TexasTiger 12,811 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 On 11/23/2016 at 7:20 PM, TheBlueVue said: simple majorities = mob rule. This election proves the genius of the founders. They devised a system that prevents the major population centers from having undue influence in national elections and for that they get nothing but bitching and whining from those whose campaign didn't win the states they needed to get over the hump. Oh well, no way to make everybody happy. All 50 states and every ally is run by mob rule. Amazing they survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 8 hours ago, homersapien said: They certainly were when it came to black people, native Americans and women. Do you think THAT was "wise beyond our comprehension"? Non sequitur ordinarily, I WOULD go into the details of how and why the US Constitution was truly a revolutionary form of govt, unseen by human history before, when it comes to how those governed have a say in determining those who run govt. No longer are kings and queens installed into office... but never mind all that. It's above you to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,471 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 11 hours ago, TexasTiger said: Well, you don't really understand it. I understand it perfectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,811 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 31 minutes ago, TitanTiger said: I understand it perfectly. What are it's flaws and risks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,811 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 2 hours ago, AURaptor said: Non sequitur ordinarily, I WOULD go into the details of how and why the US Constitution was truly a revolutionary form of govt, unseen by human history before, when it comes to how those governed have a say in determining those who run govt. No longer are kings and queens installed into office... but never mind all that. It's above you to follow. And you just supported the most autocratic candidate ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,471 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 3 minutes ago, TexasTiger said: What are it's flaws and risks? You want to rehash this again? Hasn't everyone put out there all the perceived problems and advantages by now? Because I don't see the point anymore. I've heard all the reasons you and others don't like it or would like it altered or discarded. I've given all the reasons I think it is still a good thing and guards against domination by a small handful of major media markets and population centers. What else is there to be learned? Hell, if you can't look at the fact that California alone gives Clinton a 3.7 million advantage, but the rest of the other 49 states plus DC voted Trump by 1.7 million votes and see the dangers of ditching it, I'm not sure what else to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,811 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 2 hours ago, TitanTiger said: You want to rehash this again? Hasn't everyone put out there all the perceived problems and advantages by now? Because I don't see the point anymore. I've heard all the reasons you and others don't like it or would like it altered or discarded. I've given all the reasons I think it is still a good thing and guards against domination by a small handful of major media markets and population centers. What else is there to be learned? Hell, if you can't look at the fact that California alone gives Clinton a 3.7 million advantage, but the rest of the other 49 states plus DC voted Trump by 1.7 million votes and see the dangers of ditching it, I'm not sure what else to say. What if CA was 8 states? The borders drawn at a state's inception were often somewhat arbitrary. CA is a region and the worlds 6th largest economy. Frankly, it represents a broader spectrum of thought and interests than several of the core states that make up the old Confederacy and vote and think overwhelmingly alike. Take Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, Kentucky and Texas and they alone give Trump almost a 4 million vote advantage. Those states grossly distort vote totals by voting for the Republican in about the same percentage as CA voted for the Democrat this time. They certainly represent a "faction" like the one the Electoral College was intended to prevent. The old Confederacy has largely voted as a factional block since after reconstruction. The "just look at California" argument is pretty simplistic and biased. Swap California for the Old Confederacy and Hillary is still ahead. You're from Alabama so you like to think its really different than Mississippi, but the reality is they are far more alike than different. And that is true for the region. The electoral college is easily manipulated. States can decide if they are all or nothing or proportional. There is no standardization. A couple of years ago the Koch-bought legislature in Michigan wanted to change to a proportional distribution of electors, thinking it would help Republicans since the state had been reliably blue. There was talk amongst some Republicans of having other states that typically vote blue in presidential races assign electors proportionally, but keeping them all or nothing in states that reliably vote Republican. Having different rules in different states makes it easy to totally distort the results of an election. If the South was all or nothing and several states in the Midwest assigned electors proportionally, you could have a grossly distorted outcome. There is nothing in the current system to prevent a single state from making that decision in a way that could tip the result of who is President. If there were hacking of computer systems, it would only take a relative handful of results in a few counties of a few states to tip the result. Also, the electoral college was designed to prevent someone manifestly unqualified to be chosen as the electors were supposed to use their supposedly superior judgement to prevent that. Now, many states have crafted laws to prevent and even disqualify "faithless" electors. Again, individual states have thwarted the original intention of the founding fathers. I don't think you've really addressed any of these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 & the long winded pretzel logic some are going to in order to push to replacing the electoral college Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,811 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 19 minutes ago, AURaptor said: & the long winded pretzel logic some are going to in order to push to replacing the electoral college Adults are trying to have a conversation that's over your head. Go back to kiddie table and finish off your turkey leftovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Just now, TexasTiger said: Adults are trying to have a conversation that's over your head. Go back to kiddie table and finish off your turkey leftovers. Is this what a landslide looks like? !!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,354 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 5 hours ago, AURaptor said: Non sequitur ordinarily, I WOULD go into the details of how and why the US Constitution was truly a revolutionary form of govt, unseen by human history before, when it comes to how those governed have a say in determining those who run govt. No longer are kings and queens installed into office... but never mind all that. It's above you to follow. You didn't answer the question. And my post most certainly was not a "non sequitur". You implied that everything the founders did was "wise beyond our comprehension". My post was a direct challenge to that, so it's obviously not a non sequitur. Do I need to explain this again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,811 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 22 minutes ago, homersapien said: You didn't answer the question. And my post most certainly was not a "non sequitur". You implied that everything the founders did was "wise beyond our comprehension". My post was a direct challenge to that, so it's obviously not a non sequitur. Do I need to explain this again? Most things are beyond his comprehension so he gets confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 4 hours ago, TitanTiger said: ll, if you can't look at the fact that California alone gives Clinton a 3.7 million advantage, but the rest of the other 49 states plus DC voted Trump by 1.7 million votes and see the dangers of ditching it, I'm not sure what else to say. And I'm not sure why I'm saying this twice: It's also a fact that Texas alone gave Trump 38 electoral college votes that pushed him over the top. But we are the United States of America and no one state can be excluded because we don't like the results from that state. We cannot exclude or devalue the votes, popular or Electoral, of any state in the Union. "California alone" or " Texas alone" is the wrong way to look at it. Trump won the Electoral College vote (assuming the Electors stick to their pre-election commitments when they actually cast their votes on December 19th) and is therefore the legitimate, Constitutionally-chosen next President of the United States. Clinton got more popular votes, which means Trump was not the first choice of most of the people in the United States. If we want to change the system, the Constitution also gives us a way to do that. It just takes 2/3rds of Congress (or a Constitutional Convention) and 3/4ths of the state legislatures (or the conventions thereof). Debating whether the system should be changed is a perfectly legitimate topic for discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,764 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 19 hours ago, quietfan said: Understand that just because I find something weird doesn't mean I expect others to agree with me. But I was of course speaking of the Christian Religious Right in this country: conservative or Pentecostal Christians who reject evolution or science in general, accept their particular interpretation of the Bible as the literal, inerrant and only truth, want to discriminate against Muslims or homosexuals, seem more obsessed with 'End Times' than working to help others in the immediate present, or somehow look at Donald Trump as an agent of God. I actually had an acquaintance post on Facebook this morning that the only 'news' she follows is what she hears on Jim Bakker's broadcasts. To me, that's weird. But I tolerate their right to their beliefs, and I think their vote counts just as much as mine. (For what it's worth, some other religious sects also seem weird to me...but I respect the right of members of those groups to believe as they choose as well.) . What is a " Christian Religious Right "? Say what you mean. If you mean some television evangelist then say so. I find you closed minded in lumping Christians into one category. Christians do believe in one way - I do. Do 99.9% of us discriminate against Muslims and homosexuals. Absolutely not. " End of Times", " agent of God ", " Jim Bakker", ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 37 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said: . What is a " Christian Religious Right "? Say what you mean. If you mean some television evangelist then say so. I find you closed minded in lumping Christians into one category. Christians do believe in one way - I do. Do 99.9% of us discriminate against Muslims and homosexuals. Absolutely not. " End of Times", " agent of God ", " Jim Bakker", ???? It's as if you didn't read his post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,764 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 54 minutes ago, AUUSN said: It's as if you didn't read his post. read his shotgun definition Gilligan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 7 hours ago, homersapien said: You didn't answer the question. And my post most certainly was not a "non sequitur". You implied that everything the founders did was "wise beyond our comprehension". My post was a direct challenge to that, so it's obviously not a non sequitur. Do I need to explain this again? I stated ( not implied ) that the Founders ( Hamilton ) device of the Electoral College was indeed - wise beyond OUR comprehension ) is completely valid You have ZERO challenge to that, what so ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,354 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 8 hours ago, AURaptor said: Is this what a landslide looks like? Now, that's a non sequitur! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,354 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 12 minutes ago, AURaptor said: I stated ( not implied ) that the Founders ( Hamilton ) device of the Electoral College was indeed - wise beyond OUR comprehension ) is completely valid You have ZERO challenge to that, what so ever Still haven't answered the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 7 minutes ago, homersapien said: Still haven't answered the question. I have. And the real answer was given by the people on Nov. 8th Still, you are annoyed. I care not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 24 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said: read his shotgun definition Gilligan. It's cool. There are people who aren't skilled at reading comprehension. Good thing you can fish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,764 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 2 minutes ago, AUUSN said: It's cool. There are people who aren't skilled at reading comprehension. Good thing you can fish... admit to you tonight. I can not read or comprehend. go find a butthurt picture to post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never2Yield 1,005 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 2 minutes ago, AUUSN said: It's cool. There are people who aren't skilled at reading comprehension. Good thing you can fish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,354 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 1 minute ago, AURaptor said: I have. And the real answer was given by the people on Nov. 8th Still, you are annoyed. I care not. Stop lying and answer the question: Were the founder's positions on slavery, women, and native Americans unimaginably wise? Are they relevant to modern values? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Just now, homersapien said: Stop lying and answer the question: Were the founder's positions on slavery, women, and native Americans unimaginably wise? Are they relevant to modern values? Absolutely . yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.