So you are saying rather than letting the population have equal votes, we should just pick candidates that can be elected by the electoral college even if they aren't the person the voting population wants in the office?
Yeah, thanks for clarifying that one for me.
-- Rick C. ++++ Get a 5,000 miles of free Supercharging ++++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Here's clarification: Biden was indeed the best you had in 2008 whether your party's majority thinks so or not. And so was Webb in 2016.
To be more clear, you make bad choices.
I just said we didn't rant about it.
And without Perot he would have won both. But we didn't demand a run-off. That would have been ridiculous, as your party's ranting and whining is, in every single election you lose, which was my original point.
We all do. If half are too stupid to vote that's on them.
Actually he only won because you made bad choices in your primary.
Webb would have beaten him.
You confuse the issue. Let me make it clear... ELECTORAL COLLEGE
There, is that something you can read?
-- Rick C. ----- Get a 5,000 miles of free Supercharging ----- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
That election has NOTHING to do with the electoral college. Why are you go ing on about it? You seem to be the one ranting.
I don't know if you are playing dumb or not. Surely you understand that th e electoral college takes away the votes of the minority in states where a large majority decides the electoral votes. California was never going to vote for Trump, so there was little need to campaign there. Other states w ere not going to vote for Clinton, so Trump didn't bother to campaign there . Other states were just not at all important enough with tiny electoral v otes, so neither candidate campaigned there.
The swing states were the ones that received the lion's share of attention by candidates. Why should the election be so focused in this way. If the President were elected by popular vote all voters would receive equal atten tion and there would be NO focus on states at all since it would be a natio nal election.
Do you really not understand the issue? This has nothing to do with partie s or candidates. This has to do with people having a say in who is elected President!
-- Rick C. ----+ Get a 5,000 miles of free Supercharging ----+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Sure and it's something the founders had enough sense to create.
It has to do with your party's predictable complaints of "we was robbed".
That was the subject of my post that you replied to. You're talking about something else because you changed the subject. If I try to change it back you claim I'm digressing.
I thought you were. You say the problem is the electoral college, but that's just your opinion. You brought it up in the context of my post about a common element in several elections, and you complain that the EC is not relevant in those elections, but then you shouldn't have brought up the EC. You changed the subject, but you claim I did.
The EC exists to prevent fraud, which it does, and to keep out extremists like Sanders, which you think is a problem. You can't get your head around the fact that you make bad choices and a system that filters out bad choices is not the problem. You are.
I don't know why you call it "your party". I don't own Democrats.
As to subject, you keep ranting about that one thing. Can you get past that??? The issue of the electoral college is separate from what you seem to be whining about.
I gave you a clear and coherent explanation of why the electoral college is a problem. If you can't understand what I wrote, why not ask questions?
I'm saying the electoral college is a problem in people having equal votes. I suppose this is not as important to you as whining about politics.
The electoral college has nothing to do with fraud. It doesn't keep "extremists" out. Your continual whining about politics is irrelevant.
Why can't you just discuss the facts? Tell me how the electoral college prevents fraud. Give up on the political whining, ok?
-- Rick C. ---++ Get a 5,000 miles of free Supercharging ---++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Some parts of the western media did ignore what Stalin did
Others didn't. The USSR did mount a massive disinformation program at the time, and kept it running until the 1980's.
Both Russia and China seem to have decided genocide isn't worth the bad publicity it generates. They prefer a definition that doesn't get them labelled as having previously committed genocide.
signs in the window forbidding Trump supporters. It's illegal to do that on racial or religious grounds.
Nobody wants stupid customers. They are more trouble than they are worth.
Racial and religious prejudice is less practically useful.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Fascists are just as good. It's a totalitarian thing. The political philosophy invoked to justify the killing doesn't really matter, as you could have worked out from the wars of religion, if you knew an history.
As contrasted with what?
Where have they done any of that? US corporate interests do seem to favour regimes who will be tough on trade unions - it saves them from having to import Pinkertons or whatever to indulge in anti-union thuggery.
The problem with this approach is that it leads to regimes who are unpopular with the people being exploited. Iran is a particularly fine example of the US acting against it's long term interests when it installed the Shah in 1953.
Chile seems to got rid of Pinochet with fewer traumatic side-effects (though the tens of thousand of political opponents he killed are still dead).
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
China is currently committing genocide against the Uyghurs, and dealing with the bad publicity by controlling the publicity, not the "bad".
The universal feature of communism is totalitarian rule. It's what got Karl Marx and the proto-communists thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871.
The "leading role of the party" is what gets the party members fed while everybody else goes short.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
You don't live in Flint, Michigan? Lucky you.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
It's an explanation of the damage Trump is doing to the USA, but probably not a correct explanation. Trump lacks the attention span to be able to understand the consequences of his acts, so the damage he is doing is unintentional.
His isn't. You do seem to be.
Not as ugly as Trump. Maybe you should get on with getting him thrown out.
It wasn't so much the deplorables who elected Trump as the 77,000 gullibles in the crucial swing states who had been influenced by Russian posts on social media to vote for the mendacious buffoon.
Nate Silver puts Trump's current approval rating at 42.4% approve and 52.7% disapprove. Not a great basis from which to get re-elected.
The Russians may still see him as the candidate least likely to make America great again in 2020, as they did in 2016, but Facebook and the like will be watching out for their interventions this time around.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
n
ar vote no one will be able to make that claim anymore will they?
The Republicans have a long history of trying to keep voters who are likely to vote Democrat off the electoral rolls.
Jeb Bush in Florida in 1999 was more enthusiastic than most, and managed to purge quite a few likely Democratic voters because they had the same names as convicted felons. Gerrymandering is more bipartisan, but seems to be mo re susceptible to legal challenge now that mathematicians have worked out h ow to construct objective tests for it.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
They figure the West won't shed many tears over a few more dead Muslims after the better part of two decades of global war on terror/Islam. Or at least has very little wiggle-room to take any kind of moral high-ground. "you complain that we're eradicating the Islamic extremists on our front doorstep while you bomb them 8,000 miles away?"
It's a bug, not a feature. Other countries do copy features that were pione ered in the US constitution - the senate that over-represents the smaller s tates seems to have been a good idea.
The electoral college was much the same kind of sop to the smaller states, but you only elect one president so it doesn't make sense in the same way.
Federalist 68 argues that it makes sense in letting faithless electors reje ct creeps like Trump, but when push came to shove it didn't.
High time you junked it. The executive presidency is another bad idea. The only modern constitution that comes close is the French fifth republic, and purely because de Gaulle fancied himself in the job, but even the French h ave a prime minister who can be slung out overnight if he loses the confide nce of the elected representatives.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
The Uighurs are certainly being persecuted and locked up in large numbers. Whether this constitutes genocide is as yet undecided - nobody has yet made any formal declaration on the subject.
Australian aboriginals represent just 3% of the Australian population, but 28% of the prison population. This probably isn't genocide, but isn't helping the growth of the aboriginal population either.
They don't live as long as the non-aboriginal population either
We get off the hook because we are spending money on trying to improve the situation, with some - rather limited - success. My youngest brother is a doctor who specialises in aboriginal patients, which was a rather eccentric choice.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Assassination hasn't been practiced (or attempted) on civil authority by the US recently ( for the last half century, at least) but the 'paramilitary' groups are indeed a problem.
So are the 'military' groups. And supported governments. That's normal, because the US isn't an empire (we don't control other countries as colonies). The assassination of Orlando Letelier was an especially distressing move by a government nominally friendly (he was bombed here in the US, in Washington, DC).
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.