Conservatives and Liberals: A little more civility please

[Nia88]

Conservatives and Liberals: The election is over. I think both sides need to stop inflaming this situation. Democrats need to stop the protests, show business tours, and accept the results of the election. Republicans need to stop the name calling, trash talking and other "in your face" behavior. I know it's too much to ask for American voters to behave like civilized people, but hope springs eternal.

Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton displayed good manners and respect in their speeches immediately after the election. Maybe American voters should do the same.

Its a little hard to be civil with folks who are stuck in the 50's. Also Trump doesn't help calm the flame. There are times where I have said to myself " I should give Trump a chance , maybe he won't be so bad" and then he goes and say something inflammatory or crazy. He's not trying to be bring people together.

 

[Nia88]

Conservatives and Liberals: The election is over. I think both sides need to stop inflaming this situation. Democrats need to stop the protests, show business tours, and accept the results of the election. Republicans need to stop the name calling, trash talking and other "in your face" behavior. I know it's too much to ask for American voters to behave like civilized people, but hope springs eternal.

Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton displayed good manners and respect in their speeches immediately after the election. Maybe American voters should do the same.

and what of the daily litany of "Xenophobe", "Bigot", "Islamophobe", and "Racist" arising from the leftists (most of whom would not recognize an actual liberal principle if it slapped them along side their stupid little heads)?

Do think perhaps , just maybe the right is a little bigoted. I'm not saying all are but in recent years they haven't been too kind towards minorities. And conservative politicians have said and done inflammatory things.

 

[toomuchtime_]

I mean, you said "The clear user won", yet from what I saw, the electoral votes, the things that matter, Trump won. That makes your statement false. You know?

I said the clear loser won, not 'user', that's a weird typo.

Obviously I'm referring to the popular vote which Trump lost. I believe the popular vote represents and accurate measure of the will of the people where as the EC only distorts it. Such as in 2008 where Obama won by a landslide, but by popular vote standards he didn't.

Oh, you're right, I did typo. I meant "Loser", but you know that.

Yes, I just told you that.

This is not a Democracy, the popular vote, even if it was accurate, doesn't matter, since we are a Republic. The Electoral College was designed to give equal representation. I, personally, love the Electoral College, regardless of which candidate wins.

The electoral college has nothing to do with use being a republic or a direct democracy. If we ditched the electoral college we would still very much be a republic where we elect individuals to represent us

Seriously, read a book.

The electoral college gives a voice to the small states which would otherwise be effectively governed from Sacramento. That is also the reason the Senate gives Delaware and California the same number of representatives. Without these measures there would have been no United States, and these reasons are still strong enough to prevent a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college so why make a fool of yourself whining about it?

No it doesn't. Wyoming, Alaska and Rhode Island had zero voice and they will continue to be ignored after the election because nobody lives there, nobody campaigns there. That is a farce.

You know who doesn't get a voice? Conservatives in California, millions of voters, about 40% of the state, they don't have a single electoral college vote to share. While half a million in Wyoming get 4. There is nothing democratic about that.

Anyway, you really don't need a constitutional amendment. If enough states pass laws to give their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote then the EC is for all purposes non functional. You really only need enough states to equal 270 electoral votes to get there and that is possibly attainable.

In fact, as much as you and Clinton might want to ignore these states, they are not ignored because they have at least 3 electoral votes and two Senate votes.

The only states that would agree to vote for the winner of the national popular vote would some of the be blue states, because the electoral system is advantageous to the mostly Republican smaller states. Instead of whining about the electoral college, why don't you try to figure out why Clinton lost blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? It is these states that cost her the election, not the electoral college.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Without the EC only votes that would count are in the blue… Fact

That's where the people live. Sagebrush and jackrabbits shouldn't count for more than people.

Good Lord.....

 

[EverCurious]

Alaska will not submit to being lorded over by CA or NY. We are a sovereign state and we will fight for our right to have a voice in the election of the nations leaders - which means EC.

Alaska was subjugated by the lower 48 for 100 years, we will /never/ agree to go back to being under the thumb of Seattle economic interests and San Francisco canneries.

 

[HappyJoy]

I said the clear loser won, not 'user', that's a weird typo.

Obviously I'm referring to the popular vote which Trump lost. I believe the popular vote represents and accurate measure of the will of the people where as the EC only distorts it. Such as in 2008 where Obama won by a landslide, but by popular vote standards he didn't.

Oh, you're right, I did typo. I meant "Loser", but you know that.

Yes, I just told you that.

This is not a Democracy, the popular vote, even if it was accurate, doesn't matter, since we are a Republic. The Electoral College was designed to give equal representation. I, personally, love the Electoral College, regardless of which candidate wins.

The electoral college has nothing to do with use being a republic or a direct democracy. If we ditched the electoral college we would still very much be a republic where we elect individuals to represent us

Seriously, read a book.

The electoral college gives a voice to the small states which would otherwise be effectively governed from Sacramento. That is also the reason the Senate gives Delaware and California the same number of representatives. Without these measures there would have been no United States, and these reasons are still strong enough to prevent a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college so why make a fool of yourself whining about it?

No it doesn't. Wyoming, Alaska and Rhode Island had zero voice and they will continue to be ignored after the election because nobody lives there, nobody campaigns there. That is a farce.

You know who doesn't get a voice? Conservatives in California, millions of voters, about 40% of the state, they don't have a single electoral college vote to share. While half a million in Wyoming get 4. There is nothing democratic about that.

Anyway, you really don't need a constitutional amendment. If enough states pass laws to give their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote then the EC is for all purposes non functional. You really only need enough states to equal 270 electoral votes to get there and that is possibly attainable.

In fact, as much as you and Clinton might want to ignore these states, they are not ignored because they have at least 3 electoral votes and two Senate votes.

Trump kind of ignored them too, what are you talking about? Just because a state has a low population is really no reason to give them more electoral power, there is no reason for it. Also, if you go to a popular vote system then there is more incentive for people to vote in elections where the other party outnumbers their own. it's an incentive to vote where as the EC can have the effect of killing turnout because many will rightfully believe that their vote doesn't count.

The only states that would agree to vote for the winner of the national popular vote would some of the be blue states, because the electoral system is advantageous to the mostly Republican smaller states. Instead of whining about the electoral college, why don't you try to figure out why Clinton lost blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? It is these states that cost her the election, not the electoral college.

Maybe it would only be blue states, if so, traditionally we are pretty close to being there. Nothing is easy but the EC is undemocratic.

 

[HappyJoy]

Without the EC only votes that would count are in the blue… Fact

That's where the people live. Sagebrush and jackrabbits shouldn't count for more than people.

Good Lord.....

Are you for jackrabbits voting?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Without the EC only votes that would count are in the blue… Fact

That's where the people live. Sagebrush and jackrabbits shouldn't count for more than people.

Good Lord.....

Are you for jackrabbits voting?

That's just dumb...

 

[peach174]

Without the EC only votes that would count are in the blue… Fact

That's where the people live. Sagebrush and jackrabbits shouldn't count for more than people.

Good Lord.....

Are you for jackrabbits voting?

Its the jackrabbits aka jackasses who lost.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Oh, you're right, I did typo. I meant "Loser", but you know that.

Yes, I just told you that.

This is not a Democracy, the popular vote, even if it was accurate, doesn't matter, since we are a Republic. The Electoral College was designed to give equal representation. I, personally, love the Electoral College, regardless of which candidate wins.

The electoral college has nothing to do with use being a republic or a direct democracy. If we ditched the electoral college we would still very much be a republic where we elect individuals to represent us

Seriously, read a book.

The electoral college gives a voice to the small states which would otherwise be effectively governed from Sacramento. That is also the reason the Senate gives Delaware and California the same number of representatives. Without these measures there would have been no United States, and these reasons are still strong enough to prevent a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college so why make a fool of yourself whining about it?

No it doesn't. Wyoming, Alaska and Rhode Island had zero voice and they will continue to be ignored after the election because nobody lives there, nobody campaigns there. That is a farce.

You know who doesn't get a voice? Conservatives in California, millions of voters, about 40% of the state, they don't have a single electoral college vote to share. While half a million in Wyoming get 4. There is nothing democratic about that.

Anyway, you really don't need a constitutional amendment. If enough states pass laws to give their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote then the EC is for all purposes non functional. You really only need enough states to equal 270 electoral votes to get there and that is possibly attainable.

In fact, as much as you and Clinton might want to ignore these states, they are not ignored because they have at least 3 electoral votes and two Senate votes.

Trump kind of ignored them too, what are you talking about? Just because a state has a low population is really no reason to give them more electoral power, there is no reason for it. Also, if you go to a popular vote system then there is more incentive for people to vote in elections where the other party outnumbers their own. it's an incentive to vote where as the EC can have the effect of killing turnout because many will rightfully believe that their vote doesn't count.

The only states that would agree to vote for the winner of the national popular vote would some of the be blue states, because the electoral system is advantageous to the mostly Republican smaller states. Instead of whining about the electoral college, why don't you try to figure out why Clinton lost blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? It is these states that cost her the election, not the electoral college.

Maybe it would only be blue states, if so, traditionally we are pretty close to being there. Nothing is easy but the EC is undemocratic.

Well, considering we are not a democracy....

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Conservatives and Liberals: The election is over. I think both sides need to stop inflaming this situation. Democrats need to stop the protests, show business tours, and accept the results of the election. Republicans need to stop the name calling, trash talking and other "in your face" behavior. I know it's too much to ask for American voters to behave like civilized people, but hope springs eternal.

Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton displayed good manners and respect in their speeches immediately after the election. Maybe American voters should do the same.

Fuck Trump and his asshole White Supremacist followers ...Fuck em all

 

[HappyJoy]

Without the EC only votes that would count are in the blue… Fact

That's where the people live. Sagebrush and jackrabbits shouldn't count for more than people.

Good Lord.....

Are you for jackrabbits voting?

That's just dumb...

I'm not the one worried about it.

 

[HappyJoy]

Yes, I just told you that.

The electoral college has nothing to do with use being a republic or a direct democracy. If we ditched the electoral college we would still very much be a republic where we elect individuals to represent us

Seriously, read a book.

The electoral college gives a voice to the small states which would otherwise be effectively governed from Sacramento. That is also the reason the Senate gives Delaware and California the same number of representatives. Without these measures there would have been no United States, and these reasons are still strong enough to prevent a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college so why make a fool of yourself whining about it?

No it doesn't. Wyoming, Alaska and Rhode Island had zero voice and they will continue to be ignored after the election because nobody lives there, nobody campaigns there. That is a farce.

You know who doesn't get a voice? Conservatives in California, millions of voters, about 40% of the state, they don't have a single electoral college vote to share. While half a million in Wyoming get 4. There is nothing democratic about that.

Anyway, you really don't need a constitutional amendment. If enough states pass laws to give their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote then the EC is for all purposes non functional. You really only need enough states to equal 270 electoral votes to get there and that is possibly attainable.

In fact, as much as you and Clinton might want to ignore these states, they are not ignored because they have at least 3 electoral votes and two Senate votes.

Trump kind of ignored them too, what are you talking about? Just because a state has a low population is really no reason to give them more electoral power, there is no reason for it. Also, if you go to a popular vote system then there is more incentive for people to vote in elections where the other party outnumbers their own. it's an incentive to vote where as the EC can have the effect of killing turnout because many will rightfully believe that their vote doesn't count.

The only states that would agree to vote for the winner of the national popular vote would some of the be blue states, because the electoral system is advantageous to the mostly Republican smaller states. Instead of whining about the electoral college, why don't you try to figure out why Clinton lost blue states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? It is these states that cost her the election, not the electoral college.

Maybe it would only be blue states, if so, traditionally we are pretty close to being there. Nothing is easy but the EC is undemocratic.

Well, considering we are not a democracy....

Didn't say we were. Republics are democratic, they are not democracies.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Democrats win = EC good
Democrats lose = EC bad

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Without the EC only votes that would count are in the blue… Fact

That's where the people live. Sagebrush and jackrabbits shouldn't count for more than people.

Good Lord.....

Are you for jackrabbits voting?

That's just dumb...

I'm not the one worried about it.

Well, that's good because that would make you rather delusional.

 

[HappyJoy]

That's where the people live. Sagebrush and jackrabbits shouldn't count for more than people.

Good Lord.....

Are you for jackrabbits voting?

That's just dumb...

I'm not the one worried about it.

Well, that's good because that would make you rather delusional.

Right, maybe get back on topic.

Why does the map scare you?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Conservatives and Liberals: The election is over. I think both sides need to stop inflaming this situation. Democrats need to stop the protests, show business tours, and accept the results of the election. Republicans need to stop the name calling, trash talking and other "in your face" behavior. I know it's too much to ask for American voters to behave like civilized people, but hope springs eternal.

Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton displayed good manners and respect in their speeches immediately after the election. Maybe American voters should do the same.

Fuck Trump and his asshole White Supremacist followers ...Fuck em all

Uhm... OK.

 

[francoHFW]

Conservatives and Liberals: The election is over. I think both sides need to stop inflaming this situation. Democrats need to stop the protests, show business tours, and accept the results of the election. Republicans need to stop the name calling, trash talking and other "in your face" behavior. I know it's too much to ask for American voters to behave like civilized people, but hope springs eternal.

Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton displayed good manners and respect in their speeches immediately after the election. Maybe American voters should do the same.

I applaud your sentiment, but it's a pipe dream.

The wingers are more concerned with "beating" the other "side" than they are about what's best for the country as a whole.

Ideology over country. Not sure exactly when we reached that point, but it seems as if it's happened over the last generation.
.

Started with, and growing since, the advent of Rush and Newt, and the end of the Fairness Doctrine. Liars and dupes have taken over the GOP. Or it's the New Trump Party.

I know, it's always "their" fault.

Those guys, over there.

That was the point of my post.
.

Newt started the talking points thing, never a bad word about the GOP thing, and demonization of all things liberal. Rush started fake news and propaganda, Fox took it on TV- sometimes it IS all THEIR fault. Like the last 30 years. See sig. Go Trump- here's hoping he's a gd NYC genius as well as a con man of the hater dupes/ billionaire BSers...

 

[HappyJoy]

Democrats win = EC good
Democrats lose = EC bad

The EC is bad, unnecessary and the only thing it is guaranteed to do is change the appearance of the election results for no good reason at all.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Good Lord.....

Are you for jackrabbits voting?

That's just dumb...

I'm not the one worried about it.

Well, that's good because that would make you rather delusional.

Right, maybe get back on topic.

Why does the map scare you?

Why would I be scared of a map?