Do you support these protests against Trump?

[b_line]

Forgive me, Arne, but that's insulting.
Although I didn't vote for Trump (I didn't), there's no way that tens of millions of people voted for him because they're "kinda racist."

My daughter (kindergarten) has a teacher (woman) that is the nicest, sweetest, person you'll ever meet.
She was ecstatic over his election because she's tired of career politicians making business decisions. Maybe she's dumb. But she's not a racist.

I have another friend that's a black cop that feels EXACTLY the same way.

Only reason(s) I'm here. To defend those people who have a different vision of what happened than others do. They are not bashing you. You are bashing them.

That probably came off as a little too strong. What I mean is that unless they just didn't pay attention at all, they knew they were voting for a racist candidate, and that means that they were alright with racism existing. In my view, that portends mild racism. I understand your view that it does not.

To clarify though, I don't view myself as post-racism. I think pretty much everyone in this country has a little bit if mild racism. For me, I feel it as a positive feeling when I see people of color succeeding or doing something I view as out of the normally portrayed stereotype for them. It's not a bad thing, it'd just something that exists.

Louis ck talked about it in his snl monologue, it's long, but I think it portrays the mild racism I'm talking about.

[video=youtube_share;crjrWF-RRlg]https://youtu.be/crjrWF-RRlg

 

[b_line]

Forgive me, Arne, but that's insulting.
Although I didn't vote for Trump (I didn't), there's no way that tens of millions of people voted for him because they're "kinda racist."

My daughter (kindergarten) has a teacher (woman) that is the nicest, sweetest, person you'll ever meet.
She was ecstatic over his election because she's tired of career politicians making business decisions. Maybe she's dumb. But she's not a racist.

I have another friend that's a black cop that feels EXACTLY the same way.

Only reason(s) I'm here. To defend those people who have a different vision of what happened than others do. They are not bashing you. You are bashing them.

I also don't think that is why they voted for him, in fact. I think it's not even a reason that they voted for him. But, they did vote for a person who has overtly racist tendencies, and being against racism mattered less than being against something else to them.

For me, voting against racism was a huge factor in my not voting for Trump. For other people, they might have viewed Hillary as corrupt, or they voted anti establishment, and that was important to them. Those are very important issues, and won Trump the election, and hopefully will change the way politics are done in America.

 

[LogGrad98]

I am not prejudiced, I hate everyone equally.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I also don't think that is why they voted for him, in fact. I think it's not even a reason that they voted for him. But, they did vote for a person who has overtly racist tendencies, and being against racism mattered less than being against something else to them.

For me, voting against racism was a huge factor in my not voting for Trump. For other people, they might have viewed Hillary as corrupt, or they voted anti establishment, and that was important to them. Those are very important issues, and won Trump the election, and hopefully will change the way politics are done in America.

Thank you.

Yes, for most, that I know, they were voting for smart business decisions and someone that wasn't going to "make theirs" from politics. The Trump supporters I know didn't even have racism come into the conversation (anymore than Hillary being a "liar" did).

There were real people with really different ideals that didn't involve race.
That's ALL I was trying to say.

 

[♪alt13]

Nonetheless, the electoral college is an archaic nonsensical system that needs to go. I've yet to hear a good reason of why it should stick around.

I think that maybe I can possibly do that(perhaps). I can think of a couple scenarios. Keep in mind states were never meant to hand out their electors in a winner take all manner. I'm assuming that practice would end.

1) The national vote is very close. A Florida recount is one thing a national one would create chaos.

2) Third party spoiler. Another unlikely scenario but it's bound to happen sooner or later. I have to think for instance that if Nader had won an elector that that elector would have voted for Gore.

3) Rigging elections. The Presidential elections are almost impossible to rig for 2 main reasons A) The elections are ran locally and B) because a vote only has impact within that state.

Maybe that's not enough to keep the electoral college but looking around at the way elections go in the world number 3 just might be.

 

[UGLI baby]

That probably came off as a little too strong. What I mean is that unless they just didn't pay attention at all, they knew they were voting for a racist candidate, and that means that they were alright with racism existing. In my view, that portends mild racism. I understand your view that it does not.

To clarify though, I don't view myself as post-racism. I think pretty much everyone in this country has a little bit if mild racism. For me, I feel it as a positive feeling when I see people of color succeeding or doing something I view as out of the normally portrayed stereotype for them. It's not a bad thing, it'd just something that exists.

Louis ck talked about it in his snl monologue, it's long, but I think it portrays the mild racism I'm talking about.

[video=youtube_share;crjrWF-RRlg]https://youtu.be/crjrWF-RRlg

I didn't watch the video, but I totally reject the idea of "mild racism" or everyone being a little bit racist.

Either you are racist and because of that you devalue people of another race than you, or you aren't racist.

The world right now wants everyone to be freaked out that they might be racist, sexist, or homophobic, when in reality it's pretty freaking obvious if you are any of those things.

 

[LogGrad98]

I think I can possibly do that. I can think of a couple scenarios. Keep in mind states were never meant to hand out their electors in a winner take all manner. I'm assuming that practice would end.

1) The national vote is very close. A Florida recount is one thing a national one would create chaos.

2) Third party spoiler. Another unlikely scenario but it's bound to happen sooner or later. I have to think for instance that if Nader had won an elector that that elector would have voted for Gore.

3) Rigging elections. The Presidential elections are almost impossible to rig for 2 main reasons A) The elections are ran locally and B) because a vote only has impact within that state.

Maybe that's not enough to keep the electoral college but looking around at the way elections go in the world number 3 just might be.

I think they could still have local control of elections, I do not see that as being a purely electoral college "thing".

I would be in favor of modifying the electoral college so every state apportions their electors according to the % of the popular vote garnered by each candidate. So in Utah it would have been like 1 to each of Clinton and McMullin and 4 to Trump.

Here is the wiki page about faithless electors, who do not vote for the candidate to whom they are pledged.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

This part is interesting:

On 22 occasions, 179 electors have not cast their votes for President or Vice President as prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 electors changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the electoral ballot (1872, 1912). Two electors chose to abstain from voting for any candidate (1812, 2000).[1] The remaining 106 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the 1836 election, in which all 23 Virginia electors acted together.

The 1836 election was the only occasion when faithless electors altered the outcome of the electoral college vote. The Democrat ticket won states with 170 of the 294 electoral votes, but the 23 Virginia electors abstained in the vote for Vice President, so the Democrat candidate, Richard Mentor Johnson, got only 147 (exactly half), and was not elected. However, Johnson was elected Vice President by the U.S. Senate.

and this...

1 – 2004 election: An anonymous Minnesota elector, pledged for Democrats John Kerry and John Edwards, cast his or her presidential vote for John Ewards [sic],[7] rather than Kerry, presumably by accident.[8] (All of Minnesota's electors cast their vice presidential ballots for John Edwards.) Minnesota's electors cast secret ballots, so unless one of the electors claims responsibility, it is unlikely the identity of the faithless elector will ever be known. As a result of this incident, Minnesota Statutes were amended to provide for public balloting of the electors' votes and invalidation of a vote cast for someone other than the candidate to whom the elector is pledged.[4]

John Ewards. Really.

 

[LogGrad98]

I'd like to see the following changes for the electoral college/election system of the US:

1) Electoral votes per state is CAPPED at the numbers as we now calculate them (according to population), but are ACTUALLY assigned based on voter turn-out. So Utah could have a MAX of 6 electors, but if only half of the eligible voters turned out then it would only get 3 electors in the current election. Could also do this on registered voters, if people register but do not vote then it could reduce the electors a state would get.

2) Electors are apportioned according to the popular vote in every state. So in Utah it would have been 4 for Trump, 1 each for Clinton and McMullin. In California it would have been 34 for Clinton, 18 for Trump, 2 for Johnson, and 1 for Stein.

3) States still control the elections locally as they do now.

4) Standardize voter registration and have ALL districts in EVERY state provide the SAME options to vote, instead of currently where it isn't even always the same county by county in a given state. Provide MULTIPLE options to vote with clearly delineated timelines.

Or just go to a popular vote. However I can see how this would just push so much power into the population centers and really leave the smaller communities out in the wind.

 

[b_line]

I didn't watch the video, but I totally reject the idea of "mild racism" or everyone being a little bit racist.

Either you are racist and because of that you devalue people of another race than you, or you aren't racist.

The world right now wants everyone to be freaked out that they might be racist, sexist, or homophobic, when in reality it's pretty freaking obvious if you are any of those things.

Then watch the video. It's not what you're thinking. I'm not saying people who are mildly racist are secretly hating black people, just that they have engendered stereotypes that they live with.

The Trump vote did show a racist undertone though. Like I said earlier, not everyone who voted for Trump is racist, but every racist likely voted for Trump.

 

[b_line]

Chappelles monologue on snl was awesome.

 

[fgcamel]

I'd like to see the following changes for the electoral college/election system of the US:

1) Electoral votes per state is CAPPED at the numbers as we now calculate them (according to population), but are ACTUALLY assigned based on voter turn-out. So Utah could have a MAX of 6 electors, but if only half of the eligible voters turned out then it would only get 3 electors in the current election. Could also do this on registered voters, if people register but do not vote then it could reduce the electors a state would get.

2) Electors are apportioned according to the popular vote in every state. So in Utah it would have been 4 for Trump, 1 each for Clinton and McMullin. In California it would have been 34 for Clinton, 18 for Trump, 2 for Johnson, and 1 for Stein.

I'd be interested to see what this election would have looked like with these rules.

 

[LogGrad98]

Then watch the video. It's not what you're thinking. I'm not saying people who are mildly racist are secretly hating black people, just that they have engendered stereotypes that they live with.

The Trump vote did show a racist undertone though. Like I said earlier, not everyone who voted for Trump is racist, but every racist likely voted for Trump.

The thing is EVERYONE has engendered stereotypes they live with, because it is how our brains work. Sterotypes are useful in facilitating reasoning.

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman/2008/04/neurology-of-stereotypes_24.cfm

The trick is learning to ignore our impulse to stereotype when it comes to other individuals or groups. If you look at what is being said about Trump supporters it is largely based on stereotypes that can be proven patently false for SOME people, but not false for ALL people, which is the core of a stereotype to begin with.