> The underlying problem in the US is we've stopped talking to each other.
I think the real underlying problem is that 45.9% of the voters decided to elect a fascist to be leader of the free world.
I think the real underlying problem is that 45.9% of the voters decided to elect a fascist to be leader of the free world.
His point was we need to have conversations and real moderate intelligent people surrounding someone like Trump. You push those people away by calling them nazis and the only thing you're doing is leaving a gap for people who don't care if you call them nazis....you know...like actual nazis.
1. I will be called a member of a neo-fascist party
2. People will say that I am a racist, sexist, bigot.
3. I will be fired from my job because I no longer fit the "company culture".
4. People will see me at a public workspace, and move away from me, and refuse to partner with me. Eventually I will be asked to leave because I am making people uncomfortable with my mere presence.
5. My acquaintances will shun me, and speak about me in whispers of "I didn't know he/she was like that..."
This is why I do not speak. I simply cast my vote, and move on.
Why do you think you shouldn't be held accountable for your actions? If you're of voting age, you're not a child anymore. As an adult, you act, and are responsible and accountable for those actions.
Furthermore, if what you want the country to be like is something that others find distasteful, why do you believe that others shouldn't act on that? It's not like like we're talking about the difference between chocolate or vanilla ice cream. You were asked if you wanted a stable government or... whatever it is we have right now. Why don't you believe that would reflect upon who you are, and how others view you?
If you voted for Trump, yes, they will because you voted for someone who is all of those things - you were perfectly ok with his behaviour on those axes.
A third party vote isn't quite the same thing as not casting a vote.
Otherwise, I don't think we disagree?
The POTUS is decided by the electoral vote. If the process was by the popular vote, the candidates would have campaigned very differently and the voter turnout could be much higher.
If the popular vote decided the POTUS, then Trump voters in traditionally Democratic states (think Pacific NorthWest) might have turned out in droves and vice-versa for Hilary.
A hypothetical president who won only 30% of the popular vote, while winning the electoral college, will be enacting policies that 70% of the electorate explicitly voted against.
Even with these numbers, a more moderate (and reasonable) president might still be able to mend the fences put up during the campaign trail. But with such a polarising president, the dissatisfaction amongst the populace will be even more pronounced. This is exactly what we're seeing now.
Yet the administration itself keeps bringing it up. Making up stories to explain it away. As if it mattered quite a lot.
(EDIT: I said "and we aren't even certain about that number because states generally don't keep counting after the state outcome is certain" but I was mistaken).
Can you provide evidence that states stop counting votes after it looks there will be a winner in a specific race? Last time i checked, states take several weeks to provide official results because counting all the votes takes a while.
We have a first-past-the-post system in which only the top two candidates are viable, so 5.7% of the voters didn't prioritize keeping Trump out of office. If we set the bar at "I think this is the best qualified person on Earth for this office" every elected official has only had a small minority. If we set the bar at "of these two, this one is better" Hillary only won by 2% along with a lot of "don't care".
Seeing the US referred to in this way really makes you get a sense for how effective nationalistic propaganda is.
* leader of the free world
* greatest nation on earth
* freest nation in the world
I think he would have done a good job at picking up votes from the "disaffected" crowd that voted Trump over Clinton as a protest, but there's certainly the possibility that he would be lose votes for being too far left.
At this point, I certainly still wish Bernie won, seeing as Trump is president regardless, but I don't think there's necessarily a solid counterfactual that he would've beaten Trump. Either way, I think some of the blame can certainly be placed on Democrats pushing more of the same when people were clearly calling for a change.
[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-is-just-a-normal-...