@Mathsorcerer Nixon wasn't the only one. Learning about the Korean and Vietnam wars, with the corruption of LBJ, Esienhower, and even revered, martyred Kennedy was one of the most disheartening and eye opening things I have ever done. Very discouraging.
@Mathsorcerer Nixon wasn't the only one. Learning about the Korean and Vietnam wars, with the corruption of LBJ, Esienhower, and even revered, martyred Kennedy was one of the most disheartening and eye opening things I have ever done. Very discouraging.
Woah, we all know about LBJ and Kennedy but what was corrupt about Eisenhower? As far as I know he is universally admired and had a clear record when it comes to corruption.
Frankly, I've experienced this over-political correctness this past week, where at a Friendsgiving someone I know said that the judge my friend clerks for "isn't allowed to have an opinion since he's a white male".
So how does that make you feel when you hear something like that?
The reason I ask is because I would like to know if you are empathic for minorities who have been told and given the feeling for decades that their opinion does not matter on the ground that they are who they are.
So based on your own experience, how do you think someone feels who hears that over and over again that their opinion does not matter because: 1) race 2) gender 3) sexuality 4) health issues 5) etc
Probably pretty bad. I honestly didn't feel bad, I just thought she was a bit of a dope. People who've had that experience probably felt worse due to the power dynamics. However, I don't want to draw false equivalencies: I don't think people's opinions in today's culture are dismissed for being of a minority race or for being female, save for rare instances.
It's worth bearing in mind that people use "political correctness" to refer to all kinds of different things. It can mean:
1. Not using racial slurs like the N-word. 2. Not using any language that might offend anyone. 3. Various positions in between 1 and 2 (it's a spectrum). 4. Not blaming all Muslims (or Arabs, plus Iranians) for terrorism. 5. Being polite. 6. Restricting or discouraging right-leaning viewpoints, or viewpoints that aren't popular in academia. 7a. "Safe zones" 7b. "Triggers" 7c. Academic culture 7d. "Entitlement" 7e. Various other buzzwords, some of which have nothing to do with 1-6.
So it's important to clarify what exactly we mean by "political correctness," lest we start arguing about different things.
Frankly, I've experienced this over-political correctness this past week, where at a Friendsgiving someone I know said that the judge my friend clerks for "isn't allowed to have an opinion since he's a white male".
I've encountered this attitude in academia before. There is a rare-but-still-too-common notion that not only does being white/male/cisgender/straight/American/Christian/wealthy grant you special privileges--those privileges also blind you to political realities, because you can't see what's happening to anyone. Therefore, the reasoning goes, white people are ignorant about race issues and inequality, and are unqualified to comment on the subject. Instead, they are supposed to "shut up and listen" to other people.
Not only that, but this attitude also holds that white ignorance is inescapable and incurable. Therefore, even white people who DO listen to minorities still do not have the right to comment on race issues.
As a white male, I've found this attitude incredibly offensive. I don't object to the notion that we should listen to each other, but I do object to the notion that only some of us are qualified to have an opinion.
I do not consider my race or sex to be a crippling intellectual handicap. It does mean I have a different perspective than other people--but that principle applies to everyone. Everybody has a separate perspective, but those perspectives are equal; skin color does not make them invalid or worthy of contempt.
Plus, ignorance is curable. Even if I grew up in the most bigoted environment imaginable, I can still enlighten myself. Skin color is not destiny.
But this attitude is not the majority, and I'm not the only one who has resisted it. The notion that white people should listen and not speak is controversial even within academia. It's not the dominant viewpoint.
Woah, we all know about LBJ and Kennedy but what was corrupt about Eisenhower? As far as I know he is universally admired and had a clear record when it comes to corruption.
The Eisenhower Administration gave us the domino theory, which set us up for decades of trying to micromanage the governments in other countries rather than letting those countries determine their own path. It also oversaw the CIA's regime change in Iran, the repercussions of which we are still dealing with today. It also planned the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba even though it was Kennedy who carried out the plan. Finally, Eisenhower was the one who first sent military advisors to Vietnam in 1955 after the Chinese-backed soldiers under Ho Chih Minh scored a decisive victory over the French and split the country into two.
On the other hand, it was during the Eisenhower Administration when desegregation began and the civil rights movements got started, both of which had Eisenhower's support. This is also when we got our Interstate Highway system (even though the highways killed small towns which it bypassed due to decreased traffic) and the space-based programs began. Eisenhower also refused to agree with several of his advisors when they were suggesting that he should launch a first strike against China. Finally, from a socioeconomic point of view the 1950s was the high point of the 20th Century in the United States--with only a high school diploma it was possible to buy a house, buy a car, and support a family of 3 or 4 on a blue-collar worker's wages while also enjoying modern luxuries your parents never had such a a television set and a washing machine. By comparison, even the yuppies of the 80s were not as well off.
The 1953 coup is unpopular even in the United States. The Iranians still view the entire U.S. as meddling imperialists, but of all the people, Americans and otherwise, I've ever heard discuss the coup, 100% of them opposed it. Not only did it damage Iranian-American relations for decades, it was a democratically elected government that the CIA overthrew, not a dictatorship (I think that's what most bothers Americans about the coup). And when that government was overthrown, instead of a return to democracy, we saw a theocracy develop in Iran. In the end, the coup accomplished none of our objectives.
If my memory is correct, the drop in blue-collar wages and benefits corresponded with the weakening of workers' unions. I'm one of the most anti-communist people I know, but unions are the only group I know that will reliably promote higher wages. Intuitively, you'd expect employees to see their situation deteriorate when they lost bargaining power relative to their employers.
Aside from a modest increase in the last few years, the median American wage has been stagnant for 20 years for women and 50 years for men, even as the economy has grown.
If my memory is correct, the drop in blue-collar wages and benefits corresponded with the weakening of workers' unions.
That's one of multiple factors. Global competition and the increasing entrance of women into the workplace are among them. The thing is stagnant wages should not be a problem. The issue is really several of the most important services (education and healthcare) becoming increasingly expensive.
People were worried about Trump not accepting the results, but this is just ridiculous. They should investigate almost everything to ensure the integrity of our system of government, but people who get so excited about conspiracy theories are bound to be disappointed.
Mathsorcerer she could unconcede if, as there seems to be, evidence of a cheat going on and she didn't lose legitimately.
Or she could act as Nixon did, and not question the results of key ridings that seemed to have included voter fraud, when he lost to Kennedy in an attempt to unify the country instead of tearing it apart.
If she did unconcede, their would be protests from both sides magnifying the issue, splitting the country further apart than what it already is.
It is best to investigate it and fix any issues behind closed doors for the next election, then magnify it and put the whole process into question.
I doubt this election involved voter fraud. I do believe the GOP establishment has been suppressing voter turnout and it frustrates me, as does gerrymandering, but I have seen no evidence that the GOP has been tampering with voting counts.
I heard there were two counts of in-person voter fraud by Trump supporters, but that's it. Two examples do not make a trend. I do not think Hillary will have sufficient grounds to challenge the results, even if she wanted to.
I hope the results will be unambiguous.
It would be nice if the electors decided to side with the popular vote, but I do not think it is likely--not simply because electors are specifically chosen based on party loyalty, and voting for another candidate is rare, but because Trump's electoral vote was so lopsided. Many electors would need to vote against their assumed candidate for Hillary to suddenly win.
The electors vote on December 19. Congress counts the votes on January 6.
@Mathsorcerer she could unconcede if, as there seems to be, evidence of a cheat going on and she didn't lose legitimately.
Is it possible for someone to unconcede a political election? I cannot recall any instance of that ever happening so now I have to research it.
Rigging an election is possible because of the simple fact that it is not impossible but the likelihood is pretty low, especially for a national election like this one. It would require coordinated rigging in multiple States and many polling locations--the logistics of it reduce the probability to "infinitesimal". Voter fraud is a much more serious problem at the city or district level where fewer votes get cast--many times city or county elections are decided by, literally, a handful of votes (by "handful" I do mean "less than 5").
@booinyoureyes You are correct--I did not cite instances of corruption in the Eisenhower Administration. Truthfully, I can't think of any. Of course, that was also the beginning of the "military-industrial complex" but we hadn't quite fully developed the concept of corporatized war. Incidentally, neither Korea nor Vietnam involvement during his Administration were technically "wars"--there was never a declaration from Congress, so even back then we had a President misusing the military, which is ironic since he use to *be* the military.
The US system is odd. In the UK, if there where significant irregularities the election would be re-held, probably within about two months.
There were no irregularities though. If there were, Clinton would sue and there would be a fact-finding. I have no idea what the remedies would consist of, but I am taking a class on election law next semester so maybe I can figure it out .
I don't think concessions are legally binding; they just affirm that you don't challenge the result. There's no rule saying you can't unconcede. Although if you unconceded without just cause, people would question how much your words really mean.
The US system is odd. In the UK, if there where significant irregularities the election would be re-held, probably within about two months.
There were no irregularities though. If there were, Clinton would sue and there would be a fact-finding. I have no idea what the remedies would consist of, but I am taking a class on election law next semester so maybe I can figure it out .
But even if there where, if my understanding of the US system is correct, the law would not allow the election to be rerun, and quite possibly the result would have to stand.
The US system is odd. In the UK, if there where significant irregularities the election would be re-held, probably within about two months.
There were no irregularities though. If there were, Clinton would sue and there would be a fact-finding. I have no idea what the remedies would consist of, but I am taking a class on election law next semester so maybe I can figure it out .
There are mathematicians that briefed the Clinton camp that there were irregularities with electronic voting machines in 3 states significant enough to cause her to lose those 3 states.
Jill Stein, one of the few people capable of requesting a recount, is crowd funding the $2.5M needed to fund recounts in three critical states with voting irregularities.
Also, Clintons popular vote lead has grown to more than 2 million votes.
Quote
"With your help, we are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where the data suggests a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals.
This effort to ensure election integrity is in your hands! We need to raise over $2 million by this Friday, 4pm central. In true grassroots fashion, we’re turning to you, the people, and not big-money corporate donors to make this happen.
Your immediate support is crucial - Please donate now and share widely."
Comments
Nixon wasn't the only one. Learning about the Korean and Vietnam wars, with the corruption of LBJ, Esienhower, and even revered, martyred Kennedy was one of the most disheartening and eye opening things I have ever done. Very discouraging.
Haha, I see you edited. You knew that already from the football threads lol
1. Not using racial slurs like the N-word.
2. Not using any language that might offend anyone.
3. Various positions in between 1 and 2 (it's a spectrum).
4. Not blaming all Muslims (or Arabs, plus Iranians) for terrorism.
5. Being polite.
6. Restricting or discouraging right-leaning viewpoints, or viewpoints that aren't popular in academia.
7a. "Safe zones"
7b. "Triggers"
7c. Academic culture
7d. "Entitlement"
7e. Various other buzzwords, some of which have nothing to do with 1-6.
So it's important to clarify what exactly we mean by "political correctness," lest we start arguing about different things. I've encountered this attitude in academia before. There is a rare-but-still-too-common notion that not only does being white/male/cisgender/straight/American/Christian/wealthy grant you special privileges--those privileges also blind you to political realities, because you can't see what's happening to anyone. Therefore, the reasoning goes, white people are ignorant about race issues and inequality, and are unqualified to comment on the subject. Instead, they are supposed to "shut up and listen" to other people.
Not only that, but this attitude also holds that white ignorance is inescapable and incurable. Therefore, even white people who DO listen to minorities still do not have the right to comment on race issues.
As a white male, I've found this attitude incredibly offensive. I don't object to the notion that we should listen to each other, but I do object to the notion that only some of us are qualified to have an opinion.
I do not consider my race or sex to be a crippling intellectual handicap. It does mean I have a different perspective than other people--but that principle applies to everyone. Everybody has a separate perspective, but those perspectives are equal; skin color does not make them invalid or worthy of contempt.
Plus, ignorance is curable. Even if I grew up in the most bigoted environment imaginable, I can still enlighten myself. Skin color is not destiny.
But this attitude is not the majority, and I'm not the only one who has resisted it. The notion that white people should listen and not speak is controversial even within academia. It's not the dominant viewpoint.
On the other hand, it was during the Eisenhower Administration when desegregation began and the civil rights movements got started, both of which had Eisenhower's support. This is also when we got our Interstate Highway system (even though the highways killed small towns which it bypassed due to decreased traffic) and the space-based programs began. Eisenhower also refused to agree with several of his advisors when they were suggesting that he should launch a first strike against China. Finally, from a socioeconomic point of view the 1950s was the high point of the 20th Century in the United States--with only a high school diploma it was possible to buy a house, buy a car, and support a family of 3 or 4 on a blue-collar worker's wages while also enjoying modern luxuries your parents never had such a a television set and a washing machine. By comparison, even the yuppies of the 80s were not as well off.
If my memory is correct, the drop in blue-collar wages and benefits corresponded with the weakening of workers' unions. I'm one of the most anti-communist people I know, but unions are the only group I know that will reliably promote higher wages. Intuitively, you'd expect employees to see their situation deteriorate when they lost bargaining power relative to their employers.
Aside from a modest increase in the last few years, the median American wage has been stagnant for 20 years for women and 50 years for men, even as the economy has grown.
If she did unconcede, their would be protests from both sides magnifying the issue, splitting the country further apart than what it already is.
It is best to investigate it and fix any issues behind closed doors for the next election, then magnify it and put the whole process into question.
I heard there were two counts of in-person voter fraud by Trump supporters, but that's it. Two examples do not make a trend. I do not think Hillary will have sufficient grounds to challenge the results, even if she wanted to.
I hope the results will be unambiguous.
It would be nice if the electors decided to side with the popular vote, but I do not think it is likely--not simply because electors are specifically chosen based on party loyalty, and voting for another candidate is rare, but because Trump's electoral vote was so lopsided. Many electors would need to vote against their assumed candidate for Hillary to suddenly win.
The electors vote on December 19. Congress counts the votes on January 6.
Rigging an election is possible because of the simple fact that it is not impossible but the likelihood is pretty low, especially for a national election like this one. It would require coordinated rigging in multiple States and many polling locations--the logistics of it reduce the probability to "infinitesimal". Voter fraud is a much more serious problem at the city or district level where fewer votes get cast--many times city or county elections are decided by, literally, a handful of votes (by "handful" I do mean "less than 5").
@booinyoureyes You are correct--I did not cite instances of corruption in the Eisenhower Administration. Truthfully, I can't think of any. Of course, that was also the beginning of the "military-industrial complex" but we hadn't quite fully developed the concept of corporatized war. Incidentally, neither Korea nor Vietnam involvement during his Administration were technically "wars"--there was never a declaration from Congress, so even back then we had a President misusing the military, which is ironic since he use to *be* the military.
https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount
Also, Clintons popular vote lead has grown to more than 2 million votes.
Quote
"With your help, we are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where the data suggests a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals.
This effort to ensure election integrity is in your hands! We need to raise over $2 million by this Friday, 4pm central. In true grassroots fashion, we’re turning to you, the people, and not big-money corporate donors to make this happen.
Your immediate support is crucial - Please donate now and share widely."