7-in-10 speech-watchers say trump boosted optimism

[frigidweirdo]

The press is an important tool, and many previous presidents have realized this. Trump also has and he's playing the people off the press and getting loads of free air time for it, and realizing that he can essentially sell himself as the anti-establisment guy, and you're buying his crap as much as you'd buy the crap of others, this is McDonalds v. KFC here, both sides selling shit, but everyone buying their shit because they get the brand recognition while the diner down the road selling real food isn't getting the custom.

I've always had an issue with a biased mainstream press, the only difference with Trump is he's decided to not wallow around and let them manage his Narrative.

Well, Obama didn't either. He used the media as much as Trump, or Bush,or Clinton used the media for their own advantage. Nothing much has changed, it's just slightly different.

The difference is with Obama the Media WANTED to be used, at least the democrats with bylines did (which is most of the media)

Well, the media has found its place in the world. Trump has decided he doesn't need the media, he's attacking the media, the media that is protected by the First Amendment for a reason.

The Media has returned to it's original purpose, something it abandons whenever someone they like is in office. And again, what actual actions has Trump taken that violates the 1st amendment? What offices has he closed? What reporters has he arrested? What websites has he shut down?

Complaining about them is not violating their rights.

"The media", as if "the media" is one body all doing the same thing. As if Fox isn't left wing and has the majority of the viewers, and then many other smaller ones are left wing. Are you telling me Fox loved Obama and just went along with everything he did for 8 years? Oh, come on. "The media" doesn't exist as a unified body at all.

 

[NoNukes]

So the topic can't be more complex than just having one thing? Perhaps it is mechanics AND perception. Surely how the election functions plays an important part in who gets elected. Perception also plays a part, we know why people buy McDonalds, Coca-Cola etc, and it's not because they taste better.

The system is the system, and they system can be changed, it's already been changed from a system where the people didn't vote for the president, to one where everyone gets a vote. Do people want a system of state supremacy? If they do they don't have it. What the get is a twisted vote of people in Wyoming and Rhode Island being more important than people in Texas and California. Why?

The federal govt wasn't intended to give women the vote either, but, somehow, women got the vote. The Constitution WAS intended to be more fluid rather than rigid. People call for change, then when people suggest change they say no. People say Trump is all about him resonating with the public, but I don't see that. He resonates with entertainment junkies, not with the majority of which he didn't win.

So if you don't want me to go off topic, then don't write something off topic and which I believe you are wrong, because otherwise I'll shoot you down for saying something I think is wrong.

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

He is getting his idiotic supporters to totally disregard the media. He is taking advantage of weak minded people and should be ashamed of himself.

Once again the left shows their disdain for their fellow citizens, their own smug superiority complex, and their continued inability to understand that this is how you get "More Trump"

And the right doesn't. Quit being such a hypocrite.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So the topic can't be more complex than just having one thing? Perhaps it is mechanics AND perception. Surely how the election functions plays an important part in who gets elected. Perception also plays a part, we know why people buy McDonalds, Coca-Cola etc, and it's not because they taste better.

The system is the system, and they system can be changed, it's already been changed from a system where the people didn't vote for the president, to one where everyone gets a vote. Do people want a system of state supremacy? If they do they don't have it. What the get is a twisted vote of people in Wyoming and Rhode Island being more important than people in Texas and California. Why?

The federal govt wasn't intended to give women the vote either, but, somehow, women got the vote. The Constitution WAS intended to be more fluid rather than rigid. People call for change, then when people suggest change they say no. People say Trump is all about him resonating with the public, but I don't see that. He resonates with entertainment junkies, not with the majority of which he didn't win.

So if you don't want me to go off topic, then don't write something off topic and which I believe you are wrong, because otherwise I'll shoot you down for saying something I think is wrong.

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

He is getting his idiotic supporters to totally disregard the media. He is taking advantage of weak minded people and should be ashamed of himself.

Once again the left shows their disdain for their fellow citizens, their own smug superiority complex, and their continued inability to understand that this is how you get "More Trump"

And again, the right showed their disdain for the people by not allowing Obama to pick a Supreme Court justice. They wanted that justice and showed their "smug superiority complex" by not doing it. And the right didn't win the popular vote, so they seemed to understand the people as little as the left did.

 

[martybegan]

First you talk about perception, and when I answer about perception, you come back with mechanics....

Stay on topic please. Our system is our system. We are not a parliamentary system where that proportional voting stuff would work.

The federal level of government was never meant to be "one person, one vote" across the board. The House is the closest thing to that, and it even isn't that close.

So the topic can't be more complex than just having one thing? Perhaps it is mechanics AND perception. Surely how the election functions plays an important part in who gets elected. Perception also plays a part, we know why people buy McDonalds, Coca-Cola etc, and it's not because they taste better.

The system is the system, and they system can be changed, it's already been changed from a system where the people didn't vote for the president, to one where everyone gets a vote. Do people want a system of state supremacy? If they do they don't have it. What the get is a twisted vote of people in Wyoming and Rhode Island being more important than people in Texas and California. Why?

The federal govt wasn't intended to give women the vote either, but, somehow, women got the vote. The Constitution WAS intended to be more fluid rather than rigid. People call for change, then when people suggest change they say no. People say Trump is all about him resonating with the public, but I don't see that. He resonates with entertainment junkies, not with the majority of which he didn't win.

So if you don't want me to go off topic, then don't write something off topic and which I believe you are wrong, because otherwise I'll shoot you down for saying something I think is wrong.

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

Okay, the left want to use courts for change. You have to wonder why. Could it be that the presidency is weighted against them? The Electoral college gives Republicans more chance to get a president than it gives the left. The Senate is the same, in fact it's the Senate that twists the electoral college in favor of the right.

So why shouldn't the left use their heads and try and get the change they want via a different route? I mean, the system isn't fair in the first place, but you're whining that they're trying everything they can to restore a little balance.

The federal govt wasn't intended to be a lot of things, things have changed, and in the current climate one person one vote seems about the only fair way of doing things. If the federal govt took second place to the states, then maybe people wouldn't care, but they do. In Wyoming the people have 3 votes to one person's vote in California, it's pretty clear that this is the case, and it's pretty clear it's not fair.

If the left has such massive support, why are they losing local representation and governorships at such a astounding rate? The left isn't the majority in this country, only in large clusters of the country. If the left want's its policies enacted, it has plenty of opportunities to do so at the State level, in States where they are the majority.

Why do you feel the need to force people from Alabama to live and act like people in California and NY?

Modern conditions do not require an overreaching federal government, unless of course your goal is a homogenized mass of dependent lemmings, then of course that is what you need.

 

[martybegan]

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

He is getting his idiotic supporters to totally disregard the media. He is taking advantage of weak minded people and should be ashamed of himself.

Once again the left shows their disdain for their fellow citizens, their own smug superiority complex, and their continued inability to understand that this is how you get "More Trump"

And the right doesn't. Quit being such a hypocrite.

The gripe of the right has always been lefties want more power in the hands of less people. The desire of the left has always been to "help" people, regardless of if those people want said help. For the left, assuming the people are "too stupid to know what they want" is a main tenet of their "faith" if you will.

People on the right trust people to do the right thing as individuals far more than those on the left do. That implies a certain trust in individuals, and their intelligence.

I don't think leftists are stupid, I think they are wrong.

 

[martybegan]

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

He is getting his idiotic supporters to totally disregard the media. He is taking advantage of weak minded people and should be ashamed of himself.

Once again the left shows their disdain for their fellow citizens, their own smug superiority complex, and their continued inability to understand that this is how you get "More Trump"

And again, the right showed their disdain for the people by not allowing Obama to pick a Supreme Court justice. They wanted that justice and showed their "smug superiority complex" by not doing it. And the right didn't win the popular vote, so they seemed to understand the people as little as the left did.

Considering the "people" gave the Republicans a majority in the Senate, your complaints are moot.

And you don't think the Democrats would do the exact same thing if a Republican President was in office, they had the Senate, and the Notorious RBG had kicked the bucket?

Please.

 

[NoNukes]

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

He is getting his idiotic supporters to totally disregard the media. He is taking advantage of weak minded people and should be ashamed of himself.

Once again the left shows their disdain for their fellow citizens, their own smug superiority complex, and their continued inability to understand that this is how you get "More Trump"

And the right doesn't. Quit being such a hypocrite.

The gripe of the right has always been lefties want more power in the hands of less people. The desire of the left has always been to "help" people, regardless of if those people want said help. For the left, assuming the people are "too stupid to know what they want" is a main tenet of their "faith" if you will.

People on the right trust people to do the right thing as individuals far more than those on the left do. That implies a certain trust in individuals, and their intelligence.

I don't think leftists are stupid, I think they are wrong.

No, it is the right who think that kniggers are too stupid to know what is good for them. You see it constantly on these boards,

 

[martybegan]

I've always had an issue with a biased mainstream press, the only difference with Trump is he's decided to not wallow around and let them manage his Narrative.

Well, Obama didn't either. He used the media as much as Trump, or Bush,or Clinton used the media for their own advantage. Nothing much has changed, it's just slightly different.

The difference is with Obama the Media WANTED to be used, at least the democrats with bylines did (which is most of the media)

Well, the media has found its place in the world. Trump has decided he doesn't need the media, he's attacking the media, the media that is protected by the First Amendment for a reason.

The Media has returned to it's original purpose, something it abandons whenever someone they like is in office. And again, what actual actions has Trump taken that violates the 1st amendment? What offices has he closed? What reporters has he arrested? What websites has he shut down?

Complaining about them is not violating their rights.

"The media", as if "the media" is one body all doing the same thing. As if Fox isn't left wing and has the majority of the viewers, and then many other smaller ones are left wing. Are you telling me Fox loved Obama and just went along with everything he did for 8 years? Oh, come on. "The media" doesn't exist as a unified body at all.

Fox is one outlet of many. So you are saying, CBS, NBC, ABC, The NYT, et al have a large portion of conservative people in them?

The left has been marginalizing Fox for years, and now they have moved onto Briebart as the current "boogeyman"

 

[martybegan]

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

He is getting his idiotic supporters to totally disregard the media. He is taking advantage of weak minded people and should be ashamed of himself.

Once again the left shows their disdain for their fellow citizens, their own smug superiority complex, and their continued inability to understand that this is how you get "More Trump"

And the right doesn't. Quit being such a hypocrite.

The gripe of the right has always been lefties want more power in the hands of less people. The desire of the left has always been to "help" people, regardless of if those people want said help. For the left, assuming the people are "too stupid to know what they want" is a main tenet of their "faith" if you will.

People on the right trust people to do the right thing as individuals far more than those on the left do. That implies a certain trust in individuals, and their intelligence.

I don't think leftists are stupid, I think they are wrong.

No, it is the right who think that kniggers are too stupid to know what is good for them. You see it constantly on these boards,

You wanted to sat that word sooo bad you used a letter to get past the word filter?

Telling.

I think the black community has been sold a bad bill of goods by progressives since the 1960's. It doesn't make them stupid, it makes them victims.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So the topic can't be more complex than just having one thing? Perhaps it is mechanics AND perception. Surely how the election functions plays an important part in who gets elected. Perception also plays a part, we know why people buy McDonalds, Coca-Cola etc, and it's not because they taste better.

The system is the system, and they system can be changed, it's already been changed from a system where the people didn't vote for the president, to one where everyone gets a vote. Do people want a system of state supremacy? If they do they don't have it. What the get is a twisted vote of people in Wyoming and Rhode Island being more important than people in Texas and California. Why?

The federal govt wasn't intended to give women the vote either, but, somehow, women got the vote. The Constitution WAS intended to be more fluid rather than rigid. People call for change, then when people suggest change they say no. People say Trump is all about him resonating with the public, but I don't see that. He resonates with entertainment junkies, not with the majority of which he didn't win.

So if you don't want me to go off topic, then don't write something off topic and which I believe you are wrong, because otherwise I'll shoot you down for saying something I think is wrong.

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

Okay, the left want to use courts for change. You have to wonder why. Could it be that the presidency is weighted against them? The Electoral college gives Republicans more chance to get a president than it gives the left. The Senate is the same, in fact it's the Senate that twists the electoral college in favor of the right.

So why shouldn't the left use their heads and try and get the change they want via a different route? I mean, the system isn't fair in the first place, but you're whining that they're trying everything they can to restore a little balance.

The federal govt wasn't intended to be a lot of things, things have changed, and in the current climate one person one vote seems about the only fair way of doing things. If the federal govt took second place to the states, then maybe people wouldn't care, but they do. In Wyoming the people have 3 votes to one person's vote in California, it's pretty clear that this is the case, and it's pretty clear it's not fair.

If the left has such massive support, why are they losing local representation and governorships at such a astounding rate? The left isn't the majority in this country, only in large clusters of the country. If the left want's its policies enacted, it has plenty of opportunities to do so at the State level, in States where they are the majority.

Why do you feel the need to force people from Alabama to live and act like people in California and NY?

Modern conditions do not require an overreaching federal government, unless of course your goal is a homogenized mass of dependent lemmings, then of course that is what you need.

Because this isn't a simple situation that can be answered with one statistic to show something.

The left has "massive support" in the sense that there are millions of people, so does the right. At the same time there are lots of people who will move from one party to another based on the personality of the president, or what they perceived as happening around them.

US politics is twisted, with only two parties trying to represent all people, it's impossible.

You seem to trying to justify the Republican Party by claiming massive support. Er... they had LESS support in 2016 than they had in 2012.

Trump got 45.9% of the vote, compared to Romney's 47.2% and slightly more than McCain at 45.7% of the vote. That's not the Republican Party moving forwards.

But the other realities are there are fluctuations in how the parties do. The Republicans get more support in the good times, and the Democrats in the bad times. It's not something that can me measured exactly like this, but as the economy gets better, the Republicans are going to feel it easier. Then it gets worse again and the Democrats do better.

Obama came in during a bad recession, Bush W came in during the good times, Clinton during bad times.

 

[NoNukes]

He is getting his idiotic supporters to totally disregard the media. He is taking advantage of weak minded people and should be ashamed of himself.

Once again the left shows their disdain for their fellow citizens, their own smug superiority complex, and their continued inability to understand that this is how you get "More Trump"

And the right doesn't. Quit being such a hypocrite.

The gripe of the right has always been lefties want more power in the hands of less people. The desire of the left has always been to "help" people, regardless of if those people want said help. For the left, assuming the people are "too stupid to know what they want" is a main tenet of their "faith" if you will.

People on the right trust people to do the right thing as individuals far more than those on the left do. That implies a certain trust in individuals, and their intelligence.

I don't think leftists are stupid, I think they are wrong.

No, it is the right who think that kniggers are too stupid to know what is good for them. You see it constantly on these boards,

You wanted to sat that word sooo bad you used a letter to get past the word filter?

Telling.

I think the black community has been sold a bad bill of goods by progressives since the 1960's. It doesn't make them stupid, it makes them victims.

Thank you for proving my point. You think Blacks are too stupid to realize whether they have been sold a bad bill of goods.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, Obama didn't either. He used the media as much as Trump, or Bush,or Clinton used the media for their own advantage. Nothing much has changed, it's just slightly different.

The difference is with Obama the Media WANTED to be used, at least the democrats with bylines did (which is most of the media)

Well, the media has found its place in the world. Trump has decided he doesn't need the media, he's attacking the media, the media that is protected by the First Amendment for a reason.

The Media has returned to it's original purpose, something it abandons whenever someone they like is in office. And again, what actual actions has Trump taken that violates the 1st amendment? What offices has he closed? What reporters has he arrested? What websites has he shut down?

Complaining about them is not violating their rights.

"The media", as if "the media" is one body all doing the same thing. As if Fox isn't left wing and has the majority of the viewers, and then many other smaller ones are left wing. Are you telling me Fox loved Obama and just went along with everything he did for 8 years? Oh, come on. "The media" doesn't exist as a unified body at all.

Fox is one outlet of many. So you are saying, CBS, NBC, ABC, The NYT, et al have a large portion of conservative people in them?

The left has been marginalizing Fox for years, and now they have moved onto Briebart as the current "boogeyman"

No, I'm not saying that at all.

So, the left attacks the right media outlets and the right attacks the left media outlets. So what? This somehow proves that there is some unified "the media" that is pro-left wing? No, it doesn't.

 

[martybegan]

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

Okay, the left want to use courts for change. You have to wonder why. Could it be that the presidency is weighted against them? The Electoral college gives Republicans more chance to get a president than it gives the left. The Senate is the same, in fact it's the Senate that twists the electoral college in favor of the right.

So why shouldn't the left use their heads and try and get the change they want via a different route? I mean, the system isn't fair in the first place, but you're whining that they're trying everything they can to restore a little balance.

The federal govt wasn't intended to be a lot of things, things have changed, and in the current climate one person one vote seems about the only fair way of doing things. If the federal govt took second place to the states, then maybe people wouldn't care, but they do. In Wyoming the people have 3 votes to one person's vote in California, it's pretty clear that this is the case, and it's pretty clear it's not fair.

If the left has such massive support, why are they losing local representation and governorships at such a astounding rate? The left isn't the majority in this country, only in large clusters of the country. If the left want's its policies enacted, it has plenty of opportunities to do so at the State level, in States where they are the majority.

Why do you feel the need to force people from Alabama to live and act like people in California and NY?

Modern conditions do not require an overreaching federal government, unless of course your goal is a homogenized mass of dependent lemmings, then of course that is what you need.

Because this isn't a simple situation that can be answered with one statistic to show something.

The left has "massive support" in the sense that there are millions of people, so does the right. At the same time there are lots of people who will move from one party to another based on the personality of the president, or what they perceived as happening around them.

US politics is twisted, with only two parties trying to represent all people, it's impossible.

You seem to trying to justify the Republican Party by claiming massive support. Er... they had LESS support in 2016 than they had in 2012.

Trump got 45.9% of the vote, compared to Romney's 47.2% and slightly more than McCain at 45.7% of the vote. That's not the Republican Party moving forwards.

But the other realities are there are fluctuations in how the parties do. The Republicans get more support in the good times, and the Democrats in the bad times. It's not something that can me measured exactly like this, but as the economy gets better, the Republicans are going to feel it easier. Then it gets worse again and the Democrats do better.

Obama came in during a bad recession, Bush W came in during the good times, Clinton during bad times.

The left has blobs of support, nothing more. Again, at the local level most the country is turning to the Republicans, from State level on down. Progressives see the federal level as a way to force "the rubes" to play by their rules, their program "or else"

 

[martybegan]

Once again the left shows their disdain for their fellow citizens, their own smug superiority complex, and their continued inability to understand that this is how you get "More Trump"

And the right doesn't. Quit being such a hypocrite.

The gripe of the right has always been lefties want more power in the hands of less people. The desire of the left has always been to "help" people, regardless of if those people want said help. For the left, assuming the people are "too stupid to know what they want" is a main tenet of their "faith" if you will.

People on the right trust people to do the right thing as individuals far more than those on the left do. That implies a certain trust in individuals, and their intelligence.

I don't think leftists are stupid, I think they are wrong.

No, it is the right who think that kniggers are too stupid to know what is good for them. You see it constantly on these boards,

You wanted to sat that word sooo bad you used a letter to get past the word filter?

Telling.

I think the black community has been sold a bad bill of goods by progressives since the 1960's. It doesn't make them stupid, it makes them victims.

Thank you for proving my point. You think Blacks are too stupid to realize whether they have been sold a bad bill of goods.

Not at all. They were promised that massive government programs would help them get out of poverty, and the programs didn't work. Now the self proclaimed leaders of their communities are so in bed with progressives in general that the momentum for changing said alignment is almost nil.

Trump is probably their worst nightmare (progressive blacks) because he has said he wants to reach out to the black community and try to figure out a way to help them.

I think sooner or later someone, if not Trump, will break the political stranglehold progressives have on the black community, and their politics will align more with the rest of the country as opposed to the monolithic block we see now.

 

[martybegan]

The difference is with Obama the Media WANTED to be used, at least the democrats with bylines did (which is most of the media)

Well, the media has found its place in the world. Trump has decided he doesn't need the media, he's attacking the media, the media that is protected by the First Amendment for a reason.

The Media has returned to it's original purpose, something it abandons whenever someone they like is in office. And again, what actual actions has Trump taken that violates the 1st amendment? What offices has he closed? What reporters has he arrested? What websites has he shut down?

Complaining about them is not violating their rights.

"The media", as if "the media" is one body all doing the same thing. As if Fox isn't left wing and has the majority of the viewers, and then many other smaller ones are left wing. Are you telling me Fox loved Obama and just went along with everything he did for 8 years? Oh, come on. "The media" doesn't exist as a unified body at all.

Fox is one outlet of many. So you are saying, CBS, NBC, ABC, The NYT, et al have a large portion of conservative people in them?

The left has been marginalizing Fox for years, and now they have moved onto Briebart as the current "boogeyman"

No, I'm not saying that at all.

So, the left attacks the right media outlets and the right attacks the left media outlets. So what? This somehow proves that there is some unified "the media" that is pro-left wing? No, it doesn't.

Then why are progressives getting so butthurt defending the "media" if there isn't some monolithic block within it?

(i got to use monolithic in two separate posts in the same thread, Yay SAT words!)

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

He is getting his idiotic supporters to totally disregard the media. He is taking advantage of weak minded people and should be ashamed of himself.

Once again the left shows their disdain for their fellow citizens, their own smug superiority complex, and their continued inability to understand that this is how you get "More Trump"

And again, the right showed their disdain for the people by not allowing Obama to pick a Supreme Court justice. They wanted that justice and showed their "smug superiority complex" by not doing it. And the right didn't win the popular vote, so they seemed to understand the people as little as the left did.

Considering the "people" gave the Republicans a majority in the Senate, your complaints are moot.

And you don't think the Democrats would do the exact same thing if a Republican President was in office, they had the Senate, and the Notorious RBG had kicked the bucket?

Please.

Are they? How many Senate seats were up for election? 100%? No, 33%. So what?

The Republicans LOST 2 seats, and the Democrats GAINED 2 seats. And somehow this shows the Republicans are on the rise and the Democrats are on the way down. How?

In the Senate elections the Democrats got 11 million MORE votes than the Republicans. This proves, somehow, that the Democrats are on the way down? No. 6 years previously the Democrats only gained 3 million more votes. Wow, so, same cycle, more votes, and the Democrats are on the way down.

Look, you're trying to fit things to what you want to believe, you need to look at the reality here.

I doubt the Democrats would have stopped a Supreme Court justice being appointed BEFORE the Republicans did it. Now it's open warfare, anything is game, precedent has been set, the people are screwed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, the media has found its place in the world. Trump has decided he doesn't need the media, he's attacking the media, the media that is protected by the First Amendment for a reason.

The Media has returned to it's original purpose, something it abandons whenever someone they like is in office. And again, what actual actions has Trump taken that violates the 1st amendment? What offices has he closed? What reporters has he arrested? What websites has he shut down?

Complaining about them is not violating their rights.

"The media", as if "the media" is one body all doing the same thing. As if Fox isn't left wing and has the majority of the viewers, and then many other smaller ones are left wing. Are you telling me Fox loved Obama and just went along with everything he did for 8 years? Oh, come on. "The media" doesn't exist as a unified body at all.

Fox is one outlet of many. So you are saying, CBS, NBC, ABC, The NYT, et al have a large portion of conservative people in them?

The left has been marginalizing Fox for years, and now they have moved onto Briebart as the current "boogeyman"

No, I'm not saying that at all.

So, the left attacks the right media outlets and the right attacks the left media outlets. So what? This somehow proves that there is some unified "the media" that is pro-left wing? No, it doesn't.

Then why are progressives getting so butthurt defending the "media" if there isn't some monolithic block within it?

(i got to use monolithic in two separate posts in the same thread, Yay SAT words!)

"butthurt"? Oh, fucking grow up.

 

[NoNukes]

And the right doesn't. Quit being such a hypocrite.

The gripe of the right has always been lefties want more power in the hands of less people. The desire of the left has always been to "help" people, regardless of if those people want said help. For the left, assuming the people are "too stupid to know what they want" is a main tenet of their "faith" if you will.

People on the right trust people to do the right thing as individuals far more than those on the left do. That implies a certain trust in individuals, and their intelligence.

I don't think leftists are stupid, I think they are wrong.

No, it is the right who think that kniggers are too stupid to know what is good for them. You see it constantly on these boards,

You wanted to sat that word sooo bad you used a letter to get past the word filter?

Telling.

I think the black community has been sold a bad bill of goods by progressives since the 1960's. It doesn't make them stupid, it makes them victims.

Thank you for proving my point. You think Blacks are too stupid to realize whether they have been sold a bad bill of goods.

Not at all. They were promised that massive government programs would help them get out of poverty, and the programs didn't work. Now the self proclaimed leaders of their communities are so in bed with progressives in general that the momentum for changing said alignment is almost nil.

Trump is probably their worst nightmare (progressive blacks) because he has said he wants to reach out to the black community and try to figure out a way to help them.

I think sooner or later someone, if not Trump, will break the political stranglehold progressives have on the black community, and their politics will align more with the rest of the country as opposed to the monolithic block we see now.

Trump is just like all the others, says he wants to help, but has no ideas. like the ones who want Blacks off of welfare without providing employment. Democrats try to help, sometimes they are successful many times not. There is no success without attempt. trump is just like the Republicans, he has people fooled that he will help them when he is only going to help the rich. And the working middle class fall for it.

 

[martybegan]

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

He is getting his idiotic supporters to totally disregard the media. He is taking advantage of weak minded people and should be ashamed of himself.

Once again the left shows their disdain for their fellow citizens, their own smug superiority complex, and their continued inability to understand that this is how you get "More Trump"

And again, the right showed their disdain for the people by not allowing Obama to pick a Supreme Court justice. They wanted that justice and showed their "smug superiority complex" by not doing it. And the right didn't win the popular vote, so they seemed to understand the people as little as the left did.

Considering the "people" gave the Republicans a majority in the Senate, your complaints are moot.

And you don't think the Democrats would do the exact same thing if a Republican President was in office, they had the Senate, and the Notorious RBG had kicked the bucket?

Please.

Are they? How many Senate seats were up for election? 100%? No, 33%. So what?

The Republicans LOST 2 seats, and the Democrats GAINED 2 seats. And somehow this shows the Republicans are on the rise and the Democrats are on the way down. How?

In the Senate elections the Democrats got 11 million MORE votes than the Republicans. This proves, somehow, that the Democrats are on the way down? No. 6 years previously the Democrats only gained 3 million more votes. Wow, so, same cycle, more votes, and the Democrats are on the way down.

Look, you're trying to fit things to what you want to believe, you need to look at the reality here.

I doubt the Democrats would have stopped a Supreme Court justice being appointed BEFORE the Republicans did it. Now it's open warfare, anything is game, precedent has been set, the people are screwed.

You can't compare senate elections to national trends, because the political leanings of the 1/3 of the seats up for grabs changes every 2 years. 2016 was a "leans dem" year for the Senate due to the seats up for grabs, just like 2018 will be a "leans Republican" year.

Why should I be forced to live in "reality?" Men can be women, white people can be black people, a girl on testoterone can wrestle other girls. Reality appears to be overrated.

And yes, they sure as hell would. Remember they are the ones that removed the 60 vote rule from Cabinet appointments and Judges below the SC level. Methinks you doth protest to much.

 

[martybegan]

The Media has returned to it's original purpose, something it abandons whenever someone they like is in office. And again, what actual actions has Trump taken that violates the 1st amendment? What offices has he closed? What reporters has he arrested? What websites has he shut down?

Complaining about them is not violating their rights.

"The media", as if "the media" is one body all doing the same thing. As if Fox isn't left wing and has the majority of the viewers, and then many other smaller ones are left wing. Are you telling me Fox loved Obama and just went along with everything he did for 8 years? Oh, come on. "The media" doesn't exist as a unified body at all.

Fox is one outlet of many. So you are saying, CBS, NBC, ABC, The NYT, et al have a large portion of conservative people in them?

The left has been marginalizing Fox for years, and now they have moved onto Briebart as the current "boogeyman"

No, I'm not saying that at all.

So, the left attacks the right media outlets and the right attacks the left media outlets. So what? This somehow proves that there is some unified "the media" that is pro-left wing? No, it doesn't.

Then why are progressives getting so butthurt defending the "media" if there isn't some monolithic block within it?

(i got to use monolithic in two separate posts in the same thread, Yay SAT words!)

"butthurt"? Oh, fucking grow up.