US Politics Thread

[calitennis127]

It's so quiet in the Clinton camp, you can hear an email being deleted.

LOL.

 

[calitennis127]

That is cheap, unkind, and unlike you. If you want people to stay around and take the abuse from your seriously right-wing posters, I'd be nicer.

Goodness gracious.

 

[calitennis127]

I'm sorry that a modicum of empathy is beyond you, teddy, but apparently it is. So, go fuck yourself.

LMAO.....Moxie, that sort of talk is, dare I say, Trumpian. Do we really want to communicate in such a crude way? Like Michelle and Hillary said, when others go low, we must go high.

 

[calitennis127]

Since the gloves are off: your misogyny has always been obvious. You are a man who hates women, that's clear. Which usually means that women don't like you. There's probably a reason for that. Trump doesn't love women, but he buys them. If you're not worth billions, you probably go without. And resent it. Then blame the women. I suspect you're an anorak-wearing basement-living computer troll who hasn't seen a woman beyond a video screen in 15 years. Men who live with and love women may get frustrated, as women do with men, but real misogyny like yours comes from lack of familiarity, or some deep-seeded Mommy issues. So who needs a shrink. Hmmm?

Another Trump-like personal attack. So disturbing that Trump's rhetorical style is spilling over even to sensitive and empathetic voters like Moxie.

And why is Moxie talking about women as if they are a different species than men who men either hate or love? Aren't men and women equal? If so, why should equals be divided up into two separate groups? That is "divisive."

 

[calitennis127]

A point worth making is that Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote. Whatever we decide to do about the electoral college, this is the 2nd election in recent years that the Democratic candidate has won the most votes, but has lost the election.

Right - because of New York and California, where many Republicans do not vote because they know it is pointless, and also because once states are called absentee ballots stop being counted (and absentee ballots usually go Republican).

This was a 50-50 election with the popular vote. I said that from the beginning. But the Republican vote represents historic mainstream America much more than the anti-white, anti-American Democratic Party coalition of California, Chicago, and NY.

 

[calitennis127]

Below is a list of racist incidents just one day after Trump's election... If you think his racist rhetoric is no big deal, you're severely underestimating the issue. The point isn't about how racist Trump is or isn't, it's about how his racist words impact his supporters. Someone around here once referred to "closet racists," and I think that's spot on. Unfortunately, you'll be seeing them out of the closet frequently. On a social level, America is in line for a wake-up call for the next four years.

https://twitter.com/i/moments/796417517157830656

Funny how you are silent about a Trump supporter getting kicked in the head in Chicago and the anti-Trump riots in Oakland and Portland in which people were injured, windows were shattered, police were attacked, and roads were blocked off. One person was even shot.

When Obama was elected in 2008, Republicans did not come out to shut down 10 cities and hold up signs that said "NOT MY PRESIDENT" while physically attacking Obama supporters.

And here is the truth about the Islamophobia claims. They are hoaxes 95% of the time:

 

[calitennis127]

That's a really silly post.

Racism was always an issue in the US, and will likely always be (pretty much in the world, not just in the US). Trump didn't invent racism, the same way Obama didn't stop it. Racism and hate were always present, except now we're dealing with a president who more or less advocated them, and his supporters feel entitled to come out of the woodwork. That's the point.

And your point is incorrect. It is the left in America, not the right, that is criminally violent. We now know that the violence at Trump rallies was instigated by DNC-funded agitators - which is why Hillary fired them. Trump supporters never shut down a Bernie or Hillary rally like Democrats did to Trump in Chicago back in March. Hillary never had to be rushed off stage by the Secret Service because someone tried to assassinate her, as Trump did twice this year (once in Arizona and one other time in Reno). Trump supporters did not march through various cities to block off highways and damage property.

Also, it was not Trump supporters that rampaged through 3 cities and committed hundreds of crimes like blacks did in Baltimore, Ferguson, and Milwaukee.

 

[calitennis127]

Oh wow, the arguments keep getting better.

This is like the "some of my best friends are black" argument that someone would use after saying a blatantly racist thing. How does Trump's immigrant wife negate his stance on blacks, Hispanics and Muslims?

Are you seriously, with a straight face, telling me that Trump's rhetoric hasn't been blatantly racist?

You've seen his stance on Muslims? Or are you gonna play the cop -out "Islam is not a race" card?

Also the argument of "why did Florida vote for him, they're not stupid" as if it's supposed to show he's not racist is laughable. How many black people voted for Trump? Have you seen the %? It's extremely negligible. I can use the same logic to show that this means he is racist.

Also, 52% of white women voted for Trump. I guess that means he's never made some blatantly misogynistic comments. Yup, nobody respects women more than he does.

This post shows just how brainwashed you are in the PC multicultural religion.

First things first - REPUBLICANS NEVER GET THE BLACK VOTE BECAUSE THE BLACK VOTE IS UNINTERESTED IN HEARING ANYTHING REPUBLICANS HAVE TO SAY. If you lived in America, you would understand this. Black voters come out every 4 years to protest white society and white racism. That is the first and usually the only consideration made by black voters. By your logic, every Republican candidate is an irredeemable racist because they cannot win the black vote, as if blacks even listen to what Republicans say.

You say that Trump has a racist stance on blacks. What was that racist stance? Was it visiting inner-city Detroit, something that half-white Obama avoids doing? Was it directly making a pitch to black voters and saying that the Democratic Party has failed to do anything of value for them in 50 years?

What was his "racist" stance on Hispanics? Oh, why, the same position the Mexican government has on illegal immigrants from south of its border.

What was his "racist" stance on Muslims? Oh, why, the same position that the oil-rich gulf states have on the "migrants" from Syria - i.e. keep them out because they are a security concern.

 

[calitennis127]

That's an interesting question. And very germane. Let's leave aside the fact that in recent times Wikileaks no longer makes any effort to verify the accuracy of the information they gather (let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say it's all true), I would still turn your question back to you and ask... what information do you think CNN is releasing that isn't factual? It was interesting to watch Snowden being interviewed about Wikileaks and hearing his reservations about what they were doing. He stated that he was extremely uncomfortable with their methods because they were effectively just dumping information on to the internet without any due diligence at all.

If you had used the New York Times as a comparison I might have more sympathy because clearly their editorial board decided that they would be blatantly anti-Trump, and while I had a lot of sympathy with their rationale, they clearly set aside their responsibilities to report the news without bias.

But even then, I would suggest you're the one who's blind here. The true irony of this election, as we're all learning now, is that the electorate (or at least a large percentage of it) was not willing to hear anything from anyone identified as the establishment. That's the real story here, and it was the same thing during Brexit. Where establishment sources were concerned it wasn't about truth. It turns out they could have said the sky is blue and the mood of the land was to disbelieve. But that's ok (well it's not, but it is what happened). What's really pernicious is people like you saying that the media was against Trump. You completely gloss over the fact that Trump benefited massively from all the media attention he got. Without the media, who knows whether he would have defeated his GOP rivals. I can excuse people not getting it while it was happening, but we need to be smart enough to at least understand something that Trump understood from the very beginning. As an aside it wouldn't shock me if Farage actually prepped him and said, "forget about the truth mate, the people don't care. Just echo their anger and rage against the elites". It was highly highly effective. But that's an entirely different thing than saying the media was unfair to him. The man lied repeatedly and blatantly and he got a pass, HRC as with all traditional politicians parsed the truth and tried to be clever with her wording and she got no pass at all. The irony in your comment about blindness is that this was evident for all to see. But as I said there was a false equivalence, you simply can't compare misstatements to outright lies, not if you have any sort of objectivity. Personally I was never a fan of HRC, I just loathed Trump, but I'll admit I was very naive to believe that the lesson of Brexit would be enough to deter the US from going down a similar path. Never forget that because of her complacency HRC lost 7 million Obama voters and still beat Trump in the popularity stakes by nearly 2 million votes! This paradigm sweeping through Western democracies is clearly much more serious than I could have imagined.

The only positive for me is that the EU is surely doomed now, and that's going to be fun to watch, and profit from

What did Trump lie about, Federberg?

 

[calitennis127]

No worries
Farage saw how things went during Brexit. He saw how unwilling the electorate was to believe anything that establishment politicians said, and yet they lapped up the false promises made about what would happen after Brexit. It's not a stretch to imagine him telling his mate Trump. Don't worry about anything the establishment say, the people won't listen, they'll listen to you if you hear their anger. That doesn't mean he had to participate in the lies, he just had to see it happen. As for Trump lying, you're not seriously going to argue the point are you?

Yes I am. List his "lies" please.

 

[calitennis127]

What a crock! If you're going to argue that nothing has changed with the level of lying perpetrated by Trump then you're the one who's refusing to accept reality. I can't see any reason not be honest about this.

Prove it Federberg.

 

[calitennis127]

Look, I've maintained in this thread before that for all her "qualifications," Hillary was far from a perfect candidate (to put it politely). Indeed, failing to beat Donald Trump says as much. In fact, in most elections, she wouldn't have my vote. She's a corrupt politician to be sure, and she was directly involved in a disastrous foreign policy. However, I think it's naive to suggest that Trump will be vastly different when it comes to foreign policy. I understand that due to your Serbian roots, you hate the Clintons. In that regard, there's nothing for me to say other than you have every right to.

But look at recent American presidents. Bush Sr, Bill Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama... If we were living in a world where people didn't arbitrarily justify death on occasions, while acting appalled on others, all four of them would be labelled as war lords with gallons of blood on their hands. Whether it's the Gulf War, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc... how many innocent lives were lost as a result of American wars and airstrikes?

However, I ask you this again, when Trump says "I'm going to bomb the shit out of ISIS," don't you think it means much of the same? Yeah, policies and alliances might be different, but tell that to Syrian women and children about to meet their end following American airstrikes (and Russian airstrikes, which Trump seems to be OK with). Oh, and as a reward, Trump will not allow any of said families to the US because they're surely Islamic terrorists.

I agree with your assessment of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East under the last 4 presidents.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Not being American I wasn't sure whether I should stick my beak in, but I can't resist a comment on this very matter by a client of mine who's a fairly old guy, who's been in government at the federal level for a significant period of time... I'm going to copy in exactly what he emailed about the electoral college versus vote share issue...

"Finally, Trump loses the popular vote and "wins" the election because of an archaic, 18th century "electoral college" system put in ironically to support white supremacist slave owners in rural farm areas"


You have to laugh

Exactly, does anyone really believe the forefathers thought about political parties, modern technology and the ability to reach all of the states, commercials, late minute spending? Of course not, so why are we using a system that overlooks the one-person vote? Why is everything hinging on the few states with the most electoral votes? It's ludicrous, antiquated, and ineffective. There's not even a sound argument for this nonsense, opinion maybe, but that depends on what the individual themselves wants to believe. No two hundred year decision should be considered in this day and age with little to no amendments as to the advancements of time. I stand by my position.

 

[Tennis Fan]

I think I get Asmodeu´s points. Sorry, but this matter is much more profound than simply the sum of votes. Your client´s remark, Federberg, is a far over simplistic assessment. Asmodeus correctly pointed out to the Federalist Papers, which, as you know, happen to be one of the most important documents in political theory. If you want to confront it with the phrase you quoted, go ahead (but I am pretty sure you won´t...)

Tennis Fan, what (I guess) is behind Asmodeu´s reply is the fact that Electoral College is a consequence of the very nature of the United States of America. The "United States" are not just a pretty name, the independence of those "States" is a serious matter. It is within this context (which is obviously far more complex than my mere three lines can describe) that you have have to look at the EC -- where it makes sense that an autonomous state is represented by an uniform, consensual (because it is the result of a democratic process) vote. Reducing the discussion to the "popular vote" is in fact reductionist, and not in line with the American political structure. If you do see a way in which the popular vote can coexist with the current American political system, I guess you would need to explain it in more than a single sentence.

The EC was also based on the country's current composition at the time which no longer exists. Many of the states that we now know were not even a part of the Union. Slaves were not counted at full bodied people. People weren't even encouraged to vote and many states didn't. The weights are ridiculously unbalanced and it does not fulfill its intended purpose; which is to fulfill the will of the people. Regardless of how people vote the Electoral College can still choose not to vote for the country's elected or consider the candidate unfit for the office. The EC also usually votes along party lines. If this makes sense to others, that's fine, but it doesn't make sense to me in any regard. One state with three electoral votes vs. California's 54 deems those in the tiny EC votes almost useless, making each election hinge on several swing states each election cycle. No, that is not a true representation of what any election process should look like. It absolutely makes no sense and keeps many people away from the polls every cycle.

 

[Tennis Fan]

tennisfan has the right to express opinion -- even disagreement with the 'system' itself -- and the results of the system vote.

however asmodeus is also correct. it is what it is -- the system is designed that way due to the federalist papers which were a challenge to the other idea of direct popular vote which at the time was considered impossible to measure due to the distances and impracticality -- s well as to ensure tht the 'central government'' itself could not - supposedly -- simply overturn what was ''electorally'' decided by the ''separate states" who were to then be represented by 'electors' .

it is a contradiction in itself in a sense - which of course a matter of a separate discussion as to what is ''democracy'' in the USA.

THE friend of federberg of coruse also makes a point - that the electoral system was also based on the decisions of 'representatives' to the continental congress in those times comprised basically of white landed gentry, landowners nd slave owners...

who also - argued about how to 'count a human vote' - which is to say include , or 'pad' the votes of their states to represent ''them' in the electoral college

using as ''much quantity of population'' as they could ''represent" by counting the slaves as ''voters" but only by a fraction that given to a 'full human''white person -- such as whatever ''quantity'' it was assigned to a black person -- 3/4's of a human or something like that.

in any case -- however ''sophisticated'' the ''system'' is it CERTAINLY can not claim to be the ''epitome'' of human ''civilization'' where it comes to 'expressing the will of the people in a democratic or free system"

for obvious reasons; its HISTORY, the people and 'race' who created it under the circumstances while ignoring that there were ''less- than-human's among them in this very same system that ''voted freedom and republic''.

and ''discussed" its 'fate' while trampling on the lives of ''less-than-humans''.

etc. etc. etc..

HOWEVER -- asmodeus is also correct in that -- WHATEVER THE MERITS OF THIS SYSTEM -- tennisfan and others whose 'candidate' -- hillary -- did NOT win the ''vote"" that actually rules -- electoral vote -- they have to accept the RESULTS as they are - designed to be rendered that way by that system.

if americns do not like it -- say the ''actual popular voters" who - as they claim are more than the electoral system represents -- they can GET OFF THEIR ASSES and instead of SHOPPING -- spend that same time to GO to their congress -- if it actually represents their ''freedom and choice" under their own system --

and SAY:

''GET RID OF THIS ELECTORAL SYSTEM, " and ''do it before the NEXT elections...etc. etc. etc

NOT AFTER the fact..but before the NEXT fact happens.

THE AMERICANS ''tolerated" the BUSH/GORE results - similarly-- although the 'glitch" of FLORIDA -- nad the US supreme court stepping IN TO

A FLORIDA STATE INTERNAL AFFAIR -- to STOP the counting reported to have been a POPULAR vote FOR gore and thus potentially handing HIM the electoral vote -through that county --

AND SINCE they did not do a thing about THAT -- then voters TODAY can not really be complaining UNLESS they do their complaining about the system in subsequent elections...and MIGHT turn out that they were supposed to win in future 'electoral votes" over a 'popular vote for TRUMP in 2020 -- and then

what? ....................

in many ways -- americans are TRAPPED within the system their own ''land-owning" forefathers created..............

of course all this ignores the reality or fact that -- the USA is NOT american to begin with --

it is a country transplanted from a completely different culture OVER that of existing cultures - of the NATIVE peoples -- to whom -- the ''americans' are --

well -- illegal, undocumented aliens.........all 220 white descended americns of them.......no matter how many generations that has been of ''votes" and 'republic' .

so -- really -- folks -- what is the BIG DEAL?

it's all been --as LATE LAKOTA CHIEF -- in his last interview to Russia Today in 2013 , before dying of leukemia in what was left of their reservations ''assigned' to them by these same ''electoral votes" and ''popular americn will" of 'democrfatic, republic of america" --

said:

"America is the Artificial Nation" -- anyway....

all the ''discussions" among americans is like people arguing about whether ROSE smells better than VIOLETS - while sniffing plastic flowers...

It's not a matter of not accepting the result. I don't care one way or the other about the actual candidate. The election is over. However, the brokenness within the political system still remains and no doubt will rear its ugly head again. People protest this stuff all the time to no avail. It's not as easy as it sounds. Many congressional leaders vote against their constituents on a daily basis and many constituents have no idea of their actual voting records, so that's not the answer either. I think the EC should have been updated just like any process in life or history as we enter transition into new eras. There are still laws on the books about what people can or cannot do based on conditions that no longer exist. What if a company was ran this way and corporations didn't update requirements and responsibilities? It's foolish.

I agree that the fight should have come after the Gore debacle. That's when the outrage should've manifested in

tennisfan has the right to express opinion -- even disagreement with the 'system' itself -- and the results of the system vote.

however asmodeus is also correct. it is what it is -- the system is designed that way due to the federalist papers which were a challenge to the other idea of direct popular vote which at the time was considered impossible to measure due to the distances and impracticality -- s well as to ensure tht the 'central government'' itself could not - supposedly -- simply overturn what was ''electorally'' decided by the ''separate states" who were to then be represented by 'electors' .

it is a contradiction in itself in a sense - which of course a matter of a separate discussion as to what is ''democracy'' in the USA.

THE friend of federberg of coruse also makes a point - that the electoral system was also based on the decisions of 'representatives' to the continental congress in those times comprised basically of white landed gentry, landowners nd slave owners...

who also - argued about how to 'count a human vote' - which is to say include , or 'pad' the votes of their states to represent ''them' in the electoral college

using as ''much quantity of population'' as they could ''represent" by counting the slaves as ''voters" but only by a fraction that given to a 'full human''white person -- such as whatever ''quantity'' it was assigned to a black person -- 3/4's of a human or something like that.

in any case -- however ''sophisticated'' the ''system'' is it CERTAINLY can not claim to be the ''epitome'' of human ''civilization'' where it comes to 'expressing the will of the people in a democratic or free system"

for obvious reasons; its HISTORY, the people and 'race' who created it under the circumstances while ignoring that there were ''less- than-human's among them in this very same system that ''voted freedom and republic''.

and ''discussed" its 'fate' while trampling on the lives of ''less-than-humans''.

etc. etc. etc..

HOWEVER -- asmodeus is also correct in that -- WHATEVER THE MERITS OF THIS SYSTEM -- tennisfan and others whose 'candidate' -- hillary -- did NOT win the ''vote"" that actually rules -- electoral vote -- they have to accept the RESULTS as they are - designed to be rendered that way by that system.

if americns do not like it -- say the ''actual popular voters" who - as they claim are more than the electoral system represents -- they can GET OFF THEIR ASSES and instead of SHOPPING -- spend that same time to GO to their congress -- if it actually represents their ''freedom and choice" under their own system --

and SAY:

''GET RID OF THIS ELECTORAL SYSTEM, " and ''do it before the NEXT elections...etc. etc. etc

NOT AFTER the fact..but before the NEXT fact happens.

THE AMERICANS ''tolerated" the BUSH/GORE results - similarly-- although the 'glitch" of FLORIDA -- nad the US supreme court stepping IN TO

A FLORIDA STATE INTERNAL AFFAIR -- to STOP the counting reported to have been a POPULAR vote FOR gore and thus potentially handing HIM the electoral vote -through that county --

AND SINCE they did not do a thing about THAT -- then voters TODAY can not really be complaining UNLESS they do their complaining about the system in subsequent elections...and MIGHT turn out that they were supposed to win in future 'electoral votes" over a 'popular vote for TRUMP in 2020 -- and then

what? ....................

in many ways -- americans are TRAPPED within the system their own ''land-owning" forefathers created..............

of course all this ignores the reality or fact that -- the USA is NOT american to begin with --

it is a country transplanted from a completely different culture OVER that of existing cultures - of the NATIVE peoples -- to whom -- the ''americans' are --

well -- illegal, undocumented aliens.........all 220 white descended americns of them.......no matter how many generations that has been of ''votes" and 'republic' .

so -- really -- folks -- what is the BIG DEAL?

it's all been --as LATE LAKOTA CHIEF -- in his last interview to Russia Today in 2013 , before dying of leukemia in what was left of their reservations ''assigned' to them by these same ''electoral votes" and ''popular americn will" of 'democrfatic, republic of america" --

said:

"America is the Artificial Nation" -- anyway....

all the ''discussions" among americans is like people arguing about whether ROSE smells better than VIOLETS - while sniffing plastic flowers...

I wrote a response to some of these points but hit the wrong button and lost it and I don't feel like doing it all over again.

In short, I'm not upset about the election as neither Trump or Hillary sustains me or my life. I feel that the EC is short-sighted and enacted based on a time that its perimeters no longer fit. It is outdated, archaic and serves no useful purpose in modern day times. I felt this way when I was first taught about the Electoral College in school. It didn't make sense then, and it still doesn't make sense to me. To use 200 year methods from a world that no longer exists, without any revisions is pure lunacy, IMO.

I think the "fight" regarding the EC should have happened decades ago to keep pace with a changing America.

Not that I think much about the people at that time or trust their judgment either, considering they attempted to define an entire race as less than human. So this isn't a system that I'd ever be gung-ho about. It's insanity.

I'm with you on American point as well. The true Americans are the Native Americans. Without that truth and honesty, it is impossible to have faith in a system that has disenfranchised so many.

Do I care about the outcome of the election? No. I have more important things to worry about and I personally subscribe to a much higher power than Hillary and Donald Trump.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Wrong. He did not "launch his campaign" on the birther movement, which was actually begun by Hillary. Trump's campaign started long after the birther movement and was not connected to it.

And no, Trump did not "malign Mexicans" per se. He brought up some unpalatable facts about illegal immigrants from Central America committing crimes. Completely different.

Donald Trump started the Birther Movement. It has been proven countless times. Trump was not connected to it? What about the million dollars he was supposed to donate if Obama did not have a U.S. Birth Certificate? Now, I did see this falsehood towards the end of Trump's campaign backpedaling, but Trump's words are on tape and polls still show that many republicans don't believe that Obama was born without the states. Trump is a liar, not just during this campaign but throughout his life.

He absolutely did malign Mexicans saying that they were thieves and rapists. How is that not maligning them? Unreal!

 

[Federberg]

Interesting, I've been reading up on Sessions the putative AG. As I'm sure most of you know he was refused a position of a Federal judgeship because of racist views. It turns out that in a case he was prosecuting against the KKK he had made an offhand comment which was the key in refusing him the position. What seems to have happened is that in the case he was prosecuting (again.. against the KKK) it had been discovered that two white supremacists who were being prosecuted for murdering a black man had been smoking pot the night before the murder. Sessions had made an off hand comment that he had previously thought the KKK were "ok" before hearing they smoked pot. An African American assistant AG who had on numerous occasions shared hotel rooms with him had actually said he didn't think Sessions was racist. So it seems as if a casual comment in 1986 has damned him ever since. Now I'm not saying that excuses him, but surely there needs to be something more substantive than that, and there may be. I would love to see his voting record and get a more complete sense of who this guy is and what his deal is. It may not be as terrible as it looks right now. Who knows Sessions might actually be ok. It's the ones that people are really worried about that end up surprising us. Who would have thought that a Dixie Democrat like LBJ would be responsible for some of the greatest advancements in civil rights. History and life have a funny way of playing out sometimes. I'm going to try to keep an open mind..

 

[brokenshoelace]

Funny how you are silent about a Trump supporter getting kicked in the head in Chicago and the anti-Trump riots in Oakland and Portland in which people were injured, windows were shattered, police were attacked, and roads were blocked off. One person was even shot.

When Obama was elected in 2008, Republicans did not come out to shut down 10 cities and hold up signs that said "NOT MY PRESIDENT" while physically attacking Obama supporters.

And here is the truth about the Islamophobia claims. They are hoaxes 95% of the time:

Luckily, president-elect Trump is doing his best to calm these Islamophobia claims by discussing plans to put a Muslim registry in place, with his team citing World War II Japanese internment camps as "precedent."

 

[mrzz]

it is a matter of emphasis on viewpoints.

it STILL is part of the history of the USA -- AND its electoral college that it was CENTRAL to the decisions of the creation of an electoral college that as PART of the ''counting of populations" the landed gentry who were the ones most represented in the ''constutition" and federation itself -- were slave and plantation owners who beganto see the USEFULNESS of their 'half human" possessions -- to PAD UP their 'electoral votes".

anyone that tries to diminish that is not being honest.

nonetheless -- it is what it is -- a vestige of the origins of american ''democracy' and 'federalism". it matters not in THIS particular subject of slavery -- that the system is what it is -- and that -- to the point here about elections today --

if americans do NOT like it -- CHANGE IT - end of story.

don't complain about ''results" after the fact when tehydid nothing to change the rules so they won't hve to complain about the ''bad electoral system">

i weas mainly pointing out the hypocrisy of it all - both the complaints of the losers -- about their own ''democracy" when the results don't suit them --

as well as the hypocrisy of the ''federalization" itself that gave ''rights' while stomping on other humans which they called ''possessions" as slaves and THEN USE them as ''countable votes" ..when it was convenient.

but then -- that is typical of america....

saudi arabian head choppers and salafist and terror state funders -- are ''friends in huma n rights" -- sponsoring saudi arabia's rotating ''chairmanship"

in the UN ''human rights council"

and many more such hypocrisies...

flaunting ''free market' when it suits the USA -- but suddenly going for ILLEGAL sanctions against countries that won't ''open" themselves for american corporate plunder...

heck -- it's so 'FAMOUS" AROUND the world now -- no wonder

countries KEEP RUNNING AWAY from american ''democracy" and ''free market"

since it' has NO CREDIBILITY whatsoever.

VIETNAM just decided -- despite a decade of constant pressure from the USA -- TO NOT ACCEPT the american corporate sponsored take-over of ASIAN economies -- placing americna corporations ABOVE the laws of soverieng countries and their peoples....

roflmao...and soon -- MORE will run away becuse they KNOW what american 'rules and freedom' are all about :


PLUNDER and pillage of their countries with the BIG WORD :''democracy".

I´ll reply to you and also to @calitennis127 and @Tennis Fan on this subject.

Obviously, when the EC was conceived, slavery was a reality, some given groups were in power, and whatever system designed would take into consideration the maintenance of the status quo.

However, I would really like to find a political system conceived in which maintenance of the status quo is not a integral part of it.

When I raised the point about the EC predating the end of slavery (by quite a few years), I was replying to the stance that EC was conceived to counterbalance the number of votes of soon-to-be or already freed slaves. I am pretty sure that no one at the time even considered the possibility that they would be voters, and that their vote would ever count the same as the vote of a land owner. "Equality", even if as a concept was already at the table, was not a reality anywhere in the world (at least "voter equality").

Why am I saying this? Not to defend EC in itself, just because I think wrong arguments will always backfire in the end.

Now, in general terms (to finally reply to Cali and TF):

The "outdated" argument is not valid in general. You could use it against any form of western democracy, which has its roots in Classic Greece (ask them who could vote, by the way). Enlarge the concept of citizen (as thought by American and French revolutions), add a few 19th century elements to guarantee voice to the minority parties, and we have the modern democracies. That is, a 2000 years old system with two small updates, three and two centuries ago. So what?

I get the point that State Division was different when the EC was designed... again, so what? The concept of a "Union of States" remains the same.

I do not see why this system could discourage voters more than the popular vote. What is worst than knowing that you are just one in 200.000.000? I could flip completely the argument: In a small state, yes there are fewer delegates, but you surely feel that you can 'make a difference' by going out and campaigning (and voting), much more than in "full country" mode.

All points you both raised are valid, but IMO completely secondary. The key point here I guess is the fact that the state gives an uniform vote, and not a sum of percentages. That´s the idea that has to be debated, not the fact that it was conceived by so-and-so with alleged so-and-so intentions. In most countries, slavery was abolished for pure economical, some times even financial, reasons. Would you consider re-instating it because of that? The historical argument is important to understand a lot of things, but it does not substitutes the conceptual argument.

I hope you all see that I am playing the role of the devil´s advocate. I do not have any interest in the EC system in itself. By the way, why would I? I am Brazilian and practitioner of the "null vote" (as the anarchists) for years....

 

[Moxie]

Right - because of New York and California, where many Republicans do not vote because they know it is pointless, and also because once states are called absentee ballots stop being counted (and absentee ballots usually go Republican).

This was a 50-50 election with the popular vote. I said that from the beginning. But the Republican vote represents historic mainstream America much more than the anti-white, anti-American Democratic Party coalition of California, Chicago, and NY.

By "historic mainstream America," it's clear you're dog-whistling to the same tune as Trump and his ilk. That old vision of America is white and exclusionary. The Democratic Party is neither anti-white, nor anti-American...it simply reflects a different vision for America than yours. People in CA, NY, Chicago, and others who vote Democrat, and there were many in this election, are Americans, as well. You don't get to claim "pro-American" for Republicans. I could easily make the argument that this particular alt-Right branch of the Republican party is far less representative of what America stands for.