7-in-10 speech-watchers say trump boosted optimism

[martybegan]

It's a lot less actually because you are assuming everyone voted. Trump is winning people over, and you idiots can't deal with that.]

And your usual disdain for the Constitution and our Founders is noted, you Mormon Hating fucktard poseur.

His approval rating is 37%. That he gave one speech where he didn't sound like the Crazy Uncle isn't impressive.

My contempt for the Founders is that they talked a lot of smack about "Freedom" and "All men are created equal" and then they went right home and whipped their slaves for not working hard enough to keep them in a comfortable lifestyle. They then created a system for electing presidents to keep the slave-rapists happy for as long as possible.

For some reason, we didn't chuck this awful system the same time we chucked slavery.

Mostly because until recently, it didn't matter. We had enough people who took voting seriously that when a major political party nominated a complete fucking buffoon (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to vote for the other guy, even if was a bit shifty.

Unfortunately, now we are back to default settings, where the most regressive part of the country is voting against the majority and inflicting truly bad presidents on us.

Yawn on approval ratings. Of course it's low when the press takes a poll about a guy they detest. Moving along....

They started something and were not perfect, but they were not the monsters you make them out to be. Your images of slavery at the time is probably based on the image of Slavery from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and not the actual conditions at the time.

Well we suffered through 8 years of Obama, Enjoy 8 years of Trump. If you idiots keep reacting like you are now, I know I will.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure. He's a politician, most successful politicians lie quite a lie, or distort the truth, or do something which could quite easily be seen as being dishonest or lying.

Exactly. Then why are progressives so hot and bothered about Trump's Lies like they are something brand spanking new?

For some it's because it's part of the game. You pretend your side can't do any wrong and the other side is the big evil, while the other does the same thing.

For others it's probably just that Trump is so open about it. People don't like to be told they're wrong, so the politicians do it subtly, and try and hide their lies, or dress them up as legitimate, or do things vaguely so people can't hit them with it. But Trump is just coming out with stuff that shouldn't be said, and making promises that are going to bite him in the ass. It's why successful politicians end up being president, because they know how to manipulate in this arena, Trump doesn't.

Maybe that's why we are in the state we are now. Whatever Trump is doing seems to resonate with enough people in the right places that he is in the Oval office, and a more "polished" liar is wondering what the hell happened to her from her home office.

Or maybe in the world of instant entertainment, he's more entertaining than others. But it's like employing a clown as CEO of your company because he pulled down his pants and farted in the interview.....

Maybe that's how it appears to the pinkies up crowd, but his mannerisms resonate with the proles, and that's why he won.

Well, aside from the fact that he got less votes than a lot of losing candidates in the past, that more people ended up voting for Libertarians and the like..... the US system is a system of NEGATIVE voting, you can go look at the German elections to see proof that FPTP is a negative way of voting (1 in 10 voted for a different party other than the main parties when they had PR rather than FPTP). People ended up voting against Hillary or not voting at all.

Trump won the race between two slugs doing the 100m because the rabbit injured itself that day.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's a lot less actually because you are assuming everyone voted. Trump is winning people over, and you idiots can't deal with that.]

And your usual disdain for the Constitution and our Founders is noted, you Mormon Hating fucktard poseur.

His approval rating is 37%. That he gave one speech where he didn't sound like the Crazy Uncle isn't impressive.

My contempt for the Founders is that they talked a lot of smack about "Freedom" and "All men are created equal" and then they went right home and whipped their slaves for not working hard enough to keep them in a comfortable lifestyle. They then created a system for electing presidents to keep the slave-rapists happy for as long as possible.

For some reason, we didn't chuck this awful system the same time we chucked slavery.

Mostly because until recently, it didn't matter. We had enough people who took voting seriously that when a major political party nominated a complete fucking buffoon (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to vote for the other guy, even if was a bit shifty.

Unfortunately, now we are back to default settings, where the most regressive part of the country is voting against the majority and inflicting truly bad presidents on us.

Yawn on approval ratings. Of course it's low when the press takes a poll about a guy they detest. Moving along....

They started something and were not perfect, but they were not the monsters you make them out to be. Your images of slavery at the time is probably based on the image of Slavery from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and not the actual conditions at the time.

Well we suffered through 8 years of Obama, Enjoy 8 years of Trump. If you idiots keep reacting like you are now, I know I will.

The press is an important tool, and many previous presidents have realized this. Trump also has and he's playing the people off the press and getting loads of free air time for it, and realizing that he can essentially sell himself as the anti-establisment guy, and you're buying his crap as much as you'd buy the crap of others, this is McDonalds v. KFC here, both sides selling shit, but everyone buying their shit because they get the brand recognition while the diner down the road selling real food isn't getting the custom.

 

[martybegan]

Exactly. Then why are progressives so hot and bothered about Trump's Lies like they are something brand spanking new?

For some it's because it's part of the game. You pretend your side can't do any wrong and the other side is the big evil, while the other does the same thing.

For others it's probably just that Trump is so open about it. People don't like to be told they're wrong, so the politicians do it subtly, and try and hide their lies, or dress them up as legitimate, or do things vaguely so people can't hit them with it. But Trump is just coming out with stuff that shouldn't be said, and making promises that are going to bite him in the ass. It's why successful politicians end up being president, because they know how to manipulate in this arena, Trump doesn't.

Maybe that's why we are in the state we are now. Whatever Trump is doing seems to resonate with enough people in the right places that he is in the Oval office, and a more "polished" liar is wondering what the hell happened to her from her home office.

Or maybe in the world of instant entertainment, he's more entertaining than others. But it's like employing a clown as CEO of your company because he pulled down his pants and farted in the interview.....

Maybe that's how it appears to the pinkies up crowd, but his mannerisms resonate with the proles, and that's why he won.

Well, aside from the fact that he got less votes than a lot of losing candidates in the past, that more people ended up voting for Libertarians and the like..... the US system is a system of NEGATIVE voting, you can go look at the German elections to see proof that FPTP is a negative way of voting (1 in 10 voted for a different party other than the main parties when they had PR rather than FPTP). People ended up voting against Hillary or not voting at all.

Trump won the race between two slugs doing the 100m because the rabbit injured itself that day.

First you talk about perception, and when I answer about perception, you come back with mechanics....

Stay on topic please. Our system is our system. We are not a parliamentary system where that proportional voting stuff would work.

The federal level of government was never meant to be "one person, one vote" across the board. The House is the closest thing to that, and it even isn't that close.

 

[martybegan]

It's a lot less actually because you are assuming everyone voted. Trump is winning people over, and you idiots can't deal with that.]

And your usual disdain for the Constitution and our Founders is noted, you Mormon Hating fucktard poseur.

His approval rating is 37%. That he gave one speech where he didn't sound like the Crazy Uncle isn't impressive.

My contempt for the Founders is that they talked a lot of smack about "Freedom" and "All men are created equal" and then they went right home and whipped their slaves for not working hard enough to keep them in a comfortable lifestyle. They then created a system for electing presidents to keep the slave-rapists happy for as long as possible.

For some reason, we didn't chuck this awful system the same time we chucked slavery.

Mostly because until recently, it didn't matter. We had enough people who took voting seriously that when a major political party nominated a complete fucking buffoon (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to vote for the other guy, even if was a bit shifty.

Unfortunately, now we are back to default settings, where the most regressive part of the country is voting against the majority and inflicting truly bad presidents on us.

Yawn on approval ratings. Of course it's low when the press takes a poll about a guy they detest. Moving along....

They started something and were not perfect, but they were not the monsters you make them out to be. Your images of slavery at the time is probably based on the image of Slavery from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and not the actual conditions at the time.

Well we suffered through 8 years of Obama, Enjoy 8 years of Trump. If you idiots keep reacting like you are now, I know I will.

The press is an important tool, and many previous presidents have realized this. Trump also has and he's playing the people off the press and getting loads of free air time for it, and realizing that he can essentially sell himself as the anti-establisment guy, and you're buying his crap as much as you'd buy the crap of others, this is McDonalds v. KFC here, both sides selling shit, but everyone buying their shit because they get the brand recognition while the diner down the road selling real food isn't getting the custom.

I've always had an issue with a biased mainstream press, the only difference with Trump is he's decided to not wallow around and let them manage his Narrative.

 

[frigidweirdo]

For some it's because it's part of the game. You pretend your side can't do any wrong and the other side is the big evil, while the other does the same thing.

For others it's probably just that Trump is so open about it. People don't like to be told they're wrong, so the politicians do it subtly, and try and hide their lies, or dress them up as legitimate, or do things vaguely so people can't hit them with it. But Trump is just coming out with stuff that shouldn't be said, and making promises that are going to bite him in the ass. It's why successful politicians end up being president, because they know how to manipulate in this arena, Trump doesn't.

Maybe that's why we are in the state we are now. Whatever Trump is doing seems to resonate with enough people in the right places that he is in the Oval office, and a more "polished" liar is wondering what the hell happened to her from her home office.

Or maybe in the world of instant entertainment, he's more entertaining than others. But it's like employing a clown as CEO of your company because he pulled down his pants and farted in the interview.....

Maybe that's how it appears to the pinkies up crowd, but his mannerisms resonate with the proles, and that's why he won.

Well, aside from the fact that he got less votes than a lot of losing candidates in the past, that more people ended up voting for Libertarians and the like..... the US system is a system of NEGATIVE voting, you can go look at the German elections to see proof that FPTP is a negative way of voting (1 in 10 voted for a different party other than the main parties when they had PR rather than FPTP). People ended up voting against Hillary or not voting at all.

Trump won the race between two slugs doing the 100m because the rabbit injured itself that day.

First you talk about perception, and when I answer about perception, you come back with mechanics....

Stay on topic please. Our system is our system. We are not a parliamentary system where that proportional voting stuff would work.

The federal level of government was never meant to be "one person, one vote" across the board. The House is the closest thing to that, and it even isn't that close.

So the topic can't be more complex than just having one thing? Perhaps it is mechanics AND perception. Surely how the election functions plays an important part in who gets elected. Perception also plays a part, we know why people buy McDonalds, Coca-Cola etc, and it's not because they taste better.

The system is the system, and they system can be changed, it's already been changed from a system where the people didn't vote for the president, to one where everyone gets a vote. Do people want a system of state supremacy? If they do they don't have it. What the get is a twisted vote of people in Wyoming and Rhode Island being more important than people in Texas and California. Why?

The federal govt wasn't intended to give women the vote either, but, somehow, women got the vote. The Constitution WAS intended to be more fluid rather than rigid. People call for change, then when people suggest change they say no. People say Trump is all about him resonating with the public, but I don't see that. He resonates with entertainment junkies, not with the majority of which he didn't win.

So if you don't want me to go off topic, then don't write something off topic and which I believe you are wrong, because otherwise I'll shoot you down for saying something I think is wrong.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's a lot less actually because you are assuming everyone voted. Trump is winning people over, and you idiots can't deal with that.]

And your usual disdain for the Constitution and our Founders is noted, you Mormon Hating fucktard poseur.

His approval rating is 37%. That he gave one speech where he didn't sound like the Crazy Uncle isn't impressive.

My contempt for the Founders is that they talked a lot of smack about "Freedom" and "All men are created equal" and then they went right home and whipped their slaves for not working hard enough to keep them in a comfortable lifestyle. They then created a system for electing presidents to keep the slave-rapists happy for as long as possible.

For some reason, we didn't chuck this awful system the same time we chucked slavery.

Mostly because until recently, it didn't matter. We had enough people who took voting seriously that when a major political party nominated a complete fucking buffoon (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to vote for the other guy, even if was a bit shifty.

Unfortunately, now we are back to default settings, where the most regressive part of the country is voting against the majority and inflicting truly bad presidents on us.

Yawn on approval ratings. Of course it's low when the press takes a poll about a guy they detest. Moving along....

They started something and were not perfect, but they were not the monsters you make them out to be. Your images of slavery at the time is probably based on the image of Slavery from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and not the actual conditions at the time.

Well we suffered through 8 years of Obama, Enjoy 8 years of Trump. If you idiots keep reacting like you are now, I know I will.

The press is an important tool, and many previous presidents have realized this. Trump also has and he's playing the people off the press and getting loads of free air time for it, and realizing that he can essentially sell himself as the anti-establisment guy, and you're buying his crap as much as you'd buy the crap of others, this is McDonalds v. KFC here, both sides selling shit, but everyone buying their shit because they get the brand recognition while the diner down the road selling real food isn't getting the custom.

I've always had an issue with a biased mainstream press, the only difference with Trump is he's decided to not wallow around and let them manage his Narrative.

Well, Obama didn't either. He used the media as much as Trump, or Bush,or Clinton used the media for their own advantage. Nothing much has changed, it's just slightly different.

 

[martybegan]

Maybe that's why we are in the state we are now. Whatever Trump is doing seems to resonate with enough people in the right places that he is in the Oval office, and a more "polished" liar is wondering what the hell happened to her from her home office.

Or maybe in the world of instant entertainment, he's more entertaining than others. But it's like employing a clown as CEO of your company because he pulled down his pants and farted in the interview.....

Maybe that's how it appears to the pinkies up crowd, but his mannerisms resonate with the proles, and that's why he won.

Well, aside from the fact that he got less votes than a lot of losing candidates in the past, that more people ended up voting for Libertarians and the like..... the US system is a system of NEGATIVE voting, you can go look at the German elections to see proof that FPTP is a negative way of voting (1 in 10 voted for a different party other than the main parties when they had PR rather than FPTP). People ended up voting against Hillary or not voting at all.

Trump won the race between two slugs doing the 100m because the rabbit injured itself that day.

First you talk about perception, and when I answer about perception, you come back with mechanics....

Stay on topic please. Our system is our system. We are not a parliamentary system where that proportional voting stuff would work.

The federal level of government was never meant to be "one person, one vote" across the board. The House is the closest thing to that, and it even isn't that close.

So the topic can't be more complex than just having one thing? Perhaps it is mechanics AND perception. Surely how the election functions plays an important part in who gets elected. Perception also plays a part, we know why people buy McDonalds, Coca-Cola etc, and it's not because they taste better.

The system is the system, and they system can be changed, it's already been changed from a system where the people didn't vote for the president, to one where everyone gets a vote. Do people want a system of state supremacy? If they do they don't have it. What the get is a twisted vote of people in Wyoming and Rhode Island being more important than people in Texas and California. Why?

The federal govt wasn't intended to give women the vote either, but, somehow, women got the vote. The Constitution WAS intended to be more fluid rather than rigid. People call for change, then when people suggest change they say no. People say Trump is all about him resonating with the public, but I don't see that. He resonates with entertainment junkies, not with the majority of which he didn't win.

So if you don't want me to go off topic, then don't write something off topic and which I believe you are wrong, because otherwise I'll shoot you down for saying something I think is wrong.

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

 

[martybegan]

It's a lot less actually because you are assuming everyone voted. Trump is winning people over, and you idiots can't deal with that.]

And your usual disdain for the Constitution and our Founders is noted, you Mormon Hating fucktard poseur.

His approval rating is 37%. That he gave one speech where he didn't sound like the Crazy Uncle isn't impressive.

My contempt for the Founders is that they talked a lot of smack about "Freedom" and "All men are created equal" and then they went right home and whipped their slaves for not working hard enough to keep them in a comfortable lifestyle. They then created a system for electing presidents to keep the slave-rapists happy for as long as possible.

For some reason, we didn't chuck this awful system the same time we chucked slavery.

Mostly because until recently, it didn't matter. We had enough people who took voting seriously that when a major political party nominated a complete fucking buffoon (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to vote for the other guy, even if was a bit shifty.

Unfortunately, now we are back to default settings, where the most regressive part of the country is voting against the majority and inflicting truly bad presidents on us.

Yawn on approval ratings. Of course it's low when the press takes a poll about a guy they detest. Moving along....

They started something and were not perfect, but they were not the monsters you make them out to be. Your images of slavery at the time is probably based on the image of Slavery from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and not the actual conditions at the time.

Well we suffered through 8 years of Obama, Enjoy 8 years of Trump. If you idiots keep reacting like you are now, I know I will.

The press is an important tool, and many previous presidents have realized this. Trump also has and he's playing the people off the press and getting loads of free air time for it, and realizing that he can essentially sell himself as the anti-establisment guy, and you're buying his crap as much as you'd buy the crap of others, this is McDonalds v. KFC here, both sides selling shit, but everyone buying their shit because they get the brand recognition while the diner down the road selling real food isn't getting the custom.

I've always had an issue with a biased mainstream press, the only difference with Trump is he's decided to not wallow around and let them manage his Narrative.

Well, Obama didn't either. He used the media as much as Trump, or Bush,or Clinton used the media for their own advantage. Nothing much has changed, it's just slightly different.

The difference is with Obama the Media WANTED to be used, at least the democrats with bylines did (which is most of the media)

 

[Eloy]

Trump is off his head.
It is embarrassing to witness a US president talking about funding a wall along the border with Mexico and starting a program to help exclusively victims of undocumented immigrants. Whoever thought it could happen.

 

[JoeB131]

They started something and were not perfect, but they were not the monsters you make them out to be. Your images of slavery at the time is probably based on the image of Slavery from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and not the actual conditions at the time.

Seriously? "Slavery wasn't so bad?" This is what you are going with?

Well we suffered through 8 years of Obama, Enjoy 8 years of Trump. If you idiots keep reacting like you are now, I know I will.

Obama was legitimately elected. Trump wasn't.

Trump won't last a year. When Republicans see his approval rating is low enough to impeach him, they will.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Or maybe in the world of instant entertainment, he's more entertaining than others. But it's like employing a clown as CEO of your company because he pulled down his pants and farted in the interview.....

Maybe that's how it appears to the pinkies up crowd, but his mannerisms resonate with the proles, and that's why he won.

Well, aside from the fact that he got less votes than a lot of losing candidates in the past, that more people ended up voting for Libertarians and the like..... the US system is a system of NEGATIVE voting, you can go look at the German elections to see proof that FPTP is a negative way of voting (1 in 10 voted for a different party other than the main parties when they had PR rather than FPTP). People ended up voting against Hillary or not voting at all.

Trump won the race between two slugs doing the 100m because the rabbit injured itself that day.

First you talk about perception, and when I answer about perception, you come back with mechanics....

Stay on topic please. Our system is our system. We are not a parliamentary system where that proportional voting stuff would work.

The federal level of government was never meant to be "one person, one vote" across the board. The House is the closest thing to that, and it even isn't that close.

So the topic can't be more complex than just having one thing? Perhaps it is mechanics AND perception. Surely how the election functions plays an important part in who gets elected. Perception also plays a part, we know why people buy McDonalds, Coca-Cola etc, and it's not because they taste better.

The system is the system, and they system can be changed, it's already been changed from a system where the people didn't vote for the president, to one where everyone gets a vote. Do people want a system of state supremacy? If they do they don't have it. What the get is a twisted vote of people in Wyoming and Rhode Island being more important than people in Texas and California. Why?

The federal govt wasn't intended to give women the vote either, but, somehow, women got the vote. The Constitution WAS intended to be more fluid rather than rigid. People call for change, then when people suggest change they say no. People say Trump is all about him resonating with the public, but I don't see that. He resonates with entertainment junkies, not with the majority of which he didn't win.

So if you don't want me to go off topic, then don't write something off topic and which I believe you are wrong, because otherwise I'll shoot you down for saying something I think is wrong.

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

 

[frigidweirdo]

His approval rating is 37%. That he gave one speech where he didn't sound like the Crazy Uncle isn't impressive.

My contempt for the Founders is that they talked a lot of smack about "Freedom" and "All men are created equal" and then they went right home and whipped their slaves for not working hard enough to keep them in a comfortable lifestyle. They then created a system for electing presidents to keep the slave-rapists happy for as long as possible.

For some reason, we didn't chuck this awful system the same time we chucked slavery.

Mostly because until recently, it didn't matter. We had enough people who took voting seriously that when a major political party nominated a complete fucking buffoon (Goldwater, McGovern) enough people crossed party lines to vote for the other guy, even if was a bit shifty.

Unfortunately, now we are back to default settings, where the most regressive part of the country is voting against the majority and inflicting truly bad presidents on us.

Yawn on approval ratings. Of course it's low when the press takes a poll about a guy they detest. Moving along....

They started something and were not perfect, but they were not the monsters you make them out to be. Your images of slavery at the time is probably based on the image of Slavery from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and not the actual conditions at the time.

Well we suffered through 8 years of Obama, Enjoy 8 years of Trump. If you idiots keep reacting like you are now, I know I will.

The press is an important tool, and many previous presidents have realized this. Trump also has and he's playing the people off the press and getting loads of free air time for it, and realizing that he can essentially sell himself as the anti-establisment guy, and you're buying his crap as much as you'd buy the crap of others, this is McDonalds v. KFC here, both sides selling shit, but everyone buying their shit because they get the brand recognition while the diner down the road selling real food isn't getting the custom.

I've always had an issue with a biased mainstream press, the only difference with Trump is he's decided to not wallow around and let them manage his Narrative.

Well, Obama didn't either. He used the media as much as Trump, or Bush,or Clinton used the media for their own advantage. Nothing much has changed, it's just slightly different.

The difference is with Obama the Media WANTED to be used, at least the democrats with bylines did (which is most of the media)

Well, the media has found its place in the world. Trump has decided he doesn't need the media, he's attacking the media, the media that is protected by the First Amendment for a reason.

 

[martybegan]

Maybe that's how it appears to the pinkies up crowd, but his mannerisms resonate with the proles, and that's why he won.

Well, aside from the fact that he got less votes than a lot of losing candidates in the past, that more people ended up voting for Libertarians and the like..... the US system is a system of NEGATIVE voting, you can go look at the German elections to see proof that FPTP is a negative way of voting (1 in 10 voted for a different party other than the main parties when they had PR rather than FPTP). People ended up voting against Hillary or not voting at all.

Trump won the race between two slugs doing the 100m because the rabbit injured itself that day.

First you talk about perception, and when I answer about perception, you come back with mechanics....

Stay on topic please. Our system is our system. We are not a parliamentary system where that proportional voting stuff would work.

The federal level of government was never meant to be "one person, one vote" across the board. The House is the closest thing to that, and it even isn't that close.

So the topic can't be more complex than just having one thing? Perhaps it is mechanics AND perception. Surely how the election functions plays an important part in who gets elected. Perception also plays a part, we know why people buy McDonalds, Coca-Cola etc, and it's not because they taste better.

The system is the system, and they system can be changed, it's already been changed from a system where the people didn't vote for the president, to one where everyone gets a vote. Do people want a system of state supremacy? If they do they don't have it. What the get is a twisted vote of people in Wyoming and Rhode Island being more important than people in Texas and California. Why?

The federal govt wasn't intended to give women the vote either, but, somehow, women got the vote. The Constitution WAS intended to be more fluid rather than rigid. People call for change, then when people suggest change they say no. People say Trump is all about him resonating with the public, but I don't see that. He resonates with entertainment junkies, not with the majority of which he didn't win.

So if you don't want me to go off topic, then don't write something off topic and which I believe you are wrong, because otherwise I'll shoot you down for saying something I think is wrong.

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

 

[martybegan]

Yawn on approval ratings. Of course it's low when the press takes a poll about a guy they detest. Moving along....

They started something and were not perfect, but they were not the monsters you make them out to be. Your images of slavery at the time is probably based on the image of Slavery from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and not the actual conditions at the time.

Well we suffered through 8 years of Obama, Enjoy 8 years of Trump. If you idiots keep reacting like you are now, I know I will.

The press is an important tool, and many previous presidents have realized this. Trump also has and he's playing the people off the press and getting loads of free air time for it, and realizing that he can essentially sell himself as the anti-establisment guy, and you're buying his crap as much as you'd buy the crap of others, this is McDonalds v. KFC here, both sides selling shit, but everyone buying their shit because they get the brand recognition while the diner down the road selling real food isn't getting the custom.

I've always had an issue with a biased mainstream press, the only difference with Trump is he's decided to not wallow around and let them manage his Narrative.

Well, Obama didn't either. He used the media as much as Trump, or Bush,or Clinton used the media for their own advantage. Nothing much has changed, it's just slightly different.

The difference is with Obama the Media WANTED to be used, at least the democrats with bylines did (which is most of the media)

Well, the media has found its place in the world. Trump has decided he doesn't need the media, he's attacking the media, the media that is protected by the First Amendment for a reason.

The Media has returned to it's original purpose, something it abandons whenever someone they like is in office. And again, what actual actions has Trump taken that violates the 1st amendment? What offices has he closed? What reporters has he arrested? What websites has he shut down?

Complaining about them is not violating their rights.

 

[JoeB131]

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

More like Severe OCD. We could all be standing in the post-apocolyptic ruins of Trump's Nuclear War, and you'd be the one saying, "but he won the electoral college, just like the Founding Slave Rapists intended".

 

[NoNukes]

Well, aside from the fact that he got less votes than a lot of losing candidates in the past, that more people ended up voting for Libertarians and the like..... the US system is a system of NEGATIVE voting, you can go look at the German elections to see proof that FPTP is a negative way of voting (1 in 10 voted for a different party other than the main parties when they had PR rather than FPTP). People ended up voting against Hillary or not voting at all.

Trump won the race between two slugs doing the 100m because the rabbit injured itself that day.

First you talk about perception, and when I answer about perception, you come back with mechanics....

Stay on topic please. Our system is our system. We are not a parliamentary system where that proportional voting stuff would work.

The federal level of government was never meant to be "one person, one vote" across the board. The House is the closest thing to that, and it even isn't that close.

So the topic can't be more complex than just having one thing? Perhaps it is mechanics AND perception. Surely how the election functions plays an important part in who gets elected. Perception also plays a part, we know why people buy McDonalds, Coca-Cola etc, and it's not because they taste better.

The system is the system, and they system can be changed, it's already been changed from a system where the people didn't vote for the president, to one where everyone gets a vote. Do people want a system of state supremacy? If they do they don't have it. What the get is a twisted vote of people in Wyoming and Rhode Island being more important than people in Texas and California. Why?

The federal govt wasn't intended to give women the vote either, but, somehow, women got the vote. The Constitution WAS intended to be more fluid rather than rigid. People call for change, then when people suggest change they say no. People say Trump is all about him resonating with the public, but I don't see that. He resonates with entertainment junkies, not with the majority of which he didn't win.

So if you don't want me to go off topic, then don't write something off topic and which I believe you are wrong, because otherwise I'll shoot you down for saying something I think is wrong.

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

He is getting his idiotic supporters to totally disregard the media. He is taking advantage of weak minded people and should be ashamed of himself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, aside from the fact that he got less votes than a lot of losing candidates in the past, that more people ended up voting for Libertarians and the like..... the US system is a system of NEGATIVE voting, you can go look at the German elections to see proof that FPTP is a negative way of voting (1 in 10 voted for a different party other than the main parties when they had PR rather than FPTP). People ended up voting against Hillary or not voting at all.

Trump won the race between two slugs doing the 100m because the rabbit injured itself that day.

First you talk about perception, and when I answer about perception, you come back with mechanics....

Stay on topic please. Our system is our system. We are not a parliamentary system where that proportional voting stuff would work.

The federal level of government was never meant to be "one person, one vote" across the board. The House is the closest thing to that, and it even isn't that close.

So the topic can't be more complex than just having one thing? Perhaps it is mechanics AND perception. Surely how the election functions plays an important part in who gets elected. Perception also plays a part, we know why people buy McDonalds, Coca-Cola etc, and it's not because they taste better.

The system is the system, and they system can be changed, it's already been changed from a system where the people didn't vote for the president, to one where everyone gets a vote. Do people want a system of state supremacy? If they do they don't have it. What the get is a twisted vote of people in Wyoming and Rhode Island being more important than people in Texas and California. Why?

The federal govt wasn't intended to give women the vote either, but, somehow, women got the vote. The Constitution WAS intended to be more fluid rather than rigid. People call for change, then when people suggest change they say no. People say Trump is all about him resonating with the public, but I don't see that. He resonates with entertainment junkies, not with the majority of which he didn't win.

So if you don't want me to go off topic, then don't write something off topic and which I believe you are wrong, because otherwise I'll shoot you down for saying something I think is wrong.

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

Okay, the left want to use courts for change. You have to wonder why. Could it be that the presidency is weighted against them? The Electoral college gives Republicans more chance to get a president than it gives the left. The Senate is the same, in fact it's the Senate that twists the electoral college in favor of the right.

So why shouldn't the left use their heads and try and get the change they want via a different route? I mean, the system isn't fair in the first place, but you're whining that they're trying everything they can to restore a little balance.

The federal govt wasn't intended to be a lot of things, things have changed, and in the current climate one person one vote seems about the only fair way of doing things. If the federal govt took second place to the states, then maybe people wouldn't care, but they do. In Wyoming the people have 3 votes to one person's vote in California, it's pretty clear that this is the case, and it's pretty clear it's not fair.

 

[martybegan]

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

More like Severe OCD. We could all be standing in the post-apocolyptic ruins of Trump's Nuclear War, and you'd be the one saying, "but he won the electoral college, just like the Founding Slave Rapists intended".

Nope. I respect the process. You respect nothing.

 

[martybegan]

First you talk about perception, and when I answer about perception, you come back with mechanics....

Stay on topic please. Our system is our system. We are not a parliamentary system where that proportional voting stuff would work.

The federal level of government was never meant to be "one person, one vote" across the board. The House is the closest thing to that, and it even isn't that close.

So the topic can't be more complex than just having one thing? Perhaps it is mechanics AND perception. Surely how the election functions plays an important part in who gets elected. Perception also plays a part, we know why people buy McDonalds, Coca-Cola etc, and it's not because they taste better.

The system is the system, and they system can be changed, it's already been changed from a system where the people didn't vote for the president, to one where everyone gets a vote. Do people want a system of state supremacy? If they do they don't have it. What the get is a twisted vote of people in Wyoming and Rhode Island being more important than people in Texas and California. Why?

The federal govt wasn't intended to give women the vote either, but, somehow, women got the vote. The Constitution WAS intended to be more fluid rather than rigid. People call for change, then when people suggest change they say no. People say Trump is all about him resonating with the public, but I don't see that. He resonates with entertainment junkies, not with the majority of which he didn't win.

So if you don't want me to go off topic, then don't write something off topic and which I believe you are wrong, because otherwise I'll shoot you down for saying something I think is wrong.

The system was changed via the amendment process, and by the States themselves changing voting requirements. And the reason why small States get a little more pull is that they don't want to be ignored, and that was part of the compromise to get the document approved.

Women got the vote first State by State, and then via an amendment. That is how you change the document and the rules.

It's fluidity is through the amendment process, not end runs like the popular vote compact being bandied about.

Yes, the system was changed, and can be changed again. So, that's how you do it, get people to support it, then change it. Your argument appears to be "this is how it is, so this is how it should be", which to me makes no sense.

Yes, they didn't want the small states to be ignored. How much time did Wyoming and Rhode Island get out of the candidates? All that has happened is certain states with a demographic population closer to equal, like Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio get all the attention, rather than Californian, Texas, New York. Oh, well.... that's a difference for Wyoming.

I don't see why you have a problem with one person one vote. What is it about one person, one vote, that you disdain exactly?

No, my argument and issue is progressives seem to want to use the courts to force change, when the amendment process is the proper, if harder way to do it. Or they use back door legislation like the popular vote compact between States.

Wyoming still has more clout due to its 2 senators, as the system intended.

We actually do have 1 person, 1 vote, for the governors of our state, and usually pretty close to it for at least one State house, and local councils, where the #'s are easier to break down. The federal government was never intended to be one person one vote, and if people want it that way, amend the constitution.

If you have read any of my previous posts in other threads, you know I am a process person to the point of mild OCD.

He is getting his idiotic supporters to totally disregard the media. He is taking advantage of weak minded people and should be ashamed of himself.

Once again the left shows their disdain for their fellow citizens, their own smug superiority complex, and their continued inability to understand that this is how you get "More Trump"