GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
While I certainly understand the frustration, not to mention the actual realities that cause such reactions it is dangerous to court this kind of thinking as any sort of given or absolute since it is obvious that voting does make some difference. If it didn't those very rich of which you speak wouldn't work so hard and spend so much to influence the vote. In the last election it is rather interesting that Trump has an important voter base among lower income people that made his win possible even though it should be obvious who he champions and it surely ain't them, with the possible exception of single issues, most of which were just typical empty campaign promises. designed as a hook.
Actually, the demographics of Trump's electorate cannot be determined, because votes cannot be tied to the people who cast them, and, although we can do "exit polls," no one has to tell the truth to a pollster.
Mr. Trump won a very clear and unmistakable majority of the States, and it is the States who ultimately elect the President in our purposely two-tier voting system. (Which parallels the makeup of the House of Representatives, and for the same reasons.) I don't think that you could have spent any amount of money to "influence" that election: Mr. Trump won it fair-and-square.
He won by saying things that his professional-politician opponent never did, and by then walking into the White House and starting to do(!) them. He won by being someone who is unlike every other person who has held the Office: he is neither a professional politician nor a retired General. In fact, until this time he had no(!) political experience at all. But that's very much why he got the job and Hillary Clinton didn't.
(Face it: we've already had "President Hillary" for eight years already. Do you seriously think that Bill is the brains in that family? )
While I certainly did oversimplify since I never mentioned that the hubris of those that didn't bother to vote since "surely Trump will never be elected" and you're correct that there is no way to prove who voted for whom, their are strong indicators from which high probabilities can be mined. There is the general time-tested phenomena that during difficult economic times consensus tends to shift sharply to the political Right. Then there is the phenomena of the Tea Party, which has become an important (if oddly aligned) wing of the Republican Party that consists mostly of those who salivate when the God, Family, Law 'n Order, and Country "bell" is rung, primarily of the (financially lower) Working Class, Joe the Plumber sort.
I am quite certain that a poll of social media sorted by age, gender, and social class will reveal that a very large majority of Trump support comes from young, male, working and middle class (blue and white collar) people who will be amazed to discover that Trump has almost zero in common with them let alone will champion any cause that actually matters to them. This does not mean that Hillary would have done a great deal better since this last election was one of the most "lesser of evils" choices we've ever witnessed. However this is exactly why primaries and mid-terms (not to mention Supreme Court appointments) are so important yet most tend to vote only in The Big Event.
The point was that voting is not merely going through the motions, making no difference at all, but what, where, and when matter as to who will even be up in that Big Event.
I did not vote for either candidate, but I think that what we actually witnessed was a true "sea change." The election was more about who the voters rejected, IMHO, than about who they picked. I also do not believe that there is any one demographic which was more or less represented. Not this time.
The American Government has become self-absorbed and fossilized. Quite a few members of Congress has served continuously for more than 30 years because there are no term limits. And, notwithstanding the Constitutional text which declares that "bribery" is a "high crime" alongside "treason," they have convinced themselves that offering bribes is "corporate freedom of speech," and that accepting bribes is "listening." (An equally-corrupt Supreme Court was happy to oblige this fantasy.) And this is what the people began to address in the most-recent election. They're not finished yet. Meanwhile, the DC fossils dream of repeating "tricky Dick Nixon" in their determination to return to somnolence.
The state of the American nation is nothing like it was even fifty years ago, when we had "public" hospitals that you could actually walk into, and inexpensive college education, and when "made in Japan" was laughingstock and "made in China" unheard-of, teachers actually ran their classrooms (and you actually could fail and have to repeat a grade), and you could deduct credit-card interest on your taxes and anyone could get a loan at six percent. The people who elected Donald Trump are those who want these things back, and those who have been told about these "long-ago fantasies" and want them for themselves.
I think that we are at long last emerging from a very long period of wretched social-experiments that all went very terribly wrong, and that we are at the cusp of an immense series of social changes that we have too-cynically told ourselves could never happen (again).
Stay tuned. It's about to get very interesting ... a new generation is about to reclaim its birthright, "by due process of law," and there will be no stopping them.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 08-04-2017 at 01:04 PM.
What does any of this Trump/Clinton diatribe have to do with the $65 mil project to develop neural implants that can enable communication between the brain and digital systems?
What does any of this Trump/Clinton diatribe have to do with the $65 mil project to develop neural implants that can enable communication between the brain and digital systems?
Fair question. Let's see.... someone mentioned politics regarding what the US government deems worthy of supporting financially and how much or how little citizens have to say about it. This led to someone doubting voting has any effect, implying The New Golden Rule governs All. Since it appears this particular bundle of $65 Million was "footed" by citizens' taxes, these are genuine concerns that while tangential to the project (other than it's cost) are actually not altogether Off Topic since to some the topic is Brain Implants, others focus on "The Matrix" and still others focus on the $65 Mil. Makes sense now?
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.