Senate The 2016 General Presidential Election

I agree with this. I don't agree that there is anything wrong with American patriotism.

 

*sigh*. Let's try again. Ender - who do you think is the modern-day equivalent of the post-WWII USA?

 

I mean, you're the one who left out a "who," blackmyron. Try again.

 

Really? I didn't notice. Did I remember the second time I responded? I can't tell.

 

Yes. This.

And no-one is in America's post-WWII role now--the world is too interconnected for that. A lot of the agita we see from Trump supporters are the collective unconscious realization that they are fast becoming a minority in their own country. They're already one on the global scale, and now, the globe has encroached.

Does anyone remember the show Alien Nation? It involved literal aliens who were given political freedom in 90's Los Angeles. Opposing granting their rights were a group called "Purists", who were a nearly-perfect metaphor for what the white American non-college educated male lining up behind Trump today. In an ironic twist, the show's writers and producers used to use human minorities (as defined from an American point of view) as the instruments of bigotry against the aliens.

It was a great show, and contains a lot of lessons about human nature that are still germane to this day.

Peace,

V-03

 

Obviously, and I know it's a cliche to say it, but China is the new postwar USA.

(Many) people suddenly have money, and the Government has political clout, and they're full of nationalism. Heck, sending astronauts into space. They are doing those 1950's USA things.

The ugly side of that growth... the Foxconn factories with miserable wages and conditions and suicide nets below the windows... is that what the Blue collar workers want to get back in the USA?

 

In the 1950's, the largest private employer in the United States was General Motors who provided relatively well-paying, unionized jobs (thanks to the UAW and others fighting for such things). That's what people really want "back," for the most part. Not manufacturing; that's just what they're told and they're usually too uneducated to know better. Working class white people have been told for decades by the state, the media, and corporations to blame the blacks and the foreigners and the immigrants instead of those in power.

 

as it's happening...yes. i would bet that for most people that kind of job security would be a welcome change. i can't believe i had to say that.

edit:

don't forget the steel industry which backed a few dozen other industries like appliances and stuff....this is exactly what the problem is.

 

Ok sport, before you sigh, maybe go back and re-read your post carefully and word by word.

You said "So do you think is now America in the period 1945-1948?".

I wasn't going to assume anything.

To answer your question; in my view, there isn't one. As we know, the US emerged from the war in a position of supreme advantage. By sitting on its hands not fighting from the period 1939- basically 1942, and selling materiel etc to the Allies, the US emerged cashed up and unscathed in terms of its territorial resources. So it was able to dictate a lot of favourable terms in international engagements, use loans to essentially ingratiate Europe to it, and therefore to position itself to use its unchallenged force to prevent any large and disruptive conflict from occurring.

In short, its general preference for isolationalism lead America to have to become interventionist - not because it wanted to be a good guy policeman, but because the wheels of commerce demanded it.

Now, one could argue China's position as a lender of cash and buyer of foreign assets would make it more or less comparable. It's also heavily isolationist. There are other parallels - they want very much to use their prestige to ensure there's no major issues in the world, but mostly so they can browbeat their provinces into submission. Notwithstanding that, I don't think China has necessarily the consensus building acumen to make the analogy completely appropriate.

Britain, though, emerged from being the dominant power pre-war to having its empire fracture, and its move from top to middle power cemented when the US and Egyptians allied over Suez. America is the same; its dominance has been shaken by the Bush administration's spectacular squandering of post-11 Sept goodwill with ill-advised adventures in Iraq and the destruction of the myth of its military power. Arguably the inability to pacify Iraq will be a Suez-like moment, though it may take some time to see it (or the failure to pacify India = Iraq, I'm unsure).

 

I know a lot of people that are still pushing for third-party candidates such as Gary Johnson. I think that it's obvious that a third-party candidate can't win with the electoral vote. Now my question, since maybe I'm not understanding this, is: can the popular vote ever override the electoral vote? Or does it only work the other way around?

 

It's pretty simple: no. Why would it work that way? Gaining the majority of the Electoral College is how a candidate wins. 48 states have winner-take-all (plurality counts, so that's a big barrier to any third party) and 2 largely irrelevant states award it by Congressional district. There's no scenario in which the popular vote would "override" the Electoral College.

 

in a just and fair society...

sadly that will never happen.

 

In a fair and just society a person with seven electoral votes would be appointed President by a body of political elites?

 

A simple, more fair and just way would be to abolish the Electoral College and hold a straight vote with two rounds, if necessary: the first with all candidates on the ballot (with no stupid barriers such as being forced to register with each state for a place), and the second with the top two if no one gets a majority. Other countries elect their heads of state that way and that's how some local elections in the U.S. work. The first round, at least, would be less susceptible to lesser evilism and maybe people could vote for the candidates they actually want.

 

Or go to a parliamentary system where the leader of a party isn't a figurehead with no real power and possibly orange skin.

 

That's so racist

 

I don't completely disagree with that (even as I find it a terrible slippery slope). I think I reacted more to the idea that Gary Johnson winning would be some sort of justice over and above both current candidates.

 

Trump didn't come from a vacuum. He's the product of over 50 years of the "political elites" ****ing with people. That most of them don't like how things have turned out doesn't mean they're not responsible.

 

orange is the new black

 

Well, yes but that's not the whole picture. The 2007/8 GFC had a strong influence on the current climate, and whilst we know economies are boom/bust cyclic, the information age has imbued people with a belief all opinions are equally valid. So, instead of broadly understanding that the losses of 2008 were a natural correction that arguably should have been deeper, we get the belief that it was a conspiracy of elites; and rather than accepting the cyclic nature analysis, we end up with people convinced someone is to blame and accordingly, "must pay".

This thread, and indeed the Senate tag in its current iteration, are proof that the necessary wherewithal to form a complete and well-rounded opinion is not necessary when a visceral reaction and unfettered access to share it are within reach. Very few of us, Even, have been trained to analyse a policy. Very few can read legalese. So the intricacies are lost, and sadly public discourse has dumbed itself down so that the lowest common denominator feels a valued member of the process.

Dumbing down's first casualty is, of course, detail.

So it's not just political elites; is the badge-of-pride stupidity of the Average American, and an unwillingness to contextualise the GFC outside of the context of revenge.

 

Ah, vanity, thy name is the Internet.
The sigh was directed at myself, old son, for being a bit hasty in typing. It's a bit pointless to edit it back when you've already replied. Not everything is an attack, Ender.
My post after that, however, was pure sarcasm.

As far as the rest of it - America didn't really emerge in a position of supreme advantage, though. Russia had managed to hold its own and Truman's grand gesture - the usage of the atomic bomb as a message to the Soviets - was wasted as Stalin was already well aware thanks to Klaus Fuchs. The US may have been the sole nuclear power during '45-'48, but it was rather meaningless considering the limited number of actual bombs we had... and of course, all bets were off in '49 anyways.
With Churchill blathering on about iron curtains, and then the most populous nation in the world going communist, one could see why the American conservatives were being whipped into hysteria.

 

We have an Electoral College for a reason problem is It doesn't always work as was the case with Gore he won the Popular Vote but lost the election but that same system was supposed to keep guys Like Trump from getting this far, what I think has to happen Is mental evaluations for Voters and Candidates you shouldn't be able to be racist and vote or run for office.