By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Trump already promised violence if the GOP loses the house majority or the senate.
Also, It doesn't look like he'll be willing to step down in 2020 if he loses. His cult will flood the streets and do f*ck knows what.
That's what happens when people unite over a person rather than a country's interest in a democracy. They'd do anything to keep him in charge. Even defiling the constitution. That's how dictatorships are born. And that's how civil wars start.
I honestly don't think Trump will simply concede his "throne" to the Democrats. What would his supporters do? How will they find another person to worship like that?
Let's just say Trump serves 2 terms and his rule expires at 2024. Then what? No way in hell the GOP will just move on from this. They'll want him as president for life like the Kim family in North Korea. A 2nd civil war is on the way, which will affect the whole world which should obviously concern all of us. Dangerous, dangerous times.
Yes, it's bad for democracy. Yes, it's undemocratic...because it was designed to be that way. The US is not a democracy it's a constitutional republic. The founding fathers said they used the electoral system to avoid the tyranny of the majority. The US is massive, the states are very different from each other. People in California have very different beliefs from people in the Midwest. If you had a majority vote then both candidates would pander to the costal states. They designed it this way so that all areas of a very diverse (beliefs) country would have a say.
The reason I was moving on, Ace, is that the electoral college being good or bad is not an argument I'm making. I don't make my mind up on things until I've looked at both sides of the argument. I haven't on this issue. Maybe you can win me over to your side.
The argument I was making is that if going forward they said it's going to be a majority wins situation then Republicans would change their strategy and if you think they wouldn't then you're crazy. So when people cry Hilary won the popular vote, my reply is "Someone tell the tw@t she was playing the wrong game"
The united states constitution expressly hands power to citizens and they exercise their power by voting. That's the stone cold definition of a democracy. They are a constitutional republic because citizens derive their power from the constitution where everyone is equal e.g. no monarchy.
Funnily enough I was thinking of calling out that bollocks, right wing talking point point before you said it but i didnt think you'd be so formulaic. Did you get that one from PragerU? Quite literally the weakest excuse the right wing can make for clinging onto an antiquated system that benefits them
Being a constitutional republic and a democracy is not mutually exclusive. The United States is both.
The system the founders wanted to prevent a tyranny of the majority was checks and balances, which ironically the republican controlled congress have completely foregone by allowing trump to pass tariffs, a right which is expressly given to congress in the US constitution.
At the minute the system has traded out handing control to the east and west coast to vastly over-representing former slave owning states. Making every vote equal would be the true essence of democracy.
The united states constitution expressly hands power to citizens and they exercise their power by voting. That's the stone cold definition of a democracy. They are a constitutional republic because citizens derive their power from the constitution where everyone is equal e.g. no monarchy.
Funnily enough I was thinking of calling out that bollocks, right wing talking point point before you said it but i didnt think you'd be so formulaic. Did you get that one from PragerU? Quite literally the weakest excuse the right wing can make for clinging onto an antiquated system that benefits them
Being a constitutional republic and a democracy is not mutually exclusive. The United States is both.
The system the founders wanted to prevent a tyranny of the majority was checks and balances, which ironically the republican controlled congress have completely foregone by allowing trump to pass tariffs, a right which is expressly given to congress in the US constitution.
At the minute the system has traded out handing control to the east and west coast to vastly over-representing former slave owning states. Making every vote equal would be the true essence of democracy.
Once again, Ace, I haven't made my mind up because I don't know both sides of this argument. You obviously know more than me on this issue. I am not afraid to say that. This is an argument you are wanting me to make. It's not an argument I am making. Once I've had more time to look into it I would be more equipped to argue the points or even may come to agree with you. You win the argument I'm not making...OK, Ace?...Good.
Now, do you think if they changed it to be a majority vote that Republicans wouldn't start changing their tactics to win a majority vote?
Once again, Ace, I haven't made my mind up because I don't know both sides of this argument. You obviously know more than me on this issue. I am not afraid to say that. This is an argument you are wanting me to make. It's not an argument I am making. Once I've had more time to look into it I would be more equipped to argue the points or even may come to agree with you. You win the argument I'm not making...OK, Ace?...Good.
Now, do you think if they changed it to be a majority vote that Republicans wouldn't start changing their tactics to win a majority vote?
I'd be amazed if the democrats didn't change their strategy either. I mean looking at the people who want to be president, do they really want to be spending any more time than necessary speaking to pig farmers in Iowa?
I'd be amazed if the democrats didn't change their strategy either. I mean looking at the people who want to be president, do they really want to be spending any more time than necessary speaking to pig farmers in Iowa?
So that's a yes. We agree. If the rules were different then the strategies would have been different. Does it mean a different outcome? who knows. But It wasn't unreasonable for me to say Trump would have played a different game?
By the way, Ace, beware of any man that owns a pig farm
So that's a yes. We agree. If the rules were different then the strategies would have been different. Does it mean a different outcome? who knows. But It wasn't unreasonable for me to say Trump would have played a different game?
By the way, Ace, beware of any man that owns a pig farm
we can trade hypotheticals till the cows come home
Actually, the opposite is true. It's the system that got Abraham Lincoln elected with less than 40% of the popular vote.
[Post edited 6 Nov 2018 17:16]
oh really? What was the 3/5 compromise about then?
The election of 1860 saw four candidates receive electoral college votes. Lincoln still carried the the most states and received more than half a million votes more than Douglas and one million more than Breckinridge. Bit of slight of hand to suggest that Lincoln did anything but win the election of 1860 outright.
oh really? What was the 3/5 compromise about then?
The election of 1860 saw four candidates receive electoral college votes. Lincoln still carried the the most states and received more than half a million votes more than Douglas and one million more than Breckinridge. Bit of slight of hand to suggest that Lincoln did anything but win the election of 1860 outright.
[Post edited 6 Nov 2018 17:29]
True Ace (and Lisa) on the 1860 election, I stand corrected.
However, the 3/5 compromise was a separate issue within the electoral college system, not the cause for creating it.
The system isn't antiquated, it exists to ensure that people in remote areas still get a voice. If popular vote were all that mattered, the candidates would only care about the densely populated areas, where they'd get the most "bang for the buck" on the campaign trail.
As a Dallas/Fort Forth resident living in a metroplex of 7 million, the electoral college does me no favors, but I certainly see the logic behind it.
Remember before 'Russia rigged the election' and Hilary had a 90% chance of winning this is how they were...
Honestly, they're the worst people in the f*cking world
Just in the past few weeks, a right wing extremist has murdered 11 Jewish people in a synagogue, a rabid Trump supporter has mailed 14 bombs to individuals and organisations, a right wing extremist group attacked people in New York and Portland, two black men were executed by a right wing extremist in a car park and you (and Tummer) think the ‘worst people in the world’ are Hillary supporters who have protested against Trump?
I think your famed (albeit self proclaimed) sense of ‘balance’ may need a little rebalancing Mo.
Just in the past few weeks, a right wing extremist has murdered 11 Jewish people in a synagogue, a rabid Trump supporter has mailed 14 bombs to individuals and organisations, a right wing extremist group attacked people in New York and Portland, two black men were executed by a right wing extremist in a car park and you (and Tummer) think the ‘worst people in the world’ are Hillary supporters who have protested against Trump?
I think your famed (albeit self proclaimed) sense of ‘balance’ may need a little rebalancing Mo.
Mo always likes to give the impression of being an independent non-partisan. Yet 100% of his views align with the right. Weird.
Anyway, Lisa summed up the entire argument perfectly.
Just in the past few weeks, a right wing extremist has murdered 11 Jewish people in a synagogue, a rabid Trump supporter has mailed 14 bombs to individuals and organisations, a right wing extremist group attacked people in New York and Portland, two black men were executed by a right wing extremist in a car park and you (and Tummer) think the ‘worst people in the world’ are Hillary supporters who have protested against Trump?
I think your famed (albeit self proclaimed) sense of ‘balance’ may need a little rebalancing Mo.
When did I say that?
For the record, the worst people in the world are Oklahomans.
True Ace (and Lisa) on the 1860 election, I stand corrected.
However, the 3/5 compromise was a separate issue within the electoral college system, not the cause for creating it.
The system isn't antiquated, it exists to ensure that people in remote areas still get a voice. If popular vote were all that mattered, the candidates would only care about the densely populated areas, where they'd get the most "bang for the buck" on the campaign trail.
As a Dallas/Fort Forth resident living in a metroplex of 7 million, the electoral college does me no favors, but I certainly see the logic behind it.
I understand why it was implemented and it's history but I don't understand why it's any better to overvalue votes in Florida or Nebraska than it is to undervalue them in a modern democracy with universal suffrage.
I'd argue that a system that allows a candidate with 3 MILLION less votes to win is one thats deeply broken.
For the record, the worst people in the world are Oklahomans.
Mo said it and you up-arrowed it, indicating agreement and approval of the sentiment.
I only looked as I wondered who on earth would up-arrow such a ridiculous comment in the light of the atrocities that have occurred in the past couple of weeks or so.
Mo said it and you up-arrowed it, indicating agreement and approval of the sentiment.
I only looked as I wondered who on earth would up-arrow such a ridiculous comment in the light of the atrocities that have occurred in the past couple of weeks or so.
I approve of Mo's opinions, but that doesn't mean I share them word for word. Just like there's not a politician in history I've agreed with 100%, including the current President.
I don't think Leftists are the world's worst people at all. I think they are hilariously infected by Trump Derangement System, and are blind hypocrites like the OP starting a thread worrying about violence from the Right if we lose an election, when quite the opposite has held true since November 8, 2016. But I can respect peoples' opinions even when I disagree with them. I don't take politics as personally as you do, Lisa.
I approve of Mo's opinions, but that doesn't mean I share them word for word. Just like there's not a politician in history I've agreed with 100%, including the current President.
I don't think Leftists are the world's worst people at all. I think they are hilariously infected by Trump Derangement System, and are blind hypocrites like the OP starting a thread worrying about violence from the Right if we lose an election, when quite the opposite has held true since November 8, 2016. But I can respect peoples' opinions even when I disagree with them. I don't take politics as personally as you do, Lisa.
You do a good job of hiding that Tummer. But if it is true, perhaps it is because you aren’t as affected as many others are by the rhetoric and actions of your current president, being a white, straight, Christian male.
You do a good job of hiding that Tummer. But if it is true, perhaps it is because you aren’t as affected as many others are by the rhetoric and actions of your current president, being a white, straight, Christian male.
Sorry - is that supposed to mean I’m an unpleasant person?
For thinking Hillary supporters aren’t the worst people in the world when you have people walking into synagogues and yelling about Jews before murdering them?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
