Is not winning the popular vote really a strong mandate? http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/09/501393501/...
That is a benefit of certain aspects of our political system, but not the electoral college. The electoral college only serves to introduce bizarre volatility into the elections.
Similar, Sweden have a similar system where a vote from the small island of Gotland has 50% more impact compared to any other vote. The reason for that is that otherwise the island would only have 2 politicians in the parliament and the Swedish government wanted to have one more party representing the island than just the two major parties (which, based on those rules, means that the top 3 parties in Gotland is more or less guarantied one seat each).
To take a practical example, the European parliament. Seats are allocated to each state according to population using degressive proportionality, which mean that Luxembourgish voters have roughly 10x more influence per voter than citizens of the six large countries. The alternative would be that Luxembourgish have practically no vote, since their population would be too small to even get a single seat, meaning their vote would have 0 influence. Which one is more fair?
You've also touched on one of the longest-running debates in American politics: should we treat states as independent and semi-autonomous or allow the federal government to dictate policy direction for the nation. You can probably tell what side I'm on. People still claim that the American civil war was about the South defending "states' rights" when I, and many others, feel that it was about defending the rights of many people actually in those states.
That might be a little off topic. Anyway it's an interesting debate, but it's just hard to see how a candidate for national office can win more votes across the country and come out the loser.
Wyoming (pop. 584,153) has two Senators. California (pop. 38.8 million) has two Senators. CA is 66 times the population. Alaska (pop. 736,732), two Senators.
I guess one of the bigger problems is that it's utterly unclear what direction has been chosen.
I think it's fair to say—do correct me if you think I'm wrong—that most of the policies that were advocated by Trump prior to the election will not be put into practice. There are a few reasons for that – many of them are practically unworkable, or contradictory, or will be objectively harmful. It seems that the actual policies that will take effect will be markedly different from those of the campaign.
This is similar to Brexit in the UK, which was a campaign fought in a similar way – quite a few half-truths with no clear idea of what policy was being voted for.
To me, this seems like a dangerous situation. Practically speaking, it is unlikely that Trump with 'make America great again' by solving all of the problems that his supporters face – not because he's a liar, but because that's an astonishingly difficult task to achieve. What happens in a couple of years when relatively limited progress has been made? Trump has no political barriers within the US, so who will be blamed for his inability to deliver on his promises? I worry that such a situation is a breeding ground for nationalism of the worst kind.
On the social side, things like abortion, (anti) gay rights, etc.
On the legal / economic side, actual pro-small business type changes, think 1950s republican.
As for rejecting neo-liberal economics, there are tons of options. Without throwing out ideologies, though, I think the most likely things we'd see in America would be:
Well, if bernie was elected I'd say things like trying to reform college tuition costs, expanding medicare, ensuring the stability of social security, new worker protections and federally promoted retraining of laid off / out of work workers, etc. guaranteed paid family leave, etc.
From the conservative viewpoint, the people would probably want more focus on closing immigration loopholes used by businesses to avoid hiring domestically (h1bv, j1bv reform), actively enforcing punishments for employers utilizing illegal immigrants, retooling international trade agreements to favor small businesses and local producers as opposed to larger corporate interests, tax subsidies and encouragements for businesses that produce locally, etc.
In four years, if the rural mine workers are still out of work and iPads are still made in China, will you concede that the experiment failed?
I can't see Trump doing that. Deflecting blame has been a theme of his career. Therefore I'm frightened that he's going to need new scapegoats for his lack of achievements pretty soon... And considering the rhetoric he's used, there just is no telling who he might pick to receive the blame.
That's like saying that because people still have to pay for insurance in the US that Obamacare failed and he's a failed President and should feel bad about himself.
Isn't that exactly what Republicans were saying? Trump wants to repeal Obamacare first and then replace it with something "much better, believe me".
In good and bad, ACA was a big part of Obama's legacy. What are the yardsticks that should be applied to the Trump presidency?
How many coal mines will be back in business and turning a profit? By what date will Apple be forced to bring back manufacturing into USA? When will American airports and roads become the best in the world?
Those are a few of his most clearly defined goals, like healthcare reform was Obama's.
No, it is a clear indication of the divisions in our country.
> I can't fathom you interpreting the result as a "loud mandate." The presidential race has been extremely tight with ~200,000 separating the two. Is that a clear mandate?
> No, it is a clear indication of the divisions in our country.
Yes, the country is divided. A single party taking all three major government divisions is as loud a mandate as you can expect in a strongly divided country.
In a strongly divided country, interpreting anything as a clear public mandate can be disastrous.
"In a strongly divided country, interpreting anything as a clear public mandate can be disastrous."
Only true if the way voting happened didn't disenfranchise voters. Yet we know that the way voting happened, with gerrymandering and discriminatory rules in some states, did disenfranchise voters.
Because I see the candidate that clamored loudest about the system being rigged won.
And a more recent article that reviews how the election went: https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-...
Look at who Trump is appointing, who his policies will hurt, and tell me who you think the system is rigged for?
Can you find any articles about white, Republican voters unable to vote? I'm going to keep trying and will post back if I can.
not insulting btw just describing your opinions :^)
Trump ran his campaign on incessant name calling and hate. If you voted for him, that means you're OK with letting the incessant name calling and hate continue.
The way the republicans have played this game is so dirty, that you can't expect people to forgive. We can not reward such a divisive character like Donald Trump with his racism, xenophobia, mysogny, insults and bullying with a successful presidency.
Honestly I think the democrats should do the best the sabotage him and make sure everything he does fails. It should teach them a lesson that there is no reward in playing dirty and confrontational.
If we reward this behavior it will only get worse.
It is sad to say, but for the long term benefit of America it is probably better if it gets run to the ground over these four years. Then America will be spared for such leaders in the future.
But yes, Democrats better do whatever they can to stop anything that's outrageous or they don't believe in even a little bit. No "Oh, the people have spoken, so we better go along with it" shit. Republicans pulled every dirty trick they could with Obama, so they should feel free to do the same.
I heard this EXACT phrase said about Obama 8 years ago! We always get what we deserve. Hope, change, make america great again.
> If I was a democrat today I'd do like the Republicans have been doing the last 8 years and do my outmost to make the Trump Presidency be a major failure.
Good luck with that. GOP now has majorities and will probably pick up more in 2018. So be it.
This is a real test of the spine of the democratic party. Will they pull the same stunts the GOP did back then? Who knows
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
> The new rules remove the requirement of 60 votes in order to begin debate on legislation and allow the minority two amendments to measures that reach the Senate floor, a change implemented as a standing order that expires at the end of the current term. In the new rules, the amount of time to debate following a motion to proceed has been reduced from 30 hours to four. Additionally, a filibuster on the motion to proceed will be blocked if a petition is signed by eight members of the minority, including the minority leader.
I think I'd modify that just a little. Our too-few representatives in Congress should do everything to thwart the Trump agenda, but only because that agenda is itself a failure. By opposing it, we make America a success. Very different than what the Republicans have been doing.
What was the exact quote?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/8/10/1118614/-Biden-Mitch...
“To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him."
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sander...
That explicitly acknowledges an obligation toward the American people - something we never got from the "oppose Obama at all costs" crowd. So yes, there is a difference between today's loyal opposition and 2008's treasonous opposition. I reject your false equivalence.
I don't think this is necessary. With Obama, his policies were ultimately shaped, designed and compromised to benefit centrist to left-leaning voters, and so he was sharply opposed by the right and extreme right. With Trump, his policies will be ultimately shaped, designed and compromised to benefit Trump, so it is far from clear that this will give advantage to any class of voter at all.
Trump's got a lot more experience playing that game than they do.
It's naive to think that just because the vote is in that it's over, look at the UK and Brexit.
A few thoughts on this:
- First, roughly half (and the majority of the votes) did not agree with this direction. That isn't much of a mandate.
- Second, the party that won has repeatedly shown that they don't want to work on compromise, or follow standard procedure such as allowing a sitting President to get a hearing for a nominee for the Supreme Court.
As a person that feels that this trifecta will change the country for years to come (as you rightly point out), my hope is that the Dems do exactly to Republicans what they've done for the last 4 years - obstruct in any way possible. I'm tired of one side feeling that they have to play by the rules and the other feeling they can ignore them. And I hope that Ruth Ginsburg serves at least for the first term.
Let's talk about George W. Bush's nominees...
Politics is politics and to pretend that one side or the other plays them "dirty" and the other side plays them "clean" is naiveté of an astounding level.
That said, your mandate claim is kind of absurd. More people voted for Romney than Trump.
And Obama got almost 10% more votes than Trump did. So it's not nearly "as loud as can be". Turnout was very low.
Can you point to where he actively promoted or promised "hate"?
>You can not have it both ways, your vote is one for hate
You assume those with whom you disagree are below you morally. This mentality is why Trump is president.
I wish the people who voted for Trump would just be honest and take ownership of the hate, instead of trying to gaslight everyone by playing dumb.
First there was that poster with a six-pointed "sheriff" star on a pile of money, which (to me at least) didn't seem definitively anti-semitic. But in conjunction with hiring Steve Bannon (who has said he doesn't want his kids going to a school with too many Jews), running the "global special interests" ad, and retweeting white nationalists, it all starts to add up.
I'm Canadian, so I didn't vote for anybody.
I'm simply not blinded by rhetoric and political leanings like most in the US are. It may surprise you, but many in the rest of the world think both sides are nuts.
Condones violence? You know that Hilary has been behind actual violence, right? Voting for bombing other countries and such things? She voted to go into Iraq. How many people have died? Is she not accountable in any way?
Honest question if you're concerned about violence: who has more blood on their hands, Trump or Clinton?
I don't agree with the approach, but do you understand why he said this? The idea was to vet people coming into the country to prevent homegrown terror. It's a real thing, and people are concerned about it. I doubt that it'll work, the problem is more nuanced, but it's not a ridiculous idea.
>said illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists
No, he said that Mexico sends their worst, not that all Mexican immigrants are criminals.
>and suggested that his supporters should assassinate his opponent
Source?
For Mexicans, he said "they're rapists" without limiting the number. He then said some of them are good people, which is confusing and contradictory. Deciding what he really meant is a matter of interpretation and you'll never know if you have the right answer or not. This is, of course, a constant theme with the Trump campaign: say something outrageous, but with just enough wiggle room to explain it away as something else.
As for assassination: "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know." This was later explained as a reference to the pro-gun political power, but that makes no sense: Supreme Court justices with lifetime appointments don't care about political activism.
He really did call for a ban on muslims in the US. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07...
He did say mexicans bring crime, drugs and rapists. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/04/trump-stands-by-v...
He advocated a "second amendment solution" if Hillary were to be allowed to pick supreme court judges. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-h...
That's not what that says. Quote it. I'm so sick you liars.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terroris...
How about when he made fun of a disabled person?
How about all of the other hateful and demeaning stuff he said to various women?
How about when your candidate actually did participate in things that other people consider war crimes, like bombing hospitals and DWOB encampments in the middle east?
1. "ban on Muslim immigrants"
"...until we find out what the heck is going on"
2. "illegal Mexican immigrants are criminals and rapists"
"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. .... And some, I assume, are good people."
3. I won't even touch the "assassination" thing.
"...until we find out what the heck is going on" doesn't help. Hate doesn't stop being hateful when you say it's temporary, and neither does blatantly violating the Constitution become OK.
"And some, I assume, are good people." This immediately follows "They’re rapists." So, what does it mean? Some of the rapists are good people? Or he meant to say that some of them are rapists? Even there, "some" implies not huge amount, so "some are good people" implies most of them aren't. So, OK, he only called most illegal Mexican immigrants rapists, that's not much better.
Finally, let me guess, you believe his followup damage control that "second amendment people" meant their superior abilities at political organization?
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
How is that not an allusion to assassination? He is talking about a situation in which Hillary has won and appointed a judge. How else do people suspect "second amendment people" are going to stop her at that point?
Why do you deny climate change?
Why do you support molesting women?
Why do you think black people need to be stopped and frisked?
Why do you hate gay people?
Why do you think all Muslims are bad?
Why do you think more religion in our government and schools is a good thing?
Why do you hate women's reproductive rights?
Why do you think we should actively consider using nuclear weapons?
Why do you want to allow health care providers to deny coverage to some people essentially signing their death warrant?
That's not name calling you voted for the guy and his running mate who think that way.
What the fuck? What do you have against my gay friends who just want health care? What have they ever done to you?
What about the black people that voted for Trump?
What about the gay people that voted for Trump?
What about the Muslim people that voted for Trump?
They are feeling relatively safe from molestation. That good. They like to think it's because they are keeping themselves safe. If it's their doing then they're in control. So it feels good to them to blame women for their assaults and to believe that men like Trump aren't doing anything. It makes the world feel safer.
The liberal position, that men like Trump do sexually assault people, and that rape is common, and your friends might do it to you, and you should probably believe rape accusations by default, is much scarier. Many women would rather not believe it if they can avoid it.
Women with a LOT of privilege can safely believe it because they can use their prvilege (money etc) to stay safe. Women who are forced to be in unsafe positions can believe it, because they see how common sexual assault is. They are on the front line. Those two groups make up the feminist core.
But there are a lot of women who are just trying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the rape scene, and for them it's a bit of an abstract matter.
The alternative is even more extreme.
Not just the POTUS, but the trifecta of the house and senate as well. That's as loud of a mandate as can be expected from a strongly divided country. On top of all that, with the SCOTUS picks that are expected in the next few years, this election is going to be felt for many years to come.
I just hope that as we move forward with the transition to the new government, both sides can leave behind the incessant name calling and hate that's plagued this election. It's done, it's over, and the people have spoken. Now let's move forward on the direction that's been chosen and go about discussing it constructively.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12728645