As a general rule, throwing marginalized people under the bus for grant money is morally wrong, and encouraging demagogues in the hope of not being added to their list of enemies is cowardly.
Where did you pick up these information? I don't recall reading a motive behind their press release in the article.
How vicious were the complaints?
If they weren't that bad, this seems like an overreaction or a revealing of little support behind the original statement.
I suspect the complaints were quite bad though, they probably requested this to happen, which is too much on the complainer's part. Generic support for Trump is not some kind of radical hatespeech.
I'm not sure why it matters whether the complaints are vicious or not.
In any case, the article does provide some of the twitter responses to the press release.
How vicious were the complaints?
If they weren't that bad, this seems like an overreaction or a revealing of little support behind the original statement.
I suspect the complaints were quite bad though, they probably requested this to happen, which is too much on the complainer's part. Generic support for Trump is not some kind of radical hatespeech.
I'm not sure why it matters whether the complaints are vicious or not.
It speaks to how much could be lost by ignoring them and how justifiable the complaints were.
EDIT: Looking more at these complaints, some seem a bit over the top. APS said very little in favor of Trump.
The interesting takeaway for me: splitting votes may have overall played more in favor for Hillary Clinton (she won 5 states where 3rd Parties covered the spread between her and Trump) than it did for Donald Trump (he won four where 3rd Parties covered the gap). Then there's the one where the post speculates that overall Clinton could have arguably spoiled Evan McMullin's win in Utah rather than vice versa. This also doesn't into account how the removing all the 3rd options would have benefited Trump to the point he may have won the states allegedly taken from Clinton by 3rd Parties anyway.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
What would a progression path in favour of the faith look like?
Favour isn't the best word, but if this is serious question about "healing", I'm interested
Well, a political path for progressives to get religious people onside would be pretty profitable for them (progressives), I'd imagine - but the main issues I can think of off the top of my head are abortion and same-sex marriage, and I don't see either side as willing to compromise on those. Are you thinking of other issues, or new approaches to these ones?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
What do you not understand about that? Stop fixating on Hillary Clinton. Shes part of the current progression path. A vote for her, is voting for that progression path. In the last 10 years, it has been very evident that that progression path is working against the faith - not working with it. This isn't limited to one topic regarding gay marriage. And what I'm trying to tell you, is given that 70% of Americans ARE Christian or Catholic, working against them rather than with them will only push them farther right politically to protect themselves. I'm trying to tell you, that you will catch more bees with honey than vinegar, and more bees means more people supporting your progression plan, and in the end more chances of getting your candidate ELECTED to spearhead that progression plan.
... Wow.
First of all, you're presuming that the Christian communities are united on the topics of abortion and gay marriage, which is ridiculous. To say gay marriage in particular is a divisive issue is an understatement.
Second, you are asking those who are in favor of abortion and gay marriage to compromise with conservative religious groups. This prompts the question of why they would want to do this, but also how this would even be possible.
Recognize that gay marriage is a rights issue. Either gay marriage is protected under equal protection under the law, or it is not. You can't go half way on gay marriage, even if you wanted to.
Then there's abortion. Also a rights issue. Abortion is either legal or it's not, and from there, you're either going to actively obstruct women from having abortions, or you're going to allow them to do so. If there's a middle ground that everyone can compromise on, I don't see it.
So what I'm seeing is not a call for compromise at all, but instead a call for progressives to court the conservative Christian vote by abandoning the cause of major issues alienating the conservative Christian groups, and these issues being women's rights and equal protection under the law for the LGBT community.
Which is the exact opposite of a compromise. And also, why would they do this? That's not only not politically expedient, it's morally wrong.
It's funny, because Donald Trump is probably the only case I can ever imagine where I hope most of a politician's promises were bull*****.
Well, to be fair, I hope his promise to slash taxes and yet still somehow increase federal revenue is completely true.
His promise to be a president for all Americans and make America the greatest country in the world would be nice as well.
But you know what would REALLY be nice? If that guy who claimed to be the president of Nigeria turned out to actually be the president of Nigeria, and actually would give me millions of dollars if I sent him several initial payments of various denominations. That'd be awesome.
But you know what would REALLY be nice? If that guy who claimed to be the president of Nigeria turned out to actually be the president of Nigeria, and actually would give me millions of dollars if I sent him several initial payments of various denominations. That'd be awesome.
Wait, you mean it's not really him? I was so excited when I got that message! I called my mom and was like, "Mom, you'll never believe it! The president of Nigeria is trying to scam me!"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Trump policy update: He's trying to find a way out of the Paris Agreement, without going through the expected four year stepdown process. [link]
Every time I start to feel like I might manage to not be sick with worry, things like this happen.
I couldn't agree more. Just when I think I've managed to accept the fact that Trump might get by by with just being a bad president, he does something to remind me he wants to be the worst president ever.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Trump policy update: He's trying to find a way out of the Paris Agreement, without going through the expected four year stepdown process. [link]
Every time I start to feel like I might manage to not be sick with worry, things like this happen.
I couldn't agree more. Just when I think I've managed to accept the fact that Trump might get by by with just being a bad president, he does something to remind me he wants to be the worst president ever.
Write in to your government about it. I'm working on letters to the NZ government about climate stuff, getting everyone with a postgraduate degree I know to sign petitions and such.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
I mean, as far as my state goes we're doing pretty well on climate stuff. I'm sure California is in the top five states as far as that goes. The issue is that huge, huge swathes of the country just don't care, and there's very little that can be done to influence them, especially when larger corporations are pushing against it.
I mean, as far as my state goes we're doing pretty well on climate stuff. I'm sure California is in the top five states as far as that goes. The issue is that huge, huge swathes of the country just don't care, and there's very little that can be done to influence them, especially when larger corporations are pushing against it.
I mean... let's be clear about the state of the Democrat Party right now: It's at best only got an active comfortable majority in states that are considered to be a part of a coastline and Illinois. Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, and even New Hampshire were all won by Clinton in margins that Gary Johnson and/or Evan McMullin covered, meaning she could have lost those states if there had been no 3rd Party presence.
The attitude that minds can't be changed is exactly what put Hillary Clinton and the Democrats into this mess in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I mean, as far as my state goes we're doing pretty well on climate stuff. I'm sure California is in the top five states as far as that goes. The issue is that huge, huge swathes of the country just don't care, and there's very little that can be done to influence them, especially when larger corporations are pushing against it.
I mean... let's be clear about the state of the Democrat Party right now: It's at best only got an active comfortable majority in states that are considered to be a part of a coastline and Illinois. Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, and even New Hampshire were all won by Clinton in margins that Gary Johnson and/or Evan McMullin covered, meaning she could have lost those states if there had been no 3rd Party presence.
The attitude that minds can't be changed is exactly what put Hillary Clinton and the Democrats into this mess in the first place.
I think minds can be changed. But I don't think I, personally, can do much in those states. Which is more what I was talking about. The suggestion was writing to my government to try and push for more action with the environment, but in my state we're doing pretty well on that. Other states? Not really. And I have no real way to impact that short of just trying to contact people in those states, which is a really inefficient method.
She's already been found not guilty like three times, and traditionally US presidents don't use the criminal justice system to get revenge on political opponents. So probably never, if his administration has any sense.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
She's already been found not guilty like three times, and traditionally US presidents don't use the criminal justice system to get revenge on political opponents. So probably never, if his administration has any sense.
Trump gave an implicit "no" today when asked if he was going to appoint a special prosecutor like he'd threatened.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Feel free to try setting one up, but know that calling for the locking up political opponents (particularly ones who've not been found guilty) is the kind of stuff that justifies people calling you a fascist.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Until recently I was convinced that the Brits were the most hypocritical nation on the planet.
Good job, 'muricas, you've actually managed to change my mind.
I am going to be completely honest, this is a tell for me that you have likely not been paying attention to American politics or culture for the past six years. Then again, I am also willing to bet there's quite a few people out there who think their own country is the most hypocritical out there; it's just they don't follow international news that closely until something as big as President Trump breaches their perception.
I can't believe what is going on at the moment with these protests. This is democracy and people have the full right to protest no matter how pointless it might be, and I respect your right to protest peacefully, but this is now turning into violent riots and I'm sitting here, laughing in both amusement and utter shock that your government would actually allow for this to happen, and hoping that martial law will soon be placed into action because this has gone too far. It is one thing to act like children and cry that it didn't go your way but it is a different thing when you start harming others because of that. These riots are pointless. Nothing can change the result of the elections so just, for crying out loud, let it go already.
Actually, the results of the election could be changed. As I am sure a lot of people are going to make clear in the next few weeks, the United States does not run on a direct democracy, which in the case of the presidency, extends to the selection process as well. Granted, it would be the greatest upheaval in the history of at least the United States, but interesting enough, there's actually a reason involving just examining the popular vote for them to fall back on this that's not "I think Trump is a monster."
Is it a good idea to actually follow through with this? Probably not because while the majority of the population voted for Hillary Clinton, the majority of states did not.
On the other hand, my favorite sitcom ''Can't stump the Trump'' was just renewed for 4 more seasons hail Donald Trump, may he bring me more laughs!
Yeah, you and I have fundamentally different humors. So much so that I am going to recommend you edit this part of your post out and in return, I'll edit this part of my post out.
I am not amused by racism, sexism, and Xenophobia. I am repulsed and when those aspects are trivialized as some kind of Seinfeld schtick. This is not the funniest thing that has happened in electoral politics. It's legitimized hatred.
If it is any comfort I have my fair share of bad elections and people making stupid decisions (though this time they made the right one, imo). For example, one time a corrupted party had won the elections and the head of the party was to be made the prime minister. People have protested (PEACEFULLY) because the same party had turned our country into ***** two decades ago (we are still recovering from that) and that the entire party is so corrupt that Hillary Clinton would look at them and say ''damn, son, what the hell is wrong with you?''. After a relatively short time the decision was made that the entire parliament will be disbanded and the elections will start anew in a couple of months. People were, needles to say, extremely happy because they have finally managed to win a battle against our corrupted system and they were looking forward to the bright future. No more corrupted politicians ruling this country! From now on we will vote for the leftist party, the one that actually cares about us, and we will make this country great again!
Despite ALL of this, when the election day came, the fools had STILL voted for the corrupted party that they have fought so hard to get rid off and the bastards have actually managed to WIN! now we are complaining, yet again, about the corruption of our system
It's almost if this is an international trend that can be tracked...
Is it a good idea to actually follow through with this? Probably not because while the majority of the population voted for Hillary Clinton, the majority of states did not.
At this point, it would just further confirm the Trump base's belief that the system is rigged and cause an even bigger backlash in four years. If not earlier. And they wouldn't even be wrong. Hillary Clinton lost the election and Donald Trump is our lawful president-elect. Breaking the system when you don't like the result is the surest way to undermine the principles of orderly transfer of power and rule of law. It's exactly why it was so unconscionable when Trump implied he might do the same thing back when it looked like he'd lose. You can't beat Trump by using his tactics.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Is it a good idea to actually follow through with this? Probably not because while the majority of the population voted for Hillary Clinton, the majority of states did not.
At this point, it would just further confirm the Trump base's belief that the system is rigged and cause an even bigger backlash in four years. If not earlier. And they wouldn't even be wrong. Hillary Clinton lost the election and Donald Trump is our lawful president-elect. Breaking the system when you don't like the result is the surest way to undermine the principles of orderly transfer of power and rule of law. It's exactly why it was so unconscionable when Trump implied he might do the same thing back when it looked like he'd lose. You can't beat Trump by using his tactics.
However, if you think something in the way we run elections is wrong, then please, raise your voice about that, because that's something that can be changed.
Also, you didn't use it, but i really hate the term "faithless electors." The institution of the electoral college now does not function remotely the same as it did when it was created,and electors were always intended to be able to vote however they saw fit and they weren't supposed to be a part of any party system.
However, if you think something in the way we run elections is wrong, then please, raise your voice about that, because that's something that can be changed.
It's legally unethical to change the rules in the middle of the process. Key to the rule of law is the understanding that people can enter into a legal process -- whether it's a contract, a trial, or an election -- and trust that it will work the way they expect it to all the way through to the end.
And sure, we can theoretically get rid of the electoral college in time for the next election. But in the next election for all we know Trump will win the popular vote but lose the college, and then the joke will really be on us. The college isn't the fundamental problem here. There are legitimate reasons to dislike it, but the fact that it threw the election to Trump was basically a matter of blind chance. We need to address the reasons people voted for him in the first place, not tweak the rules so their votes don't count the same.
Also, you didn't use it, but i really hate the term "faithless electors." The institution of the electoral college now does not function remotely the same as it did when it was created,and electors were always intended to be able to vote however they saw fit and they weren't supposed to be a part of any party system.
The party system only crystallized later, but electors always pledged to vote for a particular candidate. It's not as if the public in 1788-89 didn't know they were voting for Washington and Adams. They voted for Bob Q. Elector with the clear understanding that Bob would be voting that way. So if Bob voted against his pledge, the term "faithless" would apply perfectly well.
Where did you pick up these information? I don't recall reading a motive behind their press release in the article.
I'm not sure why it matters whether the complaints are vicious or not.
In any case, the article does provide some of the twitter responses to the press release.
It speaks to how much could be lost by ignoring them and how justifiable the complaints were.
EDIT: Looking more at these complaints, some seem a bit over the top. APS said very little in favor of Trump.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
The interesting takeaway for me: splitting votes may have overall played more in favor for Hillary Clinton (she won 5 states where 3rd Parties covered the spread between her and Trump) than it did for Donald Trump (he won four where 3rd Parties covered the gap). Then there's the one where the post speculates that overall Clinton could have arguably spoiled Evan McMullin's win in Utah rather than vice versa. This also doesn't into account how the removing all the 3rd options would have benefited Trump to the point he may have won the states allegedly taken from Clinton by 3rd Parties anyway.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
First of all, you're presuming that the Christian communities are united on the topics of abortion and gay marriage, which is ridiculous. To say gay marriage in particular is a divisive issue is an understatement.
Second, you are asking those who are in favor of abortion and gay marriage to compromise with conservative religious groups. This prompts the question of why they would want to do this, but also how this would even be possible.
Recognize that gay marriage is a rights issue. Either gay marriage is protected under equal protection under the law, or it is not. You can't go half way on gay marriage, even if you wanted to.
Then there's abortion. Also a rights issue. Abortion is either legal or it's not, and from there, you're either going to actively obstruct women from having abortions, or you're going to allow them to do so. If there's a middle ground that everyone can compromise on, I don't see it.
So what I'm seeing is not a call for compromise at all, but instead a call for progressives to court the conservative Christian vote by abandoning the cause of major issues alienating the conservative Christian groups, and these issues being women's rights and equal protection under the law for the LGBT community.
Which is the exact opposite of a compromise. And also, why would they do this? That's not only not politically expedient, it's morally wrong.
His promise to be a president for all Americans and make America the greatest country in the world would be nice as well.
But you know what would REALLY be nice? If that guy who claimed to be the president of Nigeria turned out to actually be the president of Nigeria, and actually would give me millions of dollars if I sent him several initial payments of various denominations. That'd be awesome.
Wait, you mean it's not really him? I was so excited when I got that message! I called my mom and was like, "Mom, you'll never believe it! The president of Nigeria is trying to scam me!"
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Art is life itself.
Every time I start to feel like I might manage to not be sick with worry, things like this happen.
I couldn't agree more. Just when I think I've managed to accept the fact that Trump might get by by with just being a bad president, he does something to remind me he wants to be the worst president ever.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Art is life itself.
I mean... let's be clear about the state of the Democrat Party right now: It's at best only got an active comfortable majority in states that are considered to be a part of a coastline and Illinois. Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, and even New Hampshire were all won by Clinton in margins that Gary Johnson and/or Evan McMullin covered, meaning she could have lost those states if there had been no 3rd Party presence.
The attitude that minds can't be changed is exactly what put Hillary Clinton and the Democrats into this mess in the first place.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
I think minds can be changed. But I don't think I, personally, can do much in those states. Which is more what I was talking about. The suggestion was writing to my government to try and push for more action with the environment, but in my state we're doing pretty well on that. Other states? Not really. And I have no real way to impact that short of just trying to contact people in those states, which is a really inefficient method.
Art is life itself.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You are in for a lot of disappointments in the next four years.
Art is life itself.
Actually, the results of the election could be changed. As I am sure a lot of people are going to make clear in the next few weeks, the United States does not run on a direct democracy, which in the case of the presidency, extends to the selection process as well. Granted, it would be the greatest upheaval in the history of at least the United States, but interesting enough, there's actually a reason involving just examining the popular vote for them to fall back on this that's not "I think Trump is a monster."
Is it a good idea to actually follow through with this? Probably not because while the majority of the population voted for Hillary Clinton, the majority of states did not.
Yeah, you and I have fundamentally different humors. So much so that I am going to recommend you edit this part of your post out and in return, I'll edit this part of my post out.
I am not amused by racism, sexism, and Xenophobia. I am repulsed and when those aspects are trivialized as some kind of Seinfeld schtick. This is not the funniest thing that has happened in electoral politics. It's legitimized hatred.
It's almost if this is an international trend that can be tracked...
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
However, if you think something in the way we run elections is wrong, then please, raise your voice about that, because that's something that can be changed.
Also, you didn't use it, but i really hate the term "faithless electors." The institution of the electoral college now does not function remotely the same as it did when it was created,and electors were always intended to be able to vote however they saw fit and they weren't supposed to be a part of any party system.
And sure, we can theoretically get rid of the electoral college in time for the next election. But in the next election for all we know Trump will win the popular vote but lose the college, and then the joke will really be on us. The college isn't the fundamental problem here. There are legitimate reasons to dislike it, but the fact that it threw the election to Trump was basically a matter of blind chance. We need to address the reasons people voted for him in the first place, not tweak the rules so their votes don't count the same.
The party system only crystallized later, but electors always pledged to vote for a particular candidate. It's not as if the public in 1788-89 didn't know they were voting for Washington and Adams. They voted for Bob Q. Elector with the clear understanding that Bob would be voting that way. So if Bob voted against his pledge, the term "faithless" would apply perfectly well.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.