Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I really don't understand how he won given all we heard over here. Educate me please!
There are more deplorables and gullible people than polls and analysis anticipated. The deplorables love him for obvious reasons, the gullible people somehow thought that a billionaire who was born into wealth and privilege and has a history of screwing over middle-class workers is somehow the champion of the masses who will give them their jobs back. So it turns out that if you yell racism and zero-substance nationalism loud enough you can win an election despite having policy positions that range from "not possible" to "sheer raving lunacy".
If you can't distinguish the rural middle class workers to the tiny 4chan trolls... this is why you lose.
Criticizing all Trump voters as deplorable and gullible...how tolerant. Cope / 10.
The truth is that Trump won the election at the point when it became impossible to tell your friends you were voting for Trump, for fear of being dogpiled in public and on social media.
This deplorable behavior got him elected. End of story. Acknowledge that you can't insult half the country, calling all males and white people privileged, women self-hating, males rapists, all whites racist, etc. and expect to win their hearts and minds. People didn't vote for Trump because they are sexist or racist - they voted for Trump because they were sick of being called privileged sexist racists.
A fairly large portion of his supporters are deplorable
I have to say, the description isn't exactly selling it. It seems to speak more to the writers ignorance than it does to the ignorance of "DC elites".
For example:
She (Loesch) asks commonsense questions such as: How can you be angry at Walmart if you’ve never shopped in one? How can you hate the police if you’ve never needed help from a cop? How can you attack Christians if you don’t have a single friend who goes to church?
None of these are "common sense questions". In fact, they're fairly idiotic questions. Is she really suggesting that people in LA and NY never need help from a cop? Or that you can't disagree with Walmart's political, economic, and environmental practices, unless you shop there? And the part about BLM literally made me cringe.
Does this book have some redeeming insight, that was somehow omitted from the description?
Lemme put it into perspective, this book is the opposite this:
But it shouldn't matter where a person lives (city or rural) because 200,000 more AMERICANS voted for Clinton.
I can appreciate mitigating keeping it "even", but the Popular vote is what should matter, not how counties are divided.
-
Well, the year the Electoral College is abolished is the year I'm running for President.
I'll do it by promising to buy everyone in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina Ferraris and mansions, and I'll pay for those Ferraris and mansions by imposing a 95% tax on the other 41 states.
That will give me 51.09% of the popular vote, and only screw over 82% of the states in the union.
and Ohio having a more critical prominence in Elections than California under the Electoral system is better...why? Sure Ohio doesnt get as many votes, but under the Electoral system it is far more critical to achieving victory, and you can potentially win an electoral college victory with less than a quarter of the popular vote.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
But it shouldn't matter where a person lives (city or rural) because 200,000 more AMERICANS voted for Clinton. I can appreciate mitigating keeping it "even", but the Popular vote is what should matter, not how counties are divided.
-
Well, the year the Electoral College is abolished is the year I'm running for President.
I'll do it by promising to buy everyone in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina Ferraris and mansions, and I'll pay for those Ferraris and mansions by imposing a 95% tax on the other 41 states.
That will give me 51.09% of the popular vote, and only screw over 82% of the states in the union.
Which is not going to happen in reality. Regardless of voting system, that stance is one of fantasy, not possibility.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 16:13:57
BrotherGecko wrote: Nobody is going to really talk about all the violence by Trump supporters going on are they? Perhaps we are just a gross and violent people?
BrotherGecko wrote: Nobody is going to really talk about all the violence by Trump supporters going on are they? Perhaps we are just a gross and violent people?
Outside of the graffiti in a Minnesota high school, and now a middle school lunch room video, I haven't been seeing "verified" reports of this violence.... That said, I AM seeing quite a bit of it via various pages on FB and whatnot. I suppose that for some, particularly if they were "fans" of Trump, they won't see, nor believe this stuff is going on until it hits the 24 hour media cycle.
BrotherGecko wrote: Nobody is going to really talk about all the violence by Trump supporters going on are they? Perhaps we are just a gross and violent people?
Outside of the graffiti in a Minnesota high school, and now a middle school lunch room video, I haven't been seeing "verified" reports of this violence.... That said, I AM seeing quite a bit of it via various pages on FB and whatnot. I suppose that for some, particularly if they were "fans" of Trump, they won't see, nor believe this stuff is going on until it hits the 24 hour media cycle.
It's not just Trump supporters - let's be honest here.
They beat an older man repeatedly screaming "He voted Trump!"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 16:19:53
BrotherGecko wrote: Nobody is going to really talk about all the violence by Trump supporters going on are they? Perhaps we are just a gross and violent people?
Outside of the graffiti in a Minnesota high school, and now a middle school lunch room video, I haven't been seeing "verified" reports of this violence.... That said, I AM seeing quite a bit of it via various pages on FB and whatnot. I suppose that for some, particularly if they were "fans" of Trump, they won't see, nor believe this stuff is going on until it hits the 24 hour media cycle.
Id figure the democrats would of eaten any anti trump material including violent supporters. so ether they are so far and few in between, very minor, or some one hush hushed it all :/
But it shouldn't matter where a person lives (city or rural) because 200,000 more AMERICANS voted for Clinton.
I can appreciate mitigating keeping it "even", but the Popular vote is what should matter, not how counties are divided.
-
Well, the year the Electoral College is abolished is the year I'm running for President.
I'll do it by promising to buy everyone in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Georgia, and North Carolina Ferraris and mansions, and I'll pay for those Ferraris and mansions by imposing a 95% tax on the other 41 states.
That will give me 51.09% of the popular vote, and only screw over 82% of the states in the union.
and Ohio having a more critical prominence in Elections than California under the Electoral system is better...why? Sure Ohio doesnt get as many votes, but under the Electoral system it is far more critical to achieving victory, and you can potentially win an electoral college victory with less than a quarter of the popular vote.
Its not. California always votes Democratic. Its a given. Thats why its not a "battleground" state. If it were you can bet your ass they would be there.
I for one feel blessed that I am not harassed by political adds like in the swing states. Yikes.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
BrotherGecko wrote: Nobody is going to really talk about all the violence by Trump supporters going on are they? Perhaps we are just a gross and violent people?
Outside of the graffiti in a Minnesota high school, and now a middle school lunch room video, I haven't been seeing "verified" reports of this violence.... That said, I AM seeing quite a bit of it via various pages on FB and whatnot. I suppose that for some, particularly if they were "fans" of Trump, they won't see, nor believe this stuff is going on until it hits the 24 hour media cycle.
Id figure the democrats would of eaten any anti trump material including violent supporters. so ether they are so far and few in between, very minor, or some one hush hushed it all :/
Like I said, the stuff I'm seeing through FB hasn't been verified, and the sources could be suspect, as quite often times it's self-reporting of incidents.... "Famous" facebookers like Shaun King, it's about all he's posting today so far.
Interesting to see the flip on counties and states. From the popular vote totals it looks like D's just stayed home, Turd Sandwich just couldnt energize them to vote.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Ashiraya wrote: Which is not going to happen in reality. Regardless of voting system, that stance is one of fantasy, not possibility.
You're right, the Electoral College is not going to be abolished anytime soon.
Unless you were talking about the Ferraris and mansions thing, which was pretty obviously an exaggerated way to point out that the Electoral College exists to prevent a small number of large population centers from screwing over the rest of the country.
It's weird, now that I think about it; I see in that system a mirror of the three branches of government/checks-and-balances system designed to prevent an absolute tyrrany of the majority.
Vaktathi wrote: Interesting to see the flip on counties and states. From the popular vote totals it looks like D's just stayed home, Turd Sandwich just couldnt energize them to vote.
Very true. I think the fact that Hillary was "better" than Trump colored some of her supporters' perceptions to the point where they didn't see just how weak of a candidate she was. Simply being better than Trump didn't motivate Democrats to go vote for Hillary and thus we have Trump as our 45th president.
Filmmaker Woody Allen said in 1977: “Showing up is 80 percent of life.”
“The world is run by those who show up” has been a slogan of many political activists, recorded in print since 1987. The author of the slogan is unknown. Variants of the saying include “The government/country/nation is run by those who show up.”
I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info. If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/10 16:51:06
BrotherGecko wrote: Nobody is going to really talk about all the violence by Trump supporters going on are they? Perhaps we are just a gross and violent people?
BrotherGecko wrote: Nobody is going to really talk about all the violence by Trump supporters going on are they? Perhaps we are just a gross and violent people?
Outside of the graffiti in a Minnesota high school, and now a middle school lunch room video, I haven't been seeing "verified" reports of this violence.... That said, I AM seeing quite a bit of it via various pages on FB and whatnot. I suppose that for some, particularly if they were "fans" of Trump, they won't see, nor believe this stuff is going on until it hits the 24 hour media cycle.
Id figure the democrats would of eaten any anti trump material including violent supporters. so ether they are so far and few in between, very minor, or some one hush hushed it all :/
My GF was showing me a FB page of women collecting what is happening to them in the last two days. With police reports to back it up.....the page has been deleted. You can't even Google the individual articles. So it looks like active suppression at this point. I know many a Trump support that brags about spamming FB pages to get them deleted.
Galef wrote: Can someone explain the "electoral college" process to me?
I live in TX and all the most populated cities (Dallas, Austin, San Antonio & Houston) voted Blue (along while over half the 'border" counties).
Yet all the counties around those cities that are more rural and waaaaaay less populated voted Red, thus claiming TX as Red overall
Is this a sign that the electoral college system doesn't work, or am I missing something?
-
That is the point of the electoral college system.
It is to keep the power from being centralized by large population centers.
If the election was sole popular vote, there would only be two places anyone would campaign. Texas and California. The rest of the country would be completely disenfranchised at that point.
But it shouldn't matter where a person lives (city or rural) because 200,000 more AMERICANS voted for Clinton.
I can appreciate mitigating keeping it "even", but the Popular vote is what should matter, not how counties are divided.
-
Saying that one person won the popular vote during an electoral election and thus should be president is silly. There are vast swathes of America that don't vote, in no small part due to knowing that their state is going one way or another regardless. If we were running a popular election to decide who was president the number of people getting out to vote would most likely go up significantly and the numbers would be different.
Obviously not entirely to blame... but Wisconsin is mentioned in the article. Food for thought.
Sorry, but I put no faith in any article that says requiring an ID card is "Voter repression".
Did you actually read it? Because I'd call closing polls in heavily black areas, making it more difficult to receive an ID card, limiting the hours/availability of ID card issuing locations, etc. to be exactly that, ESPECIALLY when it seems to only affect minorities who might vote democrat. Funny how that works.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Is the population of Texas and California as big as those half-dozen states? "One person, one vote" doesn't mean much if some people's votes are more valuable than others.
The number of electoral votes a state gets is directly proportional to the amount of representatives they get. Lets look at some numbers though.
Texas gets 38 Electoral Votes. Michigan, Indiana, and Tennessee combined get 38 votes. Texas Population is 27 million. TN, MI, and IN combined are 23 million.
California gets 55 electoral votes. Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri gets a combined 55. California's population is 39 million. TX, OK, and MO are 37 million.
Obviously not entirely to blame... but Wisconsin is mentioned in the article. Food for thought.
Sorry, but I put no faith in any article that says requiring an ID card is "Voter repression".
Did you actually read it? Because I'd call closing polls in heavily black areas, making it more difficult to receive an ID card, limiting the hours/availability of ID card issuing locations, etc. to be exactly that, ESPECIALLY when it seems to only affect minorities who might vote democrat. Funny how that works.
What age are you allowed to vote?
What are are you allowed to drive a car?
What age are you allowed to go to college?
What age can you get a state ID?
In most states an ID Card or a drivers license can be EASILY attained. Its time consuming because DMV But still easy. It costs very little to purchase an ID card. So why is it so horrible to require one? Because it was hard to get right before an election? Might that have something to do with the THOUSANDS trying to do the same thing at the same time?
Funny how the polls aren't run by a party but are instead non-affiliated, if they closed before they were supposed to you could easily get them to open up again by making a simple phone call.
BrotherGecko wrote: Nobody is going to really talk about all the violence by Trump supporters going on are they? Perhaps we are just a gross and violent people?
BrotherGecko wrote: Nobody is going to really talk about all the violence by Trump supporters going on are they? Perhaps we are just a gross and violent people?
Outside of the graffiti in a Minnesota high school, and now a middle school lunch room video, I haven't been seeing "verified" reports of this violence.... That said, I AM seeing quite a bit of it via various pages on FB and whatnot. I suppose that for some, particularly if they were "fans" of Trump, they won't see, nor believe this stuff is going on until it hits the 24 hour media cycle.
Id figure the democrats would of eaten any anti trump material including violent supporters. so ether they are so far and few in between, very minor, or some one hush hushed it all :/
My GF was showing me a FB page of women collecting what is happening to them in the last two days. With police reports to back it up.....the page has been deleted. You can't even Google the individual articles. So it looks like active suppression at this point. I know many a Trump support that brags about spamming FB pages to get them deleted.
Doesn't that seem more than a little 'tin foil' to you?
Galef wrote: Can someone explain the "electoral college" process to me?
I live in TX and all the most populated cities (Dallas, Austin, San Antonio & Houston) voted Blue (along while over half the 'border" counties).
Yet all the counties around those cities that are more rural and waaaaaay less populated voted Red, thus claiming TX as Red overall
Is this a sign that the electoral college system doesn't work, or am I missing something?
-
That is the point of the electoral college system.
It is to keep the power from being centralized by large population centers.
If the election was sole popular vote, there would only be two places anyone would campaign. Texas and California. The rest of the country would be completely disenfranchised at that point.
That's not how population distribution in the United States works.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
I want to ask an honest question. I keep seeing all these posts from people saying that "Trump is the president, just suck it up" and "We need to work together to support Trump".
Did it seem like those posts never happened with Obama in either term? It seemed totally justified to hate on him, but now people want us to believe in a President half of us didn't vote for just because he won.
Galef wrote: Can someone explain the "electoral college" process to me?
I live in TX and all the most populated cities (Dallas, Austin, San Antonio & Houston) voted Blue (along while over half the 'border" counties).
Yet all the counties around those cities that are more rural and waaaaaay less populated voted Red, thus claiming TX as Red overall
Is this a sign that the electoral college system doesn't work, or am I missing something?
-
That is the point of the electoral college system.
It is to keep the power from being centralized by large population centers.
If the election was sole popular vote, there would only be two places anyone would campaign. Texas and California. The rest of the country would be completely disenfranchised at that point.
But it shouldn't matter where a person lives (city or rural) because 200,000 more AMERICANS voted for Clinton.
I can appreciate mitigating keeping it "even", but the Popular vote is what should matter, not how counties are divided.
-
In the words of the immortal bard-horsegak. That means you effectively disenfranchise everyone outside of California and NYC. (at least until California secedes)
The Constitutions was structured to provide protections for small states against large states. If you don't like it change the Constitution. Oh and good luck with that.
If anything a straight popular vote would do the opposite. The electoral college focuses attention on a handful of swing states and a couple big states while most of the country goes ignored or taken for granted. A popular vote would make location irrelevant.
The electoral college hyperfocuses locality. It does force attention to areas that might otherwise not get it, but its not along an urban/rural divide necessarily. Florida is important in the Electoral college, but so is New Hampshire and Ohio. Nobody gives a squat about California or Wyoming however and theyre taken for granted.
The swing states get a lot of attention because they're toss up states and that wouldn't change if the Electoral College went away. We have states that are reliably blue, like California and states that are reliably red, like Oklahoma, and "swing" states that vacillate between red and blue over election cycles. Obama won NC in 2008, Romney won NC in 2012 and it was a toss up in 2016 and in addition to the uncertainty of the outcome there is the fact that NC is growing in population so it is gaining Electoral votes and popular votes. The states that are battleground will get the most attention and money from campaigns because they're contestable. Republicans aren't going to spend money in California and Democrats aren't going to spend money in Oklahoma for presidential campaigns.
The representation of states and their residents in the Electoral College for presidential elections is just as fair and equitable as the representation of states and their residents in Congress every day its in session passing laws that impact the entire country.
Bromsy wrote: There are vast swathes of America that don't vote, in no small part due to knowing that their state is going one way or another regardless. If we were running a popular election to decide who was president the number of people getting out to vote would most likely go up significantly and the numbers would be different.
Isn't that a pretty damning allegation of the current system of electorats? That a wast swathe of people don't vote for a office concerning the entire nation, simply because they happen to live in a certain state.
I don't think (I hope) that people claim that Trump should be ousted from his place as president elect this moment, because Clinton got the popular vote. He won this election under the rules that was in place at the start of the election. It would perhaps be nice if next election were run under rules that don't (theoretically) allow someone to become president while getting less than half the votes of his opponent though?
But still easy. It costs very little to purchase an 
~1.5k
