Trump Has A Mandate

[Town Heretic]

They had the odds at 98% Hillary to 2% Trump.

Who and when? Early on that feels low. Later, not so much.

I don't know what you call it when someone with a two percent chance wins, I call it a landslide.

A landslide is about results, not odds. But you should seriously consider applying for an editorial position at Fox News.

It looks like all those college students won't get their pHD in yoga - FOR FREE - so sad

They'd probably settle for being able to bankrupt student loan debt, the way Trump could use that court for his business debt.

 

[rocketman]

Same response. You're conflating the power of elected individuals with the election of them to power. At the foundation of our government is the principle of equality before the law and in right.

The "principle of equality before the law" already exists in the foundation of this government but, it just does not exist in a "majority rules" pure democracy form which you desire.

Telling people that if they live in a city their vote doesn't mean as much is a bad idea and contrary to that foundational principle.

Their vote does count towards the whole in that particular city, district, and state. Why you feel it is reasonable that one or two major metropolis' should dictate who should set policy for every city & state because the mob has ruled is contrary to the foundational principle.

 

[Town Heretic]

The "principle of equality before the law" already exists in the foundation of this government but, it just does not exist in a "majority rules" pure democracy form which you desire.

Rather, I advocate the end of the EC and the popular election of the president, who should reflect that "We the people". Beyond that, there's something funny about seeing the right argue for a position that allows the minority to control the majority.

Their vote does count towards the whole in that particular city, district, and state.

That's playing with language, given that voice is silenced before it can leave the state, in most cases.

Why you feel it is reasonable that one or two major metropolis'

That's your concentration, the importance of location. I'm not disparaging the urban or rural, only noting that neither should have a thing to do with the value of your vote.

should dictate who should set policy for every city & state because the mob has ruled is contrary to the foundational principle.

This mob rule business is simply a mirage distinction. You're no different on the point, only you want the smaller mob to have a shot at overturning the majority, something you'd vehemently resist when it gores your traditional ox.

 

[rocketman]

Rather, I advocate the end of the EC and the popular election of the president, who should reflect that "We the people". Beyond that, there's something funny about seeing the right argue for a position that allows the minority to control the majority.

The minority is the 20 states that Hillary won, to the majority which was 30 states that Trump won. We are electing the president of the "United States" not for a overwhelming majority that reside in one or two states. Even if you take the EC away and elect by majority of states she lost big time. It's not just "We The People", it is "We The People Of The United States" , which means every state gets equal voice even without the EC.

That's playing with language, given that voice is silenced before it can leave the state, in most cases.

No it is not, it is exactly what the design is, regional factions cannot dominate an entire nation, you have to sell it nationwide which make a lot more sense than mob rule, majority rule, pure democracy or whatever name tag you want to give it.

That's your concentration, the importance of location. I'm not disparaging the urban or rural, only noting that neither should have a thing to do with the value of your vote.

Not only do I disagree with you but, the framers did as well, one or two states with large populations do not make policy for an entire nation of states, nor is that equal representation for all states, some of which have smaller populations. It is the United States not the United State.

This mob rule business is simply a mirage distinction. You're no different on the point, only you want the smaller mob to have a shot at overturning the majority, something you'd vehemently resist when it gores your traditional ox.

Calling it mob rule, majority rule, pure democracy, etc is a distinction of a paradigm which this nation rejected at it's founding. Equal representation of all the people, in all the states was, and is the model that has been used since this nation's inception. Hillary won a minority of states, she could not sell it to the entire nation of states, it is as simple as that.

 

[Jose Fly]

There's this attitude that prevails among conservatives, that if you're poor, it's your fault, and you need to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps.

Recently I saw it phrased as something like....in just about all circumstances, the conservative economic philosophy is that the poor have too much, while the rich don't have enough.

 

[rocketman]

Recently I saw it phrased as something like....in just about all circumstances, the conservative economic philosophy is that the poor have too much, while the rich don't have enough.

Phrased by some marxist that believes that allocating others private property, and redistributing said property to others that do nothing for it but, vote for those redistributing it is the definition of equality no doubt. :down:

 

[Crucible]

I don't see any problem with that.

Of course you don't, because it comes from me.

I could post a penthouse and you'd say it's upper-middle.

That's the problem with American society.

 

[Alate_One]

Their vote does count towards the whole in that particular city, district, and state. Why you feel it is reasonable that one or two major metropolis' should dictate who should set policy for every city & state because the mob has ruled is contrary to the foundational principle.

The problem is the electoral college doesn't protect small states anyway.

 

[rexlunae]

Of course you don't, because it comes from me.

I could post a penthouse and you'd say it's upper-middle.

That's the problem with American society.

If you divide society into three classes, you have the rich, the poor, and the middle class. That doesn't count as rich, nor is it poor, so it's middle class. You can divide the middle class up further, but that still isn't "rich" in any meaningful way.

And I just don't see that level of home to be outside of what the average person should be able to attain by hard work.

Your man set up a fake university to bilk the desperate and deprived, frankly the kind of people who voted for him, of what little money they had. He has the ethics of a used car salesman who sweet talks you with promises he can finance you dreams. Meanwhile, he picks you pocket. That's your paladin.

 

[rocketman]

The problem is the electoral college doesn't protect small states anyway.

I disagree with this man & you that our constitutional system is flawed at all. Even the narrator admits that the scenarios he posits have NEVER happened. The system works just as designed by not allowing a majority vote in any geographic area (state) to destroy the republic of states even the rural ones who's electoral vote is very small. This video makes for great speculation without any facts of any actual problem...except to you liberals who seek to destroy the constitution.

 

[Crucible]

States have power, which can only be overridden by the Supreme Court.
That is why liberals have been running to the Supreme Court, because they don't care about the order of this country, they want to cram their crap down everyone's throat.

 

[Alate_One]

I disagree with this man & you that our constitutional system is flawed at all. Even the narrator admits that the scenarios he posits have NEVER happened. The system works just as designed by not allowing a majority vote in any geographic area (state) to destroy the republic of states even the rural ones who's electoral vote is very small. This video makes for great speculation without any facts of any actual problem...except to you liberals who seek to destroy the constitution.

It's not just speculation. Demographics mean cities are going to become a higher and higher percentage of the population, worldwide and especially in developed nations. Demographics are also shifting younger voters to be more diverse and more liberal. Eventually (and perhaps not as far in the future as we may think) we may eventually see the flipping of several states. Georgia and Arizona got close this time.

It's a bad system when you have to hope the unlikely events never happen. You don't know what will happen in the future. We saw a record number of electoral vote defections this year, in the future someone could figure out how to buy off electors and there wouldn't be anything you could do about it.

Your problem is twofold:
1. You like the system because it's giving you the result you want by overriding the majority of citizens of the united states. That's a bad reason to support any system.

2. You hold up the founding fathers as almost super human in designing our system of government. This is problematic because the founders were clearly flawed human beings who didn't respect the rights of many other human beings. We've also actually changed the constitution many times over the years when we decided it was broken. Change doesn't equal destroy, you do understand that right?

The electors used to be chosen by the state legislature. And it used to be the second place finisher in the electoral college became the vice president. Now we have a hybrid system that's almost the popular vote, but not really. We may as well stop the pretenses and make everything straightforward and fair.

 

[Crucible]

The EC maintains balance.

The Right has proven throughout history to react militantly more than the Left- the Alt Right is on a sharp rise in the UK because the Left went too far in it's extremities- things get chaotic really quickly when the Right feels they've been thrown under the bus.

Democracy is not some holy idea that fell out of the sky. It is overly venerated- undeservedly.
It's a system that has ultimately failed through history, and the Founding Fathers were aware of this.

 

[Town Heretic]

The minority is the 20 states that Hillary won,

Some narrowly, but that's still just land and distribution. Why states seem nearly sacrosanct to you and cities suspect is anyone's guess.

We are electing the president of the "United States"

If I tried that you'd call it a lawyer's attempt. The U.S. is how we note the union. The union is comprised of people who are in principle equals under the law. They should be equals in expression as well.

Even if you take the EC away and elect by majority of states she lost big time.

That's essentially restating the EC premise without calling it that, so...

It's not just "We The People", it is "We The People Of The United States", which means every state gets equal voice even without the EC.

That kind of convolution gave us money as speech. It's just wrong headed and contrary to the working principles of equality. And if it didn't work in your party's favor you wouldn't be making the argument.

No it is not, it is exactly what the design is, regional factions cannot dominate an entire nation

That wasn't the fear. The fear was that the union, a shaky new thing, would be nothing but regional division, with people separated by then substantial distances and differences couldn't come together to bind the nation to a leader. It made sense then. It hasn't for a long time.

you have to sell it nationwide which make a lot more sense than mob rule, majority rule, pure democracy or whatever name tag you want to give it.

Citizens from all over this country voted. Hillary wasn't ahead by a given region.

Not only do I disagree with you but, the framers did as well, one or two states with large populations do not make policy for an entire nation of states

I've spoken prior and a little above as to the concerns of the founders, though those founders got any number of things horribly wrong that called for eventual correction. They weren't prophets and the Constitution wasn't holy writ. And so, amendments.

, nor is that equal representation for all states, some of which have smaller populations. It is the United States not the United State.

And so the Senate and House of Representatives, fashioned to address the notion of equality among states and representation by population. The same consideration, I've argued, should be applied to the presidency.

Calling it mob rule, majority rule, pure democracy, etc is a distinction of a paradigm which this nation rejected at it's founding.

Except that it didn't. Majority rule exists in any election process, but in the case of the presidency we interject another level of interference that, from time to rare time, causes an outcome that has nothing to do with any expression of principle or meaning and the minority takes by that operation what it could not take at the ballot box.

 

[Crucible]

Liberals are the most crybaby people on this planet.

You lost, fair and square- get over it. Your recounting, inquiring the EC, moping and rioting- they show that they shouldn't even be allowed to run a government- what have liberals done to appeal to anyone that they are anything other than what conservatives have stated of them?

Just can it already. This country was built to discourage the votes of eccentric morons- your majority could easily be contributed to non-binary, femmy college student ya ya idiots.

There's more illegal immigrants in California than the majority in the popular vote- you all didn't really win anything, so just blow it out your rear already.

 

[kmoney]

Recently I saw it phrased as something like....in just about all circumstances, the conservative economic philosophy is that the poor have too much, while the rich don't have enough.

That doesn't seem like what rex said. His makes some sense. Yours just seems like irrational liberal rhetoric.

 

[rexlunae]

That doesn't seem like what rex said. His makes some sense. Yours just seems like irrational liberal rhetoric.

It isn't what I said, but it is a related idea, which I've posted in the past. I first heard it in a George Carlin act years ago.

 

[kmoney]

It isn't what I said, but it is a related idea, which I've posted in the past. I first heard it in a George Carlin act years ago.

Right, so it's good for a comedy act, not rational political discussion.

 

[rexlunae]

Democracy is not some holy idea that fell out of the sky. It is overly venerated- undeservedly.
It's a system that has ultimately failed through history, and the Founding Fathers were aware of this.

Nearly all republics had failed when the Founders were doing their thing. That didn't stop them from abolishing monarchy.

 

[rexlunae]

Right, so it's good for a comedy act, not rational political discussion.

I think it highlights a strange reality of conservative ideology. And it really is kinda true. How else can you explain a political ideology that claims to want to help the poor, gives money to the rich, and cuts benefits and raises taxes on the poor?