BenningRoadSkin

Miami Herald: I’m done trying to understand Trump supporters. Why don’t they try to understand me?

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Despite his many obvious faults I don't see him as unqualified....much less wholly. 

 

I've always thought the Electoral system was in place to guarantee elections and transfer of power though....you know, in case someone disrupted/corrupted voting in states.

 

Trump is the first president in our history to get elected without either holding public office first or being in the military at any point in their life.  If at this point you still think he knows what he's doing, you are lost cause on this topic.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-electoral-college-was-meant-to-stop-men-like-trump-from-being-president/508310/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Trump is the first president in our history to get elected without either holding public office first or being in the military at any point in their life.  If at this point you still think he knows what he's doing, you are lost cause on this topic.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/the-electoral-college-was-meant-to-stop-men-like-trump-from-being-president/508310/

 

Beinart is mistaken,but of course verbose in being so.

 

I of course would prefer ex military and elected office experience, but I prefer a lot of things.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Beinart is mistaken,but of course verbose in being so.

 

I of course would prefer ex military and elected office experience, but I prefer a lot of things.

 

 

I mean, I wouldn't go so far as to say I'd never vote for someone that didn't have either, but the world is extremely complex and their are people making decisions about that that know more then the general public does.  Trump operates like someone that hasn't even gone through the information that is publicly available, he doesn't do his homework on pretty much anything, you can't wing it as leader of the free world.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 you can't wing it as leader of the free world.

 

Yet here we are.

 

Perhaps the position needs reigned in? (I doubt the Founders envisioned such a position)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twa said:

Despite his many obvious faults I don't see him as unqualified....much less wholly.

Yes well, idealogical qualification isn't the same as actually having the knowledge, skills, experience, ethics, morals, and disposition that are necessary to do the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, twa said:

 

Yet here we are.

 

Perhaps the position needs reigned in? (I doubt the Founders envisioned such a position)

An idiot being president?  I'm sure they saw it coming (article I posted even explains that), but didn't agree on how to address it (or that future generations would agree with them).  

 

Executive Branch needs to be able to do its job, the checks and balances is done by the other two branches (or at least its supposed to be).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I don't want to hear anything else about why a guy outside of the system somehow wasn't treated fair by that system that he tried to hijack.  He ****ed up a centrist platform by skewing it left because he threw tantrums because he couldn't break the rules in his favor. The ultimate old white guy demanding his way. Wah wah wah.

You seem to still think the complaint is about Bernie and the system.  The complaint is any candidate and the system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read my quoted text, Humphrey was nominated at the convention and not by voters and superdelegates. 

 

If the Republicans had had a superdelegate system, we wouldn't have Trump. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

If you read my quoted text, Humphrey was nominated at the convention and not by voters and superdelegates. 

No I read it.  Maybe I just missed the point that it was supposed to make.

 

8 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

If the Republicans had had a superdelegate system, we wouldn't have Trump

If only we were so lucky.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump only won by 77k votes?

 

At the same time he was also about 90k votes away from winning NV,CO,NH,ME,MN

 

Which would have taken him from a 306-232 margin to a 339-199 margin.

 

Such stats are fun I suppose.  But hardly relevant.   Kind of like the map of the US showing votes by county that looks almost entirely red.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Which is why the popular vote where everyone's vote counts equally makes since. We do it that way for every elected representative of government, except President. Why?

 

Because we are a Republic....which is also why I don't vote for your Senator ect.

 

But feel free to try to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

Which is why the popular vote where everyone's vote counts equally makes since. We do it that way for every elected representative of government, except President. Why?

I can break out my old notes from that class and scour the Federalist Papers again, but the simple reason is that the FFs didnt want larger states to have too much influence over the smaller ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JCB said:

That's not what a republic means, twa.

 

No Duh?

 

 “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”...Chief Justice John Marshall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

And he only won by 77,000 votes.

 

More people wanted Hillary than Trump but Republicans played by the Electoral College rules and won. 

 

We can talk about the Republicans supressing votes elsewhere.

 

You mean Trump won by winning. By the rules. 

 

And Clinton lost by losing. By the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey man, it's you making the statements. You have every opportunity to write things that are less simplistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason we don't, and shouldn't, have a 1 person 1 vote rule is because then a handful of cities would have complete say over everything.  And the rest of the country outside of those few cities would essentially get no say at all. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

The reason we don't, and shouldn't, have a 1 person 1 vote rule is because then a handful of cities would have complete say over everything.  And the rest of the country outside of those few cities would essentially get no say at all. 

 

If the plurality of the population lives in the cities, then so? Every person's vote would count equally.

 

Right now, a California vote counts less then a Wyoming vote. Or a Rhode Island vote. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The electoral college is outdated garbage at this point considering that it:

 

1. Has worked against two popular vote winners already in the last 20 years.

 

2. Gives outsized influence to a few select states while penalizing most states in the country, both R and D.

 

I would not be surprised if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is adopted in the next two decades. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

Quote

As of May 2018, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 electoral votes, which is 30.7% of the total Electoral College and 61.1% of the electoral votes needed to give the compact legal force.

 

There is a lot of incentive for most states in the country to sign on to this.

Edited by No Excuses
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Btw it was mentioned the other day, but we getting closer to it. The Popular Vote Interstate Compact is about 6-8 states away from reaching the 270 to enact it.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

 

Dang..beaten to it by a few minutes ...

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JCB said:

Hey man, it's you making the statements. You have every opportunity to write things that are less simplistic.

 

My statement did not address "what a republic means", it addressed why we do not use popular vote for POTUS.

 

As a result of us being a Republic we do not, which is a simple principle.

 

Why complicate it? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

The electoral college is outdated garbage at this point considering that it:

 

1. Has worked against two popular vote winners already in the last 20 years.

 

2. Gives outsized influence to a few select states while penalizing most states in the country, both R and D.

 

I would not be surprised if the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is adopted in the next two decades. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

 

 

There is a lot of incentive for most states in the country to sign on to this.

Holy ****, that's one way to circumvent the constitution without starting an all out war on this.  God, that's genius.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.