Political Discussion

That doesn't sound right. You keep saying the popular vote at state level selects which party's electors will represent. And that's where I'm getting hung up.
That's...how it works, though. If the Republican candidate wins the popular vote in a state, the Republican party's electors for that state vote in the EC. If the Dem wins in that state, the Democrats' electors vote in the EC.

As archives.gov describes it, "When you vote for a Presidential candidate you are actually voting for your candidate's preferred electors."
29 states allow their delegates to vote freely which isn't always the popular vote winner.

So, yes, it is possible for a state to pledge it's delegates for someone other than the states popular vote winner.
Right, but each party selects their own electors during their convention (edit: or through other means), which means they are quite likely to vote for the candidate their party selected. Their intent is to serve as representatives of the will of the voters, but also of the will of their party. Remember, the parties choose who will represent them in the EC. Being a faithless elector means pledging to vote for your party's candidate, and then not following through.

What you're describing -- a state's entire delegation overturning that state's popular vote -- is possible in theory (before today), but not realistic.
 

State by state, neighborhood by neighborhood, black families pay 13 percent more in property taxes each year than a white family would in the same situation, a massive new data analysis shows.
Black-owned homes are consistently assessed at higher values, relative to their actual sale price, than white homes, according to a new working paper by economists Troup Howard of the University of Utah and Carlos Avenancio-León of Indiana University.
 
This is pretty wild.



Not cool at all.

And reading through the thread they explain how this may make access to the classes they paid for impossible if they have to take them online from their home country.
  • They may not have internet or high speed internet in their home country
  • The classes might be held in the middle of the night in their home country.
  • G Suite Access is entirely blocked in China
  • Some online course software is not available in all geographic locations, such as Netflix has different content for different regions.
 
Not cool at all.

And reading through the thread they explain how this may make access to the classes they paid for impossible if they have to take them online from their home country.
  • They may not have internet or high speed internet in their home country
  • The classes might be held in the middle of the night in their home country.
  • G Suite Access is entirely blocked in China
  • Some online course software is not available in all geographic locations, such as Netflix has different content for different regions.
Yeah, I think that's the point. This is about a different issue, but I'm sure the same attitude applies.

 
GEICO is just the latest example of how corporations in a capitalistic system suck.

It appears their 15% policy discount / refund to customers during the stay at home orders was just a PR move and the appearance of them helping out their customers. However, GEICO has now increase their rates by 15%. People renewing their policies since last month have been seeing the increased rates. When questioned about it, GEICO said they have raised their rates.

Most people are finding it incredible fishy that they raised their rates by exactly how much they refunded. Essentially, their bottom line will not be effected by the refund. They are still getting their money.
 
Trump's 2020 campaign is really pushing the commercials in Boston.

This surprises me that they are spending so much money here knowing that MA is a solid blue state.

I wonder if they are delusional enough that they can turn blue states red.

The general theme of Trump's campaign message is law and order. Tough on crime. And with Joe Bidden we will have lawlessness as result of defunding police.
 
Trump's 2020 campaign is really pushing the commercials in Boston.

This surprises me that they are spending so much money here knowing that MA is a solid blue state.

I wonder if they are delusional enough that they can turn blue states red.

The general theme of Trump's campaign message is law and order. Tough on crime. And with Joe Bidden we will have lawlessness as result of defunding police.
Cause we’ve had so much law and order under his regime so far?
 
The Trump campaign..........do they really know what they're doing? I mean seriously, LOL

.........let it sink in a minute if you don't see it right away. This was also taken down shortly after it was posted, I can't imagine why 🤭
1594180794434.png
 
The Trump campaign..........do they really know what they're doing? I mean seriously, LOL

.........let it sink in a minute if you don't see it right away. This was also taken down shortly after it was posted, I can't imagine why 🤭
View attachment 55618

Stupid like a fox.

How many people know where that statue is from? The campaign (and moreso the president) does know that the symbols of white de-jesus and the language that promotes the ideas that there are "radical" others that are trying to take your identity and wealth away from you means. They do know that the perceived threat of multi-culturalism, of black and brown folk, of perceived communism means, and they use that propaganda incredibly effectively.

Trumps 4th speech at Mt. Rushmore was no accident and was all about the power of white symbolism (on sacred aboriginal ground no-less) and breeding hate through perceived hate. When Trump says American Identity he means white Christian identity and his followers know it. They believe in the threat. They've armed themselves against it and they will fight to maintain what the propaganda has convinced them of.
 
Stupid like a fox.

How many people know where that statue is from? The campaign (and moreso the president) does know that the symbols of white de-jesus and the language that promotes the ideas that there are "radical" others that are trying to take your identity and wealth away from you means. They do know that the perceived threat of multi-culturalism, of black and brown folk, of perceived communism means, and they use that propaganda incredibly effectively.

Trumps 4th speech at Mt. Rushmore was no accident and was all about the power of white symbolism (on sacred aboriginal ground no-less) and breeding hate through perceived hate. When Trump says American Identity he means white Christian identity and his followers know it. They believe in the threat. They've armed themselves against it and they will fight to maintain what the propaganda has convinced them of.
While I agree he's doing nothing more than "calling" to his base at this point, it's all he has left, I don't know if I'm willing to give his crack team that much credit, they could have just as easily replaced the photo, but they took it down instead........not that it made a difference it was grabbed a million times and it's making the rounds. The only thing that remains is seeing how large that base still is and if it will make a difference in November.

I think even his base has it's breaking point, while there will always be the "blind followers", the constant reminder of his stupidity has to chip away at that base, at a certain point you gotta ask yourself what the hell you're following.......maybe I'm giving "them" too much credit.
 
While I agree he's doing nothing more than "calling" to his base at this point, it's all he has left, I don't know if I'm willing to give his crack team that much credit, they could have just as easily replaced the photo, but they took it down instead........not that it made a difference it was grabbed a million times and it's making the rounds. The only thing that remains is seeing how large that base still is and if it will make a difference in November.

I think even his base has it's breaking point, while there will always be the "blind followers", the constant reminder of his stupidity has to chip away at that base, at a certain point you gotta ask yourself what the hell you're following.......maybe I'm giving "them" too much credit.

Oh I have no doubt that the picture was an error (because dummies gonna be dumb) and was taken down before enough media saw it to point out the incompetency, but I don't think the purpose of using that photo was a mistake. They knew what they were doing there and whether bit was taken down or not every little it of signalling they do is effective.

I don't think he is just signalling his conservative religious base with that imagery or those words. He's trying to signal the secular working-class whites that may not practice but have a belief system found in western white Christianity who have been convinced that someone, anyone, whether that be Muslims, Black Americans, Liberals, Socialists, "Radicals" are coming for their way of life / their perceived culture. They're creating an enemy that doesn't really exist, but a lot of people believe that it does.

The campaign is banking on their paranoia and racism. It worked in 2016 so why not again.
 
Here I was thinking it was just posted to be taken down so the circulation could be called fake news and further cement the idea that detractors are grasping.
 
Oh I have no doubt that the picture was an error (because dummies gonna be dumb) and was taken down before enough media saw it to point out the incompetency, but I don't think the purpose of using that photo was a mistake. They knew what they were doing there and whether bit was taken down or not every little it of signalling they do is effective.

I don't think he is just signalling his conservative religious base with that imagery or those words. He's trying to signal the secular working-class whites that may not practice but have a belief system found in western white Christianity who have been convinced that someone, anyone, whether that be Muslims, Black Americans, Liberals, Socialists, "Radicals" are coming for their way of life / their perceived culture. They're creating an enemy that doesn't really exist, but a lot of people believe that it does.

The campaign is banking on their paranoia and racism. It worked in 2016 so why not again.


I had a friend mention the other day that "apparently Catholic statues are racist, since the protesters are tearing them down". She could not back up what she was saying with facts or even admit where she heard it. I disagreed and told her to check her facts, however it shows just how much bullshit is out there and that people will believe anything. She wanted to believe this because it justifies her being upset at the protesters for a reason except the color of their skin.

You cant fight stupid.
 
I had a friend mention the other day that "apparently Catholic statues are racist, since the protesters are tearing them down". She could not back up what she was saying with facts or even admit where she heard it. I disagreed and told her to check her facts, however it shows just how much bullshit is out there and that people will believe anything. She wanted to believe this because it justifies her being upset at the protesters for a reason except the color of their skin.

You cant fight stupid.

My response to that sort of thing is something along the lines of 'No, it was always racist you're just starting to hear about it because enough people are calling it out...'

People who are threatened by the removal of statues or whatever symbolism have a problem with their own identity and cultural fragility.

but yes you can't fight illogic with logic or facts
 
Last edited:
I had a friend mention the other day that "apparently Catholic statues are racist, since the protesters are tearing them down". She could not back up what she was saying with facts or even admit where she heard it. I disagreed and told her to check her facts, however it shows just how much bullshit is out there and that people will believe anything. She wanted to believe this because it justifies her being upset at the protesters for a reason except the color of their skin.

You cant fight stupid.

Probably because of this statue. A Catholic saint, yet was a part of some horrific things involving the local indigenous population.

 
My response to that is sort of thing is something along the lines of 'No, it was always racist you're just starting to hear about it because enough people are calling it out...'

People who are threatened by the removal of statues or whatever symbolism have a problem with their own identity and cultural fragility.

but yes you can't fight illogic with logic or facts
I'm sympathetic to the point of being cautious about revising history. We all know the Soviets and the Chinese and the North Koreans had/have a pattern of rewriting history to make it politically palatable. Keeping your people ignorant of the truth is a mechanism to stay in control. I too am wary of this.

What people don't seem to get in this instance is that this isn't a case of rewriting history, but of reconsidering who from our history is worthy of honoring and memorializing. Reassessing the role of Christopher Columbus, for example, isn't a matter of debating or erasing his historical significance, but of whether that significance is something we really want to commemorate.
You cant fight stupid.
I think you CAN fight it, but the thing is, that stupidity isn't just a naturally occurring, passive phenomenon; it's something that has been actively nurtured by parties who benefit from the consolidation of wealth and power. If anything, people need to confront the truth that our current reality is built to reinforce stupidity. Demolishing public education, preying on ignorance to stir up anger, encouraging paranoia and conspiracy theories that foster distrust of institutions...people are afraid that the left is doing something to them that the right has already done, without them even being conscious that it happened.
 
Last edited:
I'm sympathetic to the point of being cautious about revising history. We all know the Soviets and the Chinese and the North Koreans had/have a pattern of rewriting history to make it politically palatable. Keeping your people ignorant of the truth is a mechanism to stay in control. I too am wary of this.

What people don't seem to get in this instance is that this isn't a case of rewriting history, but of reconsidering who from our history is worth of honoring and memorializing. Reassessing the role of Christopher Columbus, for example, isn't a matter of debating or erasing his historical significance, but of whether that significance is something we really want to commemorate.

I'm obviously less sympathetic, but that's of course an important point and I know it isn't all one way or the other. As far as I'm aware there isn't a movement to change history here. As you imply, it's exposing history and exposing how certain symbolism is about more than recognizing history. These monuments under scrutiny often serve the same purpose of re-writing history. Particularly in the case of confederate monuments.

People are making a choice to choose the history they want when they say things like "i guess X is racist now." People who tear down confederate monuments or who advocate for changing the name of a team or lake or town to something not founded in systemic racism are choosing to recognize history. Is it righting a wrong? I'm less confident of that... but it is exposing ignorance and that's not a bad thing.

As far as the image of white jesus goes there are other complications that are both wrapped up in revisionist history and political objectives there.
 
Last edited:
I'm sympathetic to the point of being cautious about revising history. We all know the Soviets and the Chinese and the North Koreans had/have a pattern of rewriting history to make it politically palatable. Keeping your people ignorant of the truth is a mechanism to stay in control. I too am wary of this.

What people don't seem to get in this instance is that this isn't a case of rewriting history, but of reconsidering who from our history is worth of honoring and memorializing. Reassessing the role of Christopher Columbus, for example, isn't a matter of debating or erasing his historical significance, but of whether that significance is something we really want to commemorate.

I think you CAN fight it, but the thing is, that stupidity isn't just a naturally occurring, passive phenomenon; it's something that has been actively nurtured by parties who benefit from the consolidation of wealth and power. If anything, people need to confront the truth that our current reality is built to reinforce stupidity. Demolishing public education, preying on ignorance to stir up anger, encouraging paranoia and conspiracy theories that foster distrust of institutions...people are afraid that the left is doing something to them that the right has already done, without them even being conscious that it happened.

True, i should have said its hard to fight stupid, but also sometimes its not worth it.

This is a person who I worked with several years ago and while we disagreed with politics, six years ago there wasn't a political party who openly ran on a platform of white supremacy. Now she is retired and lives alone in the country, so I didn't let her spout stupid shit to me but changing her mind is a low priority.
 
Back
Top