billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,221
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 27, 2016 10:51:53 GMT -5
... I understand what you are saying. But it's not about "mirroring" the Popular vote. It's about making it resemble the will of the voters as closely as possible without losing our status as a Republic. I LIKE being a Republic where the power of the majority is tempered somewhat. Okay, now I see why the weird gyrations are necessary.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:25:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 10:58:12 GMT -5
Before gore it was 112 years to the prior split. Currently the Republicans have now won 1 popular vote out of the last 7 races, but taken the office 3 times. And never has the popular vote been so lopsided in comparison... the gore majority was thin. Demographic analysis suggests this is more likely to keep happening. It will need to be addressed, or there will need to be a break of the country into several. The Republic will not be sustainable if this continues to happen and to a greater degree. I don't know why the Republic would be unsustainable if we continue with the EC. Can you explain that better? And the other point is that if Democrats have lost 2 elections of the last 7 but won the popular vote, and they understand that the EC determines elections and not the popular vote, why aren't they changing their campaign to reflect this? Trump campaigned heavily in swing states, and brought a message that he knew they wanted to hear. If he can do it, why can't Democrats? I'm taking the conservative playbook, the tenets of atlas shrugging. You don't keep telling the majority of people, who are responsible for 65% of the country's economic output, to suck it... and expect they will continue to do so...
|
|
rob base
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2016 13:08:22 GMT -5
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by rob base on Nov 27, 2016 11:14:54 GMT -5
So a victory in popular vote by 1.5 % is a MANDATE??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:25:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 11:23:47 GMT -5
Yes, I think we'll need to split. No way the spaces that support the rest of the country will keep being told to eat shit and live under our rules ... Sorry. That's just reality.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,221
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 27, 2016 11:47:18 GMT -5
I'm taking the conservative playbook, the tenets of atlas shrugging. You don't keep telling the majority of people, who are responsible for 65% of the country's economic output, to suck it... and expect they will continue to do so... So what are they going to do? Armed rebellion? Insurrection? New York, Chicago and LA leave the union and their respective states? I still don't see why the republic would be unsustainable. The 2016 election results highlighted a split in this country. The campaigns that lead up to that election did not specifically emphasize that factor. A future campaign will. When that happens, that is when we will look back and wish for the tiny little protests of 2016/17.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 12:44:29 GMT -5
Before gore it was 112 years to the prior split. Currently the Republicans have now won 1 popular vote out of the last 7 races, but taken the office 3 times. And never has the popular vote been so lopsided in comparison... the gore majority was thin. Demographic analysis suggests this is more likely to keep happening. It will need to be addressed, or there will need to be a break of the country into several. The Republic will not be sustainable if this continues to happen and to a greater degree. "Lopsided"?? U know even at 2 million vote lead. Out of approx 130 million total votes that means she won the popular vote by 1.5 percent. Hardly "lopsided" IMO I think it means that the popular vote has never been more lopsided in a year that the Electoral College winner lost the popular vote.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 27, 2016 12:53:21 GMT -5
They are still working through the grieving process and can't help themselves. Before gore it was 112 years to the prior split. Currently the Republicans have now won 1 popular vote out of the last 7 races, but taken the office 3 times. And never has the popular vote been so lopsided in comparison... the gore majority was thin. Demographic analysis suggests this is more likely to keep happening. It will need to be addressed, or there will need to be a break of the country into several. The Republic will not be sustainable if this continues to happen and to a greater degree. If they've won 3 of the past 7 races, their proportion of time spent governing is still less than their proportion of votes obtained. This doesn't really help your woe is Democrats argument.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,475
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 27, 2016 12:53:30 GMT -5
No one was worried about the EC BEFORE the election. People arguing for the abolishment of the Electoral College has been going on for a very long time, and probably since before any of us were born. I've been against the EC since I could vote. And if you recall, it was an issue in 2000 as well. So was Trump back in 2012: " This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!" 10:33 PM - 6 Nov 2012 " The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." 10:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012 " Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before." 10:39 PM - 6 Nov 2012 " Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us" 10:30 PM - 6 Nov 2012 " We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"10:29 PM - 6 Nov 2012. Donald Trump once called Electoral College "a disaster"; now says it's "actually genius"
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Nov 27, 2016 15:52:39 GMT -5
People arguing for the abolishment of the Electoral College has been going on for a very long time, and probably since before any of us were born. I've been against the EC since I could vote. And if you recall, it was an issue in 2000 as well. So was Trump back in 2012: " This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!" 10:33 PM - 6 Nov 2012 " The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." 10:45 PM - 6 Nov 2012 " Our country is now in serious and unprecedented trouble...like never before." 10:39 PM - 6 Nov 2012 " Lets fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us" 10:30 PM - 6 Nov 2012 " We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"10:29 PM - 6 Nov 2012. Donald Trump once called Electoral College "a disaster"; now says it's "actually genius" Well, he's been accused of a lot of things. Consistency is not one of them
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Nov 27, 2016 17:34:43 GMT -5
Speaking of anti-Trump protests, they seem to have petered out. I found one in Minneapolis a few days ago with all of 200 people showing up. There was a protest in Seattle on Black Friday, but it was a BLM affair protesting consumerism, reportedly with only a few Trump signs scattered among the BLM ones.
It looks like taking it to the streets has been upstaged by recount last gasp hopefulness and internet expressions of pissed-off-ed-ness.
I thought the protests would last considerably longer, considering the level of pervasive toxicity among Hillary fans and associated hatred of the election results/winners/Trumpvoters.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 17:38:12 GMT -5
Wait 'til Inauguration Day. Might be a few more. Besides, with him already backing away from several of his "promises" it's not as necessary any more.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:25:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 17:58:01 GMT -5
I'm on several organizing groups. They are just gearing up. To me, protest is best when focused on a specific issue. As to the rest, you continue to mishcaracterize, but hey, whatever does it for you...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:25:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 19:26:41 GMT -5
Sessions in justice, bannon in the wh, an ed secretary who is anti public ed. EPA who think global warming is a hoax, FCC led by anti net neutrality... plenty to protest already...
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 19:29:57 GMT -5
Yes, I think we'll need to split. No way the spaces that support the rest of the country will keep being told to eat shit and live under our rules ... Sorry. That's just reality. I'd argue your opponents feel the same way. To me, the sane answer is to have the national government do a lot less "telling" and leave a lot more of it to local government I assume you would want revenues and spending the same way? Let local areas all pay for their own? How many rural areas could even afford to pay for their own infrastructure? Roads, electricity, water, schools, etc. without the benefit of state (urban) or federal dollars to pay for it? I'm happy to let them go back to the 1920's if they want to....
|
|
rob base
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 21, 2016 13:08:22 GMT -5
Posts: 1,433
|
Post by rob base on Nov 27, 2016 19:34:16 GMT -5
Sessions in justice, bannon in the wh, an ed secretary who is anti public ed. EPA who think global warming is a hoax, FCC led by anti net neutrality... plenty to protest already...
and I heard next he is going to invent some new jobs called "czars" and appoint more of his wacky friends...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:25:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 19:35:09 GMT -5
Yes, I think we'll need to split. No way the spaces that support the rest of the country will keep being told to eat shit and live under our rules ... Sorry. That's just reality. I'd argue your opponents feel the same way. To me, the sane answer is to have the national government do a lot less "telling" and leave a lot more of it to local government You mean how they tell locals they can't take away the civil rights of individuals they don't like? Or did you mean pay for themselves, because I'm good with that. Let's do that now...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:25:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 19:43:58 GMT -5
Good luck. The counties that voted for trump cover a geographically large area and accounted for 35% of the economic output last year.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 27, 2016 19:52:45 GMT -5
Sessions in justice, bannon in the wh, an ed secretary who is anti public ed. EPA who think global warming is a hoax, FCC led by anti net neutrality... plenty to protest already... Thanks. Anyone he could have appointed to those positions that you wouldn't have protested? Pretty strong reason to believe that the progressive machine would vilify anyone he'd pick. Ps, global warming shouldn't be a federal mandate, that's the exact kind of bs I'm talking about Climate change is happening. Denying that doesn't change that. It just means that our generation has been complicit in doing irreparable damage to our planet for a future generation to deal with. And honestly, there are people that Trump could appoint that I wouldn't agree with but that I wouldn't object to. For example, Bob Corker as Secretary of State. And I didn't object to the majority of George W. Bush's cabinet picks. I disagreed with them on policy, but they were qualified to do the jobs. However, I also will object to people who are blatently unqualified. Someone heading the EPA who doesn't believe in climate change is blatently unqualified. Someone who has never worked in the public school system, has never been to a public school, and never sent their children to a public school is blatently unqualified. While I hate Jeff Sessions and I feel he should be disqualified because of his opinions, I will concede that given his experience he is qualified. Basically, I'm not going to waste my energy trying to defeat his nomination, but I will work to try and defeat the nominations of the selections of cabinet members who do not even meet the basic qualifications of the job.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:25:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 21:47:52 GMT -5
"Lopsided"?? U know even at 2 million vote lead. Out of approx 130 million total votes that means she won the popular vote by 1.5 percent. Hardly "lopsided" IMO I think it means that the popular vote has never been more lopsided in a year that the Electoral College winner lost the popular vote. There was a previous one with 3% difference (Hayes/Tilden, 1876... Hayes won EC)... that was more "lopsided".
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Nov 27, 2016 23:01:10 GMT -5
Yes, I think we'll need to split. No way the spaces that support the rest of the country will keep being told to eat shit and live under our rules ... Sorry. That's just reality. Actually, it may surprise you to learn that a bunch of Democrats tried to do exactly that against a recently elected Republican President who they didn't like about a century and a half ago. It did not end well for the Democrats back then either. What an odd juxtaposition, huh?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 27, 2016 23:11:01 GMT -5
I think it means that the popular vote has never been more lopsided in a year that the Electoral College winner lost the popular vote. There was a previous one with 3% difference (Hayes/Tilden, 1876... Hayes won EC)... that was more "lopsided". Technically, though, it is not the same. Tilden was ahead in the EC with a number of votes disputed. A compromise was reached awarding the votes to Hayes, which then gave him the victory. He did not specifically win them outright.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:25:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 23:11:13 GMT -5
I am astounded! Thanks for informing me of my ignorance
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,857
|
Post by NastyWoman on Nov 27, 2016 23:40:55 GMT -5
Climate change is happening. Denying that doesn't change that. It just means that our generation has been complicit in doing irreparable damage to our planet for a future generation to deal with. And honestly, there are people that Trump could appoint that I wouldn't agree with but that I wouldn't object to. For example, Bob Corker as Secretary of State. And I didn't object to the majority of George W. Bush's cabinet picks. I disagreed with them on policy, but they were qualified to do the jobs. However, I also will object to people who are blatently unqualified. Someone heading the EPA who doesn't believe in climate change is blatently unqualified. Someone who has never worked in the public school system, has never been to a public school, and never sent their children to a public school is blatently unqualified. While I hate Jeff Sessions and I feel he should be disqualified because of his opinions, I will concede that given his experience he is qualified. Basically, I'm not going to waste my energy trying to defeat his nomination, but I will work to try and defeat the nominations of the selections of cabinet members who do not even meet the basic qualifications of the job. But should we cripple our economy when we only emit 15% of the global total? If we cut back 10%, throwing our ecomy into a severe, children starving in the streets style depression, that'd only reduce global Ann Hal emissions by 1.5%, having zero influence on global environment Considering that we in the US represent just under 4.4% of the workd population, we damn well should reduce our emit. And if you ask me, be way more than the measly 1.5% you mention. And we can do that without "children starving in the street".
|
|
verrip1
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:41:19 GMT -5
Posts: 2,992
|
Post by verrip1 on Nov 27, 2016 23:50:59 GMT -5
The scientific solution to global warming is simple. Create a worldwide canal system to move water to all parts of the globe into individual multitudinous acreages. Plant self regenerating plantlife everywhere. Kill all animals and people.
Eden ...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 4, 2024 0:25:57 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 23:59:14 GMT -5
There was a previous one with 3% difference (Hayes/Tilden, 1876... Hayes won EC)... that was more "lopsided". Technically, though, it is not the same. Tilden was ahead in the EC with a number of votes disputed. A compromise was reached awarding the votes to Hayes, which then gave him the victory. He did not specifically win them outright. At the end of the issue though, they had the EC votes that they had and they had the popular votes that they had... The winner of the EC lost the popular vote by 3%. If you want a REAL knee-slapper...
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,857
|
Post by NastyWoman on Nov 28, 2016 10:59:32 GMT -5
Considering that we in the US represent just under 4.4% of the workd population, we damn well should reduce our emit. And if you ask me, be way more than the measly 1.5% you mention. And we can do that without "children starving in the street". No, we'd have to reduce ours 10% to reduce global by 1.5% I hate to tell you but we were talking about the same thing. I just kept everthing on a global level. Domestically the 10% reduction is not going to cut it!
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Nov 28, 2016 11:08:42 GMT -5
Climate change is happening. Denying that doesn't change that. It just means that our generation has been complicit in doing irreparable damage to our planet for a future generation to deal with. And honestly, there are people that Trump could appoint that I wouldn't agree with but that I wouldn't object to. For example, Bob Corker as Secretary of State. And I didn't object to the majority of George W. Bush's cabinet picks. I disagreed with them on policy, but they were qualified to do the jobs. However, I also will object to people who are blatently unqualified. Someone heading the EPA who doesn't believe in climate change is blatently unqualified. Someone who has never worked in the public school system, has never been to a public school, and never sent their children to a public school is blatently unqualified. While I hate Jeff Sessions and I feel he should be disqualified because of his opinions, I will concede that given his experience he is qualified. Basically, I'm not going to waste my energy trying to defeat his nomination, but I will work to try and defeat the nominations of the selections of cabinet members who do not even meet the basic qualifications of the job. But should we cripple our economy when we only emit 15% of the global total? If we cut back 10%, throwing our ecomy into a severe, children starving in the streets style depression, that'd only reduce global Ann Hal emissions by 1.5%, having zero influence on global environment n 2015, the US emitted 14.4% of the world's global greenhouse gas emissions. But, of course the US is only 4.4% of the world's population. Looking on the service, China is a bigger offender, they as they emitted 25.36%. The difference of course is that China has almost 20% of the world's population. So China is a major contributed to way things are, but even now the US is the worst offender, emitting 3.2 times the amount of greenhouse gases that we should. And I don't think we need to cripple the economy to start addressing the issue. But, you know what? I think that we'll be helping the economy over the long-term by addressing the issue. Additionally, I think we'll be saving ourselves a bunch of money. Because I suspect the wars of the 21st century are going to be an indirect result of climate change.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 30, 2016 7:42:40 GMT -5
I'm on several organizing groups. They are just gearing up. To me, protest is best when focused on a specific issue. As to the rest, you continue to mishcaracterize, but hey, whatever does it for you... With all the paid protesters, See, Trump is really good at creating jobs!!!
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,241
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Nov 30, 2016 7:51:25 GMT -5
I'm on several organizing groups. They are just gearing up. To me, protest is best when focused on a specific issue. As to the rest, you continue to mishcaracterize, but hey, whatever does it for you... With all the paid protesters, See, Trump is really good at creating jobs!!! No paid protesters, so I guess Trump will have to actually do something to create jobs.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Nov 30, 2016 7:57:12 GMT -5
With all the paid protesters, See, Trump is really good at creating jobs!!! No paid protesters, so I guess Trump will have to actually do something to create jobs. How do you know??
|
|