Re: Request - Why did you vote for Trump?

by **Death Roe** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 16:44

I don't think you had anyone who was in the Vietnam war then, OTPT. My Dad was not honored with a Welcome Back! parade, people hated him and many others for fighting in the war.

I never said I would shun someone for protesting, so don't put those words in my mouth. You're acting like I'm some horrible person for thinking their protesting is hypocritical. Which is bullshit, I'm not taking that.

Is it their right? Yes it is. Do I have a right to say it's ridiculous right now? Yes, I do. Will I support their right to protest? I will, but I don't have to smile and watch them assault people for voting a certain way and say, "Oh well it's their right. :)"

by **NigelUno** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 16:51

Death Roe wrote:If you won't give your opinion on the candidates, and not be vague as hell, then you have no right to dissect my opinions.

I don't think I'm being vague at all about the question that was asked in this thread, and your response to it.

And did you have an opinion on what Trump had to offer? If so, you were kind of vague about it.

My opinion is you didn't vote for Trump. You voted against Hillary. I think pretty much every post you've made supports that.

by **Death Roe** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 16:53

NigelUno wrote:
Death Roe wrote:If you won't give your opinion on the candidates, and not be vague as hell, then you have no right to dissect my opinions.

I don't think I'm being vague at all about the question that was asked in this thread, and your response to it.

And did you have an opinion on what Trump had to offer? If so, you were kind of vague about it.

My opinion is you didn't vote for Trump. You voted against Hillary. I think pretty much every post you've made supports that.

You telling someone else they were too vague is so rich.

Of course you'll attack my opinions without sharing yours.... Request - Why did you vote for Trump? - Page 3 502811600

Request - Why did you vote for Trump? - Page 3 502811600

by **NigelUno** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 16:55

Death Roe wrote:I don't think you had anyone who was in the Vietnam war then, OTPT. My Dad was not honored with a Welcome Back! parade, people hated him and many others for fighting in the war.

I never said I would shun someone for protesting, so don't put those words in my mouth. You're acting like I'm some horrible person for thinking their protesting is hypocritical. Which is bullshit, I'm not taking that.

Is it their right? Yes it is. Do I have a right to say it's ridiculous right now? Yes, I do. Will I support their right to protest? I will, but I don't have to smile and watch them assault people for voting a certain way and say, "Oh well it's their right. :)"

What about when Trump supporters assaulted people? And Trump urged his supporters to do it?

by **Death Roe** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 16:55

NigelUno wrote:
Death Roe wrote:I don't think you had anyone who was in the Vietnam war then, OTPT. My Dad was not honored with a Welcome Back! parade, people hated him and many others for fighting in the war.

I never said I would shun someone for protesting, so don't put those words in my mouth. You're acting like I'm some horrible person for thinking their protesting is hypocritical. Which is bullshit, I'm not taking that.

Is it their right? Yes it is. Do I have a right to say it's ridiculous right now? Yes, I do. Will I support their right to protest? I will, but I don't have to smile and watch them assault people for voting a certain way and say, "Oh well it's their right. :)"

What about when Trump supporters assaulted people? And Trump urged his supporters to do it?

I'm not answering your questions until you share your opinion on something, rather than attacking others like the vague POS you are.

by **Death Roe** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 16:59

Sorry if I come off as aggressive, OTPT. Nigel is just such a turd who trolls people and won't give his thoughts.

by **NigelUno** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 17:00

Death Roe wrote:
NigelUno wrote:

I don't think I'm being vague at all about the question that was asked in this thread, and your response to it.

And did you have an opinion on what Trump had to offer? If so, you were kind of vague about it.

My opinion is you didn't vote for Trump. You voted against Hillary. I think pretty much every post you've made supports that.

You telling someone else they were too vague is so rich.

Of course you'll attack my opinions without sharing yours....

I don't think I'm attacking your opinion. I'm pointing out what seems to be pretty obvious with your post.

And (again) if you had an opinion on what Trump had to offer...I must have missed it.

I shared my opinions on both candidates...that they were extremely flawed. Sorry you missed it.

This thread is about why "you" voted for Trump. Not sure what opinion you think I'm supposed to share here regarding that, because it doesn't really apply to me.

Saying I'm being vague is just a disingenuous way for you not to answer the questions I asked you (which were pretty clear, and not vague).

by **Other Teams Pursuing That** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 17:02

Death Roe wrote:Sorry if I come off as aggressive, OTPT. Nigel is just such a turd who trolls people and won't give his thoughts.

No worries, dog. We all got opinions.

I'm glad you aren't shunning protesters, just disagreeing with the reasoning. Challenging the status quo, ideas, advocacy for things, etc should never be viewed in a negative light. We as the human race have to fight against this society of robots that the 1%ers are eating up right now.

by **NigelUno** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 17:02

Death Roe wrote:Sorry if I come off as aggressive, OTPT. Nigel is just such a turd who trolls people and won't give his thoughts.

I have given my thoughts. Sorry that you're using that as an excuse. Seems pretty lame.

by **Death Roe** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 17:03

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:
Death Roe wrote:Sorry if I come off as aggressive, OTPT. Nigel is just such a turd who trolls people and won't give his thoughts.

No worries, dog. We all got opinions.

I'm glad you aren't shunning protesters, just disagreeing with the reasoning. Challenging the status quo, ideas, advocacy for things, etc should never be viewed in a negative light. We as the human race have to fight against this society of robots that the 1%ers are eating up right now.

I agree 100% with you, and if I came off the wrong way, I apologize.

by **DWags** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 17:25

xsanguine wrote:
DWags wrote:

You try way too hard.

No, really. Where are these racists that only seem to gravitate towards hard left individuals? I don't ever encounter these people described.

I do t know. But do you think the legislature would let public schools in the burbs get this bad,

@The motion was filed last week in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
Haynes says claims laid out by plaintiffs — including deplorable building conditions, lack of books, classrooms without teachers, insufficient desks, buildings plagued by vermin, unsafe facilities and extreme temperatures — go far beyond mere access to education."

Fuck them Destroit kids. It's their fault.

by **DWags** Mon 21 Nov 2016 - 20:36

DWags wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

No, really. Where are these racists that only seem to gravitate towards hard left individuals? I don't ever encounter these people described.

I do t know. But do you think the legislature would let public schools in the burbs get this bad,

@The motion was filed last week in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
Haynes says claims laid out by plaintiffs — including deplorable building conditions, lack of books, classrooms without teachers, insufficient desks, buildings plagued by vermin, unsafe facilities and extreme temperatures — go far beyond mere access to education."

What also cracks me up is I'm sure our friend X will say he's never seen white flight, so it doesn't happen

Fuck them Detroit kids. It's their fault.

by Guest Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 12:46

WBH? Interesting read here - and it's from NR so a view from the Right. I copied the most interesting paragraphs:

Trump’s appeal to white non-college-educated Democrats and independents is clear with even a cursory glance at the election map. Take closely balanced Michigan, which Trump leads as of this writing by 12,000 votes. He carried the state by winning all but eight counties, including historically Democratic places such as Saginaw, Bay, and Gogebic counties. A Republican has not carried the first two since Ronald Reagan in 1984. Gogebic, a 92 percent white county on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, hasn’t voted for the GOP since 1972.

The pattern is identical in other midwestern states that Trump won narrowly. He carried Wisconsin largely because he won ten white, historically Democratic counties in the southwestern part of the state that even Gore and Kerry won in their races against George W. Bush. Most of these counties had not been carried by the GOP nominee since George H. W. Bush in 1988 or Reagan in 1984; Republicans had not won Pepin and Kenosha since 1972. Trump swept Iowa by winning virtually every eastern county, places that had voted Democratic in every election since 1988. Pennsylvania’s Luzerne County last went Republican in 1988, while Ohio’s Trumbull County had been Democratic since 1972.

These voters do not fit neatly into any of the GOP’s pre-Trump factions. If they were motivated by social conservatism, they would have backed George W. Bush. If tax cuts were important to them, they could have backed any of the GOP’s last four nominees. But Chamber of Commerce Republicans can’t count on their support either. These voters are workers, not bosses, and they view corporate-centric policies with a very jaundiced eye.

It’s common to view their concerns through a purely economic lens and call them protectionist. That is largely true as far as it goes: These people have been buffeted by globalization more than most Americans and see restrictions on trade and immigration as ways to boost the number of good-paying jobs open to American workers. But that’s far from all that they want, nor does a purely economic lens capture the way they view their votes.

They are best viewed through the lens of active citizenship. They take national identity seriously and imbue Americanism with an implicit bargain that flies in the face of liberal or libertarian cosmopolitanism. They believe that being American means more than voting and paying taxes. To them it means that if you work hard and play by the rules, the people who run the country owe it to you that you will live with dignity and respect.

It became painfully obvious to these voters over the last eight years that national Democrats no longer treat them with respect or believe they are capable of living dignified lives. They have seen their way of life under assault, whether in the form of attacks on gun ownership, the focus on climate change over growth, or implicit claims that they are bigots. For people who voted twice for President Obama, these last insinuations might have been the most offensive and damaging of all.

Can the Republican Party Keep Trump Democrats?

by Guest Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 12:51

And the highlighted parts agree with what I've been arguing in this forum for months. That the continual name calling and general denigration of the people in rural America is going to cost the Democrat party. Bob does it in here and I know it's part of his schtick but I also know he believes some or all of it.

National candidates cannot continue to look down on these people then expect their votes.

E.G.

Romney - 47% comment
Obama - "clinging to their guns and religion"
Hillary - "basket of deplorables"

Of course Obama won but he was an exceptional candidate, the other 2 weren't and they lost.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 12:55

LooseGoose wrote:And the highlighted parts agree with what I've been arguing in this forum for months. That the continual name calling and general denigration of the people in rural America is going to cost the Democrat party. Bob does it in here and I know it's part of his schtick but I also know he believes some or all of it.

National candidates cannot continue to look down on these people then expect their votes.

E.G.

Romney - 47% comment
Obama - "clinging to their guns and religion"
Hillary - "basket of deplorables"

Of course Obama won but he was an exceptional candidate, the other 2 weren't and they lost.

call me crazy, but when Trump says he sexually assaults women, I believe him.

by Guest Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 14:31

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:And the highlighted parts agree with what I've been arguing in this forum for months. That the continual name calling and general denigration of the people in rural America is going to cost the Democrat party. Bob does it in here and I know it's part of his schtick but I also know he believes some or all of it.

National candidates cannot continue to look down on these people then expect their votes.

E.G.

Romney - 47% comment
Obama - "clinging to their guns and religion"
Hillary - "basket of deplorables"

Of course Obama won but he was an exceptional candidate, the other 2 weren't and they lost.
call me crazy, but when Trump says he sexually assaults women, I believe him.

And of course the statement was about Trump voters - but you didn't bother to read it or misread it on purpose. Std Procedure.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 15:04

LooseGoose wrote:
Robert J Sakimano wrote:call me crazy, but when Trump says he sexually assaults women, I believe him.

And of course the statement was about Trump voters - but you didn't bother to read it or misread it on purpose. Std Procedure.

I was referring to the christian rural voters who support an admitted sexual predator who also happens to be a bigot, racist, misogynist.

by AnomanderRake Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 16:28

A vote cast for a candidate is not necessarily a vote for everything that candidate represents, has said or done.

The fact is that most people are wedge issue voters. The two parties know that and they align their interests accordingly. Some might vote based on taxes, some on gun laws, some on LGBT rights, some on climate change, some on health care etc.

In a perfect world maybe voters would create a weighted vote matrix where they rank their issues from most important to least important and score each candidate according to their positions on those issues. Create an aggregate score and vote away!

It's completely unrealistic. Most voters don't even know how progressive tax brackets work, let alone government budgeting, foreign policy, macroeconomics, trade policy, health care etc.

I have asked this exact question of friends and acquaintances that I know were going to vote for, or had voted for Trump. None of them are racists or bigots. I sought first to understand their positions on key issues, then we had open discussions about Trump's proposals on those issues and what that would mean for America's future. Turns out they could actually be swayed by facts and information when approached in a manner other than "Wow you voted/will vote for Trump you must be a dumbass/racist/bigot".

I encourage you guys to do the same because this thread could have been an open and honest discussion thanks to how well worded the OP was. Instead it devolved quickly into the same old party politic divisive bullshit.

by **steveschneider** Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 16:43

LooseGoose wrote:And the highlighted parts agree with what I've been arguing in this forum for months. That the continual name calling and general denigration of the people in rural America is going to cost the Democrat party. Bob does it in here and I know it's part of his schtick but I also know he believes some or all of it.

National candidates cannot continue to look down on these people then expect their votes.

E.G.

Romney - 47% comment
Obama - "clinging to their guns and religion"
Hillary - "basket of deplorables"

Of course Obama won but he was an exceptional candidate, the other 2 weren't and they lost.

I think the country would be better off if we did away with the electoral college because it gives rural America way too much power.

by **DWags** Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 17:27

AnomanderRake wrote:A vote cast for a candidate is not necessarily a vote for everything that candidate represents, has said or done.

Tired of this statement. So fucking tired of it. You voted for him. You get the full Monty. If you put pocket book or fences over guys willing to forgive those who would grab your wife or daughter by the pussy "cause he can", or are more interested in economics than race relationships whether realistic or not, just fucking say it and be done with it. You said the OP asked a proper question and yet you dance around it.

I have no problem with people putting money or a perceived sense of security over shit your leader believes in but like the op said, just say so. Don't be a pussy.

He feels grabbing pussy is fine. He wants to keep jobs here and put America first. You get both with him.

Tell us why you voted for him but leave off self-gratifying statements that somehow makes you believe you can qualify over looking his character.

by Guest Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 17:45

steveschneider wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:And the highlighted parts agree with what I've been arguing in this forum for months. That the continual name calling and general denigration of the people in rural America is going to cost the Democrat party. Bob does it in here and I know it's part of his schtick but I also know he believes some or all of it.

National candidates cannot continue to look down on these people then expect their votes.

E.G.

Romney - 47% comment
Obama - "clinging to their guns and religion"
Hillary - "basket of deplorables"

Of course Obama won but he was an exceptional candidate, the other 2 weren't and they lost.

I think the country would be better off if we did away with the electoral college because it gives rural America way too much power.

Does the Senate go too?

by **steveschneider** Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 18:06

LooseGoose wrote:
steveschneider wrote:

I think the country would be better off if we did away with the electoral college because it gives rural America way too much power.

Does the Senate go too?

It is certainly part of the problem . From a great NYT article the other day.

---

The Electoral College then allocates votes according to a state’s congressional delegation: Wyoming (with one House representative and two senators) gets three votes; California (53 representatives and two senators) gets 55. Those two senators effectively give Wyoming three times more power in the Electoral College than its population would suggest. Apply the same math to California and it would have 159 Electoral College votes. And the entire state of Wyoming already has fewer residents than the average California congressional district.

by CheesySpartan Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 19:22

steveschneider wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Does the Senate go too?

It is certainly part of the problem . From a great NYT article the other day.

---

The Electoral College then allocates votes according to a state’s congressional delegation: Wyoming (with one House representative and two senators) gets three votes; California (53 representatives and two senators) gets 55. Those two senators effectively give Wyoming three times more power in the Electoral College than its population would suggest. Apply the same math to California and it would have 159 Electoral College votes. And the entire state of Wyoming already has fewer residents than the average California congressional district.

Translation: "My person lost...We need to change the rules" LOL. And then when your candidate loses the general election we should go back to the electoral college right? LOL

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 20:49

CheesySpartan wrote:
steveschneider wrote:

It is certainly part of the problem . From a great NYT article the other day.

---

The Electoral College then allocates votes according to a state’s congressional delegation: Wyoming (with one House representative and two senators) gets three votes; California (53 representatives and two senators) gets 55. Those two senators effectively give Wyoming three times more power in the Electoral College than its population would suggest. Apply the same math to California and it would have 159 Electoral College votes. And the entire state of Wyoming already has fewer residents than the average California congressional district.

Translation: "My person lost...We need to change the rules" LOL. And then when your candidate loses the general election we should go back to the electoral college right? LOL

Honestly, lols aside, from his viewpoint that's really unlikely to happen anytime soon.

And, for all the jibber jabber about rural states, fuck rural states you guys. Fuck urban states. We live in Michigan. (Most of us) Let's worry about Michigan.

Just looked some stuff up.... As of last count there were 4,785,223 votes cast in Michigan out of about 130,000,000 nationwide. So, Michigans vote is 3.68% of the popular vote. Michigan has 16 electoral votes vs 538 total, or 2.97%

So, if you live in Michigan and you want to try to think objectively, your vote is worth less under the electoral college than it would be with a popular vote. I know for several of you that you'll disagree because you know I'm more liberal and you hate all of us fuckers and we must be wrong... but there's some numbers for you to look at and try to consider.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 21:00

It's bothering me because it should be 1/130,000,000 vs 1/250,000/538 but the numbers get longer and more confusing. So anyway, your Michigan vote in the popular vote is worth:

.0000007692308%

And with the electoral college:

.0000007434944%

So, the electoral college hurts you personally. But you'll still support the rights of places like Wyoming (thanks roc) to have more power than you for some definitely not partisan reason.

by Guest Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 21:13

steveschneider wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Does the Senate go too?

It is certainly part of the problem . From a great NYT article the other day.

---

The Electoral College then allocates votes according to a state’s congressional delegation: Wyoming (with one House representative and two senators) gets three votes; California (53 representatives and two senators) gets 55. Those two senators effectively give Wyoming three times more power in the Electoral College than its population would suggest. Apply the same math to California and it would have 159 Electoral College votes. And the entire state of Wyoming already has fewer residents than the average California congressional district.

Well then there's this from the radical right wing Washington Post:

Because of how the electoral college is structured, even small states get a minimum number of electors (just as they get a minimum number of senators and representatives). The lowest-population and lowest-vote-tally states — such as Wyoming and Alaska — end up getting more electors-per-voter than does a place like California. This leads to the perception that the electoral college is hopelessly tilted toward those smaller states.

Interestingly, though, that's not really the case. California is in about the middle of the pack in terms of the number of electors each voter is worth. If all 2.8 million of those ballots are determined to be valid, though, the state will sink into the lower third.

In fact, on average across states, places where Trump won had slightly fewer electors per voter than did Clinton states. On average, voters in states Clinton won were worth 5.28-millionths of an elector. (In other words, for every million voters, the state got 5.28 electors in the electoral college.) In states Trump won, the voters were worth 5.14-millionths — meaning they were slightly undervalued. (This is all assuming that Trump holds Michigan.)

California breaks the electoral scale: It still has more votes to count than were cast in 34 states

by Guest Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 21:24

Beyond the above which shows the Electoral College isn't really out of whack on average.

To say that Hills deserves the Presidency because she won the popular vote is changing the rules after the game. Obviously if it were known in advance that the goal was votes all of the candidates would have campaigned differently. All of them would have spent more time in NY, CA, FL, TX and a lot less time in the lower population states. Who knows what would have happened?

How many R's in CA and NY didn't vote knowing that an R win was hopeless? Same with D's in many other States. The entire strategy and dynamics of the race would be changed. It would be like the losing team in football whining that they lost even though they had more yards gained or more time of possession. Yes those are important but they're not the rules of the game.

By the time the votes are done being counted ALL of the popular vote margin will probably be attributed to CA or maybe CA/NY. And again if you look at it from a neutral perspective is that what you prefer? Elections decided by 1 or 2 states? OR elections decided by 50 states?

D's should keep in mind just how fluid politics are, what they love now could backfire on them in 5-10 years. Hell in my lifetime the South was the bastion of the Dems and CA was the R stronghold. The supposed demographic wave that's been coming for 10 years to save the Dems and send the R's into exile still hasn't arrived and may never arrive.

I'm not 100% opposed to some form of a popular vote change - but if that's to be done then I think we need to agree on nationwide voting requirements, times, registration, ID, etc. Make it a completely level playing field for all. The odds of that happening are roughly zero.

by **xsanguine** Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 21:51

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Just looked some stuff up.... As of last count there were 4,785,223 votes cast in Michigan out of about 130,000,000 nationwide. So, Michigans vote is 3.68% of the popular vote. Michigan has 16 electoral votes vs 538 total, or 2.97%

I do like where I think you were going with this.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Tue 22 Nov 2016 - 22:41

LooseGoose wrote:Beyond the above which shows the Electoral College isn't really out of whack on average.

To say that Hills deserves the Presidency because she won the popular vote is changing the rules after the game. Obviously if it were known in advance that the goal was votes all of the candidates would have campaigned differently. All of them would have spent more time in NY, CA, FL, TX and a lot less time in the lower population states. Who knows what would have happened?

How many R's in CA and NY didn't vote knowing that an R win was hopeless? Same with D's in many other States. The entire strategy and dynamics of the race would be changed. It would be like the losing team in football whining that they lost even though they had more yards gained or more time of possession. Yes those are important but they're not the rules of the game.

By the time the votes are done being counted ALL of the popular vote margin will probably be attributed to CA or maybe CA/NY. And again if you look at it from a neutral perspective is that what you prefer? Elections decided by 1 or 2 states? OR elections decided by 50 states?

D's should keep in mind just how fluid politics are, what they love now could backfire on them in 5-10 years. Hell in my lifetime the South was the bastion of the Dems and CA was the R stronghold. The supposed demographic wave that's been coming for 10 years to save the Dems and send the R's into exile still hasn't arrived and may never arrive.

I'm not 100% opposed to some form of a popular vote change - but if that's to be done then I think we need to agree on nationwide voting requirements, times, registration, ID, etc. Make it a completely level playing field for all. The odds of that happening are roughly zero.

I don't think anyone is really saying that. Or at least not many people. No one is seriously saying that you can change the rules after the fact.

All I'm really saying is that you personally have no real incentive for why you would want the electoral college going forward- except it's more likely to help your party, which makes it a partisan argument. which, frankly, would be fine if you'd have the nuts to his say "yup it's because it helps my party more and that's why I want it." at the end of the day what I just laid out is showing you how it makes your vote less valuable than a popular vote. So, if you want that because it's going to help your party more, fine, but don't tell me "it's because it gives the little states more power!" Because that makes no sense for someone not in one of the little states to want. You're giving them power at the cost of your own. As far as I know roc is the only one that can really make that argument validly.

by Guest Wed 23 Nov 2016 - 9:20

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I don't think anyone is really saying that. Or at least not many people. No one is seriously saying that you can change the rules after the fact.

All I'm really saying is that you personally have no real incentive for why you would want the electoral college going forward- except it's more likely to help your party, which makes it a partisan argument. which, frankly, would be fine if you'd have the nuts to his say "yup it's because it helps my party more and that's why I want it." at the end of the day what I just laid out is showing you how it makes your vote less valuable than a popular vote. So, if you want that because it's going to help your party more, fine, but don't tell me "it's because it gives the little states more power!" Because that makes no sense for someone not in one of the little states to want. You're giving them power at the cost of your own. As far as I know roc is the only one that can really make that argument validly.

The fact is that many people out "there" are saying that, maybe not in here but out in the world at large.

Your paragraph 2 tells me that either you didn't read post #106 or you think the WashPo is bad at math and full of shit. Their analysis shows that the Electoral college actually helped Hills more than Trump. Yet you persist in saying it helps the Rs.

by **steveschneider** Wed 23 Nov 2016 - 9:34

The entire primaries favor rural America. Iowa votes first because they have such a complex and stupid process.

Iowa is 30th in GDP and population. Then you move to a smaller state New Hampshire which is 39th in GDP and 42nd in US population.

Regarding the electoral college, Goose is correct it does disenfranchise certain voters within certain states.

The whole electoral college causes candidates to skip campaigning in a large number of states, it gives dispraportianate attention to battle ground states, you've had 4 elections where the popular vote has lost, the two senators given the smaller states more power in the electoral college than their population would suggest ( see wyoming example above) and it creates scenarios where the pesky third parties can tilt an election in a battle ground state. Also, should a viable third party ever rise up the electoral college makes it almost impossible for them to win.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Wed 23 Nov 2016 - 9:47

LooseGoose wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I don't think anyone is really saying that. Or at least not many people. No one is seriously saying that you can change the rules after the fact.

All I'm really saying is that you personally have no real incentive for why you would want the electoral college going forward- except it's more likely to help your party, which makes it a partisan argument. which, frankly, would be fine if you'd have the nuts to his say "yup it's because it helps my party more and that's why I want it." at the end of the day what I just laid out is showing you how it makes your vote less valuable than a popular vote. So, if you want that because it's going to help your party more, fine, but don't tell me "it's because it gives the little states more power!" Because that makes no sense for someone not in one of the little states to want. You're giving them power at the cost of your own. As far as I know roc is the only one that can really make that argument validly.

The fact is that many people out "there" are saying that, maybe not in here but out in the world at large.

Your paragraph 2 tells me that either you didn't read post #106 or you think the WashPo is bad at math and full of shit. Their analysis shows that the Electoral college actually helped Hills more than Trump. Yet you persist in saying it helps the Rs.

Okay I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there (right around when you say hills for the 153rd time...) none of that is what I'm saying. All I'm saying is why would you, loose Goose Michigan voter, intentionally cede power that your own vote has to smaller states? Your position makes no sense at all.

by **steveschneider** Wed 23 Nov 2016 - 10:04

If California had voted first in the primaries we probably could have avoided this entire Trump fiasco. Probably would of had Kasich or Bush and I could live with that.

by Guest Wed 23 Nov 2016 - 10:11

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

The fact is that many people out "there" are saying that, maybe not in here but out in the world at large.

Your paragraph 2 tells me that either you didn't read post #106 or you think the WashPo is bad at math and full of shit. Their analysis shows that the Electoral college actually helped Hills more than Trump. Yet you persist in saying it helps the Rs.

Okay I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there (right around when you say hills for the 153rd time...) none of that is what I'm saying. All I'm saying is why would you, loose Goose Michigan voter, intentionally cede power that your own vote has to smaller states? Your position makes no sense at all.

I don't know that I've willingly done that, it was done long ago and the odds on it ever being changed are very small so why fight that fight? We're a Republic, not a Democracy - people forget that. Yes it sucks sometimes when you're in the majority and can't freely impose your will on the minority. But you're thankful when you're in the minority.

I have a feeling the Dems in the Senate are about to learn just how much damage Harry Reid did to them when he gutted the filibuster. It was stupid and shortsighted, but then again it was dingy Harry deciding it.

Hills may end up around 2.5-3 million ahead in the popular vote count - the R's look like they're going to get 3-3.5 million more votes for the US House. Obviously there was some ticket splitting going on. So perhaps the voters got exactly what they wanted? Perhaps if the Presidential election was on popular vote fewer tickets would have been split? Etc. Etc.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** Wed 23 Nov 2016 - 10:38

LooseGoose wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Okay I'm going to go ahead and stop you right there (right around when you say hills for the 153rd time...) none of that is what I'm saying. All I'm saying is why would you, loose Goose Michigan voter, intentionally cede power that your own vote has to smaller states? Your position makes no sense at all.

I don't know that I've willingly done that, it was done long ago and the odds on it ever being changed are very small so why fight that fight? We're a Republic, not a Democracy - people forget that. Yes it sucks sometimes when you're in the majority and can't freely impose your will on the minority. But you're thankful when you're in the minority.

I have a feeling the Dems in the Senate are about to learn just how much damage Harry Reid did to them when he gutted the filibuster. It was stupid and shortsighted, but then again it was dingy Harry deciding it.

Hills may end up around 2.5-3 million ahead in the popular vote count - the R's look like they're going to get 3-3.5 million more votes for the US House. Obviously there was some ticket splitting going on. So perhaps the voters got exactly what they wanted? Perhaps if the Presidential election was on popular vote fewer tickets would have been split? Etc. Etc.

It may have been created a long time ago, but you support it's continuance even though it is to your own detriment. That's what I'm getting at here. If Michigan gained power from it then my argument would be different, but we don't.

by Guest Wed 23 Nov 2016 - 14:08

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

I don't know that I've willingly done that, it was done long ago and the odds on it ever being changed are very small so why fight that fight? We're a Republic, not a Democracy - people forget that. Yes it sucks sometimes when you're in the majority and can't freely impose your will on the minority. But you're thankful when you're in the minority.

I have a feeling the Dems in the Senate are about to learn just how much damage Harry Reid did to them when he gutted the filibuster. It was stupid and shortsighted, but then again it was dingy Harry deciding it.

Hills may end up around 2.5-3 million ahead in the popular vote count - the R's look like they're going to get 3-3.5 million more votes for the US House. Obviously there was some ticket splitting going on. So perhaps the voters got exactly what they wanted? Perhaps if the Presidential election was on popular vote fewer tickets would have been split? Etc. Etc.

It may have been created a long time ago, but you support it's continuance even though it is to your own detriment. That's what I'm getting at here. If Michigan gained power from it then my argument would be different, but we don't.

Michigan peaked 60-70 years ago, it's all downhill from here for us. The future is Brown and South - until the water runs out.

by CheesySpartan Wed 23 Nov 2016 - 14:12

Request - Why did you vote for Trump? - Page 3 Trump10

Trump congratulatory handshake. Request - Why did you vote for Trump? - Page 3 502811600

by **xsanguine** Wed 23 Nov 2016 - 14:22

Travis, those gentlemen in your av seem pretty well endowed. You have a fetish we didn't know about?

by **InTenSity** Wed 23 Nov 2016 - 14:32

We're fucked. I told my mom I'm looking to move out of the country.

by **xsanguine** Wed 23 Nov 2016 - 15:41

InTenSity wrote:We're fucked. I told my mom I'm looking to move out of the country.

What has your knickers in a knot, intensity? I'd be more worried living abroad than living here under a trump presidency. If I was worried, that is.

by Sponsored content