Some electors flipped after all

[Town Heretic]

I would argue that the "hard right" has no handle on the Republican Party. They elected a former Democrat, Pelosi and Reid donor that supports a trillion dollar stimulus bill, more regulation of the economy, and new social programs. Not to mention that he's no concerned with the old right social issues like same sex marriage and abortion.

I live in the most pro Trump state in the union and a lot of people who aren't infatuated with Trump still wanted to use him like a wrecking ball in terms of party confidence among the beltway, ensconced power structure. And a number of them thought he was the best way to thwart Clinton, that whatever he wanted to turn into, Congress could reign in the excess and use him to get a few things done.

If the right wing has a handle on the GOP, they didn't show it by electing a liberal. If they follow Trump's lead, the Republican Party will be at the center-left where the Democrats were 8 years ago, and the Democrats will be over near Lenin on the political spectrum.

I don't believe the Dems are even hard socialist at this point, but they will be and relatively soon, given the way the indicators are going among the young and minorities. The only way to alter that is to have real, sustained prosperity under a conservative administration.

 

[Alate_One]

The right can't allow it. The thing that popular vote told you was that even as unpopular within her party as Hillary was, she could beat the Republican nominee among the people. The EC is the only way for them to hold onto power while they try to build a connection to the young and minorities, assuming they try. If not, you'll just have to wait a while and they'll sort themselves out...of power. Personally, I hope they find that connection, because it will mean a return of the reasoned, moderate Republican and the death of this strangle hold the hard right has on the party.

I think ultimately Trump could be good for the country (assuming he doesn't destroy it) in that if the policies go wrong, there will be no one else to blame but Republicans. If they are actually booted out of many national positions perhaps Republicans will as you say come to their senses and become reasoned and moderate again (back when I could consider voting for them).

I think if they manage to hang on with Trump, and build a broader coalition, they will continue doubling down on extremism because there's no reason to do otherwise if they keep winning. That's the only thing political parties understand, is losing and losing repeatedly. And Republican extremism in government will likely mean a return to the days when the poor died in the streets. Perhaps we'll even get Hoovervilles reborn in the form of Trumpvilles. Either way, the pendulum will eventually swing the other way, the only question is how ugly does it need to get for that to happen. :/

 

[musterion]

Is there any evidence that someone that succeeds (or at least doesn't fail badly) in business is effective in government?

Better question: is there any evidence that people who have spent their entire adult lives only as academics or as career politicians, with little or no "real world" work experience -- such as the vast majority of Americans are familiar with on some level -- are better able to dictate far-reaching economic policies than those who actually work in, managed or created businesses?

Answer: no, there isn't. But you'll insist they're somehow magically better qualified anyway.

 

[Alate_One]

Better question: is there any evidence that people who have spent their entire adult lives only as academics or as career politicians, with little or no "real world" work experience -- such as the vast majority of Americans are familiar with on some level -- are better able to dictate far-reaching economic policies than those who actually work in, managed or created businesses?

Answer: no, there isn't. But you'll insist they're somehow magically better qualified anyway.

Why is there an obsession with business being "real work" while academics and politicians don't do "real work"? Businesses are dictatorships, government should not be one.

 

[rocketman]

Calm thyself, brother. I was using irony to illustrate the jackassed hypocrisy of leftists -- they said an elector can and should follow conscience and refuse to honor any oath IF it meant denying Trump their vote. It apparently never occurred to them that twice the number of electors would be faithless toward Clinton. So if following conscience by refusing to elect Trump is okay, then doing the same with regard to Clinton must also be okay.

But no leftist thinks that.

I knew what you were getting at and I felt obliged to pile on.

 

[musterion]

Why is there an obsession with business being "real work" while academics and politicians don't do "real work"?

If I have to explain that basic economic difference to you, you're too ignorant to be engaging on this particular topic.

Businesses are dictatorships, government should not be one.

Then why are you a leftist?

 

[musterion]

I knew what you were getting at and I felt obliged to pile on.

Rat own!

 

[rocketman]

Only one of the Clintons ran for office...and she beat your guy except by those imaginary lines that allow for an EC unpopular vote total. So we have one dead political career and one zombie about to take office.

She didn't beat anything, the rules of the contest were clear going in, and she came up lacking...2 to 1 I might add.

The right can't allow it. The thing that popular vote told you was that even as unpopular within her party as Hillary was, she could beat the Republican nominee among the people.

Obviously no, she could not garner more than 20 states approval therefore she lost as per the constitutional voting system that we all live under. sour grapes for a system that does not exist really.

The EC is the only way for them to hold onto power while they try to build a connection to the young and minorities, assuming they try. If not, you'll just have to wait a while and they'll sort themselves out...of power.

:baby: Get off it already, it just getting pathetic now...

Personally, I hope they find that connection, because it will mean a return of the reasoned, moderate Republican and the death of this strangle hold the hard right has on the party.

Same could be said for your party that has gone completely against all it used to stand for to become the party of lawlessness & aberrant behavior. The libs are as far from reasoned or moderate as any group could ever be that is why they are losing nationally, We already had this discussion and the presidency is just one position of thousands they have lost since going full marxist. Maybe it is your party that needs to come back to its roots, don't ya think?

 

[ok doser]

Only one of the Clintons ran for office...and she beat your guy except ...

except by the only measure that matters :chuckle:


but you keep right on sucking your thumb and telling yourself that it's just not fair, hillary really should have won

 

[Town Heretic]

She didn't beat anything,

She beat him by popular vote, by millions. It didn't give her the election, but it's still the truth.

Get off it already, it just getting pathetic now...

A sure sign you've lost the argument is when you're reduced to this sort of response on the point. If not for the EC the Republican Party doesn't have the White House. And the trends among the young and minorities are against that party. So unless inroads are made, the EC is literally the only way for Republicans to hold onto the White House.

Same could be said for your party

I'm a registered Republican. They consistently put forward the better candidates in my neck of the woods, especially in the judiciary. When they don't I don't vote for them, at least in the general election.

We already had this discussion and the presidency is just one position of thousands they have lost since going full marxist.

Except the Republican Party lost seats in this election, both in the House and Senate. The wins on the local level and state level don't surprise me. That continuing for very long would.

Maybe it is your party that needs to come back to its roots, don't ya think?

Given, again, I'm a registered Republican, that's exactly what I was saying. I remember when being Republican didn't mean a one thought fits all approach to conservative principles.

 

[Town Heretic]

I think ultimately Trump could be good for the country

I hope so. He'll have my prayers on a number of levels.

(assuming he doesn't destroy it) in that if the policies go wrong, there will be no one else to blame but Republicans.

I'm not sure if that would be the case. Given how easily many can say they opposed him actively until they were forced to capitulate to the will of the rank and file to avoid fracturing the party, they have an out.

If they are actually booted out of many national positions perhaps Republicans will as you say come to their senses and become reasoned and moderate again (back when I could consider voting for them).

Could be.

I think if they manage to hang on with Trump, and build a broader coalition, they will continue doubling down on extremism because there's no reason to do otherwise if they keep winning.

I don't believe they can build a broader coalition without moderating the approach. I think the current advance did about as well as it could and it still needed the manufactured EC cobbling to win the White House. I'm not sure that would have been enough had the Dems put up a less divisive candidate.

That's the only thing political parties understand, is losing and losing repeatedly. And Republican extremism in government will likely mean a return to the days when the poor died in the streets. Perhaps we'll even get Hoovervilles reborn in the form of Trumpvilles. Either way, the pendulum will eventually swing the other way, the only question is how ugly does it need to get for that to happen. :/

Republicans have the floor. No won't do. It's time for ideas and action and the consequences will be waiting, one way or the other.

 

[rocketman]

California is going to buck Trump's federal changes hard. It'll be interesting to hear about states rights then.

States do not have the right to defy federal law and yes, I am ready to see the sanctions levied on California and I live here. It is about time really.

It wasn't right before an election and yes it was unprecedented. Your side simply believed you *owned* that seat and when it went away . . . Republicans couldn't handle the notion that Obama could nominate Scalia's replacement. So they balked. If the shoe is on the other foot, expect the same treatment.

You are wrong, in fact your current vice president Joe Biden threatened the same action against then president George H W Bush when attempting to confirm a justice before the 1992 election, he said the people should decide. I have taken the liberty of posting the video of his speech on the subject. It is not unprecedented at all, in fact it was one of your own that made the case for it.

Um. There never was an attempt at marxism or socialism, not in this country anyway.

That is your opinion and I disagree, mine is that the ideology of the regressive left is rooted in marxism.

It's easier for you if you just believe simplistic explanations, reality is more complex.

Trump won Michigan by a slight margin of only 10,704 votes but won Wisconsin by 22,177 votes and Pennsylvania by 70,799 votes. In several cases those vote margins were far larger than the third party votes. There's also the fact that democratic turnout was depressed, while republican turnout was not and still it was amazingly close.

There's a heck of a lot of purple counties, everywhere.

Purple doesn't count after election day...

And you can keep believing that. But if you poll the american people on the issues. They say they want the things democrats are offering.

Poll them today after 8 years of tyranny or poll then after a new president gives them hope in America, Jobs, & prosperity can give them? You won't see any of these things happening under regressive left leadership, we have seen that firsthand, the status quo is dead, or soon to be.

Democrats haven't had a Marxist message, in decades if ever. Then again your definition of marxism might be Medicare. So . . .

So-called social justice was created by the philosophy of this man and liberals worship at his throne. Maybe you should read a bit about the man given he espouses the regressive left's worldview.

 

[rocketman]

She beat him by popular vote, by millions. It didn't give her the election, but it's still the truth.

Which doesn't mean spit under this nations constitution.

A sure sign you've lost the argument is when you're reduced to this sort of response on the point. If not for the EC the Republican Party doesn't have the White House. And the trends among the young and minorities are against that party. So unless inroads are made, the EC is literally the only way for Republicans to hold onto the White House.

Ahhh yes, your attempt to take the high ground...attempt denied. You lost the argument when you continue to filibuster from a position of weakness, on a system that does not exist, nor has ever existed in this nation, ad nauseum. Let it go already, all the filibustering in the world will not change the constitution so, work on the message not the system I say, it is the message that is bunk.

I'm a registered Republican. They consistently put forward the better candidates in my neck of the woods, especially in the judiciary. When they don't I don't vote for them, at least in the general election.

I am too but, for different reasons altogether, because the liberals in my neck of the woods are nutters, and always have been.

Except the Republican Party lost seats in this election, both in the House and Senate. The wins on the local level and state level don't surprise me. That continuing for very long would.

You will have to do better than 1 senate seat & 10 house seats to get it done, we will talk after the mid terms.

Given, again, I'm a registered Republican, that's exactly what I was saying. I remember when being Republican didn't mean a one thought fits all approach to conservative principles.

I remember when democrats were for the working man not so much anymore...

 

[Alate_One]

States do not have the right to defy federal law and yes, I am ready to see the sanctions levied on California and I live here. It is about time really.

Sanctions? Did the Obama administration put sanctions on red states?

You are wrong, in fact your current vice president Joe Biden threatened the same action against then president George H W Bush when attempting to confirm a justice before the 1992 election, he said the people should decide. I have taken the liberty of posting the video of his speech on the subject. It is not unprecedented at all, in fact it was one of your own that made the case for it.

You do understand words and deeds are two different things. It was never done before, now it has been done and precedent has been made.

Purple doesn't count after election day...

It tells you democrats aren't all clustered in cities as you claim.

Poll them today after 8 years of tyranny or poll then after a new president gives them hope in America, Jobs, & prosperity can give them? You won't see any of these things happening under regressive left leadership, we have seen that firsthand, the status quo is dead, or soon to be.

If you think you can ensconce the Republican party at the levers of power permanently, you have no understanding of american history. Unless Trump tries to be a dictator. Which I doubt because he's old and I don't think he really wanted the job.

So-called social justice was created by the philosophy of this man and liberals worship at his throne. Maybe you should read a bit about the man given he espouses the regressive left's worldview.

Social justice is fine so long as it is put in place and maintained by democracy, not revolution and dictatorship. Do you think Canada, the UK, Germany, Denmark and the like are "Marxist" states?

 

[Alate_One]

If I have to explain that basic economic difference to you, you're too ignorant to be engaging on this particular topic.

IOW you don't know, you're just repeating what you have heard.
I believe in governing based on scientifically produced data, not pure ideology.

Then why are you a leftist?

If you think the last 8 years was a dictatorship, why is Obama being gracious to Trump and leaving office? Do you not know what a dictatorship is?

 

[Town Heretic]

Which doesn't mean spit under this nations constitution.

So you aren't then debating the point, only attempting to debate the point I never contested.

Ahhh yes, your attempt to take the high ground...attempt denied.

You aren't the judge and even a judge can't simply declare a verdict without reason.

You lost the argument when you continue to filibuster from a position of weakness, on a system that does not exist, nor has ever existed in this nation, ad nauseum.

That's a funny way to concede the point, which remains that without the EC you don't have the White House. Which is why, for the foreseeable future, it's in the best interest of the Republican party to support it and resist change.

I am too but, for different reasons altogether, because the liberals in my neck of the woods are nutters, and always have been.

Interesting, or indicative of your bias. In any event, they aren't here, for the most part. And the right isn't nutty here either, for the most part.

You will have to do better than 1 senate seat & 10 house seats to get it done, we will talk after the mid terms.

I don't have an interest in the Dems taking either, unless it sponsors a broader Republican party, then it's best for everyone.

I remember when democrats were for the working man not so much anymore...

I never remember a time when the Republican party's benefit to the working man wasn't incidental to its service to corporate sponsorship. But then, Dems have their own special pockets to fill. Such is life.

 

[musterion]

No Clinton will ever be president again.

 

[Crucible]

That's a funny way to concede the point, which remains that without the EC you don't have the White House. Which is why, for the foreseeable future, it's in the best interest of the Republican party to support it and resist change.

The EC has it's purpose, and can potentially save any part of the political spectrum from being sacked by small majorities. The reason you're all up in arms about the EC is because it is designed to resist the type of shenanigans the Left was up to, it's that simple.

America is a rigid system that requires a lot of push to be moved- you see it with the Constitution, the Legislation, the division of powers and states, anon anon. It was made that way for reasons you don't want to consider over a pure democracy.

 

[Town Heretic]

The EC has it's purpose, and can potentially save any part of the political spectrum from being sacked by small majorities.

That's an inventive way of noting that it can be used by a sufficiently large minority to rule the majority. It's also no particular virtue and in conflict with a government whose genesis was a struggle against authority without representation and a celebration of the individual.

No, what the EC mostly was put in place to guard against has largely been eradicated by time and technology (as per my prior post on the point).

The reason you're all up in arms about the EC is because it is designed to resist the type of shenanigans the Left was up to, it's that simple.

Wrong on every point. I'm not "up in arms" being less than convinced at this point that the trouble and danger of a Constitutional Convention would be justified and given the outcome would be no more palatable than our current state. I'm simply recognizing a few political realities the right doesn't want considered so they're/you're trying nonsense like this to avoid the point.

America is a rigid system that requires a lot of push to be moved- you see it with the Constitution, the Legislation, the division of powers and states, anon anon. It was made that way for reasons you don't want to consider over a pure democracy.

I'm not calling for "pure democracy". I like representative government. It's a more practical way of runing a large enterprise. I also beleive that the popular vote should supply the president, that Congress is the voice of the patchwork of minorities and majority and that the Constitution should safeguard both.

All the EC has managed in the largest part of its history is to upend the majority a few times. As I said to rm, there's no magic or nobility in that, only the semblance of gerrymandering in usurpation of the people's will on the point.

 

[Crucible]

All the EC has managed in the largest part of its history is to upend the majority a few times. As I said to rm, there's no magic or nobility in that, only the semblance of gerrymandering in usurpation of the people's will on the point.

The Constitution puts limits on every power, and the EC checks the arbitrary will of society.

I fail to see the Left's vote as anything else then rapid bias fueled from fanatical ideology, and that is exactly why the Founfing Fathers put it in place- your notion that it's some outdated thing simply is not true. It's simply what you want to fancy as outdated for your own vision of what ought to be this country.

There has never been a conspiracy or overturning of true interests of Americans by the EC- it's just something you all want to talk about when the EC actually does what it is intended to do- be more than simply an usher for small majority.

Hillary hardly got 1% more votes- that is not how a country of sense and virtue should elect leaders, especially if you are going to make a monolith out of them like they're Roman emperors
America has a general problem doing that, right down to their judges and police forces.