Trump protestors

[iNow]

"The pendulum has swing somewhat to the right."

 

Tar - Its easy to forget, it's still been less than a week since polls closed and he's not even president yet. Keep in mind he's still got the "-elect" suffix added to his newly minted presidential title. It's 2 more months before he takes the oath.

 

Some helpful context here: Some people haven't yet even fed their cat since Tuesday's election. I've still got bananas that I bought prior to Tuesday's election that are ready to eat and haven't yet over-ripened. Let's maintain some perspective, ok?

 

We don't yet know how far the pendulum will swing nor how far it has swung already. Hell, for all we know it's still headed in the same direction as it was before... perhaps slowly losing velocity as it inches ever closer toward apogee...ready to reverse course, stop fighting gravity, and backlash heavy the other way loaded with the weight of years of repression and desperation and toxicity, and anger.

 

Pendulums do that. That's what we know, that pendulums swing, approach apogee and reverse direction, not how far nor how forceful nor how far reaching the effects of that swing or this election, this new administration, or the secretaries and the judges appointed during and after the transition will be.

 

The "nothing to see here, time to move along folks" style whitewashing you appear to be doing (and which I see steadily quickening across the rest of the population these last handful of days, so I don't mean to pick on you specifically for it) is understandable. Where it seems to fail is how implicitly it asserts that the apogee of this new pendulum vector is already quickly approaching, like it's just around the corner; as if the next apogee is already nearly within reach, ready to nudge us gently once more toward the soft, squishy, utopic center and switch from flowing with gravity to against gravity once more.

 

We can't possible know already just four days later. That's the point. Only time will tell what the proverbial pendulum swing brings.

Edited November 13, 2016 by iNow

[Raider5678]

"The pendulum has swing somewhat to the right."

 

Tar - Its easy to forget, it's still been less than a week since polls closed and he's not even president yet. Keep in mind he's still got the "-elect" suffix added to his newly minted presidential title. It's 2 more months before he takes the oath.

 

Some helpful context here: Some people haven't yet even fed their cat since Tuesday's election. I've still got bananas that I bought prior to Tuesday's election that are ready to eat and haven't yet over-ripened. Let's maintain some perspective, ok?

 

We don't yet know how far the pendulum will swing nor how far it has swung already. Hell, for all we know it's still headed in the same direction as it was before... perhaps slowly losing velocity as it inches ever closer toward apogee...ready to reverse course, stop fighting gravity, and backlash heavy the other way loaded with the weight of years of repression and desperation and toxicity, and anger.

 

Pendulums do that. That's what we know, that pendulums swing, approach apogee and reverse direction, not how far nor how forceful nor how far reaching the effects of that swing or this election, this new administration, or the secretaries and the judges appointed during and after the transition will be.

 

The "nothing to see here, time to move along folks" style whitewashing you appear to be doing (and which I see steadily quickening across the rest of the population these last handful of days, so I don't mean to pick on you specifically for it) is understandable. Where it seems to fail is how implicitly it asserts that the apogee of this new pendulum vector is already quickly approaching, like it's just around the corner; as if the next apogee is already nearly within reach, ready to nudge us gently once more toward the soft, squishy, utopic center and switch from flowing with gravity to against gravity once more.

 

We can't possible know already just four days later. That's the point. Only time will tell what the proverbial pendulum swing brings.

And if the pendulum makes more people happy the farther right it goes, the farther right it will go. And when too many people are then unhappy, all the progress the pendulum made climbing up comes crashing down.

[tar]

iNow,

 

I personally have in the past, and will in the future, attempt to act as a damper to the pendulum. To try and avoid the wild swings, as there is danger at the extremes. Lean against the motion and coax it toward the middle, where things work the best and nobody is too far from happiness and contentment.

 

Granted, the swing to the right is premature, we are still left of center, but it is important to not go too progressive, because then, as Raider5678 points out, we then swing too far right in reaction.

 

Maintaining what we have is as important as progress. Although, to young people, it is always important to fix the evils of the past and map and activate a brighter future.

 

Protesters are mostly young, and feel they have the answers that the older group has missed. Having grown up in the 60s and 70s where one did not trust anybody over 30 and being 62 now, I can sort of see the situation from both perspectives...that of maintaining our gains, and that of securing further gains.

 

Enough to say I backed McGovern and campaigned for him in New Hampshire AND that I am now a registered Republican and like the feel of the suburbs and the countryside, more than the city. It is safe out here, and people watch your stuff and your back, unlike in the city, where people steal your stuff and you need to watch your own back. And politically I understand now, that someone has to create wealth and work to maintain it, for us to be a wealthy country.

 

I sort of get the pendulum thing.

 

Regards, TAR

[iNow]

I am now a registered Republican and like the feel of the suburbs and the countryside, more than the city. It is safe out here, and people watch your stuff and your back, unlike in the city, where people steal your stuff and you need to watch your own back.

Here's where I disagree.

 

There are those same types of people readily found in the city, those folks who watch your stuff and got your backs. In fact, there are likely several millions more of them per square mile than out past the burbs.

 

The suggestion here is that the "helpers" aren't found in "the city," unlike in rural areas where "helpers" are plentiful and only ever as distant as a shout. You assert this based on nothing but your own utterance. No hard numbers. No actual facts. Stop doing that.

 

This us and them, whether now or then, it needs to end. For real.

 

Be a helper. Look for other helpers. Do this and I promise we'll be shoulder to shoulder, pushing forward toward common purpose...you, me, and probably most others here. Kindness is the glue of groups. I'm happy to join you in that bond.

 

Be kind. You can always be kind. Be a helper.

Edited November 13, 2016 by iNow

[Delta1212]

I spend most of my time in the city for my job and I never don't feel safe there. Helped lots of people who needed it, been helped by people, seen lots of people providing help.

 

The way people in the city interact really is differently from how they interact in the country or even the suburbs, but most of that is down to practical considerations, like not being able to smile and wave hello to every person you pass because there is literally no way it would be physically possible to do.

 

But most of those differences are superficial and get taken for a lack of friendliness and cooperation that is entirely at odds with how most people actually interact with each other.

[StringJunky]

I spend most of my time in the city for my job and I never don't feel safe there. Helped lots of people who needed it, been helped by people, seen lots of people providing help.

 

The way people in the city interact really is differently from how they interact in the country or even the suburbs, but most of that is down to practical considerations, like not being able to smile and wave hello to every person you pass because there is literally no way it would be physically possible to do.

 

But most of those differences are superficial and get taken for a lack of friendliness and cooperation that is entirely at odds with how most people actually interact with each other.

Ironically, a thing you lose in the sticks is privacy even though the population density is much less; more people know your business and scandals. Anonymity is more likely to be found within a crowd.

[EdEarl]

Ironically, a thing you lose in the sticks is privacy even though the population density is much less; more people know your business and scandals. Anonymity is more likely to be found within a crowd.

It can work both ways. If you live in the city, you may have many friends and acquaintances who know your business.

[Delta1212]

It can work both ways. If you live in the city, you may have many friends and acquaintances who know your business.

Both city and country are capable of scratching the itch if you desire to go someplace where everybody knows your name.

 

But the city makes it much easier to find a place to go where nobody knows your name if that's what you're in the mood for.

[EdEarl]

Both city and country are capable of scratching the itch if you desire to go someplace where everybody knows your name.

 

But the city makes it much easier to find a place to go where nobody knows your name if that's what you're in the mood for.

In the country it is easier to find a place with no one near, rather than being surrounded by strangers.

[StringJunky]

In the country it is easier to find a place with no one near, rather than being surrounded by strangers.

Being surrounded by strangers is as effective as know one near in terms of privacy.

Edited November 13, 2016 by StringJunky

[Arete]

Being surrounded by strangers is as effective as know one near in terms of privacy.

 

I once had an urban planner describe it this way to me:

 

You walk out your front door naked and:

 

a) no one sees you - rural

 

b) someone calls the cops - suburban

 

c) no one cares - urban.

[StringJunky]

 

I once had an urban planner describe it this way to me:

 

You walk out your front door naked and:

 

a) no one sees you - rural

 

b) someone calls the cops - suburban

 

c) no one cares - urban.

interesting viewpoint

[tar]

Thread,

 

I see I may have inappropriately cast evil character traits upon city folk. That is not my intent. Merely pointing out that there is a different mindset in cities than in the suburbs. In fact, in cities you probably have more cooperation because otherwise you have chaos. Plus in cities you have universities and corporate headquarters and art centers and cultural centers where one can learn what the rest of society is up to, in the way of advances and helpful things.

 

I do go by personal trials and not by numbers in making my assessment that things are safer out here than where I lived closer to NYC. And I would draw a distinction between how a city feels during the day and how it feels at night. Maybe not NYC because it is the city that never sleeps, and there are always like minded people about, but other cities, like Dallas, which I visited 20-30 years ago, is a ghost town, once the offices and shops close, and it is not a safe feel at all to travel the streets. Where you do see people they look shady, and you get the feeling they are up to no good, with no eating places or entertainment places around, or apartments around you figure they are there to steal something or deal drugs or something. But I don't walk around out here at night either with any kind of comfort, because we do have bear and foxes and such.

 

So city folk might even care about each other more than out here. If you are out here, you figure your neighbor has things figured out and has money for food and mortgage and clothes for their kids and gas for their car. Where in the city the guy lying in the gutter obviously needs your help. As you can not give all your money away you look to help in the soup kitchen and establish programs by which the guy can get treatment for his drug problem. Out in the rural areas you wonder why some of your tax money goes to the county seat to pay for drug treatment programs for undocumented guys from central America.

 

In any case, sorry for the thread veer...or maybe its important. The city is more likely where you will find the guy that is afraid of deportation, or that lives in an LGBT community or that lives in a ghetto where social programs are numerous. Here there is actual, factual fear, that one or more of Trump's promises will affect you adversely, and there is at least the innuendo that a republican administration, will take away programs that you or your neighbor count on.

 

But, here is an article that seems to lay out the fears https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/protesters-take-anti-trump-message-to-his-doorstep-and-plan-next-steps/ar-AAkdFyf?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=edgsp

 

"Speakers and protesters have talked about their fears of deportation, having access to birth control curbed, a rollback of same-sex marriage and the potential for racially motivated violence."

​I do not think it is appropriate to break it down into being helpful or being a hater, though.

Regards, TAR

or for that matter breaking it down into being a giver or a taker

Edited November 13, 2016 by tar

[Ten oz]

 

 

Ten Oz,

 

Personally I hated the Snowden deal, and the WikiLeaks and don't like enemies in our computer systems at all. But in terms of Hilary and the private server, the ability for her communications to have been hacked, is doubly possible given the hacking that happened during the election. Trump and the republicans have been on your and my side on this, from the first we knew that Hilary did not maintain proper care of government communications. You don't give your private stuff away, it is very dangerous to our national security. Snowden had a clip drive full of stuff that compromised us in a thousand ways. Our data and how we protected it, has been in the Russian hands since Snowden fled from china to there. We are still paying a security price, I am sure, and Russia's boldness in Crimea may or may not be related to knowing some things they found out through Snowden that weaken us. Dangerous and deadly, for sure. But this is why Hilary's carelessness was such a big deal to everybody, and her deleting what was government records, as they were to and from the secretary of state, was a possibly criminal act. Trump did not want Russia to hack us, he exactly did not want Hilary's communications as Secretary 'of State compromising our security. I saw live his comment about maybe the Russians have the deleted e-mail and it was sarcastic at the get-go, it was not something that he said as a Russian spy and said was a joke later. It was to point out that Hilary's server was possibly comprimised and wouldn't that be especially damning to her, if the Russians had the deleted emails. We could find out what she deleted and know she was compromised, at the same time.

 

I am though concerned that Russia has so much of our communications. Makes us vulnerable.'s

 

But it is really scary to me how negative Trump was toward Obama's policies, and how negative Obama was toward Trump's qualifications. It is not helpful to undermine your president, or your future president. I did it to Hilary, expressing my concerns, so I guess it is normal for people to be fearful as to what dangerous mistakes the third person will make.

 

As is the thrust of the protestors, afraid of Trump putting everyone in jail and deporting everyone. Fear of the other going down some slippery slope toward destruction.

 

But, given that Russia could kill us, and we could kill Russia, and they know as many of our secrets, as they do...what would be the harm, as Trump puts it, for us to have better relations with Russia?

 

Phi is concerned that Trump will be OK with Assad...like that is an evil thing. What if during the Arab spring, we had NOT backed the rebels. We would have Assad in charge of Syria, which we have anyway, and we might not have a quarter million dead Syrians. I am willing, given the dangerous situation of a possible air war with Russia over Syria, to maybe take a different tact in Syria, than the apparent unsuccessful one, we have been on. Helping Assad regain control and kick out ISIS, with Russia, might not be the worst choice.

 

So these protests are understandable. Dreams dashed of our first female president, and social justice, and gay rights and other liberal goals of single payer health care and free college and the like...so a period of mourning is understandable. But there are 320 million wills in the U.S. and not everybody is comfortable doing it the way it was going. The pendulum has swung somewhat right, but that does not mean we won't still find a way to do it right.

 

Regards, TAR

1. Besides, it might not be so bad to have Trump as our president. He is, after all capable. He destroyed a capable field of Republican candidates in the primary, and beat a sure thing first female in the election. The most qualified candidate in history, defeated by the most unqualified in history. And he did it by himself. He, and his family and several loyal supporters, without the support of donors and the media or Washington insiders. Well he did have the RNC and their ground game, but basically he went to rallies with just him and Pence with a few stars here and there. He did not have two presidents and a vice president helping him on the trail, yet he won, which says something about his capability. If you can win the presidency you must have some skills. And he is financially successful and really can do it on his own, and does not need to follow any body else's interests. He can do what is best for America and her people, without fear of losing financial support. And he is a deal maker, and knows how to negotiate, and knows how to walk. And he is not as conservative as Cruz, having once been a democrat and having once supported Hilary, so we may be pleasantly surprised by his ability to reach across the aisle. And he, even as just a candidate, has affected world actors, as Germany I hear upped their contributions to NATO since he said what he said, showing me, all in all, that people are affected by his words, and know he is capable of getting things to work. So protestors who say he is not their president, should give him a chance. One, because he actually is going to be our president. And two because as Americans, we need him to be successful.

 

 

Your response acknowledges it is dangerous but also attempts to move past it with no position on what could or should be done about it. The reality of what just happened is too inconvenient to address. Obviously we can't allow this to happen in the future yet taking too strong a stance against it delegitimizes Trump's win. So we say it was bad but then desire no further action. That is dangerous. What stops foriegn hackers from targeting Senate races next? There needs to be an investigation. Our intel agancies and law enforcement agencies need to be given the chance to ensure Trump in no way broke the law. Isnt that what the FBI did with Hillary Clinton?Why is that too much too ask? If it is determined Trump was not involved, great. He becomes president and we at least have a standard in place for investigating these matters.

 

Hillary Clinton's server as Sec of State has nothing to do with her campaign being cyber attacked by foriegn entities.The two issues are separate and the FBI investigated her server. Legal due diligence has been exercised with respect to Clinton's use of a private server. What more would you like to see done about her server?

 

What you are basically saying is that it was a bad thing but she did some bad things too so it is all a wash. Clinton using a server 4yrs ago was not a crime against Trump's campaign. Obama saying Trump wasn't qualified was not a crime against Trump's campaign. No crimes were committed against Trump. No foriegn entities committed crimes against Trump in an effort to elect his opponent. If we accept even the very worst notions about Hillary Clinton's email server, foundation, Wall Street speeches, and etc they are not crimes against her opponent during the campaign. No crimes accorded against Trump's campaign, period. Crimes did accord against Hillary Clinton campaign and that is a known fact.

 

Snowden and Jullian Assange are wanted men. That is not a partisan thing. Both Republican and Democrat administrations (Bush & Obama) have held the same policy towards their types of activities. U.S. intel says the hacks were Russian. Wkileaks was just one form of releasing the material. Dismissing foriegn entities cyber attacking a presidential campaign as just part of what was an ugly campiagn is very dangerous. We don't know why they did it. You can guess and provide anecdotes but you do not know why they attacked Clinton to help Trump. We also don't know the extent of thier success. We have no way of quantifying that.

 

 

If you ignore the rest of my post please at least answer the following questions: Can you honestly say you know for sure 100% that there is no chance Trump or any of his staff colluded with the hackers? If Trump or his staff in anyway was involved with forgien cyber attacks against Clinton's campaign do you believe he should be allowed to be president?

[EdEarl]

As virtual reality environments improve, our ability to visit the Louvre, Pyramids, Grand Canyon, etc., will become closer to reality; will it matter whether we live in Dallas or elsewhere.

[tar]

Ten Oz,

 

No I can't guarantee there was no contact between the Trump Campaign and the Russians as you cannot guarantee that Hilary's campaign did not hire disrupters at Trump events. There is a lot that goes on in this world that I have no knowledge of. WikiLeaks was, at one point, in past campaigns, a hero of the left, as it embarrassed Bush's administration. We did not investigate and delegitimize Obama based on that.

 

Regards, TAR

there is a danger in assuming that a leader automatically is responsible for the actions of his or her supporters

just because an event helps one or the other candidate or serves to embarrass or disqualify the other, does not mean the other caused it to happen, directly

did Hilary's campaign have the access Hollywood tape and release it, just at the right moment in the campaign, for instance? Can you tell me with 100% conviction that she would not do such a thing?

did Trump arrange the flight schedules of Bill's plane and the Attorney general's plane so they would be on the tarmack at the same time and cause the appearance of impropriety? That would be a federal offence to manipulate the air traffic controllers in that manner. Trump should be investigated. It is a deflection attempt, away from the content of the e-mails to insinuate that Trump and Assange have a deal. Possible, and sensible to make the association, but correlation is not causation.

same way the FBI was held in high esteem for clearing Hillary of impropriety by the Dems and suspected of back room deals by the Repubs...then blamed by the Dems for causing Hilary to loose the election by the Dems and praised by the repubs... one can manufacture whatever shady deals they think fit their narrative.

but it is not logical to rely on the FBI as an impartial honest, straight forward professional organization when it suits your narrative, and blame them for political underhanded stuff when it suits your narrative

and you can't ever say the president of the U.S. is not your president, if you are a citizen of the U.S.

Edited November 13, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

Phi,

 

I looked at the popular vote and as of a few hours ago Clinton won by 217,000.

 

Minus California though, Trump won the popular vote, as as of now Clinton won by 26 points in California with still 1 million uncounted absentee ballots.

 

With 55 electoral college votes, California often puts the democrat over the 270 mark, and when they don't they provide the democrat with the plurality of the popular vote.

 

So saying that Hillary won the popular vote is true, but misleading if you wish to prove that Trump was not wanted by the American people.

 

If California is taken out, Trump actually won the popular vote by more than 200,000. Probably closer to 800,000. So although America often goes as California and New York and Illinois goes, in this case it is obvious that America, other than California, voted, even just looking at popular vote, for Trump. So if you want to respect the popular vote, of people, respect the popular vote of the people that don't live in California, and respect their decision as to what direction they would like to see the country go in.

 

Others on this thread have blamed the Republicans for fear and hatred and division. The Zenophobia, Racist and Sexist labels were placed on Trump and his supporters by Hilary and Reid and Warren. The fear of Trump is in their hearts, and is fostered by them in the hearts and minds of their followers.

 

If people are to be respected, respect the people of the 49 states that voted for the man, who is now going to be our president, and support him, as he is now all of our leader, whether we like him or not.

 

Regards, TAR

 

If you remove the equivalent number of electoral votes that Trump won handily, then he will have lost the popular vote by an even wider margin. Is there any legitimate reason to exclude California, as opposed to excluding Alabama, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc.?

[Ten oz]

Ten Oz,

 

No I can't guarantee there was no contact between the Trump Campaign and the Russians as you cannot guarantee that Hilary's campaign did not hire disrupters at Trump events. There is a lot that goes on in this world that I have no knowledge of. WikiLeaks was, at one point, in past campaigns, a hero of the left, as it embarrassed Bush's administration. We did not investigate and delegitimize Obama based on that.

If Hillary Clinton's campaign was involved in sending people to protest at Trump rallies is that a crime? You keep making these sweeping comparisons as if all wrongs are equal and we just need to move on. You don't know if Trump's campaign was involved and if it was we both know it is absolutely illegal. Yet you arent interested in finding out. So where do we draw the line. If foriegn hacker do this again in 2020 should we investigate??

 

I don't even understand your point about wikileaks. For starters the Obama admin has held the same policy towards wikileaks. And wikileaks did not help Obama win election. McCain's campaign was not hacked and neither was Mitt Romney's. You are just deflecting from the issue.

[tar]

swansonT,

 

In every election and while watching the returns of every state, you see the same thing. A large swath of America is red and there is a little blue around the great lakes, in the NE and on the West Coast. And in each state race, the early vote comes in from the countryside red and later goes blue as Detroit or Miami or Phili comes in with their large city vote. In California, in the area where the two terrorists killed the guy's coworkers, the area is highly red, yet the state always goes blue because of Los Angeles and San Francisco and San Diego. I dropped California, because they are a good indicator of why the popular vote usually goes blue, and why the only way the reds ever have a voice in presidential elections is the extra votes in the electoral college that small population states get.

 

Regards, TAR

Ten Oz,

 

Yes it would matter to me if Trump and the Russians are in bed.

 

But it also matters to me that Russia owns a portion of our uranium due partially to some deal Bill and Hillary were involved in.

 

I am not sure we are talking from different concerns. We want the U.S. strong and free.

 

Regards, TAR

and yes, it is illegal to incite a riot

Ten Oz,

 

As long as you are talking what ifs, what if Clinton's private server was hacked and the protections on it and the passwords were similar to the DNC's. Then it would not be coincidence that the DNC was hacked and not the RNC. And it would be her carelessness that made the attacks possible, not a secret deal between Trump and Putin.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited November 13, 2016 by tar

[Delta1212]

The thing to remember is that "large swathes" of the country are red only because no one is actively occupying a lot of that space and it gets colored in with whatever color the majority of the nearest people, or the people who own it, align with.

 

Here is the electoral map for the 2012 election:

 

 

 

And here is what it would look like if the land area was more evenly distributed among the population:

 

Edited November 13, 2016 by Delta1212

[tar]

Delta1212,

 

I get it, but the picture is not complete. You need to go by county to get the proper picture. In your blowup, there is no red in the blue states and no blue in the red. Then you would see the real picture. Cities go dem, outskirts go repub...usually. And I wonder how the map would look if you gave more size to people with land, or businesses or wealth. Would the red be larger or the blue. There is thread in the protests that deal with what government largess will be removed, if Trump keeps his promises. But what if his promise to bring jobs and law and order to cities is fulfilled? Then the advantage is for everybody that lives in the city.

 

Regards, TAR

Except the criminals and cheats.

[Delta1212]

Since you asked, here is the same map by county:

 

2012:

 

Land given proportions by population:

[tar]

so the 60 million and change that voted Trump came probably mostly from non city areas and the 60 million and change that voted Hilary probably came mostly from city areas

 

The interests of city dwellers are sometimes at odds with the people that live in the small towns and farms and rural areas. That is why we hold elections, and that is why small population states are given 2 senatorial districts, regardless of the population. So that the cities don't always prevail.

although there is obviously democrats in areas that are low population like northern Maine, so the reasons one votes dem or repub​ can and do vary

[zapatos]

 

The interests of city dwellers are sometimes at odds with the people that live in the small towns and farms and rural areas. That is why we hold elections, and that is why small population states are given 2 senatorial districts, regardless of the population. So that the cities don't always prevail.

 

What is a "senatorial district"?

 

You don't seem to understand the purpose of two senators for each state. it is NOT so that "cities don't...prevail" over 'small towns, farms, and rural areas'. You make is sound like there are 'senatorial districts' set up outside of urban areas to represent only rural areas. Senators represent states, not cities.

 

Given this and your claim that a constitutional amendment requires "the OK of all the small population states", I don't think you have a thorough understanding of what exactly our Constitution says.

Edited November 13, 2016 by zapatos

[tar]

zapatos,

 

I forgot we vote for both our senators, just on different cycles. We voted for none this cycle, in NJ. Our senatorial districts are for the state legislature. But none-the-less, small population states still get two senators and thereby have equal voting power in the senate to large population states. This is why I suggested that a constitution amendment to change the electoral college to a popular vote based system, would disadvantage the small population states, and since constitutional amendments require the ratification of the states, small states would not be interested in reducing their say in presidential elections.

 

So yes, I was wrong about senatorial districts, but still right about small population states getting 3 electoral college votes where if it was based on population they might get less.

 

Regards, TAR