Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
.MASSHOLE.The electoral college system is broken, but that is the fault of both parties and gerrymandering. Unfortunately, as it benefits both parties, it seems like it will always be prevalent in the electoral college.
But what is the alternative? A popular vote? Well then you will have states like NY, CA, MA, TX, and many other coastal states that will dictate elections because of their population size, leaving the middle part of the country at an unfair disadvantage.
.MASSHOLE.So you counter 1st hand accounts (regardless of whether or not they are verifiable) with more unverifiable statements?? I mean, again, pot meet kettle. Your double-standards are amazing.
But if we are going to play that game, here is this.
Hahaha, never underestimate the desperation of leftists trying to keep their make-believe narratives alive.
No one buys it, except those who bought into the left-wing social justice narratives a long time ago.
These accusations are faker than the UVa Rolling Stone gang-rape story and Columbia's mattress girl, both heroines of the narrative-driven Left.
Very convenient timing also, I might add.
.MASSHOLE.https://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/842575/Witness-Steps-Forward-to-Back-Up-Trump-Accuser
NS didn't like my original link. Too bad.
The referenced post has been removed.
CampeadorAn electoral college vote, awarded on a proportional level to the popular vote in each state.
The "unfair advantage" is the current winner-take-all system.
CampeadorHahaha, never underestimate the desperation of leftists trying to keep their make-believe narratives alive.
No one buys it, except those who bought into the left-wing social justice narratives a long time ago.
These accusations are faker than the UVa Rolling Stone gang-rape story and Columbia's mattress girl, both heroines of the narrative-driven Left.
Very convenient timing also, I might add.
.MASSHOLE.But out of curiosity, why is it that Trump gets a free ride but Bill Clinton doesn't? You must like your double standards.
californiagrownReverse it, now ask democrats.
.MASSHOLE.This probably will come off as sounding somewhat petty, but the GOP threw the first stone in this case.
If I recall correctly, it wasn't the Democratic Party that went with the story, it was the media. Trump and his followers had openly talked about Bill Clinton's past with media sources and at events while the Clinton campaign had not discussed his checkered past until the media released their piece. Now, who knows if they actually knew about it, but I can't imagine in a situation with stakes as high as this, that once those doors have been opened, they will be ignored.
californiagrownHow petty can you get? Lol. "It's not what you said, it's that you said it first" lol. Gtfo.
Both parties helped bring this down into the gutter. Trump has just openly embraced the gutter... cause half his supporters live down there.
.MASSHOLE.It is opening a can of worms that can't be closed. We have seen year in year out, the standards are set by both parties and the instance the bar is lowered both parties react to it. I'm not justifying it as the correct thing to do, but it is what happens.
Look at Romney vs. Obama, or McCain vs. Obama. There were times where candidates on both sides told their supporters that this was about ideological differences and that they respected their opponent.
Compare that to this years, where one candidate in particular has dragged his opponents, both in the primary and GE, through the mud. We saw what ignoring it did for the primary candidates, they lost (for a variety of reasons, this being one). Everyone knows that ice does not melt in Hillary's mouth when it comes to politics. She is cutthroat, aggressive, and very experienced in the game for she knows EXACTLY what to do and when to do it.
This is not a justification, this is a statement of what I see and how I interpret it. Using the "they did it first" mantra is the best way to explain what happened this year for history has shown that both parties set the rules, and in this case, it was Trump, right or wrong.
And I don't think half his supporters live down there, I think you have so many people who see Clinton/US Politics as deplorable and want to blow it up and start it all over.
californiagrownAnd those are the idiots willing to risk war and economic collapse to do so, instead of working hard to effect change. Best case scenario, Trump is utterly lost and gets nothing done due to a congressional blockade.
When people say "Trump will blow it all up", what do they actually mean? I'm looking for specifics here. Cause all I can see is him is issuing executive orders when he meets any kind of congressional resistance.
.MASSHOLE.Oh I agree, but look at what McCain said today in regards to a SCOTUS appointment by Hillary. The whole system is rotten, it is party before country.
I think in their eyes (this is just my understanding) is that he will "fight" to put American interests first, regardless of the cost. It seems to me that they think he is capable of breaking everything and using his "expertise" to build it back in a way that will be a zero sum game that sees America come out on top. This means breaking down "the corrupt media", exposing "corruption" within the government, building manufacturing back up again (even though our economy is never reverting to a manufacturing-based economy), put in his SCOTUS appointments, and frankly break the status quo as we know it.
californiagrownWhat does "break everything" mean?
I want tangible examples of what that specifically means. What does "blowing it all up" involve doing?
He will prosecute media members for biased op Ed's, and selective reporting? He will bypass Congress and issue executive orders? What? What specifically does it mean?
.MASSHOLE.You're asking the wrong person, I am at a loss as much as you. I am just repeating what I have heard and read.
.MASSHOLE.The whole system is rotten, it is party before country.
.MASSHOLE.But what is the alternative? A popular vote? Well then you will have states like NY, CA, MA, TX, and many other coastal states that will dictate elections because of their population size, leaving the middle part of the country at an unfair disadvantage.
FrozinballzThis may be the last election any of us have a voice (even though its not a lot) if Hillary wins, correct?
FrozinballzSo why should we vote for Hillary? She is the system. Americans should want anything but that. Trump is your "anything" in tis case and thats why he has so much support.
Yes i know you say trump is part of it to; he may be. But he has shed more light on the corruption than anyone else. So why not take the risk rather than being okay with what is going on. We're fucked either way right?? This may be the last election any of us have a voice (even though its not a lot) if Hillary wins, correct?
onenerdykidBut in that scenario, everyone's vote still counts. You can't say the same about the current electoral college set up. Every state has a mix of voter demographics, and under a popular vote system all votes count and get added up. With the current electoral college, the minority votes no longer matter once they have lost that particular state. So while the GOP might lose Vermont, under a popular vote, their votes for Trump would still count in the overall. In our electoral college, they don't. The same can conversely be said for Clinton in Texas or Oklahoma. It's for this very reason that many people rightly think their vote doesn't count in their state. Their collective voting power is greatly diminished.
A popular vote is a more fair way to hold an election than our electoral college based one.
.MASSHOLE.Every vote may count because it impacts the actual vote, but in theory the votes from major cities are x100 more important than the vote from a rural town or small cities because there are just more. This in turn means the interests of businesses and financial services are put above those of the farmers, loggers, and other blue-collared manual laborers who may not live in urban areas.
In either system people will get screwed out of having their interests fairly weighted. The question is which provides a better and fairer way of giving the voice to the minorities? Personally, despite all it's flaws, I believe that is the electoral college. It just needs reworking. Gerrymandering needs to be addressed.
onenerdykidI think if we examine it in terms of this question- "Which is most fair?", I think the popular vote does this best because it ensures that each vote counts equally against all others. In a democracy, the minority loses and the majority wins- that's the game at the end of the day. And we think that this method of choosing leaders/laws/etc. is the best at achieving good leaders/laws/etc. If you don't vote and don't like the result of the election, then you are partly to blame for the result of the election. It puts more emphasis on each individual voter to get out and vote. In an electoral college, my individual vote has less impact since it is a majority take all. I have less reason to vote because of the seeming impossible task of changing the majority. This assuredly discourages many voters from voting because their individual vote only counts if they are part of the majority. This doesn't strike me as fair.
FrozinballzSo why should we vote for Hillary? She is the system. Americans should want anything but that. Trump is your "anything" in tis case and thats why he has so much support.
Yes i know you say trump is part of it to; he may be. But he has shed more light on the corruption than anyone else. So why not take the risk rather than being okay with what is going on. We're fucked either way right?? This may be the last election any of us have a voice (even though its not a lot) if Hillary wins, correct?
.MASSHOLE.It is undeniable that the people from NYC will have different interests than the people from the majority of these states and will vote in such a manner. What is stopping those voters from being disenfranchised when they realize that even if they were all to vote, they would hold the same weight as a single city? Then imagine when these people realize there are tons of others like Boston, SF, Miami, LA, and more.
I honestly don't know the solution to solve this issue, but a purely popular vote, be it at the state level, like Campeador proposed, or national level, pits the interests of the urban against the rural, and the urban will always win. Now try to tell me that is fair.
onenerdykidIn terms of functional, democratic elections? Yes, it is fair. Fair doesn't mean you have to like it. It just means that
the country gets what it deserves- there are more votes for X than for Y, so X has won. I think we should generally be in favor of that, with the exception when the winning side seeks to destroy democracy.
The reason I'm not worried about the urban areas dominating over the rural is because I'm not sure your claim that urban voters have contrary values to rural voters is necessarily true, all the time. It's only partly true, some of the time. That means there are many shared values between them. Both Bernie and Trump have demonstrated this, each finding lots of support in both rural and urban areas. It's not just rural rednecks voting for Trump (If that were the case, none of us should be worried)- I think we will see Trump do very well in some big cities, as he has shown in the primaries.
But let's say that you are right and urban citizens always have values that are contrary to rural citizens. Urban citizens constitute the majority of people in the society and rural citizens constitute the minority. Wouldn't the result of such a scenario be a simple fact of democracy? But even so, the state would never completely discount the needs of the rural minority- there's simply too much at stake for that to happen. The urban areas depend too much on the rural areas, and vice versa. Such a complete disenfranchisement would basically lead to civil war, which is rather high on the list of things governments need to avoid.
.MASSHOLE.But you are looking at this so simplistically. Think about how diverse this country is. We have multiple ethnic groups, religious groups, geographic groups etc. all of whom have different values that drive their voting patterns. What is important to people on the coasts is entirely different than the needs of the plain and Rocky states. What is important to the northern part of the east coast is VERY different than the southern part. The lists go on and on. The problem is, population numbers are skewed towards certain geographic and regional settings. We can see today, even with the current system, how these differences play out with the results of the last Presidential Election.
You think the urban concerns of a man in NYC, SF, Boston, LA, Chicago are the same as a man in rural Ohio or other Great Plain states? Hell, you don't even get the same concerns in the state of NY. NYC/Long Island/surrounding borough-voters are super liberal compared to the rest of the state, but they would dictate the outcomes because there are just more. But under the popular system, anyone not living in those areas can basically go fuck themselves because they're the losers. What is to keep the guy in the rural Catskills voting when he realizes his single vote doesn't matter because no matter what he does, there are more people in the city?
We can't put in a simple system because we are too big and too diverse. If you want to alienate a group of people, employing a popularity contest is the way to do it. You seem to think that voters vote for interests other than their own. Most don't. Think about how different the candidate's platforms were and how they would impact people differently. Now, look at how a voter is going to take those into consideration depending on where they live. The voters in Chicago, NYC, Boston, SF, etc. are going to have very different views on the 2nd Amendment than someone in rural Illinois, upstate NY, Western MA, parts of CA, etc. but we know due to population density, the likelihood is that the populated areas will win.
I know I have repeated my point in at least three different ways, but that is the crux of the problem. We are too big and diverse to institute a popular vote because it will alienate certain groups, religions, states, genders, etc. and that will create conflict or disenfranchise people from voting.
.MASSHOLE.I know I have repeated my point in at least three different ways, but that is the crux of the problem. We are too big and diverse to institute a popular vote because it will alienate certain groups, religions, states, genders, etc. and that will create conflict or disenfranchise people from voting.
.MASSHOLE.But you are looking at this so simplistically. Think about how diverse this country is. We have multiple ethnic groups, religious groups, geographic groups etc. all of whom have different values that drive their voting patterns. What is important to people on the coasts is entirely different than the needs of the plain and Rocky states. What is important to the northern part of the east coast is VERY different than the southern part. The lists go on and on. The problem is, population numbers are skewed towards certain geographic and regional settings. We can see today, even with the current system, how these differences play out with the results of the last Presidential Election.
.
.MASSHOLE.Because it helps to have someone who knows the system if you want to use Trumpian logic. He will fix the tax code because he knows what is broken right? The presidency is not broken, the Congress is. When two parties cannot compromise on the simplest of issues, or one impedes the other, that is the issue.
It bothers me Trump ignores this fact when harping on any politician. The whole checks and balances thing will not disappear, ever, unless we change our entire government including the founding documents.
Corruption is going to be present in his system too. Look at who his advisors are, all personal friends or businessmen who will profit from his presidency. His tax plan couldn't be more evident of this. If people really wanted to avoid corruption, they would have voted for Sanders. Trump has repeatedly shown that he only has one interest, his own personal gain. The man has never sacrificed anything of his own, even charitable contributions (those come from his foundations money which he doesn't even donate to). But as California alluded to above, how the hell is he going to change it? He has the entire Democratic Party and most of the GOP against him. You think Obama was stonewalled? Imagine Trump. So sure, he may pass his tax plan, attempt to renegotiate NAFTA (and realize why no one has), and a few other things, but not without extreme difficulty with a high likelihood of incompleteness.
To me, I'd rather swallow the horrors of a Clinton presidency for her SCOTUS nominations versus more Scalia's. I have no idea what you are referencing when you say this may be the last time any of us have a voice for voting. Have you seen what Trump has said? He wants people to go watch polling places, he wants to cut down on media freedom, and has said he thinks regulation of free speech is Ok in certain circumstances. You want someone with markings of a dictator? You have them, regardless of whether or not you think he is capable of it. This is why I do not want to risk a Trump presidency. The man has repeatedly shown his true character. He is a petty, thin-skinned, narcissistic, power-hungry man.
His support is rooted more in anti-Hillary than anti-establishment just like hers is more anti-Trump than pro-Clinton. She is the most hated political figure in decades.
But I would rather the stability of a Hillary presidency than the unpredictableness of a Trump one.
onenerdykidI think your argument here more so points out the need for a greater number of political parties, rather than for the need of an electoral college. That I would fully support.
CampeadorThat's horseshit. The only people being "disenfranchised" are those who vote Republican in solid blue states, or those who vote Democrat in solid red states. Those votes essentially count for nothing, which is wrong.
I'm not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you're doing to think that an electoral system proportionally allocated based on the popular vote of each state disenfranchises anyone.
Frozinballz"The presidency is not broken, the Congress is. When two parties cannot compromise on the simplest of issues, or one impedes the other, that is the issue."
Who are you to say whats broken and what's not? What is your position in politics? Must be your 500,000 dollar education that is better than everyone elses, I forgot.
"If people really wanted to avoid corruption, they would have voted for Sanders."
False. What makes him a God compared to Trump? You liked his ideas? He's a socialist? Just because you like Sanders shouldn't give him a free ride from you; double standard.
"Trump has repeatedly shown that he only has one interest, his own personal gain. "
Completely false. One example is when he brought food and supplies to a few towns that were hit by Hurricane Matthew, and he isn't even president. Didn't see Hillary doing that.
"He has the entire Democratic Party and most of the GOP against him"
I believe in part because their job kind of depends on Hillary getting elected. Cmon, look at the damning evidence.
"Have you seen what Trump has said? He wants people to go watch polling places, he wants to cut down on media freedom, and has said he thinks regulation of free speech is Ok in certain circumstances. You want someone with markings of a dictator?"
Trump wants YOUR vote to matter. He wants people to have a say in politics I believe. Hillary wants to win and will do anything (could be a double standard here) and what she says on TV is opposite of things she actually thinks, proven in her own E-mails. Hillary and the media try to brainwash you on their ideas and their values ONLY. Look at the news. Wake up.
"The man has repeatedly shown his true character. He is a petty, thin-skinned, narcissistic, power-hungry man."
And HIllary Clinton isn't huh? You're high
Frozinballz"The man has repeatedly shown his true character. He is a petty, thin-skinned, narcissistic, power-hungry man."
And HIllary Clinton isn't huh? You're high
CampeadorFor once I agree.
For that reason it is imperative to reduce the power and shrink the federal government, and give back Constitutional power (as per the 10th Amendment) to the States to manage the vast majority of their own affairs.
The federal government is a bloated behemoth of corruption.
Frozinballz"The presidency is not broken, the Congress is. When two parties cannot compromise on the simplest of issues, or one impedes the other, that is the issue."
Who are you to say whats broken and what's not? What is your position in politics? Must be your 500,000 dollar education that is better than everyone elses, I forgot.
"If people really wanted to avoid corruption, they would have voted for Sanders."
False. What makes him a God compared to Trump? You liked his ideas? He's a socialist? Just because you like Sanders shouldn't give him a free ride from you; double standard.
"Trump has repeatedly shown that he only has one interest, his own personal gain. "
Completely false. One example is when he brought food and supplies to a few towns that were hit by Hurricane Matthew, and he isn't even president. Didn't see Hillary doing that.
"He has the entire Democratic Party and most of the GOP against him"
I believe in part because their job kind of depends on Hillary getting elected. Cmon, look at the damning evidence.
"Have you seen what Trump has said? He wants people to go watch polling places, he wants to cut down on media freedom, and has said he thinks regulation of free speech is Ok in certain circumstances. You want someone with markings of a dictator?"
Trump wants YOUR vote to matter. He wants people to have a say in politics I believe. Hillary wants to win and will do anything (could be a double standard here) and what she says on TV is opposite of things she actually thinks, proven in her own E-mails. Hillary and the media try to brainwash you on their ideas and their values ONLY. Look at the news. Wake up.
"The man has repeatedly shown his true character. He is a petty, thin-skinned, narcissistic, power-hungry man."
And HIllary Clinton isn't huh? You're high
californiagrownWhat tangible, specific actions will trump take to reform the gov't, blow it up, shake it up, etc? How will that result in a better country? How long will that take?
Also, which specific policies of his do you agree with?
FrozinballzOne specific action will be repealing Obama care. If you are old enough to understand and have had experience with health insurance you will understand it simply does not work.
I agree with a lot of his policies, that is why I support him.
The first would be to bear arms. Suit your self but I want the right to legally own a gun, that in itself is enough for me to vote for him.
Not to mention less immigration, strict vetting, having a strong military, supporting our cops, and abiding by the law. Look at where we are at now because of things like weak vetting. Can you explain to me how a 500% increase in Syrian refugees isn't going to bring serious trouble to our country?
I would like to think he has a better chance at eliminating some of the debt our country has instead of just implementing more regulations and policies. Fix what is broke. Yeah, it could take some time, but maybe we would be finally going on the right track. Maybe we need a businessman to do it, because so far what we have is not working.
To Masshole, that is where we are completely opposite. I just can't comprehend how you think Hillary is the lesser of two evils (go check out Wikileaks, that stuff is not fake) but thats the beauty of this country, I do not have to agree with you.
FrozinballzOne specific action will be repealing Obama care. If you are old enough to understand and have had experience with health insurance you will understand it simply does not work.
I agree with a lot of his policies, that is why I support him.
The first would be to bear arms. Suit your self but I want the right to legally own a gun, that in itself is enough for me to vote for him.
Not to mention less immigration, strict vetting, having a strong military, supporting our cops, and abiding by the law. Look at where we are at now because of things like weak vetting. Can you explain to me how a 500% increase in Syrian refugees isn't going to bring serious trouble to our country?
I would like to think he has a better chance at eliminating some of the debt our country has instead of just implementing more regulations and policies. Fix what is broke. Yeah, it could take some time, but maybe we would be finally going on the right track. Maybe we need a businessman to do it, because so far what we have is not working.
To Masshole, that is where we are completely opposite. I just can't comprehend how you think Hillary is the lesser of two evils (go check out Wikileaks, that stuff is not fake) but thats the beauty of this country, I do not have to agree with you.
CampeadorIt's amazing how hellbent people are to the U.S.A. into a third-world country.
Open-borders, a limitless flood of unskilled illegals and "refugees" who have no plans to assimilate, people that are more often that not openly hostile to U.S. citizens and culture. An unending amount of people with their hands out at the public trough.
Would be great to have a return to the old-fashioned Americanism that Trump represents, but it seems that the continuous floods of government-dependent foreigners, and the number of guilt-ridden self-loathing whites, form just too big of a voting block now.
With Hillary, the U.S. will continue its slow, painful death.
I doubt that the United States will even exist as a single country by the end of the century. The disintegration will be very ugly and violent, we're only in the prelude. Tribalism is about to make a strong comeback. Survival will be the order of the day.
I mean honestly, how fucking evil are these left-wing globalists? In Sweden, now they're using Swedish taxpayers to fund returning ISIS terrorists.
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.676/sweden-to-reward-returning-isis-jihadists.html
Wouldn't want to criticize though, that would be "racist". God help the sane people that are left. Actually, no, it's about time people started helping themselves, with whatever means are at their disposal.
californiagrownWanting to change American culture does not mean hatred of America.
You said you want to change the current culture, but I don't think you hate America. Do you?
There have always been populists, and folks afraid of the changing world around them. I believe that people will embrace the American ideals of freedom etc once they have been exposed to it for a generation or two. History has shown this to be the case.
CampeadorIt's amazing how hellbent people are to the U.S.A. into a third-world country.
Open-borders, a limitless flood of unskilled illegals and "refugees" who have no plans to assimilate, people that are more often that not openly hostile to U.S. citizens and culture. An unending amount of people with their hands out at the public trough.
Would be great to have a return to the old-fashioned Americanism that Trump represents, but it seems that the continuous floods of government-dependent foreigners, and the number of guilt-ridden self-loathing whites, form just too big of a voting block now.
With Hillary, the U.S. will continue its slow, painful death.
I doubt that the United States will even exist as a single country by the end of the century. The disintegration will be very ugly and violent, we're only in the prelude. Tribalism is about to make a strong comeback. Survival will be the order of the day.
I mean honestly, how fucking evil are these left-wing globalists? In Sweden, now they're using Swedish taxpayers to fund returning ISIS terrorists.
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.676/sweden-to-reward-returning-isis-jihadists.html
Wouldn't want to criticize though, that would be "racist". God help the sane people that are left. Actually, no, it's about time people started helping themselves, with whatever means are at their disposal.
CampeadorThose who feel more Muslim than American should return to one of their shithole Sharia countries
BrawnTrendsYeah like Ted Cruz who said :
"I'm a Christian first, American second"
californiagrown"I'm a Christian, conservative, and republican. In that order"
-mike pence
No room for American, better ship his ass back to northern Europe!!
californiagrown"I'm a Christian, conservative, and republican. In that order"
-mike pence
No room for American, better ship his ass back to northern Europe!!
TheDoughAbidesfunny, how you almost certainly use a device built with materials from all over the world to complain about globalism to the internet, a globalized system with the objective of providing constant connectivity to anyone anywhere on the planet. another cuck is born every minute, though, i suppose.
CampeadorTrying to spin a quote to serve your own ends.
Given that American values are based on the Judeo-Christian values of the founding fathers, that seems about right. Without that foundation, America is nothing.
Islam, on the other hand, is completely antithetical to the Constitution and the American way of life. Given the reaction of the Founders to ideology of Islam during the Barbary Wars, they really should have been kind enough to bar Islam from 1st Amendment protection, in writing.
MNSkiershttps://www.newschoolers.com/videos/watch/843000/Rigging-the-Election---Video-II--Mass-Voter-Fraud
Check this boys
CampeadorI wouldn't be surprised if patriots start actually assassinating these Democrat operatives.
