Recent Political Violence in America

[The Romulan Republic]

Don't forget the collusion with Vladimir Putin!

I'm pretty sure it happened, which is why I support the investigation, but that said I do have concerns that how much of an impact it had on the election is open to debate and trying to pin the whole thing on that is a mistake. I don't doubt it had an effect, I'm just not sure how much of one. It's possible that you could remove the Putin effect and all that would happen is that the popular vote gap between Trump and Hillary would be bigger but the electoral college result would be the same.

Its a good thing I'm not trying to pin the whole result on it, then.

And considering flipping a few tens of thousands of people in the right states would have changed the results, it easily could have decided the outcome. But their are about half a dozen other things, at least, that also could have.

[Arkle]

Don't forget the collusion with Vladimir Putin!

I'm pretty sure it happened, which is why I support the investigation, but that said I do have concerns that how much of an impact it had on the election is open to debate and trying to pin the whole thing on that is a mistake. I don't doubt it had an effect, I'm just not sure how much of one. It's possible that you could remove the Putin effect and all that would happen is that the popular vote gap between Trump and Hillary would be bigger but the electoral college result would be the same.

Its a good thing I'm not trying to pin the whole result on it, then.

And considering flipping a few tens of thousands of people in the right states would have changed the results, it easily could have decided the outcome. But their are about half a dozen other things, at least, that also could have.

Exactly. My attitude is, whatever one thinks cost Hillary the win, probably did. At least a little.

[The Romulan Republic]

Honestly, if any one of about half a dozen things had been a little different, she probably would have won. It was that close.

And, of course, she did win the popular vote, by a margin of millions.

Trump had to basically roll all sixes, and cheat, to just barely win.

Which is strangely reassuring, when you think about it. We're not at the point where this is what most of the country really wants.

[LittleRaven]

By "Rhetorical skill" I think you mean "Gerrymandering and restrictive voter ID laws."

That's part of it...goodness knows the 2010 redistricting was VERY good to Republicans, but it's only part. You can't gerrymander Senate or Gubernatorial races, and the Republicans have been dominant there as well, gaining 13 seats in the Senate and taking 11 governor seats. All since 2008. That's downright devastating for the Democrats.

And voter restriction doesn't affect polling, but in 2008, ~53% of Americans had a favorable view of the Democratic party, while only 35% viewed Republicans favorably. In the last 8 years, Democrat's support has collapsed down to just 40%, while Republicans have pulled themselves up to 39%.

Americans seem to like what Republicans have to say. To the extent that Americans have a problem with Republicans, it seems to be with what they do once they're in power. (which, to date, is not much)

[Rocketboy1313]

That's part of it...goodness knows the 2010 redistricting was VERY good to Republicans, but it's only part. You can't gerrymander Senate or Gubernatorial races, and the Republicans have been dominant there as well, gaining 13 seats in the Senate and taking 11 governor seats. All since 2008. That's downright devastating for the Democrats.

Everyone points out that you can't Gerrymander Senate seats. True, but at the same time the Senate is a garbage system. There are 8 states which make up half the population of the United States, and have 16% of the Senate seats. That is a broken system, and pointing to the Senate as somehow being a good indicator of political will is just wrong. Same goes for Gubernatorial elections.

Honestly the US system of choosing representatives is awful from floor to rafters and desperately in need of adjustment.

[LittleRaven]

That is a broken system, and pointing to the Senate as somehow being a good indicator of political will is just wrong. Same goes for Gubernatorial elections.

That's why I also included polling data, and why the Politifact study included state races as well. You have to look at the whole picture, and while we can quibble about this variable or that variable, the truth is the Republicans have been wiping the floor with the Democrats, on every level, since 2008. Their rhetoric is fucking electoral gold right now. A fact that is made all the more puzzling by their track record when they actually get into office. The Kansas experiment was a goddamn disaster. The Republican congress gets more and more dysfunctional every day. But Americans just keep moving farther to the right. At least until now. Maybe Trump will turn things around.

Honestly the US system of choosing representatives is awful from floor to rafters and desperately in need of adjustment.

I know, right? Repeal the 17th Amendment already!

[Darth Wedgius]

To the extent that the right has a problem, it doesn't seem to be with rhetoric. Quite the opposite, really.

Specifically, I had asked the question, what can the right do to limit political violence by the right, and what can the left do to limit political violence by the left.
I had in mind this shift in rhetoric by the right to limit the support of white nationalists or white supremacists.

The really big companies already deal with state laws. This would make that problem worse for them, but I don't mind giving the guys operating more locally a bit of an advantage.

No, it doesn't make it harder. It makes it easier. Amazon and Apple can just roll over most state legislatures, assuming they don't ignore them entirely.

My thinking is that, with more power devolving to the states, the states will be in a better position to dictate terms to better local conditions, and local companies, which have to deal with just one set of statewide rules, can comply with those rules better than a big company such as Amazon can comply with 50 different sets of state regulations. Obviously the big players could form local subsidiaries to deal with some of that (employee insurance requirements, etc.), but manufacturing standards would be different.

These would be courses giving credentials to be seen as equivalent to college degrees.

That's not really something politics can solve, except for government jobs, I guess. You'd have to convince employers to see alternatives as equivalent, and I have no idea how the government can help with that one.

I did leave that as an implementation detail. Government jobs are a big part of employment. And the government could give preference to contractors that treated these certifications as equivalent to degrees.

Even if more efficient industry boosts the economy for a universal wage to come into effect without much opposition, I don't see having many people around who have become, bluntly, economically obsolete to be a good thing.

It will fundamentally alter our relationship to government, that's for sure. The smart conservatives that I know are already struggling with how to shape that new relationship into something that they could find at least somewhat satisfactory...but I don't think any of them have come up with any good solutions yet.

Everybody I know of says education and retraining. Hell, I'm saying that, effectively. I'm also admitting it isn't adequate. But, other than finding old uses for new wooden shoes, I don't think anybody has a good solution yet. The left might say a universal wage, which would take care of the worst part of it. Better to have unemployable people bored and eating than bored and hungry.

[Darth Wedgius]

Looks like someone strongly anti-Trump decided to reduce the Republican electorate the old-fashioned way. https://www.yahoo.com/news/anti-donald- ... 02971.html

This isn't the kind of thing I am as concerned about as this, though:
http://usa.inquirer.net/5908/fil-teache ... g-neo-nazi

Yeah, one victim ended up with a sore jaw, and the other dead, but the shooter seemed unhinged, and, though politics may have been the motive, it sounds like it just happened to be that which pushed him over the edge. Whereas the teacher just says it shouldn't be a crime to punch Nazis, and is a member of a group, "By Any Means Necessary," with similar feelings.

EDIT: I'm conservative-ish and the above were liberal-ish, but it's coincidence, honest. I think it was just the alt-right's day off or something.

[Arkle]

Specifically, I had asked the question, what can the right do to limit political violence by the right, and what can the left do to limit political violence by the left. I had in mind this shift in rhetoric by the right to limit the support of white nationalists or white supremacists.

The Left doesn't need to do anything to limit political violence from the Left, because contrary to the propaganda spread by the Right Wing media and the "oh no, we have to say it's both sides or we'll be called Liberal" mainstream press, what "violence" we do see from the Left is by and large a reaction to violence from the Right. Or as lawyers might call it, self-defense. And no, property damage doesn't count*.

Let me state unequivoacally; if someone shows more concern/anger about a likely-insured and easily replacable store window being broken during an uprising than you do for the murdered-by-police Black man or woman that caused the uprising in the first place then that person is a racist. Period. Yes, even if they have "a Black friend," or "voted for Obama." Valuing inanimate objects more than human lives, especially when said human lives are dark skinned, is white supremacy, period. You may not actively hate Black people, but you sure as hell think they don't matter as much as a goddamned piece of glass.

* Unless it is done as part of a concentrated campaign of harrasment against a marginalized community, such as Nazis vandalizing a synagouge or mosque, or repeated attacks on an LGBTQ person's home by their homophobic/transphobic neighbors.

This isn't the kind of thing I am as concerned about as this, though:
http://usa.inquirer.net/5908/fil-teache ... g-neo-nazi

Yeah, one victim ended up with a sore jaw, and the other dead, but the shooter seemed unhinged, and, though politics may have been the motive, it sounds like it just happened to be that which pushed him over the edge. Whereas the teacher just says it shouldn't be a crime to punch Nazis, and is a member of a group, "By Any Means Necessary," with similar feelings.

You are upset at a POC punching a Nazi? Well, then I hate to break it to you, but that means you are in fact pro-Nazi. Literally. I am not exagerating in the slightest.

It shouldn't be a crime to punch Nazis, because that is far, far, FAR less than what they want to do to us. Last century, Nazis were able to kill millions of Jews, Roma, Socialists, disabled people, LGBTQ people, and prisoners of war beucase not enough people punched them. And for some reason, you seem to think that this time will be any different. Well, it is different in one way; now modern Nazis have the tacit if not explicit support of the man who has access to the world's largest stockpile of ncuealr, biological, and chemical weapons.

I'm usually the first to dismiss "if you aren't with us you're against us" thinking but in this ONE VERY SPECIFIC INSTANCE, it happens to be true. An outlier I admit, but still true.

[Arkle]

Note to the moderators; I have placed Darth Wedgius on my ignore list. As such I will not be seeing* (and consequently not replying) to any of his posts from now on.

* Excepting of course times when other people quote him, which IMO is a major flaw with this forum's layout.