Conservatives and Liberals: A little more civility please

[rdean]

No, this doesn't create any division, I'm not saying Trump isn't going to be president.

You are intentionally trying to cheapen his victory by calling it a technicality and you know it and that is why you are being dishonest. Now you are pretending to take the high road, only idiots wouldn't realize what you are doing.

The victory was cheapened by the fact that he lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. That's where we are.

In your mind, however we have never in history elected a President with the popular vote. He won by doing what he needed to do to win the Presidency, the same way Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and every other President has won. You are being dishonest. You are dividing and creating contention. But go ahead, your crying won't change a thing.

I'm not arguing Trump did something wrong by winning the electoral college. I'm just saying it wasn't really that close in the popular vote and the electoral college serves no purpose other than to overly distort a win or change the results of an election from whoever won the popular vote.

Please try to focus.

I am focused, you said his victory was cheapened, however he has won the way every other President has won. I never said or implied that you claim Trump did anything wrong.

I wished my candidate would have won but that is how it goes. We get who the Electoral College says we get.

Donald Trump on June 16, 2015, "When Mexico sends it people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Was that kind of rhetoric "wrong"?

 

[Papageorgio]

Think of it this way.. assume we only have 2 states, one with 1,000,000 people and the other with 5,000,000. Without the EC the latter would select the president, every time.

Well, a couple of things wrong with that analogy. FIrst being we are 50 states, not 2. Second if you really want to use the two state analogy, most likely the 5,000,000 state is probably going to pick the winner every time with or without the electoral college. 5 to 1? Wouldn't be close.

But what if the states were 60 million to 500 thousand? How would your lame analogy work then?

Let's try this another way. I say one vote equals one person. What do you think one vote should be worth?

Uhm, I dunno, one vote?

But that's not how it works in the electoral college. A vote in Wyoming is worth four times as much as a vote in Texas. And then if your side lost the state election then your vote means zero. A single vote has a different value in every state, there is nothing fair about it.

Then work to change it. I see the pros and cons to the popular vote and the electoral vote.

Trumps a pro at being a con. What else can you call a man who stiffs his workers. That's not even under debate anymore, not after he admitted it.

Yep you can dig up dirt on anyone. It's pretty easy.

 

[Papageorgio]

You are intentionally trying to cheapen his victory by calling it a technicality and you know it and that is why you are being dishonest. Now you are pretending to take the high road, only idiots wouldn't realize what you are doing.

The victory was cheapened by the fact that he lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. That's where we are.

In your mind, however we have never in history elected a President with the popular vote. He won by doing what he needed to do to win the Presidency, the same way Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and every other President has won. You are being dishonest. You are dividing and creating contention. But go ahead, your crying won't change a thing.

I'm not arguing Trump did something wrong by winning the electoral college. I'm just saying it wasn't really that close in the popular vote and the electoral college serves no purpose other than to overly distort a win or change the results of an election from whoever won the popular vote.

Please try to focus.

I am focused, you said his victory was cheapened, however he has won the way every other President has won. I never said or implied that you claim Trump did anything wrong.

I wished my candidate would have won but that is how it goes. We get who the Electoral College says we get.

Donald Trump on June 16, 2015, "When Mexico sends it people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Was that kind of rhetoric "wrong"?

Yep, said it wasn't smart to do it, I didn't think it was smart to say "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." either.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Trump kind of ignored them too, what are you talking about? Just because a state has a low population is really no reason to give them more electoral power, there is no reason for it. Also, if you go to a popular vote system then there is more incentive for people to vote in elections where the other party outnumbers their own. it's an incentive to vote where as the EC can have the effect of killing turnout because many will rightfully believe that their vote doesn't count.

Maybe it would only be blue states, if so, traditionally we are pretty close to being there. Nothing is easy but the EC is undemocratic.

In fact, you are close to nothing because you seem to have no understanding why Clinton lost the election.

She lost the election mostly because of the electoral college. I mean, if you want to look at in who got the most votes.

Other than that you have a lot of anger in white communities who feel they've been ignored, specifically in the rust belt and they wanted change. It was a relatively low voter turnout presidential election and that's a shame.

They have been ignored by both Obama and Clinton and they understood if Clinton were elected they would continue to be ignored. Trump addressed their concerns directly and they embraced him. Democrats need to remember the sign Carville posted on the wall of Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters, "It's the economy, Stupid!" These people are the Reagan Democrats, also known as economic Democrats and Clinton lost them because she ignored them. If she had delivered a positive economic message to them, she would have won the electoral college. Can you figure out why she couldn't give them such a message?

And Trump will do as little on that as everyone since Reagan began the societal wealth redistribution. Watch.

Trump has already said what he will do and he has strong, probably bipartisan, support in Congress, you are making no sense.

Your ruling class says all kindsa shit, watch. Recycled swamp rats and Goldman Sachs insiders, same as it ever was.

 

[Fenton Lum]

The victory was cheapened by the fact that he lost the popular vote by 2.5 million. That's where we are.

In your mind, however we have never in history elected a President with the popular vote. He won by doing what he needed to do to win the Presidency, the same way Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt and every other President has won. You are being dishonest. You are dividing and creating contention. But go ahead, your crying won't change a thing.

I'm not arguing Trump did something wrong by winning the electoral college. I'm just saying it wasn't really that close in the popular vote and the electoral college serves no purpose other than to overly distort a win or change the results of an election from whoever won the popular vote.

Please try to focus.

I am focused, you said his victory was cheapened, however he has won the way every other President has won. I never said or implied that you claim Trump did anything wrong.

I wished my candidate would have won but that is how it goes. We get who the Electoral College says we get.

Donald Trump on June 16, 2015, "When Mexico sends it people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

Was that kind of rhetoric "wrong"?

Yep, said it wasn't smart to do it, I didn't think it was smart to say "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." either.

Both statements have a minor element of truth in them, but should not have been applied in general to an entire group.