Can Trump act like he gives a crap for the election?

[JoeB131]

How is it that we are almost to another Presidential election and you still don't understand how the people of the US express their desire to elect a President.?

The people did express their desire. They voted for Mrs. Clinton.

306 Political Hacks decided otherwise.

The problem is, we let the 306 political hacks make these decisions.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I disagree. They clearly did.

More people voted against him than for him. Clearly they didn't.

So the majority of people is always right? Majority would vote for zero taxes too.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

How is it that we are almost to another Presidential election and you still don't understand how the people of the US express their desire to elect a President.?

The people did express their desire. They voted for Mrs. Clinton.

306 Political Hacks decided otherwise.

The problem is, we let the 306 political hacks make these decisions.

You cannot change how the game is played because you don’t like the outcome. They would have campaigned differently if it were a popular vote vs an electoral college vote.

 

[whitehall]

Another laughable Alinsky post from lefties who really don't have a candidate

 

[JoeB131]

So the majority of people is always right? Majority would vote for zero taxes too.

Would they? What do you base that on? Most people LIKE having public services.

You cannot change how the game is played because you don’t like the outcome. They would have campaigned differently if it were a popular vote vs an electoral college vote.

It isn't a game. We asked the people who they wanted. They clearly states a preference. 306 political hacks said otherwise.

You know, there's no law that says that electors have to be voted on by the people, for that matter. In the early days, they were selected by legislators.

If you actually had a situation were every vote counted, and people felt that they could come out and vote and it would have made a difference, Trump would have lost by a lot more. CA, NY, IL all had lower turnouts than the swing states... that's the whole point.

 

[Billiejeens]

So the majority of people is always right? Majority would vote for zero taxes too.

Would they? What do you base that on? Most people LIKE having public services.

You cannot change how the game is played because you don’t like the outcome. They would have campaigned differently if it were a popular vote vs an electoral college vote.

It isn't a game. We asked the people who they wanted. They clearly states a preference. 306 political hacks said otherwise.

You know, there's no law that says that electors have to be voted on by the people, for that matter. In the early days, they were selected by legislators.

If you actually had a situation were every vote counted, and people felt that they could come out and vote and it would have made a difference, Trump would have lost by a lot more. CA, NY, IL all had lower turnouts than the swing states... that's the whole point.

The whole point is that you simply do not understand how the people of the US select Presidents.

 

[Billiejeens]

How is it that we are almost to another Presidential election and you still don't understand how the people of the US express their desire to elect a President.?

The people did express their desire. They voted for Mrs. Clinton.

306 Political Hacks decided otherwise.

The problem is, we let the 306 political hacks make these decisions.

No -
The Electors are simply a pass thru for the voters of each state.
This would be like you complaining that the accounting firm that tabulated the votes at the miss America Contest choose the winner.
They simply presented the information as to who won.
The EC collected the votes from each state and presented the information as to who won.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So the majority of people is always right? Majority would vote for zero taxes too.

Would they? What do you base that on? Most people LIKE having public services.

You cannot change how the game is played because you don’t like the outcome. They would have campaigned differently if it were a popular vote vs an electoral college vote.

It isn't a game. We asked the people who they wanted. They clearly states a preference. 306 political hacks said otherwise.

You know, there's no law that says that electors have to be voted on by the people, for that matter. In the early days, they were selected by legislators.

If you actually had a situation were every vote counted, and people felt that they could come out and vote and it would have made a difference, Trump would have lost by a lot more. CA, NY, IL all had lower turnouts than the swing states... that's the whole point.

Pure speculation. You did not like the outcome so you're complaining. The saying was a metaphor. Does not have to be a "game".

 

[Billiejeens]

So the majority of people is always right? Majority would vote for zero taxes too.

Would they? What do you base that on? Most people LIKE having public services.

You cannot change how the game is played because you don’t like the outcome. They would have campaigned differently if it were a popular vote vs an electoral college vote.

It isn't a game. We asked the people who they wanted. They clearly states a preference. 306 political hacks said otherwise.

You know, there's no law that says that electors have to be voted on by the people, for that matter. In the early days, they were selected by legislators.

If you actually had a situation were every vote counted, and people felt that they could come out and vote and it would have made a difference, Trump would have lost by a lot more. CA, NY, IL all had lower turnouts than the swing states... that's the whole point.

Pure speculation. You did not like the outcome so you're complaining. The saying was a metaphor. Does not have to be a "game".

Game has some negative connotations of not being serious - it is certainly a contest.

 

[JoeB131]

The whole point is that you simply do not understand how the people of the US select Presidents.

The whole point is that the people DON'T select presidents. An archaic system devised by slave rapists lets 270+ Political hacks do it.

Pure speculation. You did not like the outcome so you're complaining. The saying was a metaphor. Does not have to be a "game".

It's a dumb metaphor. An election isn't a game. It's a surveying of the will of the people to determine where we want to go as a country. THE PEOPLE clearly rejected Trump. Loudly. Clearly. Emphatically.

But because you guys treat it like a "game", like the rules printed on the top of a box, "Meh, we got more electoral votes, so we win!"

Now we are seeing the results of that non-serious attitude. 26 million unemployed 115,000 DEAD, riots in our streets, because they people said, "This man is unfit for office", but you are all, "But we won the game".

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The whole point is that you simply do not understand how the people of the US select Presidents.

The whole point is that the people DON'T select presidents. An archaic system devised by slave rapists lets 270+ Political hacks do it.

Pure speculation. You did not like the outcome so you're complaining. The saying was a metaphor. Does not have to be a "game".

It's a dumb metaphor. An election isn't a game. It's a surveying of the will of the people to determine where we want to go as a country. THE PEOPLE clearly rejected Trump. Loudly. Clearly. Emphatically.

But because you guys treat it like a "game", like the rules printed on the top of a box, "Meh, we got more electoral votes, so we win!"

Now we are seeing the results of that non-serious attitude. 26 million unemployed 115,000 DEAD, riots in our streets, because they people said, "This man is unfit for office", but you are all, "But we won the game".

100% subjective your post is. I disagree. The voters will decide again this November. We are the United States and Trump won 30 of them. If you want to abolish the states and make us one giant state then the popular vote would be the way to go. I care more about freedom of speech and expression no matter how offensive people may deem it to be.

The Left is suppressing free speech. They do not deserve my vote. But that’s my opinion. You’re free to have your own.

 

[JoeB131]

100% subjective your post is. I disagree. The voters will decide again this November. We are the United States and Trump won 30 of them. If you want to abolish the states and make us one giant state then the popular vote would be the way to go. I care more about freedom of speech and expression no matter how offensive people may deem it to be.

Buddy, you can wrap yourself in the flag all day, but you didn't have this kind of reverence when Obama was in charge. Your side stocked up on weapons for the day the scary Negro tried to give you health care.

You also need to be less short sided. Very soon, TX and AZ will be blue states because of increased Hispanic immigration/population growth. That will make it impossible for your side to win even if by some method you do get to win the popular vote.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

100% subjective your post is. I disagree. The voters will decide again this November. We are the United States and Trump won 30 of them. If you want to abolish the states and make us one giant state then the popular vote would be the way to go. I care more about freedom of speech and expression no matter how offensive people may deem it to be.

Buddy, you can wrap yourself in the flag all day, but you didn't have this kind of reverence when Obama was in charge. Your side stocked up on weapons for the day the scary Negro tried to give you health care.

You also need to be less short sided. Very soon, TX and AZ will be blue states because of increased Hispanic immigration/population growth. That will make it impossible for your side to win even if by some method you do get to win the popular vote.

you didn't have this kind of reverence when Obama was in charge. --- you have proof of this? I would love to see it.

You also need to be less short sided. Very soon, TX and AZ will be blue states because of increased Hispanic immigration/population growth. That will make it impossible for your side to win even if by some method you do get to win the popular vote. --- If that is how the country wants to go then I will follow along. My side is the side of freedom of speech first and foremost. I attack Leftists like you because they try to shame those with disparate opinions. Censorship is ridiculous IMO, such as HBO banning Gone with the Wind due to some butthurt SJWs.

Let the voters decide. I am not sure how much more I can simplify that statement. Please explain to me what part of that you do not understand?

 

[JoeB131]

If that is how the country wants to go then I will follow along. My side is the side of freedom of speech first and foremost. I attack Leftists like you because they try to shame those with disparate opinions. Censorship is ridiculous IMO, such as HBO banning Gone with the Wind due to some butthurt SJWs.

Dude, you are getting off topic and missing the point. The electoral college is not about "Free Speech". The electoral college exists because the Founding Slave Rapists didn't trust the people and wanted a backstop to make sure that some crazy person didn't get elected. The problem is, the people got this right and some crazy person got elected.

Let the voters decide. I am not sure how much more I can simplify that statement. Please explain to me what part of that you do not understand?

I agree. LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. The voters decided in 2016 that Hilary Clinton, despite all our concerns about her, was more qualified to be President than some Game Show Host. 304 political hacks decided otherwise.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

If that is how the country wants to go then I will follow along. My side is the side of freedom of speech first and foremost. I attack Leftists like you because they try to shame those with disparate opinions. Censorship is ridiculous IMO, such as HBO banning Gone with the Wind due to some butthurt SJWs.

Dude, you are getting off topic and missing the point. The electoral college is not about "Free Speech". The electoral college exists because the Founding Slave Rapists didn't trust the people and wanted a backstop to make sure that some crazy person didn't get elected. The problem is, the people got this right and some crazy person got elected.

Let the voters decide. I am not sure how much more I can simplify that statement. Please explain to me what part of that you do not understand?

I agree. LET THE VOTERS DECIDE. The voters decided in 2016 that Hilary Clinton, despite all our concerns about her, was more qualified to be President than some Game Show Host. 304 political hacks decided otherwise.

The problem is, the people got this right and some crazy person got elected. --- In your opinion. Again we are the united states and the "crazy person" won 30 of them. In terms of slaves. Blacks sold slaves from Africa to whites. Different whites became abolitionists, helping many escape and then many died during the civil war to free them. Not all blacks are the same and not all whites are the same. Please remember that your opinion while welcome is not a fact.

The voters decided in 2016 that Hilary Clinton, despite all our concerns about her, was more qualified to be President than some Game Show Host. 304 political hacks decided otherwise. --- You cannot change the rules after the game is over. Everyone and their mothers said HRC would run away in a landslide victory. She didn't and now we are attacking the EC. People would have campaigned differently if it were the popular vote. But even the popular vote IMO is not optimal. My oldest will be voting in six years, she doesn't have nearly the life experience or knowledge that I will have but her vote will be equal to mine. Not really a perfect system. Initially the founding fathers wanted only land owners to vote. There is NO PERFECT SYSTEM. Did you complain about the EC when Bush beat Gore? I voted for Gore, btw. First election in which I was eligible to vote for President. I do not recall anyone arguing to abolish the EC then.

#butthurt lives matter

 

[JoeB131]

In your opinion. Again we are the united states and the "crazy person" won 30 of them. In terms of slaves.

Again- the people said "no". Trump won on a technicality, but the people loudly said no.

Blacks sold slaves from Africa to whites.

They didn't try to start a country based on the principle that "All Men are Created Equal". The Founding Slave Rapists did, but then they enshrined slavery into the constitution.

Different whites became abolitionists, helping many escape and then many died during the civil war to free them. Not all blacks are the same and not all whites are the same. Please remember that your opinion while welcome is not a fact.

Uh, sorry, I deal in nothing but facts. History is FACTS. If you want to go into facts, whites in the North rioted when a draft was imposed, and they proceeded to raid black neighborhoods in NYC and lynch freedmen. If the South hadn't rebelled to start with, I doubt anyone in the north would have been so keen on freeing them.

You cannot change the rules after the game is over. Everyone and their mothers said HRC would run away in a landslide victory. She didn't and now we are attacking the EC.

Actually, people have been attacking the EC for years. The main reason why these weren't big attacks before 2000 was because - wait for it - the person who won the EC usually won the Popular vote. In fact, you'd have to go back to 1888 to find a previous instance of it happening.

People would have campaigned differently if it were the popular vote.

Yes, they would have. They'd have run in the whole country rather than four or five states. What a crazy idea that would be.

But even the popular vote IMO is not optimal. My oldest will be voting in six years, she doesn't have nearly the life experience or knowledge that I will have but her vote will be equal to mine. Not really a perfect system. Initially the founding fathers wanted only land owners to vote. There is NO PERFECT SYSTEM. Did you complain about the EC when Bush beat Gore?

The EC does not give more votes for Older and Wiser. Although, frankly, given what a mess the older generation made of things, maybe we should listen to these kids. But here's the thing... You live in Massachusetts... your vote doesn't count, anyway. The Democrats have only lost Massachusetts ONCE in my lifetime (1984). So let's assume that you have your valid reasons for voting for Republicans and that you could even articulate them.

Doesn't matter. In your state, your vote is wasted. Neither candidate will even make a visit to your state.

When Bush Beat Gore, I supported Bush. I still thought the EC was kind of fucked up, though. Prior to 2016, both parties nominated people who were qualified for the job. I might not have liked it if Gore had won, but I'd have no doubt he would be able to run the country. What we've seen in the last three years is the "Deep State" carrying as far as they could, but Trump's insanity and incompetence has finally caught up with us.

The Roman Empire functioned perfectly well with Caligula at the helm. But eventually, they realized he had to go.

I voted for Gore, btw. First election in which I was eligible to vote for President. I do not recall anyone arguing to abolish the EC then.

Here's an argument from 2012 against the Electoral College. There's a whole bunch of Not Trump reasons why it is bad.

10 reasons why the Electoral College is a problem - MinnPost

Here’s a quick list of the problems and potential problems.

www.minnpost.com

 

[JoeB131]

To elaborate on the above...

The five cases where the EC caused the Popular Vote winner to lose, have largely been disasters.

The 1824 Election actually caused the thing to be throw into the House. As a result of the "Corrupt Bargain", John Quincy Adams was elected.

the 1876 Election saw the resolution of who got disputed electoral votes sent to a special commission. To get the Commission to sign on to the final result, the Republicans had to surrender on Reconstruction, resulting in 100 years of Jim Crow. It rendered all the sacrifices of the Civil War meaningless.

The 1888 is the only one that we saw that was clean. Harrison ran us directly into a Panic that was so bad, they stopped calling them "Panics" and started calling them "Depressions".

2000- Well, that ended up with the Courts deciding the election rather than having a fair recount in Florida.

Now, here's the thing. Trump is already setting up teams to challenge the results of state elections if he loses in swing states. He'll probably end up tying up the finalization of the vote for weeks or months WHEN he loses.

The good news, after Trump is gone, I think you are really going to see a new push to replace the EC with something sensible.

My suggestion- do what France does. Have a general election, if no one gets 50%, then you have a runoff of the top two vote getters. It would allow third parties to evolve.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

#1) 30 out of 50 states. Not sure how many more times I can drive that nail home and we are the United States.
#2) South rebelled because the North was pressuring it to end slavery. Abolitionists were mostly white.
#3) So you agree people would campaign differently. Excellent.
#4) I agree my vote is wasted. But not so in local town elections.

 

[JoeB131]

#1) 30 out of 50 states. Not sure how many more times I can drive that nail home and we are the United States.
#2) South rebelled because the North was pressuring it to end slavery. Abolitionists were mostly white.
#3) So you agree people would campaign differently. Excellent.
#4) I agree my vote is wasted. But not so in local town elections.

1) Irrelevant. The people said no. That the EC gives more power to sparsely populated states is the problem.
2) The South Rebelled because they couldn't EXPAND slavery into new territories.
3) Trump would have still lost, even if he campaigned differently. In fact, he probably would have lost by a bigger margin.
4) Who gives a fuck about local town elections? I don't.