Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 502026 times)

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8978
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6000 on: February 06, 2019, 07:31:51 PM »
Except even the NY Times doesn't accuse her of such: Did Melania Trump Merit an ĎEinstein Visaí? Probably, Immigration Lawyers Say - The New York Times

Whether or not she was worthy of the visa she eventually got, it's pretty well established that she was in the country and getting paid to model before she had it.  She was an illegal immigrant, working under the table, at least temporarily.
As long as we're being pedantic, she was here legally (i.e., not an illegal immigrant) but working without a valid work visa (at least according to Melania Trump modeled in US prior to getting work visa).

FIPurpose

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 850
  • Location: ME
    • FI With Purpose
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6001 on: February 07, 2019, 05:49:07 AM »
So, that means Trumps mother and father in law are chain migrants, the people he despises. Why don't people throw that in his face?
Many people take advantage of laws they claim to oppose. 

E.g., anyone who says tax rates ought to increase but continues to pay as little as legally allowed. 

I think one can (and in most cases) should take every opportunity to pay as little in tax as legally allowed, just as I think we collectively need to pay more in taxes - particularly if we want the kind of services that we seem to.  Those concepts are not mutually exclusive.

On the paying the minimum amount front -  deductions and credits were installed into our tax code to promote certain things that our society (or at least the special interest groups representing some aspect of society) have deemed worthy of support - e.g. child rearing, saving for ones retirement, owning a home, serving in the military.  Since they are there, I support using them, even when I may disagree with having a particular deduction.

When playing a game, you can have opinions on what rules should be changed to make the game more balanced. But until everyone agrees to play by new rules, you'll never win playing with disadvantageous rules that only you follow. And the other players wouldn't feel compelled to change the rules because they'd be winning every time.

It's not hypocritical to say that tax loopholes need to be closed and use those same tax holes. It's merely pointing out that there is an error in the rules, and everyone has to agree not to follow them first before it makes sense.

AdrianC

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 931
  • Location: Cincinnati
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6002 on: February 07, 2019, 07:49:57 AM »
From the trumpsters I know, this was the best SOTU of all time and it secures his win in 2020.

Yep, and Pelosi was scared, and her eyes were blinking "help me" in morse code, 'cos Trump is just so awesome. Apparently.

I didn't watch it.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12531
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6003 on: February 07, 2019, 07:51:44 AM »
From the trumpsters I know, this was the best SOTU of all time and it secures his win in 2020.

Yep, and Pelosi was scared, and her eyes were blinking "help me" in morse code, 'cos Trump is just so awesome. Apparently.

I didn't watch it.

I liked the part when Trump took credit for the Democratic women who were elected to government.  :P

Mississippi Mudstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Danielsville, GA
    • A Riving Home - Ramblings of a Recusant Woodworker
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6004 on: February 07, 2019, 07:58:16 AM »
From the trumpsters I know, this was the best SOTU of all time and it secures his win in 2020.

Yep, and Pelosi was scared, and her eyes were blinking "help me" in morse code, 'cos Trump is just so awesome. Apparently.

I didn't watch it.

I liked the part when Trump took credit for the Democratic women who were elected to government.  :P

Well to be fair, he is the reason many Democrats (including a record number of women) were elected to Congress.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3631
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6005 on: February 07, 2019, 08:03:36 AM »
From the trumpsters I know, this was the best SOTU of all time and it secures his win in 2020.

Yep, and Pelosi was scared, and her eyes were blinking "help me" in morse code, 'cos Trump is just so awesome. Apparently.

I didn't watch it.

I liked the part when Trump took credit for the Democratic women who were elected to government.  :P

Well to be fair, he is the reason many Democrats (including a record number of women) were elected to Congress.

Right. Like the existence of polio is responsible for the development of a polio vaccine. :D

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9451
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6006 on: February 07, 2019, 08:17:29 AM »
From the trumpsters I know, this was the best SOTU of all time and it secures his win in 2020.

Yep, and Pelosi was scared, and her eyes were blinking "help me" in morse code, 'cos Trump is just so awesome. Apparently.

I didn't watch it.

I liked the part when Trump took credit for the Democratic women who were elected to government.  :P

Well to be fair, he is the reason many Democrats (including a record number of women) were elected to Congress.

While I acknowledge that many of the women who were elected to the 116th congress were boosted by voters dissatisfied with DJT and the 115th, I don't want our country to fall into this trap of thinking we now have solid representation of women in congress.  Of the 535 legislators, only 123 are women (23%).  We need another 145 women (and an equal number less men) before we approach equal gender representaiton.  In the WH we've got 3/16 cabinet members (19%).  If you include all the men who served but have since left (e.g. Sessions, Tillerson, Mattis, Price, Pruit etc) it's even worse.

99 years ago (white) women in the US got the right to vote.  We've still got a ways to go.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6007 on: February 07, 2019, 08:52:13 AM »

In each of these cases, the SOTU represents an opportunity to try to regain some positive momentum for the President. It's a very pro-executive part of our culture and politics.

@talltexan - Would you say that DJT succeeded in regaining positive momentum with this SOTU - or is this going to be a dead-cat bounce?

Trump has a unique ability to squander momentum on those occasions in which he builds it. But--yes--I would say that this speech was a net positive for him.

We also have a rally to watch in El Paso, TX, next week.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7880
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6008 on: February 07, 2019, 09:03:00 AM »
We need another 145 women (and an equal number less men) before we approach equal gender representaiton.

Do we need equal representation, or just something sort of close?

Do we also need 13% of Congress to be black and 14% to be Asian?  That Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lady is currently the youngest person in Congress at age 29, but approximately 30% of the country is younger than she is.  Where is the equal representation for them?

How about equal representation for renters instead of only electing homeowners?  For blondes vs brunettes?  For the diabetic, for cancer survivors, for military veterans and police, for union members?  At what point do we accept that it's possible for a person to represent diverse interests beyond the ones of their own personal demographic group?

I'm totally in favor of increasing the percentage of women in Congress.  I just don't think it makes sense to mandate percentages, or even expect percentages that reflect the country as a whole, for every minority group you can think of.  In fact, it seems kind of bigoted to single out the gender disparity as THE most important disparity in congressional representation, as if the others don't matter.  It's probably more important to elect representatives that have a diversity of opinions reflective of the country, than to elect a demographic mirror of reps with skewed views.  I don't think too many people would be happy if Congress was 51% Sarah Palin clones.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3631
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6009 on: February 07, 2019, 09:05:01 AM »
"There will be enough women on the Supreme Court when there are nine."

Ruth Bader Ginsberg

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6010 on: February 07, 2019, 09:11:56 AM »
I'm also not into having strict quotas or percentages that mirror the population. I would rather have global changes in our society that both improve quality of life for everyone, as well as make it easier for women and minorities to participate in any area of society they choose, government included. Decent public education, universal health care, and paid maternity/paternity leave would be great for starters.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6011 on: February 07, 2019, 09:27:17 AM »
We need another 145 women (and an equal number less men) before we approach equal gender representaiton.

Do we need equal representation, or just something sort of close?

Do we also need 13% of Congress to be black and 14% to be Asian?  That Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lady is currently the youngest person in Congress at age 29, but approximately 30% of the country is younger than she is.  Where is the equal representation for them?

How about equal representation for renters instead of only electing homeowners?  For blondes vs brunettes?  For the diabetic, for cancer survivors, for military veterans and police, for union members?  At what point do we accept that it's possible for a person to represent diverse interests beyond the ones of their own personal demographic group?

I'm totally in favor of increasing the percentage of women in Congress.  I just don't think it makes sense to mandate percentages, or even expect percentages that reflect the country as a whole, for every minority group you can think of.  In fact, it seems kind of bigoted to single out the gender disparity as THE most important disparity in congressional representation, as if the others don't matter.  It's probably more important to elect representatives that have a diversity of opinions reflective of the country, than to elect a demographic mirror of reps with skewed views.  I don't think too many people would be happy if Congress was 51% Sarah Palin clones.
I would say that, in a representative democracy, having some semblance of representation of those percentage populations in congress is appropriate. Demographics are a simple heuristic for that, but obviously flawed and problematic to apply rigorously as a metric. But the system is fundamentally not set up for equal representation anyways due to the disproportionate representation of rural areas through assignment of the number of Representatives and Senators. That said, congress sure does look old and white and the 100-year trend line of increased diversity is good IMO.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9451
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6012 on: February 07, 2019, 09:36:13 AM »
We need another 145 women (and an equal number less men) before we approach equal gender representaiton.

Do we need equal representation, or just something sort of close?

Something sort of close would be nice, and indicate a level of representation we don't currently have (i.e. we're a pretty diverse nation still rule by old white men).  Looking at trends or multi-year average could also be informative - and for teh GOP it's generally abysmal.  Dems are dong better, but we're still a long way away.  There's always going to be fluctuation as 'every race is local' - but on that same vein if we ever reach a point where women are equally represented you'd expect some years for the women to outnumber the men.  That seems like a fantasy.

As for age - ::shrug::.  To start you can't include anyone under 18 in your demographic averages since you have to be that old just to run. And experience does count for something.  Since congress is roughly equivalent to management, I'd compare the median age of managers and see how that compared to members of the legislature.  I'm guessing congress is still way older, as it seems one of the only occupations where septegenarians are commonplace.

Quotas - no.  But my republican FIL uses that as a straw argument for why the GOP is predominatly white, male and old.  You can actively recruit and support a diversity of candidates without setting up a quota system.  Successful businesses try to do this all the time, because they realize it's not in their best interest to have upper management all look and think the same.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1355
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6013 on: February 07, 2019, 09:39:01 AM »
We need another 145 women (and an equal number less men) before we approach equal gender representaiton.

Do we need equal representation, or just something sort of close?

Do we also need 13% of Congress to be black and 14% to be Asian?  That Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lady is currently the youngest person in Congress at age 29, but approximately 30% of the country is younger than she is.  Where is the equal representation for them?

How about equal representation for renters instead of only electing homeowners?  For blondes vs brunettes?  For the diabetic, for cancer survivors, for military veterans and police, for union members?  At what point do we accept that it's possible for a person to represent diverse interests beyond the ones of their own personal demographic group?

I'm totally in favor of increasing the percentage of women in Congress.  I just don't think it makes sense to mandate percentages, or even expect percentages that reflect the country as a whole, for every minority group you can think of.  In fact, it seems kind of bigoted to single out the gender disparity as THE most important disparity in congressional representation, as if the others don't matter.  It's probably more important to elect representatives that have a diversity of opinions reflective of the country, than to elect a demographic mirror of reps with skewed views.  I don't think too many people would be happy if Congress was 51% Sarah Palin clones.

My initial thoughts on this are pretty similar to yours, however I don't think anything Nereo said suggested mandating percentages or that the lack of representation from other groups doesn't matter.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6014 on: February 07, 2019, 09:56:48 AM »

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3631
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6015 on: February 07, 2019, 09:58:03 AM »
We need another 145 women (and an equal number less men) before we approach equal gender representaiton.

Do we need equal representation, or just something sort of close?

Something sort of close would be nice, and indicate a level of representation we don't currently have (i.e. we're a pretty diverse nation still rule by old white men).  Looking at trends or multi-year average could also be informative - and for teh GOP it's generally abysmal.  Dems are dong better, but we're still a long way away.  There's always going to be fluctuation as 'every race is local' - but on that same vein if we ever reach a point where women are equally represented you'd expect some years for the women to outnumber the men.  That seems like a fantasy.

As for age - ::shrug::.  To start you can't include anyone under 18 in your demographic averages since you have to be that old just to run. And experience does count for something.  Since congress is roughly equivalent to management, I'd compare the median age of managers and see how that compared to members of the legislature.  I'm guessing congress is still way older, as it seems one of the only occupations where septegenarians are commonplace.

Quotas - no.  But my republican FIL uses that as a straw argument for why the GOP is predominatly white, male and old.  You can actively recruit and support a diversity of candidates without setting up a quota system.  Successful businesses try to do this all the time, because they realize it's not in their best interest to have upper management all look and think the same.

Right. Which is basically the reason I cited RBG above. Her point being, of course, that for years and years, no one ever even batted an eye that every single member of the Supreme Court was a man. If we ever got to the point where every single person on the SC just happened to be a woman, then we'd likely be at a point where sexism wasn't infiltrating our power structures and our unconscious (or hell, conscious) decision-making.

But yeah. Even coincidentally having a majority of women in any major decision-making body any time in the foreseeable future seems like an unbelievable fantasy.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10091
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6016 on: February 07, 2019, 10:34:38 AM »
For reference, here is a recent Canadian cabinet photo.  Notice the women. Notice the wheel chair.  Notice the turbans.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2019, 10:40:04 AM by RetiredAt63 »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7880
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6017 on: February 07, 2019, 10:42:42 AM »
Which is basically the reason I cited RBG above. Her point being, of course, that for years and years, no one ever even batted an eye that every single member of the Supreme Court was a man. If we ever got to the point where every single person on the SC just happened to be a woman, then we'd likely be at a point where sexism wasn't infiltrating our power structures and our unconscious (or hell, conscious) decision-making.

How is this different than saying Congress should be 100% black people?  Does that even make sense?

I recognize the long history of white male oppression in US government, and the laundry list of problems that has created.  But we're all trying to move towards a better world, and excluding any one group from representation does not feel like progress to me.  Asking for unequal representation to offset previous unequal representation just seems like perpetuating inequality, not fixing it.

I don't think anything Nereo said suggested mandating percentages or that the lack of representation from other groups doesn't matter.

No, I'm the one suggesting that the lack of representation doesn't matter, at least not nearly as much as people seem to assume.  I'd much rather see a 9 white male supreme court justices vote to protect the rights of women and minorities than 9 minority female justices vote to abridge them.  Government is supposed to be about what you do, not who you are, and we only shortchange ourselves by conflating those two things and calling it progress.

In the case of the current Congress, the vast majority of female and minority reps do support advancing equality for women and minorities, which is great.  That doesn't mean that white male reps can't also support equality, or that their votes are less important when they do.  And as I mentioned above, the important thing is the votes cast, not just the demographics of the elected officials.  A House full of Sarah Palins would certainly suggest that we had achieved "equal representation" for women, but would be a complete disaster for women's rights.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3631
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6018 on: February 07, 2019, 10:43:53 AM »
Which is basically the reason I cited RBG above. Her point being, of course, that for years and years, no one ever even batted an eye that every single member of the Supreme Court was a man. If we ever got to the point where every single person on the SC just happened to be a woman, then we'd likely be at a point where sexism wasn't infiltrating our power structures and our unconscious (or hell, conscious) decision-making.

How is this different than saying Congress should be 100% black people?  Does that even make sense?

I recognize the long history of white male oppression in US government, and the laundry list of problems that has created.  But we're all trying to move towards a better world, and excluding any one group from representation does not feel like progress to me.  Asking for unequal representation to offset previous unequal representation just seems like perpetuating inequality, not fixing it.

I don't think anything Nereo said suggested mandating percentages or that the lack of representation from other groups doesn't matter.

No, I'm the one suggesting that the lack of representation doesn't matter, at least not nearly as much as people seem to assume.  I'd much rather see a 9 white male supreme court justices vote to protect the rights of women and minorities than 9 minority female justices vote to abridge them.  Government is supposed to be about what you do, not who you are, and we only shortchange ourselves by conflating those two things and calling it progress.

In the case of the current Congress, the vast majority of female and minority reps do support advancing equality for women and minorities, which is great.  That doesn't mean that white male reps can't also support equality, or that their votes are less important when they do.  And as I mentioned above, the important thing is the votes cast, not just the demographics of the elected officials.  A House full of Sarah Palins would certainly suggest that we had achieved "equal representation" for women, but would be a complete disaster for women's rights.

I think you are reading into my remarks what you want to read into my remarks.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7880
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6019 on: February 07, 2019, 10:57:08 AM »
I think you are reading into my remarks what you want to read into my remarks.

I don't "want" to read anything into your remarks.  My post could stand alone without referencing yours, it was just a convenient lead in.

My point was just that "equal representation" sounds good to lots of people, but doesn't really mean much by itself.  What most of us want is for our elected representatives to govern correctly, and I don't think the color of your skin and your sex organs have much bearing on your ability to do that.  If we only selected candidates on the basis of expanding diversity in Congress, we might not get where we want to go as quickly as we hoped.

Maybe it's better to vote for people who actually support the causes we believe in.  I think there are competent white male politicians from very liberal district, who support equality and diversity, who face significant headwinds against female or minority opponents with less demonstrated commitment to advancing equality.  We've become so polarized in some cases that we can't look past a person's assigned identity to see what they actually support, and that's a little bit racist.  Unintentional, reverse racist, but still a little racist.  The whole point of the civil rights movement was that we're supposed to look past skin color, not vote based on it.

Even Trump has a woman and a black guy in his cabinet, but no one gives him one iota of credit for advancing black rights or women's rights, because those two people actively undermine social progress for the minority groups they come from. 

The whole problem with "identity politics" is that it's too easy to reduce people to obvious labels based on their appearances, instead of who they are really are and what they stand for.
 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3631
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6020 on: February 07, 2019, 10:59:55 AM »
I think you are reading into my remarks what you want to read into my remarks.

I don't "want" to read anything into your remarks.  My post could stand alone without referencing yours, it was just a convenient lead in.

My point was just that "equal representation" sounds good to lots of people, but doesn't really mean much by itself.  What most of us want is for our elected representatives to govern correctly, and I don't think the color of your skin and your sex organs have much bearing on your ability to do that.  If we only selected candidates on the basis of expanding diversity in Congress, we might not get where we want to go as quickly as we hoped.

Maybe it's better to vote for people who actually support the causes we believe in.  I think there are competent white male politicians from very liberal district, who support equality and diversity, who face significant headwinds against female or minority opponents with less demonstrated commitment to advancing equality.  We've become so polarized in some cases that we can't look past a person's assigned identity to see what they actually support, and that's a little bit racist.  Unintentional, reverse racist, but still a little racist.  The whole point of the civil rights movement was that we're supposed to look past skin color, not vote based on it.

Even Trump has a woman and a black guy in his cabinet, but no one gives him one iota of credit for advancing black rights or women's rights, because those two people actively undermine social progress for the minority groups they come from. 

The whole problem with "identity politics" is that it's too easy to reduce people to obvious labels based on their appearances, instead of who they are really are and what they stand for.

Sure.

And I'm glad you say your post can stand independently of my remarks. Because the two, as far as I can tell, don't have a lot to do with one another.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10091
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6021 on: February 07, 2019, 11:03:44 AM »
I suppose we will have full equality when a totally female or POC Supreme Court (or any other major group) elicits as little comment as a Supreme Court of all old white men (which it is not now, but was for a long time, without comment).

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12531
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6022 on: February 07, 2019, 11:54:49 AM »
Which is basically the reason I cited RBG above. Her point being, of course, that for years and years, no one ever even batted an eye that every single member of the Supreme Court was a man. If we ever got to the point where every single person on the SC just happened to be a woman, then we'd likely be at a point where sexism wasn't infiltrating our power structures and our unconscious (or hell, conscious) decision-making.

How is this different than saying Congress should be 100% black people?  Does that even make sense?

I recognize the long history of white male oppression in US government, and the laundry list of problems that has created.  But we're all trying to move towards a better world, and excluding any one group from representation does not feel like progress to me.  Asking for unequal representation to offset previous unequal representation just seems like perpetuating inequality, not fixing it.

You've kinda answered the question "Do we need equal representation?" that you posed earlier then, haven't you?

If representation is 'just kinda close', then there will be swings that favor one particular group over another.  There are only nine people on the Supreme Court, and 50.52% of the US is female.  It's well within the realm of possibility that the entire supreme court be female if we had equality.


I don't think anything Nereo said suggested mandating percentages or that the lack of representation from other groups doesn't matter.

No, I'm the one suggesting that the lack of representation doesn't matter, at least not nearly as much as people seem to assume.  I'd much rather see a 9 white male supreme court justices vote to protect the rights of women and minorities than 9 minority female justices vote to abridge them.  Government is supposed to be about what you do, not who you are, and we only shortchange ourselves by conflating those two things and calling it progress.

Wait, wait.  What?  If lack of representation doesn't matter . . . why is having nine women on the supreme court a huge step backward?  :P

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7880
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6023 on: February 07, 2019, 12:09:32 PM »
Wait, wait.  What?  If lack of representation doesn't matter . . . why is having nine women on the supreme court a huge step backward?  :P

It's not a huge step backwards, I'm just not sure that it's necessarily a huge step forward either.  People talk about it like it's the new be-all-end-all of progressive politics, and I think that's just falling prey to the same kind of identity politics that got us into this spot in the first place.  Clarence Thomas is black, but firmly opposes minority rights.  If the entire SC was like him, would the black community celebrate having 100% "representation"? 

Is your skin color or gender more important than your voting record?  What kind of representation do minority communities really want, appearances or values?  If it's the latter, is it possible to find champions of minority causes from members of majority populations?
« Last Edit: February 07, 2019, 12:11:54 PM by sol »

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2196
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6024 on: February 07, 2019, 01:05:39 PM »
In terms of actual policy, a person's voting record and functional ability to draft and collaborate on legislation are key, and trump a person's gender/religion/economic/sexual/race/hobby/haircut/fashion identities (granted, some of those are more important than others). Part of the value in having good representation of multiple identities across groups is that people are tribal, and need to see themselves in their government in order to have trust in it. Part of the backlash against the inclusion of diversity in congress has frankly been that it no longer looks exclusively like the former power group of white WASPs. The reality is that more Clarence Thomases on the SCOTUS would be a mixed bag. Part would be that Thomas is fucking terrible. But, part would be minorities saying, "hey, I can be there too." The world is not rational. The legistlative branch is ultimately about making bills, but the composition of the combined houses also serves the function of people feeling represented in more than a logical fashion. It would be great if we, as a society, no longer needed those visual/cultural tools and could apply a Spock-like focus to voting records and what was best for us (minorities and all). However, it would be incredibly naive to think we are not generations from being there, if we ever get there at all in this form of government. In a sense, you're all right for different reasons and within the context of each others set of assumptions, each other could be viewed as wrong or missing the point.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2019, 01:09:35 PM by Glenstache »

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3744
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6025 on: February 07, 2019, 01:07:45 PM »
In the tech company I work for there is this huge push to recruit and hire people from all walks of life so the workforce is representative of the customer base, which is, idealistically, the entire world. The company is very truly serious about this, not do the usual fuzzy, hand-wavy reasons that companies often approach their diversity and inclusion programs, but for the very concrete reason that they recognize they can only build successful products that appeal to everyone of everyone’s perspectives are understood at product creation. This means that you don’t just create a product and test it with your coworkers bros, call it good, and launch. There is this elaborate process to see how the product would be seen for people in different languages, time zones, keyboard layouts, various disabilities, ages, income profiles, on and on and on.

The bottom line is that I see a top company seeing the concrete value in making sure as many viewpoints are gathered as possible because it materially improves the quality of products it produces. Similarly I can see that if a government is supposed to work for all of us then necessarily it should understand our different walks of life, needs, challenges, and strengths. Business recognizes that it is awesome to have an open mind but sometimes nothing replaces a set of eye with a different perspective from you because they will see things you just don’t. I don’t think it is a stretch to extend the same concept to government.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9451
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6026 on: February 07, 2019, 01:14:38 PM »
For reference, here is a recent Canadian cabinet photo.  Notice the women. Notice the wheel chair.  Notice the turbans.

Indirectly this reminds me how silly it has been to have capped our legislative representitives at 535 back in 1913 back when the US had a population of about 92 million. Today we have the same number of House members even though our population has almost quadrupled.

The cabinet is similar - only a handful have been added since WWII despite the population boom and vastly more diverse economy and globalization.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12531
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6027 on: February 07, 2019, 01:30:26 PM »
Wait, wait.  What?  If lack of representation doesn't matter . . . why is having nine women on the supreme court a huge step backward?  :P

It's not a huge step backwards, I'm just not sure that it's necessarily a huge step forward either.

I wouldn't say that 9 women on the court is a huge step forwards.  But I think that accepting it as a relatively normal/innocuous thing would be . . . because nobody would bat an eye at 9 male supreme court justices.

People talk about it like it's the new be-all-end-all of progressive politics, and I think that's just falling prey to the same kind of identity politics that got us into this spot in the first place.  Clarence Thomas is black, but firmly opposes minority rights.  If the entire SC was like him, would the black community celebrate having 100% "representation"? 

Is your skin color or gender more important than your voting record?  What kind of representation do minority communities really want, appearances or values?  If it's the latter, is it possible to find champions of minority causes from members of majority populations?

I partly agree with you.  Voting record is pretty important.  However no matter how good the voting record of the people in government is . . . there's something fundamentally wrong if your government doesn't at least somewhat reflect the sex and race of the people in the country.  Even if every guy in the room is pro-woman's rights . . . it's still indicative of a big problem if there are only guys in the room.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1896
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6028 on: February 07, 2019, 03:20:45 PM »
I'd much rather have a liberal straight white Christian man on the Supreme Court than a Roy Cohn or Betsy DeVos or Kanye West

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1884
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6029 on: February 07, 2019, 04:09:30 PM »
Looks like this whole checks and balances thing that I learned about in High School actually works - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/adam-schiff-trump-white-house-staffers/index.html

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9451
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6030 on: February 07, 2019, 05:16:25 PM »
Looks like this whole checks and balances thing that I learned about in High School actually works - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/07/politics/adam-schiff-trump-white-house-staffers/index.html

Congressional oversight is just beginning, and the opening salvos have been fired.  We'll see how successful this administration is at blocking now.  No doubt they will claim everything from "executive privilege' to 'national security' to a wide variety of legal challenges.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2125
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6031 on: February 08, 2019, 07:06:26 AM »
My in-laws have fallen prey to the Fox News siren call over the last dozen years.

My Father-in-Law tries to talk business with me, but seems to believe I am unreasonable about Trump. While he accepts that Trump lacks many of the basic understandings of government a President should have, he thinks:

1. The firing of Jim Comey was a completely normal exercise of Presidential authority, and
2. The Mueller/House investigations are simply "picking on" Trump unfairly

It's clear that Comey is no hero--he's done things at several points to simply try to edify himself--I do not know how to push back on someone and try to make the argument that #1. was one of the most unusual things any President has done, and probably Trump's single worst decision since 1/20/2017.

I figure #2. is simply a completely partisan question, so I'm not going to try to persuade people about it.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9451
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6032 on: February 08, 2019, 07:27:36 AM »
My in-laws have fallen prey to the Fox News siren call over the last dozen years.

My Father-in-Law tries to talk business with me, but seems to believe I am unreasonable about Trump. While he accepts that Trump lacks many of the basic understandings of government a President should have, he thinks:

1. The firing of Jim Comey was a completely normal exercise of Presidential authority, and
2. The Mueller/House investigations are simply "picking on" Trump unfairly

It's clear that Comey is no hero--he's done things at several points to simply try to edify himself--I do not know how to push back on someone and try to make the argument that #1. was one of the most unusual things any President has done, and probably Trump's single worst decision since 1/20/2017.

I figure #2. is simply a completely partisan question, so I'm not going to try to persuade people about it.

My response to #2 is always that democracy works only with oversight and transparency. I'm fine if all administrations are investigated - and to a large extent the last five all have been.  If there's nothing there investigations quickly fizzle out, or are revealed to be little more than partisan politics.  Trump has certainly set himself up for more lengthy inquiries by withholding information (e.g. tax returns), not instructing his officials to cooperate (e.g. "executive privilege") and intentionally conducting business in the dark (e.g. 'backdoor channels', holding secret meetings with adversaries without ambassadors or SoS representatives present).

That - and 6 indictment on high-level individuals within the campaign is a shockingly successful investigation even if no other wrongdoing has been found.  I mean - an army general, the campaign chairman and Trump's personal lawyer are all facing prison time.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1106
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6033 on: February 08, 2019, 10:46:07 AM »
Ever heard of "Arthur's kids"?
Those are "election strategists" or "pollsters" that helped Trump win the election.

This is referring to Arthur Finkelstein, a sort of myth in this business. He invented negative campaigning, so to speak, his special brand was rejectionist voting. His first coup was Nixon. His motto? You have to create fear. Make it appear as if the thread is from the left. And it is always three things fear is about: Drugs, crime, skin color.

He made "liberal" into a curse word in the US.
He made Netanyahu president of Israel.
He made Viktor Orban president of Hungaria (Netanyahu "lent" Finkelstein to Orban).
But of course Orban wanted to be re-elected, and there was no enemy left. So Finkelstein created one. I am sure you have heard of this name: George Soros.
Soros was basically unknown before. But he was the super easy target: Not in politics, so he could not fight back against a political attack. And while born in the country, he lived on the other side of the ocean. And while Soros gave a lot of money for good deeds, he earned his wealth as a speculator. Easy prey.
Funnily enough, Orban could only study because of Soros stipends.




Where do I have that from? Here: https://mobile2.12app.ch/articles/15982301 (German)
I tried to give you a translate link, but it does not work for me: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmobile2.12app.ch%2Farticles%2F15982301
If you want to translate the text, you can use this tool: https://www.deepl.com/translator



« Last Edit: February 08, 2019, 10:55:50 AM by LennStar »

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6034 on: February 08, 2019, 03:48:27 PM »

He made Netanyahu president of Israel.

Prime Minister

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1106
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6035 on: February 09, 2019, 02:54:01 AM »

He made Netanyahu president of Israel.

Prime Minister
lol yeah.
You know what I mean ;)

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
  • Age: 36
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6036 on: February 09, 2019, 05:47:45 PM »
Indirectly this reminds me how silly it has been to have capped our legislative representitives at 535 back in 1913 back when the US had a population of about 92 million.

This is actually the main problem and it's easy to overlook. If you had 10x the representatives, you'd automatically get a more diverse/representative, less corruptible, less gerrymanderable, more moderate House for actually little extra cost.

You can still include the geographical component of the Senate too (i.e. 20 senators per state instead of 2).

I really do think increasing the legislators 10-fold would solve most of the major problems with the election process without a constitutional amendment (at least for the House).

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1106
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6037 on: February 10, 2019, 02:04:49 AM »
Indirectly this reminds me how silly it has been to have capped our legislative representitives at 535 back in 1913 back when the US had a population of about 92 million.

This is actually the main problem and it's easy to overlook. If you had 10x the representatives, you'd automatically get a more diverse/representative, less corruptible, less gerrymanderable, more moderate House for actually little extra cost.

You can still include the geographical component of the Senate too (i.e. 20 senators per state instead of 2).

I really do think increasing the legislators 10-fold would solve most of the major problems with the election process without a constitutional amendment (at least for the House).

The main problem is the "winner takes all" system.
First of all that prevents any minority from getting a seat because even with 20% of people voting for only you, you lose.
Second, the same principle in the electoral college means that there are only a hand full states - the swing states you call them - that influence the outcome of the presidential elections. All other votes are wasted. What was the last Republican president that had the majority of votes?

In all of the elections since WW2 less than 10% of citizens actually decided on the presidency.

Of course there is still change possible, but that only happens after the hill has already been climbed, und the system makes the hill a lot higher and steeper.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9451
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6038 on: February 10, 2019, 08:05:52 AM »
Indirectly this reminds me how silly it has been to have capped our legislative representitives at 535 back in 1913 back when the US had a population of about 92 million.

This is actually the main problem and it's easy to overlook. If you had 10x the representatives, you'd automatically get a more diverse/representative, less corruptible, less gerrymanderable, more moderate House for actually little extra cost.

You can still include the geographical component of the Senate too (i.e. 20 senators per state instead of 2).

I really do think increasing the legislators 10-fold would solve most of the major problems with the election process without a constitutional amendment (at least for the House).

The main problem is the "winner takes all" system.
First of all that prevents any minority from getting a seat because even with 20% of people voting for only you, you lose.
Second, the same principle in the electoral college means that there are only a hand full states - the swing states you call them - that influence the outcome of the presidential elections. All other votes are wasted. What was the last Republican president that had the majority of votes?

In all of the elections since WW2 less than 10% of citizens actually decided on the presidency.

Of course there is still change possible, but that only happens after the hill has already been climbed, und the system makes the hill a lot higher and steeper.
A big reason why I like Maine's 'ranked choice' voting - it's not a winner-take-all system, and you can have 3rd party candidates without it spoiling the chances of one party or another.  Notable that its overwhelmingly GOP within the state that oppose it.

Perhaps other states will adopt a similar approach.

Whether or not a vote is 'wasted' in a state like Texas or California is a more philosophical discussion.  But in response to your (perhaps rhetorical) question - George W Bush was the last republican to win both the popular vote and the electoral college, in 2004.  He got more than 6million votes over Kerry, and a majority of all votes cast.  That's not to say he got a majority of all eligible voters, as about 40% of the electorate simply didn't vote (which is roughly in line with other incumbent elections).

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7880
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6039 on: February 10, 2019, 09:15:02 AM »
George W Bush was the last republican to win both the popular vote and the electoral college, in 2004.

Um, no.  Are you high?  (edit:  nereo said last republican to win both, not last president to win both, so he's right). 

Bush was also the last present to NOT win both the popular and electoral college vote.  And the fact that this supposedly rare thing has happened twice in our lifetimes, once for W. and then again Trump, is both weird and upsetting and is exactly what's driving the current push for reform.  Any system that routinely elects the candidate with the least support is obviously flawed.

Obama won both the popular and electoral college vote, both times.

From wikipedia:

#    year    winner            el. college pop vote  margin 
54   2000   George W. Bush Rep.    50.37%   47.87%   −0.51%   
55   2004   George W. Bush Rep.    53.16%   50.73%   2.46%   
56   2008   Barack Obama   Dem.    67.84%   52.93%   7.27%   
57   2012   Barack Obama   Dem.    61.71%   51.06%   3.86%   
58   2016   Donald Trump   Rep.    56.50%   46.09%   −2.09%   

« Last Edit: February 10, 2019, 10:11:36 AM by sol »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8978
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6040 on: February 10, 2019, 09:55:04 AM »
George W Bush was the last republican to win both the popular vote and the electoral college, in 2004.
Um, no.  Are you high?

#    year    winner            el. college pop vote  margin 
55   2004   George W. Bush Rep.    53.16%   50.73%   2.46%   

Can't comment on nereo's mental state, other than to note it appears sol's reference confirms nereo's statement.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7880
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6041 on: February 10, 2019, 10:09:48 AM »
George W Bush was the last republican to win both the popular vote and the electoral college, in 2004.
Um, no.  Are you high?

#    year    winner            el. college pop vote  margin 
55   2004   George W. Bush Rep.    53.16%   50.73%   2.46%   

Can't comment on nereo's mental state, other than to note it appears sol's reference confirms nereo's statement.

Ahhhh, now I understand.  W. was the last republican to win both.  I will edit my post above.

He was also the last republican before Trump to win either the electoral or the popular vote, though, so I'm not sure that means all that much.

Interestingly, Mitt Romney got a higher percentage of the popular vote than Donald Trump did, and Romney lost while Trump won.  I wonder how Mitt feels about that?

I think that nereo was pointing out that republicans are historically unpopular, though.  George W. was the only republican to crack the 50% mark in the past 30 years (he got 50.7% in the 2004 election), a trend that does not bode well for the future of the party. 
« Last Edit: February 10, 2019, 10:20:16 AM by sol »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9451
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6042 on: February 10, 2019, 10:19:02 AM »
Yes.. I was commenting on LennStar's question: What was the last Republican president that had the majority of votes?

I seem to have most of my mental facilities in tact, though I am very sleep deprived at present.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8978
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6043 on: February 10, 2019, 10:39:35 AM »
Just prior to the 2000 election, there was some speculation that Bush would win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral college.

In the opinion of many conservatives then, that would be terrible, while many liberals thought that would be just fine.

Of course, when the actual result was the opposite of the speculation, those opinions flipped.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3631
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6044 on: February 10, 2019, 10:54:30 AM »
Just prior to the 2000 election, there was some speculation that Bush would win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral college.

In the opinion of many conservatives then, that would be terrible, while many liberals thought that would be just fine.

Of course, when the actual result was the opposite of the speculation, those opinions flipped.


I was around then. I donít remember that. Perhaps you could unearth some sources for this?

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8978
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6045 on: February 10, 2019, 11:09:51 AM »
Just prior to the 2000 election, there was some speculation that Bush would win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral college.

In the opinion of many conservatives then, that would be terrible, while many liberals thought that would be just fine.

Of course, when the actual result was the opposite of the speculation, those opinions flipped.
I was around then. I donít remember that. Perhaps you could unearth some sources for this?
Not worth my time to dig.  Reasonably sure my memory is correct.  Always possible we had different news feeds, so we both remember exactly what we each read (and don't remember what we didn't read in the first place).

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3631
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6046 on: February 10, 2019, 11:12:12 AM »
Just prior to the 2000 election, there was some speculation that Bush would win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral college.

In the opinion of many conservatives then, that would be terrible, while many liberals thought that would be just fine.

Of course, when the actual result was the opposite of the speculation, those opinions flipped.
I was around then. I donít remember that. Perhaps you could unearth some sources for this?
Not worth my time to dig.  Reasonably sure my memory is correct.  Always possible we had different news feeds, so we both remember exactly what we each read (and don't remember what we didn't read in the first place).

Right.



Thatís what I thought.

lost_in_the_endless_aisle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 856
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6047 on: February 10, 2019, 11:30:50 AM »
I think that nereo was pointing out that republicans are historically unpopular, though.  George W. was the only republican to crack the 50% mark in the past 30 years (he got 50.7% in the 2004 election), a trend that does not bode well for the future of the party.
Hillary Clinton did not get 50% in 2016 either. Nor did Al Gore when he lost in 2000. Bill Clinton didn't crack 50% in either of his wins (winning with just 43% in 1992). George HW Bush's popular vote win margin in 1988 (7.8%) was larger than either of Obama's. Failing to get a majority (as opposed to plurality) has a long history for both parties with notable exceptions on either side. Elections are generally close because the tendency for each party to polarize is balanced by a desire to win by remaining at least somewhat appealing to the median voter. What elections do is send a signal to each party as to how it should ideologically drift in order to stay electorally relevant to a median voter while supplying its more polarized members with enough red meat to chew on; if Republicans can't win elections, the party will have to evolve or (exceedingly rare in US politics) be replaced.

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 691
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6048 on: February 10, 2019, 11:35:42 AM »
Wait, wait.  What?  If lack of representation doesn't matter . . . why is having nine women on the supreme court a huge step backward?  :P

It's not a huge step backwards, I'm just not sure that it's necessarily a huge step forward either.  People talk about it like it's the new be-all-end-all of progressive politics, and I think that's just falling prey to the same kind of identity politics that got us into this spot in the first place.  Clarence Thomas is black, but firmly opposes minority rights.  If the entire SC was like him, would the black community celebrate having 100% "representation"? 

Is your skin color or gender more important than your voting record?  What kind of representation do minority communities really want, appearances or values?  If it's the latter, is it possible to find champions of minority causes from members of majority populations?

This is the kind of thing that is easy for us richish white guys to say, and makes sense on a rational plane but doesn't reflect the reality of a lot of other persons experience.  Academically I agree with you (and used to argue more or less this same point when I was an academic).

However, in practice things tend to work out differently.  A Court or Senate packed with old rich white men is a lot less likely to make decisions and support policies that help the whole population at the expense of rich white men.  Since that has been the reality for pretty much the entirety of the last few hundred years, any other configuration is theoretical.  Theory is fun to argue but doesn't really acknowledge the facts of history.

I'd like to see the point where the gender, race and socioeconomic mix of elected and judiciary bodies elicit no comment.  Where a court of 9 highly qualified women, minorities or whatever is not a point of interest, it just happens to be who was most qualified.  Where a Congress or legislature that has a widely diverse mix of people is irrelevant, and all anyone notices is the policies and issues at hand. Basically where the last of the 'firsts' is somewhere in the past and politically we are over the whole race and gender issues conflict because people are just people.

That's not the situation now.  Right now Congress, the Courts and the White House are dominated by rich, old white heterosexuals.  Here in Canada it is much the same thing (though the current federal cabinet and some provincial cabinets are notable steps forward.  So far we have a few trailblazers and are starting to transition into more women and people with diverse histories arriving in the halls of power. 

We have a long way to go.  Until we get there I'm going to avoid arguing hypothetical 'all women justice' or 'all transgender Congress' situations because they do not reflect reality, and I try to be supportive of our collective growth towards something like natural diversity and representation.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8978
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6049 on: February 10, 2019, 11:46:17 AM »
Just prior to the 2000 election, there was some speculation that Bush would win the popular vote while Gore would win the electoral college.

In the opinion of many conservatives then, that would be terrible, while many liberals thought that would be just fine.

Of course, when the actual result was the opposite of the speculation, those opinions flipped.
I was around then. I donít remember that. Perhaps you could unearth some sources for this?
Not worth my time to dig.  Reasonably sure my memory is correct.  Always possible we had different news feeds, so we both remember exactly what we each read (and don't remember what we didn't read in the first place).
Right.

Thatís what I thought.
And what I thought you would think as well.

Believe it or not, both liberals and conservatives suffer from many of the same human behavioral issues.