Democrats lost over 1,000 seats under Obama

[Tijuana]

Probably not, unless you happen to have a claim to the throne and can manage to off your rivals, or get everyone in line in front of you not to contest said claim, but you can be Prime Minister (where all the real and relevant power in Canada lay). As I said, the royal family is more symbolic than anything in UK and affiliated countries' politics. At most, the Queen rubber-stamps stuff and makes speeches. Their relevance is more cultural than political and has been for quite some time.

So, how is she elected again? I'm trying to wrap my mind around the fairness but, I'm having trouble. Why not just toss her out? Why is it considered prestigious by some, to have an un-elected ruler? To Americans, it just means you are not a real country, if you have a foreign leader being lorded over you. /shrug

- - - Updated - - -

I think a lot of it too was just basic apathy about the top choice either way. I live in MN, which traditionally has high voter turnout (I think the state was 1st again this election). The county turnout where I live was around 80%. So fairly politically active, is what I'm getting at. Before the election there were tons of campaign posters and yard signs everywhere.... for local and state level elections. I think in my neighborhood there was one Trump/Pence sign and no Clinton/Kaine signs. I have coworkers who simply left the top spot blank because they didn't care. The Twin Cities is fairly liberal, but there was very little enthusiasm for Clinton which tempered the Democratic turnout either way.

It doesn't help that Minnesota was one of the more supportive states for Sanders (Sanders won the primary here by about 25 points) and subsequently Clinton turned a lot of people off from the Democratic party past the state level.

I know there are Trump supporters who will emphatically disagree, but I don't think Trump won the election so much as Clinton lost it.

The DNC lost it, if anyone. The emails that showed Bernie was being cheated kept the Bernie Bros at home on election day. Romney got more votes than Trump did. Hillary got more votes than Romney did.

[Thage]

So, how is she elected again? I'm trying to wrap my mind around the fairness but, I'm having trouble. Why not just toss her out? Why is it considered prestigious by some, to have an un-elected ruler? To Americans, it just means you are not a real country, if you have a foreign leader being lorded over you. /shrug

I'm American, dude. But that aside, the point is that they're not really the ruler. It's kinda like... the 'king' at the Renaissance Faire, only with more cultural relevance and hundreds of years of history behind it.

For all intents and purposes, the Prime Minister is the ruler. That's why what's-his-face. The guy who cozied up to Bush after 9/11 and ended up one of the few who was in it for the long haul. Fucked if I can remember his name. But that Prime Minister was the one making all the executive policy decisions for the UK because he was the ruler. Queen Elizabeth is a figurehead; the UK is not an official monarchy in the way one imagines a monarchy to be.

[Tijuana]

I'm American, dude. But that aside, the point is that they're not really the ruler. It's kinda like... the 'king' at the Renaissance Faire, only with more cultural relevance and hundreds of years of history behind it.

For all intents and purposes, the Prime Minister is the ruler. That's why what's-his-face. The guy who cozied up to Bush after 9/11 and ended up one of the few who was in it for the long haul. Fucked if I can remember his name. But that Prime Minister was the one making all the executive policy decisions for the UK because he was the ruler. Queen Elizabeth is a figurehead; the UK is not an official monarchy in the way one imagines a monarchy to be.

Yeah I get all that. But, if you are going to have an imaginary ruler, why not have your own imaginary ruler instead of someone else's?


[Infracted]

[Enthusiastic Steward]

The DNC lost it, if anyone. The emails that showed Bernie was being cheated kept the Bernie Bros at home on election day. Romney got more votes than Trump did. Hillary got more votes than Romney did.

I don't disagree with the assessment, but I think Clinton specifically needs to shoulder a chunk of the blame.

[alexw]

Yeah I get all that. But, if you are going to have an imaginary ruler, why not have your own imaginary ruler instead of someone else's?

Because the wrong imaginary ruler might get in.

Joking aside, I think its mostly because it takes quite a bit of effort to change these sorts of things, and since the current person has no real power why bother?

[Zoranon]

People are still people regardless of the state they come from. More people voted for Clinton is just a fact.

Yes that is correct. Also Clinton did not get majority of the votes cast, that is also a fact.

[Dug]

Yes that is correct. Also Clinton did not get majority of the votes cast, that is also a fact.

Semantics again but if it makes you feel better then technically you're correct.

[Improtaight]

that's how the game works in US, howcome this is the only time i heared about people saying "its not fair".
when it doesn't work for u, its not fair?

that's how the "democratic" voting system works in the US, leave - or - live with it

[Zoranon]

Semantics again but if it makes you feel better then technically you're correct.

Al right, keep pretending you are right.

[netherflame]

3> A lot of the supposed issues people voted for Trump over because the Democrats "didn't speak to it", like jobs for middle America, manufacturing jobs specifically, is a description of the ignorance of those voters, as supported by the mass media (both political sides, I'm not making a partisan jab). The Dems had those issues specifically addressed in their platform, but didn't get a chance to discuss that platform in the midst of the bullshitstorm of "EMAILS" and "BENGHAZI" and "CORRUPT".

Just talk about them then? Its politics, they are masters of sidestepping things.

[Vyxn]

If electors are required to abide by the popular vote in their State, then they serve no purpose, because they don't have any say. They don't HAVE a "vote". They're obliged to "vote" a certain way. That's not down to "what's in the Constitution", that's down to "what 'voting' means".

If I tell you "you get to pick what the office has for lunch, but most of us want tacos, and that means you need to pick tacos", then you're not giving me any say. You're telling me we're having tacos.

Also, the Constitution is just one document. Go read Federalist no. 68 some time; Hamilton was VERY clear that the purpose of the Electoral College was to ignore the will of the people if the people made a stupid decision. Otherwise, they wouldn't have NEEDED the Electoral College; it's ENTIRE purpose was to take choosing the President AWAY from the people, and put it in the hands of those who, in theory, knew better.

No you don't get to use the federalist papers for Jack Shit because you cant use just parts you like and ignore the rest because I can fill this page with quotes from the federalist papers explaining 2nd amendment explaining its purpose and reason that blows all your gun control bull shit out of the water

and by the way Hamilton's vision of the role of the federal government and his arguments were thoroughly rejected it was Jefferson's vison that prevailed so Hamilton is just a irrelevant footnote

[Elegiac]

and by the way Hamilton's vision of the role of the federal government and his arguments were thoroughly rejected it was Jefferson's vison that prevailed so Hamilton is just a irrelevant footnote

You mean Jefferson's vision of a mostly rural nonindustrialised state wherein each citizen was a self sufficient landowning farmer, as opposed to Hamilton's vision of an urbanised manufacturing power administered by a strong central government? Yeah, that totally prevailed.

The US government is thoroughly Hamiltonian in its basis; the Jeffersonian model demonstrated itself to be a massive failure with the collapse of the Articles-era government.

[Endus]

No you don't get to use the federalist papers for Jack Shit because you cant use just parts you like and ignore the rest because I can fill this page with quotes from the federalist papers explaining 2nd amendment explaining its purpose and reason that blows all your gun control bull shit out of the water

I wasn't the one who opened the "what the Founding Fathers intended" box. Don't blame me when that argument doesn't always work in your favor.

I've been pretty clear that my own preference would be to rethink the entire system, to either make it a concrete check on the populace as intended by Hamilton and friends (and which laws against faithless electors directly attack), or to make it properly representative to the population in a federal popular vote, with no State breakdowns (other than in reporting results). The current system half-asses both positions and fails to achieve either.

and by the way Hamilton's vision of the role of the federal government and his arguments were thoroughly rejected it was Jefferson's vison that prevailed so Hamilton is just a irrelevant footnote

See? To you, the Founding Fathers are the sole arbiters of what the law should be, in the case of when they agree with you regarding the 2nd Amendment, but they're "irrelevant footnotes" when they don't agree with you.

Lovely lack of consistency.

[Vyxn]

I wasn't the one who opened the "what the Founding Fathers intended" box. Don't blame me when that argument doesn't always work in your favor.

I've been pretty clear that my own preference would be to rethink the entire system, to either make it a concrete check on the populace as intended by Hamilton and friends (and which laws against faithless electors directly attack), or to make it properly representative to the population in a federal popular vote, with no State breakdowns (other than in reporting results). The current system half-asses both positions and fails to achieve either.



See? To you, the Founding Fathers are the sole arbiters of what the law should be, in the case of when they agree with you regarding the 2nd Amendment, but they're "irrelevant footnotes" when they don't agree with you.

Lovely lack of consistency.

because Hamilton was a rejected founding father
and don't you dare think you can talk to me me about consistency


where is the fuck is your constancy with this



explain how does theses get an infraction

Thats how liberals fight.** welcome to MMO forms, a liberal pool of poo.***
Obama is a 'gov can solve problems' president, he really wanted to be king obama, and spent most of his 8 years acting like it.* I will get great joy out of watching him squirm during Trumps speech and then seeing the mountains of regulations deleted with Trumps stroke of a pen.** revenge is a dish best served cold.*

[Infracted]

Yeah I get all that. But, if you are going to have an imaginary ruler, why not have your own imaginary ruler instead of someone else's?

[Infracted]

and this doesn't after being reported

So much bullshit and factual nonsense from the right wingers here. Even basic stuff you can disprove in 5 seconds is repeated like it has any shred of evidence or truth. Just be true to yourself and write what you really want to write. You want to shout "I don't want a n*gger in office! White power only!" That's what this is about. Nothing else. You made up the strangest bullshit to justify your Obama hate when it's just simple racism.

your bias double standard in your moderation is undeniable, undisputable and many times vindictive



Infracted for discussing moderation.

[Elegiac]

because Hamilton was a rejected founding father
and don't you dare think you can talk to me me about consistency

"I can't substantially refute your points so I am going to complain about your moderation instead."

A-grade debating strategy there.

[xChurch]

Anyone who knows anything about what the Republicans are planning knows this will be short lived. A Tax code that works better for the rich, gutting SS, turning Medicare/Medicaid into a voucher system, tearing up the AA, welfare reform, ect ect. It's basically just more Bush Jr. and even Conservatives rejected his leadership towards the end.

[Adam Jensen]

He promised a lot of stuff that resonated with people. In time they'll see him for the conman he truly was and they'll switch back or give it to a standard republican again.

And it was pretty obvious he was a lying conman. I just don't understand how so many people could fall for him.

[Elegiac]

And it was pretty obvious he was a lying conman. I just don't understand how so many people could fall for him.

A third of the country doesn't believe in evolution. There's your answer.

[Dug]

And it was pretty obvious he was a lying conman. I just don't understand how so many people could fall for him.

Beats me. I've got a few theories but they're not very "PC" so I'll just keep them to myself

[TexasRules]

I want all these people who keep whining about clinton getting more votes to answer if they want gay marriage? California who had the most votes for clinton voted twice in recent years to not allow gay marriages. And then judges over ruled them and said they have to allow it. Just because a popular vote happens, it does not mean you get what you want. The election for president is based on the entire country, not just certain states' population.

And for the damn clueless stop talking about congressional elections. My favorite is the gerrymandering bit, which has been going on with both parties since elections began. And you truly clueless need to learn the how senators are elected.