Author Topic: North Korea  (Read 283 times)

Offline sandopan

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: North Korea
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2017, 03:08:30 AM »
A majority of the voters voted for Mrs. Clinton. I think (hope?) this fiasco shines a very bright light on the Electoral College, which as I understand it was included in the election process precisely to stop such buffoonery  - a way for a small elite to pick whomever they want to pick, ignoring the wishes of the voters. Irony at its finest.

I think that's shining a light in the wrong place.

Hillary Clinton's vote share was the lowest popular vote share since her husband in 1992, when a third-party candidate took almost 19% of the vote.  Her margin of victory in the popular vote was the smallest share since Gore's in 2000.  I'd have a hard time keeping a straight face saying 46.2% is "a small elite", but 48.3% is "the wishes of the voters".  The thing to shine a light on here is not the electoral college, which really only makes a difference, sometimes, in very close races; the question that should be asked is why this wasn't a blowout in the style of Reagan in 1984, Nixon in 1972, or Johnson in 1964 (the last having decisively defeated Hillary Clinton's preferred candidate, Goldwater).

Have a good hard look at the candidate the Republicans ran.  Listen to him talk.  The Democratic candidate was barely able to eke out a 2% popular vote victory over that.  If the election were decided by popular vote share, then perhaps the Democratic candidate would have won.  (We don't really know for sure, because the candidates would have campaigned differently, and the voter turnout patterns would have been different.)  But if the Democrats hadn't run an embarrassingly inept campaign, this would have been an historic blowout, and it wouldn't matter how the votes were counted.  If you barely manage to beat Donald Trump by 2%, and think the problem is the electoral college, I'm going to have to disagree.

A lot of people voted for Donald Trump.  A minority, to be sure, but still a lot.  The reason the Republicans in congress are being so cowardly about challenging a president most of them despise nearly as much as the Democrats do, is because they're afraid of that 46.2%.  If his vote share were a "small elite", Donald Trump would be even more of a laughing stock than he already is - the Republicans would defy him brazenly, whenever they felt like it, without worrying about the consequences.  But they're absolutely petrified of his voters, precisely because there are a lot of them.  Almost as many as Clinton's voters.

I think instead of worrying about small stuff like the electoral college, the Dems ought to be thinking about why they failed so spectacularly to connect with so many voters who instead chose - again, look at him, words fail me at this point.  An historical feat of incompetence - Trump took states that Republicans hadn't won for decades.  In my opinion, where she failed is in connecting convincingly with voters' sense of greed.  Few (including Donald Trump) can match her track record in killing foreigners, and Americans love that.  She's pretty good at spouting idiotic self-serving nationalistic bluster, but probably Trump has a slight edge on that one.  But, she really fails to connect with a lot of blue-collar voters' sense of greed.  Many of these people are outraged - they are in the top quartile of the global income distribution and are angry and bitter that they aren't even higher, despite having no obvious skills that the other three-fourths of the world don't have.  Many of them are unable to live the same lifestyles as their parents or grandparents, and feel that they should be part of an hereditary aristocracy that should have guaranteed spots close to the top of the economic pyramid - Chinese workers with identical skills are not part of this aristocracy, and should go get stuffed.  Clinton's record as a somewhat inconsistent free-trader probably hurt her on this count, but probably more than that, she was just viewed as part of an establishment that hasn't done much to satisfy blue-collar greed for decades.  She went up against an insurgent candidate who promised rainbows and unicorns for everyone, and who replaced the subtle, hidden sort of racism more typical of Democratic protectionists with completely open, unapologetic racism.  The "deplorables" decided he was even more deplorable than she was.

Clinton must have done pretty well appealing to American voters' bloodlust and hatred of foreigners, and somewhat less well appealing to their sense of self-righteousness.  But many of those whose greed and sense of entitlement has been disappointed, for decades now, did not see much merit in her.  Barack Obama was a master at this - nearly all the economic gains during Mr. Hope and Change's administration went to the people at the very, very top of the US economic pyramid, but few since Bill Clinton have exuded fake "I feel your pain" empathy as well as he did.  Which is apparently all you need in the US - just appeal to people's sense of greed, whether or not you are subsequently able to deliver.  Hillary Clinton absolutely sucked at that.  She did not "feel your pain".


« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 04:33:08 AM by sandopan »
Don't commit terrorism.  Washington hates competition.

Offline smartcooky

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1394
Re: North Korea
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2017, 03:34:28 AM »
One part of me says that the rest of the world needs to do "something" about this idiot before its too late and he really can strike anywhere in the world

Another part of me is horrified by the implications of just what that  "sometihng" would need to be.

I think we have little choice but to live with it.

In terms of military action, no country in the world, and possibly all of the countries put together, are in a position to replace the US government forcibly.  Maybe that will change one day, but right now, the "regime change" solution is unthinkable.

Ahem, I was talking about the other idiot... Kim Jong Il
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 03:36:14 AM by smartcooky »
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
►"Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline sandopan

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: North Korea
« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2017, 03:41:03 AM »
Ahem, I was talking about the other idiot... kim jong il

Oh, I see.

Well, I think he is undoubtedly ruthless and brutal, but I am not so sure about "idiot".  I think he'd be an idiot not to want nuclear weapons.  Look at what happened to Qaddafi.  Or Hussein.  If they had nuclear weapons, they might still be alive today.  What the US and the other anti-regime countries are doing in Syria - would they be doing that if Bashir Assad had nuclear weapons?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2017, 03:43:18 AM by sandopan »
Don't commit terrorism.  Washington hates competition.

Offline sandopan

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: North Korea
« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2017, 03:50:56 AM »
Also, I think we're both talking about Kim Jong-un.  Kim Jong-il died in 2011.
Don't commit terrorism.  Washington hates competition.

Offline Geordie

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 89
  • Suspendisse enim veni; remaneat cognitio
Re: North Korea
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2017, 01:39:48 PM »
[...] shines a very bright light on the Electoral College, which as I understand it was included in the election process precisely to stop such buffoonery  - a way for a small elite to pick whomever they want to pick, ignoring the wishes of the voters.
Hillary Clinton's vote share was the lowest popular vote share since her husband in 1992, when a third-party candidate took almost 19% of the vote.  Her margin of victory in the popular vote was the smallest share since Gore's in 2000.  I'd have a hard time keeping a straight face saying 46.2% is "a small elite", but 48.3% is "the wishes of the voters".
The thing to shine a light on here is not the electoral college, which really only makes a difference, sometimes, in very close races [....]

If you barely manage to beat Donald Trump by 2%, and think the problem is the electoral college, I'm going to have to disagree.
I don't mean that 46.2% or 48.3% is an elite, large or small, but rather that the electoral college is in itself a small elite, with the power to nominate someone to the office of POTUS, without being bound to the outcome of the popular voice. Contitutionally they are a bulwark against someone manifestly unsuitable for the position.

I agree that Clinton blew it and think you are right about why the Democrats lost and the ongoing dynamics vis a vis the hard numbers of the substantial Trump die-hard-core.

I agree with your analysis of Clinton's (and by extension the Democratic party's) failures as a candidate. I remember the sudden and stark realization of how much she was disliked by around half of the population.
.           She's on fire\  And she burns through the night at the speed of light\
             She's on fire\  With the heat of the beat right beneath her feet\
              She's on fire\  And the name of the game is to fuel her flame\
               She's on fire, fire, fire, fire, fire!