Page 35 of 56 FirstFirst ...
25
33
34
35
36
37
45
... LastLast
  1. #681
    Scarab Lord bergmann620's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    4,402
    Quote Originally Posted by May90 View Post
    No (well, ideally, yes, but that would be tricky to implement ), but since one state doesn't decide the outcome of the presidential election, I fail to see why such an operation is necessary. Suppose in 49 states one candidate wins by one vote, and in the 50th state all ~30 million people have voted for another - will the victory of the former candidate reflect the will of the people?

    I think the states should have a system "all or nothing" (which, in itself, I also dislike, but let's ignore that for now) for the elections the results of which affect only the given state, but as long as any other states are involved, the vote should be counted as popular.
    That would require quite the sea change in how we run our national election =)

    I, personally, would be happy enough if we could just dump first-past-the-post voting for something far better, such as 'Approval Voting'.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    Electoral college doesn't fix that. National elections just focus on key battle ground states. California and Wyoming are both equally ignored in national elections.
    They're certainly not ignored- it's that their issues are covered well enough that we generally know how they'll vote. The focus is on the battleground states because candidates just aren't sure what the winning pitch is.
    indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]

  2. #682
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    I like how having equal representation is considered excessive.
    So how would ignoring 95% of the country be equal?

  3. #683
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post

    They're certainly not ignored- it's that their issues are covered well enough that we generally know how they'll vote. The focus is on the battleground states because candidates just aren't sure what the winning pitch is.
    Neither candidate spent much time in California or Wyoming. Sure seems like they were ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by therayeffect View Post
    So how would ignoring 95% of the country be equal?
    Everyone's vote should be equal and people shouldn't be devalued because of where they live. That's how it's equal.

  4. #684
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    It's foolish in regard to who won the election.

    It's absolutely relevant when Trump attempts to say that he has a 'mandate' or that 'the people support him'. He is on the weakest ground that any President has ever inhabited. He needs to be aware of that and proceed accordingly.
    Don't see how you get that. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore, and didn't have as many electoral college votes that Trump got. It took the Supreme Court to hand Bush the presidency.

  5. #685
    Scarab Lord bergmann620's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    4,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    Neither candidate spent much time in California or Wyoming. Sure seems like they were ignored.
    If you and I agree on something, I'm not going to spend extra time trying to convince you of the thing we already agree on.

    The guy that doesn't agree with us, if he doesn't think he can change your mind, he's not going to spend much time trying.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    Everyone's vote should be equal and people shouldn't be devalued because of where they live. That's how it's equal.
    It's a balancing act, though. If there are 100 votes, and 70 of them are in one little area, and the other 30 are scattered all over, which ones are you going to try and target? It's not that 'land' matters more than people. A large part of our governmental system is set up to prevent what's known as 'the tyranny of the majority'.

    Also, and this is something I haven't seen come up much... The popular vote wouldn't have guaranteed Hillary the win. She didn't actually get a majority of the vote, so it likely would have gone to the House to vote under current law, and then we're back to Trump.
    indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]

  6. #686
    Quote Originally Posted by adam86shadow View Post
    Now perhaps people will STFU
    About what?
    The man is still ridiculous and unfit to be president.

  7. #687
    Scarab Lord bergmann620's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    4,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Themanintobuildafire View Post
    Don't see how you get that. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore, and didn't have as many electoral college votes that Trump got. It took the Supreme Court to hand Bush the presidency.
    He at least had the backing of his own party, and Democrats didn't look at him like the Anti-Christ.

    Trump's inaugural approval numbers are like 22% worse than Bush.
    indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]

  8. #688
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    If you and I agree on something, I'm not going to spend extra time trying to convince you of the thing we already agree on.

    The guy that doesn't agree with us, if he doesn't think he can change your mind, he's not going to spend much time trying.
    Which means our current president doesn't give a shit about California at all which is 11% of the total US population. How is that good? Maybe I'd feel differently about the system if I lived in a swing state like Ohio.




    It's a balancing act, though. If there are 100 votes, and 70 of them are in one little area, and the other 30 are scattered all over, which ones are you going to try and target? It's not that 'land' matters more than people. A large part of our governmental system is set up to prevent what's known as 'the tyranny of the majority'.

    Also, and this is something I haven't seen come up much... The popular vote wouldn't have guaranteed Hillary the win. She didn't actually get a majority of the vote, so it likely would have gone to the House to vote under current law, and then we're back to Trump.
    But why should the 30 have more power than the 70?

  9. #689
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    Neither candidate spent much time in California or Wyoming. Sure seems like they were ignored.



    Everyone's vote should be equal and people shouldn't be devalued because of where they live. That's how it's equal.
    Again, how is ignoring the people's vote who live there 'equal'? "Everyone's vote should be equal" and yet no one would care about 95% of the country. They'd only campaign in cities.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    If you and I agree on something, I'm not going to spend extra time trying to convince you of the thing we already agree on.

    The guy that doesn't agree with us, if he doesn't think he can change your mind, he's not going to spend much time trying.




    It's a balancing act, though. If there are 100 votes, and 70 of them are in one little area, and the other 30 are scattered all over, which ones are you going to try and target? It's not that 'land' matters more than people. A large part of our governmental system is set up to prevent what's known as 'the tyranny of the majority'.

    Also, and this is something I haven't seen come up much... The popular vote wouldn't have guaranteed Hillary the win. She didn't actually get a majority of the vote, so it likely would have gone to the House to vote under current law, and then we're back to Trump.
    People don't really see how our system works in the 'big picture'. The entire system is about 'checks and balances'. The electoral college is one such check and balance.

  10. #690
    Quote Originally Posted by therayeffect View Post
    Again, how is ignoring the people's vote who live there 'equal'? "Everyone's vote should be equal" and yet no one would care about 95% of the country. They'd only campaign in cities.

    - - - Updated - - -

    People don't really see how our system works in the 'big picture'. The entire system is about 'checks and balances'. The electoral college is one such check and balance.
    It's so funny... you see a keyword "balancing", it fires some random neurons in your head and you start talking about division of power. As if that had much to do with the election process... :P
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  11. #691
    Quote Originally Posted by therayeffect View Post
    Again, how is ignoring the people's vote who live there 'equal'? "Everyone's vote should be equal" and yet no one would care about 95% of the country. They'd only campaign in cities.
    How does the electoral college solve that problem? They only campaign in battle ground states and ignore millions upon millions of voters AND voters in larger states have their votes unfairly devalued.

    I'm not seeing how it's a better system.

  12. #692
    Quote Originally Posted by May90 View Post
    No (well, ideally, yes, but that would be tricky to implement ), but since one state doesn't decide the outcome of the presidential election, I fail to see why such an operation is necessary. Suppose in 49 states one candidate wins by one vote, and in the 50th state all ~30 million people have voted for another - will the victory of the former candidate reflect the will of the people?

    I think the states should have a system "all or nothing" (which, in itself, I also dislike, but let's ignore that for now) for the elections the results of which affect only the given state, but as long as any other states are involved, the vote should be counted as popular.
    Or maybe democrats can stop just trying to appeal to only people that live in urban areas and work for all instead?

  13. #693
    Scarab Lord bergmann620's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    4,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    Which means our current president doesn't give a shit about California at all which is 11% of the total US population. How is that good? Maybe I'd feel differently about the system if I lived in a swing state like Ohio.
    I don't think our current President gives a shit about any of us, to be honest.

    Living in a swing state during election season is the fucking worst. I was getting like 30 pieces of mail a day, wall-to-wall political commercials, and, when it's all said and done, I have to live knowing that, odds are, the people around me voted for that pretend-hilljack

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyrt View Post
    But why should the 30 have more power than the 70?
    The the 30 combined don't have more power. You still have to get some of that 70, just not quite the full 51.

    Hillary didn't lose because just because Trump's '30' were too powerful- she lost because she didn't win enough of the 70. Trump won votes from Obama voters in very crucial states.

    Also, as stated before, Hillary didn't win a majority of the popular vote, either. So, under our current rules, the House would have voted to select the President from the top three vote-getters.
    indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]

  14. #694
    I am Murloc! Atrea's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Montreal, QC
    Posts
    5,740


    That's the bar Obama set.

    Now it's Trump's turn to put up or shut up.
    Now everyone gets to see whether he's going to deliver on his promises - regardless of how you may feel about them - or if he's all talk.

    I think Mr. Trump is going to find out it's not as easy as he thinks.
    Being President ages you terribly. Donald Trump is nearly 71. There is no way being President will not shorten his lifespan.

    Let's see what he's willing to die for.

  15. #695
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    I don't think our current President gives a shit about any of us, to be honest.

    Living in a swing state during election season is the fucking worst. I was getting like 30 pieces of mail a day, wall-to-wall political commercials, and, when it's all said and done, I have to live knowing that, odds are, the people around me voted for that pretend-hilljack



    The the 30 combined don't have more power. You still have to get some of that 70, just not quite the full 51.

    Hillary didn't lose because just because Trump's '30' were too powerful- she lost because she didn't win enough of the 70. Trump won votes from Obama voters in very crucial states.

    Also, as stated before, Hillary didn't win a majority of the popular vote, either. So, under our current rules, the House would have voted to select the President from the top three vote-getters.
    Hillary lost because she wasn't different than the past 8 years. Americans wanted change.

  16. #696
    Quote Originally Posted by Atrea View Post


    That's the bar Obama set.

    Now it's Trump's turn to put up or shut up.
    Now everyone gets to see whether he's going to deliver on his promises - regardless of how you may feel about them - or if he's all talk.

    I think Mr. Trump is going to find out it's not as easy as he thinks.
    Being President ages you terribly. Donald Trump is nearly 71. There is no way being President will not shorten his lifespan.

    Let's see what he's willing to die for.
    Trump is already lower than Obama ever was.

  17. #697
    Scarab Lord bergmann620's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Stow, Ohio
    Posts
    4,402
    Quote Originally Posted by Barnabas View Post
    Or maybe democrats can stop just trying to appeal to only people that live in urban areas and work for all instead?
    They appeal to more than just people in urban areas. They just don't do as well in the Bible Belt, because they don't hate gay people, and the folks in the Rust Belt apparently bought Trump's bullshit on jobs.

    (If you look at it, Trump didn't win with the GOP platform. He took the 'ism' (race-, sex-, nativ-) portion of the GOP platform and combined it with a terribly simplified version of Bernie's economic platform. He is truly a bullshit artist extraordinaire... He sold big government tax and spend to the 'conservatives', sold pussy grabbing to the 'evangelicals', and still made it home in time for dinner...)

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Barnabas View Post
    Hillary lost because she wasn't different than the past 8 years. Americans wanted change.
    Yea, they were tired of consistent job growth, wage growth, and civil rights. They'll certainly be in for a change on all of those counts.
    indignantgoat.com/
    XBL: Indignant Goat | BattleTag: IndiGoat#1288 | SteamID: Indignant Goat[/B]

  18. #698
    P.S. These pictures are making me think of Fallout.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sinndra View Post
    times are important to note...
    According to CNN:

    The photo of Trump's inauguration was taken from television during his speech — peak time for the crowd.

    The photo of Obama's inauguration was taken by Getty and doesn't indicate the time, but Trump's should represent his largest audience.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/po...on-crowd-size/

    Here's another:


    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...ation-vs-obama
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  19. #699
    So, It's official. Trump is now president. Wasn't he supposed to turn control of his business empire over to his kids before he stepped into office? Or do we just add that to the long list of promises he made and conveniently forgot to keep?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Sinndra View Post
    as i pointed out, no, they are absolutely not even roughly equal. 3 full hours difference, thats a lot of time to move people into the area from other engagements and events.
    that was taken from a live shot by my own phone. there is nothing "made to look like its filled with people". it is literally and actually filled with people.
    the picture is the SAME place, reverse angle at the appropriate time for an appropriate comparison to the Obama inauguration picture.
    How about a crossection comparison? Still think trump had a bigger crowd? Time stamp is 11:30 in 2009 for Obama, and 11:04 for Trump. Maybe the Trump campaign magically bussed in a half million more people or so in the half hour difference, but I doubt it. I mean, the Obama inaug had claims of nearly 1.8 million people in attendance. Fox is putting trumps at "hundreds of thousands". Which is laughable in comparison.

    Last edited by Surfd; 2017-01-21 at 10:17 AM.

  20. #700
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    They appeal to more than just people in urban areas. They just don't do as well in the Bible Belt, because they don't hate gay people, and the folks in the Rust Belt apparently bought Trump's bullshit on jobs.

    (If you look at it, Trump didn't win with the GOP platform. He took the 'ism' (race-, sex-, nativ-) portion of the GOP platform and combined it with a terribly simplified version of Bernie's economic platform. He is truly a bullshit artist extraordinaire... He sold big government tax and spend to the 'conservatives', sold pussy grabbing to the 'evangelicals', and still made it home in time for dinner...)

    - - - Updated - - -



    Yea, they were tired of consistent job growth, wage growth, and civil rights. They'll certainly be in for a change on all of those counts.
    You should really tone down on the divisiveness. It's not helping anyone. Nope it's because they don't trust government with their money. Zell Miller a former democrat governor from georgia explains it the best. It's an old article but it still rings true today.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/op...n-problem.html

    You make it seem like I asked you to name 3 things every president experiences? Every president has to deal with civil rights. Gays getting married was something that was just going to happen and happened when he was president. Obama did ok with growth. It's supbar when you look at his 1.8% and compare it to a republican average of 2.4%. Every president has ups and downs with the economy. Trump won't be any different.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mormolyce View Post
    P.S. These pictures are making me think of Fallout.



    According to CNN:


    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/po...on-crowd-size/

    Here's another:


    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...ation-vs-obama
    Yes let's compare what a rainy day and a not rainy day outside looks like with motivating people to go outside for an afternoon?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •