Obama's legacy

[jakee 1,499]

kallend

Your statement about the country not voting would be true if the popular vote decided the president. But it doesn't. The Electoral College is set up to basically level the playing field for the country. So that high density population areas would not dictate political ideology if you will. Therefore Trump won the country's

There is no level playing field when a resident of Wyoming has 3x the influence on the outcome as a resident of California. The playing field is very deliberately tilted, as a result of a 230 year old compromise to get slave owners to ratify the proposed Constitution.

The problem that Rush has in being so admamant that the EC is right and best reflects 'the country' is that he has to then assume that state boundaries and EC representation was put together according to some kind of plan (which it wasn't) instead of random historical and geographical accident (which it was).*

Take Texas, for example. Home to enormous swathes of some of the most sparsely populated rural areas in the USA. Also home to several 'million' cities which account for a pretty large chunk of the population. So any individual farming community or region doesn't swing Texas's EC vote at all. Then if you take Wyoming, Nebraska and South Dakota you get an area about the same size as rural Texas, with far fewer inhabitants and both far greater EC power and far greater influence over the EC vote per citizen.

So who decided the prairie farmers were so much more important than the desert cattle herders? What makes that a more accurate reflection of the nation - that some areas are split up small and some aren't? No-one designed it that way, so why assume it's right?


* He also has to assume that the founders were considering todays mega-cities when they wrote the constitution, but that's by-the-by

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 2,027]

PhreeZone

I am on board with the electoral college but there are issues with it. The issues I have are 1) The laws that have been passed against "Faithless" voters. The college is made up of people from their own party and if those members decide for some reason to not vote for their nominee they should be allowed to.

According to Alexander Hamilton (in Federalist #68) the electors are SUPPOSED to substitute their superior judgment for that of the unwashed mob.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 801]

Quote

The people with the. Of course you knew that would be the answer.

Exactly.

[ryoder 1,590]

kallend

***I am on board with the electoral college but there are issues with it. The issues I have are 1) The laws that have been passed against "Faithless" voters. The college is made up of people from their own party and if those members decide for some reason to not vote for their nominee they should be allowed to.

According to Alexander Hamilton (in Federalist #68) the electors are SUPPOSED to substitute their superior judgment for that of the unwashed mob.

Likes like at least one electror intends to take his job seriously: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[yoink 321]

brenthutch

The reason the popular vote argument doesn't work, is because that was not the rules of the game going in. It would be analogous to a team that won yards passing, yards rushing, time of possession, first downs, turnovers, and penalties, yet had less points on the board than the other team at the end of the game, yet still claiming victory. Trump could have spent time campaigning in CA, MA and NY and easily picked up an additional million or three votes.

I'm not arguing against the outcome of the game.
I'm suggesting that the rules need changing for future matches - regardless of who wins. I don't think they're appropriate for today's society.

And if you do a little research you'll see I've been championing this position long before this election... in fact my exact words were 'If one party seriously ran on electoral reform, that would probably be enough to swing my vote for that iteration - even if I disagreed with almost everything else they stood for', so there's goes the 'whiney left loser' argument that seems to be rush's go-to...

As difficult as it seems for you and rush to believe, I've moved on from this election result. What's the point in either complaining about it or bragging about it? To me it's highlighted real issues in our country - how serious the political division is and how broken the electoral college is as a system. I'd rather focus on addressing those than scoring points about Trump vs Hillary.

And Rush, I still don't believe you'd be OK with Hillary winning the election with 23% of the vote. No-one would be - not even moderate Hillary supporters.

[rushmc 23]

yoink

***The reason the popular vote argument doesn't work, is because that was not the rules of the game going in. It would be analogous to a team that won yards passing, yards rushing, time of possession, first downs, turnovers, and penalties, yet had less points on the board than the other team at the end of the game, yet still claiming victory. Trump could have spent time campaigning in CA, MA and NY and easily picked up an additional million or three votes.

I'm not arguing against the outcome of the game.
I'm suggesting that the rules need changing for future matches - regardless of who wins. I don't think they're appropriate for today's society.

And if you do a little research you'll see I've been championing this position long before this election... in fact my exact words were 'If one party seriously ran on electoral reform, that would probably be enough to swing my vote for that iteration - even if I disagreed with almost everything else they stood for', so there's goes the 'whiney left loser' argument that seems to be rush's go-to...

As difficult as it seems for you and rush to believe, I've moved on from this election result. What's the point in either complaining about it or bragging about it? To me it's highlighted real issues in our country - how serious the political division is and how broken the electoral college is as a system. I'd rather focus on addressing those than scoring points about Trump vs Hillary.

And Rush, I still don't believe you'd be OK with Hillary winning the election with 23% of the vote. No-one would be - not even moderate Hillary supporters.

An extreme example was given that required an extreme answer. But in any case you are wrong. I would accept that outcome because as you say, it is the rules they ran under. In any event, doubt it is even possible for that extreme an example to happen.

And like you I have moved on from the election. I answer those who can not for some reason.

And I remember how they trashed Trump when he wavered on excepting the outcome of the vote.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

And I remember how they trashed Trump when he wavered on excepting the outcome of the vote.

So has he excepted the outcome?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,590]

kallend

***

And I remember how they trashed Trump when he wavered on excepting the outcome of the vote.

So has he excepted the outcome?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[normiss 801]

[wmw999 2,452]

Trump is the president. I hope he does well. It's better for the country. That does not, however, exempt him from criticism. I don't seem to recall you supporting Obama after he won both the popular vote and the electoral college in 2008 and 2012, so I'm not sure why you think that criticism of Trump is wrong.

Based on his twitter activity, he does seem to be temperamentally ill-suited to a position where the cards have to be played close to the chest sometimes, and he does seem to be neglecting some of the opportunities to learn in his new position. In addition, the unrelenting positivity about some of his Wall Street selections seems to be a backtrack from the "drain the swamp" rhetoric. Who do people think is in the swamp?

Trump is a hypocrite for his reaction to someone else wanting to investigate the election, after he made it clear that he would seriously consider not accepting the results if he didn't win. I can only imagine his reaction if he had won the popular vote and not the electoral college.

Things will change over the next four years. I hope that he and his team consider the long-term effects of those changes before they're made, rather than focusing on the immediate effect. It'd be kind of like managing the US like a business - you know, where you throw customers and employees under the bus because the stockholders and management aren't getting enough money THIS QUARTER

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,027]

rushmc

Your statement about the country not voting would be true if the popular vote decided the president. But it doesn't. The Electoral College is set up to basically level the playing field for the country. So that high density population areas would not dictate political ideology if you will. Therefore Trump won the country's

kallend

There is no level playing field when a resident of Wyoming has 3x the influence on the outcome as a resident of California. The playing field is very deliberately tilted, as a result of a 230 year old compromise to get slave owners to ratify the proposed Constitution.

jakee

The problem that Rush has in being so admamant that the EC is right and best reflects 'the country' is that he has to then assume that state boundaries and EC representation was put together according to some kind of plan (which it wasn't) instead of random historical and geographical accident (which it was).*

Take Texas, for example. Home to enormous swathes of some of the most sparsely populated rural areas in the USA. Also home to several 'million' cities which account for a pretty large chunk of the population. So any individual farming community or region doesn't swing Texas's EC vote at all. Then if you take Wyoming, Nebraska and South Dakota you get an area about the same size as rural Texas, with far fewer inhabitants and both far greater EC power and far greater influence over the EC vote per citizen.

So who decided the prairie farmers were so much more important than the desert cattle herders? What makes that a more accurate reflection of the nation - that some areas are split up small and some aren't? No-one designed it that way, so why assume it's right?


* He also has to assume that the founders were considering todays mega-cities when they wrote the constitution, but that's by-the-by

You got your quotes mixed up. The rubbish attributed to me was written by Marc Rush. I think I've fixed it (above).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[RonD1120 62]

yoink

***The reason the popular vote argument doesn't work, is because that was not the rules of the game going in. It would be analogous to a team that won yards passing, yards rushing, time of possession, first downs, turnovers, and penalties, yet had less points on the board than the other team at the end of the game, yet still claiming victory. Trump could have spent time campaigning in CA, MA and NY and easily picked up an additional million or three votes.

I'm not arguing against the outcome of the game.
I'm suggesting that the rules need changing for future matches - regardless of who wins. I don't think they're appropriate for today's society.

And if you do a little research you'll see I've been championing this position long before this election... in fact my exact words were 'If one party seriously ran on electoral reform, that would probably be enough to swing my vote for that iteration - even if I disagreed with almost everything else they stood for', so there's goes the 'whiney left loser' argument that seems to be rush's go-to...

As difficult as it seems for you and rush to believe, I've moved on from this election result. What's the point in either complaining about it or bragging about it? To me it's highlighted real issues in our country - how serious the political division is and how broken the electoral college is as a system. I'd rather focus on addressing those than scoring points about Trump vs Hillary.

And Rush, I still don't believe you'd be OK with Hillary winning the election with 23% of the vote. No-one would be - not even moderate Hillary supporters.

From Twardo on Facebook:

Quote

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received 2 million more votes than President Elect Trump, but Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond.
Therefore, these 5 counties in New York alone more than accounted for Clinton getting more of the popular vote than President Elect Trump.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. Clinton won approx. 1.5 million votes more than President Elect Trump.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Thanks to our Founding Fathers, we live in a Constitutional Republic.
Otherwise, large, densely populated cities like NYC, Chicago, LA, etcetera, who may not think, behave, or share the needs and desires of the rest of the country, would dictate the outcome of the Presidential Election.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[kallend 2,027]

RonD1120

******The reason the popular vote argument doesn't work, is because that was not the rules of the game going in. It would be analogous to a team that won yards passing, yards rushing, time of possession, first downs, turnovers, and penalties, yet had less points on the board than the other team at the end of the game, yet still claiming victory. Trump could have spent time campaigning in CA, MA and NY and easily picked up an additional million or three votes.

I'm not arguing against the outcome of the game.
I'm suggesting that the rules need changing for future matches - regardless of who wins. I don't think they're appropriate for today's society.

And if you do a little research you'll see I've been championing this position long before this election... in fact my exact words were 'If one party seriously ran on electoral reform, that would probably be enough to swing my vote for that iteration - even if I disagreed with almost everything else they stood for', so there's goes the 'whiney left loser' argument that seems to be rush's go-to...

As difficult as it seems for you and rush to believe, I've moved on from this election result. What's the point in either complaining about it or bragging about it? To me it's highlighted real issues in our country - how serious the political division is and how broken the electoral college is as a system. I'd rather focus on addressing those than scoring points about Trump vs Hillary.

And Rush, I still don't believe you'd be OK with Hillary winning the election with 23% of the vote. No-one would be - not even moderate Hillary supporters.

From Twardo on Facebook:

Quote

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received 2 million more votes than President Elect Trump, but Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond.
Therefore, these 5 counties in New York alone more than accounted for Clinton getting more of the popular vote than President Elect Trump.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles. Clinton won approx. 1.5 million votes more than President Elect Trump.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Thanks to our Founding Fathers, we live in a Constitutional Republic.
Otherwise, large, densely populated cities like NYC, Chicago, LA, etcetera, who may not think, behave, or share the needs and desires of the rest of the country, would dictate the outcome of the Presidential Election.

It was stupid there too. Counties don't vote, people do. Wilderness doesn't vote, lakes and rivers don't vote. Mountains don't vote. Deserts don't vote. SQUARE MILES don't vote. PEOPLE VOTE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ryoder 1,590]

RonD1120

From Twardo on Facebook:

Quote

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

Parroting bullshit does not make it true.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/

Using this map, I counted ~40 blue counties just in CA, WA, and OR: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

ryoder

***

From Twardo on Facebook:

Quote

There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.

Parroting bullshit does not make it true.

http://www.snopes.com/trump-won-3084-of-3141-counties-clinton-won-57/

Using this map, I counted ~40 blue counties just in CA, WA, and OR: http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president

Please it was on Facebook and it agrees with my viewpoint. Why would I give a shit about your facts.

Facts don't matter anymore. Texas does this shit right:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-abortion-booklet-debunked-cancer-link-suicide-risk-claim/

Facts....nah, just tell them what you want them to hear. Repeat often enough and people will believe you. People really are that stupid.

[normiss 801]

Since the gerrymandering of Project REDMAP, the Republican party has made it part of their MO, and it's NOT just Pizzagate

#thanksminefuhror

[JerryBaumchen 1,365]

Hi John,

Quote

PEOPLE VOTE.

Apparently that is a tough concept for some people to understand. Sort of like integral calculas; it is just not for some people.



Jerry Baumchen

[rushmc 23]

Wendy, I hope he keeps tweeting. He's going around the media that would like to frame the narrative of what he says. Now they have to react to what he's telling the people. There's nothing wrong with his tweets and I hope he keeps doing them.

He is playing the left and the media like a Stradivarius.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,452]

So no matter what other consequences there are, as long as it pisses off liberals and/or the media, it's good?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 2,998]

>So no matter what other consequences there are, as long as it pisses off liberals
>and/or the media, it's good?

Trump seems to use the same criteria for his tweets that RushMC uses for his posts.

[mistercwood 287]

rushmc

Wendy, I hope he keeps tweeting. He's going around the media that would like to frame the narrative of what he says. Now they have to react to what he's telling the people.

That's what people ARE reacting to. His actual words. There's no need to frame the narrative when his statements ARE the narrative.

rushmc

There's nothing wrong with his tweets and I hope he keeps doing them.

You mean nothing wrong with his total inability to avoid throwing tantrums when he thinks he's been "dissed"? Or are you referring to being ok with the repeated outright fabrications?

Of course you don't want the media getting involved and pointing out facts like, "Hey, that thing he said is 100% made up! The details are on public record and completely unbiased, he just decided to say a thing that was totally wrong cos it sounds good! Yay Trump!".

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[jakee 1,499]

rushmc

Wendy, I hope he keeps tweeting. He's going around the media that would like to frame the narrative of what he says. Now they have to react to what he's telling the people. There's nothing wrong with his tweets and I hope he keeps doing them.

There really is no limit to what you'll approve of as long as a Republican is doing it, eh?

Quote

He is playing the left and the media like a Stradivarius.

A kid with ADD playing a Stradivarius will make the same godawful racket as he would playing a dime store violin. The consequences are just higher when he gets bored and breaks it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 23]

wmw999

So no matter what other consequences there are, as long as it pisses off liberals and/or the media, it's good?

Wendy P.

No. But at we can decide without the media spin coming first.

And from now on everythong Trump does, good or bad, will piss the liberals off.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

mistercwood

***Wendy, I hope he keeps tweeting. He's going around the media that would like to frame the narrative of what he says. Now they have to react to what he's telling the people.

That's what people ARE reacting to. His actual words. There's no need to frame the narrative when his statements ARE the narrative.

rushmc

There's nothing wrong with his tweets and I hope he keeps doing them.

You mean nothing wrong with his total inability to avoid throwing tantrums when he thinks he's been "dissed"? Or are you referring to being ok with the repeated outright fabrications?

Of course you don't want the media getting involved and pointing out facts like, "Hey, that thing he said is 100% made up! The details are on public record and completely unbiased, he just decided to say a thing that was totally wrong cos it sounds good! Yay Trump!".

The media has not been truthful for thirty years.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,499]

rushmc

***So no matter what other consequences there are, as long as it pisses off liberals and/or the media, it's good?

Wendy P.

No. But at we can decide without the media spin coming first.

You do realise that the campaign is over, right? Whether or not Trump looks good in the media is less important than how well he does the job of being President.

And tweeting random, radical foreign policy thoughts whenever they cross his mind with no regard for how they might affect relations with foreign powers is not doing the job of being President very well.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?