Should we discuss with #Trump voters?
Anyone who still hasn't understood why Trump is not a suitable president after one phase of Trump's administration will probably never understand. Personally, I rarely have enough crayons with me to explain why Trump is a bad president.
#USA #election #vote #president #whitehouse #government #democracy #politics #future
like this
Michael Fenichel
in reply to anonymiss • • •Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •like this
Amanda Gordon, Michael Fenichel, headrift, jrsy, David Shelton and tomgrzybow like this.
tomgrzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •Organized Crime and Silicon Valley Billionaires.
Oh, Organized Crime.
TheFifthSeason
in reply to anonymiss • • •Firstly, I'm baffled that you Americans (again) managed to distill your choice of President down to these two candidates and also how you Americans insists on ignoring third party and other candidates. Its a tragedy to observe.
Second, your attitude promote polarization and that seldom lead anywhere good. Remember; understanding does not mean agreeing. Americans need to listen to each other, talk to each other, find common ground and work from there. Remove those few hotly political media driven topics and you'll find most people share the same concerns and want the same things. Maybe the starting path to get there is different but the goal seem to be the same.
Third, if so many Americans want Trump, that mean something is lacking in Biden (and vice versa). Figure out what that is and make adaptions, sooth the ground, build on the commonality so you can once again unite instead of further divide.
Sadly, all your meme-pumpers (on either side) add fuel to the fire, hating half the country. So yes Americans should discuss with Trump voters as they s
... Show more...Firstly, I'm baffled that you Americans (again) managed to distill your choice of President down to these two candidates and also how you Americans insists on ignoring third party and other candidates. Its a tragedy to observe.
Second, your attitude promote polarization and that seldom lead anywhere good. Remember; understanding does not mean agreeing. Americans need to listen to each other, talk to each other, find common ground and work from there. Remove those few hotly political media driven topics and you'll find most people share the same concerns and want the same things. Maybe the starting path to get there is different but the goal seem to be the same.
Third, if so many Americans want Trump, that mean something is lacking in Biden (and vice versa). Figure out what that is and make adaptions, sooth the ground, build on the commonality so you can once again unite instead of further divide.
Sadly, all your meme-pumpers (on either side) add fuel to the fire, hating half the country. So yes Americans should discuss with Trump voters as they should discuss with Biden voters. The reality is that with either candidate American lives aren't marginally going to change so why make such a fuzz about it? Your local politicians are fare more influential on your daily life.
headrift
in reply to anonymiss • • •tomgrzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •Firstly, I’m baffled that you Americans (again) managed to distill your choice of President down to these two candidates and also how you Americans insists on ignoring third party and other candidates. Its a tragedy to observe.
It seems I wrote the words. Or could have. My view precisely.
tomgrzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •I wrote:
and should have finished:
on power
Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •@thefifth: The bottom line IMO is that right now we USians are currently an evil people with a fully realized fascist federal government. This is no surprise as we've been working towards this since before Reagan was president.
From foundation our core values as a people are firmly rooted in greed, cruelty, brutality, and violence. Without strong checks and balances we completely shit the bed as a union of states.
jrsy
in reply to anonymiss • • •The US constitution does not create a parliamentary system. One person will win the presidential race. One person will win each senate seat, etc. If three people are running for one position the most likely outcome is that the person winning with a plurality will represent a minority viewpoint and there is every likelihood that the losing candidates and their voters agree more with the positions of each other than with the winner. The popular majority viewpoint loses.
If you vote for a third party candidate rather than the major party candidate with whom you most agree you are helping the major party candidate with whom you most disagree. Straightforward math not a conspiratorial brainwash by the major parties.
It is possible that if we went to ranked choice voting systems a surprise candidate could be elected (Bernie? Sigh.) The more likely outcome is that the result would be the same as with two-party ballots but voters would feel better about the process and be more engaged politically.
I'd love to see that happen all over the US. You vote Green, Socialist, Li
... Show more...The US constitution does not create a parliamentary system. One person will win the presidential race. One person will win each senate seat, etc. If three people are running for one position the most likely outcome is that the person winning with a plurality will represent a minority viewpoint and there is every likelihood that the losing candidates and their voters agree more with the positions of each other than with the winner. The popular majority viewpoint loses.
If you vote for a third party candidate rather than the major party candidate with whom you most agree you are helping the major party candidate with whom you most disagree. Straightforward math not a conspiratorial brainwash by the major parties.
It is possible that if we went to ranked choice voting systems a surprise candidate could be elected (Bernie? Sigh.) The more likely outcome is that the result would be the same as with two-party ballots but voters would feel better about the process and be more engaged politically.
I'd love to see that happen all over the US. You vote Green, Socialist, Libertarian and then Dem/Repub as last choice just so you aren't helping the bad guys.
Michael Fenichel
in reply to anonymiss • • •IMHO: "Everybody's right!" The U.S. system is sort of concrete, not nuanced around process (beyond "checks & balances" between branches of government).
Also important truth: "The voters" are not "the country" or necessarily "the policy".
It seems to me, across realities/systems/history, there are the "mindful" and the cult/tribal adherents, and there are the activists & lemmings, and the "wealth/power" class, be it private capitalists or oligarchs. "Complicated". Yet almost clear.
Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •I get that it's complicated. I get that some powerless, not-the-sharpest-spoon-in-the-drawer, nobody plebe like me has a limited perspective.
To avoid what I personally perceive as the "hopes and prayers/It's complicated" pitfall I look at outcomes. Outcomes are less complicated. We USians murder our own children en mass. We USians accept poorly qualified persons in positions of power who directly influence whether some of us live or die. Etc. Etc.
tomgrzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •Michael Fenichel likes this.
Michael Fenichel
in reply to anonymiss • • •We were talking... about the wall, the space, the people...
Within You Without You (Remastered 2009)
YouTubetomgrzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •TheFifthSeason
in reply to anonymiss • • •@Richard – that’s a rather dim view of your nation and its people… sorry you experience it as such.
@jrsy – maybe the focus must shift from only the presidential race to seats in the parliament. Its a given that either a blue or red win the president spot, but a third party can win seats in the parliament. If there is 100 parliament seats and the blue hold 49 and the red hold 49, the third and forth party that hold measly 1 seat each suddenly possess a bargaining position. There won’t be a magical change the first election or the second but gradually it could increase the voices of other parties/citizens and provide a good alternative to those involuntarily stuck in the blue/red dilemma of lesser of two evils. It has to happen at some point or you’ll be destined to repeat the current outcome over and over, degrading as you go.
jrsy
in reply to anonymiss • • •@TheFifthSeason Yes, if a third party had 1 measly seat in the US Senate they would have a disproportionate power but a candidate still faces the same 3rd party problem within their state.
However this does happen in the US Senate usually with the outsider simply labeled "Independent". The independent typically caucuses with the party whose policy positions most agree with their own.
It also happens that there are Senators nominally members of a major party but whose views and constituencies are very different from those typical of members of that party. Joe Manchin of West Virginia was a Democrat for years blocking progress on key Democratic Party agenda items. His one measly seat wielded a very disproportionate power. He switched his label to Independent this year and now says he will not run for re-election.
Senators are elected by all the voters in a state. They do not have localised districts. Perhaps there is some logic there that explains why senators seem more likely to be middle of the road or independent.
tomgrzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •It is possible that if we went to ranked choice voting systems a surprise candidate could be elected (Bernie? Sigh.) The more likely outcome is that the result would be the same as with two-party ballots but voters would feel better about the process and be more engaged politically.
I’d love to see that happen all over the US. You vote Green, Socialist, Libertarian and then Dem/Repub as last choice just so you aren’t helping the bad guys.
Yes, ranked-choice voting would be significantly more democratic, and it would relieve some of the moral angst we fee when voting these days.
On the other hand, the Power of Money would still be in place.
Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •@TheFifthSeason Dim? Eh. Nothing other people haven't observed and noted.
Also, note my choice of word: "currently". We USians swing between extremes and we do it quickly. The Russians, Republicans, and the Silicon Valley Billionaire class are able to leverage social media to control the narrative that traditionally was controlled via television with government oversight (checks and balances on power, see.)
Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •Richard
in reply to anonymiss • • •Michael Fenichel
in reply to anonymiss • • •Also, FWIW…
Us USians do not have a Parliament. Might be nice if we did have a way to ensure at least occasional (actual) debate and forced discussion between tribes.
tomgrzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •tomgrzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •Michael Fenichel
in reply to anonymiss • • •(Tribally and cognitively/pathologically)
Three ways splitting can negatively impact romantic relationships.
Annie Tanasugarn Ph.D., CCTSA (Psychology Today)tomgrzybow
in reply to anonymiss • • •Michael Fenichel
in reply to anonymiss • • •Some people have internal dialogue and can reason. Some are Jekyll & Hyde.
Some are just pure #TrumpVirus creatures of self-serving id and impulsivity.
Monsters From the Id (The Climax of Forbidden Planet (1956))
YouTube