Half of the nation is not made up of brainless moronic racist zombies. There are plenty of rational reasons to vote for Trump in the general election. I don't think you understand what I am saying. Yes, Trump is an unknown politician that isn't a good option but in comparison to Clinton an unknown is better than a known bad corrupt politician. My wife, big on science, is sad that climate change policy will take a back seat but she thought that there are other issues more important . Encouraging the corrupt behavior we saw in the DNC, the media, and the Clinton campaign is disgraceful. Telling politicians that it is ok to lie, cheat, and conspire is not good for our Republic even if that means short term pain.
Yes, I have looked at his 'rap sheet'. My point is that Clinton, a lifetime politician, has some professional concerns that are more troublesome to me than Trump 'grabbing by the pussy' or Trump University. If you think the media 'love' trump I don't know what to tell you because you are delusional and ill-informed. The Clinton campaign and DNC picked Trump as their pied piper and it back fired. That is the kind of professional misconduct from our government I cannot stand for and I will not promote that behavior with a vote. The DNC fucked themselves and they deserve it. The media was conspiring with the DNC and the Clinton campaign. That is a disgrace and is a detriment to our Republic. A buffoon is better than a crook that the media love.
We are talking about the only national election for the leader of the Republic of the States. The President should represent the United States not the people in the cities of a few states.
Is that representative of the nation? How many states are ignored when compared to the EC?
Do you think that CA, TX, and NY have the greatest influence on the only national election we hold? The President represents the United States. Not the people in the cities of a few states.
Swing states, or battleground states change over time. As opposed to by popular vote amassed by a few cities. Is there such a thing as a swing city? Do swing states 'swing' more often than swing cities?
We are a Republic of States and the only national election should reflect this. Just like a bicameral congress, we shouldn't ignore the needs of the smaller or larger states in the executive branch of government.
This. EC does give more say in the presidential elections to smaller states and that is the point. Just like a bicameral congress. You can't ignore the size of the big states but you can't ignore the small states either.
Swing states change over time. There are definitely more swing states after this election than after 2012 or 2008. Compared to, swing cities? How often do cities swing? Is it easier to move to a swing state or a swing city?
And, where do most people live? In the cities. Why would any would-be POTUS care about rural America if he was elected by popular vote if he can win a majority in a few cities?
If federal taxation is your issue than you should talk to your congresscritters not the POTUS. How is it fair to only have a few cities decide the leader of all of the States in the only national election? You are a citizen of the State first and then a citizen of these United States second. The leader of the United States should be elected by the majority of States.
If you want your electoral vote to mean more use the vote of your feet and move to a low population state.
How the electoral vote is divided is up to the state you live in. Main, for example, divides it up by the congressional districts while most use the winner take all. How else to ensure that the president has the needs of smaller states in mind? If it were up to popular vote, the candidates would only care about the large cities and ignore the rest of the nation. Democracy is deeply flawed. A bicameral congress and the EC are safeguards against those flaws of democracy.
The states decide how the electoral votes are divided. Main, distributes them via congressional districts instead of winner take all. The point of the EC is to give power to the states. Specially, smaller states.
No, it's better to guarantee broad national support for the president instead of a few cities deciding who will lead the nation. The president should represent the United States not just the densely populated cities. How else do you get the president to care about the concerns of smaller states?
The senate isn't part of the executive. The EC is for the executive specifically the only national election we hold. The United States is a Republic of States. The popular vote of the nation doesn't mean anything because we are first and foremost citizens of the State and then citizens of these United States. If you elect a president by popular vote only a few large cities will matter the rest of the nation be damned. How else to you get the executive to care about the concerns of the smaller states?
Because there is more than one branch of government. In the executive, the ONLY national election we have should be represented by all of the states' needs not just the heavily populated cities.
Because there are more branches of government than just the legislature. Small states should be represented by the executive branch just as much as the large states. There is only one national election in the union and that is for the office of the president. That election should represent the whole of the union and that means an election by a majority of the States not by popular vote.
It does serve a purpose. Just like the bicameral congress. There are flaws with democracy and that is why we don't have a democracy. We have only one national election and that office should not be filled by a few cities while ignoring the rest of the nation.
No, that is a terrible idea. The POTUS is the only office that is elected at the national level. It is the only national election we have! As such, it should reflect the government we have. Which is a republic of states. If you elect a POTUS on the popular vote you alienate the rural areas because that office will be chosen exclusively by a few large cities.
How do you ensure that the only national election we have has the interests of the nation at large with a popular vote? We are a republic because of the flaws of democracy. The EC is a guard against the flaws of democracy just like the bicameral congress.
This. the EC is like the bicameral congress. It is supposed to ensure that the POTUS isn't electd by a few heavily populated cities. POTUS is the ONLY office of the executive for election by the nation and we should not have it selected by one or two cities. The EC guarantees broad national support of the president by the States. How else do you ensure that the POTUS has the interests of small states in mind? We are a republic of states and you cannot have a healthy republic if you ignore the States that do not have a few large cities.
The point of the EC is to ensure broad national support for the only elected executive position in the government. Since the very first days of the Republic there were divisions between states with large population densities and states with low population densities. The bicameral Congress is another compromise to address these these concerns of both states.
Not only does the EC guarantee broad geographical support of POTUS but also ensure that any would-be POTUS has to campaign in areas out side of a few large cities. Additionally, it ensures that any POTUS will be supported by a majority of states or more specifically a majority in states' majority. It isn't about the people, it is about the States. We are a Republic of sovereign States and the only executive office up for election should reflect this fact of our government.
The point is to give low population states some equal footing in the say of the only executive position up for election. If not, POTUS would be selected by the cities because low population areas interests are overridden by the millions in one city.
We live in a republic and a republic is a guard against the flaws of democracy. Just like the bicameral congress, the electoral college is a way to ensure that rural America isn't disenfranchised and left behind by the urban city centers. Each State has different needs and their needs should be reflected in the election of the leader of those States. You cannot represent the needs of smaller States in the executive if you elect that office on popular vote.
Believed his schtick or thought that Clinton was shittier shit? Why look at the failings of the democrats when it is so much easier to bemoan, demean, and insult the side you hate? Yea, easier to call the other side of the aisle names than trying to understand their positions and concerns.
After reading a number of your comments it is painfully obvious you haven't listened, don't want to listen, and excuse everything that doesn't support the narrative the media has been selling for months that a lot of people didn't buy.
Allow me to paraphrase my wife and my brother: It would be awesome to have a woman POTUS. Just not Clinton anyone but her. She is not something kids or anyone should aspire to be. The first woman POTUS should be someone that we all respect and admire so that we can look back in history and be proud of that moment. There is nothing to be proud of in electing Clinton.
People see Trump as the lesser evil than Clinton. Why is that hard to understand? For me, personal misgivings aren't as important as professional misgivings. An unknown is better than a known bad. I would rather a POTUS that the media and congress would hold accountable than not. In those areas, I think Trump does better than Clinton.
Wow. Yea. The will of the people should be punished because they didn't "make the right choice" tm. What in the actual fuck is wrong with you? Disagree with the outcome all you want but punishing people because they voted differently than you is fucked. You show yourself to be a true fascist bigot the likes of which are a danger to The Republic and to democracy. This is the type of shit that is more dangerous to democracy than any orange haired bafoon could ever be. You want to punish people for voting. Fuck you.
THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. That is why Clinton lost. Most don't like Trump but hate Clinton a lot more. If you don't make up bullshit excuses why that is you might learn something for the next election. This was a self inflicted loss from the DNC. Disagreement is good for democracy and your 'punishment' of disagreement is pathetic and wrong you piece of shit fascist bigot.
Slashdot Mirror
Half of the nation is not made up of brainless moronic racist zombies. There are plenty of rational reasons to vote for Trump in the general election. I don't think you understand what I am saying. Yes, Trump is an unknown politician that isn't a good option but in comparison to Clinton an unknown is better than a known bad corrupt politician. My wife, big on science, is sad that climate change policy will take a back seat but she thought that there are other issues more important . Encouraging the corrupt behavior we saw in the DNC, the media, and the Clinton campaign is disgraceful. Telling politicians that it is ok to lie, cheat, and conspire is not good for our Republic even if that means short term pain.
Yes, I have looked at his 'rap sheet'. My point is that Clinton, a lifetime politician, has some professional concerns that are more troublesome to me than Trump 'grabbing by the pussy' or Trump University. If you think the media 'love' trump I don't know what to tell you because you are delusional and ill-informed. The Clinton campaign and DNC picked Trump as their pied piper and it back fired. That is the kind of professional misconduct from our government I cannot stand for and I will not promote that behavior with a vote. The DNC fucked themselves and they deserve it. The media was conspiring with the DNC and the Clinton campaign. That is a disgrace and is a detriment to our Republic. A buffoon is better than a crook that the media love.
We are talking about the only national election for the leader of the Republic of the States. The President should represent the United States not the people in the cities of a few states.
Yes, lets think about this. How many states are represented in the 100 most populated cities? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Is that representative of the nation? How many states are ignored when compared to the EC?
Do you think that CA, TX, and NY have the greatest influence on the only national election we hold? The President represents the United States. Not the people in the cities of a few states.
I could agree with this.
Swing states, or battleground states change over time. As opposed to by popular vote amassed by a few cities. Is there such a thing as a swing city? Do swing states 'swing' more often than swing cities?
We are a Republic of States and the only national election should reflect this. Just like a bicameral congress, we shouldn't ignore the needs of the smaller or larger states in the executive branch of government.
This. EC does give more say in the presidential elections to smaller states and that is the point. Just like a bicameral congress. You can't ignore the size of the big states but you can't ignore the small states either.
Swing states change over time. There are definitely more swing states after this election than after 2012 or 2008. Compared to, swing cities? How often do cities swing? Is it easier to move to a swing state or a swing city?
And, where do most people live? In the cities. Why would any would-be POTUS care about rural America if he was elected by popular vote if he can win a majority in a few cities?
If federal taxation is your issue than you should talk to your congresscritters not the POTUS. How is it fair to only have a few cities decide the leader of all of the States in the only national election? You are a citizen of the State first and then a citizen of these United States second. The leader of the United States should be elected by the majority of States.
If you want your electoral vote to mean more use the vote of your feet and move to a low population state.
How the electoral vote is divided is up to the state you live in. Main, for example, divides it up by the congressional districts while most use the winner take all. How else to ensure that the president has the needs of smaller states in mind? If it were up to popular vote, the candidates would only care about the large cities and ignore the rest of the nation. Democracy is deeply flawed. A bicameral congress and the EC are safeguards against those flaws of democracy.
The states decide how the electoral votes are divided. Main, distributes them via congressional districts instead of winner take all. The point of the EC is to give power to the states. Specially, smaller states.
As opposed to focusing on a few large cities? Do swing states change over time? Do cities?
No, it's better to guarantee broad national support for the president instead of a few cities deciding who will lead the nation. The president should represent the United States not just the densely populated cities. How else do you get the president to care about the concerns of smaller states?
The senate isn't part of the executive. The EC is for the executive specifically the only national election we hold. The United States is a Republic of States. The popular vote of the nation doesn't mean anything because we are first and foremost citizens of the State and then citizens of these United States. If you elect a president by popular vote only a few large cities will matter the rest of the nation be damned. How else to you get the executive to care about the concerns of the smaller states?
Because there is more than one branch of government. In the executive, the ONLY national election we have should be represented by all of the states' needs not just the heavily populated cities.
Not even that, just the most populace cities will matter.
Because there are more branches of government than just the legislature. Small states should be represented by the executive branch just as much as the large states. There is only one national election in the union and that is for the office of the president. That election should represent the whole of the union and that means an election by a majority of the States not by popular vote.
It does serve a purpose. Just like the bicameral congress. There are flaws with democracy and that is why we don't have a democracy. We have only one national election and that office should not be filled by a few cities while ignoring the rest of the nation.
No, that is a terrible idea. The POTUS is the only office that is elected at the national level. It is the only national election we have! As such, it should reflect the government we have. Which is a republic of states. If you elect a POTUS on the popular vote you alienate the rural areas because that office will be chosen exclusively by a few large cities.
How do you ensure that the only national election we have has the interests of the nation at large with a popular vote? We are a republic because of the flaws of democracy. The EC is a guard against the flaws of democracy just like the bicameral congress.
This. the EC is like the bicameral congress. It is supposed to ensure that the POTUS isn't electd by a few heavily populated cities. POTUS is the ONLY office of the executive for election by the nation and we should not have it selected by one or two cities. The EC guarantees broad national support of the president by the States. How else do you ensure that the POTUS has the interests of small states in mind? We are a republic of states and you cannot have a healthy republic if you ignore the States that do not have a few large cities.
The point of the EC is to ensure broad national support for the only elected executive position in the government. Since the very first days of the Republic there were divisions between states with large population densities and states with low population densities. The bicameral Congress is another compromise to address these these concerns of both states.
Not only does the EC guarantee broad geographical support of POTUS but also ensure that any would-be POTUS has to campaign in areas out side of a few large cities. Additionally, it ensures that any POTUS will be supported by a majority of states or more specifically a majority in states' majority. It isn't about the people, it is about the States. We are a Republic of sovereign States and the only executive office up for election should reflect this fact of our government.
The point is to give low population states some equal footing in the say of the only executive position up for election. If not, POTUS would be selected by the cities because low population areas interests are overridden by the millions in one city.
We live in a republic and a republic is a guard against the flaws of democracy. Just like the bicameral congress, the electoral college is a way to ensure that rural America isn't disenfranchised and left behind by the urban city centers. Each State has different needs and their needs should be reflected in the election of the leader of those States. You cannot represent the needs of smaller States in the executive if you elect that office on popular vote.
Believed his schtick or thought that Clinton was shittier shit? Why look at the failings of the democrats when it is so much easier to bemoan, demean, and insult the side you hate? Yea, easier to call the other side of the aisle names than trying to understand their positions and concerns.
After reading a number of your comments it is painfully obvious you haven't listened, don't want to listen, and excuse everything that doesn't support the narrative the media has been selling for months that a lot of people didn't buy.
Allow me to paraphrase my wife and my brother: It would be awesome to have a woman POTUS. Just not Clinton anyone but her. She is not something kids or anyone should aspire to be. The first woman POTUS should be someone that we all respect and admire so that we can look back in history and be proud of that moment. There is nothing to be proud of in electing Clinton.
People see Trump as the lesser evil than Clinton. Why is that hard to understand? For me, personal misgivings aren't as important as professional misgivings. An unknown is better than a known bad. I would rather a POTUS that the media and congress would hold accountable than not. In those areas, I think Trump does better than Clinton.
Wow. Yea. The will of the people should be punished because they didn't "make the right choice" tm. What in the actual fuck is wrong with you? Disagree with the outcome all you want but punishing people because they voted differently than you is fucked. You show yourself to be a true fascist bigot the likes of which are a danger to The Republic and to democracy. This is the type of shit that is more dangerous to democracy than any orange haired bafoon could ever be. You want to punish people for voting. Fuck you.
THE ENDS DO NOT JUSTIFY THE MEANS. That is why Clinton lost. Most don't like Trump but hate Clinton a lot more. If you don't make up bullshit excuses why that is you might learn something for the next election. This was a self inflicted loss from the DNC. Disagreement is good for democracy and your 'punishment' of disagreement is pathetic and wrong you piece of shit fascist bigot.