Electoral College

I voted for Trump too, that was an easy choice. Hillary's message was hateful and divisive. You simply can't have a leader who calls half the country "deplorable" without ripping that country apart.

We've all had more than enough of that.

Trump's a New York Democrat. If he'd run with a 'D' behind his name we'd never have heard anything but praise from his current detractors, and gushing worship from the press.

I don't agree with him, but he loves America, and he's about two-thirds right on policies. I wanted almost all the other candidates more, but choosing between Trump and Hillarious Clinton was an easy choice.

Cheers, James Arthur

P.S. Your sig quote has, sadly, been snowflaked. I've appended the original, with reference to its original source.

Correction:

"THOSE who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." --Thomas Paine, "The Crisis," Sept. 12th, 1777

e.g.,

Glad to see some people have common sense.

Jamie

Thanks! I'll fix that. ...Jim Thompson

Jamie can't even spell mirror, let alone construct a rational proposition.

Jamie doesn't have a particularly firm grasp of reality.

Rickman and I don't even share the same continent.

Jefferson was an optimist. Fox News may be free, but it can be bought, just like the rest of the Murdoch media.

The US has to raise it's educational game. It needs to develop critical thinking in every citizen - which is asking a lot. Neither James Arthur nor John Larkin has developed that particular skill.

Teaching civics on the basis that the US constitution is utterly perfect doesn't give US school-children a particularly good start.

Whereas Trump was all sweetness and light about Muslims and Mexicans.

In reality, James let his Republican-good, Democrat-bad mantra do his think ing for him.

She called half Trump's supporters "deplorable", which is a quarter of the country. It didn't rip the country any further apart.

Trump was suggesting that Hlllary Clinton ought to be jailed, which is equa lly deplorable.

Not you. It's just that you want to lie about the Democrat-voting half of t he country, while ignoring the obvious defects in the Republican-voting hal f.

Singularly unrealistic. Trump may be a Tamanny Hall Democrat, but the Democ ratic Party moved on from them some forty years ago, but that was after Bas tiat died. so you haven't paid any attention to that.

Trump endorsed a wide range of contradictory policies - most of them utterl y absurd. James Arthur doesn't have any problem with that at all, because D onald Trump got to be the Republican candidate, and James Arthur always cho oses the Republican candidate - it's a no-brainer for him, though his brain does have work rather hard devising after-fact justifications for voting f or a posturing buffoon who really doesn't appreciate Republican orthodoxy.

He had to set up more than the usual quota of straw men to justify his choi ce, but he's had a lot of practice at that.

Jim has a more serious beef with MIT - he spent some years there getting ed ucated, and while he learned enough physics to let him move on to making a good living as an integrated circuit designer he didn't acquire anything li ke enough knowledge of the world outside physics and engineering.

John Larkin should have a similar beef with Tulane (which isn't as well-equ ipped as MIT to deliver a broad education - no Noam Chomsky to start with) but John Larkin deliberately skimped every course which he didn't see as pr ofitable at a time when his judgement was even shallower than it is now.

The US constitution wasn't exactly trash when the founding tax evaders devi sed it, but it didn't include stuff - like universal suffrage - that had to bolted on later, and it did include features - like the electoral college

- that look more like bugs, and haven't been copied in more recent constitu tions.

It may not be trash, but it is well-past it's use-by date and in serious ne ed of drastic revision. The MS/Dos of political operating systems.

Jim-out-touch-with-reality-Thompson isn't any of them, but Jamie would be t he last person to be able to realise this.

Sadly for James Arthur's logic, the Federalist Papers weren't so much a man ual as a decidedly optimistic prospectus.

The electoral collage is one feature of the US constitution that no subsequ ent constitution has bothered to copy, making more of a bug than a feature.

The other feature which hasn't proved popular is the executive president. E very other constitution puts the machinery of government in the hands of a prime minister, who sits in the lower house and can ejected from the job ov ernight by a vote of no confidence.

The French constitution nuances the situation a bit, because Charles de Gau lle wrote with the idea that he was going to remain president for as long a s possible. Looked at from any other point of view, it was a silly idea.

TheFederalistPapers-68

ce

So you've finally run into a problem that they envisaged. Is their solution going to work?

Trump would have to screw up on a heroic scale to frighten the electoral co llege into doing it's job. Turning half the nations highways into over-pric ed toll roads might do it.

The difference between percentage of popular and electoral votes is insignificant considereing that only 50% vote, and considering that a lot of the votes come from people who practically flip a coin to decide.

Your claim of no benefit is not the least bit considered. This system makes it much harder for an extremist to get elected, and makes ballot stuffing either harder to do undetected, or less effective.

Just an aside, the recent move to allow anyone in any bathroom reminds me of the ERA debate 40 years ago. People said if we passed ERA there would be no distinction for bathrooms. That was the only time the Left even tried to follow the amendment procedure (although they violated it by extending the time limit for passage). They didn't get what they wanted, but ended up getting the worst part of it without any amendment.

Yes, the House is supposed to represent the people, and the Senate is supposed to represent the states. With a popular vote the Senate has no purpose. DC has imposed unfunded mandates that break state budgets, for one thing, because the states have no representation any more.

Ditto.

Could that toll road money pay for my education and diploma at the Electoral College? Ia it a BS, MS or a PHD?

manual as a decidedly optimistic prospectus.

sequent constitution has bothered to copy, making more of a bug than a feat ure.

t. Every other constitution puts the machinery of government in the hands o f a prime minister, who sits in the lower house and can ejected from the jo b overnight by a vote of no confidence.

Gaulle wrote with the idea that he was going to remain president for as lo ng as possible. Looked at from any other point of view, it was a silly idea .

hoice

end

n,

ed

ncy

ed

tion going to work?

l college into doing it's job. Turning half the nations highways into over- priced toll roads might do it.

At the Trump Electoral College you would get to pay a mint to stand next to photograph of Trump before being handed a lump of boiler-plate inspiration al text composed in Bangalore.

You would run the risk of being subpoenaed in a subsequent investigation o f educational fraud.

I've no idea how Trump might label the diploma, but the real world title wo uld be something like "certificate of gullibility".

No, Stupid. Only states comprising more than half of the electroal collage are needed.

If thses states review the entire national popular vote and instruct their electors to vote unanimously for the winner then the remaining states have no say in the matter.

America isn't a Democracy, it is a Republic. When will you Democrats learn that?

As far as the Electoral College, take some Government classes. It is there to prevent a few states with the highest population from taking full control of the country.

Think that would do to big cities like New York, where they live in huge apartment buildings, and own nothing? What percentage would lose the right to vote? Maybe 90 to 95% in NYC? :)

Right. But if big states want to subvert the Constitution's protections for small states, why would small states feel bound to respect a federal government that no longer represents them?

That's a rough road paved with coarse gravel.

Cheers, James Arthur

You are talking to a numb skull. Condition from birth the method of handouts. Please don't attempt any more efforts to uncondition him, it's not worth the pain it takes to beat it out of him.

He is of the class "Slow-Mans", trying to find ways to justify their existance.

Jamie

I'm not sure this would be much different than the outlying areas where many people don't own their house trailers or at least the land it sits on. A trailer is not considered "real estate".