America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,839 comments
- 1,798,846 views
- 6,425
- KCCO
While trends are on the falling side of the curve for my state (Ga), I think opening is the correct course of action, but I do not agree with some of the businesses being allowed open. Not sure why a massage parlor is more important than the university systems being allowed to open back up. But these business are also supposed to be maintaining proper spacing and testing (again, massages...) no differently than grocery stores have been required to. If trends are falling I see no reason to keep people completely inside for another month. I doubt numbers would fully disappear either.
- 11,916
- Marin County
- 31,713
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
Just for the comedy gold the Orange One is delivering I want four more years of him, but as he has started to throw dangerous* comments into the ether I also kinda want him to shrivel up and disappear to Florida, to be eaten by an alligator or it by many golf balls, or something else Floridian.
*dangerous for his devout followers.
*dangerous for his devout followers.
- 24,640
- Anoka, MN
- 6,078
- Simcoeace
i don't understand what you're saying? We're talking about the President of the United States. It's not necessary for the President to answer every negative comment made about him or his policies. No previous President has done this. The US, the world ... & Trump himself would be much better off if he just shut up occasionally.
- 24,640
- Anoka, MN
The more time people spend talking about stupid stuff Trump says the less time they spend talking about his opponents. The constant attention also reaffirms his supporters (false) view that the media is just out to get him.
I'm not saying his comments shouldn't be criticized, especially when he is telling people to potentially poison themselves, but more often than not it seems people are feeding into his ego when it would be far more productive to just move on.
It was only a matter of time before someone figured out how to use social media to get into a world leader position. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump style social media posts are the new attack add. Nobody likes seems to like them, but people still use them because they work.
The moment he does that is the moment he loses his support base.
I don't know if it was just because I was bullied in school and was taught quickly how to deal with it or what, but it's pretty easy to see the game Trump is playing. The sad thing is people far smarter than myself seem to be falling into his trap hook, line and sinker.
- 6,078
- Simcoeace
I think this is the heart of the matter. Some people see Trump as a political genius who is playing the MSM & social media to consolidate his power. There's no question that Trump "plays to the base", but is playing to the base actually a sensible political strategy?
Trump won the 2016 election (against an equally unpopular Democratic candidate) with a slim electoral college advantage. Had he lost, he would have got down in history as a kook who inevitably lost the election. However, as he (unexpectedly) won, in the thinking of Trump supporters (& in Trump's own mind) this confirmed the view of him as a brilliant political tactician - a "winner". After winning he could quite easily have "pivoted" to a more conciliatory, centrist position & he might have received much more broadly based support as a "swamp-clearing" independent. He's never made any attempt to do this, but has rather doubled-down on hyper-partisan factionalism. I don't think that's due to some kind of cunning political calculation ... it's just WHO HE IS.
Since the 2016 GE Trump's approval ratings have been continually under water & pretty much every subsequent important election has gone against him & the Republicans. His survival has depended on Republican control of the (extremely un-democratic) US Senate. If Trump loses the 2020 GE he will be remembered in history as a kook who weirdly won election in 2016 & then turned the country upside due to his own personal psychological issues.
- 6,425
- KCCO
TIL earning +75 delegates is considered slim
- 6,078
- Simcoeace
Trump won with the lowest percentage of the popular in any US Presidential election with the exception of Rutherford Hayes in 1876. He also had one of the lowest margins in EC votes. In the end, a narrow margin of victory in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania won him the election. There's no reason to believe that Trump's divisive "playing-to-the-base" rhetoric represents a sound strategy for continuing electoral victory.
- 2,131
- FL, USA, Earth, Sol, Local Bubble, Milky Way
- TeamACRZARacingo
- GyroxOpex
- 2,980
- The Ramapo Mountains
- jjaisli
I'm reluctant to post this because I don't have a linkable source, it was based on a radio interview on NPR which took place more than a year ago. And my memory of what they said may be somewhat flawed. But the two statisticians being interviewed had studied and analyzed the results of the last election for more than a year and they broke down their findings which I'll try from memory to put into bullet points.
- Despite winning the election, Trump received fewer (total) votes than either Romney in 2012 or McCain in 2008. So he didn't so much as win as his opponent lost. This was one of the keys that the Republican candidate could receive fewer total votes than the last two Republican candidates (who lost) but still came away victorious. So from the beginning they considered the results potentially anomalous (and ended with that same conclusion).
- Hilary was an unpopular candidate for several reasons: some perfectly legitimate (her mishandling of classified data) and some completely fictitious (running a child porn operation). But so much negative press, spam and social media attacks muddied the waters for many voters.
- They estimated more than 3 million potential Sanders voters either abstained from the election or voted for Trump in protest. (This was their key finding and it was enough to make a difference--AND swing the balance)
- They mentioned various findings about general anger and apathy among the GOP electorate which allowed Donald Trump to win the Republican nomination in the first place. And Trump running as an 'outsider' garnered him additional support both durning primaries and carried through to the general election.
- They ultimately concluded that approximately 50,000 total votes in 4 key swing states were enough to swing the balance and the election was MUCH closer than most people realize.
Their overall conclusion, just looking at the data, was that Trump's victory was something of a fluke. A perfect storm of various circumstances coming together.
Trump has remained a wildly unpopular president (outside of his base of core supporters). If he was running against Elizabeth Warren (a staunch progressive) I think he would still take the next election. I'm not a Joe Biden fan but it's clear (1) he's the person the majority of Democratic Primary voters wanted and (2) he's centrist enough and appeals to swing voters. I think Joe Biden is going to take the next election and I don't think it's going to be close. I think he's going to walk it. And Trump is going to be history. I also think Joe's not really up to the job and four years later, we're going to elect another, more moderate, Republican candidate while the country is still floundering and trying to recover from the economic effects of Covid coupled with mountains of debt.
Last edited:
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
Uhhhh. The issue with this example is that Carter didn't exactly finish last did he? He was president, even if only for one year, and as disliked as he may be, he's definitely not going to have as ugly of a legacy as Trump. Loud mouths with "amorphous morality" stand out more, that doesnt mean they finish in first. Mr. Amorphous lost the public vote after all, and only won because of the out of date electoral system we still have in place.
I will give Trump this though, he is good at playing the system against itself, and good at inciting particular types of people. He does know how to play up a crowd. He would probably have made a fairly good stand up comedian or even story teller if he could have ever gotten past his deep rooted narcissism.
Last edited:
- 30,013
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I agree with the thrust of your post, but I'm compelled to note that Carter served a full term. Ford served as president for less than a full term by virtue of Nixon vacating office, but he also did so for better than half of it. Harrison served a month.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,051
- Mile High City
Ok folks, I think it's high time we discussed governors.
We have 50 of them, and they've been charged with running the country during a pandemic in the absence of federal leadership. So far, I'm really enamored with Governor Polis (of Colorado). I didn't vote for him, but he's won my vote from here out. I can't get on board with all of his decisions, but he's made enough good ones, and for so many of the right reasons, that I'm overall really impressed.
Colorado didn't go full lockdown early partly out of recognition of the large rural demographic and an understanding that denver, CO springs, etc. could lock down without affecting regions for which it didn't make sense to do so. Our governor was taking into account the very different demographics and the different tools that can be used in those regions. Eventually he went back on this (I like that too) because he was shown mobility data for rural regions and realized that a crisis loomed in those areas as well.
He has encouraged grocery stores with very specific instructions (not the best link for that) for how to mitigate COVID spread.
And CO is early on the list of states to re-open, but with careful measures and with an understanding that a second spike is a concern and that early mobility data will help understand whether a second spike is coming.
And... and I like this as well... Denver shut before the state, and denver will be shut after the state.
I can throw stones at my governor for sure. But geez... this is just rational, calm, measured thinking with an understanding toward the major impacts that these decisions have. I love it. I'm so happy with my governor that I'm wondering whether he's doing the best job in the nation right now. So how about it? What are your thoughts?
We have 50 of them, and they've been charged with running the country during a pandemic in the absence of federal leadership. So far, I'm really enamored with Governor Polis (of Colorado). I didn't vote for him, but he's won my vote from here out. I can't get on board with all of his decisions, but he's made enough good ones, and for so many of the right reasons, that I'm overall really impressed.
Colorado didn't go full lockdown early partly out of recognition of the large rural demographic and an understanding that denver, CO springs, etc. could lock down without affecting regions for which it didn't make sense to do so. Our governor was taking into account the very different demographics and the different tools that can be used in those regions. Eventually he went back on this (I like that too) because he was shown mobility data for rural regions and realized that a crisis loomed in those areas as well.
He has encouraged grocery stores with very specific instructions (not the best link for that) for how to mitigate COVID spread.
And CO is early on the list of states to re-open, but with careful measures and with an understanding that a second spike is a concern and that early mobility data will help understand whether a second spike is coming.
https://krdo.com/news/politics/2020/04/26/colorado-governor-says-hes-worried-about-possible-second-spike-in-covid-19-cases-as-state-set-to-reopen-monday/
And... and I like this as well... Denver shut before the state, and denver will be shut after the state.
I can throw stones at my governor for sure. But geez... this is just rational, calm, measured thinking with an understanding toward the major impacts that these decisions have. I love it. I'm so happy with my governor that I'm wondering whether he's doing the best job in the nation right now. So how about it? What are your thoughts?
- 6,078
- Simcoeace
I assume Rallywagon intended to say "even if only for one term".
Carter clearly didn't finish "last". From very humble beginnings he rose to become President of the United States. Should Trump fail to win a second term his record will match that of Carter. Will that prove that "good guys finish last" or "narcissistic assholes finish last" ... or anything at all?
That is what I believe - actually have to believe in order to have any respect for the good citizens of the United States.
I don't know what will happen. Biden obviously isn't a strong candidate judged on his personal merits, but may be the appropriate candidate for this unusual situation. If Trump loses I would expect the Republican party to splinter into different factions, with a strong "Peronist" remnant staying fanatically loyal to Trump. This will make it very difficult for them to mount a strong challenge for the Presidency in 2024 IMO. I would not expect Biden to run for a second term.
- 30,013
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
That seems a very vague and not the least bit reasonable justification for not allowing people to simply exist in a place. It sounds a bit like "You don't get to be here because someone else who wants to be here might end up being a problem in the future because of...reasons...but we don't know who that is or even who that isn't except we're pretty confident it might not be someone whose presence here has been deemed acceptable."
It also flies in the face of tourism. So why is tourism generally acceptable while immigration is so contentious? Is there a reasonable justification for allowing someone here temporarily (tourism) but not indefinitely (immigration)?
[Edit] Or do you just think China shouldn't be able to have laws for which there is no reasonable justification and the United States should be able to, despite you not actually being in either place? That would be...weird.
Last edited:
- 1,321
- CZE
- novcze
yes, you got it right, everyone can be problematic, but at least we can control number of possible incoming problems by selecting who can come in, it seems reasonable to me.
And you know how I see increase in population density, we should aim for steady-state economy followed by post-scarcity economy, not never ending economic growth.
You seem passionate about this topic, what exactly is your motivation?
