Presidential election, 2016

[Warren Dew]

Makes sense to me. Trump appealed more than most Republicans to the midwest, and less than most Republicans to the far west. Thus, the loss of a few chambers in the far west, and the gain of a few in the midwest.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2016, 07:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trickle-in electionomics:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...rue#gid=19

Hillary leads Trump by about 1,200,000 and still counting.

Now her lead is over 1,700,000, and projected by google to be 2,400,000

[Classic-Xer]

(11-19-2016, 02:56 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-19-2016, 12:25 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You're seeing what happens and witnessing the negative results when there's a major divide/difference/gap that exists between the level of character or the content of ones character. I consider myself to have a fairly high level of character and I prefer to hang out and socialize with those who have higher levels of character. I'll drop down a few notches in character in order to directly and effectively engage with certain progressives on an equal playing field.

I'd watch the difference between a gathering of people of high character, and a gathering of people with the same values.  We recently had a discussion involving appreciation of classical music making fans of classical music feel superior to fans of country and western.  The resulting perception if one isn't a fan of classical music is arrogance, which can result in hostility.  Now, I'm not particularly obsessed with either form of music, I tend to jump styles a lot, but have favorite songs from both traditions.  Still, It seems politically impatient and just rude to be snobbish and superior.

But to me you come across as a strident partisan rather than a person of high character.  This is not to say you are alone in this.  We have no lack of people here with quite variant positions that I perceive of as strident partisans.  I guess you could claim that intensely clinging to one's beliefs might be part of having a high character.  Still, do the extreme partisans advocating blue perspectives come across to you as having high character?  Do they not make it clear how they perceive you?  

I appreciate any effort you might try to make in engaging with progressives.  We need more of that from both sides.  I don't know that being willing to listen and reducing the antagonism and hostility ought to be described as dropping down your character, though.  At least from my perspective, people of good character ought to be able to listen and share, ought not to be so defensive about flaws in one's own perspective, so aggressive in demonizing one's opposites.

Engaging them how? How do you expect me to engage the left radicals that exist and represent the interests on your side?  Do/can you accept my more serious criticism or outright rejection and more serious conflicts with those who express certain views and hold certain beliefs based on your overall knowledge of the American people in general? What you're not taking into account or accepting as a reality is a persons ability to adjust and adapt their personalities to the environment or the people whom they perceive as being a threat or to a person they really dislike. You can't apply heavenly values  to real life people or real life environments and situations or circumstances that occur and exist in a not so perfect not even close to being a perfect world.
 
As far as how I'm viewed or perceived by those whom I have engaged on your side, I should be viewed as the type of person who could seriously take them on and defeat them. Do I scare the more radical and the more self interest serving left wingers? I hope so because I'm giving them a glimpse of those who will accept and are capable of accepting sacrifices in order to destroy them.Where are we at? We are at where I told you we'd be at in the not so distant future. What happens to people who do not work with the American view or no longer have a basic understanding or an inkling as to what American values are today? I don't claim to know but I do believe we are going to find out in the not so distant future. Can you live without Eric or Playdude, I assume that you are quite capable of living without either of them, Can you live without me? Probably? I haven't directly contributed to your life. Whatever you have, whatever you've accomplished, whatever you cherish, I'm sure that you put in the bulk of the time, the effort and sacrifices to acquire, accomplish and achieve them. How many people to do know who have done nothing the get something? If you don't know anyone or hardly anyone, why do you expect me to believe in blue values or drop my values? I'm not a fool. How many fools are willing to go a long for the sake of themselves?

[Classic-Xer]

(11-22-2016, 03:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 07:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trickle-in electionomics:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...rue#gid=19

Hillary leads Trump by about 1,200,000 and still counting.

Now her lead is over 1,700,000, and projected by google to be 2,400,000

Who cares, she already lost the most important election during my adult life.

[Galen]

(11-23-2016, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-22-2016, 03:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 07:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trickle-in electionomics:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...rue#gid=19

Hillary leads Trump by about 1,200,000 and still counting.

Now her lead is over 1,700,000, and projected by google to be 2,400,000

Who cares, she already lost the most important election during my adult life.

I am inclined to agree with you on this.  The Electoral College prevents four or five metropolitan areas from making the rest of the US irrelevant.  I think this video sums up the current liberal mindset:

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-23-2016, 01:23 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Engaging them how? How do you expect me to engage the left radicals that exist and represent the interests on your side?  Do/can you accept my more serious criticism or outright rejection and more serious conflicts with those who express certain views and hold certain beliefs based on your overall knowledge of the American people in general? What you're not taking into account or accepting as a reality is a persons ability to adjust and adapt their personalities to the environment or the people whom they perceive as being a threat or to a person they really dislike. You can't apply heavenly values  to real life people or real life environments and situations or circumstances that occur and exist in a not so perfect not even close to being a perfect world.
 
As far as how I'm viewed or perceived by those whom I have engaged on your side, I should be viewed as the type of person who could seriously take them on and defeat them. Do I scare the more radical and the more self interest serving left wingers? I hope so because I'm giving them a glimpse of those who will accept and are capable of accepting sacrifices in order to destroy them.Where are we at? We are at where I told you we'd be at in the not so distant future. What happens to people who do not work with the American view or no longer have a basic understanding or an inkling as to what American values are today? I don't claim to know but I do believe we are going to find out in the not so distant future. Can you live without Eric or Playdude, I assume that you are quite capable of living without either of them, Can you live without me? Probably? I haven't directly contributed to your life. Whatever you have, whatever you've accomplished, whatever you cherish, I'm sure that you put in the bulk of the time, the effort and sacrifices  to acquire, accomplish and achieve them. How many people to do know who have done nothing the get something? If you don't know anyone or hardly anyone, why do you expect me to believe in blue values or drop my values? I'm not a fool. How many fools are willing to go a long for the sake of themselves?

I’m not sure I’m parsing that first paragraph right.  I do believe people have strong values, will not let go of them lightly, and the values are in part related to what part of the country one comes from.  I have seen clearly enough how the values conflicts can lead to hatred and antagonism.  I don’t like it, but it is plain enough to see.  I am also dubious that such conflict is constructive, that building resentments and digging in ever more stubbornly is going to be the ultimate answer.

I think one can, should and must apply idealistic (though I would not use the word ‘heavenly’) values to 4T culture clashes.  Enlightenment philosophy was a significant factor in the Revolution.  The desire to free the slaves was a significant factor in the US Civil War.  Fighting for continued democracy was a significant factor in World War II.  The notion of the common man coming together to fight not for perfection, but for the removal of a few of the greatest flaws in society, is at the core of crisis conflicts.

Historically, conservatives don't necessarily agree with the ideals.  The Divine Right of Kings is how things have ever been, and how they should ever be?  Slavery has been the cornerstone of all civilizations?  The boom and bust economy common before the New Deal is perfectly acceptable?  When I hear your rejection of idealism, I can't help but look back at history, at how previous conservative generations have rejected the new ideals proposed by the progressives.

Progressives see problems that must be fixed.  Conservatives don’t see the problems as that grave.  Both perspectives might seem natural if the problems aren’t so serious in the conservative region as in the progressive.  Historically, if one doesn’t solve the problems they continue to get worse until the resolve finally comes that they must be addressed.  Alas, if the problems are worse in the more progressive regions, and the solutions are applied nationwide, there is a perception in conservative areas of fixing what isn’t broken.  It is natural to ask why one can’t just be left alone.

Could you be more specific on what you mean by ‘take them on and defeat them’?  Are you talking abstractly about exchanging forum posts, or are you threatening violence?  I’m becoming more familiar with hillbilly culture.  In abstract I’m aware that violence, drugs and crime are embraced by some among the Republican base.  To some degree a Scotts Irish heritage with the military and violent tradition that comes with it is embraced, is a point of pride.  I’m far closer to the Whig / Yankee culture.  I can vaguely understand the Hillbilly values, but don’t sympathize with them much.

I disagree with your calling red values ‘American’ while implying that blue values are not.  The Whig / Yankee culture striving for freedom, equality, democracy and other ‘heavenly’ ideals has just as strong an influence, has just as strong a tradition, as the Scotts Irish culture.  We won the Revolution and Civil War after all.  Both cultures will wave the flag with as much vigor and as much pride.

It is the nature of Whig / Yankees to want to fix problems.  We see some problems today that badly need fixing.

I don’t particularly ‘need’ Eric, Playwright or yourself.  None of us are particularly necessary to each other’s maintaining their life styles.

I don’t see you as a fool.  I see a lot of folk with red values (and blue) as values locked, unable to honestly evaluate reality.  I anticipate, having no evidence otherwise, that you can operate just fine within the cultural environment you are used to.  Operating well within a cultural environment does not mean you can understand other cultural environments or judge them well against objective reality.  Your perspective is generally red correct blue wrong. As usual with the partisan approach, the folk on the 'wrong' side are presented as stupid, evil, insane or otherwise mentally incompetent. I strive to at least understand how both sets of values came into existence and why modern practitioners of different value sets will be pushing in different directions.

For me, after seeing what borrow and spend trickle down did during the two Bush administrations, I have real trouble understanding how anyone would want to go that route again.  I have trouble with folk who reject whole branches of science, such as climate science or evolution.  Oh, in theory, in abstract, perhaps I can see how it happens.  If one lives in a media bubble where one world view has been persistently pushed, or if one is deeply religious and cannot let go of the literal interpretation of the Bible, I can understand in principle why some people just aren’t going to change reality challenged perspectives short of a catastrophic failure of their old way of looking at things.  That’s just how humans think.  In our youth we develop ideas on how the world works and what goals should be striven towards.  Reevaluating these values is hard.  Humans aren’t good at it.  Seeing people clinging to how they have always thought is very much the norm.  I expect it as much from Whig / Yankees as Scotts -Irish.  

Expecting such intense inability to work outside one’s values is one thing.  Being happy about it is another.

[Odin]

(11-22-2016, 03:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: How did things go in the state legislatures? Apparently, the Democrats gained just one state, and one chamber, and may have ended supermajorities in a few. I'm still trying to make sense of this article:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/11...to-GOP-s-3

maybe I can post this graphic:

Here in Minnesota, the GOP took control of the state House due to issues with Minsure, our state implementation of Obamacare, which the GOP were good at spewing BS about rather than actually caring about fixing the problems.

I hope the Dems on the state and national level have learned the lesson of the last 8 years, that they need to copy the GOP and start being obstructionist assholes, themselves.

[pbrower2a]

Welcome to Fascist America -- with the Party of Lincoln having absorbed the spirit of the fictional Simon Legree and the all-too-real Henry Clay Frick. Between the Rockies and the Atlantic Coast there is but one oasis of blue on the map -- Illinois.

[Warren Dew]

(11-22-2016, 03:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 07:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trickle-in electionomics:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...rue#gid=19

Hillary leads Trump by about 1,200,000 and still counting.

Now her lead is over 1,700,000, and projected by google to be 2,400,000

Interesting how the blue areas are the ones who can't  get their counts in on time.  Still marking ballots, no doubt.

[Eric the Green]

(11-23-2016, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-22-2016, 03:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 07:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trickle-in electionomics:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...rue#gid=19

Hillary leads Trump by about 1,200,000 and still counting.

Now her lead is over 1,700,000, and projected by google to be 2,400,000

Who cares, she already lost the most important election during my adult life.

Donald J Trump is the president-elect. Your guns are safe, and money still rules the life of politicians in office.

However, Trump did not get a mandate. And no-one can say that Hillary Rodham Clinton lost the election when she got 2 and half million more votes than Trump.

The Republican hold on the Bible Belt and (for now) the Rust Belt gives them the power, in congress, the statehouses, and potentially the electoral vote (but not the popular vote). Unless younger generations can shake off the fundamentalist memes (both religious and economic-free market fundamentalism), and unless the Rust Belt states return to the blue fold completely, then I predict a national break-up (or at least a looser confederation) may be the only way to bust through this fundamentalist power bloc, perhaps even if only temporarily for a few years so that the constitution can (possibly) be redone to get rid of the advantage which red states have in the electoral college and the Senate, as the price of reunifying the country.

Right now, some younger people are escaping the Bible/Rust Belt by moving to California and other blue states, while some conservative whites have moved out due to the increasing diversity and cost of living there. But this has concentrated the vote of up-to-date and/or diverse people in the states with fewer electoral votes.

More of CA is in, and the margin has now passed 2 million. The percentages in CA are widening too.

[Odin]

(11-23-2016, 10:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting how the blue areas are the ones who can't  get their counts in on time.  Still marking ballots, no doubt.

Now this is just vile slander of the basest kind.

[Odin]

(11-23-2016, 06:08 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 06:02 PM)Odin Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 10:08 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting how the blue areas are the ones who can't  get their counts in on time.  Still marking ballots, no doubt.

Now this is just vile slander of the basest kind.

Dollars to donuts the dude is a Freeper.

Disclosure - so am I. But I've locked horns with many other Freepers over the years. There are definite camps at FR. He fits the profile of one of the camps.

LOL, Free Republic. Does that site still look like it hasn't been updated since 1997?

[Warren Dew]

(11-23-2016, 05:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Progressives see problems that must be fixed.  Conservatives don’t see the problems as that grave.  Both perspectives might seem natural if the problems aren’t so serious in the conservative region as in the progressive.  Historically, if one doesn’t solve the problems they continue to get worse until the resolve finally comes that they must be addressed.  Alas, if the problems are worse in the more progressive regions, and the solutions are applied nationwide, there is a perception in conservative areas of fixing what isn’t broken.  It is natural to ask why one can’t just be left alone.

It's more that conservatives see progressive cures as worse than the disease.  Progressive insistence on crushing dissent, to the point of eliminating freedom of the press, is hardly a step toward freedom as far as conservatives are concerned.  Similarly for many other progressive initiatives.

[Ragnarök_62]

(11-23-2016, 08:56 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Welcome to Fascist America -- with the Party of Lincoln having absorbed the spirit of the fictional Simon Legree and the all-too-real Henry Clay Frick. Between the Rockies and the Atlantic Coast there is but one oasis of blue on the map -- Illinois.

Uh, try blackhole, man.
 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/illinois-f...ector.html

[Classic-Xer]

(11-23-2016, 01:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-22-2016, 03:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 07:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trickle-in electionomics:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...rue#gid=19

Hillary leads Trump by about 1,200,000 and still counting.

Now her lead is over 1,700,000, and projected by google to be 2,400,000

Who cares, she already lost the most important election during my adult life.

Donald J Trump is the president-elect. Your guns are safe, and money still rules the life of politicians in office.

However, Trump did not get a mandate. And no-one can say that Hillary Rodham Clinton lost the election when she got 2 and half million more votes than Trump.

The Republican hold on the Bible Belt and (for now) the Rust Belt gives them the power, in congress, the statehouses, and potentially the electoral vote (but not the popular vote). Unless younger generations can shake off the fundamentalist memes (both religious and economic-free market fundamentalism), and unless the Rust Belt states return to the blue fold completely, then I predict a national break-up (or at least a looser confederation) may be the only way to bust through this fundamentalist power bloc, perhaps even if only temporarily for a few years so that the constitution can (possibly) be redone to get rid of the advantage which red states have in the electoral college and the Senate, as the price of reunifying the country.

Right now, some younger people are escaping the Bible/Rust Belt by moving to California and other blue states, while some conservative whites have moved out due to the increasing diversity and cost of living there. But this has concentrated the vote of up-to-date and/or diverse people in the states with fewer electoral votes.

More of CA is in, and the margin has now passed 2 million. The percentages in CA are widening too.

So she won the popular vote by a few million Californian's, good for her. She's fortunate that people like you didn't cling their values and voted for her instead Jill Stein or she would've lost the popular vote too.

I'm not going to fight to keep California as part of the United States. To me, California wouldn't be worth the sacrifice. America would get the bulk of its business's and the bulk of the productive workforce and the bulk it's more law abiding and more productive citizens and the bulk of it's agricultural exports that we're used to seeing as well regardless of whether it stays or goes. In my opinion, America needs a blue dumping ground. An alternate world for those who don't want to do shit for a living and uppity fools who feel they're obligated to support them, educated dim wits who ignore major issues relating to the working class who care more about establishing a new precedence and relatively dumb (uneducated) immigrants who are used to working for pennies to flood to by the millions instead of the United States.  

Right now, there's a decent black guy and his family living in my parents house. I'm cool with it and I have no issues with him as a person. Hell, I place more value on him than I place on someone like you. I know that goes against the blue narrative used here. But then again, the blue narrative isn't interested in what's actually going on, what it's actually about or what it actually means and so forth. The blue narrative is only interested in what it seeks to obtain or gain for itself. OK. We know what we've got, we've got two blue regions fixated on itself politically with a blue city located in between them. Minnesota may not stay blue for very long with my age group coming into power and becoming more vocal and more active politically. We could begin to move to separate from the blue cities which would isolate the cities and force the cities to become wiser and less reliant upon the state.

[Classic-Xer]

(11-23-2016, 05:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 01:23 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Engaging them how? How do you expect me to engage the left radicals that exist and represent the interests on your side?  Do/can you accept my more serious criticism or outright rejection and more serious conflicts with those who express certain views and hold certain beliefs based on your overall knowledge of the American people in general? What you're not taking into account or accepting as a reality is a persons ability to adjust and adapt their personalities to the environment or the people whom they perceive as being a threat or to a person they really dislike. You can't apply heavenly values  to real life people or real life environments and situations or circumstances that occur and exist in a not so perfect not even close to being a perfect world.
 
As far as how I'm viewed or perceived by those whom I have engaged on your side, I should be viewed as the type of person who could seriously take them on and defeat them. Do I scare the more radical and the more self interest serving left wingers? I hope so because I'm giving them a glimpse of those who will accept and are capable of accepting sacrifices in order to destroy them.Where are we at? We are at where I told you we'd be at in the not so distant future. What happens to people who do not work with the American view or no longer have a basic understanding or an inkling as to what American values are today? I don't claim to know but I do believe we are going to find out in the not so distant future. Can you live without Eric or Playdude, I assume that you are quite capable of living without either of them, Can you live without me? Probably? I haven't directly contributed to your life. Whatever you have, whatever you've accomplished, whatever you cherish, I'm sure that you put in the bulk of the time, the effort and sacrifices  to acquire, accomplish and achieve them. How many people to do know who have done nothing the get something? If you don't know anyone or hardly anyone, why do you expect me to believe in blue values or drop my values? I'm not a fool. How many fools are willing to go a long for the sake of themselves?

I’m not sure I’m parsing that first paragraph right.  I do believe people have strong values, will not let go of them lightly, and the values are in part related to what part of the country one comes from.  I have seen clearly enough how the values conflicts can lead to hatred and antagonism.  I don’t like it, but it is plain enough to see.  I am also dubious that such conflict is constructive, that building resentments and digging in ever more stubbornly is going to be the ultimate answer.

I think one can, should and must apply idealistic (though I would not use the word ‘heavenly’) values to 4T culture clashes.  Enlightenment philosophy was a significant factor in the Revolution.  The desire to free the slaves was a significant factor in the US Civil War.  Fighting for continued democracy was a significant factor in World War II.  The notion of the common man coming together to fight not for perfection, but for the removal of a few of the greatest flaws in society, is at the core of crisis conflicts.

Historically, conservatives don't necessarily agree with the ideals.  The Divine Right of Kings is how things have ever been, and how they should ever be?  Slavery has been the cornerstone of all civilizations?  The boom and bust economy common before the New Deal is perfectly acceptable?  When I hear your rejection of idealism, I can't help but look back at history, at how previous conservative generations have rejected the new ideals proposed by the progressives.

Progressives see problems that must be fixed.  Conservatives don’t see the problems as that grave.  Both perspectives might seem natural if the problems aren’t so serious in the conservative region as in the progressive.  Historically, if one doesn’t solve the problems they continue to get worse until the resolve finally comes that they must be addressed.  Alas, if the problems are worse in the more progressive regions, and the solutions are applied nationwide, there is a perception in conservative areas of fixing what isn’t broken.  It is natural to ask why one can’t just be left alone.

Could you be more specific on what you mean by ‘take them on and defeat them’?  Are you talking abstractly about exchanging forum posts, or are you threatening violence?  I’m becoming more familiar with hillbilly culture.  In abstract I’m aware that violence, drugs and crime are embraced by some among the Republican base.  To some degree a Scotts Irish heritage with the military and violent tradition that comes with it is embraced, is a point of pride.  I’m far closer to the Whig / Yankee culture.  I can vaguely understand the Hillbilly values, but don’t sympathize with them much.

I disagree with your calling red values ‘American’ while implying that blue values are not.  The Whig / Yankee culture striving for freedom, equality, democracy and other ‘heavenly’ ideals has just as strong an influence, has just as strong a tradition, as the Scotts Irish culture.  We won the Revolution and Civil War after all.  Both cultures will wave the flag with as much vigor and as much pride.

It is the nature of Whig / Yankees to want to fix problems.  We see some problems today that badly need fixing.

I don’t particularly ‘need’ Eric, Playwright or yourself.  None of us are particularly necessary to each other’s maintaining their life styles.

I don’t see you as a fool.  I see a lot of folk with red values (and blue) as values locked, unable to honestly evaluate reality.  I anticipate, having no evidence otherwise, that you can operate just fine within the cultural environment you are used to.  Operating well within a cultural environment does not mean you can understand other cultural environments or judge them well against objective reality.  Your perspective is generally red correct blue wrong.  As usual with the partisan approach, the folk on the 'wrong' side are presented as stupid, evil, insane or otherwise mentally incompetent.  I strive to at least understand how both sets of values came into existence and why modern practitioners of different value sets will be pushing in different directions.

For me, after seeing what borrow and spend trickle down did during the two Bush administrations, I have real trouble understanding how anyone would want to go that route again.  I have trouble with folk who reject whole branches of science, such as climate science or evolution.  Oh, in theory, in abstract, perhaps I can see how it happens.  If one lives in a media bubble where one world view has been persistently pushed, or if one is deeply religious and cannot let go of the literal interpretation of the Bible, I can understand in principle why some people just aren’t going to change reality challenged perspectives short of a catastrophic failure of their old way of looking at things.  That’s just how humans think.  In our youth we develop ideas on how the world works and what goals should be striven towards.  Reevaluating these values is hard.  Humans aren’t good at it.  Seeing people clinging to how they have always thought is very much the norm.  I expect it as much from Whig / Yankees as Scotts -Irish.  

Expecting such intense inability to work outside one’s values is one thing.  Being happy about it is another.

Who's idealism am I constantly rejecting/dismissing as being irrelevant, inapplicable or impractical? Which group have I been focused on engaging? Hint: It's not the American ideals you've referenced or the Americans directly associated with them and the accomplishments associated with them up to this point. Dude, we borrowed and spent since the beginning. We borrowed and spent to acquire the bulk of the land that we call home. Trickle down economics has been in place forever. The kings and queens used trickle down. The emperors and the communist regimes of Europe used trickle down. The Democratic party of today uses the big government version of trickle down.

[pbrower2a]

(11-24-2016, 12:29 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 01:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 02:08 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-22-2016, 03:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2016, 07:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trickle-in electionomics:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1...rue#gid=19

Hillary leads Trump by about 1,200,000 and still counting.

Now her lead is over 1,700,000, and projected by google to be 2,400,000

Who cares, she already lost the most important election during my adult life.

Donald J Trump is the president-elect. Your guns are safe, and money still rules the life of politicians in office.

However, Trump did not get a mandate. And no-one can say that Hillary Rodham Clinton lost the election when she got 2 and half million more votes than Trump.

The Republican hold on the Bible Belt and (for now) the Rust Belt gives them the power, in congress, the statehouses, and potentially the electoral vote (but not the popular vote). Unless younger generations can shake off the fundamentalist memes (both religious and economic-free market fundamentalism), and unless the Rust Belt states return to the blue fold completely, then I predict a national break-up (or at least a looser confederation) may be the only way to bust through this fundamentalist power bloc, perhaps even if only temporarily for a few years so that the constitution can (possibly) be redone to get rid of the advantage which red states have in the electoral college and the Senate, as the price of reunifying the country.

Right now, some younger people are escaping the Bible/Rust Belt by moving to California and other blue states, while some conservative whites have moved out due to the increasing diversity and cost of living there. But this has concentrated the vote of up-to-date and/or diverse people in the states with fewer electoral votes.

More of CA is in, and the margin has now passed 2 million. The percentages in CA are widening too.

So she won the popular vote by a few million Californian's, good for her. She's fortunate that people like you didn't cling their values and voted for her instead Jill Stein or she would've lost the popular vote too.  

I'm not going to fight to keep California as part of the United States. To me, California wouldn't be worth the sacrifice. America would get the bulk of its business's and the bulk of the productive workforce and the bulk it's more law abiding and more productive citizens and the bulk of it's agricultural exports that we're used to seeing as well regardless of whether it stays or goes. In my opinion, America needs a blue dumping ground. An alternate world for those who don't want to do shit for a living and uppity fools who feel they're obligated to support them, educated dim wits who ignore major issues relating to the working class who care more about establishing a new precedence and relatively dumb (uneducated) immigrants who are used to working for pennies to flood to by the millions instead of the United States.  

Right now, there's a decent black guy and his family living in my parents house. I'm cool with it and I have no issues with him as a person. Hell, I place more value on him than I place on someone like you. I know that goes against the blue narrative used here. But then again, the blue narrative isn't interested in what's actually going on, what it's actually about or what it actually means and so forth. The blue narrative is only interested in what it seeks to obtain or gain for itself. OK. We know what we've got, we've got two blue regions fixated on itself politically with a blue city located in between them. Minnesota may not stay blue for very long with my age group coming into power and becoming more vocal and more active politically. We could begin to move to separate from the blue cities which would isolate the cities and force the cities to become wiser and less reliant upon the state.

You will find that when California rejects a fascist America, then so will New England, New York, the Middle Atlantic States, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii. You will see splintering within the states, with Greater Philadelphia rejecting the fascistic parts of Pennsylvania. You will see secession movements within even such "red" states as Texas, Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona, let alone such "purple" states as North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

It may be hard for white racists to accept, but the non-white, non-Christian, and non-Anglo segments of the American middle class voted resolutely for the democratic tradition in America. The 'Real America' that Sarah Palin praised in 2008 only to seem a sick joke has returned, but without the respect for the rights of those who lost the election.

Donald Trump and the Republican majority have effectively said "We won, and you're done" to the losing side in this one election. That is not democracy. That is one sure way for democracy to die.

For democracy to have any meaningful presence in America, America needs both conservative moderates (the Republican Party has purged itself of them) and liberal moderates (the Republican majority can make them irrelevant). So what is left? Extremism in power and extremism in opposition. Watch America revert to the Gilded Age, and many people who have been liberals will  find Karl Marx relevant as he has never been in America.

As for the "decent black guy" -- many Germans knew one Jewish exception to the Nazi caricature of the Jewish demon, one exception and family that he believed that he could protect. Those exceptions still were separated from any possible protection and shipped off to their collective doom. I'm not saying that things will get that bad for any minority. But they will be bad.

And what will white people like you get in the upcoming White Power government? If you love the outdoors, then you will see a ravaged environment. Maybe your favorite fishing hole will be contaminated with lead, mercury, dioxin, and hexavalent chromium. Your children's civics classes will be reduced to propaganda for special interest groups, and the rest of education after the rudiments of readin' and 'ritin', and 'rithmetic will be nothing more than training for some allotted role and propaganda for the regime. If the government decides that your daughter's future because she isn't connected intimately enough to the political and economic elites is to be a domestic servant and not perhaps an engineer, then she gets to be a domestic servant. Oh, you don't have to be black to be treated like a n---er? That's how it goes. You will find that instead of Social Security you will have to invest savings into some financial rip-off that gives a negative return because of the overhead of bureaucratic parasites connected to rapacious owners. You will find that after you retire Medicare will no longer await you, but instead that you will either have to sell off your house to buy health insurance or take the risk of a premature meeting with the Grim Reaper. You will find that government enforces the will of shysters who have real power in the political system. Your vote will be as meaningless as it was in the Apartheid-era South Africa. You will also find that your conscience will have to defer to power if you do not want to end up in some labor camp in the High Plains.

In most of America we liberals have nothing left but local politics (in medium-to-large cities) and the right to protest. We will have plenty to protest. Environment? Liberal birders and conservative sportsmen need to unite. Given a choice between aligning with people of color and conscience or white people without conscience, I will go with conscience. We can re-learn the techniques of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s; we will need to apply them as Donald Trump and his allies try to set race relations back fifty years.

Martin Luther King meets the Spirit of '76? What a concept! That is the foundation of a new and better America. We do that ourselves, or we risk tyranny far worse than what Americans rebelled against in 1776.

[Eric the Green]

(11-24-2016, 12:29 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I'm not going to fight to keep California as part of the United States. To me, California wouldn't be worth the sacrifice. America would get the bulk of its business's and the bulk of the productive workforce and the bulk it's more law abiding and more productive citizens and the bulk of it's agricultural exports that we're used to seeing as well regardless of whether it stays or goes. In my opinion, America needs a blue dumping ground. An alternate world for those who don't want to do shit for a living and uppity fools who feel they're obligated to support them, educated dim wits who ignore major issues relating to the working class who care more about establishing a new precedence and relatively dumb (uneducated) immigrants who are used to working for pennies to flood to by the millions instead of the United States.  

I hope more people will agree with you and let CA and other blue states leave the USA if they wish. For our part a lot of us wouldn't mind it if the shoe gets on the other foot and Democrats and Greens take over the Federal government again, and some red states want to leave. This is not 1860 and it's not worth the fight to keep the USA together as it exists now.

California is still doing quite well, since although white Republicans may leave, there's plenty of young smart and law-abiding people coming here from red states and other countries that keep our economy humming and innovative. The view you have that people who agree with government help given to the less fortunate, "those who don't want to do shit for a living and uppity fools who feel they're obligated to support them," seems to me to be the nub of the disagreement between the red and blue states. It's called the dog whistle for the free market economics meme (classical/neo-liberal, social-darwinist, self-reliance, Reaganomics, trickle-down, libertarian economics-- it has many names, as you know; all the same thing).

In our opinion, and it seems largely proven by the facts, our view works better for the people, and it's the blue states and not the red states that do well, while people in the red states are victims of their own adherence to this meme. However, it also endangers the world because it allows climate change and species destruction to occur. Meanwhile, most of the absentee owners whom you guys defer to and empower, know a good thing, and are wealthy enough to live in the blue states. Your hero Mr. Trump is the perfect example.

Quote:Right now, there's a decent black guy and his family living in my parents house. I'm cool with it and I have no issues with him as a person. Hell, I place more value on him than I place on someone like you. I know that goes against the blue narrative used here. But then again, the blue narrative isn't interested in what's actually going on, what it's actually about or what it actually means and so forth. The blue narrative is only interested in what it seeks to obtain or gain for itself. OK. We know what we've got, we've got two blue regions fixated on itself politically with a blue city located in between them. Minnesota may not stay blue for very long with my age group coming into power and becoming more vocal and more active politically. We could begin to move to separate from the blue cities which would isolate the cities and force the cities to become wiser and less reliant upon the state.

Well, I'd say TWO cities now (I'd take the Denver area as another blue hub). Good luck with your isolation plan; again, we do know what's going on; that's what makes us progressives. And we know that the red rural areas are the most impoverished, and that their self-reliance system does not work.

[Eric the Green]

(11-23-2016, 08:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(11-23-2016, 05:27 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Progressives see problems that must be fixed.  Conservatives don’t see the problems as that grave.  Both perspectives might seem natural if the problems aren’t so serious in the conservative region as in the progressive.  Historically, if one doesn’t solve the problems they continue to get worse until the resolve finally comes that they must be addressed.  Alas, if the problems are worse in the more progressive regions, and the solutions are applied nationwide, there is a perception in conservative areas of fixing what isn’t broken.  It is natural to ask why one can’t just be left alone.

It's more that conservatives see progressive cures as worse than the disease.  Progressive insistence on crushing dissent, to the point of eliminating freedom of the press, is hardly a step toward freedom as far as conservatives are concerned.  Similarly for many other progressive initiatives.

I don't think "dissent" as racial intolerance and fake news is all that much worth us progressives defending.

Enabling and empowering corporate power and wealthy bosses is not a step toward freedom either, but the reverse, But it's just this that constitutes "conservatism" in the USA today.

[pbrower2a]

The outlawry of totalitarian movements hardly compromises democracy. Such Parties effectively become crime syndicates beyond any possibility of reform into something benign. I speak of among others the Nazi Party, Fascist Party, Ba'ath Party of Iraq, Parti Populaire Francais, Arrow Cross, Iron Guard, Imperial Rule Assistance League, and the Communist Party of Romania. If it is acceptable to outlaw criminal enterprises that exist largely for human trafficking, distribution of dangerous drugs, and financial scams, then why is it not acceptable to outlaw organizations that existed at one time to promote military aggression, slavery, or genocide?