RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

The suffering of Trump voters the last 8 yrs
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/17 6:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
If white Hillary Clinton lost because she followed black Barack Obama, how did black Barack Obama win two elections, one of which followed a black Barack Obama presidency?


What is the point you're trying to make here?


Why didn't white people vote in Romney after 4 years of black Barack Obama?



I asked what is the point .


My question was demonstrating the point. And your answer is?

You are claiming Trump was elected as a backlash to a black president. Well, where was the backlash in 2012 to a black president?



I think your question is trying to demonstrate that you and Trump voters aren't racist. Is that it?



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15690
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/17 8:43 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RM619 wrote:
My family has also weathered the past leaders. Good or bad, we the people elected them. I always give the current POTUS the benefit to see what can be accomplished. I even survived through Clinton's reign when he killed off many manufacturing jobs in the mid 2000's


Wrong guy....you might wanna check with George Bush on that one.... Laughing



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9542



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/17 9:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
If white Hillary Clinton lost because she followed black Barack Obama, how did black Barack Obama win two elections, one of which followed a black Barack Obama presidency?


What is the point you're trying to make here?


Why didn't white people vote in Romney after 4 years of black Barack Obama?



I asked what is the point .


My question was demonstrating the point. And your answer is?

You are claiming Trump was elected as a backlash to a black president. Well, where was the backlash in 2012 to a black president?



I think your question is trying to demonstrate that you and Trump voters aren't racist. Is that it?


My question was demonstrating that your reason and the reason of a great many neo-liberals as to why Hillary Clinton lost, hasn't got a leg to stand on. You need to revisit your data and rework your theory.


tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9542



Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/17 9:27 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
It's also unnatural to expect people to want to be overrun by foreigners. That is why we have to be trained to like it.


Remind me again....what 'training program' was provided by the Euros to the Algonquins, Cherokee, Iroquois, et. al.? And how DID they like it, in the end?

I got NO sympathy for folks who wanna bitch about the 'inconvenience' of immigrants, and cultures being overrun. Karma's a bitch, and the Iniquities of the Fathers are very real.....they will not remain only on the pages of history books (if they've even MADE it to those books!).


The guy who delivers my newspaper is Native American and grew up on a reservation. You are punishing him with immigration after his ancestors were already punished. You should at least advocate segregating all those with English ancestry (maybe Germans as well) dating back to the slaughter to be segregated into certain states - and then hit only those states with immigration as their punishment. Let the Native Americans and the non-English go unscathed in separate states


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15690
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 02/28/17 11:20 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
It's also unnatural to expect people to want to be overrun by foreigners. That is why we have to be trained to like it.


Remind me again....what 'training program' was provided by the Euros to the Algonquins, Cherokee, Iroquois, et. al.? And how DID they like it, in the end?

I got NO sympathy for folks who wanna bitch about the 'inconvenience' of immigrants, and cultures being overrun. Karma's a bitch, and the Iniquities of the Fathers are very real.....they will not remain only on the pages of history books (if they've even MADE it to those books!).


The guy who delivers my newspaper is Native American and grew up on a reservation. You are punishing him with immigration after his ancestors were already punished. You should at least advocate segregating all those with English ancestry (maybe Germans as well) dating back to the slaughter to be segregated into certain states - and then hit only those states with immigration as their punishment. Let the Native Americans and the non-English go unscathed in separate states


Again, you avoid the question: "...what 'training program' was provided by the Euros to the Algonquins, Cherokee, Iroquois, et. al.? And how DID they like it, in the end?" You're the one who brought up the need for 'training'.

And why segregate to shield from immigration? If your ancestors weren't directly responsible for Native deaths, then at the very least, your ancestors were IMMIGRANTS. Looking for....exactly what immigrants want today.

I think you should, like the Native Americans, just hope to survive it all, and hope you're afforded more mercy than they were. What entitles you and your people to remain 'in charge'?

Karma, baby. Cool



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/01/17 12:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
Unemployment is only one metric to use. People who give up looking is not reflected in unemployment. People who want to work full-time but are only working part-time is not reflected in unemployment. Unemployment also doesn't reflect people who at one point had a good income and are now working for minimum wage.

Obama did not stop job export (nor did Bush, and Clinton signed a job export bill - NAFTA). Attacking job export was a big reason for the success of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The effects of job export were not as apparent to the neo-liberals as they should have been.

Obama, like all of his predecessors did not stop illegal immigration, and illegal immigration has hurt American workers.

I think the coastal neo-liberals should re-think their support of job export and illegal immigration if they want to maximize their support. Taking a stand against illegal immigration is not going to cause the Hispanics to vote Republican. And the good news for them is that Trump has no intention to fully enforce immigration law - that is, put employers in jail or heavily fine them for illegally hiring illegal workers. They could get to Trump's left on the issue (left in that they are protecting American workers) advocating enforcement of the law with regard to employers.



Do you have a definition?


I don't think there is one statistic to measure the worker situation. It's like measuring your health, you need more than one lab test done.



i meant what is your definition of a "coastal neo-liberal".

FWIW, the list contained many more positive things than the unemployment picture. On the other hand, you seem to be hung up on one issue most of the time anyway.


You have to deal with the most important issues first.

Coastal neo-liberals are the Democrats on the coasts who subscribe to the new Democratic philosophy that arose with Bill Clinton. One that appeals to big rich donors and supports job export and historically low taxes on the rich. You would think that with Trump on the right talking about deportation and a wall, (which ironically, is not what the rich want and protects workres) the neo-liberals could have held their ground on illegal immigration. But instead they went running the other way with "build bridges not walls" and fully embraced illegal immigration (while also not calling for the law to be changed) . Which is something that Chris Matthews lamented on the night of the election on MSNBC.


Clinton significantly increased taxes on the rich.

The Democratic party moved to the center BECAUSE IT HAD TO. Why? Because the country went crazy right wing after/because of Reagan, and the only way to get our country in a somewhat progressive direction.

And if you remember, the villain of that administration was Bill's socialist feminazi wife.



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
tfan



Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9542



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/01/17 12:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
Howee wrote:
tfan wrote:
It's also unnatural to expect people to want to be overrun by foreigners. That is why we have to be trained to like it.


Remind me again....what 'training program' was provided by the Euros to the Algonquins, Cherokee, Iroquois, et. al.? And how DID they like it, in the end?

I got NO sympathy for folks who wanna bitch about the 'inconvenience' of immigrants, and cultures being overrun. Karma's a bitch, and the Iniquities of the Fathers are very real.....they will not remain only on the pages of history books (if they've even MADE it to those books!).


The guy who delivers my newspaper is Native American and grew up on a reservation. You are punishing him with immigration after his ancestors were already punished. You should at least advocate segregating all those with English ancestry (maybe Germans as well) dating back to the slaughter to be segregated into certain states - and then hit only those states with immigration as their punishment. Let the Native Americans and the non-English go unscathed in separate states


Again, you avoid the question: "...what 'training program' was provided by the Euros to the Algonquins, Cherokee, Iroquois, et. al.? And how DID they like it, in the end?" You're the one who brought up the need for 'training'.


I am missing what comparison you are making. The Native Americans fought their takeover, which wasn't the same today, as it involved giving up their land and/or their lives (we sell our land and give up jobs, but not our lives). To be analogous, any training program to accept an English takeover (should a non-violent one have been possible) would have come from their leadership, not from the Europeans. Americans aren't being trained to accept immigration by immigrants (for the most part), but by American political leaders, business people, teachers - anyone with a pulpit to promote a sacred cow.

Quote:

And why segregate to shield from immigration? If your ancestors weren't directly responsible for Native deaths, then at the very least, your ancestors were IMMIGRANTS. Looking for....exactly what immigrants want today.


So why punish people who didn't conquer? Why cause their traffic to get worse, their house prices to soar, their schools to over-crowd, why have them struggle even harder than normal, to find a job particularly as they age, when they don't deserve to be punished for what their ancestors did?

Quote:

I think you should, like the Native Americans, just hope to survive it all, and hope you're afforded more mercy than they were. What entitles you and your people to remain 'in charge'?

Karma, baby. Cool


It's only "Karma" if you apply "Karma" to things your ancestors did, and only then if my ancestors were slaughtering Native Americans. They certainly weren't on my mother's side. Don't know when people on my father's side came over.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/01/17 8:57 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
tfan wrote:
If white Hillary Clinton lost because she followed black Barack Obama, how did black Barack Obama win two elections, one of which followed a black Barack Obama presidency?


What is the point you're trying to make here?


Why didn't white people vote in Romney after 4 years of black Barack Obama?



I asked what is the point .


My question was demonstrating the point. And your answer is?

You are claiming Trump was elected as a backlash to a black president. Well, where was the backlash in 2012 to a black president?



I think your question is trying to demonstrate that you and Trump voters aren't racist. Is that it?


My question was demonstrating that your reason and the reason of a great many neo-liberals as to why Hillary Clinton lost, hasn't got a leg to stand on. You need to revisit your data and rework your theory.


Have I ever claimed that was the only reason Clinton lost the electoral vote? I don't think so. (feel free to point out if I did).

Racism is one part of the equation, as are other general undertones of the so-called "right"- nationalism, white-ism, xenophobia, homophobia, war-mongering, "law and order", etc etc.

Also, Clinton's public personality was a drag.

The Republican propaganda machine, led by FOX NEWS, is another factor. As was the Comey Weiner email fiasco, as well as the suppression of the info re: Russia and Trump which was led by McConnell and Comey. MSM's wall-wall coverage of Trump, to chase ratings, and their refusal to call out his countless lies played a big role too.

The number of dupedplorables is another.

Probably the biggest reason is Republican-led voter suppression which in part resulted from the supreme court ruling on voting rights (in 2013?) and included Interstate Crosscheck, reduction of voting times, polling places, and other shenanigans.

Interestingly, despite all that bullshit, Clinton received millions more votes. Thus, Trump is the least popular president of all time.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/01/17 9:50 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
Racism is one part of the equation, as are other general undertones of the so-called "right"- nationalism, white-ism, xenophobia, homophobia, war-mongering, "law and order", etc etc.

Where is this data that racism and xenophobia were factors? There is a laundry list of blacks, Hispanics, Indians, Asians, whites and women who voted for Trump. It comes off like you're saying that everyone who didn't vote for Hillary was racist. What about racist people who voted for Hillary? That statistic is just vapor research. White-ism sounds extremely derogatory and racist btw (not to mention contradictory to your claims of racism by the other side).

cthskzfn wrote:
Also, Clinton's public personality was a drag.

That's an understatement. If the candidate were anyone else it probably would have been a Democrat victory.

cthskzfn wrote:
The Republican propaganda machine, led by FOX NEWS, is another factor. As was the Comey Weiner email fiasco, as well as the suppression of the info re: Russia and Trump which was led by McConnell and Comey. MSM's wall-wall coverage of Trump, to chase ratings, and their refusal to call out his countless lies played a big role too.

The number of dupedplorables is another.

Probably the biggest reason is Republican-led voter suppression which in part resulted from the supreme court ruling on voting rights (in 2013?) and included Interstate Crosscheck, reduction of voting times, polling places, and other shenanigans.

Interestingly, despite all that bullshit, Clinton received millions more votes. Thus, Trump is the least popular president of all time.

Come on. There was no "Russia and Trump." MSM was not refusing to call out lies. In fact, there was piece after piece "fact checking" Trump when the facts had to be invented out of thin air (by the media). That was big turn off.
I'm not familiar with this Republican-led voter suppression. Interstate crosscheck was put in place to put a stop to people voting more than once. That's not voter suppression, that's enforcing the law. Everyone gets ONE vote.
I think it's a little early to be declaring President Trump the least popular of all time. He is delivering on his promises so far. We will see what happens in the next 4 years. How about giving him a chance to deliver before writing his eulogy? What if he does great things for the country and gets re-elected overwhelmingly?


RM619



Joined: 25 Sep 2004
Posts: 958
Location: Southern Calif.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/01/17 12:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
Racism is one part of the equation, as are other general undertones of the so-called "right"- nationalism, white-ism, xenophobia, homophobia, war-mongering, "law and order", etc etc.

Where is this data that racism and xenophobia were factors? There is a laundry list of blacks, Hispanics, Indians, Asians, whites and women who voted for Trump. It comes off like you're saying that everyone who didn't vote for Hillary was racist. What about racist people who voted for Hillary? That statistic is just vapor research. White-ism sounds extremely derogatory and racist btw (not to mention contradictory to your claims of racism by the other side).

cthskzfn wrote:
Also, Clinton's public personality was a drag.

That's an understatement. If the candidate were anyone else it probably would have been a Democrat victory.

cthskzfn wrote:
The Republican propaganda machine, led by FOX NEWS, is another factor. As was the Comey Weiner email fiasco, as well as the suppression of the info re: Russia and Trump which was led by McConnell and Comey. MSM's wall-wall coverage of Trump, to chase ratings, and their refusal to call out his countless lies played a big role too.

The number of dupedplorables is another.

Probably the biggest reason is Republican-led voter suppression which in part resulted from the supreme court ruling on voting rights (in 2013?) and included Interstate Crosscheck, reduction of voting times, polling places, and other shenanigans.

Interestingly, despite all that bullshit, Clinton received millions more votes. Thus, Trump is the least popular president of all time.

Come on. There was no "Russia and Trump." MSM was not refusing to call out lies. In fact, there was piece after piece "fact checking" Trump when the facts had to be invented out of thin air (by the media). That was big turn off.
I'm not familiar with this Republican-led voter suppression. Interstate crosscheck was put in place to put a stop to people voting more than once. That's not voter suppression, that's enforcing the law. Everyone gets ONE vote.
I think it's a little early to be declaring President Trump the least popular of all time. He is delivering on his promises so far. We will see what happens in the next 4 years. How about giving him a chance to deliver before writing his eulogy? What if he does great things for the country and gets re-elected overwhelmingly?


Very well said. I don't see any major changes in my life during his term. Survived all previous ones. On a side note, I enjoyed his speech last night. Rather laid back, but addressed the issues. Was happy that he didn't bash the media.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/01/17 1:16 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
Racism is one part of the equation, as are other general undertones of the so-called "right"- nationalism, white-ism, xenophobia, homophobia, war-mongering, "law and order", etc etc.

Where is this data that racism and xenophobia were factors? There is a laundry list of blacks, Hispanics, Indians, Asians, whites and women who voted for Trump. It comes off like you're saying that everyone who didn't vote for Hillary was racist. What about racist people who voted for Hillary? That statistic is just vapor research. White-ism sounds extremely derogatory and racist btw (not to mention contradictory to your claims of racism by the other side).

cthskzfn wrote:
Also, Clinton's public personality was a drag.

That's an understatement. If the candidate were anyone else it probably would have been a Democrat victory.

cthskzfn wrote:
The Republican propaganda machine, led by FOX NEWS, is another factor. As was the Comey Weiner email fiasco, as well as the suppression of the info re: Russia and Trump which was led by McConnell and Comey. MSM's wall-wall coverage of Trump, to chase ratings, and their refusal to call out his countless lies played a big role too.

The number of dupedplorables is another.

Probably the biggest reason is Republican-led voter suppression which in part resulted from the supreme court ruling on voting rights (in 2013?) and included Interstate Crosscheck, reduction of voting times, polling places, and other shenanigans.

Interestingly, despite all that bullshit, Clinton received millions more votes. Thus, Trump is the least popular president of all time.

Come on. There was no "Russia and Trump." MSM was not refusing to call out lies. In fact, there was piece after piece "fact checking" Trump when the facts had to be invented out of thin air (by the media). That was big turn off.
I'm not familiar with this Republican-led voter suppression. Interstate crosscheck was put in place to put a stop to people voting more than once. That's not voter suppression, that's enforcing the law. Everyone gets ONE vote.
I think it's a little early to be declaring President Trump the least popular of all time. He is delivering on his promises so far. We will see what happens in the next 4 years. How about giving him a chance to deliver before writing his eulogy? What if he does great things for the country and gets re-elected overwhelmingly?



Laughing


The good news is that more Americans saw through the Trump bullshit than didn't, and by millions.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/01/17 1:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RM619 wrote:

Very well said. I don't see any major changes in my life during his term. Survived all previous ones. On a side note, I enjoyed his speech last night. Rather laid back, but addressed the issues. Was happy that he didn't bash the media.

If you, like me, are a decently well off white cisgender heterosexual male, then yes, I imagine survival without too many changes is in the cards.

If someone is transgender, gay, a minority, an undocumented immigrant, or poor, that is another story.

Or, you know, live down stream from a mine....



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/01/17 2:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

RM619 wrote:
Very well said. I don't see any major changes in my life during his term. Survived all previous ones. On a side note, I enjoyed his speech last night. Rather laid back, but addressed the issues. Was happy that he didn't bash the media.

I found it to be very inspiring. I hope he can deliver on the promises. He will make believers out of many if he can turn things around for people who are struggling, from all walks of life. It won't be easy. There will be many hurdles to clear, mainly from the Washington establishment, from both sides of the aisle. We will see. I went to bed with an air of optimism that's for sure.


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15690
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/01/17 10:28 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

tfan wrote:
I am missing what comparison you are making.....why punish people who didn't conquer?


Yes, you are missing it....you're overthinking it, darlin'. This isn't about punitive measures, or 'training' anybody. It's about Simple but Unmistakable socio/anthropological trends: one people/culture/tribe impinges on another. Assimilation.

It's not "unfair" that people who are in poor and under-producing places flow to better places. This is what has caused the flow of humans across all the continents. "Illegal" is a human construct. Because we SAY it's "ours" doesn't mean it IS, in the cosmic sense. Of course, if we SAY it is, and BELIEVE it is, and make rules to PRETEND it is....? That's how/why people have been building kingdoms and empires for the past few thousand years.

We humans endow far more rights of ownership to ourselves and our ideas of appropriation than....than we have a right to. Of course, there's the basic rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. But I think that's all the immigrants are after. That there is inconvenience to us, even LOSS to us, is just history's repetitive rhythm.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/02/17 9:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
The good news is that more Americans saw through the Trump bullshit than didn't, and by millions.

Yes, we are certainly getting our mileage out of THAT issue.

I will concede that millions more in California went for Hillary (by about 3 and a half million votes), which made the difference in the total count. If that reason alone doesn't justify an Electoral College, I don't know what does! Thank God our founders were wise enough to predict outcomes like this, and created a system that represents EVERYONE in the country fairly.


mercfan3



Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19725



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/02/17 8:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
The good news is that more Americans saw through the Trump bullshit than didn't, and by millions.

Yes, we are certainly getting our mileage out of THAT issue.

I will concede that millions more in California went for Hillary (by about 3 and a half million votes), which made the difference in the total count. If that reason alone doesn't justify an Electoral College, I don't know what does! Thank God our founders were wise enough to predict outcomes like this, and created a system that represents EVERYONE in the country fairly.


Right, because some people's vote should count more just because of where they live. Rolling Eyes



_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/02/17 11:31 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

mercfan3 wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
cthskzfn wrote:
The good news is that more Americans saw through the Trump bullshit than didn't, and by millions.

Yes, we are certainly getting our mileage out of THAT issue.

I will concede that millions more in California went for Hillary (by about 3 and a half million votes), which made the difference in the total count. If that reason alone doesn't justify an Electoral College, I don't know what does! Thank God our founders were wise enough to predict outcomes like this, and created a system that represents EVERYONE in the country fairly.


Right, because some people's vote should count more just because of where they live. Rolling Eyes


Of course! The fewer number of votes a candidates gets, the more fairly he represents all the citizens. Laughing



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/17 12:25 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

It's funny how the rules should only apply when the outcome is favorable. Once the outcome doesn't go your way, complain about it and cry foul. Kind of like the superdelegates rule.

This is a representative republic. Always has been. Don't like it? Move someplace else. If the shoe were on the other foot I'm sure this incessant whining wouldn't be happening because you would be touting "the law of the land."


justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/17 12:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
It's funny how the rules should only apply when the outcome is favorable. Once the outcome doesn't go your way, complain about it and cry foul. Kind of like the superdelegates rule.

This is a representative republic. Always has been. Don't like it? Move someplace else. If the shoe were on the other foot I'm sure this incessant whining wouldn't be happening because you would be touting "the law of the land."

Actually, I have been calling for the end of the electoral college since long before this election. It is an outdated model that relies upon conditions that were in place when the country was new. Since then, we have given much more power to the federal government and have eliminated the abiity for states to leave the union. At the birth of our nation it took weeks to go from one side to the other. Now it takes hours.

Due to sociological and demographic realities like urban packing and ideological grouping, it seems silly to continue to award more strength to certain votes simply because of where they live. Not to mention the fact that people are de facto disenfranchised in the presidential election based on where they live. A Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas might as well not even vote in the presidential election for all their votes will be represented. It is one of the major reason our voter turnout is so low.

Of course, you know who also called for the end of the electoral college? Donald Trump in 2012.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
Stonington_QB



Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 755
Location: Siege Perilous


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/17 1:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

justintyme wrote:
Actually, I have been calling for the end of the electoral college since long before this election.

Is that supposed to matter?
justintyme wrote:
It is an outdated model that relies upon conditions that were in place when the country was new.

Actually that's not the case at all. It was done to prevent a tyrant from manipulating the citizens into electing him / her. It was a check on the electorate. Our founders feared unrestrained democracies that had brought down past republics. I hear from the left that the Second Amendment is outdated too. That's because it gets in the way of their quest for absolute power. Just like the Electoral College.

I'm not going to discuss this (or anything else) further with you. We all know how this will end. You will insist on having the last word, and if you don't get it you will run to the moderators. So go ahead, have it.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66772
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/17 1:55 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Stonington_QB wrote:
Actually that's not the case at all. It was done to prevent a tyrant from manipulating the citizens into electing him / her. It was a check on the electorate.


Since the electors are now legally compelled to vote for whoever won the popular vote in their state, this function is moot.



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
justintyme



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN


Back to top
PostPosted: 03/03/17 2:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Actually that's not the case at all. It was done to prevent a tyrant from manipulating the citizens into electing him / her. It was a check on the electorate.


Since the electors are now legally compelled to vote for whoever won the popular vote in their state, this function is moot.

Not to mention the moment they actually voted in someone different it would create a constitutional crisis.



_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
NYL_WNBA_FAN



Joined: 28 May 2007
Posts: 14097



Back to top
PostPosted: 03/05/17 1:48 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
Stonington_QB wrote:
Actually that's not the case at all. It was done to prevent a tyrant from manipulating the citizens into electing him / her. It was a check on the electorate.


Since the electors are now legally compelled to vote for whoever won the popular vote in their state, this function is moot.


Which is exactly why the electoral college should be abolished. It no longer serves one of its originally intended purposes.



_________________
The poster formerly known as LibWNBAFan.
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin