Clinton will win the popular vote

[AUUSN 823]

26 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

admit to you tonight. I can not read or comprehend. go find a butthurt picture to post.

Well it's good that you are able to recognize when you've become butthurt . ? 

[quietfan 233]

16 hours 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", ????

I am not lumping all Christians into one category.  I'm not even lumping all conservative or Pentecostal Christians into one category.  Rather I specifically gave a list of traits that more narrowly explained things I consider 'weird':  rejection of scientific evidence, belief in Bible literalness and inerrancy, discrimination against minorities, obsession with "End Times" philosophy, etc.  I find the traits I mentioned weird because, in my opinion, they do not seem to match the essential teachings of Christ as I see them.  I find it paradoxical that some can hold onto what seems like contradictory ideals...again, in my opinion.  However, I do not judge or condemn any person who feels this way and I respect the right of all to their own beliefs.

I know many fine Christians, including some who happily label themselves 'conservative' or 'Pentecostal'. I am a Christian myself, as I have admitted multiple times in the past on AUFamily boards, although I'm sure there are some who would argue with that because my faith isn't exactly identical to their personal definition of 'Christian'.  But how others label me neither concerns nor offends me.

My original point, of course, was that no one should discount the political voice of a group simply because one finds members of that group 'weird' or 'freaky'.  One cannot discount the votes in California because one chooses to label that state as the 'state of the weirdness and Hollywood freaks' anymore than I should discount a group of self-professed Christians because I find their beliefs strange.

The term 'Religious Right' is so commonly used in contemporary political discourse that I didn't realize it needed further clarification.  Sorry.

[RunInRed 16,407]

Hypothetical: Would you guys be OK with California succeeding from the Union?

[AURaptor 1,122]

8 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Hypothetical: Would you guys be OK with California succeeding from the Union?

No. We fought a war to preserve the union and I suspect we'd do it again. It'll never happen

[TexasTiger 12,837]

5 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

No. We fought a war to preserve the union and I suspect we'd do it again. It'll never happen

Why? Do you think the US waging war on CA would end well? 

[AURaptor 1,122]

12 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Why? Do you think the US waging war on CA would end well? 

I suspect it would cost many hundred of thousands of lives, and the destruction of property and crops. Much like the last time secession was tried. 

[TexasTiger 12,837]

2 hours ago, AURaptor said:

I suspect it would cost many hundred of thousands of lives, and the destruction of property and crops. Much like the last time secession was tried. 

And we just put the country back together again in 2017?

[TheBlueVue 177]

57 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Hypothetical: Would you guys be OK with California succeeding from the Union?

Of course but they aren't  going anywhere primarily because of their unsustainable debt which approaching $450 Billion. Cali cant even provide its own water.

http://uscommonsense.org/research/unsustainable-california-the-top-10-issues-facing-the-golden-state-wall-of-debt/

[TexasTiger 12,837]

3 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Of course but they aren't  going anywhere primarily because of their unsustainable debt which approaching $450 Billion. Cali cant even provide its own water.

http://uscommonsense.org/research/unsustainable-california-the-top-10-issues-facing-the-golden-state-wall-of-debt/

If we're calculating debt this way,

"The state has largely foregone infrastructure maintenance over the last half-decade, and as a result, California now requires an estimated $64.6 billion in maintenance costs to restore the quality of its infrastructure."

US debt is astronomical.

[TheBlueVue 177]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

If we're calculating debt this way,

"The state has largely foregone infrastructure maintenance over the last half-decade, and as a result, California now requires an estimated $64.6 billion in maintenance costs to restore the quality of its infrastructure."

US debt is astronomical.

Is there any other way? among other things they owe the federal govt almost $9 billion. Put a happy face on the likelihood of them stroking THAT check? LOL US debt being astronomical doesn't help Cali' in the least, in fact, it hurts their secessionist cause.

[TexasTiger 12,837]

2 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Is there any other way? among other things they owe the federal govt almost $9 billion. Put a happy face on the likelihood of them stroking THAT check? LOL

There's lots of ways. Most don't calculate debt on what infrastructure hasn't been done. Of course they pay far more to the Feds than they take, unlike most reliably red states.

[TheBlueVue 177]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

There's lots of ways. Most don't calculate debt on what infrastructure hasn't been done. Of course they pay far more to the Feds than they take, unlike most reliably red states.

They OWE the federal govt $8.8 billion and their state pension fund is so underfunded its ridiculous. The thread is about California seceding...get back to me when they've gained their independence a'ight?

[TexasTiger 12,837]

6 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

They OWE the federal govt $8.8 billion and their state pension fund is so underfunded its ridiculous. The thread is about California seceding...get back to me when they've gained their independence a'ight?

Would you care if they leave? Would you wage war to keep them? Is there a Constitutional basis to deny secession?

[TheBlueVue 177]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Would you care if they leave? Would you wage war to keep them? Is there a Constitutional basis to deny secession?

I would cheer if they left. California is 55 electoral votes that are guaranteed to go to the liberal ticket no matter who is on it. So I would cheer if they were allowed to leave but really there are 2 californias. Much like the US, over half the state area wise is conservative. They should break off the part that wants its independence and let it go.

To your question, I cant respond to the Constitutional challenge secessionists face but in this case it wont ever happen anyway, so, there's that. Libs are just pissed Trump won and most aren't handling losing well.

[AURaptor 1,122]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

And we just put the country back together again in 2017?

Huh? 

[SaltyTiger 7,794]

On 11/26/2016 at 0:04 PM, quietfan said:

I am not lumping all Christians into one category.  I'm not even lumping all conservative or Pentecostal Christians into one category.  Rather I specifically gave a list of traits that more narrowly explained things I consider 'weird':  rejection of scientific evidence, belief in Bible literalness and inerrancy, discrimination against minorities, obsession with "End Times" philosophy, etc.  I find the traits I mentioned weird because, in my opinion, they do not seem to match the essential teachings of Christ as I see them.  I find it paradoxical that some can hold onto what seems like contradictory ideals...again, in my opinion.  However, I do not judge or condemn any person who feels this way and I respect the right of all to their own beliefs.

I know many fine Christians, including some who happily label themselves 'conservative' or 'Pentecostal'. I am a Christian myself, as I have admitted multiple times in the past on AUFamily boards, although I'm sure there are some who would argue with that because my faith isn't exactly identical to their personal definition of 'Christian'.  But how others label me neither concerns nor offends me.

My original point, of course, was that no one should discount the political voice of a group simply because one finds members of that group 'weird' or 'freaky'.  One cannot discount the votes in California because one chooses to label that state as the 'state of the weirdness and Hollywood freaks' anymore than I should discount a group of self-professed Christians because I find their beliefs strange.

The term 'Religious Right' is so commonly used in contemporary political discourse that I didn't realize it needed further clarification.  Sorry.

No need for the sorry QF. i do think all true Christians are " one way" in the sense stated by Jesus  in the Book of John I think. BTW, if anyone ever ask where to start studying  the Bible I understand and believe that "John" is a great place to begin.

[RunInRed 16,407]

What about New York? Chicago? Philadelphia? Seattle? Boston? Las Vegas? Houston? Dallas? Austin? Phoenix? Miami? Should we let all these major cities secede too?  They all overwhelmingly vote Democratic.

[TexasTiger 12,837]

On 11/25/2016 at 11:10 AM, TexasTiger said:

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.

 

@TitanTiger, if you've previously addressed these arguments, please point me to them-- otherwise, I'd appreciate your thoughts .

[homersapien 11,367]

On 11/25/2016 at 9:39 PM, AURaptor said:

Absolutely . yes.

So just to confirm, you would re-institute slavery and remove the right of women to vote?  Plus, you would gladly exterminate indigenous people for the sake of 'lebensraum'?

[AURaptor 1,122]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

So just to confirm, you would re-institute slavery and remove the right of women to vote?  Plus, you would gladly exterminate indigenous people for the sake of 'lebensraum'?

Nonsense. No such thing. homer. You're being an ass.

 I was talking about the  electoral college. Deal w/ it. 

[homersapien 11,367]

19 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Nonsense. No such thing. homer. You're being an ass. I was talking about the  electoral college. Deal w/ it. 

Nice dodge weasel.

I am demonstrating how your statement that the founders are not only not "wise beyond our imagination" but actually made many mistakes, at least in terms of later times as we (hopefully) progressed.  So you deal with that.

And that's not being an "ass" -  that's proposing a perspective you hadn't considered.  

But keep revealing your insecurity and intellectual vacuity with personal insults.  

I like it.

[AURaptor 1,122]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Nice dodge weasel.

I am demonstrating how your statement that the founders are not only not "wise beyond our imagination" but actually made many mistakes, at least in terms of later times as we (hopefully) progressed.  So you deal with that.

And that's not being an "ass" -  that's proposing a perspective you hadn't considered.  

But keep revealing your insecurity and intellectual vacuity with personal insults.  

I like it.

You're .. challenged. I get that. I really do. No need for further demonstrations on your part. 

But lemmie explain for you in easy to read  words. 

Slavery - already existed in the COLONIES , before the revolution. And not just here, but in other places too.  ( Existed for 1000's of year, and still exists today in Africa ) 

Woman's Rights - non existent in the 1700's  

Treatment of the American Indians.  Yeah, got way worse AFTER the country was founded. No one is denying that.  But for the love of god, those have ZERO to do w/ the Electoral College, ( Yo, thanks Hamilton ) and creating the 

US Constitution 

Yes, the world in which the Founders lived ? ( Not of their creation )  Was much different than what we have today. And THANKS TO THEM, we have a Constitution which was truly revolutionary , at the time and is a great testament to how forward thinking were those ( * yes, White ) men who  gave rise to a nation. 

 

* I say this just to piss you and others off, because I know it bugs the hell out of you.    Get over it ! 

[homersapien 11,367]

6 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

You're .. challenged. I get that. I really do. But lemmie explain for you in easy to read  words. 

Slavery - already existed in the COLONIES , before the revolution. And not just here, but in other places too.  ( Existed for 1000's of year, and still exists today in Africa ) 

Woman's Rights - non existent in the 1700's  

Treatment of the American Indians.  Yeah, got way worse AFTER the country was founded. No one is denying that.  But for the love of god, those have ZERO to do w/ the Electoral College, ( Yo, thanks Hamilton ) and  the creating of the US Constitution 

Yes, the world in which the Founders lived ? ( Not of their creation )  Was much different than what we have today. And THANKS TO THEM, we have a Constitution which was truly revolutionary , at the time and is a great testament to how forward thinking those ( * yes, White ) men who  gave rise to a nation. 

 

* I say this just to piss you and others off, because I know it bugs the hell out of you.    Get over it ! 

Once again, the specific object of my post is regards to your statement that the founding founders were "wise beyond our comprehension".

So, are you saying they were infallible or what?  Furthermore, are you saying there wisdom was relevant to their times as you seem to imply?

These are simple straightforward questions. Can you provide simple straightforward responses?

[AURaptor 1,122]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Once again, the specific object of my post is regards to your statement that the founding founders were "wise beyond our comprehension". ( They were, w/ regards to the Electoral College ) 

So, are you saying they were infallible or what?  Furthermore, are you saying there wisdom was relevant to their times as you seem to imply?

These are simple straightforward questions. Can you provide simple straightforward responses?

Yeah, but the mere fact that you're asking them, even after I've explained to you about MY original remarks, shows you're still not comprehending much of anything. 

[TitanTiger 20,473]

On 11/25/2016 at 11:10 AM, TexasTiger said:

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.

I hardly think a state that went 62-33 for Clinton and hasn't gone for a Republican since the 1980s represents a "broader spectrum of thought and interests" than anyone else.  Perhaps if it was split up into 8 states and they weren't gerrymandered to make sure that each section retained a Democratic majority we could talk.  But that isn't happening.  The conservative areas of the state don't get much say because the coast dominates everything.

At least within the old Confederacy there's some movement.  Florida, Virginia and North Carolina are battleground states and all have gone for Democrats in recent elections.  Georgia was only a 6 point win for Republicans.  Even Texas was closer (9 points).  Democrats at least have a chance of peeling off anywhere from 13-57 EVs in the Old South.  They may never lose California's 55 EVs again.  That's a monolithic block guaranteed for Dems.

 

Quote

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.

And I'll counter with New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland.  Three fewer states, the exact same number of EVs and a 4.3 million vote advantage for Hillary.  Also states that "grossly distort" vote totals using your logic.

This is not an argument that works for ditching the EC.

 

Quote

The electoral college is easily manipulated.

As can be a popular vote.  In fact, it makes it even easier.  The amount of widespread manipulation that has to be coordinated across 51 separate elections vs just manipulating a few popular votes here and there makes pulling that off much harder under the EC.  

 

Quote

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.

 

And yet that has not been a widespread problem.  After all these years we still only have Nebraska and Maine splitting up their EVs.  Should it actually become a problem, we can address the standardization issue.  But the idea that the EC is somehow far more susceptible to manipulation than a popular vote doesn't hold water.