Some electors flipped after all

[musterion]

Without the EC, population centers - specifically, their common ideology - would take every election. If one shares that ideology, of course one will see the EC as an impediment whenever one's side doesn't win.

 

[Alate_One]

Hillary hardly got 1% more votes-

Um, no. It was about 2.3% totalling nearly 3 million votes. The largest number for an electoral college loss ever.

Let's remember that 3 million votes is larger than the populations of a number of states:

Nevada 2,790,136
New Mexico 2,085,287
Nebraska 1,868,516
West Virginia 1,854,304
Idaho 1,612,136
Hawaii 1,404,054
Maine 1,328,302
New Hampshire 1,323,459
Rhode Island 1,051,511
Montana 1,015,165
Delaware 925,749
South Dakota 844,877
Alaska 735,132
North Dakota 723,393
Vermont 626,630
Wyoming 582,658

Many democratic nations have different ways of electing their leaders. No other ones use an electoral college.

 

[musterion]

Losers can't win without stealing. Eventually we'll find out how many votes for Clinton were in some way or other illegal and invalid. Just a matter of time.

 

[musterion]

But I liked the part where no Clinton will ever be president ever again.

 

[Crucible]

Um, no.

Um, yes.

We'll leave it to you all to come to your own conclusions fiddling with a selective recount.
The official headline reads: 1% :wave2:

You all could've taken it gracefully, but instead you proved yourselves the infants you've been seen as for years

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Ron Paul got a vote. If only he had gotten 269 more.

You do realize that you're surrounded by your fellow Paulbots in this thread aren't you? (the author of the thread is a hardcore Ron Paul supporter).

How do you feel about your fellow Libertarians selling out their doctrine for someone who doesn't embrace Libertarian values? (Trump and Ron Paul are pretty much equal when it comes to being sexual anarchists, but that is where the commonalities end).

 

[rocketman]

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

Were red states defying federal law? If California wants to create an illegal situation where it aids & abets illegal aliens, especially criminal illegal aliens then the federal government should sanction them financially, and that goes for any other state that feels it can defy federal law.

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.

You do understand words mean things, no? Biden actually set a precedent with his words alone, they even named it the "Biden Rule". I concede that it had never been done prior in a supreme court scenario though numerous times in the lower courts confirmation has been held in an election year. There is no law or mandate that the senate has to consent or even hold hearings in a timely manner so, it is political posturing pure & simple. You should understand very well about forcing policy down the throats of the citizenry, Obama has been doing it for 8 years now.

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

It tells me that outside of certain regions your message is wholly rejected, in this case 30 of 50 states worth of rejection.

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.

Trump will probably be as much of a dictator as Obama was, you can quantify that any way you wish, and if you cannot sell your wares in a majority of states going forward you will lose again.

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?

Social justice is the banner that marxist fly under Alate, it a tool that leads to slavery under government. Capitalism has been the beacon of liberty that every person, regardless of who they are can achieve any class or social stature based solely upon the their ingenuity, and the sweat of their brow. There is a reason people flock to America (even illegally), it is because they can change their social status, anyone can be middle class or upper class based upon their own merit, not so much in the countries you have listed above which tout themselves as social democracies. Do I think the countries you listed above are marxist? They are not true socialists by definition but, certainly the overtones of Marxism/Socialism are quite apparent yes. The marxist revolution is in full swing in Denmark and other european countries...read about it.

http://www.marxist.com/denmark/

 

[rocketman]

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

You have been contesting and protesting in two different threads now on the subject, try not to obfuscate that fact.

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

I am declaring you haven't won your argument way of your declaration either.

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.

So, now you declare I have conceded something? Not so much. I have pointed out quite vividly that your argument is bunk, that you have no argument, more of just a grumble that the system you desire does not exist, and that if we lived in an alternate universe somehow your candidate would have won. Well, the standard to win was set in advance, and now you want the standard changed, that is your assertion, and I get that fully but, claiming a win based upon a nonexistent standard I reject. I don't concede anything but, impasse.

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.

Maybe so, I don't like liberals mandating how I should live, think, or speak either so if you want to tag that as bias then yes, I am completely biased toward personal liberty.

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

We can all hope that this president is able to make government work for all Americans. I don't expect that everything he will do I will agree with either. There are too many extremes on the left & right currently hopefully that will change but, I will not hold my breath.

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.

The democrat party has forgotten the working man/woman altogether to appease the fringe elements of their party, that is why they have lost them for now, maybe it is time for them to change their devotions.

 

[Town Heretic]

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

With an equally arbitrary empowerment of a minority within it? Lucky break you just happen to be in it and happen to hold that opinion, huh?

Nah.

I fail to see the Left's vote as anything else then rapid bias fueled from fanatical ideology,

We all have our limitations. The trick is to recognize what they are.

and that is exactly why the Founfing Fathers put it in place

It really isn't.

your notion that it's some outdated thing simply is not true.

It mostly is.

There has never been a conspiracy or overturning of true interests of Americans by the EC

I never said it was a conspiracy. It was, however, as an operation of mechanics, a process that did exactly that for most voting Americans.

- 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.

The EC was exactly that sort of usher in this election, empowering a minority over the majority of Americans, but it had nothing to do with deliberation or any particular consideration by that body.

Hillary hardly got 1% more votes

Close to three million at last count.

But to put your "hardly" in a different light. You're running a race. You cross the finish line only one step ahead of your nearest competitor. The judges confer and hand him the trophy. What could be fairer and more in keeping with the point of having a race. [/sarcasm]

 

[Alate_One]

Were red states defying federal law? If California wants to create an illegal situation where it aids & abets illegal aliens, especially criminal illegal aliens then the federal government should sanction them financially, and that goes for any other state that feels it can defy federal law.

We had officials and judges fighting against the supreme court decision on gay marriage. And then there was the constitutional amendment proposed by Republicans.

You do understand words mean things, no? Biden actually set a precedent with his words alone, they even named it the "Biden Rule". I concede that it had never been done prior in a supreme court scenario though numerous times in the lower courts confirmation has been held in an election year. There is no law or mandate that the senate has to consent or even hold hearings in a timely manner so, it is political posturing pure & simple.

It's the senate's JOB to provide advice and consent. There's no law about it because nobody thought the Senate would simply refuse to do their job. THAT has never happened before.

You should understand very well about forcing policy down the throats of the citizenry, Obama has been doing it for 8 years now.

And what do you think Trump is going to do to the majority of Americans that voted against him? Force policy down our throats. You complain about it until you're the ones doing the forcing. The difference with Obama is most of those policies were actually favored by a majority of the populace, Trump's not so much.

It tells me that outside of certain regions your message is wholly rejected, in this case 30 of 50 states worth of rejection.

Nope. When a state is won by 10,000 or 20,000 votes. That's not a rejection. And let's remember, even the states Trump won, he didn't win a majority in most cases. There were far more votes for third party candidates than the margins of victory. So even in many states he won, Trump was not chosen by the majority of voters. You can keep trying to spin this as some kind of shift in favor of Republicanism, but it isn't.

Clinton
47.6%
2,279,805

Trump
47.3%
2,268,193

L G. Johnson
3.6%
173,057

G J. Stein
1.1%
50,700

The difference between Trump and Clinton was 10,000 votes. Jill Stein, much farther to the left than Hillary got 50,000 which means if even 1/5 of those voters had voted for Hillary, she would have won.

Social justice is the banner that marxist fly under Alate, it a tool that leads to slavery under government. Capitalism has been the beacon of liberty that every person, regardless of who they are can achieve any class or social stature based solely upon the their ingenuity, and the sweat of their brow.

You realize the American dream is easier to achieve in these "marxist" states? Have you ever visited one of these places or known someone from any of these "marxist" states?

Capitalism is all well and good, but unregulated capitalism is as bad as totalitarian marxism. We saw that during the gilded age when people were allowed to die on the streets and in factories due to no safety regulations. We're headed towards a new gilded age with Trump. He wants to roll back all of the protections people fought and died for. And yet you're giddy with optimism. Making a country great and helping its people isn't just about achieving the fastest growth possible. Ask China.

There is a reason people flock to America (even illegally), it is because they can change their social status, anyone can be middle class or upper class based upon their own merit, not so much in the countries you have listed above which tout themselves as social democracies. Do I think the countries you listed above are marxist? They are not true socialists by definition but, certainly the overtones of Marxism/Socialism are quite apparent yes. The marxist revolution is in full swing in Denmark and other european countries...read about it.

Yes and the people of Denmark are among the happiest and have the least income gap of nearly all western nations. The USA not so much. I wouldn't advise the US going as far as Denmark, but government doing at least a bit more than it is now isn't a bad thing.

I'm interested in what policies produce good results, not your irrational fear of "Marxism" as some kind of boogeyman that destroys nations.

 

[Right Divider]

For the second time in my life the electoral college has delivered the presidency to the looser of the election. It was a questionable idea to begin with and it needs to go.

Your understanding of the structure of the government of the USA is duly noted; you have none.

We are the United STATES and NOT the United STATE.

Pure democracy was specifically avoided but this method of electing the President.

 

[Right Divider]

No, the constitution does not need to be altered to fit the wants of one braying faction that only dwell in small highly populated regions/cities, that is the exact reason why the framers set-up the voting system this way, you have to sell it across the country, to a majority of citizens in the majority of states...that is the system for over 200 years now, like it or not. It will take a super majority to change the constitution so good luck with that, I don't see that happening anytime soon, nor should it, you can either sell it nationwide or lose.

:thumb:

 

[Town Heretic]

You have been contesting and protesting in two different threads now on the subject, try not to obfuscate that fact.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Here's what I mean: you aren't actually contesting the point I made and you're speaking to a point I haven't contested.

I am declaring you haven't won your argument way of your declaration either.

Well okay.

So, now you declare I have conceded something?

Sure. I didn't say you admitted to it. That's a bit hard for you, for some reason. I don't have any problem admitting and joining you in saying the winner, Trump, won by the process in play. I'm just recognizing that the process in play empowered a minority of the voters over the majority of voters. If you're fine with that when the shoe is on the other foot then I'll still disagree with you, but okay.

Not so much. I have pointed out quite vividly that your argument is bunk,

Nah. Since nothing in my advance is anything other than objectively, observably true (see the bit just above this for a summary).

that you have no argument

That's close to true, given I'm mostly pointing out what is and wondering if it's time to undo that.

more of just a grumble that the system you desire does not exist, and that if we lived in an alternate universe somehow your candidate would have won.

Again, my candidate wasn't on the ballot. I opposed both who were and publicly.

Well, the standard to win was set in advance, and now you want the standard changed, that is your assertion, and I get that fully but, claiming a win based upon a nonexistent standard I reject. I don't concede anything but, impasse.

I've never been confused on the outcome. I've never suggested that the outcome be set aside. And were it set aside I'd be no happier than I am now.

Maybe so, I don't like liberals mandating how I should live, think, or speak either so if you want to tag that as bias then yes, I am completely biased toward personal liberty.

You mean toward the constraints on personal liberty (and degree) that you promote instead of the degree and kind they promote, with both of you being opposed by the libertarian one house over and so on.

We can all hope that this president is able to make government work for all Americans.

Was that your approach to the outgoing president? Well, in any event I'll hope for the nation and pray for the president, as I always do, Bush, Obama, or Trump.

The democrat party has forgotten the working man/woman altogether to appease the fringe elements of their party, that is why they have lost them for now, maybe it is time for them to change their devotions.

I'd agree that the Democrats have an identity problem, that they're much more tied to pockets of the working man than to the overall impression and that this impression has made people who might otherwise be disinterested in the Republican Party become willing to consider it and support it to some extent.

When no small number of the average Joes feel a billionaire Republican is a more likely voice for them than the party that fought against his class for their own for decades, that's a serious problem in need of address.

 

[Crucible]

But to put your "hardly" in a different light. You're running a race. You cross the finish line only one step ahead of your nearest competitor. The judges confer and hand him the trophy. What could be fairer and more in keeping with the point of having a race. [/sarcasm]

Apples and oranges.
A political race is no more comparable to a foot race than public opinion to reliability.

The Founding Fathers put the EC in place because they knew that public opinion was a terrible thing to go solely by- propaganda can be as shammy as anything can be, and they influence people. What's 'fair' and what's 'right' are not synonymous, that is why changing the Constitution requires a 75% vote, and that is why the FFs didn't see fit to let you people run rampant with your spastic biases.

You said yourself you don't believe there should be 'pure democracy', but just like any of these liberals, you'll say anything to dupe others into falsehoods.

 

[rocketman]

We had officials and judges fighting against the supreme court decision on gay marriage. And then there was the constitutional amendment proposed by Republicans.

So, let the states argue it in court just like these states did that had voted in state laws banning it. The result will probably be the same for the dems in this scenario...they will lose.

It's the senate's JOB to provide advice and consent. There's no law about it because nobody thought the Senate would simply refuse to do their job. THAT has never happened before.

There is nothing that says there has to be nine justices either, in fact there has been as many as ten in the past and FDR wanted fifteen which was rejected. There is no imperial mandate that senate has to consent or even hold hearings so, you won't get that liberal judge you were after, the seat will be filled by another originalist not an activist, which is really what the fair minded should want, not another rubber stamp bench legislator that reads things into the constitution that the framers were silent on.

And what do you think Trump is going to do to the majority of Americans that voted against him? Force policy down our throats. You complain about it until you're the ones doing the forcing. The difference with Obama is most of those policies were actually favored by a majority of the populace, Trump's not so much.

Probably, just like Obama pushed Obamacare down the throats of the majority that didn't want it...it is called politics. I complain but, you didn't see republicans burning Obama in effigy the way you crazy libs have done, I would say that maybe liberals need to move back towards the center as well but, for now you will just have to deal with the changes you don't like... just like we did.

Nope. When a state is won by 10,000 or 20,000 votes. That's not a rejection. And let's remember, even the states Trump won, he didn't win a majority in most cases. There were far more votes for third party candidates than the margins of victory. So even in many states he won, Trump was not chosen by the majority of voters. You can keep trying to spin this as some kind of shift in favor of Republicanism, but it isn't.

Clinton
47.6%
2,279,805

Trump
47.3%
2,268,193

L G. Johnson
3.6%
173,057

G J. Stein
1.1%
50,700

The difference between Trump and Clinton was 10,000 votes. Jill Stein, much farther to the left than Hillary got 50,000 which means if even 1/5 of those voters had voted for Hillary, she would have won.

All this and she still lost, fair & square...deal with it.

You realize the American dream is easier to achieve in these "marxist" states? Have you ever visited one of these places or known someone from any of these "marxist" states?

I see your assertion and reject it, the caste systems that exist have always existed... the ruling class & the rest.

Capitalism is all well and good, but unregulated capitalism is as bad as totalitarian marxism.

You mean the crony capitalism that has been in place by both republican and democrat establishments for years now? I am not for the current system that is why I rejected Hillary Clinton, she is part of that system, all one has to do is look at her donor list to see that.

We saw that during the gilded age when people were allowed to die on the streets and in factories due to no safety regulations. We're headed towards a new gilded age with Trump. He wants to roll back all of the protections people fought and died for. And yet you're giddy with optimism. Making a country great and helping its people isn't just about achieving the fastest growth possible. Ask China.

This is why I always look forward to speaking with you Alate, you always reach for the extremes. When any of these things happen we can both reject them but, if the over regulation is curbed I say good, if environmental regulations are changed so that environment & industry can co-exist I say good, if public schools are forced to compete in a school choice voucher system and the teachers unions are defanged I say good, etc....the point is that not only do you love to speak in extremes you want to govern in extremes, and that is what is not working. Time to make some changes we can all live with I say.

Yes and the people of Denmark are among the happiest and have the least income gap of nearly all western nations. The USA not so much. I wouldn't advise the US going as far as Denmark, but government doing at least a bit more than it is now isn't a bad thing.

I think you should immigrate there, you found mecca> :thumb: But before you go you should know some things going in so I gave you an article or two to read on Denmark.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-gordon/what-the-news-in-the-us-t_b_5442945.html

http://nypost.com/2015/01/11/sorry-liberals-scandinavian-countries-arent-utopias/

I'm interested in what policies produce good results, not your irrational fear of "Marxism" as some kind of boogeyman that destroys nations.

Putting people as indentured servants to the state to support a social structure of pseudo equality is not a good result Alate, and kills the entrepreneurial spirit which is America. Everyone is not an achiever or a winner but, the nonsense that everyone gets a trophy regardless of input is not liberty at least not for those that are putting forth the most effort, nor should they be required to share the fruits of their labor with the underachievers...and so it goes in a socialistic model, that is why I reject it.

 

[fool]

So, here you contradict yourself;

Right. A big lurching bull who has no experience,

No experience huh?

but he knew what to sell to his base.

Wait, so he did have experience then? in selling to his base?
Why didn't anyone think of that before?

Misogyny, xenophobia and racism, and they snapped it up like a MAGA hat at a swap meet.

You seem to have a rather dim opinion of your fellow countrymen.

 

[fool]

They can be "terrible" as long as they're "new," right?

So "Big Money" equates to Terrible?

 

[Alate_One]

There is nothing that says there has to be nine justices either, in fact there has been as many as ten in the past and FDR wanted fifteen which was rejected. There is no imperial mandate that senate has to consent or even hold hearings so, you won't get that liberal judge you were after, the seat will be filled by another originalist not an activist, which is really what the fair minded should want, not another rubber stamp bench legislator that reads things into the constitution that the framers were silent on.

An originalist IS an activist. Originalism as we know it today didn't exist until Scalia promoted it. Originalism is problematic at best since the Founders did not believe in equal rights for all human beings. But that's apparently what you want.

Probably, just like Obama pushed Obamacare down the throats of the majority that didn't want it...it is called politics. I complain but, you didn't see republicans burning Obama in effigy the way you crazy libs have done, I would say that maybe liberals need to move back towards the center as well but, for now you will just have to deal with the changes you don't like... just like we did.

The Republicans didn't make any changes, other than doubling down on more extreme right wing ideas. And yes there was Obama effigy burning.

All this and she still lost, fair & square...deal with it.

I wouldn't call the Comey letter bombshell fair and square.

You mean the crony capitalism that has been in place by both republican and democrat establishments for years now? I am not for the current system that is why I rejected Hillary Clinton, she is part of that system, all one has to do is look at her donor list to see that.

Do you not see who Trump has put into his cabinet? All crony billionaires. Maybe you say, look they're not career politicians. Sure, but you just cut out the lobbyist middle man and put Business foxes in charge of every government henhouse that's supposed to be regulating them. Bravo.

This is why I always look forward to speaking with you Alate, you always reach for the extremes. When any of these things happen we can both reject them but, if the over regulation is curbed I say good, if environmental regulations are changed so that environment & industry can co-exist I say good, if public schools are forced to compete in a school choice voucher system and the teachers unions are defanged I say good, etc....the point is that not only do you love to speak in extremes you want to govern in extremes, and that is what is not working. Time to make some changes we can all live with I say.

Trump has put people in place that are opposed to the missions of the agencies they head. If that's not extreme I don't know what is.

I think you should immigrate there, you found mecca> :thumb: But before you go you should know some things going in so I gave you an article or two to read on Denmark.

I have no interest in moving to Europe. Our ancestors left for a reason. It's too crowded. There's almost no public land in Europe to enjoy and less land to own if you'd like to farm (which as a plant lover is important to me). Nations in Europe are also too physically close to nasty threats like Russia and ISIS, not to mention emerging diseases. The new world is a good place to be. There's an ocean between us and the rest of the world so if we do turn isolationist, hopefully we'll be largely left alone.

Now Canada is a happy medium, but unfortunately a relatively small economy compared to the USA, so fewer job opportunities. But if things get really bad, it's an easy in for me. But likely I will stay because most Americans cannot leave. The poor cannot simply move to a new country. They can't afford it. So I intend to stay and help defend the weak and the poor from the worst of Republican ideas.

Maybe you should go to Russia instead. Putin's a strong leader right? They actually have a declining population, so I'm sure they'd be happy to accept more white people.

Putting people as indentured servants to the state to support a social structure of pseudo equality is not a good result Alate, and kills the entrepreneurial spirit which is America. Everyone is not an achiever or a winner but, the nonsense that everyone gets a trophy regardless of input is not liberty at least not for those that are putting forth the most effort, nor should they be required to share the fruits of their labor with the underachievers...and so it goes in a socialistic model, that is why I reject it.

The non winners are the ones that voted for Trump. Everyone in the USA hopes to be a winner, but precious few make it because we keep removing the stepladders to get to the top. We're not in favor of equal outcomes, just equal opportunities to succeed. We have a lot of work to do before we can achieve that, and Trump will likely set us back a few decades, if not more.

 

[fool]

Honest question, fool. Do you really admire Trump?

He just destroyed both of the established political parties in the Untied States with the Main Stream Media against him from day one.

He did so while spending half as much money as his opponents.

He changed the map taking three states that hadn't gone red in six elections. Nobody expected Wisconsin and Michigan.

He is proof that our system still works, a complete outsider can swoop in and take the prize with less money than the establishment.

Admire him? I don't know if that's the word. He's a deeply flawed Human Being as we all are. I wouldn't use his life as any kind of model to emulate.

But you have to respect his accomplishment. Even if you hate the man he just pulled it off against incredible odds with the whole world against him with nothing but hard work and marketing genius.

 

[fool]

what, like from a seconds and clearance china store?

You get the best stuff at The Salvation Army Thrift Store.