SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Senator Boxer Introduces Bill to Eliminate Electoral College
"This is the only office in the land where you can get more votes and still lose the presidency," Boxer said in a statement. "The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system that does not reflect our modern society, and it needs to change immediately. Every American should be guaranteed that their vote counts."
[...] "When all the ballots are counted, Hillary Clinton will have won the popular vote by a margin that could exceed two million votes, and she is on track to have received more votes than any other presidential candidate in history except Barack Obama," Boxer said.
Trump will be the fifth president in U.S. history to win the election despite losing the popular vote. George W. Bush won the most recent such election, in 2000.
Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3wLQz-LgrM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:01PM
The popular vote actually represents what we fucking want, or actual democracy. The EC and gerrymandering are the ways they control the election. They being the two major parties in charge.
Don't be a fucking fool. You damn well know there are much better ways of voting in the world, and we can get rid of something that doesn't respect the popular vote. You're a true piece of shit, but I'm betting you didn't vote for either Hillary or Trump. Wouldn't have been nice to not have your vote thrown away, but more involved in an intelligent voting process demonstrated by other advanced countries doing objectively better than us?
I don't want a vote for ending the EC anyways. I want a vote to end the U.S.A, and the ability to do so is right in the Declaration Of Indepedence.
It's high time we wrote a new one, listed our greivances, and then reformed the government under a new Constitution after a hopefully bloodless revolution based on petitions, votes, and signatories to the new Declaration of Independence.
Guess what, monkey butt? :D
The popular vote shows that as a nation, the 51% that voted not for Hillary, but for Progressive policies. I'm pretty sure after feeling this burned, and watching the institutions we rely on set for destruction by ignorant hateful New Republicans, that the nation is ready for REVOLUTION.
It begins with a document. Thankfully, we already have a template :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:26PM
No, it represents what only the most populace regions want. You know, if we went to a straight-up popular vote system, the country would be at the whim of those evil "coastal elites" that apparently is such a slur this cycle. Ironically, it would actually improve the lives of those in "fly over" country because they always vote against their interests by voting red, so that's probably a good thing.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:36PM
I know, right? How fucked up is it that they vote principle instead of to line their pockets at the expense of others?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:58PM
What "principles"? These principles change every election cycle, remarkably and coincidentally they jibe with whatever the "crisis" that the Republican National Committee says is going on. And that "principle" term gets pasted onto EVERYTHING. Most normal and rational people have principles that are things like "honesty" and "modesty". Did you know there are basic fundamental principles for such things as "illegal immigration", "lower taxes", "non-unionization"? I had no ideas these were fundamental, core principles. Somehow I have a hard time finding "Thou shall not unionize" in the Bible.
The majority of those who vote in the red states vote the way they do because they are told that voting otherwise would violate their principles. If only they were wise enough to actually reflect upon what their true principles were , they wouldn't be taken in by all the horseshit they're fed and they might actually get some real representation in Congress. Or, if they want to keep sticking to whatever they're claiming are their principles this year, at least be consistent. Don't cry about your "small government" principles for cutting social programs while at the same time pitching a fit if anyone has the temerity to touch your farm subsidies. They're not subsidies or handouts when they are given to YOU, but they are godless socialism when given to ME.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:44PM
If you don't know, how do you justify voting against them?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:20AM
Wonderful response, very informative. From what I know of those "principles" you want to promote jobs (the only decent principle) and take away the rights of other human beings. Short sighted selfish principles, very admiral.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @03:43AM
Then educate yourself, because you have no clue why Republicans believe what they believe. And stop saying "you". I'm not a Republican.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 18 2016, @06:13PM
From what I know of those "principles" you want to promote jobs (the only decent principle) and take away the rights of other human beings. Short sighted selfish principles, very admiral.
Doesn't sound like you know enough to be relevant to this conversation. I'm siding with TMB on this one.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday November 18 2016, @02:31AM
religion.
it grabs the red states by - well - by the pussy.
and those idiots ALWAYS fall for it. their church leaders (bought for by the red party) tell them how to vote and the stupid sheep just abide.
its JUST that simple.
and just that WRONG for the country.
religion runs the red group and it never should have been that way. but they were co-opted and too stupid to realize they were conned.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday November 18 2016, @03:09PM
In the old days in the Netherlands we had a Farmers' party [wikipedia.org] (socially very conservative, economically centre-right, "Party of the Strict Christians" so to speak) and a Liberal party (socially liberal, economically right, "Party of the Rich").
Using those two as basis vectors you can draw any point in the { conservative, right } quadrant of the political compass. A party for farmers and a different party for factory owners.
Now the Boerenpartij has been absorbed into the CDA (Christian Democrats).
Using only one basis vector, like "the Republicans" in the USA, all you can draw is a line. If I was a God-fearing hard-working farmer in a red state, I'd want to vote for the farmers' party, not for the bloody right-wing liberal city slickers. What have the Romans ever done for us? (Except aquaducts etc. etc.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:07PM
their church leaders (bought for by the red party) tell them how to vote and the stupid sheep just abide.
Wrong. In mainline Protestantism a Pastor who doesn't promulgate the points of view held by the majority of the super-contributors of the congregation does not last long as a Pastor in that pulpit. With very few exceptions, clergy serve at the pleasure of the congregation; Pastors almost never own the building and land where the church is. So the church leaders are actually telling the voters what they have already wanted to hear, if they get partisan at all (which is actually pretty rare as that can jeopardize the congregation's nonprofit status.)
Next time, know before you write.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @06:40PM
Almost, but not quite. As you say, pastors don't actually own the building or the land. (I believe a caveat should be added for many of the mega-churches run by the prosperity gospel types: while the pastor doesn't actually own the property, they typically do exercise an outsized amount of control.) Contrary to your assertion, pastors don't serve solely "at the pleasure of the congregation". That may be true in large part in more Congregational forms of church polity (e.g., Congregationalists, Methodists, Baptists, et al.). However, for other more hierarchical denominations it gets quite a bit more complicated (e.g., Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc.) Of course, that doesn't mean that individual congregations in those hierarchical denominations are without recourse to bring concerns about their pastor to the attention of the Bishop (or the presbytery, etc.). And, yes, the Bishop (or the presbytery) will act when they are presented with problems more substantive than "I don't like that guy". On the other hand, the congregation can make life a living hell for an unpopular pastor, no matter what the denominational polity.
Next time, you should heed your own advice to "know before you write".
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:41PM
Those principles are fairly reprehensible though. The 2016 Republican Party Platform reads like a white nationalist movement utterly filled with hate for the other half of America, immigrants, LQBTQ, liberals, Democrats, etc.
I'm extremely curious how you can get behind any of those principles. So no, those aren't principles. They vote for their interests. Not principled interests, but just interests.
By all means, please defend some of these interests for us please. I'd love to see somebody pick apart those interests and explain how they're not filled with hate and ignorance.
The only Republican principle at play this year has been obstruction at all costs, zero cooperation, and the desire to destroy all the institutions of America and remove all safety nets.
I'm not trying to attack you, but I cannot understand, or accept, that the choices of Republicans this election were well principled. This, in addition to their designs to bring back internment camps, is what is fueling a revolution under way.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:59PM
ed, ed, ed... Who told you this? You really should consider the source and their motivations before you go believing things.
I mean, should I believe you're either in a mcmansion in beverly hills sipping wine and enjoying the smell of your own farts? Maybe I should believe you're living at home with mom who's still scamming welfare to pay for you. Maybe you're a college kid who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground but spends daddy's money getting high, ditching class, and arguing against free speech. Or maybe you're an illegal immigrant or convicted felon.
Do you really think you should go believing the caricatures created with the express purpose of demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with your team? Is this what a thinking human being does or is it what a sheep does?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @12:08AM
TMB, TMB, TMB, no I get my information directly from the Republican Party. It's the platform chosen by Republicans, just like the Democratic Platform was rewritten this year by Progressives taking over the party. Are you saying the news outlets directly misrepresented the exact words of the platform in question? I agree that the sources of information and their accuracy are extremely important, and I'm no sheep, nor have I ever been one. What caricatures do you speak of? The Republican Party voted on their platform of hate, and this is the result [gop.com]. Direct from their mouths, so how do I have misinformation, or how have been mislead as a sheep?
There are no teams. Just Americans all in this together. It's not that my "team" lost, which was never my "team", but simply embraced enough of the well principled goals that I can understand, agree with, and passionately get behind. Make no mistake, I'm a team of one person, and a culture of one person. Would the Republican Party have had much of the same goals, and have hate removed from it (The religious bullshit and anti-LGBTQ), I would be a Republican in that I would have supported the goals between us that were aligned.
The Red states simply voted out of fear and hatred. Fear of the American worker losing even more than we've lost in that last 40 years, and the hatred directly stoked by Trump against immigrants and the "theys" that are responsible for the fetid hell that is the existence of the American worker. Never before has there been as much hate.
No, I cannot see well principled goals, as directly promulgated by the Republican Party. Which is why I asked to have them explained, especially with regards to how they can possibly be well principled goals and not just acts of hate and avarice in America.
There is nothing moral about the Republican Party at the moment, and nearly every part of the platform I deeply feel would have offended Jesus Christ, who the Republicans just love so gosh darned much. I'm not a Christian, but damn, the goals that have been promoted are anything but spiritually aligned. All of the other goals are transparent money grabs for further privatization, which has only turned out to be bad for the American worker.
Again, I don't see principles in action right now, but just fear, hate, and the avarice of those manipulating the angry unwashed masses in the Red states, that are just as equally fucked as the Blue states, but cannot see those that are truly responsible for it.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @12:37AM
All I can think then is that you're suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias; only seeing what you want to see and flat out ignoring anything that doesn't fit. This saddens me to see in any of the SN community.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @02:30AM
Actually, I'm one of those conservative evangelical Christians that Republicans are supposedly trying to court and I largely agree with ed, particularly on this point:
Plus, we should point out the obvious: their candidate for President this election cycle is a travesty (and the VP pick is not much better). It pains me no end to consider that somewhere around 80% of evangelicals actually voted for Trump, a man who has openly sneered at just about everything I hold dear as a Christian; he shares nothing of my values. It actually makes me ill to think the people I sit next to in church most likely voted for him. A woman at church had been talking prior to this election about "God's people voting for God's principles". Excuse me?!? God's principles? Where are you seeing that on your ballot? Because I am sure not seeing it on mine! Certainly not on the Republican ticket! Right now I feel I need a new religious label because the old "evangelical" label has been hijacked by a bunch of jack-booted thugs. I just wonder how long it will take my spiritual brethren to notice too.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @03:18AM
There wasn't much of a choice for them this time around. Either the most corrupt and outright criminal person to ever run for the office or Trump with all his baggage. They did what they felt they had to do.
This all has nothing whatsoever to do with the EC though, so I'm going to drop myself from the discussion.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 18 2016, @06:00PM
A woman at church had been talking prior to this election about "God's people voting for God's principles". Excuse me?!? God's principles? Where are you seeing that on your ballot? Because I am sure not seeing it on mine!
And did you point this out to her, publicly?
This is why Christians are such horrible people. It's like cops who refuse to take a stand against the bad cops. Christians are all represented by the very worst Christians, because they're the loud-mouths who push their morally repugnant values publicly, and the ones who disagree just stand silently, and continue to attend the same churches as them, in effect acting in solidarity.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Friday November 18 2016, @09:08PM
Christians who do this in churches get letters from the "higher ups" telling them to stop because it could jeopardize their 501c3 tax-exempt status. Not only have I heard about this practice from far-away reports, but a close personal friend of mine also was given just such a letter. This is no reason to stop calling out political lies in churches, but it is definitely an inhibition. Sadly, most humans, Christian or otherwise, are not legendary heroes in waiting.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday November 18 2016, @09:26PM
I'm not arguing with you, but how does calling out political lies jeopardize their tax-exempt status, but the person making political lies to begin with isn't also jeopardizing them?
I agree about most humans not being heroes in waiting, but Christians are always claiming that they have moral superiority, that they have some calling to be better, etc. But instead, they're at least as bad as everyone else, and in fact, they're usually much worse, with a very few gems hidden in with all the turds. So why bother with the whole charade? It seems to me that, most of the time, church-going is really for people who actually need someone threatening divine consequences if they don't act right, and can't seem to figure out how to act decent on their own. Apparently that whole "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is just too complicated for many people and needs to be drilled into their head every week. The problem, of course, is that most churches don't teach this at all, and instead teach a bunch of right-wing BS about how God loves rich people more or that taxes are evil or something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @09:51PM
Agreed, both cases are in the same bucket.
I'm of the firm belief [soylentnews.org] that "taxation" is a criminal act in a free country, and that services requested and provided are the only cases where payment can be demanded. If you harken back to the days of landline phones and/or cable TV, "bundling" is kinda-sorta the same problem: there's one small service you wanted, but to get that one thing you also need to accept a ton of junk you don't want - except government agents tend to kill you if you try to "cut the cable" with them or try to "make your own TV show".
Taxing churches was an insidious way to silence them politically, and I say this as a willing slave of Jesus Christ who is disgusted with the state of Christian churches in the USA.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @06:42AM
That doesn't fit part would be justice, prosperity for the working class, evidence of decreasing income inequality, etc. If I'm suffering that, then there are millions of us curiously suffering in the same way, with the same narratives, the same observations.
Particularly good evidence would've been strong Wall Street reforms and people brought to justice, but that never happened. How many instances of injustice need to occur before it's not confirmation bias? Is Dupont seriously not going to be brought to justice for knowingly poisoning a family across generations? It would help when things like this happen, and we hear of the corruption, that it would be accompanied by the justice.
All it would take is for some things to be getting better, but they've only been getting objectively worse for a long damn time. There have been smatterings of progress, but still a one step forward, three steps back game.
I'll take it all back if things get substantively better for the American worker, we don't lose any of our rights (no stop-and-frisks), we don't create the internment camps, and corporations don't abuse the shit out of us when unchained. Which is highly unlikely given the fact they treat the American worker slightly above dirt.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @11:32AM
We're talking what voters are voting for here, not what they're getting. Unless you think what Democrat politicians do actually has some relation to their platform? Did you vote to live in a surveillance state, outright ignoring the 4th amendment? For prosecuting and persecuting more whistleblowers than all other administrations combined? For the President be able to use the IRS against his political enemies? For drone strikes on American citizens with no due process?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, yo. You really need to get to know some Republicans. They're some of the nicest, most generous people you'll ever meet when you're not calling them assholes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @03:42PM
please reply to the questions; I have the same ones for people that voted out of principal and voted in the Republican establishment.
The democrats became what I despised of the republicans -- and the republicans haven't changed. Your wine sipping comment makes me think of the Koch brothers -- not some 'liberal elite', whatever that means. That is how deeply entrenched the big business connation with wealth and the republican part your comment conjures in me.
I recognize that many of the IT businesses are now the modern day oil barons and railroad tycoons. One could say those industries were not pro-union, and thus, not really fostering from management any tendencies to vote for less conservative ideals, like workplace safety and pollution controls.
Yet conservatives seem to indicate they embrace religion--the whole stewards of the earth thing is something I never have heard them embrace, but the profit motive has always been there.
Please tell us the principals you DO support -- besides the elimination of your perceived SJWs. Quieting their voices does nothing to eliminate their concerns; I expect you have a greater plan to allow them to seek liberty and justice without offending your own sensibilities?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 18 2016, @04:55PM
Why, precisely should I? I'm not a Republican. I've neither the need nor the desire to educate you on their views. Get out of your safe space and go meet a few.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by driven on Friday November 18 2016, @01:18AM
Alternative theory: the people you've just described gave Trump enough votes to win, but they don't make up the majority of the votes for Republican. If someone created a pie chart with people's motives for voting for Trump I'm certain there would be a variety of factors, not just the fear and hatred you described. There will be some who voted for Trump while holding their nose, just so Hillary wouldn't [insert anti-Hillary slogan].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @04:28PM
I hate to say it, but this is exactly why I voted Trump. It was all about gun control. Hillary ran on an anti-2nd amendment platform, and until the Democrats leave the "common sense gun laws" bullshit alone i won't vote for them.
I suspect that there are just as many out there who will only vote for a candidate who supports open borders, or free access to birth control, etc.
As a person I think Trump is reprehensible, a product of the old money oligarchy that he professes to combat. A branch can't jump from the tree and call it unholy.
But I seriously doubt that Trump is going to be as terrible for this country as the left says, he's the most centrist candidate the right has run in forever, and now that he's been elected we're already starting to see the Hardliner bullshit crumble. The wall has suddenly become "more like a fence", the deportations are only for criminals, he "doesn't want to hurt them(Clintons)" so no special prosecutor, etc.
I honestly think that the greater threat will be all of the true hardliners filling up his cabinet, the ones that he made deals with to win. Those guys are the real problem and I hope that they are kept on a tight leash. I suspect that when Republicans loose in the midterms Trump's cabinet will be replaced with more moderate people.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @11:16AM
Then how do you explain Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, ed? Did the Democrats lose those states because they didn't "craft the right message for white workers?" Or did they lose them because they knew Hillary was going to instantly "pivot" and pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and thus finish off whatever manufacturing remains in America? Is it possible they were less than enchanted by a vision of a future where all agricultural, ranching, and resource extraction jobs were done by illegal immigrants; where trucking and distribution was done by illegal immigrants; where no manufacturing remains and even those minimum-wage, food-bank ready jobs at Walmart are hard to come by; where high tech jobs are either outsourced to China or insourced to Indian H1B's; and then everything else is lost to automation. What then do Americans do, from the high-school graduate to the over-educated, over-skilled, to earn a living? Can they sell each other derivatives or REITs all day long and live large on the fat deltas? Maybe they can all work for the federal government and run back and forth putting out fires in each other's neighborhoods or arresting each other, or hey, maybe they can all get jobs processing paperwork for all the hordes of immigrants flooding into the country?
No, ed, people voted on their pocketbooks the way democrats are always chiding them to.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:14PM
Lol no, Ohioan's voted Trump because half our population is a bunch of tobacco chewing, camo wearing, idiots that barely graduated high school. They saw Larry the Cable Guy and thought that was someone to aspire to be. Trust me, they don't call my home town "Spring-Tucky" for nothing.
P.S. Sorry to those who live in Kentucky, I know that not all of you are backwards hicks and hillbillies.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday November 18 2016, @01:18AM
You're going to need to back up that assertion with some quotes. Shouldn't be hard to do, if you weren't FULL OF SHIT>
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @01:38AM
Uh, huh.
Yeah.... ummmm you caught me. The Republican Party is just filled with love for LGBTQ. It was my fault I didn't notice that before. All that hate for the Muslims? Rumor mongering. Nobody is interested in registries of people, or internment camps. That was just baseless rumors, just like the wall being built between us and Mexico. All that hiring of white nationalists to cabinet posts? Won't cause any issues with minorities right? Even still, that wouldn't be hate filled activities, but just making America ethno-pure again.
Likewise, the Republican Party fully supports the EPA, and isn't interested in completely dismantling all environmental regulations that are hampering U.S businesses.
If you need links, then you haven't been paying fucking attention to the Republican Party. I gave the only link you need, which was direct to the gop.com website. It says it all right there in the documentation. Care to read it? I did post it as citation.... either that or your full of fucking shit too.
If you weren't, you could give citations against my assertions. I'll wait.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Friday November 18 2016, @01:45AM
This is the level of bullshit you have fallen to. You talk about 'white nationalism' and practically invoke Godwin and what do you have? Anyone that doesn't support the EPA obviously hates the environment and all the people that have to live in it. It couldn't possibly be a legitimate political disagreement, no, anyone that disagrees with you is a fascist.
Yeah, that shit has worked for way too long but it just backfired spectacularly and it may not be so reliable for you going forward.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @02:12AM
I talk about white nationalists because that is what they are. I haven't invoked Godwin, you did :) Neither have I mentioned the word fascist, at all. Not in any one of these posts have I mentioned it.
Anybody that doesn't support the EPA usually does believe that only God can affect the weather of Earth, and suffers quite heavily from being unable to see a position beyond that which is dictated by their paychecks. The junk science against it, is exactly that. There was an article about it recently which showed an interesting level of dissent in a particular field, and then when investigated, the dissent fell exactly along funding lines. Meaning, that the entire discussion is political AND corporate, and not scientific. Disagreement does not make one fascist, but acting in accordance with the definition and practice of fascism, does. I'm still not laying claims of fascism anywhere in these posts or against you, while you are doing it to yourself.
What has worked so far, and backfired spectacularly, is the push back against environmental regulations and the science of Climate Change. There are at least 200 communities just like Flint, Michigan too. We live in a objectively ruined world from all of the toxins the EPA has been fighting against, on our behalf. I'm guessing that you don't believe the EPA about harmful algal blooms [epa.gov] do you? They're lying obviously....... except that we are now seeing it explode across the U.S.
All you're doing is complaining as if I'm victimizing you by showing you truth. The truth hurts doesn't it? At least that is evidenced by your post.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Arik on Friday November 18 2016, @02:49AM
You need to find a way to step back and gain some self-awareness. That's an incredibly broad, sweeping, bigoted, and deeply offensive statement. And you feel free to hurl it around without feeling any need to even provide evidence for it. Nope, anyone that disagrees with you is a horrible horrible person and that's as far as you allow your thought to extend, isn't it?
In fact I have read an enormous number of critiques of the EPA, I have written some myself, I have never once seen anyone seriously make the argument you attribute to us. Not once.
"I'm still not laying claims of fascism anywhere in these posts or against you, while you are doing it to yourself."
That's right you used the phrase 'white nationalist' instead. That's so offensive I unconsciously softened it to fascist, which is not quite as bad, but mea culpa, you said white nationalist, not fascist.
"All you're doing is complaining as if I'm victimizing you by showing you truth. The truth hurts doesn't it? At least that is evidenced by your post."
What you're doing is acting like an insufferable teenager who has just been enlightened as to the Truth about everything and thinks anyone that contradicts his beloved teacher in any way is Satan. You haven't provided any evidence at all, just an endless string off offensive assertions and a dripping disdain towards anyone who doesn't instantly apprehend the real Truth the way you have.
I'm hoping you are actually a youngun, if so this phase may well pass.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Troll) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @03:11AM
Dude, the fucking evidence is overwhelming and substantial. You just disagree with the science, so please don't act like it doesn't exist.
It's not a legitimate concern when the concern itself is derived from junk science known to be funded by those whose paycheck would suffer from the truth.
Science IS the search for truth, and that is the difference between an insufferable teenager wildly throwing around accusations, and a person referencing the vast bodies of work performed by adults to ascertain the truth of our world.
It is a MYTH that the science is in dispute, and the lines of the dispute fall perfectly upon the lines of funding. Strange coincidence huh?
Whether or not you fucking like the term white nationalist, get fucking used to it. None of the rest of the world is confused about what types of people are now assuming power. They are hate filled white nationalists promulgating a platform of hate, bigotry, and fear. As if getting rid of all the minorities, Muslims, and Mexicans would make America Great Again.
You know what would make America Great Again? If we actually fucking cared about doing anything for the American Worker.
Sit back and relax though... we're going to find out exactly what these white nationalists do, which is distinctly different than fascism. On that note, I wholly disagree with you. White nationalism != Fascism.
This isn't about supremacy of the state over the person. This is about racism and bigotry, and that is entirely derived from hate.
Like I said, the truth clearly hurts.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Friday November 18 2016, @03:21AM
What are you even talking about? Evidence for what? What science? Have you completely forgotten what we were talking about?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday November 18 2016, @09:38AM
I find it helps, when thinking about fascism, to do the following little thought experiment:
Imagine that you believe your world is spoiled by <hated_minority>
Now imagine, that your fascist government has painlessly made all of them disappear in a cloud of smoke. Poof!
What does your world look like, now? Is it suddenly a paradise? Or are there societeal problems that remain? (I.e. in Flint michigan with the lead in the water; in Detroit; at the Hanford site; at those Red States where people have lost the means to live).
Those problems that remain, what are your Fascist Party's plans to do something about them? Would they work, if they were really implemented?
Hint: lower taxes for the rich. um..
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @11:04AM
Please stop demonizing the people who voted for Trump. Stop calling them hateful and ignorant. They are not national socialism, revisited. They are not women-hating klansmen. They are not brownshirts.
They bucked the Establishment, exemplified by both the RNC and DNC, because they are utterly fed up with a status quo that has rigged every game against them for 40 years. They are fighting the same fight Bernie Sanders was. He would have been a much better leader for the reaction than Trump, for sure. But thanks to yet more game-rigging by the Establishment voters were denied the balm and went for the bomb instead.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @10:46AM
That puts me in mind of something that nobody has pointed out yet, in this post-election fingerpointing. Progressives have been saying for generations, "Tsk tsk how can we get people in the red states to vote for their pocketbooks instead of being misled by social wedge issues?" But that's exactly what they did do in this election, they voted for their pocketbooks because the status quo, that would have been continued by the Establishment candidate Hillary, has been killing their jobs and their finances. But for Hillary enablers, suddenly they want everybody to have voted for her because she's a woman or because she didn't say mean things about immigrants, in other words, to have voted based on social wedge issues instead of on their pocketbooks.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday November 18 2016, @03:21PM
Are you fucking kidding me??? They voted for the Republicans, for God's sake! This is what I really do not understand.
So they didn't want to vote for the neo-liberal Democrats: fine. But why the neo-liberal Republicans instead?? Both party of the Powerful and Rich.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @03:46PM
Your reaction suggests you are working from an image of the Trump voters that was manufactured by forces that wanted Hillary to win. You're reacting to caricatures. You're not considering how the voters see themselves or why they voted for Trump.
Michael Moore warned before the election that his conversations with people in Michigan led him to believe that Trump could win. The DNC, the media, and nobody else listened to him. Now that the election is over and Trump is the president-elect, nobody is still listening to him, choosing instead to willfully misconstrue what happened and not get the point. Now see today there's an article in Bloomberg News [bloomberg.com] saying that Ford reversed plans to move manufacturing to Mexico, based on Trump's threat to levy high tariffs on their vehicles. That's what the Trump voters in the Midwest were hoping for when they voted for Trump, and they got it already.
Look at what happened to American manufacturing after NAFTA, what would happen to American manufacturing under the TPP, and what has already occurred with the mere threat from Trump of material action, and tell us again that the Trump voters were not voting for their pocketbooks. It shakes out a little differently based on region and type of industry, but people voted for Trump for mostly the same reasons as the people in the Midwest and for the majority of those people hating on women and brown people was not among them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by calzone on Thursday November 17 2016, @09:45PM
It's basically a states-rights situation.
You never get to vote for president.
Your state votes for president.
You vote to tell your state how you want it to vote.
Don't like how your state interprets your desires? Then vote to change you state or move to a different state.
Abolishing the electoral college would be an end-run around this and the first real step toward making the US less of a collection of states and more a collection of people.
I personally do opine that the US SHOULD be more a collection of people than a collection of states, but I know that's not necessarily a popular opinion. So, abolishing the EC should be the last step in any such process, not the first — just to ensure we do it correctly and that a solid majority is aware of the transformation taking place and on board with it.
Time to leave Soylent News [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Thursday November 17 2016, @10:09PM
I very much appreciate your insight into this, but I respectfully disagree. Moving to another state is an unreasonable request at this point. Maybe back in the 50's or 60's when union membership was near 35% this would have been possible, because people had the resources.
How do you move like that? There are no jobs. Only shit service jobs for teenagers with no benefits, and no living wages. Costs have skyrocketed everywhere. So, yeah, maybe you could move.... by abandoning property to expensive to take with you? I see that happen a lot. Abandoned properties full of stuff simply because all they could afford is what could be taken in their vehicles.
So, no. Getting rid of the EC isn't the first step. Getting rid of the U.S.A is the first step, and that begins with a revolution.
If we can't have a reasonable voting process, then you simply cannot change the system from within. It's too entrenched, and Americans have been ground into the pavement under the Elite's boot heels for too long. We're essentially too weak to do what you're asking.
Change must come from the way we currently exist, and we cannot shift the populations around the country to create this equal collection you speak of. The EC would be made meaningless in this way and would match the popular vote exactly. It's a matter of calibration, and the manner in which you calibrate is precisely what you advocated: Move to another state. That will make the EC more aligned with the popular vote.
The system is wholly broken because it evolved to service only a few, while creating serious obstructions for the many to change the conditions of their existence. The EC is one those designs, along with the practice of gerrymandering. Not to mention that our elected officials can simply ignore the will of people at their convenience.
Now the whole system is set to become far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far worse in every regard for the American worker, the environment, and their civil rights.
When a national stop-and-frisk is being implemented, along with Muslim registries and internment camps, and an entire fucking wall to keep Americans from escaping? REVOLUTION.
It's time, and objectively we are not traitors, or terrorists, but PATRIOTS reforming America into what it was always intended to be:
Those in power, those who have created our current institutions have abjectly failed in their duties. Moreover, they've not just failed, but been traitors themselves in between frenzied acts of corruption solely designed to funnel the wealth of our people into the hands of the few, the hands of the people that get to enjoy America by themselves at our great expense, our intense suffering, and conditional freedom. Those conditions being how well we behave as cogs in the great meat grinder they've created.
It's TIME. Revolution is the next logical step.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @05:31PM
So, your eloquent words aside, whom will you kill first in your attempt at revolution?
Wonderful to talk about, in theory. A lot less wonderful when you have to blow someone's head off or stick a knife in their innards to bring your idealism home.
Are you really prepared for that, sir? Again, whom will you kill first?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @12:27AM
The important thing is that candidates must be forced to travel beyond California, New England, and a handful of big cities in the middle. The popular vote would cast nearly all of the land area of the USA into complete dispair. (picture suicide, violence, starvation...) I fear you relish the thought of that. Acceptable changes:
I could maybe agree to having each electoral vote be decided by an equal area of land. (535 regions, averaging 10.7 per state but spanning borders) Alaska would love this.
I could agree to the above, but each electoral vote being split proportionately. That is, a region that includes San Francisco might have given 0.85 votes to Clinton and 0.05 to each of 3 other choices.
If we want to encourage 3rd party success, then also use approval voting. Each candidate get 0.00 to 1.00 votes per region.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @04:11AM
"...the nation is ready for REVOLUTION."
...with great irony, funded by George Soros.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 18 2016, @05:05AM
That irony is not lost on me. Which is why this Revolution is occurring from the ground up. It's well beyond the ability of anybody like Soros to steer either. The moment his ilk would attempt to bring their corruption instead of the incumbent corruption, Soros would find that the Revolution will find him. Just like all the others.
I don't recall the guillotines of France caring about such distinctions.
As for the funding? That seems to be happening around $15-$30 at a time on average, from the people dwelling on the ground. We don't need Soros' money to do this. We don't need much money at all. All we need is each other, a willingness to accomplish our objectives, and rubber to road so to speak.
The key ingredient of motivation was provided by Trump and the other white nationalists actually succeeding in getting one step away from tearing down all the work of labor and progressives over the last 100 years.
I've got news for you. You wouldn't have wanted to live in 1900's America. It was an even worse environment than we have now for labor, precisely because of those progressive accomplishments.
You're damn right we're all being manipulated by those in power and the wealthy. We're tired of it, and it will stop. Either by We the People, or because we failed and freedom died.
Guess what is the most frightening thing to those in power? All of us caring about the same thing, at the same time, and organizing to do something about it. Those walls to our Freedom of Assembly will be rent asunder, and we will rise.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @05:22AM
[scratching head] I *did* live in 1900s America. Tho I suspect you mean pre-WW2. Okay, I'm not *that* old...
There is no case where a revolution didn't end in blood, and with a worse crowd taking over... generally with the revolution's founders going under the blade. Be careful what you wish for. Tho it seems you wish for the French Terror.
(Note that the American Revolution was actually an insurrection, not a revolution.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday November 18 2016, @01:03PM
That's mostly true, but not entirely true. India's successful peaceful rebellion against British rule, and Czechoslovakia's Velvet Revolution are a couple notable exceptions. Otpor's successful campaign to depose Milosevic in Serbia is another.
Revolutions happen because the status quo cannot continue. The chance of a successful, prosperous post-revolution is better if violence can be avoided, because you're right about worse crowds taking over if the revolution was bloody. But if the defenders of the status quo make it impossible to effect change peacefully, then violence is inevitable.
For that reason I recommend the keepers of this status quo recognize this election result as the rebellion it is, and not try to co-opt and subvert it, or they will go to the guillotine.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 18 2016, @02:21PM
Haha, yes, I like your conclusion :D
Tho I still think it's a bit ...undictionary... to call a mass shift in popular opinion and its associated voting behavior a "revolution", even if it does depose a government.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2016, @07:18AM
You just told all those red areas you don't give a shit about them.
Best hope they never return the favor. It won't work out well.