What I never understood was how Trump wants to build a wall across Mexico but we have a huge northern border too. Why u no wall on Canada? How is that explained without racism
They would want to build a wall around us not the other way around.
Facing intense backlash doesn't automatically prevent anyone from saying anything.
I didn't say it prevents people from saying things, I said it prevents "honest and open discussions." Oprah's case just happens to be the most recent of countless such examples.
This is something else I see in these discussions. An obsession with being entitled to a dialogue, no matter what the topic. And I'm not referring to this one specifically, but a general attitude that the debate MUST be conducted on certain terms or it is invalid.
By "terms" you mean not wanting to be bulled into being silenced? - sorry, but that IS one of the requisites of an open and honest discussion. And people in a discussion ARE entitled to a dialogue - otherwise it ceases to be a discussion.
I'm going to follow the rules here as best I can. I responded again because you responded again. Was I supposed to do so before that?? How the conversation was shut down is beyond me. I most certainly did not say anything along the lines of "shut up" or "get the hell out of here" or anything that could be remotely labeled as "bullying into silence".
As I have noted, @Shandyr, more States should adopt split-vote techniques, which is a faster and more efficient bandage given that the fundamental problem, the Electoral College itself, is now causing more than problems than it was originally intended to resolve.
As distasteful as it might be to hear people saying vicious things, I have always been in favor of everyone freely speaking their mind no matter how much of a troll or troglodyte it makes them. You cannot tell from looking who might be racist, or homophobic, or a misogynist, or some combination of ugly personality flaws. Once they open their mouth, though....ah, now can you tell who is who. There is a limit as to how far you may judge someone based on their words--they could be repeating incorrect information, for example--but you can always judge people based on their actions. Choosing to attack someone verbally because you *think* you are in a protected position or because you *think* you know what kind of person you are attacking is not only illogical and irrational but *stupid*.
I have not seen anyone attacking anyone else because of the election but if I do I already know how I will address the situation. "Instead of picking on that person, why don't you attack *me* instead? I earn above the median income, am a college-educated, straight, white male, and I voted for Clinton (I have no qualms about lying to such a person). Again, why don't you attack *me* instead, hm?" Then just give them a poker face and dare them to do anything. Unless they are drunk or high that should settle them down enough to completely diffuse the situation.
I am the mod of the current events/news/politics forum elsewhere and we have addressed things such as rounding up all the illegal immigrants or building a wall. Our conclusions after crunching the numbers were as follows: 1) it is logistically impossible to find, process, and deport the estimated 12 - 15 million illegal immigrants (many of whom are merely in violation of overstaying their visa, not sneaking across the border). Even if you hired 100,000 agents and put them to work immediately, it would take nearly 20 years to accomplish the task. The reason the task is impossible is simple: suppose you are looking for Juan Ramirez, whom you know is an illegal in San Antonio. Do you know how many Juan Ramirezes there are in San Antonio? What if he managed to get hold of a decent fake driver's license and/or Social Security card? Rest assured--mass deportations *cannot* occur. 2) the cost of building a wall even along the Texan border of over 1800 km will run into the tens of billions, not counting construction delays, paying the workers, cost overruns, etc. Sure, that amount of money is almost trivial to a national government but it always adds up. Not only that, but once the wall is constructed within two weeks someone will have found a way under it, over it, through it, or around it. Remember--there were ways through the Berlin Wall, as well, and it counts as one of the most secure border blockades in the history of the world. Rest assured--no wall will be built.
For example, saying the word retarded used to be the medical term for people with certain mental conditions, but this awakening ushered in a changing of our language. Suddenly retarded is "offensive" because it had been used as an insult by haters, and people could get fired from their jobs or even ostracized for forgetting to stop using a term that had been used for years by the medical and educational communities.
So we socially changed it to mentally handicapped, but then that started being used as an insult by haters. Then the term was changed to mentally challenged. Now I think the correct term is "intellectually diverse", or something like that. Pretty soon, people will use their hatred to channel that into their offensive language.
Political correctness as a term, yes, is used to refer to what you are describing. But it is also used to refer to the corruption of our language and an entirely different form of hatred: the kind of hatred that comes from being unable to forgive, the hatred that comes from having the alleged "moral high ground".
The moral of the story is that people can disguise their hatred as love, and feel good about their hatred, even when it measures out the same results. But it is still hatred.
Well, first off, talking about the "corruption of our language" is a complete joke. Literally has now been defined in the dictionary to mean the opposite of literally. This is our language. This is language, period.
Secondly, in what way is "retarded is used in common parlance as a hurtful, perjorative term, so it will no longer be the term used medically, in favour of a neutral alternative" somehow related to hatred of any sort, let alone "the kind of hatred that comes from being unable to forgive etc etc etc"?
The term was changed to avoid causing unnecessary hurt. Just like the words for referring to people of usually predominantly African phenotypes have been changed to avoid causing unnecessary hurt. This is not a huge burden to bear. Millions of people adjusted just fine, just like they do to every other change in language. In my lifetime, a "disc" would usually be a vinyl record, then it would be a floppy disc, then it would be a compact disc. And I've yet to meet the person whose quality of life was adversely affected by the terrible burden of learning these new definitions.
People who hate "political correctness" (or, as it used to be called before people who hate it started using a new term with no irony, "politeness") always act as if occasionally stopping to use a term because it is offensive is some sort of enormous burden. It isn't. Everybody who speaks English deals with an evolving vocabulary over time. If you really hate that so much, lobby for a French-style government ministry which sets correct syntax for everyone. It won't work, of course, but it's your best shot. Otherwise, at least the reason "retard" is no longer used in polite conversation or medical documents is much better than the reason why "literally" can now mean "literally" or "the opposite of literally".
How the conversation was shut down is beyond me. I most certainly did not say anything along the lines of "shut up" or "get the hell out of here" or anything that could be remotely labeled as "bullying into silence".
You didn't address the example that I provided to show my initial point, and instead just accused me of being bitter that I couldn't be openly offensive and/or racist and "want[ing] to go back to the days when liberals were timid little flowers who didn't push back."
After I happened to mention that I supported Sanders, you then went back and spent a paragraph addressing my initial post - something that you could've easily done the first time, before I happened to mention Sanders' name.
If I hadn't elected to mention that I supported Sanders - which was completely IRRELEVANT to whether my initial post had any substance or not - then nothing further would've been said on the matter.
How the conversation was shut down is beyond me. I most certainly did not say anything along the lines of "shut up" or "get the hell out of here" or anything that could be remotely labeled as "bullying into silence".
You didn't address the example that I provided to show my initial point, and instead just accused me of being bitter that I couldn't be openly offensive and/or racist and "want[ing] to go back to the days when liberals were timid little flowers who didn't push back."
After I happened to mention that I supported Sanders, you then went back and spent a paragraph addressing my initial post - something that you could've easily done the first time, before I happened to mention Sanders' name.
If I hadn't elected to mention that I supported Sanders - which was completely IRRELEVANT to whether my initial post had any substance or not - then nothing further would've been said on the matter.
How can you possibly know this is the case?? Are you wired into my mind?? And this is what I mean by "terms of the debate". Because I didn't address something in the initial post, I had broken a set of rules that I didn't even know existed. The fact that someone voted for Sanders has nothing to do with anything. I saw plenty of the exact same behavior I am talking about among Sanders supporters throughout the primary and ESPECIALLY after. It's another part of the reason he didn't win. I am not obligated to go line for line in my response to someone til it's fits their criteria for what is acceptable. Regardless, this now SHOULD end before we both get kicked out of here.
@jjstraka34@SharGuidesMyHand: This debate has stretched on for two whole pages. You both have made your points. We should move on.
If a debate drags on too long, eventually it will wander away from issues of substance and gradually degenerate into an argument over rhetoric. Such debates tend to aggravate everyone and enlighten no one.
@jjstraka34@SharGuidesMyHand: This debate has stretched on for two whole pages. You both have made your points. We should move on.
If a debate drags on too long, eventually it will wander away from issues of substance and gradually degenerate into an argument over rhetoric. Such debates tend to aggravate everyone and enlighten no one.
I agree and amended my last post to end the discussion. I'm perfectly willing to let him have the last word.
As I have noted, @Shandyr, more States should adopt split-vote techniques, which is a faster and more efficient bandage given that the fundamental problem, the Electoral College itself, is now causing more than problems than it was originally intended to resolve.
As distasteful as it might be to hear people saying vicious things, I have always been in favor of everyone freely speaking their mind no matter how much of a troll or troglodyte it makes them. You cannot tell from looking who might be racist, or homophobic, or a misogynist, or some combination of ugly personality flaws. Once they open their mouth, though....ah, now can you tell who is who. There is a limit as to how far you may judge someone based on their words--they could be repeating incorrect information, for example--but you can always judge people based on their actions. Choosing to attack someone verbally because you *think* you are in a protected position or because you *think* you know what kind of person you are attacking is not only illogical and irrational but *stupid*.
I have not seen anyone attacking anyone else because of the election but if I do I already know how I will address the situation. "Instead of picking on that person, why don't you attack *me* instead? I earn above the median income, am a college-educated, straight, white male, and I voted for Clinton (I have no qualms about lying to such a person). Again, why don't you attack *me* instead, hm?" Then just give them a poker face and dare them to do anything. Unless they are drunk or high that should settle them down enough to completely diffuse the situation.
I am the mod of the current events/news/politics forum elsewhere and we have addressed things such as rounding up all the illegal immigrants or building a wall. Our conclusions after crunching the numbers were as follows: 1) it is logistically impossible to find, process, and deport the estimated 12 - 15 million illegal immigrants (many of whom are merely in violation of overstaying their visa, not sneaking across the border). Even if you hired 100,000 agents and put them to work immediately, it would take nearly 20 years to accomplish the task. The reason the task is impossible is simple: suppose you are looking for Juan Ramirez, whom you know is an illegal in San Antonio. Do you know how many Juan Ramirezes there are in San Antonio? What if he managed to get hold of a decent fake driver's license and/or Social Security card? Rest assured--mass deportations *cannot* occur. 2) the cost of building a wall even along the Texan border of over 1800 km will run into the tens of billions, not counting construction delays, paying the workers, cost overruns, etc. Sure, that amount of money is almost trivial to a national government but it always adds up. Not only that, but once the wall is constructed within two weeks someone will have found a way under it, over it, through it, or around it. Remember--there were ways through the Berlin Wall, as well, and it counts as one of the most secure border blockades in the history of the world. Rest assured--no wall will be built.
Which is precisely the point. We are talking about a man who let tens of millions of people believe he WAS going to do this things, literally. When they don't happen, they aren't going to take it out on Trump. When he said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and he wouldn't lose supporters, he was only barely kidding, as evidenced by him admitting to sexual assault on tape and not losing any support. It's the people who were the subject of his campaign rhetoric that will feel the brunt of his follower's anger.
I've been saying since it was proposed that the wall was logistically, geographically, and financially impossible. What does it say about the average deductive reasoning skills of your average Trump voter that they THOUGHT this was even a reality-based solution??
For example, saying the word retarded used to be the medical term for people with certain mental conditions, but this awakening ushered in a changing of our language. Suddenly retarded is "offensive" because it had been used as an insult by haters, and people could get fired from their jobs or even ostracized for forgetting to stop using a term that had been used for years by the medical and educational communities.
So we socially changed it to mentally handicapped, but then that started being used as an insult by haters. Then the term was changed to mentally challenged. Now I think the correct term is "intellectually diverse", or something like that. Pretty soon, people will use their hatred to channel that into their offensive language.
Political correctness as a term, yes, is used to refer to what you are describing. But it is also used to refer to the corruption of our language and an entirely different form of hatred: the kind of hatred that comes from being unable to forgive, the hatred that comes from having the alleged "moral high ground".
The moral of the story is that people can disguise their hatred as love, and feel good about their hatred, even when it measures out the same results. But it is still hatred.
Well, first off, talking about the "corruption of our language" is a complete joke. Literally has now been defined in the dictionary to mean the opposite of literally. This is our language. This is language, period.
Secondly, in what way is "retarded is used in common parlance as a hurtful, perjorative term, so it will no longer be the term used medically, in favour of a neutral alternative" somehow related to hatred of any sort, let alone "the kind of hatred that comes from being unable to forgive etc etc etc"?
The term was changed to avoid causing unnecessary hurt. Just like the words for referring to people of usually predominantly African phenotypes have been changed to avoid causing unnecessary hurt. This is not a huge burden to bear. Millions of people adjusted just fine, just like they do to every other change in language. In my lifetime, a "disc" would usually be a vinyl record, then it would be a floppy disc, then it would be a compact disc. And I've yet to meet the person whose quality of life was adversely affected by the terrible burden of learning these new definitions.
People who hate "political correctness" (or, as it used to be called before people who hate it started using a new term with no irony, "politeness") always act as if occasionally stopping to use a term because it is offensive is some sort of enormous burden. It isn't. Everybody who speaks English deals with an evolving vocabulary over time. If you really hate that so much, lobby for a French-style government ministry which sets correct syntax for everyone. It won't work, of course, but it's your best shot. Otherwise, at least the reason "retard" is no longer used in polite conversation or medical documents is much better than the reason why "literally" can now mean "literally" or "the opposite of literally".
I agree with you. I was simply pointing out a perception of political correctness and why it is disdained by certain people. I think you are misunderstanding what I was trying to communicate, I don't hate political correctness, and I understand why the word retarded was changed. I was simply acknowledging that some people use political correctness as justification for their own hatred.
I am not sure how you came to any of your conclusions from what I said.
This is not a huge burden to bear. Millions of people adjusted just fine, just like they do to every other change in language. In my lifetime, a "disc" would usually be a vinyl record, then it would be a floppy disc, then it would be a compact disc.
Many people DON'T adjust to new language "just fine" at all - some take years to do so, and some never do at all. For example, my parents have no clue what things like Blu-Rays, "tweeting," and "planking" are, and my grandparents probably never knew what CDs/DVDs were. Heck, I myself have no clue as to the difference between things like iphones, ipads, ipods, smart phones, and Androids.
People who hate "political correctness" (or, as it used to be called before people who hate it started using a new term with no irony, "politeness") always act as if occasionally stopping to use a term because it is offensive is some sort of enormous burden. It isn't.
And yet you've already seen a few people just in this thread not know what the "proper" term to call a mentally retarded person currently is, or even that there is a "new" proper term.
Many people DON'T adjust to new language "just fine" at all - some take years to do so, and some never do at all. For example, my parents have no clue what things like Blu-Rays, "tweeting," and "planking" are, and my grandparents probably never knew what CDs/DVDs were. Heck, I myself have no clue as to the difference between things like iphones, ipads, ipods, smart phones, and Androids.
Your own examples (aside from being highly idiosyncratic; do you honestly think the vast majority of Americans do not know what a Blu-ray is?) disprove your point. Your grandparents didn't know what a DVD was, perhaps, but your parents did. They learned the term because language evolves over time.
Just like they hopefully don't refer to black people by the terms commonly used half a century ago.
That's because people don't typically get called bigots for not knowing what a CD is.
Neither do people get called bigots for not using a polite term that is not decades old in common parlance.
And incidentally, anybody who DOES use a moderately offensive term who apologises, explains that they didn't know the term was offensive, and says they'll use the new term from now on (and does so) won't get called a bigot either.
And yet you've already seen a few people just in this thread not know what the "proper" term to call a mentally retarded person currently is, or even that there is a "new" proper term.
That's because there isn't. "Mentally handicapped/disabled" is perfectly acceptable in common parlance (what may be acceptable in scientific papers and conferences is different, as they have their own rules on language that people are expected to know as part of their professional careers).
It may be it will eventually become not so, but it will take many years and be a gradual process. There is not, and has never been, any Language Police making a term unacceptable that was just fine the year before.
I agree with you. I was simply pointing out a perception of political correctness and why it is disdained by certain people. I think you are misunderstanding what I was trying to communicate, I don't hate political correctness, and I understand why the word retarded was changed. I was simply acknowledging that some people use political correctness as justification for their own hatred.
I am not sure how you came to any of your conclusions from what I said.
Hmm. I reread your post and it still comes off as hostile to the concept to me. That's not to say I know better than you what you meant to say, however, so I apologise for the misunderstanding.
What I never understood was how Trump wants to build a wall across Mexico but we have a huge northern border too. Why u no wall on Canada? How is that explained without racism
Canadians aren't clamouring in to do mundane, under-the-table jobs to attempt to support their families.
They're only crossing to take advantage of your crippled economy and low retail prices.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others." - Winston Churchill.
This isn't a true democracy. It's a constitutional republic. That is the crux of the problem, especially now.
I don't believe that a "true democracy" would be even remotely workable with 320 million people though. It wouldn't even be workable on most state levels. The US is a constitutional republic, which is a form of democracy. Not every democratic form of government has to have direct citizen votes on every issue. That is just mob rule really.
Hillary Clinton not only won the popular vote in Tuesday’s election. It is now clear that she won it by a margin larger than two candidates who went on to win the presidency.
David Leonhardt, a columnist for The New York Times, noted on Friday that with a 1.7-percentage-point popular vote lead over Donald Trump, Clinton will have a larger margin of victory than Richard Nixon had over Hubert Humphrey in 1968 or John F. Kennedy had over Nixon in 1960. Her edge is also larger than Al Gore’s popular vote victory over George W. Bush in 2000, when he also lost due to the electoral college.
In raw numbers, that amounts to an edge of roughly 1.8 million votes as of Saturday. “We probably have about 7 million votes left to count,” said David Wasserman, an editor at Cook Political Report who is tracking turnout. “A majority of them are on the coasts, in New York, California, and Washington. She should be able to win those votes, probably 2-1.” By mid-December, when the Electoral College officially casts its ballots, Wasserman estimates that Clinton could be ahead by 2 percentage points in the popular vote.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others." - Winston Churchill.
This isn't a true democracy. It's a constitutional republic. That is the crux of the problem, especially now.
I don't believe that a "true democracy" would be even remotely workable with 320 million people though. It wouldn't even be workable on most state levels. The US is a constitutional republic, which is a form of democracy. Not every democratic form of government has to have direct citizen votes on every issue. That is just mob rule really.
The term I've been using for what I'd like to see is "consensus democracy". It's a combination of direct voting, ranked ballots, and marginal representation when it comes to the federal government.
Direct voting ensures that the candidate with the greatest margin of support becomes president. Ranked ballots ensure that the candidate who becomes president has at least favored support from a majority of the country. Marginal representation ensures that the candidate who becomes president is balanced by a vice president who represents the minority's interests.
I don't think just doing away with the EC would be the right solution, and I don't think ranked ballots alone would do it either. With 320 million people (and growing every day), the spectrum of opinion is more diverse than it's ever been. The Electoral College pushes those people to the opposite ends of that spectrum in order to bolster support for the two parties that are in power, and that's how it's always been, and it's never not been a problem.
A consensus democracy would ensure that, at the very least, a majority of the country "consents" to the leadership of the winning candidate, even if it's not the candidate they would prefer among all available options.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others." - Winston Churchill.
This isn't a true democracy. It's a constitutional republic. That is the crux of the problem, especially now.
I don't believe that a "true democracy" would be even remotely workable with 320 million people though. It wouldn't even be workable on most state levels. The US is a constitutional republic, which is a form of democracy. Not every democratic form of government has to have direct citizen votes on every issue. That is just mob rule really.
What you are saying here is that giving rural areas where, on a meta level, practically nobody lives, greater weight than the cities in which most people DO live is ok. That's why we have STATE governments. Only one side is getting screwed by the Electoral College and House gerrymandering. If California was given the same weight in the Electoral College as Wyoming, it would have 199 Electoral Votes instead of 55. It's patently absurd.
Hillary Clinton not only won the popular vote in Tuesday’s election. It is now clear that she won it by a margin larger than two candidates who went on to win the presidency.
David Leonhardt, a columnist for The New York Times, noted on Friday that with a 1.7-percentage-point popular vote lead over Donald Trump, Clinton will have a larger margin of victory than Richard Nixon had over Hubert Humphrey in 1968 or John F. Kennedy had over Nixon in 1960. Her edge is also larger than Al Gore’s popular vote victory over George W. Bush in 2000, when he also lost due to the electoral college.
In raw numbers, that amounts to an edge of roughly 1.8 million votes as of Saturday. “We probably have about 7 million votes left to count,” said David Wasserman, an editor at Cook Political Report who is tracking turnout. “A majority of them are on the coasts, in New York, California, and Washington. She should be able to win those votes, probably 2-1.” By mid-December, when the Electoral College officially casts its ballots, Wasserman estimates that Clinton could be ahead by 2 percentage points in the popular vote.
I keep saying this, and will til I'm blue in the face: This is a serious problem of legitimacy, not from a technical standpoint, but from a moral and practical one. Most Americans who voted are being spit in the face by a archaic system that was originally put in place to placate the Southern slave states. Our original sin biting us in the ass once again because we've never reckoned with it. And it hasn't happened once, but TWICE in less than 20 years. In a zero-sum game of winner take all for the most powerful position in the world, the Democrats have to ride a unicycle backwards to win, while Republicans are essentially allowed to use a rocket-propelled tricycle. The vast majority of people in the actual population centers of this country have absolutely no interest in having anything to do with this man's Presidency, and they aren't wrong for saying so.
@jjstraka34 that knife cuts both ways, actually--because in California, if you're living in one of the areas that isn't LA or San Francisco, you're just as disenfranchised as if you're living in Austin, TX.
Same thing for anyone in Illinois who isn't in Chicago. Safe blue states are just as bad for Republican voters are safe red states are for Democrats. It doesn't do a good job of representing anyone, unless the state you live in is 100% in agreement (and no states are).
unfortunately, the party that engages in voter suppression has no reason or willingness to relinquish their rigged system that granted them power again.
Why should the GOPverment do anything to reduce their power? The Trump voters are the rural areas, they don't want to give up power to the cities. What incentive does the few have to give up their power to the many?
@jjstraka34 that knife cuts both ways, actually--because in California, if you're living in one of the areas that isn't LA or San Francisco, you're just as disenfranchised as if you're living in Austin, TX.
Same thing for anyone in Illinois who isn't in Chicago. Safe blue states are just as bad for Republican voters are safe red states are for Democrats. It doesn't do a good job of representing anyone, unless the state you live in is 100% in agreement (and no states are).
We can't sustain ourselves in a country in which one side wins the vote by MILLIONS and gets told to suck it up and go take a hike. Especially not with this guy. We don't even a have a system that is in reality one person/one vote. I'm not at all sympathetic to this argument of giving greater weight to rural voters because they live in an under-populated area. People live where they live. Instead we have this board game that was devised in the late 18th-century when there were only 13 states. 500,000 people in Wyoming and 700,000 in South Dakota should not be telling the vast majority of the nearly 40 million people in California how they should live their lives. That said, as much as it NEEDS to be changed, it isn't GOING to be changed, so it's rather a moot point.
unfortunately, the party that engages in voter suppression has no reason or willingness to relinquish their rigged system that granted them power again.
Why should the GOPverment do anything to reduce their power? The Trump voters are the rural areas, they don't want to give up power to the cities. What incentive does the few have to give up their power to the many?
Maine voted for ranked ballots this week. Nebraska and already divide their electors among their congressional districts. I think the latest poll numbers said that 60% of Americans right now favor getting rid of the Electoral College, and that support is bipartisan.
160 electoral votes worth of states have committed to a National Popular Vote scheme, and that number may grow.
The VP thing may be a hard sell, I'll admit.
But the other two pieces are things that people can push for by contacting their congressmen, writing to their state legislature. They're things that can be implemented, that are already on the path to being implemented.
unfortunately, the party that engages in voter suppression has no reason or willingness to relinquish their rigged system that granted them power again.
Why should the GOPverment do anything to reduce their power? The Trump voters are the rural areas, they don't want to give up power to the cities. What incentive does the few have to give up their power to the many?
Maine voted for ranked ballots this week. Nebraska and already divide their electors among their congressional districts. I think the latest poll numbers said that 60% of Americans right now favor getting rid of the Electoral College, and that support is bipartisan.
160 electoral votes worth of states have committed to a National Popular Vote scheme, and that number may grow.
The VP thing may be a hard sell, I'll admit.
But the other two pieces are things that people can push for by contacting their congressmen, writing to their state legislature. They're things that can be implemented, that are already on the path to being implemented.
This is assuming we come out of the next 4 years as the same country and have time to do this. I'm telling you, there is no guarantee of this. Without vigilance, this administration could be our "end of history", so to speak. Do not sleep on these people. Look at who he is appointing to his cabinet. What they are about to do is going to make the Bush administration seem like a relaxing day at the beach. They've been waiting for this day for 75 years. I think the very fact that this thread has seen more activity over the past 5 days than at any time in the last two years is a sign of what a seismic event this was. My own Twitter followers have practically doubled in the last few days, I'm guessing solely because people feel a need for solidarity if they oppose him.
I think at least some of them haven't been waiting that long. Trump himself is only 70.
But yes, that's my point. If you want to make a difference, the wallowing needs to stop and the advocacy needs to start. Get up off the ground and start fighting for real change, not just a referendum on the election we just had.
Comments
Plus, the border is smack-dab in the middle of drug-trafficking routes from South America.
. Great that's history, but things change why u no wall for Canada?
As distasteful as it might be to hear people saying vicious things, I have always been in favor of everyone freely speaking their mind no matter how much of a troll or troglodyte it makes them. You cannot tell from looking who might be racist, or homophobic, or a misogynist, or some combination of ugly personality flaws. Once they open their mouth, though....ah, now can you tell who is who. There is a limit as to how far you may judge someone based on their words--they could be repeating incorrect information, for example--but you can always judge people based on their actions. Choosing to attack someone verbally because you *think* you are in a protected position or because you *think* you know what kind of person you are attacking is not only illogical and irrational but *stupid*.
I have not seen anyone attacking anyone else because of the election but if I do I already know how I will address the situation. "Instead of picking on that person, why don't you attack *me* instead? I earn above the median income, am a college-educated, straight, white male, and I voted for Clinton (I have no qualms about lying to such a person). Again, why don't you attack *me* instead, hm?" Then just give them a poker face and dare them to do anything. Unless they are drunk or high that should settle them down enough to completely diffuse the situation.
I am the mod of the current events/news/politics forum elsewhere and we have addressed things such as rounding up all the illegal immigrants or building a wall. Our conclusions after crunching the numbers were as follows:
1) it is logistically impossible to find, process, and deport the estimated 12 - 15 million illegal immigrants (many of whom are merely in violation of overstaying their visa, not sneaking across the border). Even if you hired 100,000 agents and put them to work immediately, it would take nearly 20 years to accomplish the task. The reason the task is impossible is simple: suppose you are looking for Juan Ramirez, whom you know is an illegal in San Antonio. Do you know how many Juan Ramirezes there are in San Antonio? What if he managed to get hold of a decent fake driver's license and/or Social Security card? Rest assured--mass deportations *cannot* occur.
2) the cost of building a wall even along the Texan border of over 1800 km will run into the tens of billions, not counting construction delays, paying the workers, cost overruns, etc. Sure, that amount of money is almost trivial to a national government but it always adds up. Not only that, but once the wall is constructed within two weeks someone will have found a way under it, over it, through it, or around it. Remember--there were ways through the Berlin Wall, as well, and it counts as one of the most secure border blockades in the history of the world. Rest assured--no wall will be built.
Secondly, in what way is "retarded is used in common parlance as a hurtful, perjorative term, so it will no longer be the term used medically, in favour of a neutral alternative" somehow related to hatred of any sort, let alone "the kind of hatred that comes from being unable to forgive etc etc etc"?
The term was changed to avoid causing unnecessary hurt. Just like the words for referring to people of usually predominantly African phenotypes have been changed to avoid causing unnecessary hurt. This is not a huge burden to bear. Millions of people adjusted just fine, just like they do to every other change in language. In my lifetime, a "disc" would usually be a vinyl record, then it would be a floppy disc, then it would be a compact disc. And I've yet to meet the person whose quality of life was adversely affected by the terrible burden of learning these new definitions.
People who hate "political correctness" (or, as it used to be called before people who hate it started using a new term with no irony, "politeness") always act as if occasionally stopping to use a term because it is offensive is some sort of enormous burden. It isn't. Everybody who speaks English deals with an evolving vocabulary over time. If you really hate that so much, lobby for a French-style government ministry which sets correct syntax for everyone. It won't work, of course, but it's your best shot. Otherwise, at least the reason "retard" is no longer used in polite conversation or medical documents is much better than the reason why "literally" can now mean "literally" or "the opposite of literally".
After I happened to mention that I supported Sanders, you then went back and spent a paragraph addressing my initial post - something that you could've easily done the first time, before I happened to mention Sanders' name.
If I hadn't elected to mention that I supported Sanders - which was completely IRRELEVANT to whether my initial post had any substance or not - then nothing further would've been said on the matter.
If a debate drags on too long, eventually it will wander away from issues of substance and gradually degenerate into an argument over rhetoric. Such debates tend to aggravate everyone and enlighten no one.
I've been saying since it was proposed that the wall was logistically, geographically, and financially impossible. What does it say about the average deductive reasoning skills of your average Trump voter that they THOUGHT this was even a reality-based solution??
I am not sure how you came to any of your conclusions from what I said.
That's because people don't typically get called bigots for not knowing what a CD is.
And yet you've already seen a few people just in this thread not know what the "proper" term to call a mentally retarded person currently is, or even that there is a "new" proper term.
Just like they hopefully don't refer to black people by the terms commonly used half a century ago. Neither do people get called bigots for not using a polite term that is not decades old in common parlance.
And incidentally, anybody who DOES use a moderately offensive term who apologises, explains that they didn't know the term was offensive, and says they'll use the new term from now on (and does so) won't get called a bigot either.
Doing this is also not a terrible burden. That's because there isn't. "Mentally handicapped/disabled" is perfectly acceptable in common parlance (what may be acceptable in scientific papers and conferences is different, as they have their own rules on language that people are expected to know as part of their professional careers).
It may be it will eventually become not so, but it will take many years and be a gradual process. There is not, and has never been, any Language Police making a term unacceptable that was just fine the year before.
They're only crossing to take advantage of your crippled economy and low retail prices.
David Leonhardt, a columnist for The New York Times, noted on Friday that with a 1.7-percentage-point popular vote lead over Donald Trump, Clinton will have a larger margin of victory than Richard Nixon had over Hubert Humphrey in 1968 or John F. Kennedy had over Nixon in 1960. Her edge is also larger than Al Gore’s popular vote victory over George W. Bush in 2000, when he also lost due to the electoral college.
In raw numbers, that amounts to an edge of roughly 1.8 million votes as of Saturday. “We probably have about 7 million votes left to count,” said David Wasserman, an editor at Cook Political Report who is tracking turnout. “A majority of them are on the coasts, in New York, California, and Washington. She should be able to win those votes, probably 2-1.” By mid-December, when the Electoral College officially casts its ballots, Wasserman estimates that Clinton could be ahead by 2 percentage points in the popular vote.
Direct voting ensures that the candidate with the greatest margin of support becomes president.
Ranked ballots ensure that the candidate who becomes president has at least favored support from a majority of the country.
Marginal representation ensures that the candidate who becomes president is balanced by a vice president who represents the minority's interests.
I don't think just doing away with the EC would be the right solution, and I don't think ranked ballots alone would do it either. With 320 million people (and growing every day), the spectrum of opinion is more diverse than it's ever been. The Electoral College pushes those people to the opposite ends of that spectrum in order to bolster support for the two parties that are in power, and that's how it's always been, and it's never not been a problem.
A consensus democracy would ensure that, at the very least, a majority of the country "consents" to the leadership of the winning candidate, even if it's not the candidate they would prefer among all available options.
Same thing for anyone in Illinois who isn't in Chicago. Safe blue states are just as bad for Republican voters are safe red states are for Democrats. It doesn't do a good job of representing anyone, unless the state you live in is 100% in agreement (and no states are).
Why should the GOPverment do anything to reduce their power? The Trump voters are the rural areas, they don't want to give up power to the cities. What incentive does the few have to give up their power to the many?
160 electoral votes worth of states have committed to a National Popular Vote scheme, and that number may grow.
The VP thing may be a hard sell, I'll admit.
But the other two pieces are things that people can push for by contacting their congressmen, writing to their state legislature. They're things that can be implemented, that are already on the path to being implemented.
But yes, that's my point. If you want to make a difference, the wallowing needs to stop and the advocacy needs to start. Get up off the ground and start fighting for real change, not just a referendum on the election we just had.