Archive

2016 Election Thread

  • sleeper
    QuakerOats;1824998 wrote:Hell, they are collector's items now; probably getting $200 apiece.

    The idiots are easy to spot; they are still crying in the urban streets and throwing little hissy fits.
    Idiots will be even easier to spot on January 20th; they'll all be in the white house.
  • HitsRus
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824879 wrote:and LOL@ you that want to get smug and claim "you don't know how EC works".. you, apparently, don't see how our government has changed from its inception.
    You actually made the case for the electoral college which is about the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Particularly since power has migrated to Washington and the ruling elite, the electoral college serves as a counterweight.....which is what it is exactly supposed to do. To undo the EC is to loose the underpinnings of the union, what keeps individual states with diverse populations and interests together.
    regardless that's the reality.
    The reality is that the EC is not going to be scrapped, nor should it. The Union will dissolve first....book it.
  • CenterBHSFan
    Buying or selling?

    http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-had-drunken-meltdown-after-losing-the-election/
  • sleeper
    Sell.
  • like_that
    I see both sides to the EC/popular vote argument. I go back and forth on it, but after seeing COA's posts on the SJW thread, maybe the EC is a good thing,so Californians aren't deciding every election [emoji23].

    It would be interesting if every state only counted as one electoral vote. That would change the landscape of campaigning. You could also take the EC even further by dividing each states electoral votes by "region." I doubt the Dems would ever be in favor of that though, considering how red the map is if you look at it by county.
  • fish82
    sleeper;1824982 wrote:Oh yes, the old 'voter fraud' argument.
    It's not a "voter fraud" argument. The claim is semi-credible, which means that a significant number of people would pursue it. Do you seriously not see that any national popular vote with a final tally within a 1% margin will be litigated and recounted until we start looking at a third term for the incumbent by default? It would be a national clusterfuck every other cycle.

    C'mon, man...think.
    sleeper;1824982 wrote:And okay? That is what the people want. Trump; they want him and they want everyone to work with him and show him respect; the same respect and honor that the Republicans gave Obama. Spare me the lulz.
    My response was geared more to your "biggest moron in history" crack, which is so utterly wrong that it's actually pretty embarrassing.
  • sleeper
    like_that;1825012 wrote:I see both sides to the EC/popular vote argument. I go back and forth on it, but after seeing COA's posts on the SJW thread, maybe the EC is a good thing,so Californians aren't deciding every election [emoji23].

    It would be interesting if every state only counted as one electoral vote. That would change the landscape of campaigning. You could also take the EC even further by dividing each states electoral votes by "region." I doubt the Dems would ever be in favor of that though, considering how red the map is if you look at it by county.
    Each state only getting 1 EC would be more in line with the junk that Republicans on this site as using defend "the Union" or w/e BS they come up with justify the broken system.
  • fish82
    sleeper;1824993 wrote:Well that is something we can agree on.
    Book it. :laugh:
  • SportsAndLady
    like_that;1825012 wrote:I see both sides to the EC/popular vote argument. I go back and forth on it, but after seeing COA's posts on the SJW thread, maybe the EC is a good thing,so Californians aren't deciding every election [emoji23].

    It would be interesting if every state only counted as one electoral vote. That would change the landscape of campaigning. You could also take the EC even further by dividing each states electoral votes by "region." I doubt the Dems would ever be in favor of that though, considering how red the map is if you look at it by county.
    I also see both sides of the argument. Neither side is wrong, one just comes off as a sore loser and the other doesn't.
  • jmog
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824878 wrote:Face it.. 200 years ago an Electoral College was needed b/c a majority were either ignorant due to poor/no information relayed to them or they just couldn't read or write. In 2016 someone in rural Idaho has the same exposure as someone in NYC. Everyone who wants it has access to newspapers, internet, and television. When it was still a system where states truly ruled, I can see you point. But now when the federal government has so much say in our lives and more power over the states than ever before, your argument holds no weight. Everyone should be equal b/c everyone will be heavily represented by the federal government.
    You just proved my point. The EC was not about ignorant/no information. It was about being a union of states not a single country. It was about a President representing a vast majority of all walks of life not just major metropolitan areas.

    So again, the fact that you believe it's just due to 200 years ago information was hard, proves my point. You have not researched the original compromise for the EC and why it is there.

    Thanks for proving me correct.
  • jmog
    Heretic;1824895 wrote:So, you're saying Trump is a liberal?

    Since he did call the EC a disaster four years ago and all.
    Yes, on the full liberal/conservative scale trump is slightly liberal. Don't let the R next to his name right now fool you. He is not a conservative.
  • jmog
    sleeper;1824983 wrote:Predictably Democrat because if you are a Republican you don't even bother voting because California is going to be D anyway.

    I wish there was some way all voices could be heard regardless of worrying about what your neighbor votes...They could call it "Democracy".
    Our government is not a democracy, you should have learned this.

    It is a republic.
  • HitsRus
    sleeper;1825017 wrote:Each state only getting 1 EC would be more in line with the junk that Republicans on this site as using defend "the Union" or w/e BS they come up with justify the broken system.
    The only thing that is "broken" is the nominating system that allowed 2 POS candidates for us to choose from. LOL at Democrats whining about the EC when they ignored the popular vote and fudged the nomination to Clinton. ....Super delegates!
    LOL at Republicans for awarding large blocs of delegates to a candidate barely winning plurality...and allowing him to hijack the party.

    What's broken is this nominating system, where early voting states determine the frontrunners. That's where the anger at the system should lie, not at the Electoral College.
    Unlike some of you, I didn't have a dog in this fight....and I accepted months ago that we were going to elect someone completely abhorrent to me. At this point, I just want the U.S. to escape this period intact without a bunch of know nothings ripping it apart.

    Please do your homework and research the Electoral college and Federalism, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and how this great nation came together. Perhaps then you will see that none of this archaic or outdated...it is indeed , TIMELESS, based on the laws of human nature and the natural rights of man. While society's norms may change, human behavior does not.
  • jmog
    HitsRus;1825031 wrote:The only thing that is "broken" is the nominating system that allowed 2 POS candidates for us to choose from. LOL at Democrats whining about the EC when they ignored the popular vote and fudged the nomination to Clinton. ....Super delegates!
    LOL at Republicans for awarding large blocs of delegates to a candidate barely winning plurality...and allowing him to hijack the party.

    What's broken is this nominating system, where early voting states determine the frontrunners. That's where the anger at the system should lie, not at the Electoral College.
    Unlike some of you, I didn't have a dog in this fight....and I accepted months ago that we were going to elect someone completely abhorrent to me. At this point, I just want the U.S. to escape this period intact without a bunch of know nothings ripping it apart.

    Please do your homework and research the Electoral college and Federalism, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and how this great nation came together. Perhaps then you will see that none of this archaic or outdated...it is indeed , TIMELESS, based on the laws of human nature and the natural rights of man. While society's norms may change, human behavior does not.
    I agree with this.

    The super delegates were put in as a sole purpose of not allowing the people to pick a "bad candidate" with the DNC. The RNC primary is screwed up too, but it is somewhat closer to the general election the way it handles delegates.
  • jmog
    Not the whole story, but a good read

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tara-ross/2016/11/16/yes-electoral-college-still-works
  • HitsRus
    ^^^That's a great read that hits a lot of the high points.

    I found it interesting that the heavily liberal states of New York and California provided HRC with nearly 20% of her votes.
  • majorspark
    HitsRus;1825031 wrote:Please do your homework and research the Electoral college and Federalism, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and how this great nation came together. Perhaps then you will see that none of this archaic or outdated...it is indeed , TIMELESS, based on the laws of human nature and the natural rights of man. While society's norms may change, human behavior does not.
    Timeless indeed. And lets not forget the "founders" as we call them today were delegates of the states. It was not a national assembly. The union of states would never have occurred had it not been for the great compromise which the EC mirrors. Placing the coequal legislative and executive branches, the two the people have the most direct influence over on an equal footing. If you look at how the founders delegated powers within the bicameral legislature you can really see their wisdom in what should have more influence from the populus and what should be more insulated from it. The 17th amendment narrowed that insulation.

    Our Republic remains strong and Trump will be held in check. He does not have die hard support within the Republican party. Tacit support of his accomplishment yes. Near total opposition from the Democrat party. The EC debate has been educational but it is time for the butthurt to stop whining about the tenants of our republic and work within it to hold the President elect's feet to the fire.
  • O-Trap
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824878 wrote:Face it.. 200 years ago an Electoral College was needed b/c a majority were either ignorant due to poor/no information relayed to them or they just couldn't read or write. In 2016 someone in rural Idaho has the same exposure as someone in NYC. Everyone who wants it has access to newspapers, internet, and television. When it was still a system where states truly ruled, I can see you point. But now when the federal government has so much say in our lives and more power over the states than ever before, your argument holds no weight. Everyone should be equal b/c everyone will be heavily represented by the federal government.
    I didn't mean to suggest that people are more or less ignorant. I only meant to suggest that the less populous states would get less attention, or no attention at all, purely as a result of the fact that there are fewer people there. The things that matter to them won't be relevant in a pure popular vote, because it will make more sense to appeal to the needs and concerns of the people in densely populated areas.
    ZWICK 4 PREZ;1824879 wrote:and LOL@ you that want to get smug and claim "you don't know how EC works".. you, apparently, don't see how our government has changed from its inception.
    I didn't mean to indicate that, either. My apologies if it came across that way.
    sleeper;1824941 wrote:Candidates don't campaign in Wyoming now. They also don't campaign in LA county for different reasons.
    You're not wrong. They don't campaign hard toward the LA County people because you can't win an election under the current format by just appealing to the most densely-populated areas.

    However, if we went with a popular vote, you could, and essentially every region that isn't densely populated enough would essentially get ignored, because elections wouldn't be won by appealing to places with low population densities.
    sleeper;1824941 wrote:They build their campaign on the selection of issues that affect 'swing states'; ignoring entirely building a platform that represents all Americans since every vote counts.
    The problem is, there is no one-size-fits-all campaign. The current format requires candidates to take on issues that appeal to a larger number of demographics.

    As for appealing strictly to swing states, you're right that it's a strategy. It's not the only effective one, though, as this election demonstrated. The Clinton campaign focused primarily on appealing to swing states, which ended up close, but as a result, part of the 'safe' base was lost. The latter effect played a large role in the election and demonstrated that only appealing to swing states is not a universally effective strategy for campaigning. The Clinton campaign didn't appeal to a wide enough selection of the demographics in the US.
  • QuakerOats
    HitsRus;1825031 wrote:The only thing that is "broken" is the nominating system that allowed 2 POS candidates for us to choose from. LOL at Democrats whining about the EC when they ignored the popular vote and fudged the nomination to Clinton. ....Super delegates!
    LOL at Republicans for awarding large blocs of delegates to a candidate barely winning plurality...and allowing him to hijack the party.
    For the last time, it was not necessarily Republicans, but rather crossovers, dems, and independents, that effectively allowed Trump to do what he did.
  • HitsRus
    ^^^ and now we have Trump, who the Dems wanted to run Hillary against.... That didn't turn out so well!.....for anyone.
  • sleeper
    jmog;1825030 wrote:Our government is not a democracy, you should have learned this.

    It is a republic.
    I don't need your patronizing and semantic garbage. I know what our country is; I'm not sure how that relates to the EC/Popular vote debate we were having.

    Tell me more about how the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
  • Azubuike24
    Never in history have we had two candidates that did more pandering to the side they thought could win them the job than we did this year.

    If we had a true, popular vote, and a true Democrat on one side and Republican on the other, the Democrat would win every single election in a landslide.

    The problem is when you have two candidates that not only don't linearly represent their respective party, but two candidates who created so much outside bullshit (moral, ethical, racial, etc...) that people straight up ignored the party affiliation all together.

    It's not the electoral college that needs fixed, it's this two-party system that is slowly unraveling. If this election did anything, it showed that people are sick of only being able to go right or left.
  • ernest_t_bass
    sleeper;1825091 wrote:Tell me more about how the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
    Nice leftist tactic there!
  • Classyposter58
    Ridiculous what has been going on in BG the last week. We've had all of these protests and community meetings over a black girl being assaulted by 3 white guys who supposedly were yelling racial slurs and pro-Trump messages. Turns out she made it up

    http://www.wtol.com/story/33736486/bgsu-student-charged-after-reporting-fake-assault
  • O-Trap
    Azubuike24;1825097 wrote:Never in history have we had two candidates that did more pandering to the side they thought could win them the job than we did this year.

    If we had a true, popular vote, and a true Democrat on one side and Republican on the other, the Democrat would win every single election in a landslide.

    The problem is when you have two candidates that not only don't linearly represent their respective party, but two candidates who created so much outside bullshit (moral, ethical, racial, etc...) that people straight up ignored the party affiliation all together.

    It's not the electoral college that needs fixed, it's this two-party system that is slowly unraveling. If this election did anything, it showed that people are sick of only being able to go right or left.
    Agreed.

    Frankly, I think you'd also end up seeing the two parties be even more like each other, because they'd both be campaigning hard toward the same one or two demographics. Their campaigns would end up looking remarkably similar by today's standards.