Early Retirement Extreme Forums

Riggerjack brings up a good point. Protesting is kind of like getting dressed for work. You kind of need to do it to start everything, but it doesn't mean you have done the work. There were big protests against the Nazis in the 1930's, but obviously they failed.

It should also be noted, that it's easier for liberal protests to be created and filled with people. This is because the majority of this population lives in urban areas and, even more so, the major urban areas.

Riggerjack wrote:As for " raising awareness ", we are all aware of the problem, offer a solution, or you are just stroking your self to feel better.

I'd disagree that we're all aware of the problem. There's a huge divergence of views on what is and isn't a problem; otherwise, everyone would have voted for Bernie Sanders and this thread would be titled "Trump - Clown".

Chad wrote:There were big protests against the Nazis in the 1930's, but obviously they failed.

DH likes to quote the Niemoller speech:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

There were protests, but obviously not enough. I would say that the German people's awareness came too late. It's a frog in the boiling water thing.

Yes, a frog in boiling water, but swimming around (protesting) is not enough.

Agreed that it's not enough. It's a necessary first step, though. Silent compliance is not a frog's best friend.

Any ideas here about what the next step should be?

I'd disagree that we're all aware of the problem. There's a huge divergence of views on what is and isn't a problem; otherwise, everyone would have voted for Bernie Sanders and this thread would be titled "Trump - Clown".

I went to the Democratic primary. We did all vote for Sanders. Yet here we are.

Riggerjack wrote:I went to the Democratic primary. We did all vote for Sanders. Yet here we are.

Yes, the whole voting system is ridiculous. Maybe that's where to start? At our Democratic caucus, 90% of the attendees voted for Sanders but Clinton got 1/3 of the delegates. The math was a mystery to me...sort of like the popular vote versus the electoral college.

Also: when I wrote "all", I didn't just mean Democrats.

@halfmoon, @Riggerjack was thinking about this stuff today as I begin to see the "swingleft" stuff and people still blaming third party voters. Plus the huge distraction Trump is causing. As far as I can tell, at least the party primaries, and maybe the actual vote (for any office really), need to change to a different type of voting. Example: http://ncase.me/ballot/, http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html

edit: https://twitter.com/ElectionScience, https://electology.org/blog/smarter-ele ... -plurality

Riggerjack wrote: Overall, protests are more fun as a protestor.

It's the only "right to party" protected by the First Amendment.

But here's a new twist sent to me by a friendly epidemiologist today -- a "scientists' protest" somebody is trying to organize for March:

http://www.scientistsmarchonwashington. ... ngton.html

Not sure I've ever seen one of these. I can imagine a litany of bad jokes leading up.

Also: when I wrote "all", I didn't just mean Democrats.

Been a long time since anyone called me a Democrat. I've voted for a few, but usually I vote third party. I think Dukakis was the first and last dem President I voted for. I have voted for Perot, Nader, Paul, but Bernie was the first time I went to a primary.

I think the Trump protests are a convenient distraction, from the DNC perspective. If I were a Democrat, that is where my focus would be. Clean out the DNC, so this doesn't happen again.

But yeah, go march on the douchebag, that's a good use of energy.... Well maybe not, but more fun, and less work, than flushing out the DNC.

captain hindsight: if democrats didn't want Trump to be president, they shouldn't have allowed Hillary to kill off the candidate that could've beaten Trump for her personal agenda..

compared with the tiny impact a single voter had, Hillary + team is the largest direct cause for President Trump, brute would suspect.

Well... captain hindsight would also remind us that a Trump nomination was the only chance Hillary had of winning.

Moderator edit: Meme deleted

*** Lets try to keep the forum from getting dumbed down to "meme-level" both in this thread and in general ***

If the rest of the internet is any indication, the use of memes tends to reduce the level of conversation real fast.

PS: It also annoys the phone users who have to scroll through the resulting circus. Anyone who feels absolutely compelled to use memes, please post a URL instead of cluttering up the feed. Keep it mind that it something can be communicated with a meme, it's probably not that insightful in the first place

bryan wrote:@halfmoon, @Riggerjack was thinking about this stuff today as I begin to see the "swingleft" stuff and people still blaming third party voters. Plus the huge distraction Trump is causing. As far as I can tell, at least the party primaries, and maybe the actual vote (for any office really), need to change to a different type of voting. Example: http://ncase.me/ballot/, http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.html

edit: https://twitter.com/ElectionScience, https://electology.org/blog/smarter-ele ... -plurality

@ bryan,

Thanks for the links. I followed them, and now my brain hurts (could also be that it's tax season). I always assumed that a simple majority vote would be the logical end to electoral inequity. So annoying when the simplistic answer doesn't seem to pan out.

An odd thing happened at work today...

I work in telecom, and a few years ago, one of our cities wanted to use eminent domain to grab some land on the edge of one of our construction yards. This turned into a deal where we sold them the whole lot, and leased it back. No big deal, telecoms have lots of land, and the sell/lease back concept has been going on for decades. We free up capital, and pick up a bit of expense, the accountants seem to love it.

Well, today, that city delivered the eviction notice. We're getting kicked out of the yard we have worked out of for 70+ years...

It seems the city wants to put low income housing there. And this back burner plan suddenly became urgent when the Federal funding was being threatened.

So, if that is indeed the reason for the hurry, Trump announcing "use it or lose it" is shutting down a fortune 500 company's yard to hurry in some low income housing.

Which would be exactly the sort of thing I expect from him.

"Use it or lose it" is one of the worst practices in gov't. It creates a lot of waste, as no one wants to "lose it" whatever "it" is (usually money).

This would be really scary. Hopefully, it's not how he operates, but it's not exactly unlikely when you look at everything he says and does.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... snt-lying/

I would prefer it if he was just an ass.

I agree that view points influence how things are viewed. But, why should anyone be investigating? What piece of actual hard data even kind of suggests a large number of people voted that shouldn't have? No doubt there are a few who did and probably on both sides. A country with 320 million people will never be 100% on this just because of human error. But, I have seen zero credible evidence of any violations of substantial size. I haven't even seen bad evidence of it.

Chad wrote:But, I have seen zero credible evidence of any violations of substantial size. I haven't even seen bad evidence of it.

I have no idea how credible all of this is, but I personally feel like it at least justifies further study.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... m-nonciti/
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/p ... /95363314/

The study isn't worth thinking about. I have read it and it's terrible. The author even says it doesn't show what others say.

Sure, the Detroit stuff should be investigated. There seems to be some issues there. I would bet it turns out to be underfunding and understaffing because of economic and population changes of that area.

I should have mentioned in my previous post. I'm actually for the investigations to happen, even if it does't appear they will find anything significant. I'm actually for every single claim that comes out of Trump's mouth to be investigated, so we can keep a running tally of the obvious lies he tells or forces his subordinates to tell.