Say What? DNC Never Let DHS Look at the Email Server???

[augolf1716 21,221]

11 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump clearly ran on a different agenda 

what agenda did he run on not trying to be smarty pants and what did HRC run on 

[TexasTiger 12,961]

10 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

what agenda did he run on not trying to be smarty pants and what did HRC run on 

Neither ran on a typical Republican agenda.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, augolf1716 said:

Not a Trump fan but everyone will have to deal with him for 3 plus years more. At least

No, at most.

[homersapien 11,393]

50 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

what agenda did he run on not trying to be smarty pants and what did HRC run on 

wtf does that mean? 

[PUB78 1,358]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Talking about what they stand for. 

Such as?

[homersapien 11,393]

5 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Yeah.  Just because you can run up the score in one or two states doesn't mean you're a viable candidate with broad appeal.  It's one of the things the EC was designed to avoid - one or two huge states in population essentially deciding every election. It would be one thing if she won by 3 million votes and it was spread across a great number of states.  But when one state accounts for the entire difference in popular vote (CA), it doesn't really have the same impact as an argument. 

BS.  Three million votes is 3 million votes.  

It doesn't matter where they came from.

And there's nothing wrong with a "one or two huge states essentially deciding any election".  This is a false premise barely removed with discounting the votes of women or black people.  It has xenophobic overtones.

The issue of minority participation in government is adequately addressed by the senate allocation.  

The electoral college is obsolete - no different that several other original constitutional provisions regarding the right to vote.

We need to change it just like we changed those outmoded restrictions.  One citizen, one vote.

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,961]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

Such as?

You tell me.

This is an illustration of my point:

 

 

Bill Kristol @BillKristol

 

Ludicrous. "Dump Heller!--because he deserted Trump by refusing to vote for a variant of a health care bill that Trump himself called mean?"

Robert Costa @costareportsTrump allies preparing an all-out assault on Rs who break on health care. Katie Walsh, on rec, says her super PAC plans 7-fig buy in Nev...

4:55 PM · Jun 23, 2017

228 Retweets

557 Likes

[bigbird 60,571]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

wtf does that mean? 

HTF, is that ambiguous?

[I_M4_AU 7,865]

Reading this thread shows a gradual acceptance of Trump's victory.  If you follow the SARA model, (Shock, Anger, Rejection [or in this case Resistance] Acceptance) the left leaning posters are accepting Trump's victory, albeit, in a back handed way.  They really sound like a Bama fan when they lose a game, "Trump didn't win, HRC gave it away".  Kind of sad, really.  http://zengerfolkman.com/meet-sara-our-emotional-response-to-bad-news/

Part of that acceptance appears to be that it really wasn't the Russians that influenced the election, it was HRC's fault.  Is that correct, or did I have a leap in logic along the way?

A lot of people in this great nation of ours have felt the Shock, Anger and Rejection and then start over again with Shock and never get to the Acceptance part.  Once you get to the Acceptance part, that is when real changes can be made, alas, some people will never get there and be angry for the next four years or so.

Quoting one of our great modern day philosophers, Jimmy Buffet, "Breathe in, Breathe out, Move on".

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

12 hours ago, augolf1716 said:

Not a Trump fan but everyone will have to deal with him for 3 plus years more. At least

Unless the IC sees to it that he is impeached or imprisoned. 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

14 hours ago, homersapien said:

BS.  Three million votes is 3 million votes.  

It doesn't matter where they came from.

And there's nothing wrong with a "one or two huge states essentially deciding any election".  This is a false premise barely removed with discounting the votes of women or black people.  It has xenophobic overtones.

The issue of minority participation in government is adequately addressed by the senate allocation.  

The electoral college is obsolete - no different that several other original constitutional provisions regarding the right to vote.

We need to change it just like we changed those outmoded restrictions.  One citizen, one vote.

BS backatcha. I'm sure if it were Alabama and Mississippi that had a population the size of California (and they had their same political leanings as now), you wouldn't be nearly so eager to allow them to have so much sway in elections.

And lose the accusations of xenophobia, sexism and what ever other ism you use to tilt the argument emotionally.

It's not perfect, but it's a good system as it is.  At most I'd change the winner take all method to one where a candidate wins EVs by congressional district and then whoever gets the most votes overall in a state gets both Senate EVs.  

[homersapien 11,393]

It is xenophobic.  It discounts the representational power of individual citizens for no other reason than they are city dwellers.

There is no cultural, moral or philosophical basis to it.

If anything, just the opposite. Cities generate a disproportionate share of our economic productivity, creativity and intellectual and social progress.

The idea of the citizen farmer as the optimum model for democracy is totally archaic if it ever had any merit to begin with.

[homersapien 11,393]

And Mississippi and Alabama can attract young, creative and highly educated people who are as productive as liberal metropolitan areas in similar numbers, then more power to them.

Of course, that would mean they have become metropolitan themselves.

[Beaker 2,457]

So we want the concentrated population centers of 3 or 4 geo areas to "rule" the masses of 50 states?  That is ludicrous.  The majority of the GDP comes from non-pop segments of America.  

Think about it for a second, how many of those population centers like NY, LA, Chicago and Miami are running at a deficit?  How many have the most crime per capita?  How many demonstrate the most violence/ lack of respect towards law enforcement?  Where do most of those serving in our military come from? 

If we don't have some checks and balances like the electoral college, the entire country will suffer from the same failed policies and leadership that strangle those population centers.  

That was the philosophical intent of the founding fathers: no small geo pop center would 'rule' over the majority of the country.

Forces a politician to be balanced enough to appeal to the metro folks and the common folks.  

 

[augolf1716 21,221]

6 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

Unless the IC sees to it that he is impeached or imprisoned. 

Don't ever see that happening but we shall see.

[homersapien 11,393]

23 minutes ago, Beaker said:

So we want the concentrated population centers of 3 or 4 geo areas to "rule" the masses of 50 states?  That is ludicrous.  The majority of the GDP comes from non-pop segments of America.  

Think about it for a second, how many of those population centers like NY, LA, Chicago and Miami are running at a deficit?  How many have the most crime per capita?  How many demonstrate the most violence/ lack of respect towards law enforcement?  Where do most of those serving in our military come from? 

If we don't have some checks and balances like the electoral college, the entire country will suffer from the same failed policies and leadership that strangle those population centers.  

That was the philosophical intent of the founding fathers: no small geo pop center would 'rule' over the majority of the country.

Forces a politician to be balanced enough to appeal to the metro folks and the common folks.  

 

1) No, it's ludicrous to allow a minority to take precedence over the majority simply because of where they live.

2) Those population centers are doing much better than the rest of the country.  They are the drivers of both the U.S. and global economies.*

3) The founding fathers also had the "philosophical intent" of maintaining slavery.  That doesn't mean they were right.  

 

*  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/23/richard-florida-cities-independent-donald-trump-215288

The world’s 50 largest cities and metropolitan areas house just 7 percent of the Earth’s population but generate 40 percent of its economic activity. Just 40 mega-regions—constellations of cities and metros like the Boston-New York-Washington corridor, or the Bay Area’s San Francisco-Palo Alto-San Jose nexus (which includes Silicon Valley)—account for roughly two-thirds of the world’s economic output and more than 85 percent of its innovation, while housing just 18 percent of its people. The amount of economic activity packed into small spaces within those leading cities is even more astonishing. Just one small sliver of downtown San Francisco, for instance, attracts billions of dollars in venture capital to its tech startups every year, more than any nation on the planet, save for the United States.

 

http://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/urban-world-mapping-the-economic-power-of-cities

Today, major urban areas in developed-regions are, without doubt, economic giants. Half of global GDP in 2007 came from 380 cities in developed-regions, with more than 20 percent of global GDP coming from 190 North American cities alone. The 220 largest cities in developing-regions contributed another 10 percent.

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

31 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

Don't ever see that happening but we shall see.

Dream killer 

 

[Beaker 2,457]

I didn't say our founding father's got it right about slavery...so if they were wrong about one thing, they must be wrong about the electoral college?  That's funny.

If the system doesn't work for you, choose another major city to move, outside of America.  I am sure you will be happier.  I will help you pack.

[augolf1716 21,221]

Just now, GiveEmElle said:

Dream killer 

 

Now your sounding like my wife lol

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

2 minutes ago, augolf1716 said:

Now your sounding like my wife lol

[homersapien 11,393]

11 minutes ago, Beaker said:

I didn't say our founding father's got it right about slavery...so if they were wrong about one thing, they must be wrong about the electoral college?  That's funny.

If the system doesn't work for you, choose another major city to move, outside of America.  I am sure you will be happier.  I will help you pack.

No it's not funny.   Your pathetic characterization of my point represents a logical error on your part, not mine.  

You justified the electoral system based on what the founders wanted, as if that necessarily makes it a good idea for today.  I merely pointed out a plain, historical example from our history to show how that's not necessarily so.

And you don't need to worry about my happiness.  Trust me.

 

[Grumps 3,704]

23 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

And to justify your vote you tell yourself there's no evidence Trump grabbed women's private parts because he felt entitled to do so, totally ignoring his own admission.

To justify my vote I tell myself, "Thank goodness that Mrs. Clinton is not POTUS." Period.

The rest of your post has been discussed enough already. I know what Trump said, and you know what you think he meant. We may both be right.

[Grumps 3,704]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

wtf does that mean? 

Seriously? How can it NOT mean, "What agenda do you think that Trump ran on, and what agenda do you think that HRC ran on"?

[TexasTiger 12,961]

7 minutes ago, Grumps said:

To justify my vote I tell myself, "Thank goodness that Mrs. Clinton is not POTUS." Period.

The rest of your post has been discussed enough already. I know what Trump said, and you know what you think he meant. We may both be right.

He meant what he said he routinely did as confirmed by many of the women he did it to. But you cling to your rationalization. You apparently need it to accept who you embraced.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

19 hours ago, homersapien said:

BS.  Three million votes is 3 million votes.  

It doesn't matter where they came from.

And there's nothing wrong with a "one or two huge states essentially deciding any election".  This is a false premise barely removed with discounting the votes of women or black people.  It has xenophobic overtones.

The issue of minority participation in government is adequately addressed by the senate allocation.  

The electoral college is obsolete - no different that several other original constitutional provisions regarding the right to vote.

We need to change it just like we changed those outmoded restrictions.  One citizen, one vote.

 

 

I disagree.

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/did-votes-by-noncitizens-cost-trump-the-2016-popular-vote-sure-looks-that-way/