so divided along party lines that one party will fight the other on an issue for four years and decry that issue as terrible, and then as soon as they get in power they'll reverse themselves on that issue and the other side, rather than being glad that they've changed sides, will reverse themselves as well! They just fight over everything! Obama could do something that all republicans decried, but then Trump could do the very same thing and republicans would defend him, and democrats who defended Obama doing it suddenly think it's awful. One such case: golf. People don't care what a president does over here. All they care about is what party he belongs to. If he's in their party, then he's okay. If not, then he's terrible.


    one of the best posts about politics I've read here!

    it's really really hard to find intellectually honest people who are willing to acknowledge when their side goes wrong as well as celebrate when it goes right.

    it's also hard to find people who will look at an argument and actually evaluate it rather than just dismissing it based on the source. "Oh, Rush Limbaugh said that" or "Oh, Rachel Maddow said that."
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017 edited
    I also find it refreshing when, in the case of someone like Trump, people can be brutally honest about what he is. There is no 'grey zone' here. He's an asshole, a prick, an idiot, a narcissist and most likely a sociopath. And he's a danger to the world. There's no need to muddy the waters with politics or Democrats vs. Republicans in this case. His actions and public statements speak for themselves.
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017
    I agree with you partially Thor. Trump is obviously a narcissist and possibly unstable and a bully to boot.

    But I think there has been some positive things about his presidency, and bear with me.

    1. He exposed the media. Every pundit was brutally exposed as inaccurate and silly. Trump lied but they lied more. Trump hit his opponents with unsubstantiated innuendo, so did they. It was a race to the bottom, and they came out looking worse. Why is this good? Because it was a call to reform! High quality news is now in demand, and new alternative sources are becoming available, destroying the old media oligarchy.

    2. He plunged us straight into the reality of a 21st century presidential race. He was the transition period. No pretensions at the old way. Twitter and viral ads and memes and YouTube videos. Why is this good? Because it was inevitable. The sooner we faced this, the better.

    (IF YOU ARE NOT CONSERVATIVE, SKIP #3)

    3. He prevented Hillary Clinton from getting power. She was corrupt and represented everything bad about Washington D.C. politics. She was the ultimate, "keep things the way they are" candidate.

    (END OF SAFE SPACE)

    4. He has highlighted the ugliness on both sides. We've now seen the screaming poison of the "Blood and Soil" alt-right, and the self-righteous evil of Antifa as they beat old-men, destroy property, and burn campuses. Why is this good? Because it means there's no hiding any more. No pretenses. We're able to see and denounce the extremes of both sides.


    Essentially, Trump is one huge, destructive alarm clock waking up everyone, letting them know that things have changed. After his four years are up, and everyone has settled up, I'm interested and hopeful that things will move forwards more civilly, but with the same fervor for change and progress.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorThor
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017 edited
    Well, I personally don't buy any of that. I don't think a 'waking up' was required (in terms of rhetorics). If anything, he's lead to more division, more hateful rhetoric, more irrelevant arguments and a more 'stupid' discussion climate. And it's spreading across the world.

    I think the only good thing to come out of Trump's election, is the realization of how unfair the American election system can be (you get several million more votes, but you still lose!), and a reminder to the American people that the system established by the founders -- so often applauded in movies -- isn't necessarily immune to villains like Trump getting their hands on power.

    (as you can probably surmise, I'm very left-oriented -- within your frame of reference, I'd probably qualify as a socialist).
    I am extremely serious.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017
    totally valid, obviously. i'll just argue for the necessity of the electoral college. check out a county-by-county map of the 2016 election. Clinton basically only won the coastal cities.

    imagine if just a few states - just a few cities - had the power to dominate an entire election! then politicians would only campaign in those states. the electoral college forces a candidate to value even the less populated counties and areas, to try to appeal to all of America rather than the few cities that hold enough people to win the popular vote.

    the electoral college stops the tyranny of the majority - stops a few densely populated states from overruling the will of the other 40. it gives a slightly louder voice to less populated areas so that they are not forgotten. it forces candidates to value every state and get input from everyone.

    there's several other good arguments online for it, but it's not 'unfair' that Clinton lost despite more people voting for her. unfair would be three or four big cities ruling the rest of America!
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  4. I think we agree on politics way more often than we do on film music, Thor. wink
  5. Aidabaida wrote
    totally valid, obviously. i'll just argue for the necessity of the electoral college.

    Oh boy.

    Aidabaida wrote
    check out a county-by-county map of the 2016 election. Clinton basically only won the coastal cities.

    Land doesn't vote. People do. Look at these maps instead. Of course cities should count for more because more people live there.

    Aidabaida wrote
    imagine if just a few states - just a few cities - had the power to dominate an entire election! then politicians would only campaign in those states. the electoral college forces a candidate to value even the less populated counties and areas, to try to appeal to all of America rather than the few cities that hold enough people to win the popular vote.

    The electoral college has exactly this effect. Politicians only campaign in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania because they are the swing states.

    Aidabaida wrote
    the electoral college stops the tyranny of the majority - stops a few densely populated states from overruling the will of the other 40. it gives a slightly louder voice to less populated areas so that they are not forgotten. it forces candidates to value every state and get input from everyone.

    See above. In reality, all the electoral college does is funnel campaign energy into a handful of purple states. If there was a popular vote, maybe Republicans would try to appeal more to the 4.5 million Republican voters who live in California and whose voice is completely ignored year in, year out. Or the Democrats who live in Texas.

    Aidabaida wrote
    there's several other good arguments online for it, but it's not 'unfair' that Clinton lost despite more people voting for her. unfair would be three or four big cities ruling the rest of America!

    The electoral college says that if you live in Wyoming, your voice is more important in an election than if you live in New York or California, and that is bullshit. Everybody's vote should be equal, that is the bottom line. If that means states with more people are weighted more heavily, then that is exactly how it should be. One person, one vote. 20 million people in NYC should get 20 million votes. 500,000 people in Wyoming should get 500,000 votes. No more, no less.
  6. To be honest, I think the biggest problem with the EC isn't even that it weighs different votes differently, but rather that the winner takes all, meaning that you could get 50.0000001% of a state's votes and get just as many points as if you take 100%. It's theoretically possible to win an election with just 23% of the nation's votes. I don't care who you are, that is a stupid, broken system.

    If each state were to proportionally assign its EC votes based on the popular vote percentage...well, you'd still have the issue that a Wyomingite is considered four times as important as a Californian. But things would be a lot better.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017 edited
    Politicians only campaign in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania because they are the swing states.


    not quite accurate. I like how Jared Stuppman puts it.

    The state results in the 2016 election also debunk the second major argument for abolishing the Electoral College: that candidates would only spend time campaigning in a few essential swing states.

    Trump succeeded in defeating Clinton because he was able to pluck off a number of states—like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin—that had voted solidly Democrat for over a decade. This sudden shift is why Trump secured a surprise victory.

    As author and Texas lawyer Tara Ross noted in a PragerU video, a state dominated by one party shifting to another is not a new phenomenon. California was a Republican stronghold until the late 1980s, and Texas used to be controlled entirely by Democrats.



    we mostly disagree on these points
    Of course cities should count for more because more people live there.


    Everybody's vote should be equal, that is the bottom line. If that means states with more people are weighted more heavily, then that is exactly how it should be


    if there are three people who live in a city, and one person who lives in the country, that person needs a boosted voice or else his interests will be overruled every single time, his voice won't even be heard. politicians won't even care about talking to him. do you disagree here? that's the 'tyranny of the majority' that the founders were trying to avoid. the city-dwellers are disconnected from that man's needs. if they vote for policies that benefit themselves and bankrupt him it's not better because the majority wanted it. fairness and morality doesn't work like that.

    making a fair and balanced system is more subtle than, "Give everyone the same voice." always distrust first instincts. things that seem perfectly fair might reveal hidden flaws beneath.
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  7. Edmund Meinerts wrote
    If each state were to proportionally assign its EC votes based on the popular vote percentage...well, you'd still have the issue that a Wyomingite is considered four times as important as a Californian. But things would be a lot better.


    THIS is what I think should happen. I appreciate that the EC balances rural and urban America a little more, but I hate that my vote doesn't count if I'm not voting for who the majority of the people in my state vote for.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017 edited
    christopher wrote

    THIS is what I think should happen. I appreciate that the EC balances rural and urban America a little more, but I hate that my vote doesn't count if I'm not voting for who the majority of the people in my state vote for.


    i like the sound of it too, but haven't researched its implications. don't see any problem with it up front

    btw, Edmund, in case you missed it, I replied to you two posts above
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorMartijn
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017
    Slight meta-tack (not because I'm disinterested, but because unfortunately I'm just WAY too busy to chime in on content): this is the VERY first time we - a fairly Europe-centered community- have a number of Americans discussing American politics! smile

    Yeah, OK, so maybe it's not the first man on the moon, but it does feel like a kind of milestone of sorts!
    Or at the very least something rather out of the ordinary.
    For around here, anyway.


    ...
    Anyway...
    'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn
  8. True. Fact is there just ain't many Americans 'round these parts.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017
    christopher wrote
    True. Fact is there just ain't many Americans 'round these parts.


    and fewer still who are conservatives. (you need both sides for a discussion, usually, and most 'art and music' type folks tend to be liberal)
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017
    Martijn wrote
    Slight meta-tack (not because I'm disinterested, but because unfortunately I'm just WAY too busy to chime in on content): this is the VERY first time we - a fairly Europe-centered community- have a number of Americans discussing American politics! smile

    Yeah, OK, so maybe it's not the first man on the moon, but it does feel like a kind of milestone of sorts!
    Or at the very least something rather out of the ordinary.
    For around here, anyway.


    ...
    Anyway...


    Yes i like that too. Good read and good to observe all of this, informative. Even if i disagree with a lot, but still very welcome a change. At least we are not all only stinky europeans and stinkier balkans as we are here hehehe
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
  9. Can you not all group Skype? wink
    The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn
    •  
      CommentAuthorDemetris
    • CommentTimeSep 15th 2017
    Nah. Maintitles would be much ontopic then. It'd spoil wink
    Love Maintitles. It's full of Wanders.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeSep 17th 2017
    christopher wrote
    True. Fact is there just ain't many Americans 'round these parts.


    I find it refreshing to read about your opinion as far as our politics are concerned. The history of the Electoral College was when the horse was the way people got around and that was it's reason for being there.
    listen to more classical music!
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 19th 2017 edited
    it seems trump was right all along: the FBI wiretapped his campaign manager! it seems that he was legitimately wiretapped - but it was dropped, then the wiretapping was REOPENED to get dirt on trump. (but that's just a quick perusal of the facts, I'm sure more facts will be coming out soon)

    this is the type of thing that keeps his base supporting him; trump (at least seemingly) vindicated on an issue that the media lambasted him on for months.

    (posting this here because this is where we were talking U.S. politics)
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  10. Sure...but at the same time, you need cause to receive a warrant to wiretap somebody, and that is most decidedly not good news for Trump.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 19th 2017 edited
    Edmund Meinerts wrote
    Sure...but at the same time, you need cause to receive a warrant to wiretap somebody, and that is most decidedly not good news for Trump.


    it seems the warrant was used, the wire-tapping was done, nothing was found, then it was opened again for more nefarious reasons. (but obviously, new details might come out or old ones might be proven wrong)
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
  11. sdtom wrote
    The history of the Electoral College was when the horse was the way people got around and that was it's reason for being there.


    That's not just wrong, it's shockingly wrong. That's like saying we have a moon because we have a sun -- no relation what-so-ever.



    Edmund Meinerts:
    Sure...but at the same time, you need cause to receive a warrant to wiretap somebody, and that is most decidedly not good news for Trump.


    I'm not going to defend Trump or take a side against him, or anybody else in his team or Presidential administration.

    However, while it is true you need cause, you're thinking more regular warrants and not government ones which can be flimsy in the way of cause and are -- depending on the agency issuing them -- have not only different regulations regarding this but have no oversight and write their own warrants which are issued by their own internals judges.

    Just look at the unmasking deal -- the reasons given were like me going into a police station and asking for somebody's criminal record because I think he looks shady.
    The views and opinions of Ford A. Thaxton are his own and do not necessarily reflect the ones of ANYONE else.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAidabaida
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2017
    great post justin
    Bach's music is heartless and robotic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorsdtom
    • CommentTimeSep 21st 2017
    I agree that it is time to do away with the electoral college. No longer necessary.
    listen to more classical music!