Trump's Final 100 days
Quote: IbeatyouracesOne of the stupidest things humanity has created: "Labels based on where you're born on this planet."
Right? Cause it's not even a planet, just a flat earth with sections of tax farms that call themselves countries.
One of the best APs is to move from a low tax farm with no benefits to a high tax farm with high benefits that you never had to pay into. When people get angry at you, give you heat, or try to back you off, just call them racists.
Quote: Mission1461.) I voted for Gary Johnson, I was on the losing team no matter what.
2.) You're absolutely right. In fact, let's just go back to the laws we had in 1776, without a single exception, because they predicted the future perfectly and every single law they had back then, without any additions, alterations or deletions was spot on then, now and for all time.
3.) The Constitution sucks.
1) I feel you, brother
2) "no viewing of ankles on a Sunday lest ye spend a fortnight in repentence" was a fine law
3) hmmm no comment.
Quote: rxwineThen we're way overdue to end this electoral affirmative action for depopulated States.
(conservatives really hate affirmative action, so I know this will work)
Affirmative action - a policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group. In this case, smaller less populated States
Yeah, but the reason given was not strictly true. It was not to prevent large states or large population centers from controlling the election or the country, as determined by geography, it was to prevent large "factions" of people from exerting that control, regardless of where they lived or how closely to other people they lived.
https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/
Another reason given by Alexander Hamilton, quote from the article above:
Quote:The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”
And you KNOW that if majority conservatives lived in high population centers, and minority liberals lived in so-called fly-over states, the conservatives would be the ones screaming for electoral college reform.
Of course, the most simple answer given is probably the most correct: "The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy."
The EC was hotly debated and put into place for its time but has become irrelevant for a variety of reasons. We don't need to protect slave states anymore. We don't have an information gap anymore (although, with the advent of fake facebook news, maybe it's gotten worse, lol), senators are elected by direct vote, etc.
I'm from Alaska. We knew who won presidential elections before our polls closed and because our measly 3 electoral votes aren't worth a damn and could never turn the tide in an election. We grew up with the mentality that our vote isn't worth crap. It's the same reason why presidential candidates never campaigned here. Not good. Would they if it was popular vote? Would they just spend all their time in LA or NY? There are 741,000 people that live in the entire state of Alaska. That's a lot of votes, isn't it?
I was in Vegas the week leading up to last year's election. I was pretty damn sick of the political ads by the time I left. I'm sure the people in the 5 states that are deciding our elections today would be relieved.
I went to Pat Buchanan's rally in Kenai.Quote: SteverinosWe grew up with the mentality that our vote isn't worth crap. It's the same reason why presidential candidates never campaigned here.
Quote: RogerKintGreat point! There was no illegal immigration because there were little or no social programs. Immigrants could only be a net positive to society at the time. From what I've read a migrant just couldn't have any transmittable illnesses.
Great point!
So, are you suggesting that as society changes, laws need to be changed?
Quote: RogerKintRight? Cause it's not even a planet, just a flat earth with sections of tax farms that call themselves countries.
One of the best APs is to move from a low tax farm with no benefits to a high tax farm with high benefits that you never had to pay into. When people get angry at you, give you heat, or try to back you off, just call them racists.
The AP move is tough to accomplish because many countries have a, "Points system," or some equivalent, by which the result is even stricter immigration guidelines than we have. Effectively, you cannot get in unless they determine that you will contribute to the country at least nearly as much as you'll benefit from being there.
To be clear, I'm not an advocate of open borders. I am an advocate of not blaming children for something that they had no choice in and then punishing them after this has become their home.
Quote: RogerKintLmao got em!
No you didnt "get em"
You refuse to listen finding correlations that are wrong
No one is for illegal immigration
We are talking about people brought here as children
If you keep insisting children are guilty of crimes including theft of primary school services and should be deported you are simply wrong
Why is there a DACA bill? You asked? To protect them from overzealous people like you
We dont protect criminals with government shielding. Children brought here illegally when young are not criminals
I suppose next you will be advocating for shipping descendants of black people back to África because their parents didnt have proper documentation to be here when they were brought on their slave ships
Quote: Dalex64Of course, the most simple answer given is probably the most correct: "The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust direct democracy."
Because they didn't want people to be forced to vote one way or another under threat of violence AND because rigging the ballots, miscounting and other forms of election fraud were all much more likely back then as opposed to now.
Quote: Mission146Great point!
So, are you suggesting that as society changes, laws need to be changed?
I hate you lol
Government leads to more government. Power currupts. Absolute power something something
Quote: Mission146One candidate with a non-plurality of the vote, but without sparsely populated largely rural states a clear loser, what is more fair than that?
Maybe one person, one vote, rather than one person, 0.15 relative votes or whatever the individual case is?
Hillary knew the rules, yet she did not try to put in much effort anywhere but the coastal areas. The 1960 World Series analogy remains the best. The Yankees destroyed the Pirates in the 3 games they won. But the Pirates won 4-3. Should the rules change so "a run is a run" no matter when it comes?
I am sitting in Wheeling as I write this. Places like here would be even more ignored if it was all popular vote. Candidates would concentrate on coastal areas and to hell with everywhere else.
No thanks!
Quote: RogerKintI hate you lol
Government leads to more government. Power currupts. Absolute power something something
Lmao. Got em
Quoted from someone
Quote: SteverinosYes, the Founders were smart men. But they also owned slaves.
SO WHAT?!
Quote: Mission146
3.) The Constitution sucks.
It's a shame you weren't born in North Korea.
Quote: darkozNo you didnt "get em"
You refuse to listen finding correlations that are wrong
No one is for illegal immigration
We are talking about people brought here as children
If you keep insisting children are guilty of crimes including theft of primary school services and should be deported you are simply wrong
Why is there a DACA bill? You asked? To protect them from overzealous people like you
We dont protect criminals with government shielding. Children brought here illegally when young are not criminals
I suppose next you will be advocating for shipping descendants of black people back to África because their parents didnt have proper documentation to be here when they were brought on their slave ships
Yup that's what I'm gonna do. Try taking slow deep breaths.
Quote: darkozLmao. Got em
Quoted from someone
We are going to create new laws to raise taxes to pay for social programs. Oops, look at all these immigrants coming here abusing the system, we better make some new laws to make them illegal. Oops, they're still coming here? Well, I guess we'll just have to raise taxes through inflation and debt to pay for them too. It's not our fault we had to change laws with the changing society weeeee
Quote: darkozLmao. Got em
Quoted from someone
Btw when I said "got em" I was referring to YOU one-upping ME. I should have told you sooner but it was just too funny watching it play out.
Quote: AZDuffmanSO WHAT?!
Umm, again, cutting out the context of what is being said. The Founders were smart men for THEIR TIME. There's a lot of things that we don't do anymore because times have changed. White men don't own slaves and women can vote. The EC fit the times, but doesn't anymore, for a variety of reasons.
Right now we have a system where the candidates spend a majority of their time in a handful of states. You could argue that swing states change, and that's true, but there will ALWAYS be those swing states, regardless of which ones they are, where the candidates will spend the majority of their time. To use your words, "to hell with everyone else."
Did Trump or Hillary campaign in Wheeling? How many rallies did Trump do in Illinois as compared to, Ohio?
Quote: AZDuffman
I am sitting in Wheeling as I write this. Places like here would be even more ignored if it was all popular vote. Candidates would concentrate on coastal areas and to hell with everywhere else.
No thanks!
I think one thing a lot of people are ignoring (or at least not discussing) is that if the EC is abolished then campaign law would obviously have to be rewritten to prevent exactly what you're talking about.
Candidates ALREADY concentrate only on certain areas under the Electoral College system. That's not a new problem that would arise if we got rid of the EC.
We would need to A) establish Popular Vote as a means of election, and B) rewrite the laws (or the EC system itself) to prevent candidates from concentrating only on certain areas.
A) is debatable. B) needs to happen no matter what, because the EC is broken as is.
Quote: AZDuffmanHillary knew the rules, yet she did not try to put in much effort anywhere but the coastal areas. The 1960 World Series analogy remains the best. The Yankees destroyed the Pirates in the 3 games they won. But the Pirates won 4-3. Should the rules change so "a run is a run" no matter when it comes?
NFL fan, right? Steelers, as I recall. Jesse James is a pretty cool name, isn't it?
What's a catch?
Sometimes, it's not whether or not something happens within the Rules that is a problem, sometimes it is the Rules themselves that are a problem. Sometimes the Rules are not a problem.
To better frame this discussion for you, we are discussing whether or not the rule is a problem. Not whether or not the Rule was followed. Donald Trump is the President, ergo, the rule was followed.
Quote:I am sitting in Wheeling as I write this. Places like here would be even more ignored if it was all popular vote. Candidates would concentrate on coastal areas and to hell with everywhere else.
No thanks!
The Electoral College essentially ignores Wheeling, anyway, because all Electoral College votes in West Virginia are going to go to the Republican, at least, since 2000.
The state went 68.6% Republican last year, roughly similar number in Wheeling.
Of course, 5,493 Ohio County residents voted for Clinton, and effectively, none of their votes counted. Except to the national Popular Vote, of course, which doesn't matter.
Wheeling would have been ignored anyway, were it not for the close proximity to Ohio. Trump may have stopped in Wheeling, but really he was stopping in Steubenville, Bridgeport, Martins Ferry, Bellaire, Saint Clairsville, Shadyside, Tiltonsville....etc...etc...Wheeling, WV just happened to have the largest venue of any of those places.
Quote: MaxPenIt's a shame you weren't born in North Korea.
It doesn't mean I don't like the country. It doesn't mean that I don't think a new Constitution (or more amendments) should come with the same intent. It means that, those who tie themselves irrevocably to the notion that everything must be molded to fit the confines of a 200+ year-old document are those very same people who subscribe to the notion that everything must be molded to fit the confines of a 2000+ year-old book. A book, by the way, which is at least in some part fiction. Maybe entirely fiction. And, the same book from which much of the thinking that resulted in the original constitution was derived.
The same book that was written back when the sun was thought to revolve around the Earth. For those few with the time, education and inclination to even ponder such a question to begin with.
One thing I would keep is the notion of Freedom of Speech. In fact, I would expand what that means.
And, it would've been a shame had you not had the good fortune to be born in America. I'm glad you're here.
Quote: Mission146It doesn't mean I don't like the country. It doesn't mean that I don't think a new Constitution (or more amendments) should come with the same intent. It means that, those who tie themselves irrevocably to the notion that everything must be molded to fit the confines of a 200+ year-old document are those very same people who subscribe to the notion that everything must be molded to fit the confines of a 2000+ year-old book. A book, by the way, which is at least in some part fiction. Maybe entirely fiction. And, the same book from which much of the thinking that resulted in the original constitution was derived.
The same book that was written back when the sun was thought to revolve around the Earth. For those few with the time, education and inclination to even ponder such a question to begin with.
One thing I would keep is the notion of Freedom of Speech. In fact, I would expand what that means.
And, it would've been a shame had you not had the good fortune to be born in America. I'm glad you're here.
Don't want to derail, just a quick clarification. They didn't think the sun revolved around the earth, they knew the sun hovered above a flat earth. This is evidenced by Isaiah's dream of a tree growing so tall that it touched the sky and it could be seen from the ends of the Earth. Also, the book says the second coming descent from heaven will be seen by everyone (not just those on the right side of the globe). Also, Jesus himself, confirming their cosmology, references the sky (or firmament) rolling up like a scroll and the stars falling like figs to the earth (indicating the stars are small and close). There's tons more but yeah back to your point.
Quote: RogerKintDon't want to derail, just a quick clarification. They didn't think the sun revolved around the earth, they knew the sun hovered above a flat earth. This is evidenced by Isaiah's dream of a tree growing so tall that it touched the sky and it could be seen from the ends of the Earth. Also, the book says the second coming descent from heaven will be seen by everyone (not just those on the right side of the globe). Also, Jesus himself, confirming their cosmology, references the sky (or firmament) rolling up like a scroll and the stars falling like figs to the earth (indicating the stars are small and close). There's tons more but yeah back to your point.
Just for clarification as to not derail this further, are you saying that you believe the earth is flat, or just that the bible suggests the earth is flat?
Quote: gamerfreakJust for clarification as to not derail this further, are you saying that you believe the earth is flat, or just that the bible suggests the earth is flat?
There are more facts on one page of a Harry Potter book then there is in the entire Bible!
Quote: gamerfreakJust for clarification as to not derail this further, are you saying that you believe the earth is flat, or just that the bible suggests the earth is flat?
DarkOz said it best:
How I (or anyone else) see it is well... irrelevant.
Quote: RogerKintDarkOz said it best:
How I (or anyone else) see it is well... irrelevant.
The flat earth society has grown in recent years. Isn't it ironic? With the advent of the internet and smartphones, there's a wealth of information at our fingertips. But yet, more and more people are subscribing to the idea that our planet is flat. We're supposed to be getting smarter!
Antarctica is an ice wall and the world's military powers are all contributing to its security. It's the one thing North Korea and the USA work together on.
/facepalm
Quote: SteverinosThe flat earth society has grown in recent years. Isn't it ironic? With the advent of the internet and smartphones, there's a wealth of information at our fingertips. But yet, more and more people are subscribing to the idea that our planet is flat. We're supposed to be getting smarter!
Antarctica is an ice wall and the world's military powers are all contributing to its security. It's the one thing North Korea and the USA work together on.
/facepalm
Right? Like the Soviets and the Americans were super friendly in space. Space and Antarctica, two magical places.
Quote: RogerKintWe are going to create new laws to raise taxes to pay for social programs. Oops, look at all these immigrants coming here abusing the system, we better make some new laws to make them illegal. Oops, they're still coming here? Well, I guess we'll just have to raise taxes through inflation and debt to pay for them too. It's not our fault we had to change laws with the changing society weeeee
Good. You finally understand the way it is (:)
Quote: darkozGood. You finally understand the way it is (:)
Quote: SteverinosUmm, again, cutting out the context of what is being said. The Founders were smart men for THEIR TIME. There's a lot of things that we don't do anymore because times have changed. White men don't own slaves and women can vote. The EC fit the times, but doesn't anymore, for a variety of reasons.
We all know this. No reason to bring up that "they owned slaves" other than to incite things.
Quote:Right now we have a system where the candidates spend a majority of their time in a handful of states. You could argue that swing states change, and that's true, but there will ALWAYS be those swing states, regardless of which ones they are, where the candidates will spend the majority of their time. To use your words, "to hell with everyone else."
Did Trump or Hillary campaign in Wheeling? How many rallies did Trump do in Illinois as compared to, Ohio?
They do, and nothing will ever change this. At least the states change now and the current system gets them away from the coastal population centers.
Quote: SteverinosThe flat earth society has grown in recent years. Isn't it ironic? With the advent of the internet and smartphones, there's a wealth of information at our fingertips. But yet, more and more people are subscribing to the idea that our planet is flat. We're supposed to be getting smarter!
For the massive amounts of good information technology has made accessible, there is probably 10x as much bad information. A huge amount of people consume this information who either do not know/care to separate the good from the bad, or people who only want to seek out information that validates their opinions regardless of it's validity.
Recently I was watching a series on netflix called Manhunt: Unabomber, it's a fantastic dramatization of the investigation that led to Ted Kaczynski's capture. His motive behind the bombings was to create a platform to release his manifesto, which you'd assume would be a lot of blathering nonsense coming from a terrorist living in a shack in the woods. But the manifesto was surprisingly well written and insightful, which is what struck me more than anything about the whole story. A reporter said in an article "[the manifesto] was greeted in 1995 by many thoughtful people as a work of genius, or at least profundity, and as quite sane."
I didn't read the whole thing, but as someone who is generally very pro-technology, this part that was quoted in the series resonated with me quite a bit:
Quote:127. A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)
While all that is really thought provoking, I think where the dogma starts to fall apart (beyond the decision to mail bombs), is when it begins to demonize or suggest the resistance to technological progress, which is a fool's errand. There is no going back, the internet is a pandora's box that once opened can never be closed. Society has to adapt to the problems technology causes, there's no other option. The ability to process and discern the insane amount of information we are bombarded one of the most important skills of the 21st century, needs to be instilled in children from a really young age.
Quote: Mission146NFL fan, right? Steelers, as I recall.
Not since they signed a guy who killed dogs for amusement, and because of such likely never again.
Quote:The Electoral College essentially ignores Wheeling, anyway, because all Electoral College votes in West Virginia are going to go to the Republican, at least, since 2000.
The state went 68.6% Republican last year, roughly similar number in Wheeling.
Of course, 5,493 Ohio County residents voted for Clinton, and effectively, none of their votes counted. Except to the national Popular Vote, of course, which doesn't matter.
I don't follow. ALL of those votes counted. They just counted towards the loser. With a popular vote system you could say the same about the votes for the loser. WV is actually a good case of why to have the EC. It is filled with the white, working class votes that the Democrats decided they were embarrassed to have starting, well, right about 2000. The Democrats decided more and more to play identity politics and get a huge lock on as many minority votes as possible. By 2012 they basically admitted they had written the White vote off.
I drive the area daily. Sad to see a once proud place as it now is. One day a guy walking told me how a generation before the streets were jammed. Today one barely has to wait to cross the street in the middle of downtown (courthouse area.) Popular vote system this kind of area would be even more ignored. But EC system, it counts.
Quote: gamerfreakSociety has to adapt to the problems technology causes, there's no other option. The ability to process and discern the insane amount of information we are bombarded one of the most important skills of the 21st century, needs to be instilled in children from a really young age.
It's a good thing public schools are really good at this. Oh, wait that's memorizing and regurgitating not processing and discerning. I get those confused all the time.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot since they signed a guy who killed dogs for amusement, and because of such likely never again.
Fair enough, but the point stands. Some rules are good and others not so good. At least with the MLB's games from your example, each individual game counts equally. Point is, we're discussing whether or not the rule is good, not whether or not it was followed.
Quote:I don't follow. ALL of those votes counted. They just counted towards the loser. With a popular vote system you could say the same about the votes for the loser. WV is actually a good case of why to have the EC. It is filled with the white, working class votes that the Democrats decided they were embarrassed to have starting, well, right about 2000. The Democrats decided more and more to play identity politics and get a huge lock on as many minority votes as possible. By 2012 they basically admitted they had written the White vote off.
I drive the area daily. Sad to see a once proud place as it now is. One day a guy walking told me how a generation before the streets were jammed. Today one barely has to wait to cross the street in the middle of downtown (courthouse area.) Popular vote system this kind of area would be even more ignored. But EC system, it counts.
They didn't count towards the loser because they did nothing to benefit the loser. That's the problem with the Electoral College. If you have a plurality of a state's populace vote for one of the candidates, in most states, it is the same as if 100% of the state's residents had voted for that candidate. In effect, if you did not vote for the plurality candidate, your vote is effectively made irrelevant in the national realm.
In other words, Trump could have taken WV 100% to 0% and it doesn't change the EC votes. 489,371-188,794, 678,165-0, three votes to zero, makes no difference.
With the popular vote, it's apples-to-apples. One person, one vote, every vote counts. You point to a readily identifiable cause of a candidate losing, "Trump didn't get enough votes," as opposed to, "If Clinton had paid more attention to (state) and (state) she might've pulled this out."
Have you heard of Evan McMullin? Ran for POTUS in Utah, might've been on the ballot in another state or two, but any other states are irrelevant. While extremely unlikely, McMullin had a theoretically viable path to the Presidency, and all he would've had to do is win Utah. You can research that for yourself if you like.
Could you imagine that? The POTUS who only won one state? It could still happen.
Evolve or decline or die. Wheeling didn't evolve quickly enough. There's nothing sad about it. It is what it is.
Those white working class votes would be no less important to have in a popular vote system as an Electoral College system. Besides that, you essentially just admitted that it inherently favors certain classes of voter as opposed to others which some of us are arguing shouldn't be the case.
If you think some voters should be disproportionately benefitted and I think they should not, I'm afraid we're not going to have much in the way of middle ground.
Quote: RogerKintIt's a good thing public schools are really good at this. Oh, wait that's memorizing and regurgitating not processing and discerning. I get those confused all the time.
I could go on quite a bit about what is wrong with public education and standardized testing. I went to an inner city school with a not so great reputation, and was probably a minority as a white kid in this school district. But overall, I thought I received a fantastic education with a lot of opportunities. My K-12 career was from 1996-2010 and I can remember as early as 1st/2nd grade being taught computer and internet research skills.
That said, towards the end of my time in highschool I could see the issue with standardized testing was becoming worse and worse. A lot of the problems were caused by legislature at the state levels. School's received state grants based on test performance, which makes no at all.
I dislike large government as much as anyone else, but tend to disagree with righties what constitutes large government. Education is something that, even if done mediocrely, has a better net financial and social ROI than not doing it at all.
Quote: gamerfreak
I dislike large government as much as anyone else, but tend to disagree with righties what constitutes large government. Education is something that, even if done mediocrely, has a better net financial and social ROI than not doing it at all.
First, from one minority whitie to another, I salute you.
Second, well said. I'm curious, what metric would you use to determine whether, or not, gov education has better ROI than not doing gov education at all? The DoE has been around so long that it would be tough to measure so many variables. Before the department of education was founded 100 years ago, how was the social environment including crime? Were people generally productive members of society? Granted, the economy has changed quite a bit since pappy's farm. Are high school graduates qualified to be hired in the careers they want? Should they be?
They say that, in our democracy, media is the fourth and most powerful branch of government. I would include gov schools in that. Like you said, instilled in them while they're young.
Quote: AZDuffmanWe all know this. No reason to bring up that "they owned slaves" other than to incite things.
I agree, we all know this as a matter of historical fact. Which is the exact reason why it shouldn't incite anything, lol.
and YOUR President knocks it out of the park last night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even if one can somehow still not find themselves 100% on the side of YOUR President, there is no disagreeing He will be YOUR President for at least the next 7 years, if not 11 more years.
To say YOUR President didn't just provide the greatest 12 months in at least the past century of United States history would be doing a disservice to both THE MAN and those who persevered though the liberal media rhetoric to make him YOUR President!
The SOTU address was simply a cherry on top of 2017 and a simultaneous kick-start to 2018.
MAFGA!
Anyone who honestly believes YOUR President would have used the campaign strategy of spending ZERO days in California and less than 1/2 a million dollars after the Republican nomination, like He used to win the Presidency, is using the "How to Win Elections by hillary clinton" playbook.
YOUR President would have never won the popular vote in California, or Illinois, or New York, or Oregon, or Washington State, but don't think for a second if the swing votes in those states mattered, YOUR President would not have been stumping in those states like he did in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc, where the swing votes DID matter.
Based on the dominance YOUR President had in the states that mattered, it would be foolish at best to think he would not have swung a million and a half dopey Californians to the winning side, (evening out the popular vote) and got millions more to get off their rear-end and vote for YOUR President when they simply stayed home because in California and the other mentioned states, their vote "didn't matter" with the electoral college.
Quote: Maverick17and YOUR President knocks it out of the park last night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your President gave lip service to the issues and didn't offer a single solution. He didn't even make it to first base.
Quote: rsactuaryYour President gave lip service to the issues and didn't offer a single solution. He didn't even make it to first base.
Obviously the public didn’t feel that way based on polling from the good conservative people at CNN and NBC.
And he sure beat the drooling idiot that gave the Dem response in front of a junk car. The only thing his visual was missing was a woman covered in seaweed pounding on the windshield trying to get out.
And yes, I stole that line from Ann Coulter but it is priceless.
Quote: Mission146Fair enough, but the point stands. Some rules are good and others not so good. At least with the MLB's games from your example, each individual game counts equally. Point is, we're discussing whether or not the rule is good, not whether or not it was followed.
Of course each game counted equally. Each run did not. Each EV counts equally.
Quote:With the popular vote, it's apples-to-apples. One person, one vote, every vote counts. You point to a readily identifiable cause of a candidate losing, "Trump didn't get enough votes," as opposed to, "If Clinton had paid more attention to (state) and (state) she might've pulled this out."
Every vote does count. And more states get paid attention. Had it been about popular vote, Trump might have put an effort into CA. It is about a broad appeal. Trump had it, Hillary did not.
Quote:Those white working class votes would be no less important to have in a popular vote system as an Electoral College system. Besides that, you essentially just admitted that it inherently favors certain classes of voter as opposed to others which some of us are arguing shouldn't be the case.
Not sure how I did that.
Quote:If you think some voters should be disproportionately benefitted and I think they should not, I'm afraid we're not going to have much in the way of middle ground.
I see no middle ground. I favor the EC system because it makes candidates run a national campaign. Big states cannot ignore small states. And as I live in a bigger state, that kind of cuts my own throat there. I also do not want vote fraud in a few big places, and we have seen it, tilting an election. Motor Voter has caused many problems with the rolls. When a state tries to clean said rolls some liberal group sues to stop it. Usually under the racist guise that minorities cannot figure out how to register otherwise. The EC at least puts brakes on this.
I'll leave it like it is. Stop and say hello if you are in the Wheeling County Building.
Quote: RogerKintWe are going to create new laws to raise taxes to pay for social programs. Oops, look at all these immigrants coming here abusing the system, we better make some new laws to make them illegal. Oops, they're still coming here? Well, I guess we'll just have to raise taxes through inflation and debt to pay for them too. It's not our fault we had to change laws with the changing society weeeee
Trump does have the option of creating more jobs so that they can work help reduce the tax burden on the rest of us. Instead he chooses to use tax money to keep them illegal so they can't work but can collect welfare. Make America Great Again.
Quote: TomGTrump does have the option of creating more jobs so that they can work help reduce the tax burden on the rest of us. Instead he chooses to use tax money to keep them illegal so they can't work but can collect welfare. Make America Great Again.
Would they ease our tax burden mid to long term, though? The majority of immigrants vote for big government/higher taxes. Furthermore, wouldn't that just encourage more illegal immigration?
The other day I tried authentic maple syrup for the first time. It came in a glass bottle shaped like a maple leaf. It wasn't just good, it was life-changing. Long story short I'll probably be an illegal immigrant in Canada soon. (Yes, everytime I see your name I think of pancakes)
Quote: AZDuffmanNot since they signed a guy who killed dogs for amusement, and because of such likely never again.
I'm going to click the thank-you button for this.
Quote: Mission146It doesn't mean I don't like the country. It doesn't mean that I don't think a new Constitution (or more amendments) should come with the same intent. It means that, those who tie themselves irrevocably to the notion that everything must be molded to fit the confines of a 200+ year-old document are those very same people who subscribe to the notion that everything must be molded to fit the confines of a 2000+ year-old book. A book, by the way, which is at least in some part fiction. Maybe entirely fiction. And, the same book from which much of the thinking that resulted in the original constitution was derived.
The same book that was written back when the sun was thought to revolve around the Earth. For those few with the time, education and inclination to even ponder such a question to begin with.
One thing I would keep is the notion of Freedom of Speech. In fact, I would expand what that means.
And, it would've been a shame had you not had the good fortune to be born in America. I'm glad you're here.
Do you think people are any different now than they were in the days of Ancient Rome? Let me put it another way. Do you think the principles of governing people are any different than they were in the days of Ancient Rome?
Do you think Machiavelli's The Prince is contemporary? Yes, I know it can be read on a Kindle now.
Quote: TomGTrump does have the option of creating more jobs so that they can work help reduce the tax burden on the rest of us. Instead he chooses to use tax money to keep them illegal so they can't work but can collect welfare. Make America Great Again.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying he can (for lack of better words), let illegals become legal, they work (sh** jobs like picking strawberries), they get taxed, which cuts the tax burden on the rest of us?
I haven't looked at the numbers for this, but it seems the opposite is likely true. These "jobs" wouldn't be highly paid jobs, but low paying jobs, AFAIK. Poor people tend to pay little into taxes yet get a majority of the poverty-level government assistance, while the rich pay a majority into it and get none of the benefits. Of course, there are other things our tax money goes into.
If you meant something else, I'd like clarification.
Quote: BozObviously the public didn’t feel that way based on polling from the good conservative people at CNN and NBC.
And he sure beat the drooling idiot that gave the Dem response in front of a junk car. The only thing his visual was missing was a woman covered in seaweed pounding on the windshield trying to get out.
And yes, I stole that line from Ann Coulter but it is priceless.
That was the result of last year's speech as well, and we've all seen the tragedy that has unfolded since.
That isn't even remotely close to being true. His numbers failed to match Obama, GWB, and Bill Clinton's first official SOTU.
Quote: @realDonaldTrumpThank you for all of the nice compliments and reviews on the State of the Union speech. 45.6 million people watched, the highest number in history. @FoxNews beat every other Network, for the first time ever, with 11.7 million people tuning in. Delivered from the heart!
It'd be sad if it wasn't so damn funny...
Quote: Maverick17The start and end of a loser's argument of "the electoral college is bad because without it YOUR President would not have won" is this:
Anyone who honestly believes YOUR President would have used the campaign strategy of spending ZERO days in California and less than 1/2 a million dollars after the Republican nomination, like He used to win the Presidency, is using the "How to Win Elections by hillary clinton" playbook.
YOUR President would have never won the popular vote in California, or Illinois, or New York, or Oregon, or Washington State, but don't think for a second if the swing votes in those states mattered, YOUR President would not have been stumping in those states like he did in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, etc, where the swing votes DID matter.
Based on the dominance YOUR President had in the states that mattered, it would be foolish at best to think he would not have swung a million and a half dopey Californians to the winning side, (evening out the popular vote) and got millions more to get off their rear-end and vote for YOUR President when they simply stayed home because in California and the other mentioned states, their vote "didn't matter" with the electoral college.
Your argument seems to boil down to, “He would have won anyway.”
That’s fine. If he would have, he would have.
I can’t speak for everyone else here, but I think the Electoral College sucks because it sucks. I don’t think it sucks because Trump won. Had Clinton won via EC and lost the PV, I’d still maintain that the EC sucks.
