Clinton's popular vote win was basically her win in California - by 4 million + votes.
Take California away from Clinton, and Trump wins by a landslide.
The Electoral College prevented this bias of one state forcing it's will on the rest of the nation - which is why it was put into place when the founders set up the Constitution.
If they had not done so, California's weird ways would have been forced on the rest of the nation.
Fortunately, the Founders of the country foresaw that a highly populated state could sway the entire country down a path it did not want to go. Hence, in the 2016 election, the Electoral College prevented a few states from forcing the majority of states to follow their bias.
I think it's very wise - there were 36 states that voted for Trump, 14 that voted for Clinton. Obviously, most STATES want Trump's concept of leadership.
Most liberal leaning states, like California, New York and Illinois, wanted Clinton.
Would you rather have 5 populated states leading the country's direction at the Federal level? (In the case of the 2016 election, 14 states telling the other 36 what to do because of population)
Would you rather have States rights and views leading the country's direction at the Federal level? (In the case 2016 elections, 36 state majority leading the country as a majority of states)
I've never had a problem with the Electoral College. I learned back in junior high school about the EC - including the reasons for it, and I've been fine with it since. It's one of the few institutions we have left that hasn't yet been corrupted.
When compared with California, why should I give a rat a** about Wyoming? People elect presidents not states. The easiest way to cease being a sparsely populated state is to attract more people, Texas did it. They goober pea types have won this round but your victory will be short as you will find the power of the American left quite formidable.
So, I tell rightwingers, that I find California, Washington, New York, just fine and find crimson red states as uninhabitable among the enlightened progressives.
So, I would hold the line on boasting just yet.
"why should I give a rat a** about Wyoming?"
Perhaps because the United States is a republic of states? States with rights that the federal government does not control? Much of that constitution of the United States is dedicated to the states rights and the limiting of the federal government's power. This is just one example of that limitation.
"People elect presidents not states."
Not hardly. The constitution of the United States is very explicit about how states cast their votes for President. Some states even emphasize this by listing the elector being voted for by the people.
So the leftwingers, those "progressing" towards total federal control over our daily lives, are going to have to subvert the constitution of the United States to get that control - states (and the people living in them) still have rights, regardless of how abhorrent that concept is to the liberals.
"Perhaps because the United States is a republic of states? States with rights that the federal government does not control? Much of that constitution of the United States is dedicated to the states rights and the limiting of the federal government's power. This is just one example of that limitation."
I wonder how forthcoming you would be about singing the praises of the Electoral College, had Hillary won?
"Not hardly. The constitution of the United States is very explicit about how states cast their votes for President. Some states even emphasize this by listing the elector being voted for by the people"
Unfortunately, that is the system we are manacled into as archaic as itis. I think that it sucks, but I am for orderly and appropriate change through Constutional methods, but of course with all the small states not giving up an unjustified advantage, that won't work.
"So the leftwingers, those "progressing" towards total federal control over our daily lives, are going to have to subvert the constitution of the United States to get that control - states (and the people living in them) still have rights, regardless of how abhorrent that concept is to the liberals."
The rightwingers, determined to have us slave before their appointed capitalists masters will and must be brought to heel. But, I am not advocating extraConstitutional methods. We will just let Trump be Trump and watch them all run and let dissatisfaction from the Left take hold, all dissent exercised within the purview of the law, of course. Very similar to your vaunted"TeaParty".
That is as long asTrump finds no excuse for martial law, charges of sedition and mass relocation to gulags. None of these concepts are beyond Trump.
"I wonder how forthcoming you would be about singing the praises of the Electoral College, had Hillary won? "
Think that would have changed the constitution somehow? We conservatives tend to live in reality, not a pretend land of Nirvana.
"Unfortunately, that is the system we are manacled into as archaic as itis."
Well, it is for liberals anyway - it means that the minority still has at least a little control over their lives. The "progressives" can't take everything just because there are more of them. The constitution was pretty adamant about that (thank God), that the minority must be protected from the ravages of a majority run wild.
Not my tea party - when it comes to social answers they're no better than far right conservatives.
Heard the same crap about Obama - gulags, martial law, etc. All the FEMA camps to be turned into concentration camps. Guess it takes a certain bent of mind to always think it's coming from a President you don't like.
No subvert the Constitution. How about amend it to one person one vote, which is true democracy. Are you against true democracy? Would you be a defender of the Electoral College if Trump had lost due to it? Doubt it.
How about amend it to one state, one vote? That we keep both true democracy and state's rights.
(Of course, liberal states like California, New York and even Oregon might not be too happy to see other states with the same vote...)
How is that equitable Wilderness and what exactly is the rationale for one state one vote? That means a state like Delaware with under 1 million people has the same voting clout with a state like Texas or Florida that has many times as many people. I don't see why this makes any sense, except if one is a conservative and wants to win because there are more red states in the US than blue states.
Without being political, what is the rationale for this approach? It is not democratic, as it assigns more weight to less populated states and highly devalues the weight of individual votes in highly populated states such as NY, TX, CA, NC, etc. What is wrong with pure democracy, one person one vote? It's not like we pass every law that way, and for good reason. It's just a matter of empowering the citizens to elect their leader. We do this on a state level when electing Governors and it works just fine.
Guess it depends on how you define "equitable". You wish it to be defined with the number of people, the founders and writers of the constitution defined it with the states that make up our republic. In that manner, one vote per state is obviously the most equitable...for the states.
That you don't wish to consider states, but demand that everyone consider only the people, doesn't make it right and doesn't indicate that it has anything to do with our constitution or other ruling documents.
"It is not democratic, as it assigns more weight to less populated states and highly devalues the weight of individual votes in highly populated states such as NY, TX, CA, NC, etc."
And here you demonstrate that refusal to consider the intent of the constitution by again demanding that only individual citizens be considered and never the political entities of the states that make up the republic. On top of that massive difference, never forget that our constitution is as much about protection of the minority from the majority; that a simple "majority rules" is NOT the basis of that constitution. It isn't the basis even to individual people...unless, of course, they agree with what the majority wants, whereupon the needs or wants of the minority are buried beneath that slogan and ignored.
There are very good reasons for the EC, for denial of the popular vote and for protection against simple majority rule. A little research, coupled with an understand that we really ARE a coalition of states, not a single political entity of citizens is in order of you don't understand either concept.
I can see how someone could defend the Electoral College, since as you said there is some rationale for why it was set up that way and since it's generally proportional to the population it is usually fair. But, I was questioning your seemingly very unfair one state one vote concept of electing a President of the US. That does not seem fair in any way. I would like you to explain why that is better than either the Electoral College or direct democracy?
Seems about as fair as one person, one vote doesn't it? Neither is in line with the intent of the founders, but at least one state carries on with the idea that we are a union of states, not people.
Truthfully, there is some sarcasm in there, to "match" the idea of one person, one vote without regard to any minorities. I've decided that I like our EC as it is, with the caveat that it cannot remain static. That one day it must change, along with the changing demographics of our nation, or we will lose the variation of cultures and ideologies that is one of our primary strengths.
One thing that should change at this point IMO is the US House of Representatives needs to be expanded to better represent the larger population. One House district represents many more citizens today than it did 50 or 100 years ago, thus diluting democratic representation. Of course, the 2 major parties are fine with this arrangement, since it makes it harder for 3rd parties to capture seats and makes it easier for them to maintain control. It would be nice to have more diverse representation at the federal level.
As far as the Electoral College, my understanding of how and why it came about was the problem that southern states in the union had with large slave populations that counted as 3/5ths a person and couldn't vote for President. They didn't want northern states to win every Presidency due to larger populations of male citizens that could actually vote. So, a compromise was made and the Electoral College was born. The Electoral College has a tainted justification for existing, and certainly calling into question whether it should still be around in the 21st century with slavery in the US over 150 years in the rear view mirror is worthy of debate.
Just curious if it would sit fine with you if the Republicans had lost two Presidential elections over the past 16 years due to the Electoral College, despite winning the popular vote. Perhaps you are a person of principle, but I suspect many conservatives would be screaming from the rafters to abolish the Electoral College if the situation was reversed.
And how do R's feel now that Trump is taking over the country before he is sworn in? He doesn't listen to intelligence briefings, and isn't supposed to be speaking with leaders from other countries before his own Presidency starts. He's already making a fool out of himself, when many hoped he would stop the immature tweeting and rallies. The "Thank you" rallies were pure exercises in narcissism. I've seen old speeches now from 4 Presidencies where the President elect understands there can only be one President at a time.
I do think he can make good deals, but he can't change foreign policies we've had for decades, like the way he is cozying up to Putin. Putin is no fool, he realizes all he has to do is compliment Trump and he can get whatever he wants out of him. I'm glad Obama put more sanctions on Russia.
And I'd like to get back to the "hayseed" remark. It was a bit insulting. But I do think people in the heartland are more insulated and don't have interactions with people different than them, because coastal states see much more, and have for many years now. The people from those states are sort of living years behind people on the coasts. Why should we pay for the fact they are less sophisticated and don't regularly see and talk to gays, people of all skin colors, and are a lot more religious (even though it's hypocrisy mostly) than those of us on the coasts? Who cares about where someone goes to the bathroom? I reject that the one who started the thread called people in CA "weird." Just because someone has ideas different than yours doesn't make them "weird." They are more worldly.
A few years ago I visited a friend who was living in NE, and life there was like my parent's generation lived. They knew all their neighbors, argued with them if someone was a day late mowing the lawn, constantly preaching Christianity when you don't want to hear it. We still have religious people on the coasts, but practice freedom of religion, as our neighbors are Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. They are good people. Times change though and we have to change with them, not keep criticizing those who grow and learn.
Explain in detail how Trump is taking over the country. He doesn't listen to intelligence briefings?How do you know what he is doing with intelligence briefings? Where is it written in law he isn't supposed to be speaking with leaders from other countries before his own Presidency starts?
Because he is preparing for his Presidency, hiring good people you think he is running the country? How is that? You really think he is that powerful that he he can run the country before he takes office? Really, talk about hyperbole...and so Trump is a narcissist for actually going to the grass roots people who voted for him and thanking them? So what is Hillary for holding a private party for only her privileged and wealthy largest donors? FU to the rest of the suckers who voted for her?
You are really out of touch with reality, I'm surprised you'd ever write what you did for people to read, what an embarrassment and you don't even know it.
Don't Taze Me Bro,
Trump has called leaders from several countries, it's been on every news channel ad nauseum for days. At this point, he is only supposed to take congratulatory calls from foreign leaders.
He isn't supposed to be calling and speaking to others to make policy, not until the inauguration. There can be only one President at a time, and every other one knew that and accepted that. These are FACTS. He picked all billionaires with ties to Goldman Sachs, his cabinet is no better than Hillary's would have been. He shouldn't be giving press conferences and such until he is POTUS. It seems like he thinks he can run the U.S. like a corporation, and doesn't have to answer to anyone. He's in for a big shock.
And those "thank you" rallies were still full of hate, and "lock her up." It was disgusting. He just wants to feed his over sized ego. I wished him success in the beginning, until he began taking over before it's time. And the tweets are so childish, he is so thin skinned. Is he going to nuke everyone who insults him? And it's not normal for his adult children to be sitting in on policy meetings.
Foreign leaders can still give him money, he isn't putting all his holdings in a blind trust. I suppose since its HIM he thinks he doesn't have to. I realize his business holdings are more than any previous President has had before, and his wealth and name are everywhere, so it's complicated. I hope he is doing something to work it out. Much of what he does is unprecedented. Now, that can be good if used for making America better. I just think he's off to a bad start.
If you read, I said that calling people hayseeds was mean spirited and I didn't like it. But yes, people who live on the coasts are surrounded with many who are much different than they are, so are more used to this. I didn't call everyone in CA weird. I accept people for who they are, but Trump scares me.
I don't have a problem with the way elections are run, I believe in the EC. But again, the demographics of the U.S. are constantly changing. I don't know if it's enough to change our election system though. But Trump did lose the popular vote by 3 million votes, hardly a "mandate." We would be stronger together, and I was willing to move forward, until Trump kept bragging that Putin called him "brilliant." When translated from Russian, Putin said Trump was "flashy." And isn't that an immature thing to keep doing--bragging about how much everyone (well, not everyone) likes you? I'm already sick of the way he dominates the news, no matter what channel you watch. This is how dictatorships get started, with someone of great wealth, who surrounds himself with the same, and thinks he makes all the decisions, without approval.
Everyone has the right to what they want to think. I have to log off for now.
You covered us "hayseeders" too, when you wrote: " Just because someone has ideas different than yours doesn't make them "weird." One man, one vote. You cannot put a "cosmopolitan" or "education" criteria on the voters, or some past results (in addition to 2016) would have been very different.
The "smarts" that win elections are those who use the system just the way it is and will be.
Holy cow Jean!
You know I love a good steak, and this slab you threw out there has potential.
"... The people from those states are sort of living years behind people on the coasts. Why should we pay for the fact they are less sophisticated and don't regularly see and talk to gays, people of all skin colors, and are a lot more religious (even though it's hypocrisy mostly) than those of us on the coasts?"
So you're more sophisticated because your extensive social interactions have enlightened you? And the other coastal folks too? Your enlightened values are true and those "hayseeds'" values are false?
"...Who cares about where someone goes to the bathroom?
Well, that movement was pretty clearly propelled by Liberal-minded enlightened folks - like your coastal inhabitants, so apparently folks that think like you care.
" Just because someone has ideas different than yours doesn't make them "weird." They are more worldly."
Hu-rah! That's the ticket... more worldly. I bet the view is great from up there.
Still... consider the basic question your response prompts: "What makes your values more important and right than someone from NE? How was the crime rate in that NE community that you said knew all their neighbors, and went to church? Think it would compare to a comparable coastal community? Do you think those NE folks placed any value in their social interactions and experiences?
ps. I think that if you followed the source of that click-bait talking-point you repeated:
"...He doesn't listen to intelligence briefings." *(also stated using ignored, or declining to attend, or even refusing) ... you might find that the context of the remark that created that "talking-point" clearly shows that the statement was about repeated 'nothing new' type briefings. If that is true, does it matter to you?
I dont see how livin next to water makes any difference. We gotta place called Hobart's Store next to Podock Lake. Theres some folks living around there clear from another County. Some of them families is pretty different. I know Clyde and his kinfolks. Clyde lost a finger from a tractor accident, so we call him Lefty, but his niece has an extra finger on each hand so they figure they come out ahead. She sure can swim like a fish though.
" Just because someone has ideas different than yours doesn't make them "weird." They are more worldly." ~ Jean
"Hu-rah! That's the ticket... more worldly. I bet the view is great from up there."
~ GA ... You nailed that!
"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first." - King Jesus
"Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them."
Some people belong to the world, and some people have been chosen out of the world by God and belong to Him. That is not to say He can not anoint people who do not know Him, because He does for noble and ignoble purposes.
As far as briefings, I believe it's important to study up on intelligence briefings every day. I guess they could be tweeted to Trump. He will find his style, but it is important during transition.
NJ isn't the state being boycotted by sports teams and entertainers because of who goes to what bathroom, it's NC, and it still has not been repealed.
If people actually READ the posts, it was my childhood friend who lived in NE, not me. It was her observation (25 yrs. ago) that life was so much different in the states near there--she moved a lot because of her husband's job. I don't think crime statistics were better, and she was annoyed at being judged because she didn't go to church on Sunday.
If I insulted anyone, I apologize. But life on the coasts does differ a lot than in the heartland. Iowa is a ridiculous choice for a bell weather state, it's an all white state. NJ has one of the largest Muslim populations, and a large mix of everyone. So you have to learn to get along and understand others more when in an overpopulated state to start with.
"Worldly" was a wrong choice of words. But at least it was MY choice and I'll own it. I don't have to throw Scripture into any argument I can. We are all entitled to our own beliefs, and I'm sick of Christians throwing them at everyone in every forum. Those who do are always the most hateful towards others, and thrive on these contentious forums. So I don't get how they are Christians.
Honestly, it gets so nasty and off topic on these forums, I think I will conserve my energies and stay off them. Once again, sorry for insulting anyone, that was not my intention. We all see the world in a different way, and I was apparently not at my mental best last night.
Well done Jean.
I did not intend to misunderstand your NE example. But you did say; "
A few years ago I visited a friend who was living in NE, and life there was like my parent's generation lived ..." Although your clarification here does add more context to your original statement.
I did try to not be too snarky, but you must know, in hindsight, how your comment came across. It was just too juicy for a starving forum hound like myself to resist.
Understanding that I am walking a tight-wire here, and without the more sophisticated and more worldly tone of your points, I think there is some truth in your comment. But I would describe it as relating more to tolerance and acceptance. Both of which could be just as easily attributed to social survival as they could to core values enhancement.
Here you said something I can completely agree with;
"...But life on the coasts does differ a lot than in the heartland. Iowa is a ridiculous choice for a bell weather state, it's an all white state. NJ has one of the largest Muslim populations, and a large mix of everyone. So you have to learn to get along and understand others more when in an overpopulated state to start with. "
But that doesn't mean I agree that NJ values are, (or are not), the best for the country, or even better than Wyoming's.
Since I wasn't the one who tossed Scriptures at you... are we still buds?
Of course we are still buds. (thanks for the omission of Scripture)! I'm a fence sitter when it comes to religion, although I have read the whole Bible and probably all the other religious texts too. I am sorry what I said came out so wrong.
I checked back, and I did say I visited a friend. My dear friend passed on in 2005, and her comments were from years ago. I was not feeling well yesterday, I had one of those bugs that mess with your stomach and make you feel like you have three heads. I miss her so much, I had to be delirious to say that. She did feel uncomfortable living in NE, eventually tried NM and then came back to NJ.
I don't feel like an elitist living in an ivory tower, I'm just a middle class person who can sometimes be my worst enemy on these forums. Living in a state like NJ, with all it's diversity, I am not normally so judgmental. I do feel scared by Trump. Change is good, and I've voted for R's before. I just feel like he should be waiting his turn, it's only a few weeks.
I'm not sure individual states have values, it's individual people who do. I think that's one of the things wrong with politics now. When I was a little girl, we used to order Chinese takeout, and choose one item from Column A, one from Column B. Although many of the people in either party probably feel the same on some issues, I am sure there are also a lot who have varied views on separate issues, all R's don't feel the same about every issue on Column A, and all D's don't feel the same about every issue on Column B. It oversimplifies things too much.
Thanks for being so gracious.
I just wanted to point out that weird and worldly are not synonymous. I've lived on 'the coasts' as you put it. There are a lot of things I do disagree on with people I consider to have led insular lives. But, looking down on them is not something I consider to be productive, or attractive in a person. Quite the opposite.
This separatism the left and right are pushing, this desire to insist every disagreement boils down to a belief that the other side is simply ignorant, this desire to believe one holds a moral high ground; it's all to the detriment of the nation.
So, you double down on your embarrassing statements. I suppose you are incapable of being embarrassed which is what you have to be to continually parrot loony left talking points that have nothing to do with reality.
Hello Rock_nj, the Electoral College, (EC), is a favorite topic, and I have been following your conversation with Wilderness... I hope you don't mind my butting in. Particularly since I think I can add one clarification that might affect your thoughts on the ECs original purpose.
You spoke of the EC having a "tainted" start relative to the 3/5ths compromise. I have seen many conversations where the 3/5ths compromise was considered an obvious example of the racism of the times. I think differently. I think it was a political compromise directly related to the determination of how many House of Representative seats each state received - as that determination was based on population. I have suggested before that if it were based purely on racist valuation of the times, that value would probably have been a lot less than 60% of a white man's value.
Its, (the compromise), association with the EC was secondary, and only because its Electors numbers were also determined by population. Another point that separates the two is the consideration that the compromise was relative only to population, not voters. There were no worries of being out-voted by slave states in a popular vote election.
There are plenty of historical documents and records that I think support my perception, and it is my presumption that I am right about the actual value that would be offered by the level of racism of the times.
So, what do you think? If I am not wrong, and the EC's origin isn't really "tainted" by the perceived racism most attribute to the 3/5ths ... would that affect your consideration of the EC's creation?
First, I do not see any need whatsoever to make metropolitan USA any more powerful politically than it already is. The programs and concepts from big cities have already shown to be a major force in our political scene; to add to that will only destroy any remaining vestiges of independence that states, towns and rural America in general has. While I'm certain it would be a great boon to Democrats and liberals in general, and result in much cheering from those that follow that line of thought it won't do much for anyone else. Representatives are already apportioned based on population; there is no need or reason to give larger states even more.
No, the 2/3rds had nothing to do with the EC; it had everything to do with representation in Congress. That the number of EC votes is based on congressional representation had zero to do with that 2/3rds and was coincidental at best.
Since the US population continues to grow, the said proportional representation in the House of Representatives is being diluted over time, by quite a lot. I am pro expanding democratic representation. More Reps means more diverse views and potentially even third parties winning seats. I don't see it benefiting one side or the other in any particular way since the Republicans have masterfully gerrymandered their way to a majority in the House of Representatives. No reason they wouldn't do the same with a larger more representative House of Representatives.
Read up on the history of the Electoral College. I understand that each state is granted electors based on the number of House of Representative seats and Senators, but the Electoral College came about in part due to concerns by southern states about having so many non-voting people (slaves) and how they would be properly represented in Presidential elections. There were also concerns about whether the common men would elect a person to be President that was unacceptable to the elites that formed the US. It was a compromise in part to appease states with large populations of slaves that couldn't vote. The question is, since slavery was abolished in the US 150 years ago, should an institution like the Electoral College that has its roots in this institution still be in place?
Yes, the population grows...and the number of representatives is changed to stay proportional to the population of each state. If California has 1/10 of the population, it will have 1/10 of the total representatives. The only limit is that each state must have at least one. It is thus not the absolute number of representatives that is important, but the number from each state, relative to the number from other states. In that manner the house does not become so cumbersome, from size alone, as to be unworkable while retaining the relative power from population densities.
I did read up on it, and found nothing like what you claim. Indeed, that southern states were concerned they would have too many representatives in congress and proposed that slaves only count for 3/5ths in determining electoral votes or legislators in order to weaken those same southern states making the proposal, doesn't make a lot of sense now does it?
Perhaps you can point me to a link where some of the VIPs of the time wrote that electoral votes needed limiting because of slave populations? Jefferson, perhaps, or Hamilton?
"Are you against true democracy"
I defer to the wisdom of the founders in this case.
The founders were strongly opposed to direct democracy as it tended to descend into mob rule where 51% of the people could deny the rights of the other 49%. The founders saw the dangers of direct democracy like what happened in the French revolution where a Despot manipulated the passions and prejudices of the people with murderous results.
The founders wanted to protect the interests of smaller states from being trampled by majorities in more populated ones. This had the added benefit of unity because it forced presidential candidates to win a broader constituency and not just to appeal to larger states or urban populations centers.
Rock doesn't seem to have a clue that direct democracy leads to the tyranny of the majority and can threaten individual freedom. Representative democracy allows for disproportionate representation and protection for minority groups. Conclusion, a true democracy just doesn't work and the founders knew it. Educate yourself Rock before you speak https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9SSQZX8fUE
What Democracy is not by Donald Trump: "Happy New Year including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!"
As we all well-know by now, Mr. Trump wasn't hanging out in the bible/rust belts spewing his hate-mongering, fear-inspiring messages to the simple people he was for nothing. He's a brilliant manipulator; and the fact that his loud, in-the-minority MILITANT supporters condone any of the silly tweets that he puts out like this - is simply proof that God in all of his omnipotent glory does NOT control this world. We the people who actually show up to vote do.
To the majority of you out there who just COULDN'T be bothered on election day - screw you, too. You're actually the real reason why Trump is in there: irresponsible, 'can't vote for her' SAME manipulated attititude Trump voters had. At least they cast a vote - and isn't it neat the crap we get to put up with for four years, now?
He isn't even trying to unite this country. Can't wait to hear the 'its time to unite' crap that we all know is coming at the inagural, like the lies he tried to convince us of after he was elected. This isn't how you unite a country behind you. He's a YUGE puppet; and I SWEAR he's been doing this crap on purpose since he started the election nominee process. What did he have to worry about? He was already PURPOSEFULLY culling a certain crowd: talking to, manipulating and condoning the actions & hate speech of PROUD deplorables.
It's a typical response from the left - they want total control of those of us that have a desire to be free.
Liberals hate anything that does not fit into their "socialistic" concept of the good for the state vs screw the rights of the individual. That's the goal of all leftists and socialists - control.
The left is as bigoted and hateful as those they attack - it's funny the idiocy of their "ideals".
"Love trumps hate" as they take to the streets and destroy.
So strong are they that they have to have police protect them in safe spaces, crying and weeping as if they were children.
Yeah, we surely want them at the helm of a republic. We've had it for 8 years, time to have a man in the White House vs an apologist.
Deal with it snowflakes!
No need to "we shall see"
The idiocy of the left is quite apparent daily.
Have your candidates and your DNC stand up, and they are to blame, no one else.
Trump just exposed your falsehoods and had a different narrative that individuals still had rights.
You hypocrisy was your undoing.
Your hate shows up daily on any left leaning news show.
Trumps a saint compared to the American hating obamamama we've had to contend with for the last 8 years.
Talk about bigotry and hate - he was a prime example of the stuff that will destroy a country.
Watch in awe as a businessman gets things done........
Watch while you get "done in"
Funny, I see a inverse picture of your very tirade, but with the Political Right as its object.
Don't you worry, this Trump will undermine himself and We will be there waiting....
I bet you will be to suck the life out of what's left if Trump fails.
I have the utmost confidence in your socialist agenda. I've always felt it's too late, but maybe, just maybe, Trump will turn the tide
Don't just "be there waiting." Let's all get together and put our shoulders to the wheel and push along....together. You know "Stronger Together" or isn't that rhetoric good enough to practice what was preached?
Don't just "be there waiting." Let's all get together and put our shoulders to the wheel and push along....together. You know "Stronger Together" or isn't that rhetoric good enough to practice what was preached?
While, I despise the political right and Trump generally, I have to work within the system, otherwise we will give them credibility in their attack and response that they do not deserve.
We are all pulling together in the war against despotism, but there are many fronts to this war. The easiest way to dispense with an enemy is to have him or her fall on his own sword. The people will see that their choice for President is not being criticized solely because he is conservative. It will be because he has behaved as an idiot, and that will be universally recognized. Trump has a big mouth, with little use for learning or reflection, such a man will be like a deer in the headlights. As the outrages continue, the Right will find no solace in lacking an explanation or place to retreat. That is the time we have to be ready for, but timing is critical so we must keep our powder dry for now. But, keep the powder at the ready all the same.
Shall we look at the destruction of the Democratic party under Obama's leadership? What were the electoral benefits he gave to the party? The States are decimated, they lost control of the House and the Senate, and Governor-ships are decimated. Obama's legacy is not looking good. Even liberals are seeing that! Everything Obama is doing is diabolical, from the economy to foreign policies, and now in his last days in office, yikes.
Americans get to be the butt of the stupid-jokes. I hope the Democratic party can pull itself up by its boot-straps once again, but its going to take reform.
"Shall we look at the destruction of the Democratic party under Obama's leadership? What were the electoral benefits he gave to the party?"
The rightwinger did plot the destruction just witness the angst, obstruction and general nastiness toward Obama over the last 8 years, and I have not forgotten. That will be to the rightwinger's peril.
" The States are decimated, they lost control of the House and the Senate, and Governor-ships are decimated. Obama's legacy is not looking good. Even liberals are seeing that! Everything Obama is doing is diabolical, from the economy to foreign policies, and now in his last days in office, yikes."
We on the left are fine with Obama's legacy. You better tell your man to watch his caboose, because the electorate is fickle and 2018 midterms are right around the corner. Circumstances can turn on a dime, if Trump gets too far out of line.
Happy New Year
I believe Trump is a man after God's own heart.
Happy New Year!
You bring God into everything when you get stumped for an answer. It's comical. When asked, Trump couldn't even quote one verse that was his favorite. He was a former Democrat from NY, now masquerading as a conservative.
...masquerading as a conservative? - If he is masquerading as a conservative that would be the ultimate FAIL. NO ONE thinks or says he is a "conservative". He IS pursuing some conservative policies and a platform that is the Republican platform but NO ONE says or claims he is a true conservative, not even him - if anything he is a pragmatist and as a pragmatist he knows the evidence is overwhelming that liberal government policies do nothing but fail. Maybe this can teach you something about Trump but I doubt you will watch it simply because you can' t fit reality into your perverted paradigms.
He IS pursuing some conservative policies and a platform that is the Republican platform but NO ONE says or claims he is a true conservative, not even him
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it gotta be a Donald, right. He is just another conservative in a populist clothing. He will have a uphill climb to prove to me otherwise, but itis possible. I am watching him and if he touches social security or Medicare, it will be equivalent of war and his first broken promise. So, the heat is on and your man had better watch his step. I will get all of the old fools that voted for him a serious case of buyers remorse. The so called moochers they have been out to get may well include themselves by Donald Trumps reckoning.
That is a very good documentary about Trump by the History Channel. I enjoyed it very much, and will watch the next video sometime. It captured Donald the man who has vision, and is empowered to self-actualize. - Thank you for sharing the link.
God bless America!
You are welcome colorfulone - it really helps to get some history on someone before due to ignorance painting him as something he is not. I pray that today he is someone after God's own heart. He is still a sinner but God testified concerning David: "I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart" and David turned out to be no saint. Only God knows one's heart and a heart can be changed by Christ.
As for conservatism, liberals don't even have a clue what conservatism is. To them it means people who want to pollute and destroy the environment, push the elderly over a cliff. To them conservatives are people who want to restrict choice and freedom by enacting laws banning gay marriage, want to put the church back in the state (but only the Christian church, all lies propagated by the left, enemies of conservatism because they know it will unravel their key dishonest ideology.
You have nerve. Liberal people don't want to throw the elderly over a cliff. I spent my whole adult life helping a bipolar brother, and supporting a widowed mother, with no thought of myself. I took tender care of my husband until he passed on, and have always been a good and accessible parent. I also took care of my best friend's children when she was sick and dying. I have many serious health issues of my own.
Conservatives are trying to get past all the regulations that allow companies to pollute the earth. Look what happened in Flint, MI. They felt it was fine to let children drink water with lead in it to save a few bucks. The LGBTQ community deserves the same civil rights other people have. That doesn't mean you have to live their lifestyle.
And whether you like it or not, this is a secular country. Many of us who are not Christians, or were brought up that way, finally realized it's a religion that makes no sense, and are sick of being deluged with bible verses from a bunch of hypocrites who like to play Spiritual One Upmanship. I studied and read the whole Bible, it's mean spirited book with a lot of weird goings on it it. I bet half of the Christians here never read the whole "Good Book". I am interested and well read on all religions. Grow up.
Guess you didn't see this commercial put out by YOUR liberal buddies. Uploaded on May 17, 2011
With pretty boy Paul Ryan's draconian and savage cuts to Medicare in his budget proposal, we have to ask ourselves: Is America still beautiful without Medicare?
So who is promoting the idea Republicans want to push granny off the cliff? You are clueless.
Come on Colorful.A man of God's own heart? How do you think God looked on the locker room trash talk?
When the Electoral College is looked at closely one can see that the United States election is not about population but rather a set of issues going on in a particular State. Each State has a right for their set of problems and worries to be heard. Each State has a right for their voice to be heard as a group. I do not think it is hard to see that the citizens of California have different worries and problems than the citizens of Iowa or West Virginia. It seems to me we cannot expect less populated States to become more populated in order to have an equal voice. How would Iowa add more population? It is important to remember Iowa consists of corn fields, lots and lots of corn fields. The EC allows the citizens of a State to vote for the candidate that best offers a solution to the problems of that State. It is when the majority of States agree on the best candidate that a winner is chosen.
For those that think population is the most important thing in an election it is important to note that the EC was a compromise between those that thought every State should get one vote and those that thought population should rule. Remember California cast many more EC votes than Wyoming or Iowa. So in the end population does matter but in the EC system the smaller, less populated States still have a voice that can be heard. These States are still represented in our government.
The current system actually takes power away from less AND more populated states. Instead it gives power to "swing" states (currently around 13 states). Candidates then focus on the swing states, ignoring the rest, as we saw in the election.
Also, with the current system, it's possible for a candidate to receive only 22% of the popular vote and become president, which means someone can become president even if 78% of the population voted against them.
The system proposed by the National Popular Vote Compact (NPVIC) is a better alternative. Proposed well before the last election, it fixes the problems with the electoral college system, without abolishing the electoral college. NVPIC explained (6 min video).
10 states have already signed on to the compact (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) plus the District of Columbia, totaling 165 electoral votes. When the number of states signed is able to reach 270 electoral votes, the compact will become active.
I am sure that you are aware that there has been no 'red states' that have signed up and some are going to needed to get to the magic number. This is not going to be as easy as it looks.
What makes you think ANY Republican states are needed for the compact. On the independent panel headed by John Lewis and Sheila Jackson Lee, there are 3 Nobel Prize winners and an even number of Dems and Republicans. All 3 of the Nobel Prize winners have stated that no Congressional approval is needed to abolish the Electoral College.
As such, if the Republican states are relying so heavily on protecting the Electoral College, that proves that these states can only win by majority rule which flies in the face of the US Constitution which grants equality to minority rule. As you can see, Republican states will fight any attempts to abolish that which they abuse ...the Electoral College.
But, Ewent, this is the age of Trump, we are stuck with a HR, Senate and White House that are controlled by Republicans. Do you really think that progressives can get this accomplished? As you say, the GOP is going to fight this advantage that they obtain, but do not deserve.
You may be stuck...I am not. I have NO intentions of being a door mat for the right wing or Republicans. If they want a revolution. They'll get that revolution. They dished it out for 8 years. They don't get a free pass now for another 8 years.
In my entire life, I have never suffered domination and never will. Not when "I" pay my way. I've had just about enough of the GREAT WHITE ANGRY MAN ACT with Trump and his hostile little boys and their dimwitted girls. This isn't 1950 where Father Knows Best.
Anyone who dares think I can be cowed, has yet to feel my wrath when they get up my nose. I was Republican woman for 33 years. I left when I realized I was hearing ONLY Big Mouth Republican male voices. Now, I don't get angry. I get even. Paybacks...you know what they are.
You are preaching to the choir, Ewent. There are many ways to make our voices heard. The power of the press and public opinion have, on more than one occasion, brought down the high and mighty and such may well be the case again.
Rest assured, we will get him!!
True, but the bill has already passed at least one legislative chamber in 12 other states (96 votes). Plus it has been unanimously approved at committee level in two states (27 votes)(1). Plus it's easier than getting a constitutional amendment. Plus it's better to change the EC at state level rather than abolish it. Plus, sometimes you have to be glass-half-full
The link is appreciated, it was interesting to see just how "partisan" the GOP attitude toward not changing the EC is, just go back to 2013.
So,What say you, rightwingers, to your blatant hypocrisy? And yes we are going to get the changes that you were so much for in 2013. What about all that vaunted Constitutional scholarship regarding its principles?
So, where are you, you still hiding?
Credence, I've ALWAYS supported the EC as it currently stands, and always will. I accept the fact that the EC allows for a president to be elected without a majority of votes; it's a non issue to me. I don't care what the Republican Party wants or doesn't want, because I'm an independent conservative. There's no apparent need to change the EC, as it's operating exactly as it was intended.
I haven't always supported the Electoral College. But, after Wilderness posted the map of the county by county - state by state breakdown I realized how important the EC was in allowing the will of the country to be truly represented in that branch of government.
Hi, Prof, nice to see you back in town.
I think that I am more irked by those that change their positions on the electoral college like they change their socks with all sorts of rationale, including those based on the integrity of the Constitution. Whether one is for it or against it, that position should be consistent and not adjustable based political expediency.
I see that is where you are and I can appreciate that.
Here is where I am at, I know that the EC is a part of the design of the Constitution, although I question if the reason it was conceived is still valid today. When the EC took precedent over the popular vote it was tolerable when it happened once every century. There was no purpose in rocking the apple cart as it happened so rarely. That is one thing but an ominous trend appears when it wasn't 15 years ago when it occurred before.
Once in a century is one thing, every other election cycle is quite another. These conservatives are telling me that states elect the President rather than the majority of the electorate. Conservatives also tell me that this is not a democracy, but a republic. I don't believe the concepts are exclusive of one another. We are a democratic republic, with the emphasis on democracy.
These are contentious times politically, very well polarized as not the case in over a century. So, what if the 3 million vote majority that has been overruled by EC in 2016 becomes 15 to 20 million in 2024? It is mathematically possible and trend is heading this way and I don't believe that is just an aberration.
Trump is having problems already as will anyone not elected with the support of the majority of the voters. It does not inspire confidence and unity in the our futurecourse, when a candidate receiving the fewer votes can win the Presidency.
While I am opposed to tampering with it right now, I am concerned that the credibility of the electoral process will be under suspicion. Whose 'better judgement' is supplanting that of the majority of the electorate? And what does that portend as to government being responsive to the will of the voters?
Plus, when you're attempting to bypass the intent of the constitution it isn't so simple as to just change it. One must be very careful to stay within the technical aspects of the law when subverting the intent of that same law.
In this case, then, the intent was to "equalize" smaller states and it is the goal to subvert that into becoming rule by majority. The answer is to work within states, changing state laws rather than the constitution; the hope is that a consensus of enough states will indeed subvert the intent of the Constitution. Might even work - it just depends on what's in it for the politicians at the state level rather than the federal.
If the "intent of the constitution" is important to you, then that's even more reason for the current system to change, because the current system doesn't meet that original intent.
Sure, the intent was to "equalize" smaller states (an oversimplification but close enough) and ensure smaller states are as politically relevant as the larger ones. How is that working out?
In 2012, the number of campaign events held in the 12 smallest states were*:
North Dakota: 0
South Dakota: 0
District of Columbia: 0
Rhode Island: 0
North Dakota: 0
South Dakota: 0
District of Columbia: 0
Rhode Island: 0
Because these are "safe" states for one side or the other under the current system, candidates have no reason to campaign in them. Instead, in both 2012 and 2016 they paid attention to 12 "swing" or "battleground" states only(1)
Likewise, in 2012 the Obama campaign spent 99.6% of their TV advertising budget in 10 states. Romney spent 99.9% in 10 states. None of those states were among the 12 smallest(2).
This does not meet the intent of the constitution, where under the current system the smallest states are politically irrelevant. The National Popular Vote Compact maintains the electoral college, and ensures that every vote in every state is of equal importance.
(1) http://www.fairvote.org/presidential_tr … ign_events
While there is always a debate for and against the EC system every election, it's interesting to see what the political parties were saying in 2013 after Obama won the election (again):
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01 … ntial.html
The point is, most people didn't come out to vote - from any state. Trump basically won the electorial college by default with a measley 20% of the countrywide vote. Hillary's popular vote was only a little over 20% of the countrywide vote - so what does that say about America?
We're not even SORT of united - we're VERY divided, despite the fact that Trump & his cohorts like to rant & rave about 'winning big'. This win was not a big win, it was barely-won by the slivers of right-wing militants & uber-elitist Bernie supporters (100% FREE EVERYTHING, please!!). Just a bunch of angry white men having an uber-time together in the political jocker room.
I've already seen many Trump voters express regret and even apologize to the rest of the country. Those seem to be the people who really thought that Trump would 'become more presidential' after he was elected; and since he hasn't - and in fact, has brought out the GOP war regime (and is threatening Planned Parenthood) - are really regretting their votes. And, I'd guess, they are also the most scared if something goes wrong. I mean, if he manages to start WW3 in the face of so many 'I told you so's' - that kind of guilt will probably be just about unbareable.
I think everyone needs to relax. Trump isn't in office, yet - and his own party isn't that thrilled with him. He isn't exactly part of the GOP buddies with this same-sex marriage support & consistent weekly (and sometimes DAILY) lies (really? 100% of his foundation donations go to charity? BS!).
He will have as difficult time accomplishing what he wants to as Obama did - because the president doesn't do a damn thing on his own. That office is not designed to be a dictator's post. I predict Trump will have as much adversity within his presidency as anyone else ever has. He's fighting several fronts, with the one strong front that he has - angry white men - soon to be overwhelmed by the rest of the country. Thank God they are the minority. I've never cussed out OR laughed at another president so much in my life - and again, he isn't even president, yet. I can't wait to see what happens. I hope they eventually impeach him and give his job to Ivanka, LoL!
Enjoy the show. I love posting these.
And this from a woman that supports one of the most corrupt candidates that ever ran for President.
hillary killary was guilty of treason, lying while running for office, hiring thugs to disrupt Trumps rallies, stealing debate questions and calling most Americans "deplorable".
The classic example of the pot calling the kettle black.
Carry on misfit, support your corrupt fellow democrats - we surely could have used another corrupt politician like we've had in the last 8 years in the form of obamama.
Why you democrats love corruption is one of the mysteries of American politics.
"Love" trumps Trump while you riot and call everyone bigots is one of the funniest things I've sen in decades.
Carry on with your great, white, feminist hypocrisy.
I love a good laugh.
Say Old Guard, do you also beat your wife on weekends after a good boozer? Trump raped a 12 year old girl who "magically" disappeared. Don't you EVER DARE accuse Hillary of ANY crime unless you have proof substantiated by COURT documents and her prison record. Men like you are sicko mentalities whose Mommies, like Mommy Trump, spent too many years doting over their little boys.
Then, Daddy got hold of you and started to shape you into what he calls a man...one with a big mouth who always blames the nearest person in your vicinity for what you do. Get help narcissist. Hillary is no longer YOUR personal whipping post. Who is next? Elizabeth Warren? Let me guess Mr. Testicles the Size of raisins, anything with ovaries cannot EVER be president, right?
You got your fun using Hillary for your whipping post. What will you little morons do when the Senate and House have a female majority? What you men always do? Run to a corner of the room for some prime time bonding?
Get professional help for you misogyny and that narcissism. Mommy's little angel turned into Daddy's bad boy. NOT.
If Trump raped a 12 year old, he'd be in jail.
Facts have shown corruption within the leadership of the DNC and corruption within the hillary killary franchise of laundering money.
My question to people like yourself is why you allow your "leaders" a free pass when corruption is shown and proven, while dissing trump for words that have little meaning. They're no different then the thugs the DNC hires to disrupt the GOP rallies.
Little connections that snowflakes like yourself seem to be able to ignore.
So much for your "love trumps hate" as your bigotry and hatred shines through.
Carry on, snowflake
The case was not allowed to come to court because Bannon threatened the girl he raped. She has a witness to Trump's and Bannon's threats. That how you boys deal with women you think you must always control? RAPE and grabbing their genitals? He is going to MAKE AMERICA GRATE. And you men will be the first ones women will string up in public squares like they did to Mussolini and his playmate Carla Petacci.
You are making slanderous claims that you cannot possibly support if facing a jury looking for actual evidence. Is that how women in general perform - behave like little girls incapable of understanding reason and truth, satisfied to levy false claims to maintain their hatred and sexism?
Not even Trump has exhibited the raw sexist attitude that you are.
Is it all men in general we are supposed to hate enough to lynch or do you have specific groups you've marked out for mass slaughter?
I would like something that at least resembles a trial before I am executed for being male. Also I would want Hillary for my lawyer. I hear she is good at getting bad guys. off the hook.
The story that the DNC hired thugs to disrupt the GOP rallies is a hoax. Even the satirist who created the bogus Craigslist ad where this story came from cofessed to it.
You just made the whole concept of the Electoral college clear and concise. Thank you. You are the first person who has explained it in a way I can fully understand.
"Obviously, most STATES want Trump's concept of leadership."
Or did not want Clinton's. This election still had a poor turnout at 55%. It was a 20 year low. So yes the popular vote went to Clinton while the corrected Electoral vote went to Trump but it was hardly a consensus of the whole electorate.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/ … index.html
She got 44% of the vote in my home state of Georgia. It is one of the most conservative Republican states in the union. She carried my county, which is the home of Newt Gingrich and the John Birch Society. A majority is a majority whomever it is made up of nationally.
He's going to be president. But you do have to accept that the majority of voters did not choose him, which equals no mandate to do anything.
The "voters" in Presidential elections in the United States are the states themselves. And they voted something like 3 to 1 for Trump.
If we look at the results county by county it's even worse:
When early voting started in Georgia, there were complaints that voting machines were flipping votes from Trump to Clinton, or the machines wouldn't let people vote for Trump. Republicans were warned ahead of time to watch for election fraud and voter fraud, so they were alert and used cell phones to get footage and report it. It is not over, Trump had many people providing evidence of fraud, not just in Georgia. There will be legal actions taken by the Trump Administration. That needs to be cleaned up.
Newt Gingrich, is a very smart man, when he tells the truth he does it eloquently, but he is just another corrupt politician that can't be trusted to be honest. I don't know who his puppet master is...but I'm fairly sure he is a globalist pretending to be a conservative. He may have been compromised.
Scares me how militant and mad those who claim to be the left sound.
But you turned a deaf ear to the guy that sing the praises of the Right. From your "balanced" perspective, why is the left always to blame?
Reread with an unbiased eye and get back to me on that. You are coming off incredibly mad and ready to brawl.
I have and you are right, I was a little hard, but right wing supposed statements of fact stick in my craw.
I have been around long enough to see where certain topics bring out comments from you or anybody else that are less than pretty. For me, the rightwinger and his or her assertions does it for me, every time.
Don't attack California!!!
Points well taken.
And I'm sorry but California is not a state I can defend. I've eaten their potato salad and their stuffing. They are in definite need of criticism.
NY and NJ also voted solidly for Clinton. But, California is one of the states with the greatest number of electoral college electors. The reality you will never get any right winger to admit is that Hillary WON the popular vote. So, posting that it was ONLY California that brought her an increase of votes is a lie. But, from the fact that these right wingers accept lying as something holy, right and good, should not surprise anyone why they chose Trump.
FACT is the race wasn't for the popular vote so no one can say with a straight face they know Hillary would have won the popular vote if it was. Read your constitution, oh that's right, the left doesn't accept the constitution - they want to get rid of it. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2016/11/16 … of-states/
Fact is if right wingers accept lying as something holy, right and good they'd be in the democrat party voting overwelmingly for Hillary, the author of lies, deception and corruption.
Thanks, my concern is that this advantage for conservatives and the right may be fixed in stone, and as Don said, as partisan lines become more distinct a situation that appeared once in a hundred years or so will become more frequent. The disparity between the popular vote and the electoral college more stark. The shell game will allow too many victories for conservatives and their candidates at the expense of popular sovereignty and the will of the majority of the electorate.
It isn't fixed at all. Here is a very interesting link regarding how the Electoral College can be abolished: https://www.c-span.org/video/?419632-1/ … l-college. It was Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale Constitutional Law professor on this panel who stated that no Congressional approval is needed to abolish the Electoral College. This was also supported by Jamie Raskin, a law professor and Jack N. Rakove, Pulitzer Prize winner in political science.
Is it supported by the SCOTUS? That would be seem to be a little more important than some college professor.
It doesn't need to be. Read your US Constitution. The First Amendment Right allows any citizen the right to petition government "for a redress of grievances." The SC is the Judiciary branch so they would not be needed to abolish a legislative branch since they have neither executive nor legislative power. Actually, the president of the United States as part of his/her executive duties can also abolish the Electoral College.
How do we abolish the executive /media branch. (ie depending on the party thats in)
That cannot be done. It is always assumed that these branches are elected by the people, for the people and of the people. The only option would be for 2/3s of Americans to petition the government for a referendum to remove them.
Wait, make that ABC. No . FB. No. Never mind makes no difference they are synonymous
There is sufficient evidence of collusion with major news networks in Pedesta's emails, the former chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, for legal actions once there is a new DOJ in town. Should be interesting to watch.
Pedesta's emails were not hacked, he lots his cell phone and had a simple password. He sent out an email saying he lost his phone and if anyone found it return it. Lots of damaging evidence in those emails. They all knew Hillary is a liar and were pretty much sick of it, that's all in the emails, within her own camp. So! They had to go along with their candidate's lies...lies, lies, lies.
Without the grand scale of psychological manipulation conducted by msm, I seriously doubt hillary would have got her own vote.
"They" all knew Hillary was a liar? And who would "they" be? Right wing nasties who can't abide anyone in the White House but a White Male with a big mouth? Get over it. What will you call Elizabeth Warren if she runs? Or Sheila Jackson Lee? Or any other woman? You think this is the end and men have laid down the male egotistical law? Women who don't support their own gender FIRST are women who prove they exited a male birth canal. Oh...that's right. Can't be done. Neither can men continue to dominate the presidency.
Unless you have proof of what you posted, it is ONLY YOUR opinion. Now..would you like me to hand you a list of your boy Trump's lies?
I love the way people want to believe that a distaste for Hillary's myriad lies and missteps equates to somehow hating the thought of a woman in power. It doesn't. It simply means some don't think Hillary is qualified to be put into a position of authority. Primarily because of her many lies and missteps.
Disliking Hillary also does not equate to an inability to view Trump for what he is.
And I love the glib way you men pretend it wasn't really her gender. Want to try that one again? Especially now that Trump just yesterday started in on Elizabeth Warren? Time for you little boys to grow up. Women in the US have had it with your male egos out of control. We pay equal taxes on salary that are 80 cents to your dollar.
And Big Baby...Trump didn't win the popular vote. Hillary did. Anyone can rig the Electoral College when it's the ONLY way the GOP can EVER win. Strike 2 since 2000 and 2004. Want to try for Strike 3?
"Anyone can rig the Electoral College when it's the ONLY way the GOP can EVER win."
Yep - it's the only the GOP can ever win. And it's the only way the Dem's can ever win. Your point? That Clinton won because she has a double X chromosome (that means she is a female)?
After all the screaming about Trumps supposed sex discrimination, it's actually funny to hear a liberal saying that sex discrimination is not only acceptable, but should be practiced - that women should always vote for women because they're women.
I know. That's the part that rankles me. That they tried to bully me into voting for her because she is a woman. I suppose the 'we've come a long way, baby' slogan means we've gone from being told what to do by men to having some women think they are the boss of other women.
As a woman, I have to wonder if you meant to post that to me.
It's an ignorant statement. I think women who support women first are a bunch of idiots who should know that putting one ahead of the other, by sexual orientation only, is no better than the thousands of years men did it to the detriment of women.
True equality means not noticing the differences.
Project Veritas Action: undercover DNC Rigging the Election
* http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1384 … -election-
This is only a part of the proof that I gathered on a thread. You can look around on YouTube for audio and video, its all over the internet. Wikileaks is a great source also with DNC, Clinton, and especially Pedesta emails. You can search about the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign lawsuits for election rigging, voter fraud and rigging, and racketeering. Its all there for everyone to see!
When I am expressing my opinion, I usually make note of that somehow. Those Weiner (Huma's ex pervert hubby) emails have to be humdingers with Hillary's State Department emails on the Weiner device. I think its over 600,000 emails that Hillary thought were deleted and bleached, but Weiner had them...life insurance I suppose. Time will tell!
What you are saying is that the people can petition and, based on that petition, congress or the President can change the constitution however they wish.
A very false statement, which is why I asked if SCOTUS is on board with such nonsense. The requirements for changing our Constitution are well laid out, and nowhere is it found to be that congress alone, or the President alone, can accomplish such a task.
Thanks, I am going to check out the link. I certainly hope that change can be forthcoming.
I'd just like my vote to count. Right, left, or middle. Republicans are absolute on this issue because twice recently it has put their man in office when he actually lost.
Kathleen I understand. It does seem unfair. But when you look at the county by county breakdown it makes you wonder how fair a system would be which allows big cities to hold too much sway. Don't you think it would have been odd, with so much of the country voting republican on this one, for California to have pushed it in the other direction? Don't you think that system will create just as much rancor as this one, if not more?
You have to ask your self a question why are people different simply because of where they reside?California has vast stretches that can certainly be considered rural. And I am sure that they vote GOP. There simply are not enough of them
While, I don't live in the city, I don't see why a individual farmer's vote is worth more than urban dweller? That is what EC does.
There is not an issue of too much sway, it is far more simpler, more people vote along one line verses another. Why are we actually question the principle of one man one vote? All these other premises are less than democratic.
Why should EL Paso County have an advantage over Denver County outside of consideration given based on the relative population of that County? That is not fair.
I am not that anxious to protect the political and ideological beliefs of the country mice during election time at my expense.
I get it. I think both arguments have an incredible amount of merit.
"You have to ask your self a question why are people different simply because of where they reside?"
A good question, and if we could answer it we might find some really deep insight into the human psyche.
"I am not that anxious to protect the political and ideological beliefs of the country mice during election time at my expense."
And those country mice aren't particularly interested in protecting political and ideological beliefs of the steel and concrete dwellers of another world; a world far, far removed from the one they occupy and work in. The perception, right or wrong, that the values those mice hold dear - hard work, family, self reliance, a helping hand to those that need it, community - just don't exist in the rat mazes of the city.
Perhaps further states rights should be considered and fewer federal rules and programs? Let the cities live as they would and the rural counties the same?
I certainly would be interested in that dive into the human psyche and the study of cause and effect.
As for the 'perception' and it is just that, the country mice need to work harder to make alliances with the greater number of city mice through persuasion. If the minority on a side of an issue wants to win, they always have the ability to expand their horizons and such.
The Bill of Rights protects the minority from excesses of popular sovereignty, that is good enough for me. The rest is politics. The President is elected by all of us, the country folks do not get to win by default.
That will be another reason why the Trump transition will be hindered is this perception that he was not the choice of the majority of the American voters. That, too, is just a perception but it is quite real. That is not going to help.
bTW, I state for the record that I was opposed to any tampering with the electoral college during this election cycle. But, as for the future......
As for changing or reducing the federal presence regarding rules and regulation relative to the states,
for me it depends specifically on what it is you want to change or eliminate.
"As for changing or reducing the federal presence regarding rules and regulation relative to the states,
for me it depends specifically on what it is you want to change or eliminate."
Well, of course it does! But look at gun control: the you city folk kill each other with depressing regularity, and that you have convinced the city rats that taking guns away will stop the death toll, is all fine and good. City people are very often quite afraid of that bit of steel and want it gone from their city. But what does that have to do with the rancher in Montana or Wyoming?
Or highway speed limits: they are set by politicians in metropolitan areas...to apply to an entire state or (at one time) the nation. What makes perfect sense when there are 1,000 cars per mile makes none at all when there are 2.
What we all tend to forget is this - when the country was founded and designed, states had rights. They could easily pull their Senators and shut down any action within the Federal Government. It was only by states permission that the Federal Government had any power.
This was pretty much demolished after the Civil War. And as Lincoln stated over and over, his goal, and he was dictatorial about it, was to preserve the Union - at whatever cost.
In other words, take away the right of a states succession, and they would now have to submit to the will of the Federal Government.
This was further set in place when Senators were no longer appointed by State Legislators but by popular vote - the Senators could no longer be frired if they were not abiding by will of their state.
The electoral College was specifically designed so that more populated states (Like California and New York) could not usurp power and tell the other 48 states how to mange their affairs.
Think states rights when thinking of the Electoral College, vs. democratic rule. We were never a "democracy" we were and are a Republic.
A Union of States, where in the beginning the States allowed the power to be given to the Federal Government.
Quite contrary to the situation we have today, where the Federal Government is the ultimate power, and the states are now subservient to the will of the Federal Government.
It was never, ever supposed to be like we have today. In fact, the founders warned us over and over again of the mistake of giving the Federal Government too much power, like we have today.
Actually you can't say they lost because the races were never for the popular vote and if they were campaigns on both sides would have been run totally differently - no one can say what the popular vote outcome would have been if the electoral college didn't exist so it is totally irrelevant, except to people like you who base their beliefs on their feelings and ignore the facts. After all the recent educational discussions about the popular vote and the electoral you chose to ignore the truth and live in a dream world of sore losers who could care less about the constitution and the reasons why it is like it is.
Again, it has to do with states rights - that's what people forget.
The only power that the Federal Government has is granted to it by the states.
This was the key to the Republic - it had to do with the rights of the states, then the power of the Federal Government.
It has everything to do with those that argue about popular vs. the Electoral College.
It's not "irrelevant", it's totally relevant to the mess we're into today.
A centralized government usurping the powers of the states was adamantly opposed by those who set up the Constitution.
Hence, the left's goal is a centralized government without consideration for states or individual rights. This has been going on since Lincoln and the Civil War.
It's what makes the left's arguments about most things ridiculous when forced to understand how the laws, rules and regulations were set up in the Constitution.
This is what made us stand apart from every other form of government ever created - the Federal Government derives it's power by permission.
It has now morphed into a centralized government that derives it's power by force and coercion.
The Electoral College is one of the only things left from the Constitution that forces the Federal Government, in a small way, to bend to the will of the states and not to a popular vote or movement.
Well said by "The Old Guard"! President-elect Trump won 30 of the 50 states, if my memory still serves another old guard. In terms of states won, that is a landslide, too. How do the Republicans vs. Democrats fare in terms of states with high indebtedness, and in terms of states with the highest unemployment, and states with the highest rates of poverty, single heads of household, abortion rates, and number of welfare recipients.
I suspect that says something about the ideology and effectiveness of the two political parties.
LtL- You make good points. There are negatives on every side. But I still think the least flawed is one person, one vote so every vote counts and 3M of them aren't disgaurded.
Once again, you need to understand how the country was set up and for what reasons.
The goal was NOT to have a centralized government nor a populated state telling less populated states how the Federal Government was to rule.
The U.S.A. was NOT a democracy but a Republic - a Union of States.
Hence the States gave permission for the Federal Government to rule.
And each state was given a portion of power - the Electoral College - to help reign in the Federal Government's power.
It's not that your vote does not count, it is that the majority of States - which give their permission for the power of the Federal Government - sways the vote to a more "even" rule throughout the nation.
Your call that the popular vote should hold sway over the Federal Government would mean that 14 of the states would be telling the other 36 states how the Federal Government was supposed to operate.
As a Union of States, this is unfair to the States.
It may seem fairer to you as a voter, but again, the U.S.A. was never a Democracy, but a Republic.
If you want democracy, then you need to write a new Constitution.
And that would require the approval of 36 states that disagreed with your "majority" of voters.
The Electoral College did what it was supposed to do this election - it allowed States their rights over a minority rule - 36 states for Trump, 14 states against.
How much of "every vote counts" is no more than perception, usually from one who lost?
If you live in an area that votes strongly D, but you'r an R, is your vote lost? You've complained about the other - you vote D but everyone else around goes R, so your vote is "lost".
Does it make sense that a handful of counties in a dozen states could and would have absolute control over Presidential elections? One person, one vote and that's exactly what would happen - are the rest of the votes "disgaurded" or do they still count because you like the D's to win?
It is interesting to note that prior to Trump's victory, the hoards on the right, including Trump, swore that the system was rigged. I wouldN't be hearing all of this oratory about the upholding the Constitution if the system did not provide the rightwinger and conservatives the advantage.
So should we have 1 man/two votes in regard to the hayseed part of the country, merely because they are underpopulated? What is this rightwing thing that defines a 'state' as an entity independent of the people that reside in the country at large? So, if the Presidential decision is not made by the majority of the nation's residents, who is it being made by in their name, so-called?
The States Rights stuff sounds fine until it was found as the justification for slavery and denial of civil rights. There is a limit to this as most conservatives never seem willing to acknowlege. So, what is your and the Old Guard's take upon this?
"So should we have 1 man/two votes in regard to the hayseed part of the country, merely because they are underpopulated?"
And those that live in grossly overpopulated areas, areas with so many people that they verge in insanity just as too many rats shoved into a single cage do, should have absolute control over those with values in line with reality rather than a pretend utopia? I don't think so.
"So should we have 1 man/two votes in regard to the hayseed part of the country, merely because they are underpopulated?"
I didn't vote twice - who can you point to that did?
"What is this rightwing thing that defines a 'state' as an entity independent of the people that reside in the country at large?"
Ask the founders of the country; those that wrote the original documents. States' rights isn't a "rightwing" thing, as much as those "progressing" towards total federal control would have us think - it was and is a matter of self government and responsibility.
Yes, there is a limit to states rights, but it isn't simply as little as liberals can manage to leave behind their swath of destruction.
"And those that live in grossly overpopulated areas, areas with so many people that they verge in insanity just as too many rats shoved into a single cage do, should have absolute control over those with values in line with reality rather than a pretend utopia? I don't think so."
What is this idea of grossly overpopulated, such bias? Just because people live in larger cities is not justification to believe as if they belong to another species. "Reality" from the rightwinger's standpoint is anything but..... again the idea conservatives have that urban dwellers are monolithic politically needs to be examined more closely. If your vote in Boise has more weight than mine in Los Angeles, it certainly is not one man/one vote. So what do we call it, is the term "republic" an excuse to dismiss the democratic foundation of our society? People have to work, Wilderness, and do not have the luxury of the idyllic life in the countryside.
"Ask the founders of the country; those that wrote the original documents. States' rights isn't a "rightwing" thing, as much as those "progressing" towards total federal control would have us think - it was and is a matter of self government and responsibility."
I see your point, but where I strike the balance between the two is going to be different from where you would and that is the conflict. The founders of this country had no problem accommodating slavery as part of their declarations regarding the rights of man. So, I don't give anyone a carte blanc.
"What is this idea of grossly overpopulated, such bias?"
Seemed a reasonable response to "..in regard to the hayseed part of the country, merely because they are underpopulated?" If you find gross exaggerations and name calling to be a part of reasonable discourse, I should probably follow suit, don't you think?
"I see your point, but where I strike the balance between the two"
Cred, any "balance" you might strike is going to be far down the road of federal control of people's lives: control that does nothing but maintain and increase the power of the politicians, while increasing the size and number of chains used to ensure that power base. Using slavery, and it's evils, to somehow justify those chains doesn't cut it.
Well, now, your man Trump is on stage, let's just see how well his concept of the New Federalism will be embraced by the 'press' and all of that the conservatives see as mere rabble, but that the more enlightened on the left see as the foundation of the concept of popular sovereignty.
He is not going to be given a great deal of time before all the weapons of the left are turned against him and they are formidable.
I only agree to give time for him to prove to me that he is more than just another GOP sock puppet. If he fails the test, then he is to be fed to the wolves.... I will make that determation sooner, rather than later.
Hayseed is not a derogatory term, in of itself, but it is a descriptive one. It is not like referring to city dwellers as rats...
Nope. Trump was tried and convicted by hating liberals before he even won the election, let alone after taking office and actually doing something. Unlike Clinton, proven guilty of violating security protocols, Trump only had to exist to be demonized and found wanting.
"Hayseed is not a derogatory term, in of itself, but it is a descriptive one."
Guess that depends on the speaker - personally I find "rats" to be quite descriptive (feeding off other rats, killing them when desired, and taking whatever their little minds conceive of) and we DO know what happens to rats when overpopulated. But why are you surprised or offended when you use offensive terms (known to be offensive to the people you apply them to) and then have the same offensive style used right back? Because conservatives are expected to be decent people, above the use of such language while liberals aren't?
But three million may not have voted that way if the race was for just the popular vote - can't you understand that? No votes were discarded - that is just a straw man. Really, how many times do you have to be told before you understand there was no election for the popular vote, no election based on the popular vote, no candidate ran for the popular vote and if there was no electoral college but only a popular vote needed to win NO ONE can say who would have won that vote.
No such thing as a popular vote. Its electoral and hillary was not physically capable of the strategy it takes to win it. If there was a popular vote maybe hillary and team msm could have won by dominating the media "for free " in key cities. Then I woukd have moved to Vancouver. Not like a liberal. Id actually do it.
Really, so true. It's crazy that despite all the revealed collusion and conniving by the Hillary campaign and the DNC that there are still people trying to argue that Hillary actually could have won anything - Bernie would have been the candidate if the DEMOCRAT primary wasn't rigged for Hillary! Don't hear Cochran and her ilk crying that her in own party no one cared about votes for Bernie being discarded lol. No one said Obama was illegitimate when in 2008 he lost the primary popular vote to Hillary either - democrats, nothing but duplicitous sore losers, we all wish they moved to Canada like some swore they would.
Why aren't they happy that Hillary Clinton lost the most 'Faithless Electors' in 100+ years in history. She didn't make history the way she wanted but she made history. God works in mysterious ways!
Defending the USA:
Clinton lost 5 of Her Electors
3 to Colin Powell (WA)
1 to Bernie (Hawaii)
1 to Faith Spotted Eagle (WA)
I giggle about this, it makes me happy!
Msm didnt mention this at all. Now thats strange.
I know, that is the most hilarious thing. While the loonies are making a case for Trump's electors to shrug their constitutional duties Hillary's electors are the ones who do it against her 4/1 of Trumps traitors. it must really gall the Clintons that in the end she was beat by only 100,000 votes that were cast in swing states especially since she got millions more than Trump in states that didn't matter one bit in the end. lol (Probably because the illegals that voted voted in the wrong states!)
Sweet justice if you ask me.
Yea its quite embarrassing that msm went on and on about trump potentially losing electors, eg faithless in texas etc. Then the obvious habitual media blackout on hillary being humiliated again by losing 4-1 more electors than trump. I was reading an article about how a particularly Goofy search engine had the fix in for hillary too.
Even with nearly the entire media entertainment information industry * RIGGING* it for hillary even AFTER the election is quite embarrassing.
Im glad i dont identify as democrat. It would be sickening.
Sweet indeed. Project Veritas founder, James O'Keefe has audio and video evidence of election rigging, voter rigging, voter fraud and racketeering by the DNC and the Clinton campaign in several states. He filed a lawsuit...Trump has filed a lawsuit also, and maybe others as well.
Hillary didn't win anything except the booby-prize, she certainly did not win a popular vote honestly, IMHO. Obama had even gone live to tell illegals they could vote as citizens. Huh?
But, the liberals ignore all that, or something else.
I'm hearing Hillary is planning a run in 2020! Hillary is a slow learner. See she figured out she lost to Obama in the democrat primary 2008 because Obama outsmarted her by getting to the delegates so then she learned and she rigged the delegates for 2016 primary against Bernie, but lost the election to Trump because of the electoral college. Now in 2020 she'll learn from that and try to rig the electoral college in her favor somehow.
I can see the 2020 slogan now - Vote "Hilarity" for president, THE JOKE'S ON YOU.
I believe the parties are facades. The lines between the factions, behind the facades, will be indiscernible and nothing left to chance. If it wasnt that way already.
That's why the establishment feared Trump so much. The Democrat party is a facade as revealed by the emails leak which despite the outward appearance of being for the little guy the Democrats work at creating showed us their concealed incredible reality of conniving deceit and how the media and the administration was co-opted by it..
The Republican party is a little different. The establishment there (Bushes, Romney, the more liberal Republicans) is genuinely Democrat lite but the base is evolving to be more conservative, reflecting heartland America, despite the establishment's disdain for them.
Trump is the only hope to drain the swamp, I hope the swamp doesn't drain him first.
I wish it was the United Cities of LA. NY and Chicago. The rest of us secede. They could have their warped media. Their crime. Import their food from somewhere else. Import all their needs.They keep the worst of the worst politics. The cities would turn into liberal oasis's of utopia. Yea, utopias.
Lets not limit it there, can I add
Boston, DC, Atlanta, Miami, Detroit, Cleveland, Philly, Twin Cities, St Louis, Denver, Portland, Seattle, Houston, SF, Milwaukee, Honolulu, San Diego, just to name a few, after all this you may not find a whole lot left to 'secede'
By all means do us all a favor and take places like DC and Detroit.etc Probably all fit in the state of maine. Do us all a favor and build a wall around em. Not to keep people out but to keep people in. The rest of us want to ban the garbage news and entertainment, the crime and politics. Its all yours. Within a week you could spot/locate the cities by the smoke plumes on the horizon.
It beats the hell over those folks with a Hooterville mindset. Too many Okies from Muskogee will drag us all backwards.
While you get after the degenerate media and pop culture, what you consider garbage, don't toss out the baby with the bath water. Everybody knows rightwingers are terrorfied at a free press and the ideas of dissent. I put Newt Gingrich right up there with Joseph Goebbels, as Trump's propaganda minister. I wish I could provide a little forward pressure on my time machine to see how all of this will turn out.
Im all for dissent. But free press? Free for hillary. Free news. Free late night talk shows. Free comedy shows. Free movie propaganda. Its endless and aggressive. I cant turn on the tv without seeing liberal social engineering and negative portrayals of conservatives. Either greedy business suits but mostly toothless banjo players. Tv is running a game. Now they are ramping it up. Quite frankly I dont want some lady gaga type in a meat suit playing with the kiddos heads.
Wow. We really are headed for a civil war. I never realized how much city people looked down on everyone else.
Not completely their fault. Tv, news, internet 99% of msm is running a 24/7 HEADGAME. I implore liberals or democrats as one human being to another. Turn off the tv for 2 weeks.
Trump would love to see the press and media deep sixed
Then we could only get our information from The Chosen One, the horse's mouth. That is why he will continue to have rallies and employ goons for protection beyond the Secret Service after he takes the oath. Then, he will be free to lie like a rug, without challenge or controversy.
Yes, but urban dwellers have been called rats that needed to be fenced up. I don't know, I keep hearing that "Green Acres" jingle playing in my head.....
I can't be Eva, she was just as ridiculous as her country neighbors. She could not make flapjacks or a decent cup of coffee.
Popular vote 2024. Corrupt Chicago Thug Style Politics on Steroids coming to a theatre near you.
Are you suggesting that Donald Trump has anything to do with reality? The man who sexually assaults women, starts a nuclear arms race with a Twitter post, who is worth $8 billion less than if he had stuck his family inheritance in the US stock market. And I could go on. And who lost the popular vote by a record margin. What reality do you inhabit? A parallel universe?
If you ever get tired of kale smoothies and. looking the other way to people living under the overpasses c'mon down to Muskogee. I will smoke a brisket and we can grab an absolut and 7 or w/e your poison is if any.
As an independent voter, this allows me to see the rediculous extremes of the 2 major parties. Let's use this as an example: Imagine the 3 monkeys (see no evil, hear no . . etc.) Now imagine the chimps belong to the FAR left. The chimps may be quoted as to say: "See no logic - Hear no common sense - Speak no facts." Next, the monkeys on the far right: "See only my opinoin - Hear only my opinion - Speak only my opinoin . . amen" Of course, it's POSSIBLE that some of these quotes could be interchangeable, in almost any combination!
The OP's topic and subsequent comments seem to be all about the states; who won which state and why; as well as the function of the EC.
No one seems to have noticed that the other MAIN reason for their existence, votes and voters notwithstanding, is to prevent an unqualified person from gaining the presidency!
In this, they have failed miserably in their sworn duty!
WRONG - stopped Hillary, didn't it!
Their constitutional duty is to vote for the candidate for whom they are pledged. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that Electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties' nominees. Some state laws provide that so-called "faithless Electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged.
This time, 4/1 electors choose not to vote for Hillary as opposed to those who chose not to vote for Trump - seems even the Democrat electors 4/1 disagree with your assessment and agree with me, that Hillary was unqualified. Are you too dzy to understand that?
The definition of qualified is not "voted for by an elector". It is:
"Having the qualities, accomplishments, etc., that fit a person for some function, office, or the like."(1)
"Fitted (as by training or experience) for a given purpose"(2)
"Having the appropriate qualifications for an office, position, or task."(3)
"Meeting the proper standards and requirements and training for an office or position or task"(4)
"Able to do something, because you have the knowledge, skill, or experience that is needed"(5)
So by definition, Trump is unqualified for the role of president (unless you change the definition of "qualified"). The fact Trump was elected, doesn't change that. It just means someone unqualified is going to be president, and the Electoral College has failed to meet the one of the original intentions for it, which was to ensure: ". . . that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." (Alexander Hamilton, 1788)(6)
Is any of that unclear?
(5) http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/d … /qualified
Amen. When the dust settles, I'M hoping people will dump the the liberal/conservative banter and nonsense and come to realize who has been put into office. I'm only hoping that some people will dump their ideological thinking and get a better of what's happening and what we stand to lose....you know, democracy.
Wrong, yourself--DRUMPF is the one who is unqualified! Has held NO offices in government at any level; his rants during the debates showed him to be ignorant of many aspects of the Constitution, and his behavior and temper are more suited to an adolescent than someone seeking to be POTUS!
I will not bandy words any further with the right-wing propaganda machine and its brainwashed supporters.
Good riddance. Anyone who thinks the queen of corruption who belongs in jail. not in public office, is qualified has no qualifications to bandy words about anything.
HOW LONG can this go on? I HATED IT when Obama was re-elected, but, damn . . . I quit bitchin' about it the next day for Chist sakes. Please, would all of you (I'm sorry to say) totally ignorant people, who actually wanted Clinton elected, shut the f*** up, once and for all? Thank you. It's over now.
No. It doesn't work that way Charles. Ignorance is being silent when evil comes knocking on your door. You may pound your chest and think by telling people to get over it or STFU will get it done. At this moment, I'm watching what's going on. Too much at stake. If you don't like it, then go somewhere else to b**** and moan how you can't stand it.
Charles, unless you have court documents, all you prove is that testicles is what YOU males of the misogynyistal mentalities believe is the ONLY qualification for leadership. Will you also find some nasty smear for Elizabeth Warren? Course you good ole boys love the wind up Dixiebelles and Corn Pone Queens who act on command like Nikki Haley. Take away her kissing up to those good ole boys and all you've got is a woman who can't think for herself. And that is what MEN like you hate about Hillary. She needs NO man to think for her. In fact, she has proven beyond a doubt that she is far superior to the good ole boys like Gingrich, Guiliani and that pigmaster Trump whose tramp wife is now First Lady. Proud of yourself Charlie Ole Boy?
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
~ The Pledge of Allegiances is to the Republic
This is why, too, that each state gets two senators, and The Senate is the most powerful body. Two senators from Wyoming, and two from NY.
500,000 people get 2 senators that are as powerful as two from NY's 20 million.
In fact, some of the most powerful senators are from western states that are sparsely populated.
Look at Harry Reid. He was the Senate Majority leader....
Mississippi is a small state, too, and Thad Cochran from MS is one of THE most powerful senators.
Just read colleges are getting rid of US History requirement. So sad. These people do not want to know the hows and why as to our Constitution and it's set up.
So people in CA have no clue as to why the electoral college is the thing that matters. NOT 4 million more voters around LA and SF.
And I think even Democrats would say they don't want one state electing a President.
But then, virtually all other so-called democracies in the world are not democratic when electing a pure leader. Most Americans would have no clue that Theresa May was not elected by any common voter in Great Britain. Other countries form coalitions from elected officials, then they themselves form a government.
There is NOTHING unique about an electoral college.
Just because you live in the most populated state, California, your vote shouldn't carry the same weight as other Americans? That makes no sense. 1 person 1 vote is democracy.
So is one state, one vote. As we are a Republic of States it would seem reasonable to do just that.
"And to the Republic for which it stands"...
Not proportional per the population if one state one vote (Delaware should count just as much as Texas?), so not fair. I understand that pure democracy has it's faults, but there's nothing inherently wrong with one person one vote electing a leader for a country. We do it that way for the state executives, that being Governors.
And the state is the basic political entity. Not the federal government - that is a republic of 50 states.
Do you seriously think that is a fairer system, 1 state 1 vote vs the current Electoral College (which is proportional to a degree) or pure one person one vote democracy? What would be your rationale for changing to a system that allots a state with less than a million people the same voting power as a state with over 20 million people? That means people's votes in the more populates state weigh 5% of what the less populated state's votes weigh? I don't see that as being fair or democractic, unless you are not interested in being democractic and just want to rig it so one side that has more states that turn a certain color wins every time, denying tens of millions of people their voice at the polls.
When did America become a democracy?
Any high school student knows that the U.S. is not a democracy and never has been.
It's a Republic of States - with the states giving permission for the Federal Government to rule.
Might want to learn history about your country before demanding a one person vote when it was never intended to be that way in a Presidential election.
I know they're talking about taking American history out of the curriculum, have they already done that?
Is that why so many people think the U.S. is a democracy when it has always been a Republic.
Can't pick and chose like feelings. The Constitution is set up for a Republic of States, NOT a democracy.
Read a bit before getting your dander up.
But, I suppose, like most people, facts won't change your opinion.
I certainly understand that our system is set up as a federal republic, but at its roots the President obtains his or her power from the vote of the people in each state, i.e. democracy. We are a democractic republic. In states we actually do practice pure democracy, as Governors are elected by direct popular vote, as are laws that are passed by referendums. In fact, US Senators and Representatives are elected by direct democratic voting by the people who are eligible to vote in their states or districts. The only way it is done differently is at the Presidential level with an antiquated Electoral College that has twice denied the popular vote winner the Presidency. I accept it as legal and just, since that's what our Constitution says, but it is also fine to question whether this system should be changed to better reflect the will of the people.
If the United States did not have the electoral college, then voting would be dominated by just a handful of states.
Not even that - just a handful of large cities.
hmm... That might be more like 11 states instead of a handful of cities. (based on a simple total population comparison. - I didn't dig enough to find the states by registered voters, but the comparison is probably still valid), and so is your point is still valid.
I was surprised to discover it would take that many, but we all know numbers don't lie. <|:~)
ps. It would take 12 states via the EC.
And yet...when was the last time Southern Ca. (LA, San Diego) went one way and the state went the other? How about Seattle + Spokane going one way and Washington the other? Portland, Or and the state? NYC and NY state?
If you look at how counties voted, it is pretty plain that these large cities are carrying the state. So...a handful of carefully chosen large metropolitan areas will carry their respective states which in turn carries the entire election.
The president would be determined by the national popular vote, so even if a candidate lost a state, all the votes would still count for something. Unlike the current winner-takes-all system, where if a candidate gets over 50% of the popular state vote, they get 100% of the electoral votes, which means the votes of 49.9% of the people in the state count for nothing.
Also, the 10 biggest cities make up 7.9% of the vote. The 50 biggest cities make up 15%. Not enough to determine the election. And to get that 15%, every person in all of the 50 largest cities would have to vote for exactly the same person. When was the last time you heard a 100% of people in any city had voted for a single candidate, let alone 100% of people in 50 cities.
Plus, if you look at the geographical distribution of campaign events in Ohio (most critical "swing" state in 2012 election) where all the votes counted for something, you'll see that candidates campaigned in rural and suburban areas, not just metropolitan areas. This is because the candidates needed votes from everywhere in the state to win, not just the cities. That distribution occurred in the other swing states too. The same would be true at national level if all votes counted for something, which currently they do not.
As I said, the "big cities" objection is a myth.
OK - I missed that the EC would be gone. Too much time between posts and didn't re-read them.
But I do question votes that don't count for something - just because a vote lost in an election does not make it fail to count. It's an easy stance to take, but doesn't really follow through very well. If a losing vote counted (at national level) then it certainly counted at a state level. And just as much.
It doesn't makes sense that candidate X gets 100% of a state's electoral votes when only 50.1% of people in that state voted for them. That effectively means the wishes of 49.9% of people in the state are being ignored at national level. Those people will be affected by the policies of whoever wins the presidency too, so why should their wishes be ignored?
Under the national popular vote compact, candidate X would still win the state with 50.1%, but the wishes of the other 49.9% of people would still count at national level. That makes more sense.
And if we use popular vote and 50.1% vote D it means that the 49.9 that voted R is ignored. "That effectively means the wishes of 49.9% of people in the state <nation> are being ignored at national level. Those people will be affected by the policies of whoever wins the presidency too, so why should their wishes be ignored?"
How is it different for that 49.9% if at the national level? Either way their vote has lost, did not elect anyone and will be ignored. Identical reasoning, yes?
The root of this "compact" is to change presidential voting to a popular vote. I disagree with that concept, as a liberal who would benefit from it you like it and are trying to spin "ignored" votes into something they are not. Doesn't work - the rationale of making small states' vote just a tiny bit more important remains as valid as it ever was.
People votes are not ignored at national level if they're counted at national level. Currently they aren't. The vote should be about who should be president, not who your state gives its electoral votes to.
Yes the point of the compact is to ensure the popular vote determines who the president is, that's why it's called the National Popular Vote Compact. The rationale of making small states' votes more important is perfectly valid. All available evidence shows that is not happening. Most states are being ignored in favor of the 12 or so swing states. So why have a system that doesn't do what it was intended to do?
Then they are not ignored at the state level if they're counted at the state level, and as that counting is used to cast the state vote for president at the national level they are not ignored there, either. Of course, the loser's votes are ignored whichever method is used, and ignored at both state and national level. That is what you're saying, is it not?
"So why have a system that doesn't do what it was intended to do?"
Strange that you would ask that as half the country (the lib's) are up in arms that it did exactly what it was supposed to; protect the smaller state's vote.
That's a myth.
I was too polite to say all that. You have a way with words!
Anyone else notice how political arguments and religious arguments have the same entrenched timbre,passion,and 'I'm right' attitude regardless of facts?...like the fact that in this election there was no one to vote for...
But you don't think Obama - Clinton hates everybody in mainstream America , ...........Uh huh !
by Faith Reaper9 months ago
I may be a bit naive on this topic, but I believe that my vote should count. I understand the history and all, but I still think one's vote should count, and the candidate who receives the most votes should...
by ptosis4 years ago
"A constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (or a Convention under Article V of the Constitution) and ratification in three-fourths of all fifty states, would be...
by Dan Harmon10 months ago
It seems that at least two electors from Texas have decided to cast their electoral college vote not for the man they promised to, but someone else.Christopher Suprun is one of those faithless electors:"That was...
by Credence24 years ago
excerpt from a recent article"After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control...
by andrew savage4 years ago
Which is the better of the two: a president who wins the election by popular vote or a president who wins by the electorial vote? What are the safeties and dangers of the two?
by Mike Russo10 months ago
People are protesting President Elect Trump? Because Hillary won the popular vote by .3% Trump = 47.4%, Hillary = 47.7%, but she lost the electoral college. That means more people voted for Hillary's platform than for...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.