Do you leftest cretins realize what just happened?

[The Original Tree]

National Elections consists of thousands of independent local elections in all 50 states, giving equal geographical representation to the entire country rather than letting our 15 largest cities Decide who is President.

Hillary only won 15% of all Counties in The US.

I ask anyone to explain to me how juat 15% of The geographical USnin large cities should Dictste who should be President to the other 85%?

Very simple...counties do not vote, people do. Empty land gets no vote


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

States do..which is why Trump won handily

Trump did win, you are correct! Well done! I am so proud for you that you know that


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

/----/ Then stop being a whiny little bitch about the irrelevant popular vote.

Dear Cellblock2429 and Golfing Gator
it's not "irrelevant", that's going too far.
the problem is our system doesn't fully count or account
for the popular vote of all citizens.

What do you both think of the idea of states
splitting the Electoral Votes per district so these
DO reflect the popular vote proportionally?

Wouldn't that push for more accountability and service
to the local districts to represent their people and party bases.

Better yet, allow these district level reps to serve their
constituents directly, by taking and resolving grievances
including complaints of govt abuses and ethics or conflicts of
interest and beliefs, and make the Electors for each party
responsible for communicating between the people
and the officials in govt from local to national levels,
whether city county or state and federal.

Wouldn't that push more leaders to represent the diverse
needs demands and grievances of all the people in our
districts, our counties and states and nation?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Bill changed his position with some what regulatory, but nothing to the extent that Trump does. Trump will take two different positions in the same day.

Bull shit. How old are you? You don't remember when Slick was President?

I am 54 and I remember it well. For all of his problems, he never took two opposite positions in less than 24 hours.

If you think he did, feel free to provide the example of him doing so.

Wow, you're the same age as me and can't remember Clinton. Clinton was known specifically for telling EVERYONE whatever they wanted to hear. In less than 24 hours? You're full of shit, he did that all the time. He sometimes flipped multiple times in a day. Depends who he was speaking to.

That's how he got the name SLICK, geniak. For saying to people whatever they wanted to hear. But you don't remember that. Suuuurrrrreeeeeeee you don't ...

Unless you're saying you've had a stroke since Slick left office. Have you? Seriously. Have you had a stroke since Slick left office?

Feel free to provide one example of him taking two different positions in 24 hours. If he did it as often as you say then there has to be 1000s for them for you to choose between.

By the way, he was called "slick" for running his campaign for governor as a progressive and then being a centrist once he was in office, not for changing on a daily basis. It stuck when he took office as POTUS because he did the same thing.

Is there anything you are not wrong about?

You're 54 and you don't remember the flip flop President? The guy who's nickname, Slick, is for his flip flops? I can't take you seriously. I'm just going to laugh at you

There are flip/flops and there there is changing your tune in less than 24 hours. I am sorry the nuance of that is beyond you, but I really cannot help you there. Nuance takes a certain level of intelligence.

 

[jillian]

You need a candidate that can beat Trump.

The hag & Co. didn't come close.

Actually they did come close, close enough to win the popular vote and the EC margin of victory was the 9th smallest in the history of the country.

And that was with the worst and most corrupt candidate ever who ran the worst campaign since Bush I in 1991/2.

Hillary didn't win the popular vote because there was no popular vote election, no popular vote campaign strategy, no popular vote campaign ads. There is no way to know who would have won a popular vote election so stop pretending Hillary won something. She lost, she got the shit kicked out of her Trump crushed her winning 30 states including 3 of Hillary's blue states.

Hillary only won 15% of all Counties in The US.

I ask anyone to explain to me how juat 15% of The geographical USnin large cities should Dictste who should be President to the other 85%?

Very simple...counties do not vote, people do. Empty land gets no vote


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Dear Golfing Gator
are you okay with millions of people concentrated in liberal
regions of NY and CA deciding EVERY election
by counting those votes more than millions of people
from a wider range of states from the South and Midwest?

What is your threshold?

Do you want to raise the bar to 2/3 or 3/4 instead of majority?
We could argue to have preferential ballots
so runoffs can still be decided in one election, by looking at weighed votes
numbered in the order that people would rank the candidates.

Even if you did count the pure popular vote,
do you understand that announcing this different structure and process,
then both the candidates, the parties and voters would change their
votes and strategies as well?

More people in RED states would invest in getting their
most POPULOUS RED counties and cities to get voters to the polls
to counteract the liberal concentrations in NY and CA.

So it would be more money invested to get TX and FL voters
and not spend resources on states with minimal population.

Is that any solution?

Once TX knows their Electoral votes are going Republican,
they focus their dollars on getting other states electoral votes.

But if we switch to popular vote, then the liberals pour all their
money into concentrated high population cities in NY and CA,
and all the Democrats focus their legislation lobbying and
political action YEARROUND to woo and satisfy those voters
in high population areas that decide the vote every election.

And the Republicans focus on cities and states which add
up to the highest numbers of voters. So the bigger cities
in TX get all the political attention to keep their party and officials
support of those voters and all the money goes there.

Is that really what you want?
A battle for political control by high populous
cities in NY and CA vs. TX and FL?

if she only won california and New York she wouldn't have won the popular vote.

should 70,000 voters in 3 states targeted by Russia decide who the president is?

 

[del]

Bill changed his position with some what regulatory, but nothing to the extent that Trump does. Trump will take two different positions in the same day.

Bull shit. How old are you? You don't remember when Slick was President?

I am 54 and I remember it well. For all of his problems, he never took two opposite positions in less than 24 hours.

If you think he did, feel free to provide the example of him doing so.

Wow, you're the same age as me and can't remember Clinton. Clinton was known specifically for telling EVERYONE whatever they wanted to hear. In less than 24 hours? You're full of shit, he did that all the time. He sometimes flipped multiple times in a day. Depends who he was speaking to.

That's how he got the name SLICK, geniak. For saying to people whatever they wanted to hear. But you don't remember that. Suuuurrrrreeeeeeee you don't ...

Unless you're saying you've had a stroke since Slick left office. Have you? Seriously. Have you had a stroke since Slick left office?

Feel free to provide one example of him taking two different positions in 24 hours. If he did it as often as you say then there has to be 1000s for them for you to choose between.

By the way, he was called "slick" for running his campaign for governor as a progressive and then being a centrist once he was in office, not for changing on a daily basis. It stuck when he took office as POTUS because he did the same thing.

Is there anything you are not wrong about?

You're 54 and you don't remember the flip flop President? The guy who's nickname, Slick, is for his flip flops? I can't take you seriously. I'm just going to laugh at you

you're thinking, if i may use the term with abandon, of bush the elder.

no new taxes ring a bell?

 

[emilynghiem]

Very simple...counties do not vote, people do. Empty land gets no vote


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

States do..which is why Trump won handily

Trump did win, you are correct! Well done! I am so proud for you that you know that


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

/----/ Then stop being a whiny little bitch about the irrelevant popular vote.

Dear Cellblock2429 and Golfing Gator
it's not "irrelevant", that's going too far.
the problem is our system doesn't fully count or account
for the popular vote of all citizens.

What do you both think of the idea of states
splitting the Electoral Votes per district so these
DO reflect the popular vote proportionally?

Wouldn't that push for more accountability and service
to the local districts to represent their people and party bases.

Better yet, allow these district level reps to serve their
constituents directly, by taking and resolving grievances
including complaints of govt abuses and ethics or conflicts of
interest and beliefs, and make the Electors for each party
responsible for communicating between the people
and the officials in govt from local to national levels,
whether city county or state and federal.

Wouldn't that push more leaders to represent the diverse
needs demands and grievances of all the people in our
districts, our counties and states and nation?

Federalism should do that. The best government is that which is closest.

Dear DOTR was has thrown off Federalism and Constitutional check and balances against abuses,
is that corporations including party and media have bypassed
checks on govt by claiming personhood and individual rights
the same as single individuals. Yet these mass organizations
wield COLLECTIVE influence, RESOURCES and authority
over groups very similar to what Govt does as a "collective entity"
that REQUIRES the Bill of Rights to check and limit that power from abuse.

We don't have means in place of checking the
COLLECTIVE authority influence and resources
that Corporate Interests have, in order to get favor
in govt, in courts, in media and in parties.

So that's where the Constitution applies to govt
but isn't being practiced by individuals or corporations.

Then we lose our ability to check govt against Constitutional
standards if we keep rewarding abuses by individuals and organizations
which we don't require to follow these standards. So we lose
that authority to hold Govt to these standards when nobody is following them.

The best enforcement of Constitutional process principles
standards and ethics is to EXERCISE them.

The more people recognize and respect these standards,
and start uniting in enforcing them as protections for all people
to have equal due process and inclusion of our diverse beliefs,
including political parties, then we all benefit and have more
power to stop abuses in all cases and on all fronts.

That's what's missing from this equation.

instead the more abuses going on, the more people turn to
party leaders thinking that's going to stop the other party.
But the other party is too busy defending themselves
and protecting their interests to defend central principles
to protect ALL people and parties equally.

There is no shortcut. We can't rely on party politics to save us
from the mess that these very tactics created.

We must go back to unifying central universal principles
and start teaching respect and enforcement on that
common level, in order to stop ALL other abuses elsewhere.

We are going to suffer the consequences until we
learn to unite and work to correct these problems together.
fighting to play the blame game is only going to dig us
deeper into holes and debts. We can only get out of these
damages by accepting responsiblity for fixing them,
not just pushing the buck onto others and yelling it isn't getting done.

it will take all parties working together to solve
the problems we see and specialize in reforming.

the problem is abusing corporate media and politics to bully
instead of addressing and correcting all abuses to end
the waste and turn the economy back around. all parties
have their own corruption and abuses to account for.

We won't see that corrected until we all agree to clean
up our own messes, and quit abusing complaints for political points.

Whoever redresses grievances, answers and resolves complaints,
whoever enforces laws and gets solutions organized with our
given resources and people across parties and organizations, whether
business or nonprofit, inside or outside govt, church or state or school,
that's who is going to lead the people as the government authority.

 

[undertherqadar]

"Do you leftest cretins"

leftist

another feral porch honkey thread

 

[kaz]

Bill changed his position with some what regulatory, but nothing to the extent that Trump does. Trump will take two different positions in the same day.

Bull shit. How old are you? You don't remember when Slick was President?

I am 54 and I remember it well. For all of his problems, he never took two opposite positions in less than 24 hours.

If you think he did, feel free to provide the example of him doing so.

Wow, you're the same age as me and can't remember Clinton. Clinton was known specifically for telling EVERYONE whatever they wanted to hear. In less than 24 hours? You're full of shit, he did that all the time. He sometimes flipped multiple times in a day. Depends who he was speaking to.

That's how he got the name SLICK, geniak. For saying to people whatever they wanted to hear. But you don't remember that. Suuuurrrrreeeeeeee you don't ...

Unless you're saying you've had a stroke since Slick left office. Have you? Seriously. Have you had a stroke since Slick left office?

Feel free to provide one example of him taking two different positions in 24 hours. If he did it as often as you say then there has to be 1000s for them for you to choose between.

By the way, he was called "slick" for running his campaign for governor as a progressive and then being a centrist once he was in office, not for changing on a daily basis. It stuck when he took office as POTUS because he did the same thing.

Is there anything you are not wrong about?

Dear Golfing Gator
Maybe not 24 hours but Clinton
did go back and retract his support for DOMA.

He was for it before he was against it.
Hillary distanced herself from this putting it on Bill.

When will we see Democratic leaders admitting
ACA mandates went too far and colored outside Constitutional lines and limits?

I think it is WORSE not to backpedal on something
that is clearly against Constitutional principles and process.

I'd RATHER see leaders admit when they need to retract
and correct something wrong, rather than stick to their guns
to save political face. that to me is more dangerous than flipping.

The best policy of course is to admit that both sides on the flipside
of each other are based on beliefs, and both sides have equal right
to their own policies. That's why govt should remain neutral and
not take sides, but leave such policies to the people to choose.

that's what went wrong with health care and marriage/LGBT beliefs.
the reason people had to flip and flop is this ISN'T for govt to decide in the first place.

so if you stick to what is Constitutionally limited for govt,
then nobody has to flip flop. We stick to Constitutional neutrality
and say sorry, it's not govt authority to take sides, but the people
must resolve this conflict and decide their own policies per state or district.

Great examples! I just can't take someone seriously though who claims to be 54 and can't remember what a flip flopper Slick Willie was. The president who was known for telling everyone whatever they wanted to hear. The president who's nickname, Slick Willie, was for constantly changing sides to suit him.

My theory is Gator had a stroke sometime since 2001 when Slick left office

 

[kaz]

Bull shit. How old are you? You don't remember when Slick was President?

I am 54 and I remember it well. For all of his problems, he never took two opposite positions in less than 24 hours.

If you think he did, feel free to provide the example of him doing so.

Wow, you're the same age as me and can't remember Clinton. Clinton was known specifically for telling EVERYONE whatever they wanted to hear. In less than 24 hours? You're full of shit, he did that all the time. He sometimes flipped multiple times in a day. Depends who he was speaking to.

That's how he got the name SLICK, geniak. For saying to people whatever they wanted to hear. But you don't remember that. Suuuurrrrreeeeeeee you don't ...

Unless you're saying you've had a stroke since Slick left office. Have you? Seriously. Have you had a stroke since Slick left office?

Feel free to provide one example of him taking two different positions in 24 hours. If he did it as often as you say then there has to be 1000s for them for you to choose between.

By the way, he was called "slick" for running his campaign for governor as a progressive and then being a centrist once he was in office, not for changing on a daily basis. It stuck when he took office as POTUS because he did the same thing.

Is there anything you are not wrong about?

You're 54 and you don't remember the flip flop President? The guy who's nickname, Slick, is for his flip flops? I can't take you seriously. I'm just going to laugh at you

There are flip/flops and there there is changing your tune in less than 24 hours. I am sorry the nuance of that is beyond you, but I really cannot help you there. Nuance takes a certain level of intelligence.

You're a fucking retard. I never said I didn't understand what you said about 24 hours. I said you are full of shit. That was one massive stroke you had, wasn't it?

 

[flacaltenn]

Actually they did come close, close enough to win the popular vote and the EC margin of victory was the 9th smallest in the history of the country.

And that was with the worst and most corrupt candidate ever who ran the worst campaign since Bush I in 1991/2.

Hillary didn't win the popular vote because there was no popular vote election, no popular vote campaign strategy, no popular vote campaign ads. There is no way to know who would have won a popular vote election so stop pretending Hillary won something. She lost, she got the shit kicked out of her Trump crushed her winning 30 states including 3 of Hillary's blue states.

Trump...56.5% margin of victory.

Obama...64.75% average margin of victory

Bush II...51.76% average margin of victory

Clinton...69.61% average margin of victory

Bush I...79.18% margin of victory

Reagan...94.23% average margin of victory

Carter...55.2% margin of victory

So, you can feel all good that Trump beat Bush II and Carter. I am sure that will help you sleep at night'

Lah-oooozers (points at Golfing Gator) we kicked your ass in the House, kicked your ass in the Senate, then took the White House and SCOTUS. We threw you fools to the ground then kicked dirt in your faces while laughing and you got up and ran home to your momma's crying.

Since I have voted 3rd party since 1996, my party loses every election. But I do not have to sell my soul to the devil. So, I take that as a win.

Wait, Gary cry baby Johnson?

No.. The Gary Johnson that is not a meglomaniacal egotistical jerk and ADMITS his errors. And the ONLY candidate in the race ASKING to humbly serve and not feeling like it was "his turn"..

What a difference it would make to just extinguish the partisan warfare for 4 years. We'd be talking about policy and ideas and not having a 24/7 political meltdown from a media determined to blow their cred out..

 

[jillian]

Trump solidified the rust belt and the union vote. The blue wall just became a RED REPUBLICAN WALL.

hahahahahahaha

Trump solidified the rust belt and the union vote. The blue wall just became a RED REPUBLICAN WALL.

hahahahahahaha

/----/ And the market is recovering nicely after the initial news.

Yeah, it is only down 65 points for the day...what a fucking great recovery! and still down more than 500 since the announcement!

/----- No one looks at the DOW except newscasters and people who don't invest. Check out the S&P 500, Nasdaq and Russell 2000
Yahoo Finance - Business Finance, Stock Market, Quotes, News

you don't look at the DOW because you have no stocks. Anyone who has a pension should be looking at the stock market, do do. it isn't the be-all-end-all of defining the economy , but it;'s an indication of faith in the market.

and tariffs are designed to create inflation and cost us a fortune.

except the orange idiot was in a twit because his official presser hope had to resign and decided to start a fight.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You need a candidate that can beat Trump.

The hag & Co. didn't come close.

Actually they did come close, close enough to win the popular vote and the EC margin of victory was the 9th smallest in the history of the country.

And that was with the worst and most corrupt candidate ever who ran the worst campaign since Bush I in 1991/2.

Hillary didn't win the popular vote because there was no popular vote election, no popular vote campaign strategy, no popular vote campaign ads. There is no way to know who would have won a popular vote election so stop pretending Hillary won something. She lost, she got the shit kicked out of her Trump crushed her winning 30 states including 3 of Hillary's blue states.

Hillary only won 15% of all Counties in The US.

I ask anyone to explain to me how juat 15% of The geographical USnin large cities should Dictste who should be President to the other 85%?

Very simple...counties do not vote, people do. Empty land gets no vote


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Dear Golfing Gator
are you okay with millions of people concentrated in liberal
regions of NY and CA deciding EVERY election
by counting those votes more than millions of people
from a wider range of states from the South and Midwest?

What is your threshold?

Do you want to raise the bar to 2/3 or 3/4 instead of majority?
We could argue to have preferential ballots
so runoffs can still be decided in one election, by looking at weighed votes
numbered in the order that people would rank the candidates.

Even if you did count the pure popular vote,
do you understand that announcing this different structure and process,
then both the candidates, the parties and voters would change their
votes and strategies as well?

More people in RED states would invest in getting their
most POPULOUS RED counties and cities to get voters to the polls
to counteract the liberal concentrations in NY and CA.

So it would be more money invested to get TX and FL voters
and not spend resources on states with minimal population.

Is that any solution?

Once TX knows their Electoral votes are going Republican,
they focus their dollars on getting other states electoral votes.

But if we switch to popular vote, then the liberals pour all their
money into concentrated high population cities in NY and CA,
and all the Democrats focus their legislation lobbying and
political action YEARROUND to woo and satisfy those voters
in high population areas that decide the vote every election.

And the Republicans focus on cities and states which add
up to the highest numbers of voters. So the bigger cities
in TX get all the political attention to keep their party and officials
support of those voters and all the money goes there.

Is that really what you want?
A battle for political control by high populous
cities in NY and CA vs. TX and FL?

You bring up good questions.

I will tell you first that if it were up to me I would go to a parliamentary style of government, that is the best system for getting disparate views heard and acted upon. But I know it will never happen, the one party system (the business party with two branches) will never let that happen.

As far as how to count the votes, that is a hard one as there really is no perfect system and really not even a fair one. I will preface this by saying that I think "fair" is a term for children and most adults know the world is not fair.

Right now under our system, a vote in Wyoming counts 3 times as much as a vote in Penn or NY or Cali. On the surface that does not seem fair at all, why should one person's vote count more than another person's vote? But I do understand the reason behind the EC and have not yet thought of a better way.

I would like to the electors distributed along the lines of the vote, if you win 60% of a state you get 60%, or maybe 60% plus some as a reward for winning.

Let's take Georgia as an example. In the last election 51% of the people that voted, voted for Trump, but he got 100% of the EC votes. That means that the votes of the 49% counted for nothing. Does that seem like a good system to get people interested in voting?

Or look at Illinois, 5.3 million people voted, but the winner had only 2.9 million votes and the winner got all of the EC votes. So that means that the votes of 2.4 million people counted for nothing, and they knew going in that would be the case.

Like I said, my first choice would be a parliamentary system, my second would be a split of EC votes based on percent of the vote. But neither will happen as the people in power do not want them to.

So, the system we have now is as good as any other.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am 54 and I remember it well. For all of his problems, he never took two opposite positions in less than 24 hours.

If you think he did, feel free to provide the example of him doing so.

Wow, you're the same age as me and can't remember Clinton. Clinton was known specifically for telling EVERYONE whatever they wanted to hear. In less than 24 hours? You're full of shit, he did that all the time. He sometimes flipped multiple times in a day. Depends who he was speaking to.

That's how he got the name SLICK, geniak. For saying to people whatever they wanted to hear. But you don't remember that. Suuuurrrrreeeeeeee you don't ...

Unless you're saying you've had a stroke since Slick left office. Have you? Seriously. Have you had a stroke since Slick left office?

Feel free to provide one example of him taking two different positions in 24 hours. If he did it as often as you say then there has to be 1000s for them for you to choose between.

By the way, he was called "slick" for running his campaign for governor as a progressive and then being a centrist once he was in office, not for changing on a daily basis. It stuck when he took office as POTUS because he did the same thing.

Is there anything you are not wrong about?

You're 54 and you don't remember the flip flop President? The guy who's nickname, Slick, is for his flip flops? I can't take you seriously. I'm just going to laugh at you

There are flip/flops and there there is changing your tune in less than 24 hours. I am sorry the nuance of that is beyond you, but I really cannot help you there. Nuance takes a certain level of intelligence.

You're a fucking retard. I never said I didn't understand what you said about 24 hours. I said you are full of shit. That was one massive stroke you had, wasn't it?

Whoa, a blast of anger. Geez, calm down. This is just an internet discussion, why is that worth losing it like that? Just hold a paper bag in front of you and breathe. In ... out ... in ... out ...

I don't get why that's fun to you morons

 

[emilynghiem]

Actually they did come close, close enough to win the popular vote and the EC margin of victory was the 9th smallest in the history of the country.

And that was with the worst and most corrupt candidate ever who ran the worst campaign since Bush I in 1991/2.

Hillary didn't win the popular vote because there was no popular vote election, no popular vote campaign strategy, no popular vote campaign ads. There is no way to know who would have won a popular vote election so stop pretending Hillary won something. She lost, she got the shit kicked out of her Trump crushed her winning 30 states including 3 of Hillary's blue states.

Hillary only won 15% of all Counties in The US.

I ask anyone to explain to me how juat 15% of The geographical USnin large cities should Dictste who should be President to the other 85%?

Very simple...counties do not vote, people do. Empty land gets no vote


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Dear Golfing Gator
are you okay with millions of people concentrated in liberal
regions of NY and CA deciding EVERY election
by counting those votes more than millions of people
from a wider range of states from the South and Midwest?

What is your threshold?

Do you want to raise the bar to 2/3 or 3/4 instead of majority?
We could argue to have preferential ballots
so runoffs can still be decided in one election, by looking at weighed votes
numbered in the order that people would rank the candidates.

Even if you did count the pure popular vote,
do you understand that announcing this different structure and process,
then both the candidates, the parties and voters would change their
votes and strategies as well?

More people in RED states would invest in getting their
most POPULOUS RED counties and cities to get voters to the polls
to counteract the liberal concentrations in NY and CA.

So it would be more money invested to get TX and FL voters
and not spend resources on states with minimal population.

Is that any solution?

Once TX knows their Electoral votes are going Republican,
they focus their dollars on getting other states electoral votes.

But if we switch to popular vote, then the liberals pour all their
money into concentrated high population cities in NY and CA,
and all the Democrats focus their legislation lobbying and
political action YEARROUND to woo and satisfy those voters
in high population areas that decide the vote every election.

And the Republicans focus on cities and states which add
up to the highest numbers of voters. So the bigger cities
in TX get all the political attention to keep their party and officials
support of those voters and all the money goes there.

Is that really what you want?
A battle for political control by high populous
cities in NY and CA vs. TX and FL?

You bring up good questions.

I will tell you first that if it were up to me I would go to a parliamentary style of government, that is the best system for getting disparate views heard and acted upon. But I know it will never happen, the one party system (the business party with two branches) will never let that happen.

As far as how to count the votes, that is a hard one as there really is no perfect system and really not even a fair one. I will preface this by saying that I think "fair" is a term for children and most adults know the world is not fair.

Right now under our system, a vote in Wyoming counts 3 times as much as a vote in Penn or NY or Cali. On the surface that does not seem fair at all, why should one person's vote count more than another person's vote? But I do understand the reason behind the EC and have not yet thought of a better way.

I would like to the electors distributed along the lines of the vote, if you win 60% of a state you get 60%, or maybe 60% plus some as a reward for winning.

Let's take Georgia as an example. In the last election 51% of the people that voted, voted for Trump, but he got 100% of the EC votes. That means that the votes of the 49% counted for nothing. Does that seem like a good system to get people interested in voting?

Or look at Illinois, 5.3 million people voted, but the winner had only 2.9 million votes and the winner got all of the EC votes. So that means that the votes of 2.4 million people counted for nothing, and they knew going in that would be the case.

Like I said, my first choice would be a parliamentary system, my second would be a split of EC votes based on percent of the vote. But neither will happen as the people in power do not want them to.

So, the system we have now is as good as any other.

Dear Golfing Gator
I agree with more of your points and principles
than I disagree. But because I cannot split my Agree
proportionally, you get the full AGREE. ha ha!

Where I agree
1. on proportionally splitting the electoral votes by district.
States like Texas may refuse at first,
but when supported by Conservatives in CA,
if all states agree to balance each other this way,
we could still get a YES and agreement to use
this electoral system to focus on serving local DISTRICTS
so all states win and so does the nation in the longrun, the people.
if it's agreed on for such purposes, I believe in getting a YES out of this.

So I agree with you on the better plan
but disagree that it isn't possible
the worst that would happen is we set up
an alternative ADDITIONAL system using
electoral representation by party that ADDS
to the given system even if it doesn't change it directly

2. which leads to the parliamentary idea
Again I agree with you on the concept,
but disagree it's not possible. I believe it can be
ADDED by taking our current party system, and
creating a network where local party precincts
work with electoral districts to set up representation
and process of redressing grievances on a continual basis.

It's not changing Congress structure of house and senate,
but adding a structure by which political parties can serve
their constituents and represent issues by individuals or
by groups, and INTERFACE with govt in a democratic way
that thwarts any need to bully or manipulate by party pressures.

So that's how I would add what you are saying to govt.

Create an intermediary structure on the local precinct levels
where each party has reps or Electors if these are the same people,
who take community input, complaints or proposed corretions/reforms
and assist the public in interfacing with the correct level of govt to
resolve that complaint or problem or implement a solution or means of
funding a proposed program. It doesn't have to be governmental,
some agenda are best implemented directly through party fo rtheir
members in agreement, especially where other parties don't agree to support or fund, comply o rparticipate in such policy or program.

This would shift responsiblity and control of resources and policies
back to the people, but make best use of party structure and leadership
to organize likeminded members who believe in the same things
to enact their own programs either on local, state or national levels through party.

If the ideas are adopted and replicated by other parties and states,
yes, these can become a part of public policy and even federal.

But not if parties don't agree, in which case why not support
those leaders and members to invest their donations and labor
into setting up their own programs themselves, and not require govt
to endorse or force all taxpayers to fund or participate.

So great, Golfing Gator
consider that an "AGREE" although I believe my dissenting
parts of my positions that counter your skepticism are major.

they don't interfere with my ability to agree with you in principle.

I just add these clarifications on how we can get a yes out of a no.
How we can offer these changes where they don't interfere
with the current process, but add solutions to the current system to stop the
political bullying, abuse and waste going on.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The American people are with Trump on this issue....NAFTA and the rest of the bullshit needs to go as well

I agree...The people of America have been getting played for fools for way too long...Half of our inner cities find themselves on government assistance for a lack of jobs...Trump is fixing it...He will shine in their eyes...

The tax cuts will help lead to econmic expansion and an INCREASE in treasury receipts. We HAVE to get that debt down as a % of GDP.

Free Trade Led to Our $20T Debt

Don't forget that tariffs also produce government revenue. For over 100 years, they were the main source for that. They also generate economic activity, which brings in more taxable revenue without increasing tax rates.

 

[initforme]

All that matters is that union steel workers won. Thank you president Trump for sticking to those losers who cry like little butthurts about how bad union's are. LOSERS.

 

[kaz]

Wow, you're the same age as me and can't remember Clinton. Clinton was known specifically for telling EVERYONE whatever they wanted to hear. In less than 24 hours? You're full of shit, he did that all the time. He sometimes flipped multiple times in a day. Depends who he was speaking to.

That's how he got the name SLICK, geniak. For saying to people whatever they wanted to hear. But you don't remember that. Suuuurrrrreeeeeeee you don't ...

Unless you're saying you've had a stroke since Slick left office. Have you? Seriously. Have you had a stroke since Slick left office?

Feel free to provide one example of him taking two different positions in 24 hours. If he did it as often as you say then there has to be 1000s for them for you to choose between.

By the way, he was called "slick" for running his campaign for governor as a progressive and then being a centrist once he was in office, not for changing on a daily basis. It stuck when he took office as POTUS because he did the same thing.

Is there anything you are not wrong about?

You're 54 and you don't remember the flip flop President? The guy who's nickname, Slick, is for his flip flops? I can't take you seriously. I'm just going to laugh at you

There are flip/flops and there there is changing your tune in less than 24 hours. I am sorry the nuance of that is beyond you, but I really cannot help you there. Nuance takes a certain level of intelligence.

You're a fucking retard. I never said I didn't understand what you said about 24 hours. I said you are full of shit. That was one massive stroke you had, wasn't it?

Whoa, a blast of anger. Geez, calm down. This is just an internet discussion, why is that worth losing it like that? Just hold a paper bag in front of you and breathe. In ... out ... in ... out ...

I don't get why that's fun to you morons

Gator: I've got nothing, so I'm just going to repeat what you said back to you.

I accept your concession of defeat

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Feel free to provide one example of him taking two different positions in 24 hours. If he did it as often as you say then there has to be 1000s for them for you to choose between.

By the way, he was called "slick" for running his campaign for governor as a progressive and then being a centrist once he was in office, not for changing on a daily basis. It stuck when he took office as POTUS because he did the same thing.

Is there anything you are not wrong about?

You're 54 and you don't remember the flip flop President? The guy who's nickname, Slick, is for his flip flops? I can't take you seriously. I'm just going to laugh at you

There are flip/flops and there there is changing your tune in less than 24 hours. I am sorry the nuance of that is beyond you, but I really cannot help you there. Nuance takes a certain level of intelligence.

You're a fucking retard. I never said I didn't understand what you said about 24 hours. I said you are full of shit. That was one massive stroke you had, wasn't it?

Whoa, a blast of anger. Geez, calm down. This is just an internet discussion, why is that worth losing it like that? Just hold a paper bag in front of you and breathe. In ... out ... in ... out ...

I don't get why that's fun to you morons

Gator: I've got nothing, so I'm just going to repeat what you said back to you.

I accept your concession of defeat

Whatever makes you happy my friend.

If a “win” is what you need then yes you defeated me...well done


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Cellblock2429]

Trump solidified the rust belt and the union vote. The blue wall just became a RED REPUBLICAN WALL.

hahahahahahaha

Trump solidified the rust belt and the union vote. The blue wall just became a RED REPUBLICAN WALL.

hahahahahahaha

/----/ And the market is recovering nicely after the initial news.

Yeah, it is only down 65 points for the day...what a fucking great recovery! and still down more than 500 since the announcement!

/----- No one looks at the DOW except newscasters and people who don't invest. Check out the S&P 500, Nasdaq and Russell 2000
Yahoo Finance - Business Finance, Stock Market, Quotes, News

you don't look at the DOW because you have no stocks. Anyone who has a pension should be looking at the stock market, do do. it isn't the be-all-end-all of defining the economy , but it;'s an indication of faith in the market.

and tariffs are designed to create inflation and cost us a fortune.

except the orange idiot was in a twit because his official presser hope had to resign and decided to start a fight.

/----/ I've owned stocks since 1978 and I'm an active option trader. You're just lashing out.

 

[kaz]

You're 54 and you don't remember the flip flop President? The guy who's nickname, Slick, is for his flip flops? I can't take you seriously. I'm just going to laugh at you

There are flip/flops and there there is changing your tune in less than 24 hours. I am sorry the nuance of that is beyond you, but I really cannot help you there. Nuance takes a certain level of intelligence.

You're a fucking retard. I never said I didn't understand what you said about 24 hours. I said you are full of shit. That was one massive stroke you had, wasn't it?

Whoa, a blast of anger. Geez, calm down. This is just an internet discussion, why is that worth losing it like that? Just hold a paper bag in front of you and breathe. In ... out ... in ... out ...

I don't get why that's fun to you morons

Gator: I've got nothing, so I'm just going to repeat what you said back to you.

I accept your concession of defeat

Whatever makes you happy my friend.

If a “win” is what you need then yes you defeated me...well done


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Repeating back to me my own lines was your choice, not mine

 

[DOTR]

States do..which is why Trump won handily

Trump did win, you are correct! Well done! I am so proud for you that you know that


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

/----/ Then stop being a whiny little bitch about the irrelevant popular vote.

Dear Cellblock2429 and Golfing Gator
it's not "irrelevant", that's going too far.
the problem is our system doesn't fully count or account
for the popular vote of all citizens.

What do you both think of the idea of states
splitting the Electoral Votes per district so these
DO reflect the popular vote proportionally?

Wouldn't that push for more accountability and service
to the local districts to represent their people and party bases.

Better yet, allow these district level reps to serve their
constituents directly, by taking and resolving grievances
including complaints of govt abuses and ethics or conflicts of
interest and beliefs, and make the Electors for each party
responsible for communicating between the people
and the officials in govt from local to national levels,
whether city county or state and federal.

Wouldn't that push more leaders to represent the diverse
needs demands and grievances of all the people in our
districts, our counties and states and nation?

Federalism should do that. The best government is that which is closest.

Dear DOTR was has thrown off Federalism and Constitutional check and balances against abuses,
is that corporations including party and media have bypassed
checks on govt by claiming personhood and individual rights
the same as single individuals. Yet these mass organizations
wield COLLECTIVE influence, RESOURCES and authority
over groups very similar to what Govt does as a "collective entity"
that REQUIRES the Bill of Rights to check and limit that power from abuse.

We don't have means in place of checking the
COLLECTIVE authority influence and resources
that Corporate Interests have, in order to get favor
in govt, in courts, in media and in parties.

So that's where the Constitution applies to govt
but isn't being practiced by individuals or corporations.

Then we lose our ability to check govt against Constitutional
standards if we keep rewarding abuses by individuals and organizations
which we don't require to follow these standards. So we lose
that authority to hold Govt to these standards when nobody is following them.

The best enforcement of Constitutional process principles
standards and ethics is to EXERCISE them.

The more people recognize and respect these standards,
and start uniting in enforcing them as protections for all people
to have equal due process and inclusion of our diverse beliefs,
including political parties, then we all benefit and have more
power to stop abuses in all cases and on all fronts.

That's what's missing from this equation.

instead the more abuses going on, the more people turn to
party leaders thinking that's going to stop the other party.
But the other party is too busy defending themselves
and protecting their interests to defend central principles
to protect ALL people and parties equally.

There is no shortcut. We can't rely on party politics to save us
from the mess that these very tactics created.

We must go back to unifying central universal principles
and start teaching respect and enforcement on that
common level, in order to stop ALL other abuses elsewhere.

We are going to suffer the consequences until we
learn to unite and work to correct these problems together.
fighting to play the blame game is only going to dig us
deeper into holes and debts. We can only get out of these
damages by accepting responsiblity for fixing them,
not just pushing the buck onto others and yelling it isn't getting done.

it will take all parties working together to solve
the problems we see and specialize in reforming.

the problem is abusing corporate media and politics to bully
instead of addressing and correcting all abuses to end
the waste and turn the economy back around. all parties
have their own corruption and abuses to account for.

We won't see that corrected until we all agree to clean
up our own messes, and quit abusing complaints for political points.

Whoever redresses grievances, answers and resolves complaints,
whoever enforces laws and gets solutions organized with our
given resources and people across parties and organizations, whether
business or nonprofit, inside or outside govt, church or state or school,
that's who is going to lead the people as the government authority.

As I keep saying...our problems aren’t political. Our society has been severely damaged by liberal attacks. We keep beating them politically but that’s the easy part. Rooting them out of their tenured professorships, their deep state civil service jobs, their lifetime judgeships and eliminating their chokehold on media...those are the difficult jobs.
They seek unelected positions of power and attack society from there.