Jump to content
270soft Forum

President Trump


ThePotatoWalrus

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Dallas said:

For the sake of backing up with the information I provided, here are several instances:

And as many articles as I come across, I must not have shared the others.

But you haven't answered my question and have obviously ignored my last post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 104
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

But you haven't answered my question and have obviously ignored my last post.

Most of the violence has been by the hand of Hillary supporters. I have seen few cases suggesting Trump supporters fighting back against protesters at rallies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dallas said:

Most of the violence has been by the hand of Hillary supporters. I have seen few cases suggesting Trump supporters fighting back against protesters at rallies.

Well, that's not what I was hearing across the board. But when the political situation in the US today is so sharply divided to the point where logic, reason, and any sort of fair analyses of the situation are becoming scarcer and scarcer in the national dialogue and even considered dirty words and disloyal to the phenomenon that I have come to believe is the greatest evil and the Achilles Heel of the modern American political system - political ideological purity uber al - it's not surprising that many in the US are becoming deaf in one ear and blind in one eye politically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Well, that's not what I was hearing across the board. But when the political situation in the US today is so sharply divided to the point where logic, reason, and any sort of fair analyses of the situation are becoming scarcer and scarcer in the national and even considered dirty and disloyal to the phenomenon that I have come to believe is the greatest evil and the Achilles Heel of the modern American political system - political ideological purity uber al - it's not surprising that many in the US are becoming deaf in one ear and blind in one eye politically.

I should have been more specific, as all Democrats have not went out their way to cause violence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dallas said:

I should have been more specific, as all Democrats have not went out their way to cause violence.

I was complaining about your plaintiff claims that Republican voters were merely helpless, polite, orderly, innocent victims of any electoral violence, disorder, and misconduct, and were behind only a TINY minority of it. That statement is laughable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sami said:

Where did you found this?

Me I am pulling my numbers from this place:

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results

And on the current count Clinton has 630 000 votes of majority upon Trump!

I was told a recent CNN report provided that information. Unless, someone is trying to get our hopes up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

I was complaining about your plaintiff claims that Republican voters were merely helpless, polite, orderly, innocent victims of any electoral violence, disorder, and misconduct, and were behind only a TINY minority of it. That statement is laughable.

I would like to have a political climate, one that is based on arguments and making the case for said candidate. And not a climate that is full of violence and name calling. Sadly, the latter is the way the world is going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dallas said:

I would like to have a political climate, one that is based on arguments and making the case for said candidate. And not a climate that is full of violence and name calling. Sadly, the latter is the way the world is going.

Oh, I fully agree. I just think EVERYONE involved in creating a climate of violence and name calling, regardless of their party and ideology, has to fess up and help build such a better environment. That's part of the point I've been making these past few posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

America is probably at its closest moment of a "civil war" since 1860 because of the economic divisions and racial problems raised by the economic crisis of 2008.

The emotionnal support behind Bernie Sanders showed this social fracture, and even if Clinton has won it would have been the same, the federal state according to me will have to be more there to answer to important issues.. because your student debt is crazy, and excuse me for the terms, but the student crisis could be the next worldwide crisis if the American model based on high student fees continues to be like it is currently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Founding Fathers will always be relevant to politics as they were very smart in the system that the set up. No one will ever convince me that they are not relevant, and I will not listen to those that try to wrongly state that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Patine said:

Why? Because it stopped a politician you didn't like but who got the majority of popular vote (if only barely) from defeating one you'd prefer, but when both are utterly despicable, unethical liars and likely not trustworthy with the office? I'm not sure I see your logic here.

Nope, because is kept California from being the decider in this election which is how the system was set up.  Read up on the Founders and the Constitution if you want my logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jvikings1 said:

Nope, because is kept California from being the decider in this election which is how the system was set up.  Read up on the Founders and the Constitution if you want my logic.

Oh, you mean the parts about how a big factor in the structure of the Electoral College was to pander to the Slave States, who received, for morally vile, irreprehensible, and indefensible reasons, to even consider giving the vote (or even basic human rights or dignity) to what was, at the time, the majority of their populations, so they wouldn't form their own nation from the start and take all that cotton revenue with them, or Alexander Hamilton's elitist and pompous views that "the Electoral College is meant to keep "unqualified people" (defined his own aristocratic point of view and contempt of the common man who wasn't highly educated and wealthy) from becoming President?" Yes, I've read about these and taken them into account in my opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Oh, you mean the parts about how a big factor in the structure of the Electoral College was to pander to the Slave States, who received, for morally vile, irreprehensible, and indefensible reasons, to even consider giving the vote (or even basic human rights or dignity) to what was, at the time, the majority of their populations, so they wouldn't form their own nation from the start and take all that cotton revenue with them, or Alexander Hamilton's elitist and pompous views that "the Electoral College is meant to keep "unqualified people" (defined his own aristocratic point of view and contempt of the common man who wasn't highly educated and wealthy) from becoming President?" Yes, I've read about these and taken them into account in my opinions.

The system works as it did at the beginning of the country.  The system was set up as a compromise between the small and large states because there would have been no agreement as a result.  Non-Americans are often confused because they do not know the history of the US.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

The system works as it did at the beginning of the country.  The system was set up as a compromise between the small and large states because there would have been no agreement as a result.  Non-Americans are often confused because they do not know the history of the US.

JViking, you as well as I know that the government of 1787 is not anywhere the same as the government of 2016. We didn't even have a popular vote then. An election should weigh every person's vote equally. If the college is kept, it should be adjusted to represent the actual number of the people in a way that doesn't inflate some people's votes and deflate others. As a Texan, a Wyoming is worth more than I am in presidential elections. That's absurd! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

JViking, you as well as I know that the government of 1787 is not anywhere the same as the government of 2016. We didn't even have a popular vote then. An election should weigh every person's vote equally. If the college is kept, it should be adjusted to represent the actual number of the people in a way that doesn't inflate some people's votes and deflate others. As a Texan, a Wyoming is worth more than I am in presidential elections. That's absurd! 

That is why I am in favor of states going to the system that Maine and Nebraska has which is more representative of the local populations while still keeping the checks and balances in place.  I know the government is not the same, and I have not indicated that I believe it is the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

That is why I am in favor of states going to the system that Maine and Nebraska has which is more representative of the local populations while still keeping the checks and balances in place.  I know the government is not the same, and I have not indicated that I believe it is the same.

If that were the compromise, then I would say a constitutional ban on gerrymandering by state governments would have to go along with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Patine said:

If that were the compromise, then I would say a constitutional ban on gerrymandering by state governments would have to go along with it.

I say ban gerrymandering too, and have all districts redrawn by an independent committee. 

I also think more states should break their ECs like Maine and Nebraska

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/12/2016 at 3:33 PM, Patine said:

That's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that just because someone greatly respected and wise in affairs in their day and with a pedigree of respect into the modern day said something or made a law in their day that shouldn't mean that law or decision should be considered automatically infallible and beyond reproach and possible revision into perpetuity. That's what I'm saying.

No one thinks the Founders were "automatically infallible."  They realized they weren't which is why we have the ability to change it.  As it happens, plenty of contemporary arguments can be made for their decisions.  The structure and underlying political philosophy of the Founding generation is still relevant today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, servo75 said:

No one thinks the Founders were "automatically infallible."  They realized they weren't which is why we have the ability to change it.  As it happens, plenty of contemporary arguments can be made for their decisions.  The structure and underlying political philosophy of the Founding generation is still relevant today.

What are these "contemporary arguments," at least as related to the specific issue at hand, the Electoral College, precisely?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

What are these "contemporary arguments," at least as related to the specific issue at hand, the Electoral College, precisely?

Those have been talked about here - preventing larger states and urban areas from dominating election results.  The fact that we can make amendments to account for new issues, the separation of powers that (in theory) keeps one branch from getting out of control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, servo75 said:

Those have been talked about here - preventing larger states and urban areas from dominating election results.  The fact that we can make amendments to account for new issues, the separation of powers that (in theory) keeps one branch from getting out of control.

I find the idea of "preventing larger states and urban areas from dominating election results" rings hollow in the modern day and age. Outside of the most destitute and underdeveloped Third World Countries, modern nations have very large urban population majorities - around 80% in the US, last I checked. To try and artificially balance rural and urban voters' in electing a President in the modern day is not only an anachronistic throwback concept, it's a highly biased, slanted, politically manipulative, and regressive policy to give a vote by rural voters far more weight than one by urban voters and to fail to acknowledge (or deliberately ignore for ulterior motive) shifts in population and economic situation entirely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

I find the idea of "preventing larger states and urban areas from dominating election results" rings hollow in the modern day and age. Outside of the most destitute and underdeveloped Third World Countries, modern nations have very large urban population majorities - around 80% in the US, last I checked. To try and artificially balance rural and urban voters' in electing a President in the modern day is not only an anachronistic throwback concept, it's a highly biased, slanted, politically manipulative, and regressive policy to give a vote by rural voters far more weight than one by urban voters and to fail to acknowledge (or deliberately ignore for ulterior motive) shifts in population and economic situation entirely.

The United States is (are) made up of states.  That is fundamental to our Constitution.  States literally constitute this Nation.  There is nothing "hollow" about that.  Each state gets accorded a certain number of Electors to choose the President of the United States.  How that is calculated was previously agreed upon and written into law.

Now, we are free to change how this Nation is constituted such as you suggest above via amendments to the Constitution (or civil war). ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...