Trump is a sociopath and will further ruin this country

He fits the description to a T. He'll more than likely go down as the worst president ever.

Profile of the Sociopath

Glibness and Superficial Charm

Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

Pathological Lying
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

Incapacity for Love

Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.

Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.

Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.

Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.

Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.

Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

But the dems....

Loose if you can't objectively admit that there are serious concerns with the way Mr. President Elect is conducting himself prior to his inauguration just give the game up. You can't legitimately pretend to lend objective observations to this conversation any longer. You know you're my boy. But come on.

I'm not allowed to share my thoughts since I voted Republican.

Happy holidays.

hope you're right Cameron. Never cared before. I won't care now unless this changes my life.

LooseGoose wrote:

If anyone on this board has their lives changed dramatically by Trump being president, I will take a year-long ban after his term is up.

Cameron wrote:

Death Roe wrote:

If anyone on this board has their lives changed dramatically by Trump being president, I will take a year-long ban after his term is up.

Quoted for posterity because you didn't specify if the change has to be negative. I think there's a possibility that at least one poster on this board ends up with a substantially lighter tax burden under Trump, thus possibly dramatically changing that poster's life for the better.

But for my money, I'm hoping steve gets deported.

I was thinking more of the lines of someone being deported/rights being taken away (praying for you, LWS)/etc.

Every President changes the tax brackets to their own fitting, so I guess if you want to count that to ban me, I understand. I guess I'll vote Democrat next time and keep quiet.

Cameron wrote:

Death Roe wrote:

I was thinking more of the lines of someone being deported/rights being taken away (praying for you, LWS)/etc.

Every President changes the tax brackets to their own fitting, so I guess if you want to count that to ban me, I understand. I guess I'll vote Democrat next time and keep quiet.

I have no interest in seeing you banned, I enjoy most of your posts. I just found it amusing that your guy succeeding could bone you on a technicality.

But fuck Steve, right?

Death Roe wrote:I'm not allowed to share my thoughts since I voted Republican.

Happy holidays.

Don't be a victim Roe.
I may disagree with you but you have a right to vote for and believe what you want. Don't be offended if others don't agree with everything and question why or how you arrived at your conclusions.

I don't think Trump is a sociopath.
I think he an opportunist born into the right family that gave him a strong foothold in NYC real estate. He's told people what they wanted to hear to get what he wanted probably 1000's of times.

But he's our President now. We all get to live with the elections results.

GRR Spartan wrote:

Death Roe wrote:I'm not allowed to share my thoughts since I voted Republican.

Happy holidays.

Don't be a victim Roe.
I may disagree with you but you have a right to vote for and believe what you want. Don't be offended if others don't agree with everything and question why or how you arrived at your conclusions.

Well that thread asking why people voted for Trump if they did, seemed like a way to just crush people who didn't vote Democratic or Libertarian.

Not trying to play victim, but I know people think differently of me after I voiced my thoughts in that thread. Kinda sucks, I took the bait hook line and sinker without thinking.

My fault in the end. Oh well!

Cameron wrote:He may well be a sociopath (and let me be the first to point out that I've seen Obama branded a sociopath using this exact same checklist, because I'm sure that's coming at some point), but I take issue with the thread title.

Further ruin implies that the country is ruined already (that is to say, NOT great). I don't agree with that assessment. In many ways, the country is the best it has ever been. I do think that we are more aware of our problems as a society thanks to social media and the 24/7 news cycle, but I think that such awareness is actually a sign of progress, even when it feels like everything is going to shit because virtually every news story is negative.

None of this is to say that I think Trump will be a good president or a net positive. However, I am optimistic that Trump won't be able to undo 2+ centuries of progress in 4 years. If he ends up with 8, all bets are off.

Yeah, I might have been a bit harsh on the "further ruin" comment. The economy is fine. The housing market has bounced back nicely. That comment was more pointed at out seeming lack of cyber security, our standing in the middle east, the woefully biased media (on all sides), and education to name a few things.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:Loose if you can't objectively admit that there are serious concerns with the way Mr. President Elect is conducting himself prior to his inauguration just give the game up. You can't legitimately pretend to lend objective observations to this conversation any longer. You know you're my boy. But come on.

What areas concern you?

I've heard the slowness of his appointments - he's actually acted faster than most.
I've heard about the generals he's appointed - Obama appointed 3 Generals and no one noted that.
I've heard about the diversity of his picks - so far it looks to me like most recent Cabinets.

I've heard tons about how he's going to profit as President - I can understand the concerns but can people look at this and be objective?   We've never had a President elected with this many business concerns.  It's going to take some time to figure it out.  I guess I'm waiting to see crooked behavior before I start talking impeachment.   And GRR? I don't see his kids sitting into meetings as something crooked.   Want to know what drives me crazy about this?  (And yes here comes the partisan shit) Harry Reid comes to the Congress pisspoor and somehow retires while living at the Ritz Carlton and being worth millions.   And HE sits back and shoots darts at Trump for being crooked and gets away with it.  Where the hell did all your $$ come from Harry? Jesus Christ.

So on the $$ issues I'm firmly in the give him time to make a plan and let's see how things actually turn out before we indict him on it.

To me so far the worst/dumbest thing he's done is keep his twitter account.   Hopefully he'll give that away again soon.

What other conduct has worried you?

Has the conduct of the Democrats worried you?   They're doing everything they can to undermine the election and de-legitimize him.
I hope they enjoy themselves because just like getting rid of the filibuster I'll bet it bites them in the ass down the road.

I don't know if any of you are regular readers of Salena Zito - she was a columnist for the Pittsburgh Post and called Trump as the winner last spring/summer. She was roundly mocked at the time but as we know proved to be right. This is a pretty good column that some here might want to read.

Two things Democrats, and the media, should do to understand Trump

The glass revolving doors of Trump Tower were doing what they have done every day since Donald Trump became the president-elect of the United States: briskly allowing a steady stream of mostly tourists from the interior of the country get a glimpse, sometimes longer, of the comings and goings of the man and his Cabinet members who will soon govern this country.

"The energy of the people who come just to stand behind the ropes is sort of unbelievable," said one of two New York City fireman charged with keeping an eye on things in the lobby of the building where the president-elect has been going about the business of putting his government together for his January inauguration.

"If you see Mr. Trump can you please tell him that the Murphys' from Minnesota wish him good luck and that we pray for him?" a gentleman told one of the police officers as he and his wife strolled past the elevators where Trump, his children, future Cabinet members, U.S. senators, members of Congress, business leaders, a former vice president and a rapper have all taken the golden elevators to the 26th floor.

Carlos, from Florida, a third-generation Hispanic American also wanted to pass on good wishes to the Trump family, as he lingered with his family in the lobby, "We saved up to come to New York for Christmas for the first time, I wanted my family to see the best city in America, first place we stop is here to maybe see the next president," he told an officer standing off to the left of the gold elevators.

"It's like that all day long," the fire chief said, adding, "To be honest I didn't know what to expect during the transition process, but honestly the well-wishers come from all over and really just want him to know they are behind him," he said.

It's not exactly the same reception that Trump is getting from those who opposed him, loathed him, still have not accepted that he has won the election and worse yet still have not understood why he won.

The media miss the things that matter to voters like how Trump thanks his voters verses Clinton's thank you; he holds rallies in the very regions that provided him with a win, while Hillary thanks the big dollar donors in Manhattan.

Absolutely no one knows if Donald Trump is going to be a good or bad president. That is on him, his decision and the people he surrounds himself with. Was it a good idea to go after the CIA when it came to the Russians? No. He should have drawn a clear line saying his win had nothing to do with Russian hacking and that as president he will make sure that this never happens again.

That is the part of him that he needs to curtail but certainly not a sign, as many have suggested, that he is in bed with the Russians, or that he is a demagogue, or a fascist, or a Nazi, or will take press freedoms away, or any of the other of the thousands of things he has been accused of in the past month.

And despite repeated efforts to delegitimize his candidacy with recounts and faithless electors and allegations that the Russians stole the election from Clinton, none of this doubt-casting is going to change anything. It is a reminder that many people in this country have no idea of basic U.S. civics.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:But the dems....

Bump.

I don't think investigation of Russian involvement delegitimizes Trump's election or that anyone "stole" and election. It will set a baseline of what was done in 2016 and hopefully it will be monitored and voters will have a more transparent view of what's happening next time.

Trump is an opportunist and he won the Presidency.

LooseGoose wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:Loose if you can't objectively admit that there are serious concerns with the way Mr. President Elect is conducting himself prior to his inauguration just give the game up. You can't legitimately pretend to lend objective observations to this conversation any longer. You know you're my boy. But come on.

What areas concern you?

I've heard the slowness of his appointments - he's actually acted faster than most.
I've heard about the generals he's appointed - Obama appointed 3 Generals and no one noted that.
I've heard about the diversity of his picks - so far it looks to me like most recent Cabinets.

I've heard tons about how he's going to profit as President - I can understand the concerns but can people look at this and be objective?   We've never had a President elected with this many business concerns.  It's going to take some time to figure it out.  I guess I'm waiting to see crooked behavior before I start talking impeachment.   And GRR? I don't see his kids sitting into meetings as something crooked.   Want to know what drives me crazy about this?  (And yes here comes the partisan shit) Harry Reid comes to the Congress pisspoor and somehow retires while living at the Ritz Carlton and being worth millions.   And HE sits back and shoots darts at Trump for being crooked and gets away with it.  Where the hell did all your $$ come from Harry? Jesus Christ.

So on the $$ issues I'm firmly in the give him time to make a plan and let's see how things actually turn out before we indict him on it.

To me so far the worst/dumbest thing he's done is keep his twitter account.   Hopefully he'll give that away again soon.

What other conduct has worried you?

Has the conduct of the Democrats worried you?   They're doing everything they can to undermine the election and de-legitimize him.
I hope they enjoy themselves because just like getting rid of the filibuster I'll bet it bites them in the ass down the road.

They are all so blatantly obvious that I don't even need to list them out. From doing the exact opposite of what he said he was going to do to his dumb Twitter account to the ties with Russia to ridiculing the CIA and FBI to outright lies about illegal voting to picking fights with media entities and personal attacks. One cannot claim objectivity if they don't see these as odd patterns of behavior or see any of these things and dismiss them. The Twitter account is laughable, the guy shows the self control of a 12 year old boy hitting puberty.

This is not about parties or dems or Obama as much as you want to make it out to be. It's about a guy who is demonstrating that he's unfit to lead.

But whatever, I don't want to say I had my mind made up, I said I would give him a chance and I still intend to do so and I don't intend to be I told you so guy. However, again....his actions thus far.....should concern everyone. And if you (not YOU, but anyone) can't admit that you have some serious concerns with his behavior.....that person's credibility and ability to view the situation with some objectivity takes a serious hit.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

What areas concern you?

I've heard the slowness of his appointments - he's actually acted faster than most.
I've heard about the generals he's appointed - Obama appointed 3 Generals and no one noted that.
I've heard about the diversity of his picks - so far it looks to me like most recent Cabinets.

I've heard tons about how he's going to profit as President - I can understand the concerns but can people look at this and be objective?   We've never had a President elected with this many business concerns.  It's going to take some time to figure it out.  I guess I'm waiting to see crooked behavior before I start talking impeachment.   And GRR? I don't see his kids sitting into meetings as something crooked.   Want to know what drives me crazy about this?  (And yes here comes the partisan shit) Harry Reid comes to the Congress pisspoor and somehow retires while living at the Ritz Carlton and being worth millions.   And HE sits back and shoots darts at Trump for being crooked and gets away with it.  Where the hell did all your $$ come from Harry? Jesus Christ.

So on the $$ issues I'm firmly in the give him time to make a plan and let's see how things actually turn out before we indict him on it.

To me so far the worst/dumbest thing he's done is keep his twitter account.   Hopefully he'll give that away again soon.

What other conduct has worried you?

Has the conduct of the Democrats worried you?   They're doing everything they can to undermine the election and de-legitimize him.
I hope they enjoy themselves because just like getting rid of the filibuster I'll bet it bites them in the ass down the road.

They are all so blatantly obvious that I don't even need to list them out. From doing the exact opposite of what he said he was going to do to his dumb Twitter account to the ties with Russia to ridiculing the CIA and FBI to outright lies about illegal voting to picking fights with media entities and personal attacks. One cannot claim objectivity if they don't see these as odd patterns of behavior or see any of these things and dismiss them. The Twitter account is laughable, the guy shows the self control of a 12 year old boy hitting puberty.

This is not about parties or dems or Obama as much as you want to make it out to be. It's about a guy who is demonstrating that he's unfit to lead.

But whatever, I don't want to say I had my mind made up, I said I would give him a chance and I still intend to do so and I don't intend to be I told you so guy. However, again....his actions thus far.....should concern everyone. And if you (not YOU, but anyone) can't admit that you have some serious concerns with his behavior.....that person's credibility and ability to view the situation with some objectivity takes a serious hit.

WBH showing the butt hurt...............

I'm not butt hurt at all LWS. I'm pretty objective and apolitical. I did not really like Clinton.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I'm not butt hurt at all LWS. I'm pretty objective and apolitical. I did not really like Clinton.

WBH I didn't really care for Romney nor McCain. Does that make me objective and apolitical?

TheReal_LWS wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I'm not butt hurt at all LWS. I'm pretty objective and apolitical. I did not really like Clinton.

WBH I didn't really care for Romney nor McCain. Does that make me objective and apolitical?

Trump wrote:Romney should have been a tough guy with Obama. He cowered and lost. BADLY! He's not relevant!

Trump wrote:The very foul mouthed Sen. John McCain begged for my support during his primary (I gave, he won), then dropped me over locker room remarks!

So sad!

TheReal_LWS wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:I'm not butt hurt at all LWS. I'm pretty objective and apolitical. I did not really like Clinton.

WBH I didn't really care for Romney nor McCain. Does that make me objective and apolitical?

Nope, no one would ever confuse you with being apolotical or objective when it comes to this stuff.

The fact that I pay very little attention to politics and/or don't really care about it makes me apolotical, however.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

WBH I didn't really care for Romney nor McCain. Does that make me objective and apolitical?

Nope, no one would ever confuse you with being apolotical or objective when it comes to this stuff.

The fact that I pay very little attention to politics and/or don't really care about it makes me apolotical, however.

Your Trump rant was pretty informed, at least as informed as one can get from listening to the mainstream media. But I will just leave it at that. I like you WBH, and debating people on politics, especially those on the left, tends to turn them into haters. I don't want that to happen with you.

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

WBH I didn't really care for Romney nor McCain. Does that make me objective and apolitical?

Nope, no one would ever confuse you with being apolotical or objective when it comes to this stuff.

The fact that I pay very little attention to politics and/or don't really care about it makes me apolotical, however.

LWS is an extremist ideologue with a violence fetish.

steveschneider wrote:

WhiteBoyHatcher wrote:

Nope, no one would ever confuse you with being apolotical or objective when it comes to this stuff.

The fact that I pay very little attention to politics and/or don't really care about it makes me apolotical, however.

LWS is an extremist ideologue with a violence fetish.

Ripe, coming from a left-wing whacko like yourself.

Well I've been no fan of Trump no matter what some think here. Hell last summer I was ridiculing the idea he could win a primary much less the nomination or the Presidency. The fact is he did win. He won by the rules in place.

This popular vote shit bothers me a LOT because it's so stupid and unfortunately riles up low information voters. Let's get real people - we beat Penn State in time of possession - should we overturn the result of that game? In the 1960 World Series the Yankees outscored the Pirates 55-27 and lost. Should we re-write that history? NO. Because everyone was playing by the rules of the game that were in place. Hills won the popular vote in CA by 4.3M where the R's had no Senate candidate on the ballot and essentially didn't contest the election - she lost the rest of the country. So STFU with that stuff, it's meaningless.

People keep harping on this happening only to Dems - true enough for now. How many realize just how close the opposite was in 2004? GWBush won the popular vote by over 3 million votes. He won Ohio by just under 60,000 votes - had Kerry pulled Ohio out HE would have been President. Dems loved the Electoral college when it formed the "Blue Wall" for their candidates and only fell out of love when ignoring the voters behind that wall bit them in the ass.

All of the harping on Trump's business stuff is silly for now too - does anyone really think if a country rents a $350 room at one of his hotels that all of a sudden the US will kowtow to their interests? Etc, Etc. I have no idea how he can/will resolve this. The best solution would be to sell everything at an open public auction. Of course then people will claim influence buying there too. My guess is he doesn't want to do that because he wants to pass the business on to his kids. That's understandable and there must be someway to make it work that's fair and open. I don't have the answer though and thus am firmly in the wait and see camp.

Personally I think the picking fights with the media is long overdue. They've leaned so far left for so long that it seems the normal. It's long past time to call them on it.

As far as the CIA and FBI go - I pointed out here and others have pointed out how wrong the CIA has been about Russia and the Middle East. I find it amusing that the same leftists that have excoriated those agencies since the Iraq War now seemingly revere them.

As I've said repeatedly. He wouldn't have been in my top 50 choices. But he won by the rules of the game. I'm willing to give him a chance to actually lead before declaring him unfit to do so.

Democrats, lol

This popular vote shit bothers me a LOT because it's so stupid and unfortunately riles up low information voters. Let's get real people - we beat Penn State in time of possession - should we overturn the result of that game? In the 1960 World Series the Yankees outscored the Pirates 55-27 and lost. Should we re-write that history? NO. Because everyone was playing by the rules of the game that were in place. Hills won the popular vote in CA by 4.3M where the R's had no Senate candidate on the ballot and essentially didn't contest the election - she lost the rest of the country. So STFU with that stuff, it's meaningless.

It's not meaningless.  Gerrymandering is a problem on both sides.  It's just currently favoring the R's in a lot of states.  We have the technology to redistrict in equitable ways and it should be done everywhere.  It's really shitty and racist (or classist) in many ways the way districts are set in many states (not just red states).  Reasonable people are not asking for the Electoral college to be eliminated.  That's not realistic and it would cause a lot of consternation in small, western states like mine.

In addition, I have never blatantly talked down the Intelligence agencies themselves, though I have had many problems with the monitoring of American citizens through the powers granted in the Patriot Act.

I will admit, however that I was so wrong about Edward Snowden. He is no hero. I know that now.

TheReal_LWS wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

LWS is an extremist ideologue with a violence fetish.

Ripe, coming from a left-wing whacko like yourself.

My label was at least accurate, yours is just an ad hominem attack. Because your positions are weak it is all you have.

Rocinante wrote:

This popular vote shit bothers me a LOT because it's so stupid and unfortunately riles up low information voters. Let's get real people - we beat Penn State in time of possession - should we overturn the result of that game? In the 1960 World Series the Yankees outscored the Pirates 55-27 and lost. Should we re-write that history? NO. Because everyone was playing by the rules of the game that were in place. Hills won the popular vote in CA by 4.3M where the R's had no Senate candidate on the ballot and essentially didn't contest the election - she lost the rest of the country. So STFU with that stuff, it's meaningless.

It's not meaningless.  Gerrymandering is a problem on both sides.  It's just currently favoring the R's in a lot of states.  We have the technology to redistrict in equitable ways and it should be done everywhere.  It's really shitty and racist (or classist) in many ways the way districts are set in many states (not just red states).  Reasonable people are not asking for the Electoral college to be eliminated.  That's not realistic and it would cause a lot of consternation in small, western states like mine.

In addition, I have never blatantly talked down the Intelligence agencies themselves, though I have had many problems with the monitoring of American citizens through the powers granted in the Patriot Act.

I will admit, however that I was so wrong about Edward Snowden. He is no hero. I know that now.

Apples and Oranges Roc - you know that. Gerrymandering has zero to do with the Presidential election.

I see people mention Gerrymandering in regard to the Senate too at times and just shake my head. Random usage of buzzwords with no knowledge behind them.

steveschneider wrote:

TheReal_LWS wrote:

Ripe, coming from a left-wing whacko like yourself.

My label was at least accurate, yours is just an ad hominem attack. Because your positions are weak it is all you have.

Ah, so you're a liar. That is probably the most accurate label there is for you.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

It's not meaningless.  Gerrymandering is a problem on both sides.  It's just currently favoring the R's in a lot of states.  We have the technology to redistrict in equitable ways and it should be done everywhere.  It's really shitty and racist (or classist) in many ways the way districts are set in many states (not just red states).  Reasonable people are not asking for the Electoral college to be eliminated.  That's not realistic and it would cause a lot of consternation in small, western states like mine.

In addition, I have never blatantly talked down the Intelligence agencies themselves, though I have had many problems with the monitoring of American citizens through the powers granted in the Patriot Act.

I will admit, however that I was so wrong about Edward Snowden. He is no hero. I know that now.

Apples and Oranges Roc - you know that. Gerrymandering has zero to do with the Presidential election.

I see people mention Gerrymandering in regard to the Senate too at times and just shake my head. Random usage of buzzwords with no knowledge behind them.

Get ready for the avalanche of name-calling questioning your intelligence.........

LooseGoose wrote:

This popular vote shit bothers me a LOT because it's so stupid and unfortunately riles up low information voters.  Let's get real people - we beat Penn State in time of possession - should we overturn the result of that game?   In the 1960 World Series the Yankees outscored the Pirates 55-27 and lost.   Should we re-write that history?   NO.   Because everyone was playing by the rules of the game that were in place.   Hills won the popular vote in CA by 4.3M where the R's had no Senate candidate on the ballot and essentially didn't contest the election - she lost the rest of the country.  So STFU with that stuff, it's meaningless.

If you want to be taken seriously you probably shouldn't lie.

TheReal_LWS wrote:

steveschneider wrote:

My label was at least accurate, yours is just an ad hominem attack. Because your positions are weak it is all you have.

Ah, so you're a liar. That is probably the most accurate label there is for you.

You have to be a schtick, right? Or else you never went to college. I refuse to believe anyone who got into MSU could be this dumb.

LooseGoose wrote:

Rocinante wrote:

It's not meaningless.  Gerrymandering is a problem on both sides.  It's just currently favoring the R's in a lot of states.  We have the technology to redistrict in equitable ways and it should be done everywhere.  It's really shitty and racist (or classist) in many ways the way districts are set in many states (not just red states).  Reasonable people are not asking for the Electoral college to be eliminated.  That's not realistic and it would cause a lot of consternation in small, western states like mine.

In addition, I have never blatantly talked down the Intelligence agencies themselves, though I have had many problems with the monitoring of American citizens through the powers granted in the Patriot Act.

I will admit, however that I was so wrong about Edward Snowden. He is no hero. I know that now.

Apples and Oranges Roc - you know that. Gerrymandering has zero to do with the Presidential election.

I see people mention Gerrymandering in regard to the Senate too at times and just shake my head. Random usage of buzzwords with no knowledge behind them.

You're going to have to explain that one chief. Reappointment, redistricting, and electors are all very interconnected. The formula for how many electors a state gets is set by the party in power. In addition, there's a few states currently pushing through legislation that will make them MORE interconnected (Elector's votes directly tied to districts instead of the statewide vote). See, the problem is, you have to look past one move into the future and think about the long game, like clearly politicians do. Right now the right does it better than the left. So let's play. You tell me why they have nothing to do with the election and I'll tell you why they do.

Rocinante wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Apples and Oranges Roc - you know that. Gerrymandering has zero to do with the Presidential election.

I see people mention Gerrymandering in regard to the Senate too at times and just shake my head. Random usage of buzzwords with no knowledge behind them.

You're going to have to explain that one chief. Reappointment, redistricting, and electors are all very interconnected. The formula for how many electors a state gets is set by the party in power. In addition, there's a few states currently pushing through legislation that will make them MORE interconnected (Elector's votes directly tied to districts instead of the statewide vote). See, the problem is, you have to look past one move into the future and think about the long game, like clearly politicians do. Right now the right does it better than the left. So let's play. You tell me why they have nothing to do with the election and I'll tell you why they do.

Each state get the number of electoral votes by adding the number of representatives in the house and their 2 senators, but minimum of 3. Since representatives are determined by population size, gerrymandering has nothing to do with it. Gerrymandering only allows them to break the state up by the number of districts to match their allotted representatives.

So while gerrymandering can determine whether or not those representatives are ultimately R or D, it has no bearing on the electoral college.

A couple of states do the district break up but I've not heard of that being planned for many other states if any.