Clinton will win the popular vote

[TheBlueVue 177]

21 hours ago, homersapien said:

My point is that electing our president with a popular vote instead of the electoral college would not change that one iota.

Are you serious Clark? Dude, you're completely adrift and apparently don't know the difference between a pure democracy wherein the mob rules and a Constitutional republic of 50 states. SO, you're cool with the states' voice being completely shut down even though that was one of the fundamental tenets that won approval of our constitution? The founders didn't give a crap about the mob son. That had to agreeably assemble a collection of political entities(states)wherein all would agree they wouldn't be controlled by a select few. Everything you post screams that you prefer a top down dictatorial system.

Once again, an objection to history based purely on ignorance and you were the one who stated that was not permissible.

[TexasTiger 12,897]

48 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Are you serious Clark? Dude, you're completely adrift and apparently don't know the difference between a pure democracy wherein the mob rules and a Constitutional republic of 50 states. SO, you're cool with the states' voice being completely shut down even though that was one of the fundamental tenets that won approval of our constitution? The founders didn't give a crap about the mob son. That had to agreeably assemble a collection of political entities(states)wherein all would agree they wouldn't be controlled by a select few. Everything you post screams that you prefer a top down dictatorial system.

Once again, an objection to history based purely on ignorance and you were the one who stated that was not permissible.

OMG! Democracy is Mob rule!

[homersapien 11,379]

5 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

Are you serious Clark? Dude, you're completely adrift and apparently don't know the difference between a pure democracy wherein the mob rules and a Constitutional republic of 50 states. SO, you're cool with the states' voice being completely shut down even though that was one of the fundamental tenets that won approval of our constitution? The founders didn't give a crap about the mob son. That had to agreeably assemble a collection of political entities(states)wherein all would agree they wouldn't be controlled by a select few. Everything you post screams that you prefer a top down dictatorial system.

Once again, an objection to history based purely on ignorance and you were the one who stated that was not permissible.

That's insane, "dude".

Again, tell me how the electoral college - ordinary people whom we don't even know for the most part, prevent us from "mob rule". Are they selected for their higher education?  Their experience? Their age?  Their wisdom?

That's just nonsense.  It's nonsense for you to equate the majority with a "mob".  It's nonsense for you to equate the winner of the majority vote a dictator.  It's absurd. Bizarro world.

The states have an "equalizer" built in to our congress with the senate.  There's no need to allow a minority opinion dictate our national leader.

The electoral college is a vestige from a long gone era and it is totally irrelevant in todays world.

You might as well rant about how the founders didn't see blacks as real people or how they didn't feel that women deserved the vote.  That's part of "history" too, but it doesn't mean we are obligated to respect it. 

You are just flat out wrong in every respect.   

 

[homersapien 11,379]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

OMG! Democracy is Mob rule!

And the winner of the majority is a dictator!

Bizarro world.

 

[TheBlueVue 177]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

That's insane, "dude".

Again, tell me how the electoral college - ordinary people whom we don't even know for the most part, prevent us from "mob rule". Are they selected for their higher education?  Their experience? Their age?  Their wisdom?

That's just nonsense.  It's nonsense for you to equate the majority with a "mob".  It's nonsense for you to equate the winner of the majority vote a dictator.  It's absurd. Bizarro world.

The states have an "equalizer" built in to our congress with the senate.  There's no need to allow a minority opinion dictate our national leader.

The electoral college is a vestige from a long gone era and it is totally irrelevant in today world.

You might as well rant about how the founders didn't see blacks as real people or how they didn't feel that women deserved the vote.  That's part of "history" too, but it doesn't mean we are obligated to respect it. 

You are just flat out wrong in every respect.   

 

Both you AND Tex haven't a single idea what considerations the founders entertained in setting up our Constitutional Republic. James Madison who had major input its creation said this about democracies.

[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths

Even Hamilton agreed...

The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system . . . which has escaped without severe censure. . . . I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent...[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity.

What about JOhn Adams you ask..

[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Or George Mason

Notwithstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy, the genius of the people must be consulted.

Both of you morons need to read a little history before showing how devoted you are to a certain ideology that you'd favor tyranny over liberty. just to have it your way.

 

---

.

[homersapien 11,379]

6 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Both you AND Tex haven't a single idea what considerations the founders entertained in setting up our Constitutional Republic. James Madison who had major input its creation said this about democracies.

[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths

Even Hamilton agreed...

The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system . . . which has escaped without severe censure. . . . I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent...[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity.

What about JOhn Adams you ask..

[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Or George Mason

Notwithstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy, the genius of the people must be consulted.

Both of you morons need to read a little history before showing how devoted you are to a certain ideology that you'd favor tyranny over liberty. just to have it your way.

 

---

.

Again, tell us what they said about slavery and women's suffrage. Should we be bound by that?

And your last sentence just proves your basis for this debate.  This has nothing to do with ideology. It has everything to do with a rational system of government.  Not rational by 1780 standards, rational by today's standards.

[homersapien 11,379]

Oh I am still waiting on your comments as to how the electoral college is wiser than everyone else.

Isn't that a prerequisite for your position to make the slightest bit of sense?

[TexasTiger 12,897]

35 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Both you AND Tex haven't a single idea what considerations the founders entertained in setting up our Constitutional Republic. James Madison who had major input its creation said this about democracies.

[In a pure democracy], [a] common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths

Even Hamilton agreed...

The mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system . . . which has escaped without severe censure. . . . I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent...[t]he ancient democracies, in which the people themselves deliberated, never possessed one feature of good government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure, deformity.

What about JOhn Adams you ask..

[D]emocracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Or George Mason

Notwithstanding the oppressions & injustice experienced among us from democracy, the genius of the people must be consulted.

Both of you morons need to read a little history before showing how devoted you are to a certain ideology that you'd favor tyranny over liberty. just to have it your way.

 

---

.

I've read more history than you ever will. You don't even understand what you've quoted.

[homersapien 11,379]

Still waiting an on explanation of exactly how the electoral college protects us from "mob rule".

If that's the function explain how it works.

Did you have the names of the electors on your ballet?  Can you name even one of your electors without researching it?

How do they know who represents the "mob" and who doesn't and what can they do about it?

If they are protecting our democracy from the "mob", I'd like to know how that works.

[homersapien 11,379]

4 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

Both of you morons need to read a little history before showing how devoted you are to a certain ideology that you'd favor tyranny over liberty. just to have it your way.

God but I love self-parody!   

What gibberish.

[homersapien 11,379]

I'll be damned Blue, but it looks like at least one of your electors really is trying to protect us from "mob rule"!

 

GOP member of the Electoral College: I won’t back Trump; he’s “not qualified for the office”

A Republican elector from Texas announced Monday that he would refuse to cast his Electoral College vote for Donald Trump.

Christopher Suprun, a paramedic from Texas, wrote in a New York Times op-ed that he could not support “someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.” He continues: “Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again.”

 

Read the full article at: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/5/13848846/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors

[AURaptor 1,125]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I'll be damned Blue, but it looks like at least one of your electors really is trying to protect us from "mob rule"!

 

GOP member of the Electoral College: I won’t back Trump; he’s “not qualified for the office”

A Republican elector from Texas announced Monday that he would refuse to cast his Electoral College vote for Donald Trump.

Christopher Suprun, a paramedic from Texas, wrote in a New York Times op-ed that he could not support “someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.” He continues: “Fifteen years ago, I swore an oath to defend my country and Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On Dec. 19, I will do it again.”

 

Read the full article at: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/5/13848846/electoral-college-trump-hamilton-electors

C'mon Homer, get those hopes up !! It COULD happen !! Hillary can STILL win !!

Say it with me... ' Madame President !!!! ' 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,379]

10 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

C'mon Homer, get those hopes up !! It COULD happen !! Hillary can STILL win !!

Say it with me... ' Madame President !!!! ' 

Actually, I'd be fine with John Kasich or any other Republican who is not a lunatic for that matter.  

(Sorry but that rules your guy - the ever popular Ted Cruz - out.)  

[AURaptor 1,125]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

30 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

C'mon Homer, get those hopes up !! It COULD happen !! Hillary can STILL win !!

Say it with me... ' Madame President !!!! ' 

Actually, I'd be fine with John Kasich or any other Republican who is not a lunatic for that matter.  

(Sorry but that rules your guy - the ever popular Ted Cruz - out.)  

Ted was my guy. He finished 2nd in the GOP primary.  

But Trump won the general election, and will be President. Me ? I'm perfectly fine with that, because Hillary lost. 

But homie... 

 

 

 

 !!!! 

[TheBlueVue 177]

On 12/5/2016 at 9:14 AM, homersapien said:

Oh I am still waiting on your comments as to how the electoral college is wiser than everyone else.

Isn't that a prerequisite for your position to make the slightest bit of sense?

It has nothing to do with wisdom and everything to do with the prevention of a FEW heavily populated states like California which, incidentally, is  a cultural and political outlier that voted at one extreme of the political spectrum from imposing imperial rule. Running up the score in heavily populated ultra liberal states like NY, Illinois and Cali is not tantamount to winning the popular vote because there are 47 other states that have a say in the matter. This debate is a waste of time. Your nominee lost according to the rules that she completely aware of and agreed to play by and who also made a huge deal about the importance of accepting the results of the process being the "cornerstone of democracy and the peaceful transition of power" and the mere idea of not accepting the results was "horrifying" to consider. Here we are 3 weeks later and you and many other liberal whiners have not accepted the election results and have continued to carp about the popular vote which isn't a relevant metric in Presidential elections and whining about changing the Electoral College.. Even Time magazine says democrats should refuse to pay their taxes until our "democracy is restored."The problem with that mindless propaganda is America was never conceived to be nor intended to be a democracy.

Trump won.....NEXT

[homersapien 11,379]

6 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Ted was my guy. He finished 2nd in the GOP primary.  

But Trump won the general election, and will be President. Me ? I'm perfectly fine with that, because Hillary lost. 

Trump is actually better than Cruz in my mind.  

Much more efficient if, like me, you are counting on the blowback effect politically.

(BTW, if it matters, I never click on videos.  Your words are diversionary enough.)

[homersapien 11,379]

4 hours ago, TheBlueVue said:

It has nothing to do with wisdom and everything to do with the prevention of a FEW heavily populated states like California which, incidentally, is  a cultural and political outlier that voted at one extreme of the political spectrum from imposing imperial rule. Running up the score in heavily populated ultra liberal states like NY, Illinois and Cali is not tantamount to winning the popular vote because there are 47 other states that have a say in the matter. This debate is a waste of time. Your nominee lost according to the rules that she completely aware of and agreed to play by and who also made a huge deal about the importance of accepting the results of the process being the "cornerstone of democracy and the peaceful transition of power" and the mere idea of not accepting the results was "horrifying" to consider. Here we are 3 weeks later and you and many other liberal whiners have not accepted the election results and have continued to carp about the popular vote which isn't a relevant metric in Presidential elections and whining about changing the Electoral College.. Even Time magazine says democrats should refuse to pay their taxes until our "democracy is restored."The problem with that mindless propaganda is America was never conceived to be nor intended to be a democracy.

Trump won.....NEXT

So, in other words, the electoral college is working for your party so don't dare change it.  Change the subject and Blah, blah blah.  

What a cop out.   

I was really looking forward to you advancing your theory about how the electoral college prevents "mob rule" (whatever that is in this day and age).

I thought this was a debate on the your proclaimed democratic "necessity" of the electoral college, as proscribed by the founders.  

It doesn't appear you are up to defending that thesis beyond the simple assertion.  To be honest, I didn't expect so, which is why I keep pushing you.

[Mikey 16,605]

I'm pretty sure the Washington Post didn't intend for somebody to use their data for this point but: There are 3,143 counties and county equivalents (Parrish, etc) in the US. According to The Post, Clinton carried "less than 500" of them. Lets be nice and say Clinton carried 499, leaving Trump with 2,644. Trump carried 84% of the counties in the United States! According to other data, Clinton won the popular vote by 2 million, nationwide. Clinton had a 3.7 million vote majority in California. That means Trump carried the rest of the nation, even with New York included, by 1.7 million votes.

The Electoral College did exactly what it was intended to do, it prevented a couple of huge states from dictating to the vast majority of the nation. Long live the EC!

 

[TexasTiger 12,897]

12 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I'm pretty sure the Washington Post didn't intend for somebody to use their data for this point but: There are 3,143 counties and county equivalents (Parrish, etc) in the US. According to The Post, Clinton carried "less than 500" of them. Lets be nice and say Clinton carried 499, leaving Trump with 2,644. Trump carried 84% of the counties in the United States! According to other data, Clinton won the popular vote by 2 million, nationwide. Clinton had a 3.7 million vote majority in California. That means Trump carried the rest of the nation, even with New York included, by 1.7 million votes.

The Electoral College did exactly what it was intended to do, it prevented a couple of huge states from dictating to the vast majority of the nation. Long live the EC!

 

That wasn't what it was intended to do. It was intended to allow more enlightened electors to circumvent the selection of an unqualified candidate like Trump by the ignorant masses. It clearly failed.

Clinton is currently up by 2 full percentage points and about 2.6 million votes. You view CA as one state, but it makes up most of the west coast-- there are about 7-8 states below the same latitude line on the east coast. It's ridiculous for you guys to keep dismissing votes that occurred in CA because it encompasses Clintons lead-- the difference in population is huge! CA has more than twice the people as NY. In stead of viewing it as one place, it's the equivalent of a region of 39 million folks-- it's like carrying the Midwest or South. When an equivalent region comprises the difference in the popular vote it's not dismissed.

[TheBlueVue 177]

34 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I'm pretty sure the Washington Post didn't intend for somebody to use their data for this point but: There are 3,143 counties and county equivalents (Parrish, etc) in the US. According to The Post, Clinton carried "less than 500" of them. Lets be nice and say Clinton carried 499, leaving Trump with 2,644. Trump carried 84% of the counties in the United States! According to other data, Clinton won the popular vote by 2 million, nationwide. Clinton had a 3.7 million vote majority in California. That means Trump carried the rest of the nation, even with New York included, by 1.7 million votes.

The Electoral College did exactly what it was intended to do, it prevented a couple of huge states from dictating to the vast majority of the nation. Long live the EC!

 

homie AND Tex see one thing...their nominee lost and she lost not because she is arguably the worst candidate in the history of Presidential politics but because of the Electoral college. Well, being willfully obtuse and ignoring the lessons of history is evidently a requisite of being a democrat.

"According to 2013 census data, nine states -- California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia and Michigan -- have populations that total roughly 160 million, slightly more than half the U.S. population. It is conceivable that just nine states could determine the presidency in a popular vote. The Electoral College gives states with small populations a measure of protection against domination by states with large populations. It levels the political playing field a bit.

The Founding Fathers held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison wrote, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams predicted, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Edmund Randolph said, "That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

MAJORITY RULES = TYRANNY

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2016/12/07/majority-rule-equals-tyranny-n2255226

 

[TexasTiger 12,897]

8 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

homie AND Tex see one thing...their nominee lost and she lost not because she is arguably the worst candidate in the history of Presidential politics but because of the Electoral college. Well, being willfully obtuse and ignoring the lessons of history is evidently a requisite of being a democrat.

"According to 2013 census data, nine states -- California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia and Michigan -- have populations that total roughly 160 million, slightly more than half the U.S. population. It is conceivable that just nine states could determine the presidency in a popular vote. The Electoral College gives states with small populations a measure of protection against domination by states with large populations. It levels the political playing field a bit.

The Founding Fathers held a deep abhorrence for democracy and majority rule. In fact, the word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison wrote, "Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." John Adams predicted, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Edmund Randolph said, "That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

MAJORITY RULES = TYRANNY

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2016/12/07/majority-rule-equals-tyranny-n2255226

 

When the Supreme Court protects against the tyranny of the majority, the same folks who've rediscovered their love of the EC complain it's thwarting popular will. Most of you guys don't give a damn about the rights of the minority unless you are in it.

[homersapien 11,379]

30 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

MAJORITY RULES = TYRANNY

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2016/12/07/majority-rule-equals-tyranny-n2255226

 

This is complete BS.  You can make no intellectual case for declaring majority rule is tyranny.  Just the opposite - it's fundamentally non-democratic.

TT is right.  The electoral college was designed as a buffer to prevent an ignorant an uneducated general electorate from electing a demagogue. That might have been useful then, but it is irrelevant now.

Electoral college members are drawn from the same population as the general electorate. They are no more educated or informed than the general electorate. You don't even know their names because you vote directly for the nominee of your choice.  The college is nothing more than a vestigial formality.

You refuse to admit this because it is you who is approaching this from a short term partisan view.

This is not about Clinton. I have already stipulated she has lost.  This is about future elections.  It's stupid and undemocratic to sustain a system that doesn't allow the candidate with the most votes to win.  

 

[TheBlueVue 177]

44 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

When the Supreme Court protects against the tyranny of the majority, the same folks who've rediscovered their love of the EC complain it's thwarting popular will. Most of you guys don't give a damn about the rights of the minority unless you are in it.

Supreme Court Justices are UNELECTED appointed officials...yet another unfounded assertion that you are famous for And BTW, its hilarious seeing you and homie talking about Hilary having won the majority of the popular vote....she DIDN'T she won a plurality NOT a majority. And, its quite funny how you and homie have qualified the intentions of the founders as protecting an ignorant electorate from electing a demagogue. Well, in this case, it simply served to protect an ignorant electorate from electing the most egregious kleptocrat in American history so it served ALL of us well! LOL

[TexasTiger 12,897]

2 minutes ago, TheBlueVue said:

Supreme Court Justices are UNELECTED appointed officials...yet another unfounded assertion that you are famous for And BTW, its hilarious seeing you and homie talking about Hilary having won the majority of the popular vote....she DIDN'T she won a plurality NOT a majority. And, its quite funny how you and homie have qualified the intentions of the founders as protecting an ignorant electorate from electing a demagogue. Well, in this case, it simply served to protect an ignorant electorate from electing the most egregious kleptocrat in American history so it served ALL of us well! LOL

Where did I say she won the majority?

in regard to the EC, read more history. You say it protects against mob rule? How is it supposed to do that? Doesn't that suppose the masses can't be trusted?

[TheBlueVue 177]

16 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Where did I say she won the majority?

in regard to the EC, read more history. You say it protects against mob rule? How is it supposed to do that? Doesn't that suppose the masses can't be trusted?

Mob rule, in this case, is a euphemism for preventing a small number of heavily populated urban areas impose imperial rule on the rest of the country. At the time of  the Constitutional Convention, Philadelphia, New York and Boston had the numbers to dictate EVERYTHING to the remaining colonies. The founders knew that because they were incessantly reminded by those who wouldn't sign off on ANY Constitutional documents that didn't create a pathway to levelling the playing field.

In this election, specifically, Clinton won 18% of the counties. Its not that counties have any role in the equation but the population of those counties are OBVIOUSLY the most heavily populated areas in the country. The EC worked exactly as intended by not allowing 18% of the county populations impose their will on the other 82%. That you and homie categorically refuse to see or hear that doesn't make a nickel's worth of difference to ANYBODY but you. LOL