Chit-Chat: The Feels

[bluegirl147]

13 minutes ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Here we go again. I post a fact (as I see it) and you all have to dissect every damn word. 

Perhaps you should use the word opinion instead of fact.

[Anela]

Just now, Soapy Goddess said:

Yes, but the same could be said for the Dems. I think we all would have been better off if that had happened.

No. We all had our preferences, but we rallied behind Biden in 2020. He was not my first choice, but he listened, and did a really good job (Gaza aside, unfortunately). 

They could have rallied behind Kamala, but they didn't, and she is the VP! She was right there, ready to step in for him. We already voted for her, too. We voted for *both of them* in 2020. 

[Makai]

On 11/9/2024 at 4:20 PM, peacheslatour said:

I get it. In the end, it is. That's why we need to abolish the Electoral College.

I completely agree. At a minimum I’d like to see an elimination of winner take all and let each district get a vote or split the states Electoral College votes based on the overall percentage each state gets. 

On 11/9/2024 at 4:31 PM, Anela said:

Yes, that's another thing. That happens every election cycle (including the mid-terms), so there are a flurry of posts asking people to check their status. I think I checked three times in the space of a month.

There is supposed to be a period of time in which that isn't allowed to happen. Sixty or ninety days? But they let it go ahead in one of the swing States. 

I believe federal law is that it can’t he done past 90 days out from an election. Many red and swing states have passed laws that use poor methods of to determine who to purge and make it difficult to appeal. Some states even allow people to challenge someone else’s voter registration and a handful of people can be responsible for a ton of challenges. Last Week Tonight did a story on it awhile back. 

Edited Monday at 04:53 AM by Makai

[Soapy Goddess]

2 minutes ago, Anela said:

No. We all had our preferences, but we rallied behind Biden in 2020. He was not my first choice, but he listened, and did a really good job (Gaza aside, unfortunately). 

They could have rallied behind Kamala, but they didn't, and she is the VP! She was right there, ready to step in for him. We already voted for her, too. We voted for *both of them* in 2020. 

Right, but unfortunately Pelosi, etc. didn't see it that way. And if we believe the media, Jill wanted him to stay in the race. Apparently it took a lot of convincing before they brought in Clooney and his op ed. So who's to blame? Biden, Jill, Pelosi, Clooney??  There's no good answer.  She was basically "appointed" (or as some say "anointed"), and there was nothing we could do about it.

[bluegirl147]

My opinion Biden should have kept his word and nor run for a second term.  Didn't he say he was only going to serve one term?  That he was going to be a transition president or something like that? I don't want to pile on Biden because he did accomplish some good things but I think he convinced himself only he could save us.  

[Soapy Goddess]

2 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

My opinion Biden should have kept his word and nor run for a second term.  Didn't he say he was only going to serve one term?  That he was going to be a transition president or something like that? I don't want to pile on Biden because he did accomplish some good things but I think he convinced himself only he could save us.  

You are correct. At least that was my understanding too.

[Makai]

45 minutes ago, Anela said:

Republicans could have insisted on a much better candidate. For one.

The Senate could have impeached Trump for inciting an insurrection so he would be barred from running by the Constitution. 

Edited Sunday at 01:14 AM by Makai

[peacheslatour]

3 minutes ago, Makai said:

The Senate could have impeached Trump for inciting an insurrection so he would be barred from running by the Constitution. 

They did. The GOP members refused to convict.

[Makai]

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

Didn't he say he was only going to serve one term?  That he was going to be a transition president or something like that?

No. During the 2020 election there were stories that he indicated to aides he wouldn’t seek reelection but he denied that it was true. 

Edited Sunday at 02:10 AM by Makai

[Annber03]

2 minutes ago, Makai said:

The Senate could have impeached Trump for inciting an insurrection so he would be barred from running by the Constitution. 

Also could've voted to remove every single Supreme Court justice Trump appointed, 'cause when a president has been impeached twice for criminal dealings and for attempting a violent overthrow of a democratic election, I'm thinking that any and all appointments they made while in office should be rendered null and void as a result. They've all been tainted. 

(Could've also packed the courts, for that matter.)

[DanaMB]

1 hour ago, Dimity said:

They are out there, of course, but I know very few people who work in health care or in education who vote conservative where I live.  I don't know if that holds as true in the US or not but it wouldn't surprise me.  

I work in education in a very red county in Florida. It always shocks me how many vote Republican with the way they demean educators and do everything they can to undermine them. I’m usually the lone liberal so I keep my mouth shut at work. 

[Makai]

1 minute ago, peacheslatour said:

They did. The GOP members refused to convict.

We’re both slightly off. The House impeached him. The Senate acquitted him during the impeachment trial. 

[kittykat]

1 hour ago, Makai said:

completely agree. At a minimum I’d like to see an elimination of winner take all and let each district get a vote or split the states Electoral College votes based on the overall percentage each state gets. 

Absolutely.  The Electoral College is ridiculously antiquated.  I'm sick of the age old argument that if we turn to "one person, one vote" that California and New York will be the only states the candidates care about.  THAT ALREADY HAPPENS!  Except it's not those two states it's: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio and North Carolina.  The campaigning circuit is already corrupted so that the two front runners have to spend the majority of their time in the battlegrounds while ignoring other states. And why would you go to those?  Why would a Democrat candidate spend extra time in CA or NY when one less day in Ohio can cost the election?  Or spend extra time in the Dakotas where they stand no chance?  And the reverse for the Republican candidate?  Don't Republican voters in firmly blue states feel frustrated that their votes don't matter?  I know Democrats in Texas and Alabama that are.

According to rural voters and mostly Republican leaning voters, the Electoral College is the only way the "all states can be equally represented".  There's already a major government branch where every state, whether you have 1M or 50M people, are on even ground.  THE SENATE!

Abolishing the Electoral College changes the campaigning game.  It won't pigeonhole candidates to 6/7 states.  Candidates would have free reign to seize new opportunities, and reach out to voting sects where they feel unheard. Maybe people who haven't voted because location wise they feel their vote is irrelevant start voting again.  It doesn't keep candidates to only a few states, it makes them work all of them.

And on a concerning note, I notice both California and New York are gaining more Trump voters so if Dems don't want to be caught blindsided by their two mainstays, extra attention needs to be paid to those two next go around.

Edited Sunday at 02:09 AM by kittykat

[JustHereForFood]

2 hours ago, Dimity said:

They are out there, of course, but I know very few people who work in health care or in education who vote conservative where I live.  I don't know if that holds as true in the US or not but it wouldn't surprise me.  

I have heard many stories about healthcare workers, mostly nurses, being anti-vaccines. Nothing should surprise me anymore.

[Bookworm 1979]

Canadian here. I don't know if this has been mentioned (I skipped some of this thread) but I've read lots of posts from people about wanting to come to Canada. What scares me most about Trump is that NOWHERE is safe. I'm terrified that one day Trump will wake up and gets angry about some imaginary slight our prime minister made, and decides to nuke Ottawa. Or decides he hates King Charles and decided to drop a bomb on the UK. And he's surrounded himself with "yes" people who will let him do this.  He's going to destroy the world, quite literally.

And I'm so angry at the Democrats, who don't seem to be doing anything about this. I hope they're doing some investigating of the election behind the scenes, but I doubt it. 

[Dimity]

39 minutes ago, JustHereForFood said:

I have heard many stories about healthcare workers, mostly nurses, being anti-vaccines. Nothing should surprise me anymore.

That's, sadly, true but statistically the overwhelming majority of health care workers got the Covid vaccine and are definitely not anti-vaccine.  Just as in everything else though we hear about the idiots and not the sane.

[Anela]

1 hour ago, Soapy Goddess said:

You are correct. At least that was my understanding too.

Would you have voted for a Democrat? I'm confused.

But just clarifying, that I was saying the Republicans could have chosen a better candidate. Trump was impeached twice, but McConnell (hate him so much) told them to let the courts handle it. We've seen how they planned for that, too. 

[Dimity]

8 minutes ago, Anela said:

But just clarifying, that I was saying the Republicans could have chosen a better candidate.

The Dems would have kicked Trump to the kerb the day the story broke about grabbing them by the pussy (or whatever the hell it was he said).  Which right there tells me everything I need to know about the Republican party.

[peacheslatour]

15 minutes ago, Dimity said:

The Dems would have kicked Trump to the kerb the day the story broke about grabbing them by the pussy (or whatever the hell it was he said).  Which right there tells me everything I need to know about the Republican party.

Al Franken would like a word.

[Fable]

2 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

Apparently that's all that counts.

You responded to a post of mine about being hurt and emotional, agreeing maybe we need time.  I thought you were being genuine and sincere.  No need to pour salt on the wounds please!  

[Makai]

2 hours ago, kittykat said:

According to rural voters and mostly Republican leaning voters, the Electoral College is the only way the "all states can be equally represented".

Sounds like a DEI program. 😉

[tearknee]

*Bitter and saddened sarcasm* Good luck getting the small states to agree to amend the Constitution to eliminate the EC or the malapportionment in the Senate or the two thirds Senate majority constitutionally required to ratify treaties or UN conventions (such as the Rights of the Child, which has never been ratified).

[Makai]

1 hour ago, tearknee said:

*Bitter and saddened sarcasm* Good luck getting the small states to agree to amend the Constitution to eliminate the EC or the malapportionment in the Senate or the two thirds Senate majority constitutionally required to ratify treaties or UN conventions (such as the Rights of the Child, which has never been ratified).

Yes but a constitutional amendment isn’t the only way to change the EC. States get to choose how they allocate their EC votes. 17 states and the District of Columbia have passed a National Popular Vote bills which have a combined 209 electoral votes. If they can ever reach 270 it will go in effect and those states will agree to give their votes to the winner of the popular vote even if that person didn’t win the state. 

It will definitely be challenged legally if it ever happens. It will probably depend on voting trends in the future but time will tell. 

Edited Sunday at 06:50 AM by Makai

[FilmTVGeek80]

21 hours ago, CheshireCat said:

I understand the sentiment but I think it's more complex than that. I'm pretty certain there are a lot of Trump supporters who embody what I think is the definition of the American spirit, like they’re helpful, positive, welcoming and I believe that for many of them race wouldn't make a difference. 

I believe it's true when Trump supporters say not all Trump voters are racists, sexists, homophobes, antisemites etc. But, as we just saw, it's also true that none of that is a deal-breaker for them. Yes, it says something about the people, but it also says something about the erosion of social norms and values. It tells us that where society draws the line in the sand has changed. I mostly blame social media for that.

That doesn't change that the insults and division at Trump rallies weren't a deal-breaker for his voters, I just don't think we'll get anywhere by saying Trump voters aren't good people and leave it at that. I think it's the easiest way out but there's so much more to it than that and that, if we want change, we need to look deeper and, among other things, at how we can restore the values we lost.

It's what has been so difficult for me about this election. What does it say for the future of society if voters choose division and insults based on empty promises and feelings over unity, decency, hope and compassion based on facts? 

I think that if we manage to hold meaningful elections again, campaigns needs to invest heavily in experts in combating mis-and disinformation. Because I don't think that unless we start with the same basis of facts, we can’t have any meaningful conversations.

 

I haven't been able to watch either speech. 

If it weren’t for a few of my in-laws being 45 supporters, I’d probably believe that all of his supporters are evil racists, but I know that despite their votes, they’re not black and white evil people. It’s a constant struggle to reconcile that. Still, I have a hard time defending them against people who do think the worst of them. I get that some of his voters had legitimate fears and concerns, but the fact that they could put our future in the hands of a sociopath is unconscionable. There are SO many things he’s said and done that decent people should have found automatically disqualifying. I already was leaning towards spending Thanksgiving with some of my relatives. After the election, I definitively made that decision. My in-laws might not be evil people but they are not the people I want to spend this holiday with. 

15 hours ago, Yeah No said:

True but I was giving some benefit of the doubt to the people that were young and duped. I think some of them will wake up eventually and realize where they went wrong. But I agree with you about the hardcore ones, or the true believers, as they're called. Some of them are even worse. He's a chameleon, he doesn't really care about anyone but himself. He really doesn't give a crap about immigrants, fetuses and minorities, he just plays that tune for his own advancement. The people who really DO believe in that stuff are even worse than he is, you are right about that. Those are the people that will kill and hurt others over it. He is as bad as them or worse but in a different way.

Right now I wish I had a therapist. I haven't slept more than 4 or 5 hours a night since the election and it's taking a toll on me now. I feared this outcome but I was hoping I wouldn't take it as hard. I think I'm taking this worse than the 2016 election because back then I don't think I was quite aware of what he was capable of and was hoping for the best, but now I unfortunately am aware and know how bad it could get. And it scares me out of my wits.

I was devastated after 2016, but I really did think he would surround himself with at least a few decent people. There’s no hope of that now. Most Republicans were already boot-licking cowards. After winning the way he did, they’ll be even more afraid to go against him. I think what scares me so much isn’t just knowing this time what he’s capable of,  but knowing the everyone else knows what he’s capable of and still voted for him. 
 

Today, the thought that scared me the most was wondering if we’re going to become one of those countries like Russia who has elections in-name only. I’ve mostly been worried the Supreme Court would chuck term limits and he could run indefinitely. But they don’t even need to do that. The only reason we know the 2020 election was secure was we had someone secure - a Republican - making sure that it was. We won’t have that now. There’s nothing to stop 45 or Putin or that dipshit Musk from outright cheating. That orange psychopath loves to project his own evil thoughts and behaviors on to others. One of the reasons he was so obsessed with the idea the election was stolen from him is because it is exactly what he would do - and what he wants to do. 

[Soapy Goddess]

5 hours ago, Anela said:

Would you have voted for a Democrat? I'm confused.

But just clarifying, that I was saying the Republicans could have chosen a better candidate. Trump was impeached twice, but McConnell (hate him so much) told them to let the courts handle it. We've seen how they planned for that, too. 

Love Amy K. If Biden had chosen her (and this is just my opinion), things might have been different. Also love mayor Pete B.

4 hours ago, Fable said:

You responded to a post of mine about being hurt and emotional, agreeing maybe we need time.  I thought you were being genuine and sincere.  No need to pour salt on the wounds please!  

What's so wrong with saying that the electoral votes are all that counts? Isn't that the truth? Throw the salt shaker away, ok?

[tearknee]

The question is not why they voted for him, but what they will now get from him.

As is frequently pointed out, Germans who voted for Hitler were not voting for World War II and the Holocaust. But that's what they got.

[Palimelon]

Quote

Google the US election map. The majority of that map is red.

By that logic, Illinois should have gone to Trump, since even though more people in that state voted for Harris, more of the map of Illinois is red than it is blue.

Quote

What scares me most about Trump is that NOWHERE is safe.

Not just from Trump, but from his influence. We've already seen that in places like Hungary, Italy, etc, where people are campaigning and winning on demonizing people who are "the other", and it's emboldened the right even more in places like France. Now granted, the left deserves some blame by moving further to the center on many issues as well, but it isn't just America that is in a "post-Trump" era, but many parts of the world as well. Places like Canada are moving that way as well, sadly.

[tearknee]

1 hour ago, Palimelon said:

By that logic, Illinois should have gone to Trump, since even though more people in that state voted for Harris, more of the map of Illinois is red than it is blue.

Not just from Trump, but from his influence. We've already seen that in places like Hungary, Italy, etc, where people are campaigning and winning on demonizing people who are "the other", and it's emboldened the right even more in places like France. Now granted, the left deserves some blame by moving further to the center on many issues as well, but it isn't just America that is in a "post-Trump" era, but many parts of the world as well. Places like Canada are moving that way as well, sadly.

Ordinary average people* don't use terms like "the Other".

 

Both the left and right use that sort of reductive vocab but it feels more personally irritating coming from the left due to their activist's tendency towards belligerence and self-righteousness. 

*-- The average person is not a member of the university-educated middle class. "We" need a broad progressive movement not a narrow socialist or leftist one.

[tearknee]

Reflexive nationalism and patriotism are not too crash-hot for me, either.

(by the way, is anyone else amused that leftist groups (notably just after Elizabeth II died) seem to think British monarchs instigated and controlled colonial policy rather than elected British governments?)

[Palimelon]

They profited from it well enough either way.

[tearknee]

29 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

They profited from it well enough either way.

But the Royal Family did not instigate it or control policy. Democratically elected British governments did.

Again, as i just noted, progressives engage in as much pseudo-history, "fake news" and propagating mythology as the right wingers they deride for such.

[using AI to help with the below because of my ABI]:

Progressive Myths:

* Oversimplified colonial narratives
* Ahistorical attribution of modern values to past events
* Selective reading of historical figures/movements
* Tendency to personalize systemic issues
* Moral absolutism in historical judgment

Right-Wing Myths:

* Nostalgic "golden age" narratives
* Sanitized colonial/imperial history
* Selective patriotic storytelling
* Oversimplified "great man" theories
* Denial of systemic injustices

Both Sides:

* Cherry-picking facts to fit predetermined narratives
* Presenting complex history in black/white terms
* Using history as a weapon in current debates
* Ignoring inconvenient facts
* Projecting current values onto past events

The key difference might be that progressives often claim the mantle of academic/intellectual rigor while engaging in the same kind of motivated reasoning they criticize in others. This intellectual inconsistency can make progressive historical narratives particularly frustrating for those seeking genuine historical understanding.

Good historical analysis requires acknowledging complexity and avoiding presentism, regardless of political orientation.

[end AI help]

[tearknee]

My friends on the left blaming the British Royal Family, let alone Elizabeth II, for something that they did not cause or control, discredits the attempts to draw attention to real examples of darkness in colonial history.

 

Addition: I am a [Bill] Clintonite. Perhaps, Blairite, if i were British. Again, I support a centrist/liberal allied broad progressive reformist coalition not a narrow leftist sect which only leads to McGovern or Fritz Mondale.

[Palimelon]

Quote

My friends on the left blaming the British Royal Family, let alone Elizabeth II, for something that they did not cause or control, discredits the attempts to draw attention to real examples of darkness in colonial history.

One can do both. It isn't an either/or situation.

Centrist/liberal was a joke sold to us by Clinton and Blair.

[Dimity]

7 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

One can do both. It isn't an either/or situation.

Centrist/liberal was a joke sold to us by Clinton and Blair.

Really? That is how I would describe myself and many of the people I know. 

[tearknee]

"Centrist/liberal was a joke sold to us by Clinton and Blair".

Up against opponents that are not useless (see the UK and Teresa May), leftist platforms can't win general elections or even get close. One's local borough, maybe, but not statewide or nationwide. And in secret ballots, people can vote as they think. Regardless of what they tell pollsters.

[Palimelon]

Quote

leftist platforms can't win general elections or even get close

And yet somehow we see many elections where the right seems to doing ok without having to ally itself to the center.

[fairffaxx]

36 minutes ago, tearknee said:

[using AI to help with the below because of my ABI]:

What does ABI mean?

[bluegirl147]

10 minutes ago, Palimelon said:

 

Centrist/liberal was a joke sold to us by Clinton and Blair.

 

2 minutes ago, Dimity said:

Really? That is how I would describe myself and many of the people I know. 

The problem is what is considered centrist is farther right now because the right is so much farther right. I mean Joe Manchin was called centrist.   

[Palimelon]

Bingo.

And it was arguably during the reigns of Clinton and Blair when that started happening.

[Dimity]

2 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

 

The problem is what is considered centrist is farther right now because the right is so much farther right. I mean Joe Manchin was called centrist.   

Perhaps  as well I am speaking from a Canadian perspective. Left of centre here would be the NDP or the Green party.

[bluegirl147]

5 minutes ago, tearknee said:

"Centrist/liberal was a joke sold to us by Clinton and Blair".

Up against opponents that are not useless (see the UK and Teresa May), leftist platforms can't win general elections or even get close. One's local borough, maybe, but not statewide or nationwide. And in secret ballots, people can vote as they think. Regardless of what they tell pollsters.

"Lefist" platforms fall victim to the opposition from the right that calls everything socialism or taking freedom away.  I know people who refuse to sign up for the ACA because they don't want to pay anything for health insurance.  So I say oh so you want universal health care.  And they say no that is socialism.  So then what the fuck do they want?  To die from a preventable disease?

[Browncoat]

1 minute ago, bluegirl147 said:

"Lefist" platforms fall victim to the opposition from the right that calls everything socialism or taking freedom away.  I know people who refuse to sign up for the ACA because they don't want to pay anything for health insurance.  So I say oh so you want universal health care.  And they say no that is socialism.  So then what the fuck do they want?  To die from a preventable disease?

But don't dare touch their Social Security!

[tearknee]

11 minutes ago, fairffaxx said:

What does ABI mean?

Acquired Brain Injury.

 

Edited Sunday at 02:03 PM by tearknee

[Enigma X]

I think before these 4 years are over, many Trump voters and non-voters are gonna be really disappointed in the "concepts of a plan" when it comes to health coverage (and everything else).

[Dimity]

3 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

"Lefist" platforms fall victim to the opposition from the right that calls everything socialism or taking freedom away.  I know people who refuse to sign up for the ACA because they don't want to pay anything for health insurance.  So I say oh so you want universal health care.  And they say no that is socialism.  So then what the fuck do they want?  To die from a preventable disease?

From what I can gather many who oppose the ACA or any form of universal health care want others to die from preventable diseases, they think somehow they will be the magical exception.

[bluegirl147]

1 minute ago, Enigma X said:

I think before these 4 years are over, many Trump voters and non-voters are gonna be really disappointed in the "concepts of a plan" when it comes to health coverage (and everything else).

But who are they going to blame?

[tearknee]

5 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

"Lefist" platforms fall victim to the opposition from the right that calls everything socialism or taking freedom away.  I know people who refuse to sign up for the ACA because they don't want to pay anything for health insurance.  So I say oh so you want universal health care.  And they say no that is socialism.  So then what the fuck do they want?  To die from a preventable disease?

nitpicking a small typo is a really crappy move but typical. See also: taking advantage of the average person's confusion between sapient and sentient.

[Enigma X]

1 minute ago, bluegirl147 said:

But who are they going to blame?

Obama, H. Clinton, Biden, Harris--the usual suspects.

[bluegirl147]

1 minute ago, Dimity said:

From what I can gather many who oppose the ACA or any form of universal health care want others to die from preventable diseases, they think somehow they will be the magical exception.

You aren't wrong.  I can't remember the name of the book but the author went to Tennessee and interviewed people who would have benefited from the Medicaid expansion if their state had done so.  They were willing to go without so people they deemed undeserving would go without to.   Don't underestimate the hate some people have.  They will hurt themselves if the people they hate get hurt too.

[Dimity]

2 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

But who are they going to blame?

Hunter Biden's laptop and Hilary Clinton.