Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
The strange greatness of Donald Trump
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostRepublicans due to the 2016 wave election held the governorships and so didn't need democrats in order to redistrict, and they did, big time, along with their voter repression tactics.
Originally posted by JimL View PostOf course it matters because, both sides are vying for votes in each state.
Originally posted by JimL View PostIt's a canard.
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell obviously you wouldn't, but you live in the bubble where you have alternate facts.Last edited by rogue06; 05-28-2019, 07:38 AM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe Democrats still controlled the Senate and of course Obama was president. IOW, the Republicans couldn't do much redistricting without a whole lotta help from the Democrats.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostGovernors don't redistrict. That's the job of state legislatures. ETA: A few states use independent commissions
And this is why the left still cannot comprehend how they lost in 2016. It does not matter how large of a margin you win by in any given area, it does not affect the outcome in other areas.
You are hopelessly and deliberately ignorant.
That level of projection is what has led to a worldwide shortage of irony meters.
It's a technical win only - he does not have a majority that want him in office and never has.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 06-06-2019, 07:14 AM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostJust to point out, the 'left' didn't actually lose 2016 in terms of popular vote. Trump won because our system allows for the possibility that a president that most people in the country do NOT want can get elected in spite of that fact.
It's a technical win only - he does not have a majority that want him in office and never has.
Jim1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostJust to point out, the 'left' didn't actually lose 2016 in terms of popular vote. Trump won because our system allows for the possibility that a president that most people in the country do NOT want can get elected in spite of that fact.
It's a technical win only - he does not have a majority that want him in office and never has.
Jim
Both sides knew "going in" what the rules were. Neither side believed they needed to win the popular vote to take the White House, and both sides ran their campaigns to get the magic number of electoral votes.
Saying the "left" didn't actually lose in terms of popular vote is like saying the Yankees didn't actually lose the ball game in terms of balls hit. It's meaningless.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostThat might change if the left keeps shooting itself in the foot.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostJim,
Both sides knew "going in" what the rules were. Neither side believed they needed to win the popular vote to take the White House, and both sides ran their campaigns to get the magic number of electoral votes.
Saying the "left" didn't actually lose in terms of popular vote is like saying the Yankees didn't actually lose the ball game in terms of balls hit. It's meaningless.
Which is why I tend to think that - desire to give less populated areas a voice aside - the idea of the electoral college probably needs to go. The leader of the country needs to be a person the majority of the country decided would be their leader.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI disagree. I means a lot. Because a president who does not win the popular vote has to work within the reality that more than half the country would rather not have him. He does not have any sort of a mandate for his ideas, and he is from the perspective of most of the country not welcome. So trying to help bring the country together though some appeals to compromise in some cases should be part of that position. As it is, the man in charge is not liked or supported by more than half the country - and cares nothing about running roughshod over that majority, and that is NOT good for the country as a whole.
Which is why I tend to think that - desire to give less populated areas a voice aside - the idea of the electoral college probably needs to go. The leader of the country needs to be a person the majority of the country decided would be their leader.
Jim
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostJust to point out, the 'left' didn't actually lose 2016 in terms of popular vote.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Seems to me that within the politics of a union of states, 1 state 1 vote (so to speak) is reasonably democratic.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostJust to point out, the 'left' didn't actually lose 2016 in terms of popular vote. Trump won because our system allows for the possibility that a president that most people in the country do NOT want can get elected in spite of that fact.
It's a technical win only - he does not have a majority that want him in office and never has.
Jim"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostI disagree. I means a lot. Because a president who does not win the popular vote has to work within the reality that more than half the country would rather not have him. He does not have any sort of a mandate for his ideas, and he is from the perspective of most of the country not welcome. So trying to help bring the country together though some appeals to compromise in some cases should be part of that position. As it is, the man in charge is not liked or supported by more than half the country - and cares nothing about running roughshod over that majority, and that is NOT good for the country as a whole.
Which is why I tend to think that - desire to give less populated areas a voice aside - the idea of the electoral college probably needs to go. The leader of the country needs to be a person the majority of the country decided would be their leader.
Jim
As best I can tell, this requires no Constitutional amendment since the constitution gives the states the power to determine how their electoral votes are allocated. There are already differences (e.g., winner take all vs. 2 statewide and one for each district), so this is simply another difference.
If your state is on the list of states with pending legislation, and you find the electoral college as antiquated as I do, you should let your state legislators and the governor know that you are behind this initiative.
MichelThe ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYou might take heart in the Electoral College Vote Interstate Compact. You see, there is a way to actually keep the electoral college AND give the office to the winner of the popular vote. Currently, 14 states and D.C., representing 189 electoral votes, have signed a compact to give their electoral votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote. The compact takes effect when the total number of states signing the compact have a total of 270 or more electoral votes. There are states representing 99 more electoral votes with legislation pending. 81 more electoral votes are needed to trigger the compact, so the possibility has become more real recently.
As best I can tell, this requires no Constitutional amendment since the constitution gives the states the power to determine how their electoral votes are allocated. There are already differences (e.g., winner take all vs. 2 statewide and one for each district), so this is simply another difference.
If your state is on the list of states with pending legislation, and you find the electoral college as antiquated as I do, you should let your state legislators and the governor know that you are behind this initiative.
MichelSome may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by VonTastrophe, Today, 01:08 PM
|
4 responses
8 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 01:24 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Today, 09:14 AM
|
9 responses
45 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 01:02 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, Today, 08:38 AM
|
4 responses
24 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 12:16 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:10 PM
|
16 responses
84 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Roy, Yesterday, 02:39 AM
|
6 responses
74 views
2 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 12:53 PM |
Comment