Re: Politics and Current Events

[nearly_takuan]

Halfway through my workday. Can't believe I made it this far and don't know how I'm gonna keep going. Somehow I have to keep cranking out product and being a Good Employee even while I'm not sure how much longer any of this is going to matter.

Even more annoyingly, my local elections didn't go any better. We didn't get any tax increases, we did get two increases in our dependency on the lottery (to fund outdoor school, of all things, instead of something that will directly and exclusively benefit the poor people who are most negatively affected by the lottery). We got an impressive 7% write-in count for the Sheriff but the other 93% went to an uncontested candidate who is at best not 100% impressed by the #BlackLivesMatter concept. Probably way, way worse.

Just. UGHHHHHHHHHHH.

[Wondering]

I see that Clinton won the popular vote. That makes me feel a tad less horrible about and afraid of my fellow Americans.

But this is twice in 16 years and 4 times in 200 that electoral and popular have not matched up. Time to do away with the Electoral College. Its purpose is to prevent unqualified people like Trump from gaining office. It is against both the will and the best interests of the people now.

[nearly_takuan]

Yeah. Last night I thought 51% of my country was more willing to elect an underqualified and publicly racist sexist xenophobe than a qualified woman. Now I know it's only 49%.

[sky]

I have never understood what purpose the electoral college is supposed to serve. Why is it supposed to be more fair to vote for who the real voters should vote for, than to just give every person in the country one vote and count the totals?

I guess this post is just a bit of a rant about the whole system, since I'm also tired of being told every vote counts, I must vote, it's super important, and then I look at the news and it's all "Here's a list of 11 battleground states that are going to decide the election. The rest of the states don't matter at all."

The US government as presented in my history and government class textbook in highschool doesn't seem to resemble the actual US government very much. Maybe that's why I don't understand how it's supposed to work.

[Wondering]

The Electoral College is not supposed to be fairer. It's supposed to be more efficient and more educated.

It was set up in the Constitution, back in the 1790s when we didn't have the the polling places or transportation or tech that we have today. So, part of the reason was to enable an actual, countable vote for president. The other reason is that the founders didn't really trust this new democracy thing 100%. Remember it wasn't even all white men who could vote, only white land-owning men. The founders, who were all rich, educated white men, didn't want "mob rule" and uneducated people electing someone who should not be president. So the Electoral College was also a safeguard for the paternalistic ideal of the best interests of the people.

But ours is not the only modern democracy now. And now we live in a world where we accept the vote of the masses even if it's horribly uninformed and stupid (see Brexit). And we have the tech to count all votes in a timely manner.

It is beyond time for it to go since, if ever it was to truly serve its purpose, NOT electing Trump would be the time.

[jcorozza]

Ugh, after a lengthy discussion in a friend chat about empathizing with Trump voters and how instead of assuming they are all racist/etc we should be looking at what it is that matters to them, etc., I was reading a thread on a friends wall about Trump's EPA pick and there was a supporter who literally argued that segregation worked, and that only white landowning men *should* vote because they're the ones who started this country and because nature has a hierarchy and white men are on top of it because they are better.

I was tempted to jump in, but realized, no, this would be a waste of energy and bad for my blood pressure, as he made it very clear that my opinion is worth less than his, if it's worth anything at all. So I donated to the SPLC instead. Not as much as I just spent on special condition to keep my hair purple, sadly, but it still was more satisfying with engaging with this asshat.

[Wondering]

We will see more and more people speaking like him now.

[sky]

Ah, thanks for the explanation, Wondering.

[WJMorris3]

Is it too late to disenfranchise every white male in the country, as they cannot be trusted to vote Democrat? (It's perfectly legal - the 19th Amendment says you can't disenfranchise women, but it says nothing about not disenfranchising men! Also the 14th Amendment says you can't disenfranchise minorities, but nothing about not disenfranchising whites.)

I know what you're saying. Why is a white male suggesting this? It's because white males are not actually originally from the United States - they are from Europe ancestrally. If the government were to decide that I wasn't really a citizen, I don't have a legal defense to that.

[Werel]

WJMorris, now's not a good time to be calling for the suspension of people's rights, even just to make a point.

[reboot]

WJMorris, now's not a good time to be calling for the suspension of people's rights, even just to make a point.

Is there ever a good time? No disenfranchising the opposition if you want to keep democracy

[BasedBuzzed]

Is it too late to disenfranchise every white male in the country, as they cannot be trusted to vote Democrat? (It's perfectly legal - the 19th Amendment says you can't disenfranchise women, but it says nothing about not disenfranchising men! Also the 14th Amendment says you can't disenfranchise minorities, but nothing about not disenfranchising whites.)

I know what you're saying. Why is a white male suggesting this? It's because white males are not actually originally from the United States - they are from Europe ancestrally. If the government were to decide that I wasn't really a citizen, I don't have a legal defense to that.

Look at the comparison with how Romney did among various groups: https://twitter.com/CarlBeijer/status/796405913405923329 (sources two tweets below this one)

Now look at the map if only white women voted: http://brilliantmaps.com/if-only-x-voted/

Now look at the number of voters for Trump compared to for previous Repub candidates: https://twitter.com/rosie_alice_/status/796393085869686785

The story "solely white men have failed" simply doesn't correspond with reality.

[jcorozza]

MJMorris, yeah, that's not helpful. If we're going to fight against people who want to disenfranchise others, if we do the same to them, we have no moral high ground whatsoever.

Wondering, that is my fear. That this will become the norm, and that it will be tolerated, even encouraged. I'm already seeing signs of it.

[Wondering]

California is taking a stand. (As always, California thinks very highly of itself and likes to claim it's a leader in progressivism when, say, Washington had same-sex marriage before CA, Washington had on-demand abortions before Roe v. Wade, Washington has had trans rights for years, Washington showed it would vote Clinton no matter what demographic (even just white men) voted. Ahem, California.)

But this is good. Let's get the West Coast to align together. California has the economic power to demand businesses do things even if federal law doesn't (like CA vehicle emissions standards), and all three states -- plus Nevada if it will agree, too -- provides an entire coast and all its ports and commerce and agriculture to stand together and not alone.

http://sd24.senate.ca.gov/news/2016-11-09-joint-statement-california-legislative-leaders-result-presidential-election

Yeah. Last night I thought 51% of my country was more willing to elect an underqualified and publicly racist sexist xenophobe than a qualified woman. Now I know it's only 49%.

Does it help to think only a quarter of Americans voted for him? Because only half voted, and only half of those went Trump.

[jcorozza]

Now, is that half of all who are voting age?  Because if so, that's depressing, too.  Half the country didn't actually care enough to vote in this election (or thought it was the choice between equally bad options, which...stop.  It's not.) So that means half of the country is apathetic about bigotry, etc., as well.

[nearly_takuan]

It's difficult to estimate how many didn't vote because of voter suppression, or random chance stuff, or whatever. There were also many third party votes from people trying to "vote their conscience"

[Wondering]

My understanding from what I read was that it was registered voters. So it would already be discounting those who didn't get to register due to voter suppression. And all the people too apathetic to register.

I had a Trump voter friend get in a fight on my Facebook page with a non-white woman friend of mine who was understandably angry and distraught like I was. He used that phrase "voted my conscience." I blocked him. I'm not putting up with that shit on my own page.

And if your conscience only cares about people like you and not non-whites, Muslims, the poor, queer, and disabled folks, then your conscience is terrible. And I will judge you for it.

[nearly_takuan]

Yep. Yep, and yep. I am very angry with the few people in my life who I know did not vote Clinton. I don't think a reason exists that is good enough.

[jcorozza]

I hate that phrase. I have a friend who vehemently defends people who voted third party (I think he voted for Johnson...in PA) because they want more than two options, and they want to reach that five percent...and I'm just like, yeah, in another election I'd buy that, but this one could literally be life or death for some people.

[WJMorris3]

Voted for Johnson myself but I live in New Jersey and therefore it was safe for me to do so. Had I lived across the Delaware in Pennsylvania, I'd likely have voted for Hillary.

[WJMorris3]

Meanwhile, there are some who think the Republicans should remove the filibuster from the Senate.

[Guest]

California is taking a stand. (As always, California thinks very highly of itself and likes to claim it's a leader in progressivism when, say, Washington had same-sex marriage before CA, Washington had on-demand abortions before Roe v. Wade, Washington has had trans rights for years, Washington showed it would vote Clinton no matter what demographic (even just white men) voted. Ahem, California.)

But this is good. Let's get the West Coast to align together. California has the economic power to demand businesses do things even if federal law doesn't (like CA vehicle emissions standards), and all three states -- plus Nevada if it will agree, too -- provides an entire coast and all its ports and commerce and agriculture to stand together and not alone.

I love my state, but we're not the smartest bunch. The weird thing about California is there's a massive amalgamation of both conservatives and liberals as well as people of different ethnic backgrounds and nationalities. You're right, we do like to think we're progressive... but we also made gay marriage illegal in 2008 . How that happened is a story for another day. I'll also spare you my feelings about Washington.

As for California's "CalExit"... well, I dunno where that movement will be by 2019. That's when we can legally present the referendum to exit the USA, it'll be an interesting next few years.

EDIT: You see what happens, DNC? Do you see what happens you screw Bernie over?

[Wondering]

California's idea that it can stand alone without the US is ridiculous. It can't even supply its own water and takes that from Nevada. BUT it has the population, physical size, and economic might to make a stand and make a difference. I will actually be writing my governor and state reps to implore them to make a similar statement and stand with CA for a unified West Coast.

[Guest]

California's idea that it can stand alone without the US is ridiculous. It can't even supply its own water and takes that from Nevada. BUT it has the population, physical size, and economic might to make a stand and make a difference. I will actually be writing my governor and state reps to implore them to make a similar statement and stand with CA for a unified West Coast.

Yeah, I like your idea better. California seceding from the Union is a joke, it's all talk. I won't be surprised if by this time next year people will be like "CalExit? The hell is that?"

Also, SoCal gets it's water from the Colorado River too, which... i dunno how long we can still keep doing that.

Oh, one more thing will you be sending a letter via snailmail or email? I heard snailmail is more impactful than a silly old email.

[Wondering]

I'm likely going to do both. One for the immediacy and one for the impact. I feel that strongly about it. But first I need to calm down so my correspondence sounds reasoned and not panicked or histrionic, which is still how I feel.

[Sponsored content]