Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 9, 2016 11:55:30 GMT -5
Can we at least get a consensus that both Donald Trump and Mike Pence are being idiots here? Trump: I “won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” Pence: “We truly do believe our president-elect has secured a mandate for leadership.” Well, no, Mr. Trump. Millions of illegals did not vote in this election, nor did other people vote illegally. And no, Mr. Pence, this is not the biggest mandate since Reagan. Losing the popular vote by 2.5 million or more does not a mandate make. A mandate is WINNING the popular vote by 20 million. Morons. actually, even getting the 73M votes that Paul stated, as if it were all but certain he would, would've been a mandate. he would have won probably 40+ states with that. instead, Clinton became 2nd only to Obama in the number of votes received, and D(**%^ is relegated to third. that is not only not a mandate, that means that he will have to face up to the fact that he will become the most unwelcome president elect since Rutherford Hayes. I find all this talk of "mandates" irrelevant. Weather or not a president has a "mandate" they're going to do what they're going to do in the office regardless.
I don't see the point in debating it.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 9, 2016 11:56:56 GMT -5
With all due respect, no. Well good luck with the next elections... Should be a lot of fun. Well, hopefully by that time we will have relegated the Electoral College to the dustbin of history where it belongs....
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 9, 2016 11:58:56 GMT -5
actually, even getting the 73M votes that Paul stated, as if it were all but certain he would, would've been a mandate. he would have won probably 40+ states with that. instead, Clinton became 2nd only to Obama in the number of votes received, and D(**%^ is relegated to third. that is not only not a mandate, that means that he will have to face up to the fact that he will become the most unwelcome president elect since Rutherford Hayes. I find all this talk of "mandates" irrelevant. Weather or not a president has a "mandate" they're going to do what they're going to do in the office regardless.
I don't see the point in debating it.
Don't have to debate it. Just agree that Pence is an idiot for calling this one.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 9, 2016 12:00:44 GMT -5
Because, as has been said multiple times in this thread by me... it is a possible way to change how the Electoral Votes are decided if the recounts aren't completed. Unlike the Gore/Florida recount which was initiated immediately after the election, all of the current recounts were initiated after a significant delay which made it much more difficult (and impossible in some cases) to complete the recount and certify results by the deadline. Had the recounts been initiated sooner I wouldn't be concerned at all. But how this has played out feels like a 'test' to see how the EC can be manipulated in the future. What would happen if the recounts were still ongoing at the time of the EC? Would the EC be delayed? Or the results certified according to the initial count?
Even if those votes were removed from the election, that would mean neither candidate had 270 electoral votes, so the election couldn't be determined. At best it's just a delay tactic.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 9, 2016 12:02:39 GMT -5
Can we at least get a consensus that both Donald Trump and Mike Pence are being idiots here? Trump: I “won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” Pence: “We truly do believe our president-elect has secured a mandate for leadership.” Well, no, Mr. Trump. Millions of illegals did not vote in this election, nor did other people vote illegally. And no, Mr. Pence, this is not the biggest mandate since Reagan. Losing the popular vote by 2.5 million or more does not a mandate make. A mandate is WINNING the popular vote by 20 million. Morons. actually, even getting the 73M votes that Paul stated, as if it were all but certain he would, would've been a mandate. he would have won probably 40+ states with that. instead, Clinton became 2nd only to Obama in the number of votes received, and D(**%^ is relegated to third. that is not only not a mandate, that means that he will have to face up to the fact that he will become the most unwelcome president elect since Rutherford Hayes. I recall it being 75 million, and with all of the "guarantees" that Trump would reach that number, I still have no idea why Paul wouldn't accept the bet I offered him three times. Maybe he knew the number (and the theory that backed it) was nonsense.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Dec 9, 2016 12:06:36 GMT -5
Well good luck with the next elections... Should be a lot of fun. Well, hopefully by that time we will have relegated the Electoral College to the dustbin of history where it belongs.... Not going to happen. It would require a constitutional amendment, which requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of congress, and then it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
First of all, congress is so dysfunctional they can't even pass a budget. You really think they'll pass a constitutional amendment?
And even if they do, what are the chances of 3/4 of states agreeing to it? The EC benefits small states at the expense of bigger states. And there are a lot more small states than big states.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 9, 2016 14:53:02 GMT -5
... The election was over when Clinton conceded the election on Nov 9, ... I question this. The election for POTUS takes place on December 19th. The votes are not counted until January 6th.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2016 15:38:19 GMT -5
actually, even getting the 73M votes that Paul stated, as if it were all but certain he would, would've been a mandate. he would have won probably 40+ states with that. instead, Clinton became 2nd only to Obama in the number of votes received, and D(**%^ is relegated to third. that is not only not a mandate, that means that he will have to face up to the fact that he will become the most unwelcome president elect since Rutherford Hayes. I find all this talk of "mandates" irrelevant. Weather or not a president has a "mandate" they're going to do what they're going to do in the office regardless.
I don't see the point in debating it.
it's actually really important to governing. surprised you don't know that. since you won't hear it from me, i hope dem or Richard will explain it to you.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2016 15:41:13 GMT -5
actually, even getting the 73M votes that Paul stated, as if it were all but certain he would, would've been a mandate. he would have won probably 40+ states with that. instead, Clinton became 2nd only to Obama in the number of votes received, and D(**%^ is relegated to third. that is not only not a mandate, that means that he will have to face up to the fact that he will become the most unwelcome president elect since Rutherford Hayes. I recall it being 75 million, and with all of the "guarantees" that Trump would reach that number, I still have no idea why Paul wouldn't accept the bet I offered him three times. Maybe he knew the number (and the theory that backed it) was nonsense. what was the theory called? the Monster Vote Theory? utterly....wrong. note to the board: yeah, i am taking my gloating point here. it is one of the few i have.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 9, 2016 15:42:03 GMT -5
Well, hopefully by that time we will have relegated the Electoral College to the dustbin of history where it belongs.... Not going to happen. It would require a constitutional amendment, which requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of congress, and then it would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
First of all, congress is so dysfunctional they can't even pass a budget. You really think they'll pass a constitutional amendment?
And even if they do, what are the chances of 3/4 of states agreeing to it? The EC benefits small states at the expense of bigger states. And there are a lot more small states than big states.
impossible? oh no. possible. likely? no. not likely.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 9, 2016 17:36:10 GMT -5
actually, even getting the 73M votes that Paul stated, as if it were all but certain he would, would've been a mandate. he would have won probably 40+ states with that. instead, Clinton became 2nd only to Obama in the number of votes received, and D(**%^ is relegated to third. that is not only not a mandate, that means that he will have to face up to the fact that he will become the most unwelcome president elect since Rutherford Hayes. I recall it being 75 million, and with all of the "guarantees" that Trump would reach that number, I still have no idea why Paul wouldn't accept the bet I offered him three times. Maybe he knew the number (and the theory that backed it) was nonsense. Don't forget the claim Trump would win all 50 states and reap every electoral vote.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:53:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 21:42:31 GMT -5
I find all this talk of "mandates" irrelevant. Weather or not a president has a "mandate" they're going to do what they're going to do in the office regardless.
I don't see the point in debating it.
Don't have to debate it. Just agree that Pence is an idiot for calling this one. Fixed that for ya'!
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,221
|
Post by tallguy on Dec 9, 2016 22:04:13 GMT -5
Well yeah. You know that, and I know that, but for some people we have to start out with little steps. Didn't want to take a chance and assume it was unnecessary.
|
|
b2r
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:35:25 GMT -5
Posts: 7,257
|
Post by b2r on Dec 9, 2016 22:26:16 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:53:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2016 0:53:46 GMT -5
Republicans beating Democrats in "# of counties won" vs. "# of counties won" tallies is not exactly new. According to the link to PolitiFact, The Democrats haven't won in total number of counties since before Reagan (hard to say when though... if ever... since their data stops with Reagan).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 10, 2016 1:13:54 GMT -5
How many innings a baseball team is ahead during a season means nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:53:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2016 2:08:11 GMT -5
How many innings a baseball team is ahead during a season means nothing. Unless that's specifically the stat you are looking for. Then it means everything to/for your point.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,847
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Dec 10, 2016 6:42:17 GMT -5
Owned? Being 2.5 million less in the popular vote does not seem impressive to me.
The goal is not to win the most counties. Its to win the EC votes. Some counties are pretty small compared to others much like only 12 states have population comparable or higher than NYC.
Look at NY, one has to win a lot of small counties to make up not winning big ones like Queens and Bronx county. But if you want to dance over counties containing tens of thousands of people and ignore the ones containing a million or more ... I can't stop you.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_counties_in_New_York
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:53:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2016 8:18:30 GMT -5
Lol. Keep telling the 488 that produce 65% of the economic output they are 'owned' by the minoirity living in the 2623... That should end well for you.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 10, 2016 10:39:03 GMT -5
I find all this talk of "mandates" irrelevant. Weather or not a president has a "mandate" they're going to do what they're going to do in the office regardless.
I don't see the point in debating it.
Don't have to debate it. Just agree that Pence is an idiot for calling this one. You do realize Pence will be our next President, don't you?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 10, 2016 10:43:19 GMT -5
I am simply surprised how many posters hold Paul to a vote total number here, and castigate him for it, when he was THE ONLY PERSON here that told you Trump would win. This is similar to the Democratic rhetoric about false news costing Clinton the election rather than Hillary and the democrats abandoning the middle class worker. Stop looking for the crumbs when you were late for the cutting of the cake and lost out!
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,690
|
Post by Tennesseer on Dec 10, 2016 10:53:13 GMT -5
Don't have to debate it. Just agree that Pence is an idiot for calling this one. You do realize Pence will be our next President, don't you? In 2017 or 2018?
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 10, 2016 10:58:32 GMT -5
You do realize Pence will be our next President, don't you? In 2017 or 2018? I am guessing late 2018, early 2019
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 10, 2016 11:12:54 GMT -5
I am guessing late 2018, early 2019 Thus corresponding to the midterm elections. I see the potential of those being a de facto referendum on either want Trump has done (with congressional help) or what he hasn't been able to do (with congressional interference). So Trump resigning could be either "My job is done" or a total smack down. Interesting.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Dec 10, 2016 11:17:08 GMT -5
I am guessing late 2018, early 2019 Thus corresponding to the midterm elections. I see the potential of those being a de facto referendum on either want Trump has done (with congressional help) or what he hasn't been able to do (with congressional interference). So Trump resigning could be either "My job is done" or a total smack down. Interesting. There is the third option too.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 10, 2016 11:23:34 GMT -5
Thus corresponding to the midterm elections. I see the potential of those being a de facto referendum on either want Trump has done (with congressional help) or what he hasn't been able to do (with congressional interference). So Trump resigning could be either "My job is done" or a total smack down. Interesting. There is the third option too. I can see a few more possibilities of how a sitting vice president may become the president. Many of them are no more or less likely to happen with the particular timing you suggested. EDIT: deleted part of comment
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 10, 2016 13:26:14 GMT -5
Thus corresponding to the midterm elections. I see the potential of those being a de facto referendum on either want Trump has done (with congressional help) or what he hasn't been able to do (with congressional interference). So Trump resigning could be either "My job is done" or a total smack down. Interesting. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt...Hmmmmmmmm. Attempting without success to understand this as a response to my post. The topic was Pence becoming president. VB suggested the idea it could happen in late 2018 or early 2019. I pointed out that the midterms were happening in that time frame so there could be a tie in between the two events. Over the next year/year and a half Trump and his Administration will act and Congress will react. Those running for reelection will have to defend their support or lack thereof for Trump's agenda. If the voters continue to support that agenda, they will reward those who supported it and punish those who didn't. If enough voters reject that agenda once they see it unfold, then the opposite will happen. I don't know that the midterms will be that decisive, but think they would be if Pence ascends to the White House in that time frame (unless there is a non-political reason such as health involved).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,562
|
Post by billisonboard on Dec 10, 2016 17:09:31 GMT -5
Hmmmmmmmm. Attempting without success to understand this as a response to my post. The topic was Pence becoming president. VB suggested the idea it could happen in late 2018 or early 2019. I pointed out that the midterms were happening in that time frame so there could be a tie in between the two events. Over the next year/year and a half Trump and his Administration will act and Congress will react. Those running for reelection will have to defend their support or lack thereof for Trump's agenda. If the voters continue to support that agenda, they will reward those who supported it and punish those who didn't. If enough voters reject that agenda once they see it unfold, then the opposite will happen. I don't know that the midterms will be that decisive, but think they would be if Pence ascends to the White House in that time frame (unless there is a non-political reason such as health involved). It means that you are still in the first stage of grief, which is shock and denial. ... I have to say that is an interesting analysis of my comment.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,297
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 10, 2016 20:40:52 GMT -5
Hmmmmmmmm. Attempting without success to understand this as a response to my post. The topic was Pence becoming president. VB suggested the idea it could happen in late 2018 or early 2019. I pointed out that the midterms were happening in that time frame so there could be a tie in between the two events. Over the next year/year and a half Trump and his Administration will act and Congress will react. Those running for reelection will have to defend their support or lack thereof for Trump's agenda. If the voters continue to support that agenda, they will reward those who supported it and punish those who didn't. If enough voters reject that agenda once they see it unfold, then the opposite will happen. I don't know that the midterms will be that decisive, but think they would be if Pence ascends to the White House in that time frame (unless there is a non-political reason such as health involved). It means that you are still in the first stage of grief, which is shock and denial. If you want to post about it in the thread linked, I'm sure we'll give you the support you need . do you have any talking points that don't involve condescension?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 2, 2024 5:53:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2016 22:18:08 GMT -5
Don't have to debate it. Just agree that Pence is an idiot for calling this one. You do realize Pence will be our next President, don't you? No. He'll be our next VICE-President (and hopefully NEVER be President).
|
|