The Trump Presidency – 2016

[NobodyHere]

Honestly who gives a shit about Conway blathering on about the Bowling Green Massacre when this crap is going on:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/n...-oman-n1017066

I wish I could trust my government about such things but who knows who did this.

[PilotMan]

If I'm trump and I don't care about rules, ethics, only winning at all costs, I create deepfakes for every single D candidate, then a couple for myself, enough to blame them for saying whatever you want to make them say, then blame them for trying to create one for you. The entire concept of deepfakes are to continue to sew discord. It's the russia model to the max, executed perfectly. Who knows what is right, wrong, who said what? All dumb public knows is what they see and whatever trump says is right, so how do you play that up as much as possible? This is a true threat to the future of our country and the future of free and open elections. It's the constant manipulation through the constant attacking and questioning of reality. Reality will always be malleable and will always be in question. It's a brutal world to exist in.

[PilotMan]

dola


I think I called out the president for his choice to reach out to the public via twitter. What is happening now in regard to the presidency being beholden to the public is exactly what I was worried about. No more press conferences. No more taking questions from the public, only friendly fox news. Instead you have 100% control of the narrative by using twitter, in some manner of 'maybe it's official, maybe it's not, who knows?" fashion. You have the propoganda machine hard at work for you, and then suddenly we look very much like Russia and, and, we have people who want it like that, and are cheering that on.

[Edward64]

Trump's 40-42% core supporters are solid. If those number haven't gone/stayed down by now ... it never will.

TBH, I don't see Twitter, Russian bots (speaking as a disinterested third party of course ) etc. as swinging 2020 elections. People know what and who Trump is by now. Unlike Russia, there is still a healthy freedom of the press and plenty of real news to counter the plenty of fake news.

I see 2 major things for the Dems to win. They need to get united under a candidate (hear that Bernie?) and they better hope the economy is not going gang busters.

[PilotMan]

I love how the argument on election influence is so linear, like the Russians are going to take out ads that say 'vote trump!', and the rational is that 'hey, that won't sway anyone, because...numbers! So therefore they can't have and didn't have any influence whatsoever!

[Edward64]

I'm sure Russia impacted the 2016 election. Was it significant enough to take Trump over the top - probably not. I blame it more on Comey, Hillary's campaign strategy failure & likability.

[whomario]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm sure Russia impacted the 2016 election. Was it significant enough to take Trump over the top - probably not. I blame it more on Comey, Hillary's campaign strategy failure & likability.

Except it it shouldn't matter what contributed more when it's about minimizing outside influence. That's like saying a referee being paid to make 3 deliberately wrong calls for a team didn't influence the game enough to cry about it, since the loosing team screwed up all by themselves the rest of the game.

I mean, so what if you think it wasn't the biggest factor or even a big factor (or the loosing party was to blame themselves) ? Is that really the standard you want to set ?

Shouldn't the "greatest country/democracy in the world" have the ambition to have their highest office decided independently from foreign meddling ? Or maybe it's just easy to accept being on the wrong side of that particular issue for a change ('being meddled' rather than meddling*), who knows.


* which Trump is actively endorsing as well, mind you.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm sure Russia impacted the 2016 election. Was it significant enough to take Trump over the top - probably not. I blame it more on Comey, Hillary's campaign strategy failure & likability.

80,000 people in 3 states were the difference. I don't know if that was enough, but I'm sure it helped. The campaigns were very targeted in part to the Trump campaign sharing internal polling data with the Russians.

[Ben E Lou]

I’m inclined to think that if we have 80K eligible voters in the whole country, let alone three states, who are tractable and/or stupid enough to have their votes impacted by a Russian propaganda campaign, we’ve got much bigger problems in our system than Trump or Russians.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I’m inclined to think that if we have 80K eligible voters in the whole country, let alone three states, who are tractable and/or stupid enough to have their votes impacted by a Russian propaganda campaign, we’ve got much bigger problems in our system than Trump or Russians.

Russia was able to organize protests and political rallies in the US using facebook. We have a lot of problems.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I’m inclined to think that if we have 80K eligible voters in the whole country, let alone three states, who are tractable and/or stupid enough to have their votes impacted by a Russian propaganda campaign, we’ve got much bigger problems in our system than Trump or Russians.

A lot of people including the President, his son, his staff, and a number of US Senators routinely re-tweeted and replied to fake Russian accounts online. Not to mention many in the media.

This was a fairly sophisticated propaganda campaign.

Again, not sure if that was the difference or not. But the difference in 80,000 votes among 129 million cast is small.

[Atocep]

I think it's very naive to minimize the impact Russian propaganda had on the election and is having on our country right now. The anti-vaxxer movement is Russia's latest attempt to destabilize and divide our country.

This isn't a group of people just tossing shit out there on twitter and facebook. There's science and research behind what they're doing and who, specifically, they're targeting.

Russia didn't just do a great job of pushing Trump as a candidate, they also made sure Hilary was as divisive a candidate as they could possibly make her and were wildly successful in doing so. It wouldn't just take changing the votes of 80,000 people. Making sure the dirty on Hillary stuck with the public keeps some people at home as well. That's just as effective as changing a vote.

A large portion of people in this country still fail to see a country that sees us as it's enemy as an enemy. We have a President that sees a country that would rather have us wiped off the map as a reliable ally. Russia is more of a threat to our democracy than Trump and his administration because until we actually confront Russia on this they're going to continue to look for Trumps to help put in office and ways to destabilize our country.

[RainMaker]

I think the hacked e-mails were a pretty big part of the campaign. Not sure if it convinced 80k people to vote one way or the other but it was covered like it.

[JPhillips]

In an election that close, everything made the difference, Russian efforts, Hillary's campaign choices, Comey, all the Trump free media, etc.

[stevew]

It's not even 80k votes though. It's only 40K that have to switch sides

[Edward64]

Because of the Russian impact on last election, we are now more aware and therefore it is less of a threat.

My original post was

TBH, I don't see Twitter, Russian bots (speaking as a disinterested third party of course ) etc. as swinging 2020 elections. People know what and who Trump is by now. Unlike Russia, there is still a healthy freedom of the press and plenty of real news to counter the plenty of fake news.

I see 2 major things for the Dems to win. They need to get united under a candidate (hear that Bernie?) and they better hope the economy is not going gang busters.

Forget Trump being a (possibly) "illegitimate" President, the Mueller's report impact on Trump popularity is a dud (well until possibly Pelosi starts impeachment), he's not going to lose his 40-42% support.

Its how the Dems can win the undecided, encourage the registered Dems to vote in larger % than they did last time etc. with a good candidate and, they better figure out messaging if the economy is doing really well next year.

Question to you:

I'm pretty sure we all believe Russia impacted the 2016 election we just differ on degree. The yes/no question is - do you believe Russian interference was the reason why Trump was elected over Hillary?

I believe the answer is no (or at least there is not evidence enough) and say the risk is even less in the future because of awareness, and its time to move on from this as a political message. If Trump wins a second term, it legitimizes him.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In an election that close, everything made the difference, Russian efforts, Hillary's campaign choices, Comey, all the Trump free media, etc.

I buy this. But its not all equal.

I know this is not your complete list but if you had to number, where would Russian efforts list? For me, its not at the top of the list.

[JPhillips]

They are all tied for #1. Take away any of them and it could have swung the election to Hillary. 80,000 votes just isn't much, even if you limit the pool to only three states. It's only a little more than 0.5% of the votes cast in those three states.

[HomerSimpson98]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Because of the Russian impact on last election, we are now more aware and therefore it is less of a threat.

My original post was



Forget Trump being a (possibly) "illegitimate" President, the Mueller's report impact on Trump popularity is a dud (well until possibly Pelosi starts impeachment), he's not going to lose his 40-42% support.

Its how the Dems can win the undecided, encourage the registered Dems to vote in larger % than they did last time etc. with a good candidate and, they better figure out messaging if the economy is doing really well next year.

Question to you:

I'm pretty sure we all believe Russia impacted the 2016 election we just differ on degree. The yes/no question is - do you believe Russian interference was the reason why Trump was elected over Hillary?

I believe the answer is no (or at least there is not evidence enough) and say the risk is even less in the future because of awareness, and its time to move on from this as a political message. If Trump wins a second term, it legitimizes him.

Boris the Message Board Troll has spoken

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by HomerSimpson98

Boris the Message Board Troll has spoken

Name fits.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I believe the answer is no (or at least there is not evidence enough) and say the risk is even less in the future because of awareness, and its time to move on from this as a political message. If Trump wins a second term, it legitimizes him.

The flaw in your logic is people who are stupid enough to be swayed by facebook propaganda are too stupid to realize they are being swayed by facebook propaganda.

I have several older family members who are Trump supporters that blindly share that stuff on Facebook, and never once stop to think that they are being manipulated by someone who it making efforts to divide us. They take it all at face value.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Lathum

The flaw in your logic is people who are stupid enough to be swayed by facebook propaganda are too stupid to realize they are being swayed by facebook propaganda.

I have several older family members who are Trump supporters that blindly share that stuff on Facebook, and never once stop to think that they are being manipulated by someone who it making efforts to divide us. They take it all at face value.

I chuckled because there is truth in this. Hopefully, they don't go out and vote.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I chuckled because there is truth in this. Hopefully, they don't go out and vote.

They will.

Virtually every Trump supporter will vote him blindly. It's his biggest advantage.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Unlike Russia, there is still a healthy freedom of the press and plenty of real news to counter the plenty of fake news.

Eh, a lot of people still get their news from state media here like they do in Russia.

There is free press, but it's not particularly healthy. Lack of investment by companies and a reliance on stories that generate revenue, not necessarily inform the public. This has also led to aggregators putting sites like Infowars at the same level as regular news media.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Eh, a lot of people still get their news from state media here like they do in Russia.

There is free press, but it's not particularly healthy. Lack of investment by companies and a reliance on stories that generate revenue, not necessarily inform the public. This has also led to aggregators putting sites like Infowars at the same level as regular news media.

It used to be 80-20 where the news is reported vs opinion and now it seems to be more 80% is opinion (and fake or exaggerated news). The Cronkite days are gone but this is the reality nowadays and in the foreseeable future.

Anyone that takes Infowars seriously is a lost cause and a fringe on the bell curve. Anyone that believes Russian propaganda on FB without first checking for corroboration is another example. We have much more awareness now of the Russkies and their evil plots.

Its an evolution of the Cronkite-like free press to current state and I do believe our younger generations are smart enough to read, filter, assess and make appropriate decisions for themselves with the current state of news.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do believe our younger generations are smart enough to read, filter, assess and make appropriate decisions for themselves with the current state of news.

They're not. They're not even close. I'm not saying other generations are better. Going back to something I posted a few weeks ago:

Originally Posted by me

two years ago only 26% of those surveyed could name the three branches of government. We aren't talking about the fine points of tax law, foreign policy, or complex agency interrelation issues here. This isn't the stuff of political junkies.

There are other examples, but it's well-documented that Americans are simply not informed enough, by their own choice, to make remotely intelligent decisions politically.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

They're not. They're not even close. I'm not saying other generations are better. Going back to something I posted a few weeks ago:

There are other examples, but it's well-documented that Americans are simply not informed enough, by their own choice, to make remotely intelligent decisions politically.

Can you provide the source? When I google, I am finding Millennial's are better educated, socially aware, and definitely more tech savvy.

Maybe the old standards of knowing American government/history is not the right way to measure current generation?

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

They're not. They're not even close. I'm not saying other generations are better. Going back to something I posted a few weeks ago:



There are other examples, but it's well-documented that Americans are simply not informed enough, by their own choice, to make remotely intelligent decisions politically.

The funny thing is that this was exactly what the framers were thinking too. They didn't want a monarchy, but they knew the the poor farmers were never going to be good enough to actually be the leadership. The concept of the gentleman lords was simply carried over, without all the language that said that, but they were certainly thinking it.

[PilotMan]

So I can't get past some things with Iran.


What exactly differentiates Iran from North Korea? I mean, I could argue, that Iran is so much closer to the US in terms of culture and freedoms it's not even close. But specifically..


Why are there not good people on both sides?
Why is the president willing to believe another strong arm leader's "very strong words," but makes a point not to believe Iran's?


I'm not saying that Iran is free from blame, or shouldn't be strongly questioned, but there are some questions that are raised regarding weapons, words, and posturing between the three countries that show, at the very least, that the current US leadership is playing with two sets of cards, and that has to make people nervous. I just want to get to the bottom line of what makes that behavior, and why are the same people who are cheering for trump, not seeing it?

[JPhillips]

All in for Senator Steve Daines as he proposes an Amendment for a strong BAN on burning our American Flag. A no brainer!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2019

lol not this bullshit again.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

So I can't get past some things with Iran.

What exactly differentiates Iran from North Korea? I mean, I could argue, that Iran is so much closer to the US in terms of culture and freedoms it's not even close. But specifically..

Why are there not good people on both sides?
Why is the president willing to believe another strong arm leader's "very strong words," but makes a point not to believe Iran's?

I'm not saying that Iran is free from blame, or shouldn't be strongly questioned, but there are some questions that are raised regarding weapons, words, and posturing between the three countries that show, at the very least, that the current US leadership is playing with two sets of cards, and that has to make people nervous. I just want to get to the bottom line of what makes that behavior, and why are the same people who are cheering for trump, not seeing it?

Good question. They are both threats but in different ways. NK only has the nuke threat whereas Iran has the low-intensity terrorism, working against US interests version. NK can launch nukes (but who knows how successfully), Iran isn't there yet.

I think he probably thinks he can make a deal with NK whereas he had to strike down a deal with Iran because it was a Obama win. Because he struck down that deal, he now has to prove how "bad" Iran is.

Just my guess.

[tarcone]

Iran supports terrorist organizations in the ME. When they have money they prop those organizations up. This further destabilizes an already unstable area.

NK is a rogue state that is poor and might have nukes.

Both are bad to USA interests. In different way.

And with Oil being "THE" resource, guess which state is worse?

And why arent we more involved in bringing democracy to Sudan? Oh yeah, the Saudis like a suppressed country with a leader they can control and we dont want to piss off the saudis.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

All in for Senator Steve Daines as he proposes an Amendment for a strong BAN on burning our American Flag. A no brainer!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2019

lol not this bullshit again.

That pesky first amendment.

[panerd]

These countries (Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc) also happen to border our two rivals ("enemies") in the Cold War that is still going on in most of the Neo-cons heads. It's the Soviet Union's South American strategy from the 1970's... but of course since the US is doing it we are good guys right?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Iran supports terrorist organizations in the ME. When they have money they prop those organizations up. This further destabilizes an already unstable area.

NK is a rogue state that is poor and might have nukes.

Both are bad to USA interests. In different way.

And with Oil being "THE" resource, guess which state is worse?

And why arent we more involved in bringing democracy to Sudan? Oh yeah, the Saudis like a suppressed country with a leader they can control and we dont want to piss off the saudis.

One side's terrorist organizations are another sides "freedom fighters". I'm actually a supporter of the Israeli State but to act like Israel and the United States play by the rules while the dark skinned are fully supporters of terror is why this mess is the way it is in the Middle East.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by panerd

One side's terrorist organizations are another sides "freedom fighters". I'm actually a supporter of the Israeli State but to act like Israel and the United States play by the rules while the dark skinned are fully supporters of terror is why this mess is the way it is in the Middle East.

Or you choose sides. Because of the tribal ways of the ME, you are right, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist group or supported by the white devil.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Can you provide the source?

Annenberg Public Policy Center

You can see from the article, if you choose to read it, that the general trend here is in the wrong direction if it's moving at all. That's not what we would expect if younger generations are more informed.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Maybe the old standards of knowing American government/history is not the right way to measure current generation?

I'd disagree with this mostly strongly. I don't think you need to know much history - that's probably not that interesting a topic to debate. But if you don't know the branches of government, you can't intelligently vote for Representative, Senator, or President. What we're saying here is that most Americans vote for people literally not knowing what their job is supposed to be at the most basic level. Again, this is just the most basic, entry-level, fundamental requirement to have any chance of make a decent choice. It's like an adult in their private life knowing how to pay their bills or put their socks on. Millennials may well be more tech-savvy, socially aware, and a great many other positive things, but that has zilch to do with this IMO.

Originally Posted by PilotMan

this was exactly what the framers were thinking too. They didn't want a monarchy, but they knew the the poor farmers were never going to be good enough to actually be the leadership.

We definitely have a rare point of agreement here.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Annenberg Public Policy Center

You can see from the article, if you choose to read it, that the general trend here is in the wrong direction if it's moving at all. That's not what we would expect if younger generations are more informed.

Thanks for the article but it doesn't segregate by age group (as many here would point out, there are plenty of dumbass boomers).

But there is hope! The article below groups 18-50 and then 50+, so its Gen X, Gen Y (Millennials). Check out table in middle of article.

Younger Americans better at telling factual news statements from opinions | Pew Research Center

But age matters, according to this new analysis, as younger adults were more likely than older Americans to correctly categorize all five of the factual statements, and also more likely to do so for the five opinion statements.

About a third of 18- to 49-year-olds (32%) correctly identified all five of the factual statements as factual, compared with two-in-ten among those ages 50 and older. A similar pattern emerges for the opinion statements. Among 18- to 49-year-olds, 44% correctly identified all five opinion statements as opinions, compared with 26% among those ages 50 and older.

When looking at the 10 statements individually, younger adults were not only better overall at correctly identifying factual and opinion news statements – they could do so regardless of the ideological appeal of the statements. (In selecting statements, the study strived to include an equal number that would appeal to the sensitivities of each side of the aisle; to learn how the Center determined the ideological appeal of the statements, see the methodology.)
:
:
fact that younger adults – especially Millennials – are less likely to strongly identify with either political party. Younger Americans also are more “digitally savvy” than their elders, a characteristic that is also tied to greater success at classifying news statements. But even when accounting for levels of digital savviness and party affiliation, the differences by age persist: Younger adults are still better than their elders at deciphering factual from opinion news statements.

Beyond digital savviness, the original study found that two other factors have a strong relationship with being able to correctly classify factual and opinion statements: having higher political awareness and more trust in the information from the national news media. Despite the fact that younger adults tend to be less politically aware and trusting of the news media than their elders, they still performed better at this task.

BTW - there is the quiz on the bottom but I was not able to take/click through it (not sure why, it may be broken).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Or you choose sides. Because of the tribal ways of the ME, you are right, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist group or supported by the white devil.

I do agree. The label of Freedom fighter vs Terrorist is due to winners being able to write the history books and being able to influence the press, public opinion etc.

[Lathum]

So the POTUS suggested in a tweet today not leaving office when two terms would be up. Truly frightening stuff.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Lathum

So the POTUS suggested in a tweet today not leaving office when two terms would be up. Truly frightening stuff.

Well, you know, if he isn't reelected, that it was rigged, and he'll need to stay in office to 'investigate' to preserve democracy.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

We definitely have a rare point of agreement here.

So if we go back to the constitution then, are we to take that into account when we apply it today? Because, that's really all I hear about when we talk about it. Is that how it should be applied today?

[stevew]

Is there any betting action on how long it will take Trump to retweet OJ? He seems quite friendly with murderers.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by stevew

Is there any betting action on how long it will take Trump to retweet OJ? He seems quite friendly with murderers.

I read someone saying the smart business decision would be for OJ to go full MAGA.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

are we to take that into account when we apply it today? Because, that's really all I hear about when we talk about it. Is that how it should be applied today?

I don't know what you mean.

[PilotMan]

When interpreting the constitution we typically hear, " this is what the framers meant when they put this in the constitution." As in, we cannot change the intent of the original framers, even though society, culture and norms change. Yet, in situations like this, we know what they were thinking, because we knew what backgrounds they came from and we have a lot of their writings, yet, we don't deal with that particular framing, understanding, or definition for the way the constitution is applied today? Should the standard be one or the other, or is it a situation where some things we can say one thing, and for other things we can say another?



This isn't meant to be a call out or anything, it's a genuine question. Perhaps I'm off base on with the way I'm looking at it, but that's the way it seems.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

When interpreting the constitution we typically hear, " this is what the framers meant when they put this in the constitution." As in, we cannot change the intent of the original framers, even though society, culture and norms change. Yet, in situations like this, we know what they were thinking, because we knew what backgrounds they came from and we have a lot of their writings, yet, we don't deal with that particular framing, understanding, or definition for the way the constitution is applied today? Should the standard be one or the other, or is it a situation where some things we can say one thing, and for other things we can say another?



This isn't meant to be a call out or anything, it's a genuine question. Perhaps I'm off base on with the way I'm looking at it, but that's the way it seems.

I think it's mostly people will go to the original intent when it suits their needs. I see people do it for all sorts of issues, both sides of the aisle. It's just another form of argumentation.

Personally I think we should regard the Constitution as a living document and allow it to evolve and change as we and our culture do.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Personally I think we should regard the Constitution as a living document and allow it to evolve and change as we and our culture do.

+1

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Pilot Man

Should the standard be one or the other, or is it a situation where some things we can say one thing, and for other things we can say another?

Well, I don't think it's really true first of all that those ideas weren't put into the constitution. I'd say that's what the whole checks and balances thing was about, why we have a balanced bicameral legislature with the Senate originally elected by the states and not the people directly, the electoral college, etc. All of those things are aimed at providing a balance so that the needs of the common man for example are highly represented yet not totally dominant.

I think the standard should be one or the other. As for me, I say that standard should be what the words meant when they were originally written.

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Personally I think we should regard the Constitution as a living document and allow it to evolve and change as we and our culture do.

Opposing this approach is my #1 political issue. I believe in original intent whether it suits my need or it doesn't. My initial example of this is always the 17th amendment. I think it was a good idea, and a bad idea to revoke it, but it's no longer part of our constitution and respecting our form of government means accepting that decision, even though it's not one that I think was wise.

Specifically on the living constitution thing, I'll just point out a few things:

** It makes a mockery of the very idea of law. If something can be freely decided to mean something different, or even contradictory, to what it originally meant based on the whims of the moment, then it is a complete travesty to insult the terms 'law' or 'constitution' by applying them to that something.

** It actually disenfranchises the people. When the living constitution approach is followed, we do not rule by, of, and for the people. Instead we have the rule by, of, and for the nine (in modern times) unelected justices of the Supreme Court who are then to be regularly engaged in forming a new Constitution more appropriate to our times. It is noteworthy that the writers of the Constitution generally considered the judicial branch to be the weakest of the three, because it's purpose was basically to apply the work of the others. That is, it was considered to have no initiative in and of itself.

** We really do have a process for changing the Constitution when we find it needs revision. It's happened approaching 30 times. If we can just decide the Constitution means something else, it renders the entire amendment process superluous and totally circumvents the standards required for it, which were instilled as being supermajorities for a reason.

I hold the rule of law as being more important than anything else, because without it nothing else matters. It doesn't matter what rights, social compacts, treaties, etc. we enter into if there are no boundaries insisting that we respect those decisions even five seconds later. Every other political issue we debate as a society rests upon the foundation of the rule of law being held in high esteem - living Constitution theory rips that to shreds.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

** We really do have a process for changing the Constitution when we find it needs revision. It's happened approaching 30 times. If we can just decide the Constitution means something else, it renders the entire amendment process superfluous and totally circumvents the standards required for it, which were instilled as being supermajorities for a reason.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is where I think your reasoning is going to run into difficulties.

Under "originalist" thinking, that was pretty clearly designed to prevent Confederate states from passing laws favorable to white people while excluding black people from those same benefits (or punitive to black citizens while not extending those same punishments to whites etc).

That approach would then insist that if we want OTHER groups to qualify for equal protection, we'd need a new, modern amendment to cover them.

30 sounds like a lot, but not in the context of almost 240 years (and a third of those essentially right off the bat, sooooo...)

"Originalist" thinking in that context asserts that any minority group that wants the Equal Protection Clause to, well, apply equally is gonna have to get 3/4th of state legislatures on board because the broad crafting of the 14th Amendment was meant to protect a specific class of citizens from chicanery, rather than applying to all subgroups equally.

I'm not saying that the Constitution necessarily needs to be a living document in its entirety, but there are pretty clearly areas where insisting that the only proper reading is the one that's 150+ years old is absurd.

Especially when those same groups use a modern reading of the 2nd Amendment to say that it means something completely different than what 200 years of American jurisprudence said it meant before Heller.

Originalists simply can't have that philosophy both ways.