The strange greatness of Donald Trump

[Sparko]

And how are these things mutually exclusive?

Just hypocritical.

[Mountain Man]

And how are these things mutually exclusive?

You are perhaps the only person I know who can look at a blatant contradiction and say, "What's the problem?" As Charles Babbage famously said, "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

[lilpixieofterror]

And how are these things mutually exclusive?

[lilpixieofterror]

Actually - not at all. Everything is in place for as many parties as we want. The problem is largely that the two parties have such a hammer-lock on the process that a third party gaining dominance is pretty much impossible.

Of course if we ever HAD a significant third party, the presidential election would probably go to Congress more often than not.

But all of this is speculation. We don't have much of a chance of a significant third party emerging.

So you said just what I said, but differently. Okay than.

[carpedm9587]

You, Sparko, and MM are making so many logical errors I don't know where to begin. So let's begin with false dichotomy and false equivalence.

False equivalence: you are using "minority" in two different senses and equating them. The minority in a voting process is not equivalent to a racial (or other) minority in a population. If for no other reason, the voting minority is variable depending on the subject of the vote and the day on which it is being held. You can be fairly sure, in 2020, that some who voted for Trump will not do so again. Likewise, some who voted for Clinton will vote for Trump. I think I'm fairly safe in saying that the people who were black in 2016 will still be black in 2020. Attempts to protect a racial minority from the unjust actions of a racial majority makes sense because membership in those groups is fixed and injustice WILL be perpetual if not addressed. Attempts to protect a voting minority from a voting majority is nothing more than trying to make a winner out of a group that lost. It's the equivalent of saying, "gee, the Dodgers lost the Penant. Let's change the way we score so they can win." If you want to win - convince people to your viewpoint or get better players. The voting minority has choices and actions they can take to make their POV mainstream. The black man is not going to be able to stop being black.

False dichotomy: The perpetual argument seems to be "majority = mob rule = bad" and "minority = good." I don't see how you can even begin to make that case. The majority in the 2016 presidential election was about 66M people. The minority was about 63M people. There is no rational argument for claiming that 63M is any less of a "mob" than 66M. It's just a smaller mob. So you're arguing for "smaller mob rule," which is just ridiculous on its face.

[carpedm9587]

So you said just what I said, but differently. Okay than.

Well = except for the "you would need a total restructure of election laws to make a valid 3rd party" part.

The laws are in place and just fine (most of them). The problem is not with the laws - it is with the tide of the marketplace. We came close once. If Perot had not been such an idiot and had focused some of his effort on coalescing his base and forming a party, we might actually have a three party system today. If it can happen once, it might happen again. There is a de facto "third party" we call "independents." If a charismatic leader were to arise, and begin work towards building an "Independence" party, I have to wonder if that wouldn't actually gain significant ground.

[Sparko]

You, Sparko, and MM are making so many logical errors I don't know where to begin. So let's begin with false dichotomy and false equivalence.

False equivalence: you are using "minority" in two different senses and equating them. The minority in a voting process is not equivalent to a racial (or other) minority in a population. If for no other reason, the voting minority is variable depending on the subject of the vote and the day on which it is being held. You can be fairly sure, in 2020, that some who voted for Trump will not do so again. Likewise, some who voted for Clinton will vote for Trump. I think I'm fairly safe in saying that the people who were black in 2016 will still be black in 2020. Attempts to protect a racial minority from the unjust actions of a racial majority makes sense because membership in those groups is fixed and injustice WILL be perpetual if not addressed. Attempts to protect a voting minority from a voting majority is nothing more than trying to make a winner out of a group that lost. It's the equivalent of saying, "gee, the Dodgers lost the Penant. Let's change the way we score so they can win." If you want to win - convince people to your viewpoint or get better players. The voting minority has choices and actions they can take to make their POV mainstream. The black man is not going to be able to stop being black.

False dichotomy: The perpetual argument seems to be "majority = mob rule = bad" and "minority = good." I don't see how you can even begin to make that case. The majority in the 2016 presidential election was about 66M people. The minority was about 63M people. There is no rational argument for claiming that 63M is any less of a "mob" than 66M. It's just a smaller mob. So you're arguing for "smaller mob rule," which is just ridiculous on its face.

Rong!

The minority is the states and people who live in them that don't get any say so in the election because California, New York and Florida pretty much have a lock on any election if the electoral college is eliminated. The people in the other states might as well not even vote.

[carpedm9587]

Rong!

The minority is the states and people who live in them that don't get any say so in the election because California, New York and Florida pretty much have a lock on any election if the electoral college is eliminated. The people in the other states might as well not even vote.

Sparko, your error is to treat California, New York, and Florida as cohesive elements. Indeed, they are not. In fact, the practice of giving ALL of the votes to the winner means that the Republicans in California are largely ignored, election after election after election. That's 28.9% of the registered voters in California who have almost NEVER experienced getting one of their own party to the electoral college to vote for a president. There are similar numbers (percentage-wise) for New York, Hawaii, Vermont, and most other so-called "blue" states. The same is true for Democrats in red states. You want to talk about the "tyranny of the majority?" Your precious electoral college and the way it is divided up by the states ensures that the minority party in any state will almost NEVER be heard in a presidential election, and the majority has a lock on how those electoral votes are allocated. Only the swing states have a possibility - and (as a consequence) after the primaries are over, presidential candidates primarily spend their time in those swing states - and those swing states are the ones that ultimately decide the election.

One person - one vote - means that every Republican living in a blue state and every Democrat living in a red state will finally have a voice in the presidential election. And every voice will be counted ONCE - not 3.73 times. And it means that presidential candidates will go anywhere that there is a concentration of voters - any state.

So to the various states still in consideration - I hope you say "YES" to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact At least, that way, if the Republicans in California manage to be part of the majority overall, the other states (blue or red) will have agreed to honor their voice.

[Sparko]

Sparko, your error is to treat California, New York, and Florida as cohesive elements. Indeed, they are not. In fact, the practice of giving ALL of the votes to the winner means that the Republicans in California are largely ignored, election after election after election. That's 28.9% of the registered voters in California who have almost NEVER experienced getting one of their own party to the electoral college to vote for a president. There are similar numbers (percentage-wise) for New York, Hawaii, Vermont, and most other so-called "blue" states. The same is true for Democrats in red states. You want to talk about the "tyranny of the majority?" Your precious electoral college and the way it is divided up by the states ensures that the minority party in any state will almost NEVER be heard in a presidential election, and the majority has a lock on how those electoral votes are allocated. Only the swing states have a possibility - and (as a consequence) after the primaries are over, presidential candidates primarily spend their time in those swing states - and those swing states are the ones that ultimately decide the election.

One person - one vote - means that every Republican living in a blue state and every Democrat living in a red state will finally have a voice in the presidential election. And every voice will be counted ONCE - not 3.73 times. And it means that presidential candidates will go anywhere that there is a concentration of voters - any state.

So to the various states still in consideration - I hope you say "YES" to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact At least, that way, if the Republicans in California manage to be part of the majority overall, the other states (blue or red) will have agreed to honor their voice.

you complain about how the minority in a state is left without a voice in the state elections, yet don't see that you are just mulitplying the problem nationwide if you eliminate the electoral college. You are forgetting that this is the UNITED STATES of America. The STATES vote for the President. You basically want to dissolve the USA and make it just one big state. That's idiotic. Go back to school and learn some history. The electoral college wasn't just decided on a whim.

[lilpixieofterror]

You, Sparko, and MM are making so many logical errors I don't know where to begin. So let's begin with false dichotomy and false equivalence.

False equivalence: you are using "minority" in two different senses and equating them. The minority in a voting process is not equivalent to a racial (or other) minority in a population. If for no other reason, the voting minority is variable depending on the subject of the vote and the day on which it is being held. You can be fairly sure, in 2020, that some who voted for Trump will not do so again. Likewise, some who voted for Clinton will vote for Trump. I think I'm fairly safe in saying that the people who were black in 2016 will still be black in 2020. Attempts to protect a racial minority from the unjust actions of a racial majority makes sense because membership in those groups is fixed and injustice WILL be perpetual if not addressed. Attempts to protect a voting minority from a voting majority is nothing more than trying to make a winner out of a group that lost. It's the equivalent of saying, "gee, the Dodgers lost the Penant. Let's change the way we score so they can win." If you want to win - convince people to your viewpoint or get better players. The voting minority has choices and actions they can take to make their POV mainstream. The black man is not going to be able to stop being black.

False dichotomy: The perpetual argument seems to be "majority = mob rule = bad" and "minority = good." I don't see how you can even begin to make that case. The majority in the 2016 presidential election was about 66M people. The minority was about 63M people. There is no rational argument for claiming that 63M is any less of a "mob" than 66M. It's just a smaller mob. So you're arguing for "smaller mob rule," which is just ridiculous on its face.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well = except for the "you would need a total restructure of election laws to make a valid 3rd party" part.

The laws are in place and just fine (most of them). The problem is not with the laws - it is with the tide of the marketplace. We came close once. If Perot had not been such an idiot and had focused some of his effort on coalescing his base and forming a party, we might actually have a three party system today. If it can happen once, it might happen again. There is a de facto "third party" we call "independents." If a charismatic leader were to arise, and begin work towards building an "Independence" party, I have to wonder if that wouldn't actually gain significant ground.

[carpedm9587]

you complain about how the minority in a state is left without a voice in the state elections, yet don't see that you are just mulitplying the problem nationwide if you eliminate the electoral college.

That was not a complaint - it was an observation that your attempt to "protect the minority" is doing nothing of the kind.

You are forgetting that this is the UNITED STATES of America. The STATES vote for the President. You basically want to dissolve the USA and make it just one big state. That's idiotic. Go back to school and learn some history. The electoral college wasn't just decided on a whim.

This accusation, Sparko, doesn't even begin to hold water. I respect state boundaries at the Congressional level, and at the state legislative level. Advocating for one change at one level of the election process (the national executive) does not "erase state boundaries. You're getting a bit hyperbolic.

[carpedm9587]

I have no idea what that sentence means, so I have no way to respond. Can you clarify?

I'll leave this to you.

[carpedm9587]

I said nothing about "difficulty" or claimed it would be easy, so I have no further response.

[Sparko]

That was not a complaint - it was an observation that your attempt to "protect the minority" is doing nothing of the kind.



This accusation, Sparko, doesn't even begin to hold water. I respect state boundaries at the Congressional level, and at the state legislative level. Advocating for one change at one level of the election process (the national executive) does not "erase state boundaries. You're getting a bit hyperbolic.

I am just glad you are not in charge of the country, Carp. You have no idea how anything works, yet you think you are an expert.


...come to think of it, pretty much like most of congress. hmm.

Maybe you should run.