logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Welcoming President Trump, Or did this leave you speechless?
AuthorMusician
post Nov 9 2016, 11:56 AM
Post #1


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,367
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Wow, talk about messing up pundits and pollsters! Oh well, reminds me of when the B actor, Ronald Reagan, won the first time. Except this is different in that Trump has zero political experience.

Might as well welcome the new POTUS. Okay, now that's over, so . . .

What does President Elect Trump face as he heads for the White House?

What do you expect from this POTUS?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 34)
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 12 2016, 02:21 PM
Post #21


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 12 2016, 09:48 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 12 2016, 04:16 AM) *
George Monbiot's thesis would be much more compelling if Trump had been running against someone like Sanders.
We already know who Hollywood and mass media backed.

That doesn't make any sense. Monbiot's analysis is strictly related to the popularity of Trump. Who he is running against is irrelevant.


From the writeup:

QUOTE
Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is a bundle of extrinsic values – the fetishisation of wealth, power and image – in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age.


The above describes Hillary just as much as it describes Trump.
I think rich arrogant celebrity expletive, and Trump's face comes to mind. I think rich corrupt arrogant celebrity expletive and Hillary's comes to mind.
You know who doesn't come to mind? Sanders, or Carson, or a laundry list of other people.
I'm not sure how this could possibly be more clear.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dingo
post Nov 12 2016, 04:44 PM
Post #22


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 5,065
Member No.: 225
Joined: November-3-02

From: Monterey Bay, Calif.
Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Private



QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 12 2016, 07:21 AM) *
QUOTE(Dingo @ Nov 12 2016, 09:48 AM) *
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Nov 12 2016, 04:16 AM) *
George Monbiot's thesis would be much more compelling if Trump had been running against someone like Sanders.
We already know who Hollywood and mass media backed.

That doesn't make any sense. Monbiot's analysis is strictly related to the popularity of Trump. Who he is running against is irrelevant.


From the writeup:

QUOTE
Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is a bundle of extrinsic values – the fetishisation of wealth, power and image – in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age.


The above describes Hillary just as much as it describes Trump.
I think rich arrogant celebrity expletive, and Trump's face comes to mind. I think rich corrupt arrogant celebrity expletive and Hillary's comes to mind.
You know who doesn't come to mind? Sanders, or Carson, or a laundry list of other people.
I'm not sure how this could possibly be more clear.

Again, your point is senseless. Whatever your feelings about Hillary that is not what Monbiot was talking about. He was talking about Trump without regard to any other candidate. Maybe you should write him a letter and encourage him to apply his same analysis to Hillary. Normally I think of you as a pretty rational poster but for some reason when it comes to Hillary HDS seems to have taken over. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mrs. Pigpen
post Nov 12 2016, 05:07 PM
Post #23


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,344
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



Dingo, if there are only two viable candidates and both candidates fit the description that tells us nothing about why one was selected over the other.

Let's use something inanimate. Say...a ball.
The red ball is chosen over the green one and the analysis claims that the red one was selected because more people prefer round, bouncing objects.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 12 2016, 10:36 PM
Post #24


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 10 2016, 03:19 PM) *
QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 10 2016, 09:43 AM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 9 2016, 03:04 PM) *
...
What do you expect from this POTUS?

I expect him to be largely ignored. The POTUS has relatively little power in our system, ...
...

Highlighting (both above and below) mine:
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 8 2014, 05:49 AM) *
...
... [The POTUS] might have to force people to work at things they don't want to work on. All kinds of things might have to be done, and if you've read up on executive orders, you know he has that power.
...

Well, which is it, "AM"? Or does that depend on whether the POTUS is one to your liking?

I don't understand your question. Presidential power is what it is, no matter what I like. ...
...

It is certainly true that "Presidential power is what it is". What is also true is that nothing about it has changed since February 8, 2014. What has changed, however, is your take on it. Back then, your assessment was that POTUS powers were such that he could, if he chose, "force people to work at things they don't want to work on". Fast forward to a couple of days after the Presidential election results of November 8, 2016, and ... abracadabra ... a POTUS all of a sudden has so little power that he can be "largely ignored", supposedly.

If you have an explanation for what caused such a drastic reassessment on your part in regards to Presidential power, an explanation that is based on something other than your personal/ideological/partisan biases, please by all means share it.

Do you understand my question now, "АвторMузыкант"*?

*"AuthorMusician", in Russian.

This post has been edited by akaCG: Nov 12 2016, 11:46 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Looms
post Nov 13 2016, 02:08 AM
Post #25


******
Senior Contributor

Sponsor
January 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 429
Member No.: 1,416
Joined: October-11-03

From: Where you are, there you is
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 9 2016, 03:04 PM) *
What does President Elect Trump face as he heads for the White House?

First off, he faces weeks for his political opposition to plan and perhaps begin implementing its strategy for the next four years. Inauguration Day is January 20th, 2017.

He faces a Senate minority that still has the power of the filibuster, and a majority that will remember that this guy is inexperienced and rather touchy/easy to bait.


So the Democrats now stand not only for the establishment but obstructionism as well. Congratulations, your party is now everything you used to hate about the Republicans, proving the horseshoe theory once again. As far as the majority, I think the thing they will remember most is that he gave them something they haven't had in a while: victory.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 9 2016, 03:04 PM) *
His supporters will expect him to perform the miracles that he has claimed he can do. These folks are not well known for their patience.

What miracles? What folks? I certainly don't expect any miracles from him.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 9 2016, 03:04 PM) *
It looks like this is the second minority POTUS (currently by 200,000 + votes) to be elected within the last 20 years. If so, he will face this deficit of authenticity in criticisms, both spoken/written and silent. This could turn out worse than Obama's criticism for having been born in Kenya, since it would be true rather than a piece of propaganda.


Only as far as the regressive left is concerned. You know, the ones rioting right now. Most others understand how our election process works.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 9 2016, 03:04 PM) *
And finally, he has pretty much the entire community of comedians, musicians, artists, actors, directors -- all those liberal types -- that will have enormous fun with him at his expense, damn the lawsuits, full speed ahead!


Agreed! This will be awesome.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 9 2016, 03:04 PM) *
What do you expect from this POTUS?


I expect him to be largely ignored. The POTUS has relatively little power in our system, and even if he wants to start new wars or escalate those that exist, his military staff might not cooperate. Forget about Congress funding any possible military adventure that he might try to sell. Nope, Congress is wise to that trick. Besides, he has zero actual military experience.

What makes you think he wants to start new wars? The pro war candidate lost this time.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 9 2016, 03:04 PM) *
No honeymoon, lame duck out of the gates. No real reason for Congress to support the outsider who insulted so many Republican insiders. No reason for the people to support the minority POTUS. No reason for allies to help him out. Trump may not know this right now, but the very worse thing has just happened to him. The dang barking dog caught the car! Now what?



No real reason, other than that whole victory thing, and a chance to get things done, with the House, Senate, and POTUS all Republican. You think they will pass on it just out of spite? Really? What ever else the Republicans might be, they're not SJWs. They won't act against their own interest.

This post has been edited by Looms: Nov 13 2016, 02:11 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ted
post Nov 13 2016, 05:17 AM
Post #26


***********
Ten Thousand Club

Sponsor
February 2007

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 11,416
Member No.: 1,807
Joined: November-20-03

From: Mass.
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



What do you expect from this POTUS?

Looking at this man I see Reagan on steroids....the FIRST non military or politician since Washington......

Could be wild - buckle up
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 13 2016, 12:30 PM
Post #27


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,367
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Huh, Trump is now a minority POTUS by over 600,000 votes in the actual people-who-voted count.

"akaCG," perhaps you might want to consider context. Whatever your point really is, I suspect it has the substance of Jello being tacked to the wall.

Obama did Executive Orders and so might Trump after the EC votes and he gets sworn in, assuming the EC votes as expected. Compared to the powers of Congress and the SCOTUS, it's pretty weak stuff, as in relatively weak.

What Congress does is make laws that tend to span POTUS terms; what the SCOTUS does tends to span human generations, which are around 20-year increments. What a POTUS does by EO can be undone in a moment. However, during the term(s), the POTUS can make people do what he, in this case, desires. It's just relatively weak, as I wrote in the post (this thread) that you're trying to make some kind of point about, perhaps a gotcha thing. If so, that is in itself weak.

Prediction: After the shock of Trump "winning," dumping the EC will become an issue that grows wings. I'm expecting an amendment to the Constitution (the big one) to that effect.

And we'll get to debate that again, like after GWB "won."

QUOTE(Ted @ Nov 13 2016, 01:17 AM) *
What do you expect from this POTUS?

Looking at this man I see Reagan on steroids....the FIRST non military or politician since Washington......

Could be wild - buckle up

Okay, and I'm getting a grip as well.

Trump is already backpedaling on his wild promises during the campaign. Rubber, let us introduce you to Road.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Nov 13 2016, 12:22 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 14 2016, 04:30 AM
Post #28


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 13 2016, 07:30 AM) *
Huh, Trump is now a minority POTUS by over 600,000 votes in the actual people-who-voted count.
...

Clinton would have been a minority POTUS as well, of course, seeing as how she's way short of 50% in "actual people-who-voted" terms. To be fair, though, she would have been substantially less of a minority POTUS than her husband was in 1992, seeing as how he only garnered 43% in "actual people-who-voted" terms.

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 13 2016, 07:30 AM) *
...
Prediction: After the shock of Trump "winning," dumping the EC will become an issue that grows wings. I'm expecting an amendment to the Constitution (the big one) to that effect.
...

Said issue may indeed sprout "wings". But, just like it did in the aftermath of the "shock" of the 2000 election, they'll turn out to be Icarus-like wings. The scorching heat emanating from the 25 states that are currently under "trifecta" (i.e. both chambers + Governor) Republican control will melt those "wings" long before they get anywhere near Constitutional amendment territory.

IOW, said prediction is about as likely to pan out as ...
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Sep 7 2016, 10:30 AM) *
...
... Trump will never get to be POTUS. But I'll play along as if he has an insincere prayer's chance in hell.
...


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 14 2016, 11:07 AM
Post #29


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,367
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Twenty-five things a POTUS can do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI8CghCojLA

Twenty-five things a POTUS cannot do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id...p;v=9X_1_R5syBY

So welcome, PE Trump. You can only do so much damage, and since the Senate will likely swing Democratic in 2018, you've only got two years in which to do it.

"akaCG," yet another weak argument. The people's choice was obviously Clinton by about 630,000 voters. But let's say she got a minority of all voters -- then she has the largest minority of all. You might want to consider this a significant plurality but far more significant than her husband's.

It's kinda like a medium-sized city voted for HRC on top of all the others that went her way. Looking at it from a slightly different angle, the votes of 630,000+ US citizens did not count due to the EC.

So much for the idea of one-person-one-vote, eh?

Trump will be our fifth minority POTUS:

John Quincy Adams lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824.
Rutherford B. Hayes lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876.
Benjamin Harrison lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888.
George W. Bush lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election.

And now Trump with over 630,000 votes as his loss in the electorate during the 2016 election.

I do see a trend developing hmmm.gif

And to think we went a whole century before it became an issue again. What's the similarity with the 19th century?, Well, the Industrial Revolution was similar to the Computer Revolution (or whatever it'll be called). There was a movement in universal literacy that is a little like the Information Highway. And people are still trying to figure it out, which is similar to figuring out how industry would change the country.

Perhaps the take-away from the 2016 season is that people have to sharpen their skills at detecting bull on the Internet. Maybe that will turn out to be even more important than developing skills for whatever jobs will be available.

Welcome to this brave new world, PE Trump! It sure isn't like yours.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 15 2016, 02:20 AM
Post #30


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 14 2016, 06:07 AM) *
...
So welcome, PE Trump. You can only do so much damage, and since the Senate will likely swing Democratic in 2018, you've only got two years in which to do it.
...

Good golly! There really is no end to your need to keep ignoring Reality, is there?

Duuuude, ...

This past election (i.e. the one that took place just a week ago), Senate Republicans were defending 24 seats, while Senate Democrats defended 10. End result: Republicans lost 2, Democrats won 2.

In 2018, Senate Republicans will be defending 8 seats, while Senate Democrats will be defending 23. Care to propound on those odds, in terms of the likelihood of "the Senate will likely swing Democratic in 2018" terms, "AM"?

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 14 2016, 06:07 AM) *
...
"akaCG," yet another weak argument. The people's choice was obviously Clinton by about 630,000 voters. But let's say she got a minority of all voters -- then she has the largest minority of all. You might want to consider this a significant plurality but far more significant than her husband's.

It's kinda like a medium-sized city voted for HRC on top of all the others that went her way. Looking at it from a slightly different angle, the votes of 630,000+ US citizens did not count due to the EC.

So much for the idea of one-person-one-vote, eh?
...

630,000? That's about the voter number margin in Berkeley, CA + Cambridge, MA + Martha's Vineyard and/or sumpthin'.

When was it during your education (5th grade? ... PhD?) that you became fixed upon the "idea" that our country's Constitution was meant to work on a "one-person-one-vote" (i.e. direct democracy) basis?

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 14 2016, 06:07 AM) *
...
Perhaps the take-away from the 2016 season is that people have to sharpen their skills at detecting bull on the Internet. ...
...

Worry not, "AM". Lots of us have been busy sharpening our skills at detecting your and "yours" bull for years.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
moif
post Nov 15 2016, 02:39 AM
Post #31


*********
suspending disbelief

Sponsor
February 2004

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,685
Member No.: 424
Joined: February-3-03

From: Aarhus, Denmark
Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 9 2016, 12:56 PM) *
What does President Elect Trump face as he heads for the White House?

Petulant accusations of diminishing credibility by my optic. Apart from that, I'm not sure.

QUOTE
What do you expect from this POTUS?

I sincerly hope that he can normalize relations with Russia and avoid the war that Obama has been carefully guiding us all too in the last several years, and which I doubt Clinton would have prevented. I don't much care for Donald Trump, but I am overjoyed to see that the American public has finally woken up to the perfidy of the Obama administration. Trump might not know much about foreign policy, but perhaps that is a good thing, for it seems that the western world has relied far too heavily on a political elite that has gotten bogged down in the quagmire of globalisation and it is time for the entire system to be dismantled and replaced by something more intelligent.

I don't know if Trump is that intelligent, but my hope is that, even if Trump isn't the right person then maybe through his independence from the 'business-as-usual system that Bush, Obama and Clinton represented', he might pave the way for someone brilliant. Some one who doesn't belong to that Saudi backed oil & jihad corruption. Some one who understands that this planet's population cannot afford globalisation in its current form. I know thats a lot to hope for.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
turnea
post Nov 15 2016, 02:58 PM
Post #32


**********
Tweedy Impertinence

Sponsor
December 2005

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 5,585
Member No.: 133
Joined: September-27-02

From: Alabama
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I was indeed shocked that the racial resentment was so effective a political force as to drive even a large plurality of Americans to elect a Game Show Host president.

The thought should be self evidently ridiculous. I except that he will enrich himself and the trust fund baby class to which he belongs at the expense of the working class and that when it is all over half of them will blame the Mexicans anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Curmudgeon
post Nov 16 2016, 07:58 PM
Post #33


********
I am an unpaid protester!

Sponsor
August 1, 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 1,194
Member No.: 729
Joined: May-14-03

From: Michigan
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



What does President Elect Trump face as he heads for the White House?

Well, so far he was surprised to learn that staffing The White House would be his responsibility...

It remains to be seen if he is aware that being President of The United States is not in any ways equivalent to being a landlord.

I have yet to hear him address the question of whether or not he has read The Constitution of The United States.

What do you expect from this POTUS?

I am already hearing that a Constitutional Amendment to replace the Electoral College is being drafted. State movements appear to be underway to apportion the Electoral College delegates to reflect the vote in individual states. The actual members of the Electoral College still have to meet and vote. At least one Republican Elector, I heard reported, had vowed never to vote for Trump. There remains then, the possibility that this President will be the first one selected by The House of Representatives, but reviewing the language, there appears to be no possibility for nominations from the floor. Many Republicans were likely prepared to return to Congress and immediately begin more hearings on impeaching Hillary Clinton. Word Processors allow them to easily find "Hillary Clinton" and replace the language with "Donald Trump." Replacing Benghazi, e-mails, etc. with Trump University Fraud, Trump Foundation Fraud, etc. will take a bit more time and thought; but I am certain it will be possible to have the rough drafts in place by the time Congress resumes...

I think that the resignation of Richard Nixon set a precedent. First, replace the Vice President with someone who is not a controversial choice , and second move to impeach the President. If the Republicans are smart, they will try to accomplish this within the first two years, as a Trump Presidency for two years will likely seriously damage the "Republican Brand." The problem lies in the fact that in politics, "smart" is defined as using the power while they have it.

What do I really expect?
Not much... "The Donald" may yet grow into the job, but based on what we have seen to far, I expect him to tweet his first State of The Union Address... Putin may already be planning an aggressive expansion of Russia back to the areas held by The U.S.S.R. as soon as Donald Trump is sworn in. I am hoping that he has watched enough Presidents sworn in that he doesn't repeat after the Chief Justice, "I state your name...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Nov 17 2016, 07:16 AM
Post #34


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,367
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



QUOTE(akaCG @ Nov 14 2016, 10:20 PM) *
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 14 2016, 06:07 AM) *
...
So welcome, PE Trump. You can only do so much damage, and since the Senate will likely swing Democratic in 2018, you've only got two years in which to do it.
...

Good golly! There really is no end to your need to keep ignoring Reality, is there?

Duuuude, ...

This past election (i.e. the one that took place just a week ago), Senate Republicans were defending 24 seats, while Senate Democrats defended 10. End result: Republicans lost 2, Democrats won 2.

In 2018, Senate Republicans will be defending 8 seats, while Senate Democrats will be defending 23. Care to propound on those odds, in terms of the likelihood of "the Senate will likely swing Democratic in 2018" terms, "AM"?

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 14 2016, 06:07 AM) *
...
"akaCG," yet another weak argument. The people's choice was obviously Clinton by about 630,000 voters. But let's say she got a minority of all voters -- then she has the largest minority of all. You might want to consider this a significant plurality but far more significant than her husband's.

It's kinda like a medium-sized city voted for HRC on top of all the others that went her way. Looking at it from a slightly different angle, the votes of 630,000+ US citizens did not count due to the EC.

So much for the idea of one-person-one-vote, eh?
...

630,000? That's about the voter number margin in Berkeley, CA + Cambridge, MA + Martha's Vineyard and/or sumpthin'.

When was it during your education (5th grade? ... PhD?) that you became fixed upon the "idea" that our country's Constitution was meant to work on a "one-person-one-vote" (i.e. direct democracy) basis?

QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 14 2016, 06:07 AM) *
...
Perhaps the take-away from the 2016 season is that people have to sharpen their skills at detecting bull on the Internet. ...
...

Worry not, "AM". Lots of us have been busy sharpening our skills at detecting your and "yours" bull for years.

It's generally true that the POTUS loses the Senate in the mid-terms:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/state...atic-seats-con/

I grok your numbers game, but my bet is on a lot more people being/becoming upset by the power imbalance than those who are happy with it. We'll see if your stats hold up in a couple of years.

Where else in our elections does one-person-one-vote not take effect? I suppose gerrymandering also dilutes or concentrates individual citizens' votes like the EC does, but US Reps are still picked by popular vote. So do you deny that one-person-one-vote is the way our democratic republic works, with the only exception being the EC? If so, you might want to google it. Maybe you can find an oddball state, county or town out there.

The rest of your rant is pretty childish, especially as HRC's biggest share of the popular vote beats Trump's second biggest share by over a million, or about twice as much as Gore's over GWB's.

Which reminds me of a Russian troll again, как насчет этого. Gee, the Internet has translation software, how about this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akaCG
post Nov 17 2016, 03:45 PM
Post #35


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Sponsor
August 2012

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 4,846
Member No.: 10,787
Joined: November-25-09

Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Nov 17 2016, 02:16 AM) *
...
Where else in our elections does one-person-one-vote not take effect? ...
...

Here's an example:

435 U.S. House seats were up for re-election this past Nov 8. At last count, about 56 million of our fellow citizens voted for a Republican, while about 53 million cast their vote for a Democrat. Yet, "lo and behold", the Democrats will still get to hold 44% (193) of the seats in the House. If the system operated on a "one-person-one-vote" basis, they wouldn't get any. But, of course, the system doesn't operate that way. Rather, it operates on the basis that what really matters in the end is WHERE each vote is cast.

Another way of approaching it is to look at each of the 435 Congressional district races as a separate "game" between two teams: the Dems and the Reps. It doesn't matter whether one team's total number of scores (i.e. votes) is higher than the other's. What matters is how many "games" each team wins.

And that's also, pretty much, what matters in Presidential elections, under our system. It doesn't matter that Team Dem's total number of scores (i.e. votes) is higher than Team Rep's. What matters is that Team Rep won more "games" than Team Dem. It's not an exact analogy to the U.S. House, of course, because of the added complications involving the fact that, whereas each U.S. House "game" win doesn't carry any more weight than any other, the Presidential Election "game" in Pennsylvania, for instance, certainly carries more weight than the one in, say, Oregon. But it will do, since there is still a very strong relationship between the number of states (i.e. "games") that a Presidential candidate wins and whether that candidate becomes President. I've looked at all of the 15 Presidential elections since we've had 50 states, and there's not a single instance of someone becoming President without winning at least 21 of the states.


ps:
"Surprise", "surprise", within a week of Trump's election, here comes ... "States are a relic of the past. It’s time to get rid of them."

laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: October 20th, 2018 - 01:21 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.