Conservatives and Liberals: A little more civility please

[HappyJoy]

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?

A vote in your state.

Now, why should a vote in your state mean more or less than someone else? Why is that fair? Please try to explain that.

Well, the electoral college says no state can have less than three electoral votes. That means a state like Wyoming, with such a small population, is way over represented. One of it's electoral votes is 43 times greater than one in California. You do the math.

Didn't you hear? Wyoming was the center of attention this and every election cycle thanks to the electoral college.

 

[Iceweasel]

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?

A vote in your state.

Now, why should a vote in your state mean more or less than someone else? Why is that fair? Please try to explain that.

I already did. I can't understand it for you.

 

[Iceweasel]

To me:

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."

Counts as racism. To Republicans, it's just funny.

That was his first speech and that's the best you have?

 

[Borillar]

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?

A vote in your state.

Now, why should a vote in your state mean more or less than someone else? Why is that fair? Please try to explain that.

Well, the electoral college says no state can have less than three electoral votes. That means a state like Wyoming, with such a small population, is way over represented. One of it's electoral votes is 43 times greater than one in California. You do the math.

So there is no doubt, Wyoming's votes count a hell of a lot more. Fair? I don't think so.

I don't know if the small states are over represented or the populous states are way under represented. Then there is the crazy winner take all aspect of the electoral college. It totally ignores the fact that people in all states don't vote as a monolithic block. The electors at least should vote in proportion to how the people in their states voted. All the states are purple, not blue or red.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

I don't know what else to say to you... your vote doesn't really matter at the individual level in a presidential election. It is the state's vote that matters. The framers didn't want a situation where the major population centers elected the president.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The electoral college gives a voice to the small states which would otherwise be effectively governed from Sacramento. That is also the reason the Senate gives Delaware and California the same number of representatives. Without these measures there would have been no United States, and these reasons are still strong enough to prevent a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college so why make a fool of yourself whining about it?

No it doesn't. Wyoming, Alaska and Rhode Island had zero voice and they will continue to be ignored after the election because nobody lives there, nobody campaigns there. That is a farce.

You know who doesn't get a voice? Conservatives in California, millions of voters, about 40% of the state, they don't have a single electoral college vote to share. While half a million in Wyoming get 4. There is nothing democratic about that.

Anyway, you really don't need a constitutional amendment. If enough states pass laws to give their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote then the EC is for all purposes non functional. You really only need enough states to equal 270 electoral votes to get there and that is possibly attainable.

In fact, as much as you and Clinton might want to ignore these states, they are not ignored because they have at least 3 electoral votes and two Senate votes.

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.

The only states that would agree to vote for the winner of the national popular vote would some of the be blue states, because the electoral system is advantageous to the mostly Republican smaller states. Instead of whining about the electoral college, why don't you try to figure out why Clinton lost blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? It is these states that cost her the election, not the electoral college.

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?

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

I don't know what else to say to you... your vote doesn't really matter at the individual level in a presidential election. It is the state's vote that matters. The framers didn't want a situation where the major population centers elected the president.

"The states" vote is based on population. Also, major population centers do control elections in their own states so that is sort of bullshit. Plus, states that have low populations really don't get a lot of attention anyway unless they are a swing state like New Hampshire.

What do you have against upstate New York, much of the central valley in California or the vast wastelands in Texas? They aren't population centers yet their vote doesn't mean as much as someone living in Phoenix Arizona, the 5th or 6th largest city in the country.

What the EC does is just make some voters more important than others and it's either through over/under representing votes or forcing candidates to pay special attention to states simply because they are up for grabs regardless of their size.

Also, considering the reason the EC was started in the first place was because the founding fathers didn't completely trust democratic elections to the people in the first place.

It's a shitty system with no redeemable qualities at all.

 

[Fenton Lum]

I'm not going to get into inventing statistics with you since many "citizens" now just make up their own "facts" claiming anything they don't wish to be so as bogus. GW Bush gave us Obama. We all know where we were 8 years ago.

Where we are at now....whT was your point?

Now? Inevitably heading eventually to another financial crisis and bankster bailouts. Watch. Even quicker once His Highness guts the weakassed Dodd/Frank.

Guts Dodd-frank? Trump is going to strike it from existence....

Thanks, we know.

Guts.....stupid fucktard liberal...

Now? Inevitably heading eventually to another financial crisis and bankster bailouts. Watch. Even quicker once His Highness guts or does away with the weakassed Dodd/Frank.

 

[Fenton Lum]

No it doesn't. Wyoming, Alaska and Rhode Island had zero voice and they will continue to be ignored after the election because nobody lives there, nobody campaigns there. That is a farce.

You know who doesn't get a voice? Conservatives in California, millions of voters, about 40% of the state, they don't have a single electoral college vote to share. While half a million in Wyoming get 4. There is nothing democratic about that.

Anyway, you really don't need a constitutional amendment. If enough states pass laws to give their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote then the EC is for all purposes non functional. You really only need enough states to equal 270 electoral votes to get there and that is possibly attainable.

In fact, as much as you and Clinton might want to ignore these states, they are not ignored because they have at least 3 electoral votes and two Senate votes.

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.

The only states that would agree to vote for the winner of the national popular vote would some of the be blue states, because the electoral system is advantageous to the mostly Republican smaller states. Instead of whining about the electoral college, why don't you try to figure out why Clinton lost blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? It is these states that cost her the election, not the electoral college.

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

No it doesn't. Wyoming, Alaska and Rhode Island had zero voice and they will continue to be ignored after the election because nobody lives there, nobody campaigns there. That is a farce.

You know who doesn't get a voice? Conservatives in California, millions of voters, about 40% of the state, they don't have a single electoral college vote to share. While half a million in Wyoming get 4. There is nothing democratic about that.

Anyway, you really don't need a constitutional amendment. If enough states pass laws to give their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote then the EC is for all purposes non functional. You really only need enough states to equal 270 electoral votes to get there and that is possibly attainable.

In fact, as much as you and Clinton might want to ignore these states, they are not ignored because they have at least 3 electoral votes and two Senate votes.

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.

The only states that would agree to vote for the winner of the national popular vote would some of the be blue states, because the electoral system is advantageous to the mostly Republican smaller states. Instead of whining about the electoral college, why don't you try to figure out why Clinton lost blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? It is these states that cost her the election, not the electoral college.

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?

There is no such thing as 'Reagan Democrats" because they are now Republicans and have been so for 30 years.

I do agree that Clinton didn't offer grandiose bumper sticker promises that she couldn't possibly deliver. Apparently people eat that shit up. Anyway, it was a change election year and that's what we are going to get.

Doesn't change the outcome of the popular vote though. Trump should be walking on eggshells as he hasn't convinced the country he's the right guy.

 

[Fenton Lum]

In fact, as much as you and Clinton might want to ignore these states, they are not ignored because they have at least 3 electoral votes and two Senate votes.

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.

The only states that would agree to vote for the winner of the national popular vote would some of the be blue states, because the electoral system is advantageous to the mostly Republican smaller states. Instead of whining about the electoral college, why don't you try to figure out why Clinton lost blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? It is these states that cost her the election, not the electoral college.

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?

There is no such thing as 'Reagan Democrats" because they are now Republicans and have been so for 30 years.

I do agree that Clinton didn't offer grandiose bumper sticker promises that she couldn't possibly deliver. Apparently people eat that shit up. Anyway, it was a change election year and that's what we are going to get.

Doesn't change the outcome of the popular vote though. Trump should be walking on eggshells as he hasn't convinced the country he's the right guy.

I say we just let him walk around the way he always has.

 

[HappyJoy]

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?

There is no such thing as 'Reagan Democrats" because they are now Republicans and have been so for 30 years.

I do agree that Clinton didn't offer grandiose bumper sticker promises that she couldn't possibly deliver. Apparently people eat that shit up. Anyway, it was a change election year and that's what we are going to get.

Doesn't change the outcome of the popular vote though. Trump should be walking on eggshells as he hasn't convinced the country he's the right guy.

I say we just let him walk around the way he always has.

I think twitter should ban him, that would be fun to watch.

 

[Fenton Lum]

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?

There is no such thing as 'Reagan Democrats" because they are now Republicans and have been so for 30 years.

I do agree that Clinton didn't offer grandiose bumper sticker promises that she couldn't possibly deliver. Apparently people eat that shit up. Anyway, it was a change election year and that's what we are going to get.

Doesn't change the outcome of the popular vote though. Trump should be walking on eggshells as he hasn't convinced the country he's the right guy.

I say we just let him walk around the way he always has.

I think twitter should ban him, that would be fun to watch.

I think it's going to be more fun to let him run amok.

 

[Papageorgio]

Technicality? The Electoral College is not a technicality, it is how every President has been elected. It is that kind of dishonesty that creates the division.

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.

 

[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.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In fact, as much as you and Clinton might want to ignore these states, they are not ignored because they have at least 3 electoral votes and two Senate votes.

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.

The only states that would agree to vote for the winner of the national popular vote would some of the be blue states, because the electoral system is advantageous to the mostly Republican smaller states. Instead of whining about the electoral college, why don't you try to figure out why Clinton lost blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? It is these states that cost her the election, not the electoral college.

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.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In fact, as much as you and Clinton might want to ignore these states, they are not ignored because they have at least 3 electoral votes and two Senate votes.

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.

The only states that would agree to vote for the winner of the national popular vote would some of the be blue states, because the electoral system is advantageous to the mostly Republican smaller states. Instead of whining about the electoral college, why don't you try to figure out why Clinton lost blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? It is these states that cost her the election, not the electoral college.

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?

There is no such thing as 'Reagan Democrats" because they are now Republicans and have been so for 30 years.

I do agree that Clinton didn't offer grandiose bumper sticker promises that she couldn't possibly deliver. Apparently people eat that shit up. Anyway, it was a change election year and that's what we are going to get.

Doesn't change the outcome of the popular vote though. Trump should be walking on eggshells as he hasn't convinced the country he's the right guy.

That kind of avoidance just sets the stage for deeper losses for Democrats in two years and four years. It's not just bumper stickers, Trump laid out a clear plan to increase jobs in these area which Obama has ignored for eight years and which Clinton ignored during her campaign.

 

[Clementine]

MSNBC is saying that Hillary had a successful failure. Pelosi is saying that people didn't want change. The lib talking heads are still claiming that gays, women, Muslims and minorities are in peril. So much bullshit, so little time to talk about all of it. So clear that they have not accepted the loss or received the message from the people. Most Dems are claiming that people are just stupid for not voting for Hillary. They are blaming racism, misogyny, Islamophobia, homophobia, and Russia. Anything but themselves. They lost because people actually care about national security and jobs. People are tired of illegals coming in and driving down wages by taking our jobs. And I know that bringing that up will bring on charges of hate speech or intolerance.

 

[kaz]

Conservatives and Liberals: The election is over. I think both sides need to stop inflaming this situation. Democrats need to stop the protests, show business tours, and accept the results of the election. Republicans need to stop the name calling, trash talking and other "in your face" behavior. I know it's too much to ask for American voters to behave like civilized people, but hope springs eternal.

Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton displayed good manners and respect in their speeches immediately after the election. Maybe American voters should do the same.

Since you addressed it to this board, note the number of butt hurt threads they are starting blasting Trump compared to the few threads blasting Hillary since the election. And seriously, you only see Republicans name calling?

Republicans have been blasting Hillary for over 30 years. They've used tens of millions of tax payer money going after her. The full power of the FBI, the CIA and one congressional investigation after another.

And what have they found? Squat!

But then they say, "Oh, look at all those investigations. She must be guilty of something. Or there wouldn't be all those investigations".

So tell us, what should she be investigated for this time? Make it good.

Trump on the other hand.......................

Yes, Democrats have pathetically used all your political capital circling the wagons around the corrupt old hag. All the way to losing an election for her. Your point?

 

[rdean]

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.