American Politics

[llamapie]

You all need a civics class.

I'm not kidding.

 

[M3J]

Huh? But neither of us voted for him in either of those elections so how do we "deserve" it?

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 28, 2018, Original Post Date: Oct 28, 2018 ---

I'm not responsible for the politics of my neighhbor

I'm well aware that he lost the popular vote by millions, but if far more people who are against him voted, then he probably would never have won. Hillary might have been just as bad, but she'd be more tactful about it.

You all need a civics class.

I'm not kidding.

We have a US history class, and people still think US has never been violent or experienced terrorism until recently. Civics ain't gonna help shit.

 

[llamapie]

I'm well aware that he lost the popular vote by millions, but if far more people who are against him voted, then he probably would never have won. Hillary might have been just as bad, but she'd be more tactful about it.

We have a US history class, and people still think US has never been violent or experienced terrorism until recently. Civics ain't gonna help shit.

I was referring to the whole "he lost the popular vote" line that keeps popping up.

1) The USA is not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.
- This means we elect representatives. Hence the Electoral College.
2) This prevents mob rule from the states with the heaviest population and allows for equal representation from the less populated states.

So my question would be how is that fair or even a good idea to give all the power to the people in inner cities and ignore the rest of the populace?

And as to if Hillary would have been worse, that is a resounding yes. She and her hubby are some of the most corrupt politicians to ever grace the country with their antics. Beyond that, economically Trump has been incredible for us and he will easily be reelected at this point.

Yes, I realize my opinion is likely highly unpopular here .

 

[xi0]

2) This prevents mob rule from the states with the heaviest population and allows for equal representation from the less populated states

The heaviest-populated states still have more impact on who gets elected, so I don't see how it's much different than a direct vote.

The Electoral College persisted because Southerners wanted it to. A direct election wouldn't allow slaves to vote, with Northerners outnumbering Southerners because of it. The Electoral College allowed Southerners to count slaves towards their population, albeit with 2/5ths value. Southern states literally got more electoral votes after each census for buying/breeding more slaves. And from the moment the Constitution was ratified, we had slave-owning Presidents for decades, so what chance would reform even have? This is the type of thing that isn't taught in civics class.

Now, does this mean that the current system is a relic and has no useful function? I don't actually know, there are points on each side. But stating that it somehow gives "equal representation" to smaller states or that it exists because of that reason is really iffy . Us having two elections already this century where one candidate won the popular vote but lost due to the electoral college does raise some eyebrows.

 

[llamapie]

The heaviest-populated states still have more impact on who gets elected, so I don't see how it's much different than a direct vote.

The Electoral College persisted because Southerners wanted it to. A direct election wouldn't allow slaves to vote, with Northerners outnumbering Southerners because of it. The Electoral College allowed Southerners to count slaves towards their population, albeit with 2/5ths value. Southern states literally got more electoral votes after each census for buying/breeding more slaves. And from the moment the Constitution was ratified, we had slave-owning Presidents for decades, so what chance would reform even have? This is the type of thing that isn't taught in civics class.

Now, does this mean that the current system is a relic and has no useful function? I don't actually know, there are points on each side. But stating that it somehow gives "equal representation" to smaller states or that it exists because of that reason is really iffy . Us having two elections already this century where one candidate won the popular vote but lost due to the electoral college does raise some eyebrows.

It's simple and my point remains. It is not meant to be a popularity contest because we are NOT a Democracy.

It has never meant to be mob rule, which is why the system is designed the way it is. You will have a constant 51% making decisions for the remaining 49%, which is unfair and makes no sense. This allows states such as Michigan to have a say over states like California who have a majority of the population. Why should people in California dictate what happens in Michigan simply because they have more people?

It's a dangerous concept, but hey let's complain because Trump won and a Felon lost.

 

[xi0]

It's simple and my point remains. It is not meant to be a popularity contest because we are NOT a Democracy.

It has never meant to be mob rule, which is why the system is designed the way it is. You will have a constant 51% making decisions for the remaining 49%, which is unfair and makes no sense. This allows states such as Michigan to have a say over states like California who have a majority of the population. Why should people in California dictate what happens in Michigan simply because they have more people?

It's a dangerous concept, but hey let's complain because Trump won and a Felon lost.

I think you mean we aren't a Direct Democracy. We are a Representative Democracy and a Republic... a Democratic republic, if you will.

But it's like that anyways? You're saying because the numbers are different due to the Electoral College it isn't that close? Except that's a complete deception with the winner-take-all format IMO. The electoral vote total being as wide as it was is by design.... but that doesn't change who voted for who.

Californians wouldn't dictate what happens in Michigan because they have more people, they'd help dictate what happens in the presidential election. Which has nothing to do with Michigan's government. The Executive Branch doesn't serve a state, it serves the entire country.

This discussion existed far before this election, it only came up because yet again the person who received the most votes lost. I'm not even saying the system should absolutely be changed, but let's be honest with ourselves about why it exists.

 

[kkck]

It's simple and my point remains. It is not meant to be a popularity contest because we are NOT a Democracy.

It has never meant to be mob rule, which is why the system is designed the way it is. You will have a constant 51% making decisions for the remaining 49%, which is unfair and makes no sense. This allows states such as Michigan to have a say over states like California who have a majority of the population. Why should people in California dictate what happens in Michigan simply because they have more people?

It's a dangerous concept, but hey let's complain because Trump won and a Felon lost.

But... what you are suggesting here does not actually solve the issue of a bigger state imposing its will over a smaller one. What you are suggesting merely flips this and creating a worst situation than the 51% imposing over the 49%... instead you get the 49% imposing over the 51%. Why should a smaller amount of the population dictate what happens to a greater amount of the population? That simply can't be healthy for a country's institutionality. Add to that, the US does have the institutions to protect its states from what others do. The senate is meant for that very purpose (even if both parties have over time castrated it at their convenience by systematically making it so that simple majorities can pass whatever the party in control wants).

Also, the notion that trump is less corrupt that hillary is laughable at best. Trump ran on his corruption, he bragged about it.... Clinton is without a speck of a doubt a corrupt politician but trump can't even pretend to be ethical.

 

[M3J]

I was referring to the whole "he lost the popular vote" line that keeps popping up.

1) The USA is not a Democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic.
- This means we elect representatives. Hence the Electoral College.
2) This prevents mob rule from the states with the heaviest population and allows for equal representation from the less populated states.

So my question would be how is that fair or even a good idea to give all the power to the people in inner cities and ignore the rest of the populace?

And as to if Hillary would have been worse, that is a resounding yes. She and her hubby are some of the most corrupt politicians to ever grace the country with their antics. Beyond that, economically Trump has been incredible for us and he will easily be reelected at this point.

Yes, I realize my opinion is likely highly unpopular here .

shio's probably the only one, if not one of the few, who'd actually defend the Clintons. Hillary is corrupt, but she's still better than Trump.

Personally, I don't mind the electoral college.

 

[Franckie]

Personally, I'd feel better if the US had a parliamentary style of government. The US has too many veto points that make it nigh-impossible to properly invest in our population. For the past 30+ years, it's become far more difficult for Democrats to be competitive at the national level. We have de facto minority rule via the Republican Party. I'd also get rid of state governments if given the chance. At times, they feel like the banana republics I've visited over the years.

I don't feel bad at all, I'm okay with them laughing at Trump and at us. We deserve it for even letting a derp get past the primaries, much less win the election despite losing popular vote.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 28, 2018, Original Post Date: Sep 25, 2018 ---

https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2018/10/26/how-trumps-psychology-of-hate-unleashed-the-magabomber/?utm_source=FACEBOOK&utm_medium=social&utm_term=Valerie/&fbclid=IwAR1WbUxdm29ZnWZ9keQAqs4Q9BDOTpztlpKvldLp_HIvVrrHS0bz7DYt43E#76616c657269

You can also thank that political hack James Comey for electing Trump. Holding that press conference ~12 days before the election (in violation of Justice Dept. & FBI regulations) likely cost Clinton around 3% - 4% of the popular vote. Trump's own analysts concluded it was decisive. Hence we're now stuck with the Moron-in-Chief. Make no mistake, however. His enablers, Congressional Republicans, are worse. They only give a hoot about tax cuts for the rich and packing courts with corporate stooges. Everything else (i.e., the Emoluments Clause) is of secondary concern.

 

[kkck]

Comey went wrong well before that. Had he followed procedure even clintons investigation would have remained non public. And of course comey did all he did he did because he started considering politics and was so sure hillary would win...

 

[Franckie]

Comey went wrong well before that. Had he followed procedure even clintons investigation would have remained non public. And of course comey did all he did he did because he started considering politics and was so sure hillary would win...

The evidence of his conduct does indeed show consistent behavior, but of a different kind. At every step of the way, Comey demonstrated either his fear of crossing Republicans or his concern over protecting his own reputation from Republican attack. It was the perfect intersection of a Republican Party that had developed a reputation for conducting relentlessly vicious smear campaigns and a Republican FBI director who didn’t have the fortitude to stand up to it. Comey may genuinely believe that his decisions along the way were nonpartisan, but doing things like blasting Clinton in a news conference right before election day suggests otherwise.

 

[M3J]

It was so many things that led to Hillary losing, from her husband cutting welfare when he was president and WikiLeaks to Hillary not inspiring support or people to vote and revelation that Democrats were pushing for Hillary and working against Bernie. I know a lot of Hillary supporters love to blame Bernie, but it's not like Hillary would have gotten that many more votes anyway even if Bernie endorsed her sooner.

 

[xi0]

Hoping the Democrats in the House have a better choice for Speaker than Pelosi, as I think her being leader again is exactly what Trump and his people want ahead of 2020. I'm not sure it evens matters how amicable she's appearing to be regarding the "I" word.

 

[kkck]

Agreed, pelosi seems like a bad choice... I don't think people who hated hillary clinton would take much of a liking to her anyways.

And jeff sessions is out. I gotta wonder who his replacement will be... If trump gets someone that acts like he said he wanted sessions to act then democrats will have a field day with the guy. To me it looks like a bad moment for trump to have gotten his most effective cabinet member to quit.

 

[xi0]

Agreed, pelosi seems like a bad choice... I don't think people who hated hillary clinton would take much of a liking to her anyways.

And jeff sessions is out. I gotta wonder who his replacement will be... If trump gets someone that acts like he said he wanted sessions to act then democrats will have a field day with the guy. To me it looks like a bad moment for trump to have gotten his most effective cabinet member to quit.

Oh they don't need an introduction to her or anything, they've hated her almost as long as they've hated Hillary. And I've seen numerous Trump people on Twitter practically begging the Democrats to select her... so facts aside, I don't think it's the best choice. The problem is who else could they pick that would make sense...

It's just some acting AG until January I guess

 

[kkck]

Oh they don't need an introduction to her or anything, they've hated her almost as long as they've hated Hillary. And I've seen numerous Trump people on Twitter practically begging the Democrats to select her... so facts aside, I don't think it's the best choice. The problem is who else could they pick that would make sense...

It's just some acting AG until January I guess

Lol, that's exactly the impression I got from reading trump's tweets about Pelosi. He'd LOVE her there. And honestly, if republicans lost the house then Pelosi taking that position is literally about as good a deal as they are going to get. Trump being so happy with Pelosi should actually raise all the red flags...

Yeah, I read it was going to be the guy beneath Sessions until trump appoints someone else. Still, trump getting rid of his most effective cabinet member specially now is a mistake for him. This is a good deal for democrats. Best case scenario for democrats, unless US checks and balances crumble to dust, trump gets a sycophant AG and trump leaps headfirst into obstruction charges. Worst case scenario, trump gets another competent AG who ends up doing more or less the same as Sessions. Democrats have no say in what happens here of course BUT this at least can't hurt them for the time being.

 

[xi0]

Lol, that's exactly the impression I got from reading trump's tweets about Pelosi. He'd LOVE her there. And honestly, if republicans lost the house then Pelosi taking that position is literally about as good a deal as they are going to get. Trump being so happy with Pelosi should actually raise all the red flags...

Yeah, I read it was going to be the guy beneath Sessions until trump appoints someone else. Still, trump getting rid of his most effective cabinet member specially now is a mistake for him. This is a good deal for democrats. Best case scenario for democrats, unless US checks and balances crumble to dust, trump gets a sycophant AG and trump leaps headfirst into obstruction charges. Worst case scenario, trump gets another competent AG who ends up doing more or less the same as Sessions. Democrats have no say in what happens here of course BUT this at least can't hurt them for the time being.

The guy beneath Sessions would be Rosenstein, but Trump has no love for him so I wouldn't be shocked if he was gone in January as well. Though with him not longer overseeing Mueller, and Whitaker doing so maybe that will change.

 

[M3J]

We're probably gonna be seeing even more infighting between the two parties now. CANNOT WAIT

Also, tons of people are mad about Florida and Texas voting for republicans, and even more mad that Beto and Abrams lost.

 

[kkck]

So Pelosi made it to speaker... I don't think this is THAT significant as far as current politics go but it does show democrats are not exactly on a path to beat trump in 2020. A few months from now Pelosi is going to be saying "Wait, people hate my guts and that hurts policy we are trying to pass or protect?" as if that is supposed to be surprising to anyone.

 

[Thunderheart]

We're probably gonna be seeing even more infighting between the two parties now. CANNOT WAIT

Also, tons of people are mad about Florida and Texas voting for republicans, and even more mad that Beto and Abrams lost.

To be honest, coming as a person who lives in Texas myself, it surprised me that so many people were angry that Beto lost in the sense that Texas is known as a Republican state for the most part. I'm not saying I don't like Beto- I was neutral about him and Cruz both, but people here were FURIOUS. I know Beto gathered a large following of college students, so that's probably why there was such strong emotions (younger generations acting out of social media and such) but there was just so much hate on the media after Cruz won that made me feel bad for those who did vote for Cruz (I'm not saying who I voted for) because there was intense hate toward people after the elections. But, I mean, I just don't get why people are so surprised Beto lost when Texas generally has a trend toward being a red state? idk

--- Double Post Merged, Nov 29, 2018, Original Post Date: Nov 29, 2018 ---

So Pelosi made it to speaker... I don't think this is THAT significant as far as current politics go but it does show democrats are not exactly on a path to beat trump in 2020. A few months from now Pelosi is going to be saying "Wait, people hate my guts and that hurts policy we are trying to pass or protect?" as if that is supposed to be surprising to anyone.

The thing I wonder about with Trump is that I personally see him as a very polarizing figure in the sense that many people seem to fully support him 100% or absolutely hate him and want him gone. I see very few people who are in the middle as far as agreeing/disagreeing with how he has handled situations. I feel like this polarization could lead to some issues for him in 2020, however that isn't to say that I think democrats are necessarily going to be that significant with Pelosi as speaker either. I do agree that the fact that the Reps were able to gain seats in the Senate (when that was the easier of the two Houses to lose seats on as the closeness of number of seats was closer to each other) seems significant to me even with the Dems gaining control over the House