Elon's Bromance with Cheeto Jesus

[Canuck]

In the southern states of the U.S., a redneck is a reference to a poor white person.
It is used in Australia, too, and is seen as a particularly derogatory term, suggesting that someone is a British version of a country bumpkin with a narrow, racist attitude.

I accept that it could be seen as a comment on vanity.
This is the problem with this organised campaign of disrespect to the president. You have the intent of offending Trump but end up alienating the very people you need to swing back to you if you want to ever re-take the office.
I would have thought that the left would have learnt something from the "deplorable" comments made by HRC.

"If you want to ever re-take the office" you need to respect Trump? That's absurd. The office swings back and forth and will continue to do so regardless of whether Trump gets respect or not. He certainly has none from me.

 

[James Anders]

It is when you claim he wasn't mocking him. The fact is you don't really know what aspect of the reporter Trump was actually mocking, but he clearly used those gestures previously to mock people. So the best you can say is Trump uses grade school behavior to strike back at people he doesn't like.

Come on. I was fairly clear about the mocking being associated with the guys handicap and not just generic mocking. Using grade school mocking gestures is A LOT less offensive than mocking someone's disability. You're working so hard to twist my point.

 

[Canuck]

Using grade school mocking gestures is A LOT less offensive than mocking someone's disability.

Not it's not. It's exactly the same when you do it to a disabled person.

 

[JRP3]

This is the problem with this organised campaign of disrespect to the president.

Did you already forget the 8 year organized campaign of disrespect to the previous president, in which the current president took part?

You have the intent of offending Trump but end up alienating the very people you need to swing back to you if you want to ever re-take the office.

The majority of people didn't support him in the election, and of those who did he seems capable of alienating enough of them to lose the next election.

The fact is people are mocking his choice of skin tone, not his natural skin tone. Big difference. Regarding the term redneck, many "rednecks" are quite proud of the designation.

 

[James Anders]

In the southern states of the U.S., a redneck is a reference to a poor white person.
It is used in Australia, too, and is seen as a particularly derogatory term, suggesting that someone is a British version of a country bumpkin with a narrow, racist attitude.

"If you want to ever re-take the office" you need to respect Trump? That's absurd. The office swings back and forth and will continue to do so regardless of whether Trump gets respect or not. He certainly has none from me.

That's not what he (diesel) said. He was talking about alienating the voters. I still believe most Democrats and their leaders (and Republican leaders for that matter) are clueless about Trump. Let me put it this way...

How bad must things be in this country for the voters to put a "Donald Trump" into office?

Trump wasn't a choice. He was a reaction. If things were better he would have never won the nomination. The people who voted for him where tired of being lied to. Tired of the failures of the both parties. Tired of politicians not doing what they promised. Tired of being unemployed and off the unemployment rolls. Tired of training their foreign worker replacements (see Disney). Tired with the media. Tired with the political correctness. And tired of being called racist for daring to disagree with the former President.

 

[Tam]

...I do not believe Trump was mocking his disability...

That is your interpretation.

Pro-Trump loves his words but others who listen to the same words think it's hate speech.

"I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks."

 

[Canuck]

That's not what he said.

Yes, that is exactly what he said:

This is the problem with this organised campaign of disrespect to the president. You have the intent of offending Trump but end up alienating the very people you need to swing back to you if you want to ever re-take the office.

The only way to interpret this is that if we don't want to alienate Trump voters, we must respect Trump. What way do you interpret it? There's no way in hell I will respect Trump.

How bad must things be in this country for the voters to put a "Donald Trump" into office?

3 million more people voted for Hillary. She would have won in a true democracy. The electoral college put Trump in office. Things are not bad in America. It's far from perfect, but further from carnage, as Trump calls it.

 

[diesel]

Did you already forget the 8 year organized campaign of disrespect to the previous president, in which the current president took part?



The majority of people didn't support him in the election, and of those who did he seems capable of alienating enough of them to lose the next election.

The fact is people are mocking his choice of skin tone, not his natural skin tone. Big difference. Regarding the term redneck, many "rednecks" are quite proud of the designation.

Your Constitution was established with the state delegate system so as to stop the larger more populous states overpowering the smaller states. It is not to meant to be a popular vote. That is by design. If you want to win it back you need to win back the states you lost, not increase your vote in California.

There is another racist term that is used proudly by the affected community in the US. Ill leave it to you to have a think about that. It's all about intent.

 

[JRP3]

The people who voted for him where tired of being lied to.

Not at all, in fact they preferred to be lied to, that is the problem. Trump and his team simply spout lies, even in the face of easily proven facts to the contrary, and his supporters eat it up. These same people believed the lies that claimed the country was worse under Obama when by any possible metric it is demonstrably better than when he took office.

 

[diesel]

Yes, that is exactly what he said:



The only way to interpret this is that if we don't want to alienate Trump voters, we must respect Trump. What way do you interpret it? There's no way in hell I will respect Trump.



3 million more people voted for Hillary. She would have won in a true democracy. The electoral college put Trump in office. Things are not bad in America. It's far from perfect, but further from carnage, as Trump calls it.

The same way a majority of the population were respectful of President Obama. You can respect the person and office whilst fighting their policies. Fight the policy not the person.

 

[James Anders]

Yes, that is exactly what he said:

No it isn't exactly what he said. It's your interpretation. Diesel was talking about alienating voters. Are you just trying to be argumentative?

He didn't say you had to respect Trump. He said you will alienate voters if you disrespect.

 

[diesel]

No it isn't exactly what he said. It's your interpretation. Diesel was talking about alienating voters. Are you just trying to be argumentative?

I was talking about alienating voters as you say.

 

[Canuck]

Your Constitution was established with the state delegate system so as to stop the larger more populous states overpowering the smaller states. It is not to meant to be a popular vote. That is by design. If you want to win it back you need to win back the states you lost, not increase your vote in California.

It's an archaic system to allow "Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states effectively decided the election."

Clearly, it is not serving the purpose as intended. The Constitution can and should be changed to do away with the electoral college. The founding fathers specifically anticipated that the Constitution would be amended as needed, and the electoral college is a prime example.

The same way a majority of the population were respectful of President Obama whilst fighting his policies. Fight the policy not the person.

There is huge difference between not respecting Trump and disrespecting him. I never adovcated disrespect, nor would I. At the same time, he does not have my respect

Are you just trying to be argumentative?

Of course. I have divergent or opposite views to those I am replying to, which is the definition of argumentative.

But I'm not playing devil's advocate if that's what you really mean. I'm just stating my position.

To suggest that calling Trump orange is the same as making a comment about Obama's skin colour is so off base to me and shows a complete lack of historical understanding. They are two completely different things and if we treat them as the same then we denigrate the true struggle of African Americans.

@diesel here's a hint, when you only have 35 likes, but have given out 48 dislikes, something is wrong. Calm down on the thumbs down!

 

[ohmman]

Your Constitution was established with the state delegate system so as to stop the larger more populous states overpowering the smaller states. It is not to meant to be a popular vote. That is by design. If you want to win it back you need to win back the states you lost, not increase your vote in California.

It's also a defensible argument to suggest that the population disparity between the states today makes for a vastly different landscape than when the electoral college was implemented. The ratios have not only changed, the demographic disparity has. At a minimum, I think that rebalancing the number of electors is in order.

It has become a form of static gerrymandering in that it hasn't been adjusted to the time. Already we have 2 Senators per state, which vastly over represents states with small populations. Combine that with an electoral college that makes each Wyoming Presidential vote worth over 2.5x what mine is worth (meaning every 10 years I catch up to a single Wyoming vote), and it's clear that you're not properly representing everyone as intended.

The defense that it's working "as designed" is viewing it through a particular lens. I think a less biased view is truly to ask how to best represent the population while not diminishing the power of the rural vote. Currently, I believe it's much too far in one direction. I'd be interested if someone believes it's not.

 

[Canuck]

The defense that it's working "as designed" is viewing it through a particular lens. I think a less biased view is truly to ask how to best represent the population while not diminishing the power of the rural vote. Currently, I believe it's much too far in one direction. I'd be interested if someone believes it's not.

Agreed but the problem is that Trump supporters in particular, and much of America in general, have been sold this bill of goods:

Your Constitution was established with the state delegate system so as to stop the larger more populous states overpowering the smaller states. It is not to meant to be a popular vote. That is by design. If you want to win it back you need to win back the states you lost, not increase your vote in California.

Instead of these ones:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. —Thomas Jefferson

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. —James Wilson, in Of the Study of Law in the United States

 

[diesel]

It's also a defensible argument to suggest that the population disparity between the states today makes for a vastly different landscape than when the electoral college was implemented. The ratios have not only changed, the demographic disparity has. At a minimum, I think that rebalancing the number of electors is in order.

It has become a form of static gerrymandering in that it hasn't been adjusted to the time. Already we have 2 Senators per state, which vastly over represents states with small populations. Combine that with an electoral college that makes each Wyoming Presidential vote worth over 2.5x what mine is worth (meaning every 10 years I catch up to a single Wyoming vote), and it's clear that you're not properly representing everyone as intended.

The defense that it's working "as designed" is viewing it through a particular lens. I think a less biased view is truly to ask how to best represent the population while not diminishing the power of the rural vote. Currently, I believe it's much too far in one direction. I'd be interested if someone believes it's not.

I guess you can say it is working as designed, however, the make up of states and population has obviously changed.

It is what it is and those were the "rules of the game". If you want to change the rules there is a process for that. The fact is Trump played by the rules as they are written and he won. I know that has been a hard pill to swallow but claiming that he lost because of your chosen metric won't change the fact that he won.

 

[diesel]

Agreed but the problem is that Trump supporters in particular, and much of America in general, have been sold this bill of goods:



Instead of these ones:

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. — George Washington

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. —Thomas Jefferson

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. —James Wilson, in Of the Study of Law in the United States

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all"

Absolutely, if you think the system is broken, try and fix it!

I don't see any serious attempts to amend the Constitution, just complaining, protesting and vandalism.

 

[Canuck]

The fact is Trump played by the rules as they are written and he won. I know that has been a hard pill to swallow but claiming that he lost because of your chosen metric won't change the fact that he won.

No one claimed "that he lost". Now you're just making stuff up. If not, point me to one post that says that. We're talking about the system not being fair. But he won fair and square.

I don't see any serious attempts to amend the Constitution, just complaining, protesting and vandalism.

Leaving out "vandalism", if you follow the history of America, complaining and protesting have lead to significant changes. That's why the Constitution guarantees those freedoms provided they are done peacefully.

 

[ohmman]

I don't see any serious attempts to amend the Constitution, just complaining, protesting and vandalism.

You haven't looked very hard, as there are many. There is a vast amount of work being done legally as well as from a grass-roots effort to change things or move the needle in future elections. Your phrasing is once again indicative of a certain filter that you may be using to view things.

Here is one that is an interesting backdoor approach to moving to a national popular vote:
National Popular Vote

There is work being done to focus on congressional swing districts:
Take back the House by supporting your local Swing District

OFA motivates citizens around single issues and puts them to work educating residents in key locations:
We're Organizing for Action.

These are a tiny snippet of people actually doing things. You probably saw the news, saw a protest, and assumed that was what was "being done," which is excusable. You probably aren't motivated to see that there are hard workers on both sides of these issues. But now that you know, I'm sure you'll lay off the "just complaining, protesting, and vandalism" kind of talk, because it's derogatory and false.

 

[AWDtsla]

I don't see any serious attempts to amend the Constitution, just complaining, protesting and vandalism.

Like vandals throwing tea into Boston harbor?