We're about to find out.
Some electors flipped after all
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
We're about to find out.
Leftists are career professionals at simply making things up:
'Trump is going to set us back decades if not more'.
By what reasoning other than your butt hurt does that hold up?
Trump is the President-elect because the forgotten about people in America have had it with the Left fueling foreign interests and giving everyone else the shaft.
You know, it's easy to idealize a perfect future when one can't acknowledge reality beyond an offensive word outside of one's dorm room- we've been met with a generation of retards who don't know jack about anything, and liberals have given them full representation of their careless biases.
If it wasn't going to be Sanders, who's a full on hardcore socialist, it was going to be Hillary, a complete political schmuck that liberals only wanted in office to PERPETUATE THEIR SOCIAL AGENDAS.
Trump in office will set back only one thing- the death clock of the 1st World :wave2:
'Trump is going to set us back decades if not more'.
By what reasoning other than your butt hurt does that hold up?
Trump is the President-elect because the forgotten about people in America have had it with the Left fueling foreign interests and giving everyone else the shaft.
You know, it's easy to idealize a perfect future when one can't acknowledge reality beyond an offensive word outside of one's dorm room- we've been met with a generation of retards who don't know jack about anything, and liberals have given them full representation of their careless biases.
If it wasn't going to be Sanders, who's a full on hardcore socialist, it was going to be Hillary, a complete political schmuck that liberals only wanted in office to PERPETUATE THEIR SOCIAL AGENDAS.
Trump in office will set back only one thing- the death clock of the 1st World :wave2:
Well, if you say so, because that's the only way you're differentiating. Now to the fellow who came in first and second, it wouldn't seem so far afield.
Not really. I posted the central concerns of the founders a while back, noting a scholarly work on the point. Central to the concern was regionalism, which would be a natural consequence of a people divided by what was then a meaningful distance and the unfamiliarity that would bring. And the attitude toward campaigning and politics was far different. In any event, almost all of the initial concerns have been unraveled by technology and what we're left with is a process that from time to time puts a minority into a position of power it hasn't earned else.
An interesting notion. Maybe. Give a few examples.
Back to the immature yammering then. I won't bother to address it more.
I didn't, but what I'd say is that the question of the EC and presidential election doesn't have to be a referendum on that question. Rather, just as the House and Senate are the answers to the problem of representing population while not penalizing minorities, the presidency poses another question: by what measure should the head of the Republic be decided? Given we already have the House and the Senate, it seems a natural enough argument that the leader and representative of "We the people" should be popularly elected. And, in practical effect, that happens except for rare instance.
Except I'm no more liberal than your writing reflects consideration and maturity on the point.
Daniel1769
New member
People can't understand the electoral college because we have no separate states anymore. Nearly everything is federally regulated. Originally, the country was made up of separate states that ran their own affairs outside of a few items listed in the Constitution. Taxes from people on one side of the country were not intended to pay for a bridge on the other side of the country. The federal government was not meant to regulate everything. Very few things were intended to be handled by the federal government.
The states were meant to govern themselves for the most part. Under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the governors and state legislators would be much more important than the President in terms of the day to day lives of the people.
When you understand that the Constitution was meant to limit the size and power of the federal government so that each state could govern itself, it makes perfect sense that each state would vote for President, i.e. by the electoral college. But when you look at what we have today, a federal government that runs just about everything, it makes less sense. If my taxes are going to be used in California or Puerto Rico or Saudi Arabia or Israel, then it would make sense that I would have an equal vote not limited by the population of my state. If the federal government didn't do things like that, the electoral college would make perfect sense.
The so call "Constitutionalists" want to vote for President state by state, but be governed by one federal government. That doesn't make sense and it won't last.
For the record, I don't care if they use the electoral college or not, but I do see why people can't understand why we use it.
The states were meant to govern themselves for the most part. Under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, the governors and state legislators would be much more important than the President in terms of the day to day lives of the people.
When you understand that the Constitution was meant to limit the size and power of the federal government so that each state could govern itself, it makes perfect sense that each state would vote for President, i.e. by the electoral college. But when you look at what we have today, a federal government that runs just about everything, it makes less sense. If my taxes are going to be used in California or Puerto Rico or Saudi Arabia or Israel, then it would make sense that I would have an equal vote not limited by the population of my state. If the federal government didn't do things like that, the electoral college would make perfect sense.
The so call "Constitutionalists" want to vote for President state by state, but be governed by one federal government. That doesn't make sense and it won't last.
For the record, I don't care if they use the electoral college or not, but I do see why people can't understand why we use it.
Right Divider
Body part
Excellent post except for the last sentence. You explained why you think that it's important and then you don't care?
Daniel1769
New member
I see why the electoral college was set up, and I also see why some people don't understand it today. Important policies never change from one administration to the next so, no, I don't care how they pick the next President. Obama was basically Bush who was just an amped up version of Clinton, and so forth. Trump will be like Obama. It won't matter because his opponents will say he's awful, and his supporters will love him. But in reality, he will continue to print and spend money, run up the debt and inflation, take liberty from the people, keep the war machine rolling, etc. He will make no real difference, so I don't care how they pick the next one either.
Right Divider
Body part
So the bottom line is: The Electoral College is important, but you don't care.
Are you having a hard time keeping the difference between the process and the outcome distinct?
Daniel1769
New member
I wouldn't say it is important. It made sense when it was written. The electoral college, like the Presidential election itself, was entirely unimportant. No major policy changes are going to happen as a result of the Presidential election, therefore, it is not important. If you see some major change in policies like a major change to non-interventionist foreign policy, big spending cuts, a move back towards sound money, the elimination of entire federal agencies, etc. then let me know. Until then, the election was unimportant because it isn't going to change course on anything important. You'll get some superficial changes, and that's it. So I don't care which color tie the guy is wearing that "wins" the election or how they "elect" him.
Right Divider
Body part
So you're an "all or nothing" kind of guy. Go it.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
He doesn't have the experience needed to be a statesman.
Only the ones who are misogynists, xenophobes and racists. I don't know why you'd have a problem with that.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Are you kidding? The media carried his water from day one. He was viewers and clicks, baby, and he reaped millions in free publicity.
Do you have numbers for that? I'm not doubting you but I haven't seen numbers.
It's not the first time that's happened and it won't be the last, and they weren't by a lot.
If you can get those numbers, that would be great. I don't think Trump would have made it as far as he did if there hadn't been 17 GOP candidates in the primary. What you see as extraordinary I see as the result of various missteps by both the GOP and the Dems.
So you don't admire him for his qualities as a man, only because he upended the place?
Actually, no I don't.
Did you say similar when Obama won in 2008?
Right Divider
Body part
Yes, only corrupt career politicians are up to the task of that position.
The slander against the man is pretty amazing.
P.S. I'm not a Trump supporter but he is vastly better that that corrupt and criminal person that he was running against.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
The slander against the woman is pretty amazing.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Right Divider
Body part
The truth about her even MORE so.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
In one breath you decry the slander against Trump and in the next breath you slander Clinton. Interesting.
Right Divider
Body part
I was not slandering her. I was telling the truth about her.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
I'm telling the truth about Trump. See how that works?