Why the Electoral College matters.

[Auld Phart]

The Electoral College Was Set Up To Stop Fascist Tyrants Like Trump

OH NOES !!!!!

A liberal website!!!!!

RWNJ traitors - do not click on the above link. Instead, rush to a fake news site like Alex Jones.

how about the AP?

Trump opponents try to beat him at the Electoral College

 

[Wyatt earp]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Of course the Electrical College matters -- it's where Presidents come from. But you're not quite accurate about why it was set up as it was. Actually part of it was in the 18th century it wasn't likely that a candidate from Massachusetts was going to be familiar to citizens of, say, Georgia. Mass communication technology over two-plus centuries has rendered that concern moot. Interestingly a second consideration was that the Founders didn't want poorly educated and uninformed white men who could be easily snookered by a con artist making that call and wanted to ensure there was some way to counter that. Still apropos today.

But the other big issue was that the Southern slaveholding contingent worried that it would be outvoted by the Northern free states, so they whined until they got the Three-Fifths Compromise by which they were allowed to count their slaves (who of course had no vote) as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting their representation, and thus their Electoral Vote power, later called "Slave Power".

As a result of that the South --- specifically Virginia --- dominated the nascent period of this country resulting in six of our first seven Presidents being slaveholders from the South; and that would not have been the case but for the artificially-Southern-biased Electoral College.

It's arguable that that domination of slaveholder interest delayed this country's addressing of the elephant-in-the-room question to the point where we still had slavery after Britain, France, Spain and much of the Americas had abandoned it, until it came to a flash point in the Civil War.

Once that was settled of course, we had no more slaves, as the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to ex-slaves and prohibited infringement of rights on any male, repeat male citizens. But again, the states (all of them this time, not just the South) could and did count a contingent of their population (women) for the purpose of counting representation (and again, Electoral Votes), yet those women still could not vote. Of course, any state could have enfranchised women if it wanted to and had twice as many popular votes but--- since they were already counted without a vote, no state had any incentive to do that.

Now of course we don't have slaves and we don't deny women. What we do is deny the votes of everybody in a state who didn't vote the way their state did; what we do is create artificial divisions of "red", "blue" and "battleground" states; what we do is make ourselves dependent on polls to see whether we're in one of many states where it doesn't matter if you vote at all because it's already decided. What we do is create divisions wherever we can. And we're good at that, because we get a lot of practice. Over two hundred years' worth.

There's already a thread on this where all of this has been thoroughly hashed out including all of the above and much more. I suggest you peruse it.

Translation - you can't blame blue city's they would be the same who ever is in control.




We're not all the same Asshat

.

 

[Pogo]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Of course the Electrical College matters -- it's where Presidents come from. But you're not quite accurate about why it was set up as it was. Actually part of it was in the 18th century it wasn't likely that a candidate from Massachusetts was going to be familiar to citizens of, say, Georgia. Mass communication technology over two-plus centuries has rendered that concern moot. Interestingly a second consideration was that the Founders didn't want poorly educated and uninformed white men who could be easily snookered by a con artist making that call and wanted to ensure there was some way to counter that. Still apropos today.

But the other big issue was that the Southern slaveholding contingent worried that it would be outvoted by the Northern free states, so they whined until they got the Three-Fifths Compromise by which they were allowed to count their slaves (who of course had no vote) as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting their representation, and thus their Electoral Vote power, later called "Slave Power".

As a result of that the South --- specifically Virginia --- dominated the nascent period of this country resulting in six of our first seven Presidents being slaveholders from the South; and that would not have been the case but for the artificially-Southern-biased Electoral College.

It's arguable that that domination of slaveholder interest delayed this country's addressing of the elephant-in-the-room question to the point where we still had slavery after Britain, France, Spain and much of the Americas had abandoned it, until it came to a flash point in the Civil War.

Once that was settled of course, we had no more slaves, as the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to ex-slaves and prohibited infringement of rights on any male, repeat male citizens. But again, the states (all of them this time, not just the South) could and did count a contingent of their population (women) for the purpose of counting representation (and again, Electoral Votes), yet those women still could not vote. Of course, any state could have enfranchised women if it wanted to and had twice as many popular votes but--- since they were already counted without a vote, no state had any incentive to do that.

Now of course we don't have slaves and we don't deny women. What we do is deny the votes of everybody in a state who didn't vote the way their state did; what we do is create artificial divisions of "red", "blue" and "battleground" states; what we do is make ourselves dependent on polls to see whether we're in one of many states where it doesn't matter if you vote at all because it's already decided. What we do is create divisions wherever we can. And we're good at that, because we get a lot of practice. Over two hundred years' worth.

There's already a thread on this where all of this has been thoroughly hashed out including all of the above and much more. I suggest you peruse it.

Translation - you can't blame blue city's they would be the same who ever is in control.




We're not all the same Asshat

.

Perhaps "translation" will involve English one day. I SO look forward to that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Of course the Electrical College matters -- it's where Presidents come from. But you're not quite accurate about why it was set up as it was. Actually part of it was in the 18th century it wasn't likely that a candidate from Massachusetts was going to be familiar to citizens of, say, Georgia. Mass communication technology over two-plus centuries has rendered that concern moot. Interestingly a second consideration was that the Founders didn't want poorly educated and uninformed white men who could be easily snookered by a con artist making that call and wanted to ensure there was some way to counter that. Still apropos today.

But the other big issue was that the Southern slaveholding contingent worried that it would be outvoted by the Northern free states, so they whined until they got the Three-Fifths Compromise by which they were allowed to count their slaves (who of course had no vote) as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting their representation, and thus their Electoral Vote power, later called "Slave Power".

As a result of that the South --- specifically Virginia --- dominated the nascent period of this country resulting in six of our first seven Presidents being slaveholders from the South; and that would not have been the case but for the artificially-Southern-biased Electoral College.

It's arguable that that domination of slaveholder interest delayed this country's addressing of the elephant-in-the-room question to the point where we still had slavery after Britain, France, Spain and much of the Americas had abandoned it, until it came to a flash point in the Civil War.

Once that was settled of course, we had no more slaves, as the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to ex-slaves and prohibited infringement of rights on any male, repeat male citizens. But again, the states (all of them this time, not just the South) could and did count a contingent of their population (women) for the purpose of counting representation (and again, Electoral Votes), yet those women still could not vote. Of course, any state could have enfranchised women if it wanted to and had twice as many popular votes but--- since they were already counted without a vote, no state had any incentive to do that.

Now of course we don't have slaves and we don't deny women. What we do is deny the votes of everybody in a state who didn't vote the way their state did; what we do is create artificial divisions of "red", "blue" and "battleground" states; what we do is make ourselves dependent on polls to see whether we're in one of many states where it doesn't matter if you vote at all because it's already decided. What we do is create divisions wherever we can. And we're good at that, because we get a lot of practice. Over two hundred years' worth.

There's already a thread on this where all of this has been thoroughly hashed out including all of the above and much more. I suggest you peruse it.

Translation - you can't blame blue city's they would be the same who ever is in control.




We're not all the same Asshat

.

Perhaps "translation" will involve English one day. I SO look forward to that.

It will always blow my mind how much you think everyone is the same..

 

[Wyatt earp]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Of course the Electrical College matters -- it's where Presidents come from. But you're not quite accurate about why it was set up as it was. Actually part of it was in the 18th century it wasn't likely that a candidate from Massachusetts was going to be familiar to citizens of, say, Georgia. Mass communication technology over two-plus centuries has rendered that concern moot. Interestingly a second consideration was that the Founders didn't want poorly educated and uninformed white men who could be easily snookered by a con artist making that call and wanted to ensure there was some way to counter that. Still apropos today.

But the other big issue was that the Southern slaveholding contingent worried that it would be outvoted by the Northern free states, so they whined until they got the Three-Fifths Compromise by which they were allowed to count their slaves (who of course had no vote) as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting their representation, and thus their Electoral Vote power, later called "Slave Power".

As a result of that the South --- specifically Virginia --- dominated the nascent period of this country resulting in six of our first seven Presidents being slaveholders from the South; and that would not have been the case but for the artificially-Southern-biased Electoral College.

It's arguable that that domination of slaveholder interest delayed this country's addressing of the elephant-in-the-room question to the point where we still had slavery after Britain, France, Spain and much of the Americas had abandoned it, until it came to a flash point in the Civil War.

Once that was settled of course, we had no more slaves, as the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to ex-slaves and prohibited infringement of rights on any male, repeat male citizens. But again, the states (all of them this time, not just the South) could and did count a contingent of their population (women) for the purpose of counting representation (and again, Electoral Votes), yet those women still could not vote. Of course, any state could have enfranchised women if it wanted to and had twice as many popular votes but--- since they were already counted without a vote, no state had any incentive to do that.

Now of course we don't have slaves and we don't deny women. What we do is deny the votes of everybody in a state who didn't vote the way their state did; what we do is create artificial divisions of "red", "blue" and "battleground" states; what we do is make ourselves dependent on polls to see whether we're in one of many states where it doesn't matter if you vote at all because it's already decided. What we do is create divisions wherever we can. And we're good at that, because we get a lot of practice. Over two hundred years' worth.

There's already a thread on this where all of this has been thoroughly hashed out including all of the above and much more. I suggest you peruse it.

Translation - you can't blame blue city's they would be the same who ever is in control.




We're not all the same Asshat

.

Perhaps "translation" will involve English one day. I SO look forward to that.

I am fluent in alot of languages ..btw..

It sucks to be you that thinks you know only American English.

 

[Rustic]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Of course the Electrical College matters -- it's where Presidents come from. But you're not quite accurate about why it was set up as it was. Actually part of it was in the 18th century it wasn't likely that a candidate from Massachusetts was going to be familiar to citizens of, say, Georgia. Mass communication technology over two-plus centuries has rendered that concern moot. Interestingly a second consideration was that the Founders didn't want poorly educated and uninformed white men who could be easily snookered by a con artist making that call and wanted to ensure there was some way to counter that. Still apropos today.

But the other big issue was that the Southern slaveholding contingent worried that it would be outvoted by the Northern free states, so they whined until they got the Three-Fifths Compromise by which they were allowed to count their slaves (who of course had no vote) as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting their representation, and thus their Electoral Vote power, later called "Slave Power".

As a result of that the South --- specifically Virginia --- dominated the nascent period of this country resulting in six of our first seven Presidents being slaveholders from the South; and that would not have been the case but for the artificially-Southern-biased Electoral College.

It's arguable that that domination of slaveholder interest delayed this country's addressing of the elephant-in-the-room question to the point where we still had slavery after Britain, France, Spain and much of the Americas had abandoned it, until it came to a flash point in the Civil War.

Once that was settled of course, we had no more slaves, as the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to ex-slaves and prohibited infringement of rights on any male, repeat male citizens. But again, the states (all of them this time, not just the South) could and did count a contingent of their population (women) for the purpose of counting representation (and again, Electoral Votes), yet those women still could not vote. Of course, any state could have enfranchised women if it wanted to and had twice as many popular votes but--- since they were already counted without a vote, no state had any incentive to do that.

Now of course we don't have slaves and we don't deny women. What we do is deny the votes of everybody in a state who didn't vote the way their state did; what we do is create artificial divisions of "red", "blue" and "battleground" states; what we do is make ourselves dependent on polls to see whether we're in one of many states where it doesn't matter if you vote at all because it's already decided. What we do is create divisions wherever we can. And we're good at that, because we get a lot of practice. Over two hundred years' worth.

There's already a thread on this where all of this has been thoroughly hashed out including all of the above and much more. I suggest you peruse it.

The EC is the only fair way to include rural states in presidential elections, it's not going anywhere... lol

 

[HenryBHough]

The most powerful proof of the potency of The Electoral College System.....

 

[SavannahMann]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Read the whole thread, forget about what the left says, lol.

Here is the deal---------->make an offer we can not refuse, or shut up. You are out of power, and won't see the light of day more than likely, until 2024!

Um. I'm new here. But I make no excuses for what I am or what I believe. I did not. Nor have I ever supported Hillary for anything. I argued many times on Discussionist that Hillary was probably the most corrupt candidate we've ever had. I included Nixon in my comparison who was re-elected despite overwhelming evidence that he was Richard Nixon.

I also said that whoever was elected would probably be a one term President. This was based upon the recognition that both candidates were only slightly more popular than Herpes.

I'll also say that if the Democratic Party pulls its collective head out of its ass and starts to give a shit about the Blue Collar workers again they will do much better in the future. Right now that seems unlikely since they are still stomping their foot in fury and calling anyone who voted for Trump a racist. Apparently that includes the nearly 30% of Asians and Hispanics that Trump won.

But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good rant. So I'll give you a position of mine that you will probably hate. I believe that we should reform the police and drastically reduce the power and authority they never should have had. This includes repealing the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights series of laws.

 

[eagle7_31]

Uh no, the left has a problem with vote theft, voter suppression, gerrymandering and Pooting.

Email members of the Electoral College

The left does not have problem with gerrymandering....so long as its the left doing the gerrymandering.
Voter suppression??? That's good for a laugh.

 

[DOTR]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Read the whole thread, forget about what the left says, lol.

Here is the deal---------->make an offer we can not refuse, or shut up. You are out of power, and won't see the light of day more than likely, until 2024!

Um. I'm new here. But I make no excuses for what I am or what I believe. I did not. Nor have I ever supported Hillary for anything. I argued many times on Discussionist that Hillary was probably the most corrupt candidate we've ever had. I included Nixon in my comparison who was re-elected despite overwhelming evidence that he was Richard Nixon.

I also said that whoever was elected would probably be a one term President. This was based upon the recognition that both candidates were only slightly more popular than Herpes.

I'll also say that if the Democratic Party pulls its collective head out of its ass and starts to give a shit about the Blue Collar workers again they will do much better in the future. Right now that seems unlikely since they are still stomping their foot in fury and calling anyone who voted for Trump a racist. Apparently that includes the nearly 30% of Asians and Hispanics that Trump won.

But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good rant. So I'll give you a position of mine that you will probably hate. I believe that we should reform the police and drastically reduce the power and authority they never should have had. This includes repealing the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights series of laws.

Savannahmann, Trump is immensely popular. Where did the narrative come from that both candidates were equally hated? I guess its a matter of opinion but I do believe Trump is very popular with a large segment of the population.
The Democrats will never serve the white working class, whites in general, Christians or in the end, native born American citizens. They have spent their capital on opposing anything and everything that Americans hold dear. Their trick has always been to meld smaller dissident groups together against the majority (which they work on dividing). Homosexuals, union bosses, lawyers, blacks, abortionists, pornographers, single moms, atheists, Muslims, Jews, illegal immigrants and so on. Any move they make towards main stream america would cause their coalition to splinter.
But dividing the majority has always been a necessary part of that. And thus their terror at whites voting as a block. They speak of Trump "appealing to white working class" as if it is the most racist thing they ever heard...and then put on a rally to "get the black vote out".
But we have had enough and I think they know they overplayed their hand. Probably it was forcing homosexual marriage licenses down our throats that did it or Hillary and Obamas push to swamp Americans with "refugees". But whatever it was Trump knew people were fed up and he capitalized on it.
I dont see how the Democrats can change. And I dont really even see them wanting to. The important thing here is that they are down and beaten and need to be kicked while down until they dont get up again.

 

[Zander]

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. I have no problems with the EC system.

Yes you do.

The EC was designed to keep fascists like trump from stealing elections. Do a little research - this election was stolen and you know it.

And look what your vote got you - a whiny ***** grabber.

You poor deranged fool.......

You lost. Get over yourself. You and "your feewings" are not that important.

 

[Kosh]

Uh no, the left has a problem with vote theft, voter suppression, gerrymandering and Pooting.

Email members of the Electoral College

Yes and that is why the far left lost, because as hard they tried they could mandate all those things on the people!

 

[SavannahMann]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Read the whole thread, forget about what the left says, lol.

Here is the deal---------->make an offer we can not refuse, or shut up. You are out of power, and won't see the light of day more than likely, until 2024!

Um. I'm new here. But I make no excuses for what I am or what I believe. I did not. Nor have I ever supported Hillary for anything. I argued many times on Discussionist that Hillary was probably the most corrupt candidate we've ever had. I included Nixon in my comparison who was re-elected despite overwhelming evidence that he was Richard Nixon.

I also said that whoever was elected would probably be a one term President. This was based upon the recognition that both candidates were only slightly more popular than Herpes.

I'll also say that if the Democratic Party pulls its collective head out of its ass and starts to give a shit about the Blue Collar workers again they will do much better in the future. Right now that seems unlikely since they are still stomping their foot in fury and calling anyone who voted for Trump a racist. Apparently that includes the nearly 30% of Asians and Hispanics that Trump won.

But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good rant. So I'll give you a position of mine that you will probably hate. I believe that we should reform the police and drastically reduce the power and authority they never should have had. This includes repealing the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights series of laws.

Savannahmann, Trump is immensely popular. Where did the narrative come from that both candidates were equally hated? I guess its a matter of opinion but I do believe Trump is very popular with a large segment of the population.
The Democrats will never serve the white working class, whites in general, Christians or in the end, native born American citizens. They have spent their capital on opposing anything and everything that Americans hold dear. Their trick has always been to meld smaller dissident groups together against the majority (which they work on dividing). Homosexuals, union bosses, lawyers, blacks, abortionists, pornographers, single moms, atheists, Muslims, Jews, illegal immigrants and so on. Any move they make towards main stream america would cause their coalition to splinter.
But dividing the majority has always been a necessary part of that. And thus their terror at whites voting as a block. They speak of Trump "appealing to white working class" as if it is the most racist thing they ever heard...and then put on a rally to "get the black vote out".
But we have had enough and I think they know they overplayed their hand. Probably it was forcing homosexual marriage licenses down our throats that did it or Hillary and Obamas push to swamp Americans with "refugees". But whatever it was Trump knew people were fed up and he capitalized on it.
I dont see how the Democrats can change. And I dont really even see them wanting to. The important thing here is that they are down and beaten and need to be kicked while down until they dont get up again.

Um. No. Trump is not immensely popular. Even if Hillary had won the electoral college, she still would have won a plurality of the vote, not a majority. Hillary's fallibility numbers which are terrible. RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Clinton: Favorable/Unfavorable Trumps which are only slightly worse. RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Trump: Favorable/Unfavorable

The first step to dealing with any problem is an honest assessment. If we are honest, we can admit that both candidates were deeply unpopular. This is just one example of people who could not bring themselves to vote for either candidate. More Oklahoma voters left presidential ballot blank than in 2012 There were other stories where both candidates were intolerable to some of the voters.

Now, onto your not caring about whatever group of Americans. I had a very easy time in one respect when I joined the Army. I honestly didn't give a damn what color anyone was, so I had no issue with the idea that all soldiers were green. I grew up in a neighborhood where we were one of a half dozen or so families that were not Hispanic when we lived in California. I don't give a damn what color anyone is. When I was a boy, long ago, and sometimes it feels like a family far away, the adults were Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. There were a few exceptions. Priests were Father, and sports instructors were Coach.

I don't give a damn what color anyone is, me, thee, or whatever. Apparently according to exit polling, thirty percent of the Asian and Hispanic population didn't give a damn either. 2016 election results: National Exit polls They voted for a candidate roundly criticized for being racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, and apparently so dumb that he couldn't tie his shoes. Despite all of that, they voted for Trump.

Whites didn't vote as a block. I don't know where that nonsense started, but look at the exit polls. Fifty Eight percent of the Whites voted for Trump, and even with that he would have lost if not for the various minorities who voted for him. Trump picked up more black support than Romney did. He picked up a lot more support from Asians and Hispanics than the Republicans have before. So if you think someone should be thanked or cheer for Trump being elected, you might want to look at about one in five minorities who voted for him. Because he would have lost without that support.

Seriously. I hate the hyphenated American nonsense. We are all Americans. I may feel superior in some cases. Better trained, more experienced, more intelligent, perhaps better read. But should I ever find my sense of superiority ever reduced to how much pigment I have in my skin, I hope that someone puts me out of my misery, because that is a pathetic excuse for self.

Back to that Honesty thing we were talking about before. Republicans are not right on every issue. No more than Democrats are, nor Libertarians. The truth is usually somewhere inside the various factions. I've long railed against the party identified politics. I've complained that the smartest thing anyone could do is going back to compromise politics. Here is what I mean by that, as one example.

Many Democrats believe Marijuana should be legalized. Libertarians, generally speaking, believe the same thing. Libertarian leaning Republicans can probably be counted on for a vote to legalize. So the stupidest thing ever is to refuse to work across party lines to get that done. Refusing to work with Libertarian leaning Republicans to get the bill moving is just flat stupid. The same is true of the Libertarian leaning Republicans. Refusing to work with Democrats on that one issue because you disagree with them on others is asinine.

I once argued that point with a Liberal, and he got all up in arms wanting to know what we do when the Libertarian wanted to abolish the Department of Education. I said stupid, it is one damned issue. Just one. You agree to work together on that one issue. Nope I was told, we can't do anything until we control the House and Senate. So I should vote Democratic because one day, way off in the future, we might have enough of a majority to do something? Would this be before or after I retire? I only ask because Republicans look set to control the house until about 2030 or so.

The only thing that Republicans and Democrats can agree on is spending more money than they take in through taxes. The Democrats want to spend it on social programs and the Republicans want to spend it on new planes and tanks and ships for the military. They both want to spend billions on some nonsensical ideal of safety through spying on everyone in the nation nonsense.

Both parties are full of shit. Both parties are pathological in their lies to the American People. This election, I believe that Trump was less full of it than Hillary, only because Hillary was reaching White Dwarf Star levels of shit. I've also said that I wouldn't trust Hillary if she told me night was dark and day was light. The Democrats screwed the pooch royally. The so called thin back bench is bullshit. That was arranged so Hillary would have this election. She had it, part of a deal from 2008 I'm sure. But the Democrats have a chance to pull their heads out of their collective asses, and if they do, you'll find yourself on the outside with some lunatic on the left screaming they're out of power, now we need to make sure they can never win again.

Stop hating those who think differently than you do. Because as we've learned with the Russians, when we hate, we become that which we hate. We hated the KGB, the constant spying on the Soviet Citizens. The threat of arrest in the small hours of the night. Now, we have our own collective KGB with every damned federal agency including the Department of Education in possession of a SWAT team. We used to respect the bill of rights, and now we're working around the clock to figure out how to get around it. None of it has stopped one terrorist attack. All it has done is given proof to the Orwellian nightmare that was in 1984. Fusion centers from the NSA, Star Trek command decks at various alphabet soup agencies. The ability to listen to any phone call, or read any email. None of it has done a damned thing to make us safer. It has essentially voided out the Sixth Amendment, but whatever, it's not like we care unless it's the second right?

Another one of those things I was taught. Be a good winner, and loser. When you win, don't scream in your opponents face. When you lose, accept the defeat with grace. I don't care what anyone else does. I don't have to look at them in the mirror, and I damn sure don't want to. I do know when I pass from this life, I want to be able to stand before God, and my Father with pride knowing I lived a good life, with honor. Perhaps I'm old fashioned in that respect. But it works for me. And I can stand to look in the mirror when it's time to rake the whiskers off my face.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Why would you put S/He? There has never been a female president and in all likelihood never will be. Anyhow no I would never agree to messing around with the Electoral College. I do think the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.

17 the amendment is the worst thing that has ever happened to our Republic.

 

[mgh80]

I like the idea of the Electoral College, but think it needs to be updated. What I would do is keep it, but disperse each state's votes based on the percentage won in that state.

For example let's say that 1/3 of the people in Montana voted for Hillary instead of Trump-Hillary gets 1 out of the 3 votes for Montana.

Not a perfect system, but it does keep the main idea of the Electoral College, and helps to get rid of the winner takes all mentality. This way somebody who votes Republican in California or Democrat in Texas still are heard.

 

[Pogo]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Of course the Electrical College matters -- it's where Presidents come from. But you're not quite accurate about why it was set up as it was. Actually part of it was in the 18th century it wasn't likely that a candidate from Massachusetts was going to be familiar to citizens of, say, Georgia. Mass communication technology over two-plus centuries has rendered that concern moot. Interestingly a second consideration was that the Founders didn't want poorly educated and uninformed white men who could be easily snookered by a con artist making that call and wanted to ensure there was some way to counter that. Still apropos today.

But the other big issue was that the Southern slaveholding contingent worried that it would be outvoted by the Northern free states, so they whined until they got the Three-Fifths Compromise by which they were allowed to count their slaves (who of course had no vote) as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of counting their representation, and thus their Electoral Vote power, later called "Slave Power".

As a result of that the South --- specifically Virginia --- dominated the nascent period of this country resulting in six of our first seven Presidents being slaveholders from the South; and that would not have been the case but for the artificially-Southern-biased Electoral College.

It's arguable that that domination of slaveholder interest delayed this country's addressing of the elephant-in-the-room question to the point where we still had slavery after Britain, France, Spain and much of the Americas had abandoned it, until it came to a flash point in the Civil War.

Once that was settled of course, we had no more slaves, as the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to ex-slaves and prohibited infringement of rights on any male, repeat male citizens. But again, the states (all of them this time, not just the South) could and did count a contingent of their population (women) for the purpose of counting representation (and again, Electoral Votes), yet those women still could not vote. Of course, any state could have enfranchised women if it wanted to and had twice as many popular votes but--- since they were already counted without a vote, no state had any incentive to do that.

Now of course we don't have slaves and we don't deny women. What we do is deny the votes of everybody in a state who didn't vote the way their state did; what we do is create artificial divisions of "red", "blue" and "battleground" states; what we do is make ourselves dependent on polls to see whether we're in one of many states where it doesn't matter if you vote at all because it's already decided. What we do is create divisions wherever we can. And we're good at that, because we get a lot of practice. Over two hundred years' worth.

There's already a thread on this where all of this has been thoroughly hashed out including all of the above and much more. I suggest you peruse it.

Translation - you can't blame blue city's they would be the same who ever is in control.




We're not all the same Asshat

.

Perhaps "translation" will involve English one day. I SO look forward to that.

I am fluent in alot of languages ..btw..

It sucks to be you that thinks you know only American English.

Quel dommage que l'anglais n'est pas parmi ces langues, hein mon vieux?

 

[DOTR]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Read the whole thread, forget about what the left says, lol.

Here is the deal---------->make an offer we can not refuse, or shut up. You are out of power, and won't see the light of day more than likely, until 2024!

Um. I'm new here. But I make no excuses for what I am or what I believe. I did not. Nor have I ever supported Hillary for anything. I argued many times on Discussionist that Hillary was probably the most corrupt candidate we've ever had. I included Nixon in my comparison who was re-elected despite overwhelming evidence that he was Richard Nixon.

I also said that whoever was elected would probably be a one term President. This was based upon the recognition that both candidates were only slightly more popular than Herpes.

I'll also say that if the Democratic Party pulls its collective head out of its ass and starts to give a shit about the Blue Collar workers again they will do much better in the future. Right now that seems unlikely since they are still stomping their foot in fury and calling anyone who voted for Trump a racist. Apparently that includes the nearly 30% of Asians and Hispanics that Trump won.

But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good rant. So I'll give you a position of mine that you will probably hate. I believe that we should reform the police and drastically reduce the power and authority they never should have had. This includes repealing the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights series of laws.

Savannahmann, Trump is immensely popular. Where did the narrative come from that both candidates were equally hated? I guess its a matter of opinion but I do believe Trump is very popular with a large segment of the population.
The Democrats will never serve the white working class, whites in general, Christians or in the end, native born American citizens. They have spent their capital on opposing anything and everything that Americans hold dear. Their trick has always been to meld smaller dissident groups together against the majority (which they work on dividing). Homosexuals, union bosses, lawyers, blacks, abortionists, pornographers, single moms, atheists, Muslims, Jews, illegal immigrants and so on. Any move they make towards main stream america would cause their coalition to splinter.
But dividing the majority has always been a necessary part of that. And thus their terror at whites voting as a block. They speak of Trump "appealing to white working class" as if it is the most racist thing they ever heard...and then put on a rally to "get the black vote out".
But we have had enough and I think they know they overplayed their hand. Probably it was forcing homosexual marriage licenses down our throats that did it or Hillary and Obamas push to swamp Americans with "refugees". But whatever it was Trump knew people were fed up and he capitalized on it.
I dont see how the Democrats can change. And I dont really even see them wanting to. The important thing here is that they are down and beaten and need to be kicked while down until they dont get up again.

Um. No. Trump is not immensely popular. Even if Hillary had won the electoral college, she still would have won a plurality of the vote, not a majority. Hillary's fallibility numbers which are terrible. RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Clinton: Favorable/Unfavorable Trumps which are only slightly worse. RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Trump: Favorable/Unfavorable

The first step to dealing with any problem is an honest assessment. If we are honest, we can admit that both candidates were deeply unpopular. This is just one example of people who could not bring themselves to vote for either candidate. More Oklahoma voters left presidential ballot blank than in 2012 There were other stories where both candidates were intolerable to some of the voters.

Now, onto your not caring about whatever group of Americans. I had a very easy time in one respect when I joined the Army. I honestly didn't give a damn what color anyone was, so I had no issue with the idea that all soldiers were green. I grew up in a neighborhood where we were one of a half dozen or so families that were not Hispanic when we lived in California. I don't give a damn what color anyone is. When I was a boy, long ago, and sometimes it feels like a family far away, the adults were Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. There were a few exceptions. Priests were Father, and sports instructors were Coach.

I don't give a damn what color anyone is, me, thee, or whatever. Apparently according to exit polling, thirty percent of the Asian and Hispanic population didn't give a damn either. 2016 election results: National Exit polls They voted for a candidate roundly criticized for being racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, and apparently so dumb that he couldn't tie his shoes. Despite all of that, they voted for Trump.

Whites didn't vote as a block. I don't know where that nonsense started, but look at the exit polls. Fifty Eight percent of the Whites voted for Trump, and even with that he would have lost if not for the various minorities who voted for him. Trump picked up more black support than Romney did. He picked up a lot more support from Asians and Hispanics than the Republicans have before. So if you think someone should be thanked or cheer for Trump being elected, you might want to look at about one in five minorities who voted for him. Because he would have lost without that support.

Seriously. I hate the hyphenated American nonsense. We are all Americans. I may feel superior in some cases. Better trained, more experienced, more intelligent, perhaps better read. But should I ever find my sense of superiority ever reduced to how much pigment I have in my skin, I hope that someone puts me out of my misery, because that is a pathetic excuse for self.

Back to that Honesty thing we were talking about before. Republicans are not right on every issue. No more than Democrats are, nor Libertarians. The truth is usually somewhere inside the various factions. I've long railed against the party identified politics. I've complained that the smartest thing anyone could do is going back to compromise politics. Here is what I mean by that, as one example.

Many Democrats believe Marijuana should be legalized. Libertarians, generally speaking, believe the same thing. Libertarian leaning Republicans can probably be counted on for a vote to legalize. So the stupidest thing ever is to refuse to work across party lines to get that done. Refusing to work with Libertarian leaning Republicans to get the bill moving is just flat stupid. The same is true of the Libertarian leaning Republicans. Refusing to work with Democrats on that one issue because you disagree with them on others is asinine.

I once argued that point with a Liberal, and he got all up in arms wanting to know what we do when the Libertarian wanted to abolish the Department of Education. I said stupid, it is one damned issue. Just one. You agree to work together on that one issue. Nope I was told, we can't do anything until we control the House and Senate. So I should vote Democratic because one day, way off in the future, we might have enough of a majority to do something? Would this be before or after I retire? I only ask because Republicans look set to control the house until about 2030 or so.

The only thing that Republicans and Democrats can agree on is spending more money than they take in through taxes. The Democrats want to spend it on social programs and the Republicans want to spend it on new planes and tanks and ships for the military. They both want to spend billions on some nonsensical ideal of safety through spying on everyone in the nation nonsense.

Both parties are full of shit. Both parties are pathological in their lies to the American People. This election, I believe that Trump was less full of it than Hillary, only because Hillary was reaching White Dwarf Star levels of shit. I've also said that I wouldn't trust Hillary if she told me night was dark and day was light. The Democrats screwed the pooch royally. The so called thin back bench is bullshit. That was arranged so Hillary would have this election. She had it, part of a deal from 2008 I'm sure. But the Democrats have a chance to pull their heads out of their collective asses, and if they do, you'll find yourself on the outside with some lunatic on the left screaming they're out of power, now we need to make sure they can never win again.

Stop hating those who think differently than you do. Because as we've learned with the Russians, when we hate, we become that which we hate. We hated the KGB, the constant spying on the Soviet Citizens. The threat of arrest in the small hours of the night. Now, we have our own collective KGB with every damned federal agency including the Department of Education in possession of a SWAT team. We used to respect the bill of rights, and now we're working around the clock to figure out how to get around it. None of it has stopped one terrorist attack. All it has done is given proof to the Orwellian nightmare that was in 1984. Fusion centers from the NSA, Star Trek command decks at various alphabet soup agencies. The ability to listen to any phone call, or read any email. None of it has done a damned thing to make us safer. It has essentially voided out the Sixth Amendment, but whatever, it's not like we care unless it's the second right?

Another one of those things I was taught. Be a good winner, and loser. When you win, don't scream in your opponents face. When you lose, accept the defeat with grace. I don't care what anyone else does. I don't have to look at them in the mirror, and I damn sure don't want to. I do know when I pass from this life, I want to be able to stand before God, and my Father with pride knowing I lived a good life, with honor. Perhaps I'm old fashioned in that respect. But it works for me. And I can stand to look in the mirror when it's time to rake the whiskers off my face.

The fallacy here is argument to moderation. The assumption that the right answer is somewhere between two offerings. Not necessarily true. The middle ground between a lie and the truth is still an untruth.
So there is that. We have differences in KIND...not DEGREE with these people and there is no middle ground. For a change let them move to meet the electorate rather than moving us to meet them.
Your proposal that the people we elected go to DC and immediately begin cutting deals with the people we rejected is exactly why Trump happened in the first place. The practice is inimical to freedom. It leaves us no way to choose...which is exactly what they want. They are beaten and should be treated as such especially in light of their demands to be treated as if they won.
And finally as to your virtue signaling. We get it. You dont see race. That doesnt mean nobody sees race. We have a party that whipped up racial tribalism every chance it got. The Democrats do not mind race based politicking...they just mind when whites do it.

 

[SavannahMann]

The President is not the President of the American People. S/He is not the President of the assorted cities. S/He is the President of the United States. The Electoral College is the process in which the States choose a President. This system was started to limit the power of states which were densely populated. The smaller states really liked this as they had some small effect in the election instead of being dictated to by the larger states.

But let's consider the alternative. Do we change the title of the job? We can't really pretend the States picked the President if we go with popular vote now can we? Do we allow the states to decide who votes? In some states convicts who are out of prison and have completed parole and probation are granted their voting rights again. If we go to popular vote can we allow these people to vote, or deny them the right to vote based on a state law that affects the choice for election of the Peoples President?

How about Voter ID. You do realize that the requirement for a voter ID could well be put into the amendment. The way and times that a vote is cast could also be included in the amendment. If we are going to be considering one constitutional change, what makes you think we won't address them all or even just several. Before you start screaming that it is unconstitutional remember we are talking about a Constitutional Amendment which if it is ratified is automatically Constitutional. The Supreme Court can't do a thing about it.

If Republicans agree to go to the Popular vote but demand Federally Approved identification be checked by a voting official prior to casting a vote would you agree?

That is really what we are talking about, putting our entire Electoral standards up for negotiation.

All so we can further amend the Constitution to show that the one who wins is the People's President. But not the President of the United States. Because the States would be little more than districts.

Read the whole thread, forget about what the left says, lol.

Here is the deal---------->make an offer we can not refuse, or shut up. You are out of power, and won't see the light of day more than likely, until 2024!

Um. I'm new here. But I make no excuses for what I am or what I believe. I did not. Nor have I ever supported Hillary for anything. I argued many times on Discussionist that Hillary was probably the most corrupt candidate we've ever had. I included Nixon in my comparison who was re-elected despite overwhelming evidence that he was Richard Nixon.

I also said that whoever was elected would probably be a one term President. This was based upon the recognition that both candidates were only slightly more popular than Herpes.

I'll also say that if the Democratic Party pulls its collective head out of its ass and starts to give a shit about the Blue Collar workers again they will do much better in the future. Right now that seems unlikely since they are still stomping their foot in fury and calling anyone who voted for Trump a racist. Apparently that includes the nearly 30% of Asians and Hispanics that Trump won.

But we shouldn't let facts get in the way of a good rant. So I'll give you a position of mine that you will probably hate. I believe that we should reform the police and drastically reduce the power and authority they never should have had. This includes repealing the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights series of laws.

Savannahmann, Trump is immensely popular. Where did the narrative come from that both candidates were equally hated? I guess its a matter of opinion but I do believe Trump is very popular with a large segment of the population.
The Democrats will never serve the white working class, whites in general, Christians or in the end, native born American citizens. They have spent their capital on opposing anything and everything that Americans hold dear. Their trick has always been to meld smaller dissident groups together against the majority (which they work on dividing). Homosexuals, union bosses, lawyers, blacks, abortionists, pornographers, single moms, atheists, Muslims, Jews, illegal immigrants and so on. Any move they make towards main stream america would cause their coalition to splinter.
But dividing the majority has always been a necessary part of that. And thus their terror at whites voting as a block. They speak of Trump "appealing to white working class" as if it is the most racist thing they ever heard...and then put on a rally to "get the black vote out".
But we have had enough and I think they know they overplayed their hand. Probably it was forcing homosexual marriage licenses down our throats that did it or Hillary and Obamas push to swamp Americans with "refugees". But whatever it was Trump knew people were fed up and he capitalized on it.
I dont see how the Democrats can change. And I dont really even see them wanting to. The important thing here is that they are down and beaten and need to be kicked while down until they dont get up again.

Um. No. Trump is not immensely popular. Even if Hillary had won the electoral college, she still would have won a plurality of the vote, not a majority. Hillary's fallibility numbers which are terrible. RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Clinton: Favorable/Unfavorable Trumps which are only slightly worse. RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Trump: Favorable/Unfavorable

The first step to dealing with any problem is an honest assessment. If we are honest, we can admit that both candidates were deeply unpopular. This is just one example of people who could not bring themselves to vote for either candidate. More Oklahoma voters left presidential ballot blank than in 2012 There were other stories where both candidates were intolerable to some of the voters.

Now, onto your not caring about whatever group of Americans. I had a very easy time in one respect when I joined the Army. I honestly didn't give a damn what color anyone was, so I had no issue with the idea that all soldiers were green. I grew up in a neighborhood where we were one of a half dozen or so families that were not Hispanic when we lived in California. I don't give a damn what color anyone is. When I was a boy, long ago, and sometimes it feels like a family far away, the adults were Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. There were a few exceptions. Priests were Father, and sports instructors were Coach.

I don't give a damn what color anyone is, me, thee, or whatever. Apparently according to exit polling, thirty percent of the Asian and Hispanic population didn't give a damn either. 2016 election results: National Exit polls They voted for a candidate roundly criticized for being racist, sexist, homophobic, misogynistic, and apparently so dumb that he couldn't tie his shoes. Despite all of that, they voted for Trump.

Whites didn't vote as a block. I don't know where that nonsense started, but look at the exit polls. Fifty Eight percent of the Whites voted for Trump, and even with that he would have lost if not for the various minorities who voted for him. Trump picked up more black support than Romney did. He picked up a lot more support from Asians and Hispanics than the Republicans have before. So if you think someone should be thanked or cheer for Trump being elected, you might want to look at about one in five minorities who voted for him. Because he would have lost without that support.

Seriously. I hate the hyphenated American nonsense. We are all Americans. I may feel superior in some cases. Better trained, more experienced, more intelligent, perhaps better read. But should I ever find my sense of superiority ever reduced to how much pigment I have in my skin, I hope that someone puts me out of my misery, because that is a pathetic excuse for self.

Back to that Honesty thing we were talking about before. Republicans are not right on every issue. No more than Democrats are, nor Libertarians. The truth is usually somewhere inside the various factions. I've long railed against the party identified politics. I've complained that the smartest thing anyone could do is going back to compromise politics. Here is what I mean by that, as one example.

Many Democrats believe Marijuana should be legalized. Libertarians, generally speaking, believe the same thing. Libertarian leaning Republicans can probably be counted on for a vote to legalize. So the stupidest thing ever is to refuse to work across party lines to get that done. Refusing to work with Libertarian leaning Republicans to get the bill moving is just flat stupid. The same is true of the Libertarian leaning Republicans. Refusing to work with Democrats on that one issue because you disagree with them on others is asinine.

I once argued that point with a Liberal, and he got all up in arms wanting to know what we do when the Libertarian wanted to abolish the Department of Education. I said stupid, it is one damned issue. Just one. You agree to work together on that one issue. Nope I was told, we can't do anything until we control the House and Senate. So I should vote Democratic because one day, way off in the future, we might have enough of a majority to do something? Would this be before or after I retire? I only ask because Republicans look set to control the house until about 2030 or so.

The only thing that Republicans and Democrats can agree on is spending more money than they take in through taxes. The Democrats want to spend it on social programs and the Republicans want to spend it on new planes and tanks and ships for the military. They both want to spend billions on some nonsensical ideal of safety through spying on everyone in the nation nonsense.

Both parties are full of shit. Both parties are pathological in their lies to the American People. This election, I believe that Trump was less full of it than Hillary, only because Hillary was reaching White Dwarf Star levels of shit. I've also said that I wouldn't trust Hillary if she told me night was dark and day was light. The Democrats screwed the pooch royally. The so called thin back bench is bullshit. That was arranged so Hillary would have this election. She had it, part of a deal from 2008 I'm sure. But the Democrats have a chance to pull their heads out of their collective asses, and if they do, you'll find yourself on the outside with some lunatic on the left screaming they're out of power, now we need to make sure they can never win again.

Stop hating those who think differently than you do. Because as we've learned with the Russians, when we hate, we become that which we hate. We hated the KGB, the constant spying on the Soviet Citizens. The threat of arrest in the small hours of the night. Now, we have our own collective KGB with every damned federal agency including the Department of Education in possession of a SWAT team. We used to respect the bill of rights, and now we're working around the clock to figure out how to get around it. None of it has stopped one terrorist attack. All it has done is given proof to the Orwellian nightmare that was in 1984. Fusion centers from the NSA, Star Trek command decks at various alphabet soup agencies. The ability to listen to any phone call, or read any email. None of it has done a damned thing to make us safer. It has essentially voided out the Sixth Amendment, but whatever, it's not like we care unless it's the second right?

Another one of those things I was taught. Be a good winner, and loser. When you win, don't scream in your opponents face. When you lose, accept the defeat with grace. I don't care what anyone else does. I don't have to look at them in the mirror, and I damn sure don't want to. I do know when I pass from this life, I want to be able to stand before God, and my Father with pride knowing I lived a good life, with honor. Perhaps I'm old fashioned in that respect. But it works for me. And I can stand to look in the mirror when it's time to rake the whiskers off my face.

The fallacy here is argument to moderation. The assumption that the right answer is somewhere between two offerings. Not necessarily true. The middle ground between a lie and the truth is still an untruth.
So there is that. We have differences in KIND...not DEGREE with these people and there is no middle ground. For a change let them move to meet the electorate rather than moving us to meet them.
Your proposal that the people we elected go to DC and immediately begin cutting deals with the people we rejected is exactly why Trump happened in the first place. The practice is inimical to freedom. It leaves us no way to choose...which is exactly what they want. They are beaten and should be treated as such especially in light of their demands to be treated as if they won.
And finally as to your virtue signaling. We get it. You dont see race. That doesnt mean nobody sees race. We have a party that whipped up racial tribalism every chance it got. The Democrats do not mind race based politicking...they just mind when whites do it.

What an odd view of history you have. Compromise is how the nation worked for more than two hundred years. You declare all Republican ideals to be truth. That is a curious conclusion. Republicans for example embraced and endorsed free trade. The argument that trade was always good and profitable and that was that. Yet Trump has gone against this so called truth. So what Republican truth is the real truth? Is trade always a force for good profitable capitalism or is it a threat to American workers?

How about an easy one. The police. Republicans enjoy and embrace the power of authority. I can't tell how many times I've read the argument that as long as you cooperate and obey the police you have nothing to fear. That coupled with the belief that all cops are good.

Yet every time a department is investigated they find widespread corruption and violations of civil rights or civil liberties if you prefer. What is the truth? Was the Los Angeles Sheriff a misunderstood good guy or a corrupt cop who led a department with over 100 constitutional violations? Settlement expected over U.S. allegations that Sheriff's Dept. targeted minorities

Former Number Two of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department Charged with Obstructing Federal Investigation into Misconduct at County Jails

So what is the truth? Were the cops doing the wrong thing or were they good guys who were unfairly targeted?

Now I'd normally argue that the truth is somewhere between all cops are corrupt and all cops are saints. I'd normally argue that most of the cops do the right thing most of the time. But since we have to deal in absolute truth or lies I wonder what you say? I'm guessing you would try and blame it on Democrats claiming that there are no corrupt cops in Republican areas. I hope you aren't that naive but there is no way to tell.

Nothing made by man is ever absolutely good. Nothing said by man is ever absolutely true. It may be as good as man can make it. It may be as true as we can manage. But it is never absolute.

 

[DOTR]

So what is the truth? Were the cops doing the wrong thing or were they good guys who were unfairly targeted?

Now I'd normally argue that the truth is somewhere between all cops are corrupt and all cops are saints. I'd normally argue that most of the cops do the right thing most of the time. But since we have to deal in absolute truth or lies I wonder what you say? I'm guessing you would try and blame it on Democrats claiming that there are no corrupt cops in Republican areas. I hope you aren't that naive but there is no way to tell.

Nothing made by man is ever absolutely good. Nothing said by man is ever absolutely true. It may be as good as man can make it. It may be as true as we can manage. But it is never absolute.

So you see the fallacy of argument to moderation? Either the cops are guilty or innocent. We cant say they are just half guilty. If a cop is accused of abuse he either did it or he didnt. I wouldnt try and meet him halfway.
Then you move to the false dilemma. The real answer is policing is handled at the local level. Each town county or state sets its own police policy. There is little cause to say "the police". There is no body called "the police" except at the local level. What a cop does in LA has no bearing in judging a cop in Denver.
I think it is an awesome power and I mean that in the old sense of the word. A power that protects society but which can go terribly wrong. But I wouldn't generalize about "the police". Some places have bad policing but then again if they do it reflects on their society. We have great police where I live...never a problem.
And yes man is flawed. That is a Christian concept and why the Christians who founded this country set us on a course of individual freedom and decentralized government.

 

[Rambunctious]

The EC will never be done away with so this is a waste of time.