Gen X biggest Trump supporters in US

Post Reply New Topic

As far as I can tell, this compact is not yet in effect.

According to the Wikipedia article National Popular Vote Interstate Compact: "The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome. As of June 2022, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia. These states have 195 electoral votes, which is 36% of the Electoral College and 72% of the 270 votes needed to give the compact legal force."

EDIT: Here's a 2021 article on the website of the Cato institute discussing some of the things that could possibly go wrong with the Popular Vote Interstate Compact if it ever won the support of enough states.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 19 Sep 2022, 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

To some extent, but not completely. There are still some regional cultural differences. There are also urban vs. suburban vs. rural differences. Also, people with a college education are culturally different from people with less education. Also there are religions and other subcultures that people join voluntarily.

Yeah, I guess. We do live in big countries. It'd be awful if people judged British Columbians by the culture of Albertans, for instance. I guess Canada and the USA are large enough to have quite diverse cultures - like Europe or Africa vs. comparing to some tiny country like England.

And yeah, there's definitely different cultures by class/education/socio-economic status etc.. totally different hanging out with some tech company CEO vs. homeless drug addicts in the same city.

But still, everyone's been around to experience the same big events and federal level politics.

Thank you for pointing this out.

Trump was my only logical choice in 2016. I have a better choice now.

So, "it's in the name" is now a logical proof? This raises some questions about the various "Democratic People's" styled countries, to say the least.



That comparison is incoherent gibberish, there is a vast difference between saying a person is not a woman because of their race or sexual orientation vs because they were born a man and later assumed a female identity, I'm surprised you would make such a facile argument.



More irrelevant comparisons, nobody is claiming that young girls or female animals are "women", it's not even a strawman argument at this point.



This is all sophistry trying to get around the fact that there are real differences between trans women and natal women, as well as ladling on some judgment for good measure. Why is this even a sore point, is it not enough to treat trans women with respect and dignity, we also have to believe in their particular world view even if it doesn't square with science and reality?

Proof of a recent language change. These days it's common to distinguish between "gender" (gender identity, gender expression, etc.) and "sex" (which can refer to chromosomal sex, anatomical sex, or assigned/designated sex at birth -- even these three are not always the same, given the existence of people born with intersex conditions).


Of course there are real differences. The question is whether, for most ordinary social purposes at least, gender identity or sex at birth should be deemed primary.

Obviously, for some purposes, such as medical records, the state of a person's body needs to be known also, possibly including not only their sex at birth (in all 3 senses I mentioned above), but also any medical transitioning that has been done so far, plus any intersex bodily traits that might have spontaneously manifested later in life than one's birth.


How do you think you can "treat trans women with respect and dignity" without respecting their gender identity?

And what, exactly, is the "world view" you have a problem with? How does an understanding of the various different meanings of sex and gender, together with a willingness to respect gender identity, not "square with science and reality"?