There is no "Popular Vote" winner.

[ClimateSanity]

Since you readily admit he doesn't practice it, do you have evidence for your assertion?

He really admires the deplorables from red state land. Many of these people either have large families themselves or think it is a thing to aspire to. These people also abhor abortion and the celebration of homosexuality.
You tend to have very few large families with either one of those accepted and celebrated or taken as normal.

 

[Crucible]

Trump has been in a few marriages, big whoop. Liberals have sabotaged marriage, fatherhood, and otherwise the family unit- and they want to bring up Trump in his personal affairs :freak:

I get tired of their shameless hypocrisy, scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything they can slander someone with. They'll call this screen racist for being white if you had them all look at it long enough- I mean, these people are ridiculous.

Trump won, and good riddance to them making people's lives miserable simply because they can.

 

[Alate_One]

He really admires the deplorables from red state land. Many of these people either have large families themselves or think it is a thing to aspire to. These people also abhor abortion and the celebration of homosexuality.
You tend to have very few large families with either one of those accepted and celebrated or taken as normal.

So no evidence, just more assertions. You know Trump has said that Gay Marriage is "settled law", right?

 

[fool]

He's looking to remove himself from the Paris climate agreement and potentially leave or damage the UN. That's abdicating leadership.

That's leading in a different direction.

You've given the country a Demagogue, not a "strong leader".

Obama was the Demagogue. Trump is the one that says "We can't afford all this, we're too far in debt".
That's not appealing to the popular desires, that's tough love and pointing out we have alot of work to do.

 

[fool]

So no evidence, just more assertions. You know Trump has said that Gay Marriage is "settled law", right?

So you should be happy about him then right?
I don't think he's "pro Gay" but you could certainly say he's indifferent which is better than being anti gay.

 

[Crucible]

So you should be happy about him then right?
I don't think he's "pro Gay" but you could certainly say he's indifferent which is better than being anti gay.

Trump is indifferent about gay marriage, as should any president be at the current moment. What is more important- fixing the screwed up state of the country, or wasting time trying to overturn some microscopic percentage of marriages by people who are committing grave sin either way

And

Gay people have to work for a living to, and they aren't getting financial benefits or quotas for being gay, so why are they all going to vote Democrat? A lot of them recognized that they want to be financially secure rather than follow the so called 'gay rights' narrative- most of them don't even care about gay marriage, that's the damnable thing about all that nonsense from the get go.
A lot of them went to Trump rather than Hillary, having seen that the Democrats really have nothing to offer them.

 

[kmoney]

Turnout in this election wasn't especially low.

Many people in the USA don't participate in elections in general. The electoral college doesn't help matters either.

Isn't that part of fool's point? You can talk about Trump losing the popular vote but how people vote would probably be different under a system that uses the national popular vote. Clinton won the popular vote of those who decided to vote in in the election. If the winner was based on the national majority then participation would most likely be different. Polling could try to get at who would have won in that scenario. Maybe there are some polls out there already. :idunno:

What really changed was a lot of people voting third party, which is almost the same as not participating under a winner take all system.

I wish we could get some change in that.

 

[fool]

Trump is indifferent about gay marriage, as should any president be at the current moment. What is more important- fixing the screwed up state of the country, or wasting time trying to overturn some microscopic percentage of marriages by people who are committing grave sin either way

And

Gay people have to work for a living to, and they aren't getting financial benefits or quotas for being gay, so why are they all going to vote Democrat? A lot of them recognized that they want to be financially secure rather than follow the so called 'gay rights' narrative- most of them don't even care about gay marriage, that's the damnable thing about all that nonsense from the get go.
A lot of them went to Trump rather than Hillary, having seen that the Democrats really have nothing to offer them.

Interesting take, Identity Politics take a back seat when we're 20 Trillion in debt.

 

[kmoney]

No, the senate already takes into account the interests of the state.

That's the legislature, not the executive.

 

[fool]

I wish we could get some change in that.

That could start on the State Level.
Take Pennsylvania, could they split their Electoral votes?
Or Michigan? As a Red person from a state that hadn't gone red in six elections I would support a popular vote in each district so that some of my redness could have an impact the the national level.

 

[Crucible]

Interesting take, Identity Politics take a back seat when we're 20 Trillion in debt.

Apparently, Trump doesn't like identity politics- he plans on substantially limiting lobbying and keeping legislation from stagnating into such.

And I'm all for that- I think the government was built to discourage identity politics, but we've somehow managed to still fall deep into it.

 

[fool]

Apparently, Trump doesn't like identity politics- he plans on substantially limiting lobbying and keeping legislation from stagnating into such.

And I'm all for that- I think the government was built to discourage identity politics, but we've somehow managed to still fall deep into it.

I think all social issues are on hold for 8 years. Trump is about business, all business, all the time.

 

[Crucible]

I think all social issues are on hold for 8 years. Trump is about business, all business, all the time.

You mean, the way government is supposed to be :thumb:

Inner social issues need to be confined within the states- that's why we have them.

 

[fool]

You mean, the way government is supposed to be :thumb:

Well, that's how it's gonna be.....

Inner social issues need to be confined within the states- that's why we have them.

There's always that. People can tidy up their own house while Trump takes over the World.

 

[ok doser]

trump and putin

 

[Crucible]

trump and putin

Putin hates Hillary, I always enjoyed that fact for some reason :chuckle:

 

[kmoney]

That could start on the State Level.
Take Pennsylvania, could they split their Electoral votes?
Or Michigan? As a Red person from a state that hadn't gone red in six elections I would support a popular vote in each district so that some of my redness could have an impact the the national level.

Something like that might help prevent wasted votes due to our current EC system. But my post was mostly about how our winner-take-all elections lead to a two-party system. I'd like to move toward a system that makes third parties more viable.

 

[Alate_One]

Isn't that part of fool's point? You can talk about Trump losing the popular vote but how people vote would probably be different under a system that uses the national popular vote. Clinton won the popular vote of those who decided to vote in in the election. If the winner was based on the national majority then participation would most likely be different. Polling could try to get at who would have won in that scenario. Maybe there are some polls out there already. :idunno:

Most people don't understand how the electoral college works very well, so I doubt you'd get a lot of change in how people voted. Some, and maybe in a close election that would change things but in the popular vote we have, the election wasn't close.

 

[Alate_One]

That could start on the State Level.
Take Pennsylvania, could they split their Electoral votes?
Or Michigan? As a Red person from a state that hadn't gone red in six elections I would support a popular vote in each district so that some of my redness could have an impact the the national level.

Something like that might help prevent wasted votes due to our current EC system. But my post was mostly about how our winner-take-all elections lead to a two-party system. I'd like to move toward a system that makes third parties more viable.

The problem is the districts are gerrymandered. If you went with congressional districts you'd actually get a worse outcome than the current electoral college. That's a very bad idea for democracy.

 

[Alate_One]

That's the legislature, not the executive.

Last I checked we have three separate and supposedly equal branches of government. The senate has a tremendous amount of power and gives every state regardless of size equal representation. Why should we continue to bias our choice of president towards small states as well?