Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 4:31 AM
356 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 354 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,006 Year: 28,612/21,208 Month: 678/1,847 Week: 53/475 Day: 0/53 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8586
87
8889
...
103NextFF
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 1291 of 1535 (821392)
10-06-2017 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1221 by RAZD
09-30-2017 3:26 PM


Re: People who voted for Hillary were tricked, and we are all paying for it
RAZD writes:

You don't get change voting for the lesser evil, you just get evil or lesser (slower) evil (but still evil), and eventually you end up in the same place.

Absolutely correct RAZD.

If you'll allow me to connect the dots, yet again . . .

Martin Luther King said:

quote:
“I can’t in good conscience fight violence at home if I don’t stand up to my own government, which is the greatest purveyor of violence around the world.”

If one counts all the various programs and expenses related to the U.S. military such as Overseas Contingency Operations, National Nuclear Security Administration, and Department of Homeland Security, America’s annual military budget is actually closer to $1.6 trillion rather than the roughly $700 billion the media dutifully reports. Astonishingly, this true amount is comparable to half the world’s military expenditures.

At this point, who doesn't know this stuff? Only ignorant fellow Amerikans?

Amerikan 'proud' senators just recently voted for the National Defense Authorization Act that will increase military spending by an additional $81 billion. Over an additional billion dollars of the increase will go toward strengthening foreign militaries, mostly human-rights violator, Israel.

Amerika is the largest seller of small arms weapons in the world. Amerikan weapons engorge the middlle east, literally with blood, instability, and guns. How can that area not be awash with imbalanced violence?

In exchange for "contributions," then SOS Hillary Clinton made sure the worst misogynist country in the world, Saudi Arabia, received over a $100 Billion in military weapons. The Saudis use it now to murder innocent Yemen woman and children.

Hillary is a fanatical war hawk and unconvicted war criminal (yes, EXACTLY like Adolph Hitler), you've read my other posts filled with countless more examples. I'm not gonna re-post them here.

Because Amerika endlessly funds war, and its war industries benefit from endless wars and violence of ALL sorts, the amerikan voter has become enured to this insane criminality. As a result, Amerikans pretend to be disturbed by violent gun deaths as the recent one in Vegas, but in action . . .

. . . when our senators vote for additional military spending, the typical Amerikan response is, "let's just keep voting the same sociapathic people (Hillary) into office."

I have absolutely no doubt with Hillary as president, Amerika would keep expanding its military, keep expanding its wars. And atrocities like the recent one in Vegas will momentarily shock, and then surely continue, . . . larger quantities of victims, more often.

So when people write:

quote:
People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it

They show grand apathy and ignorance.

Are not Iraqi's paying for Hillary's criminal invasion based on lies? A MILLION murders? Do they not count because they are dark skinned? They are not the correct religion?

The people of Lebanon? Honduras? Saudi Arabia? Bahrain? Yeman? Morocco? Afghanistan? Liby? Syria? Gaza/Palestine? Egypt? Aren't they paying for Hillary's actions and support of violent dictatorships? Again, does the dark skin render them sub-human, non-human so they aren't counted?

And about all the terrorism that has been incited and spread by the immoral Iraqi invasion? The innocent people who are attacked in London, France, etc, don't they also suffer and pay from Hillary's actions?

And the USA? Vegas? Virginia Tech in Blacksburg? Sandy Hook Elementary School? Umpqua Community College near Roseburg? Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston? Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs? Etc., Etc., Etc.

Don't they also pay for Hillary's passion and escalation and NORMALIZATION of world violence?

If one really, REALLY, found the recent Vegas shooting atrocity repugnant, then one wouldn't want more of the same from one's representatives. As MLKing said, we don't stand against domestic violence by supporting world violence.

So pro-Hillary supporters, what part of Martin Luther King's words don't you understand?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1221 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2017 3:26 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1293 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2017 6:58 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7271
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 1292 of 1535 (821394)
10-06-2017 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1289 by New Cat's Eye
10-06-2017 1:27 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
New Cat's Eye writes:

You contribute to an election by voting for a candidate. Voting for Candidate 3 does not contribute to the election of Candidate 1.

George HW Bush would disagree.

And you're making assumptions about what they want anyway - so that's beside the point.

I highly doubt that a significant portion of Bernie supporters would truly prefer Trump over Hillary, but I could be wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1289 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-06-2017 1:27 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1296 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-07-2017 12:09 AM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 1315 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-09-2017 7:03 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1825
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1293 of 1535 (821400)
10-06-2017 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1291 by dronestar
10-06-2017 4:16 PM


Re: People who voted for Hillary were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Dronestar asks:

Are not Iraqi's paying for Hillary's criminal invasion based on lies?

wasn't that Cheney & W's invasion? Not to make too fine a point about it.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1291 by dronestar, posted 10-06-2017 4:16 PM dronestar has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10115
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 1294 of 1535 (821403)
10-06-2017 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1290 by LamarkNewAge
10-06-2017 2:14 PM


Re: This Jill Stein stuff and Nader in 2000. Bad math all over again.
Nader pointed out that political scientists have determined that a straight (year 2000) Bush verse Gore race in Florida would have resulted in Bush winning still. The recount would have been the decisive factor yet again.

True. But nonetheless, despite your attempts to downplay it. If Nader alone had not run, Gore wins Florida and does not lose any of the states Gore did win. This stuff about a "straight" race is a dodge.

I agree that this is not a persuasive argument that Nader should not have run. But Nader's candidacy did create a scenario for Gore losing. One which actually occurred.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1290 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-06-2017 2:14 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3057
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 1295 of 1535 (821405)
10-06-2017 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1218 by dwise1
09-30-2017 11:38 AM


Re: The Proposed Tax Cuts Make No Fiscal Sense
INdeed, part of the proposal is eliminating the tax deduction for local and state taxes in the federal income tax form. That is what is known as 'a tax raise on the middle class'.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1218 by dwise1, posted 09-30-2017 11:38 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11839
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1296 of 1535 (821407)
10-07-2017 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1292 by Taq
10-06-2017 4:43 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
George HW Bush would disagree.

Good, he's a moron. So I must be right. Was he right about anything?

And you're agreeing with Bush, so good job.

I highly doubt that a significant portion of Bernie supporters would truly prefer Trump over Hillary, but I could be wrong.

Are you trying to imply that only Bernie supporters voted 3rd party?

Third party voters that I know voted that way because they were anti-Hillary and couldn't bring themselves to vote for Trump. But anything other than Hillary - so we're good.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1292 by Taq, posted 10-06-2017 4:43 PM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1303 by Percy, posted 10-08-2017 2:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2171
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(4)
Message 1297 of 1535 (821409)
10-07-2017 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1290 by LamarkNewAge
10-06-2017 2:14 PM


Re: This Jill Stein stuff and Nader in 2000. Bad math all over again.
LamarkNewAge writes:

Stein might have cost Hillary Michigan, but not the national race. And there wouldn't have been a real difference in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and especially Ohio (it always amazed me how people could claim Nader cost Gore Ohio when Bush won 50% to 46% in that state, and Nader only got about 3%, so it will amaze me that Trumps 51% to 42% Ohio 2016 win was "because of that evil Jill Stein.

Instead of whining and blaming any electoral losses on third parties, perhaps the Democrats just might consider upping their game. Instead of saying what any opponents are about, the electorate needs to hear what you are about. Additionally, it is best proven by deeds, not empty platitudes.

Also, I think these computer based voting machines need far deeper scrutiny. I think a paper trail should be mandatory as Republicans only give a shit about winning, not democracy or ethics. They are certainly not above rigging elections.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1290 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-06-2017 2:14 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1300 by Rrhain, posted 10-08-2017 12:47 AM anglagard has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6208
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 1298 of 1535 (821457)
10-08-2017 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1266 by Stile
10-04-2017 9:29 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Stile responds to me:

quote:
My point is that voting 3rd party is an "acceptable" thing to do.

When it results in the exact opposite of your goals getting put into power, then it is anything but "acceptable."

Actions have consequences and to try and avoid them by saying that you were staying pure is of little concern to those who are going to die because of your actions.

When you understand this, perhaps you can try to focus your arguments on the actual point: By voting in such a way that the Republican won, you directly, consciously, and deliberately voted to make things worse and you don't get to say that you were being "pure" and expect the dead people to accept that.

For it is unacceptable.

quote:
Your point only makes sense against my argument if you can show that all gays will never lose ground in the future, at any time, if Hillary was elected this past election.

Incorrect. Your rebuttal of "but things might not be perfect" only makes sense if you are expecting perfection. The question is: Are things going to get worse or will they at least maintain the status quo if not get better?

We've already seen that things are getting worse. Sessions just revoked Title VII protections for gay people. As of Friday, it is legal to discriminate against gays in the 5th Circuit. The Justice Department is now arguing that this policy should be extended to the entire country.

The idea that the fight is not over is no rebuttal to the idea that the fight is still raging and given the choice between a guaranteed enemy and an unreliable friend, it is clear that you do everything you can to prevent the guaranteed enemy from getting into power. You then realize that you still have more work to do to replace the unreliable friend with a more reliable one.

For someone who kept going on and on about seeing beyond the now, you are being exceedingly short-sighted.

quote:
This only makes sense if you can show that no one would ever die because Hillary was in office. Or, at least, less.

And what do you think we have been witnessing? CHIP just expired. 9 million children are going to be without health insurance. While the active repeal of the ACA has been thwarted, the budget is set to cut all of its funding, destroy Medicare and Medicaid, and gut the safety net.

Do you honestly expect that people aren't going to die as a result?

quote:
Since people have always died, and always some at the fault at whoever's-been-in-office... your point doesn't carry much weight.

Oh, fuck you. You clearly aren't interested in any sort of serious discussion. Of course people are going to die. The question is: Is the government going to hasten it along?

When you understand this, perhaps you can try to focus your arguments on the actual point: By voting in such a way that the Republican won, you directly, consciously, and deliberately voted to make things worse and you don't get to say that you were being "pure" and expect the dead people to accept that.

For it is unacceptable.

quote:
It's quite possible (and reasonable) for someone to believe there will be less dead in the future if they get the Democrats to be less corrupt and better and choosing candidates.

By allowing Republicans to be in charge? Exactly how many distinct and specific examples of differences between the Republicans and Democrats do you need before it becomes clear that by voting in such a way that the Republicans come to power, you are directly, consciously, and deliberately voting to make things worse and you don't get to say that you were being "pure" and expect the dead people to accept that.

For it is unacceptable.

quote:
I'm talking about "the future" not *only* "the next election."

Try to address my argument: I'm pointing out that the consequences of your vote means that there won't be a future for many people. You can whine about your desire to "send a message" all you want, but it isn't going to help the people who died specifically and directly because of what you did.

The time to send the message, the time to fix "the future" was back in the past. They're called "primaries." They're called "local elections." By the time you get to a presidential election, it's too late. You tried to send your message but it didn't take. So, you grab everything that you can take right here and now and redouble your efforts in the locals so that by the time the primaries come around, you'll have a stronger candidate.

Your argument is that because you don't have the perfect candidate, it's "acceptable" to allow the worst one to win.

And it isn't.

quote:
Wrong again.

Nice try, but I'm still spot on. You got yours. You'll manage to survive this just fine. After all, you're not in the US (and yes, I knew that...do you honestly not understand the concept of generalized "you"? After all, you're talking about an election that you didn't take part in. If you're willing to talk about it, then you're willing to be used as an example as if you were actively part of it.)

So how pleasant for you that you don't have to suffer the actions of Trump.

I do.

I'm one of those people who just might die because of Trump. And no, that is not hyperbole.

So let me say it again, Stile: Fuck you. Fuck you and your privileged ass and your "acceptable" claptrap. I will not be a martyr to your hissy fit. Anybody who seems to think that I should just accept the results of their vote because it allowed them to maintain their "purity" and "send a message" can take a flying leap off. This is not a game.

quote:
Unfortunately for you, you don't get to define the message of someone else.

Except, sometimes I do.

Especially when people are refusing to accept the consequences of their actions. My life is now at risk because some people decided to "send a message."

And that message was received loud and clear: They got theirs, screw everybody else.

You're so wrong about what you're trying to argue for and what the actual consequences of your actions are...I hope you finally pull your head out of your ass.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1266 by Stile, posted 10-04-2017 9:29 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1320 by Stile, posted 10-11-2017 9:28 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6208
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1299 of 1535 (821458)
10-08-2017 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1284 by New Cat's Eye
10-05-2017 8:50 PM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
New Cat's Eye writes:

quote:
How would you know except in hindsight?

The idea that the only way one could have known that Trump would be a disaster is in "hindsight" is to be disingenuous at best.

quote:
Whether or not the point is worth the risk is up to the individual, and they should decide how they cast their vote - given the information they have at the time.

The recent exchange between Kimmel and Trump is pretty telling.

Trump tweeted out that he's wounded to the core at how he's being treated by late night talk shows and demanded "equal time."

Kimmel then responded saying that yeah, Trump should quit his job and Kimmel would give him the entire show.

So Trump, Jr. tried to make a jab by bringing up the Weinstein sex scandal.

Kimmel then responded, "You mean that big story from the failing, liberal, one-sided @nytimes? I think it is disgusting."

Trump, Jr. then tried to shame Kimmel by insinuating he should actually cover it in his monologue since it's such a horrible thing...

...at which point Kimmel reminded Trump, Jr. about Trump's "grab 'em by the pussy" moment.

So I ask you: Given the information we had at the time, exactly how could one claim that they thought Trump was fit to be elected?

How on earth is this "hindsight"? He directly and explicitly said exactly what he was going to do...and now he's doing it. Did the people in the border towns that are now under threat of having their property seized for "the wall" not really think he was going to do it? Well...according to them, that's precisely right: They didn't believe he was going to do what he said he was going to do and thus voted for him.

For crying out loud, he started his campaign, it was to call Mexicans rapists. As Maya Angelou said, "When someone shows you who they are believe them; the first time."

Trump is precisely what he appeared to be.
Trump is the GOP.
The GOP is Trump.

There is no "hindsight" involved.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1284 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-05-2017 8:50 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1301 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2017 12:00 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6208
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 1300 of 1535 (821459)
10-08-2017 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1297 by anglagard
10-07-2017 1:52 AM


Re: This Jill Stein stuff and Nader in 2000. Bad math all over again.
anglagard writes:

quote:
Instead of whining and blaming any electoral losses on third parties, perhaps the Democrats just might consider upping their game.

They fielded one of the most qualified candidates in history who was in step with the majority of the country on most every policy and that candidate proceeded to actually win the election with the second largest number of votes in history.

Exactly what "game" is there that needed to be "upped"? And exactly how would that be achieved?

By this logic, the Supreme Court shouldn't be looking at gerrymandering in Wisconsin because the Democrats should "up their game," right? I mean when Republicans win less than 50% of the vote but take more than 60% of the seats in the legislature, that simply means *Democrats* need to change their tactics, right?

Exactly what part of "she won" are you having trouble with?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1297 by anglagard, posted 10-07-2017 1:52 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1304 by anglagard, posted 10-08-2017 6:14 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11839
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1301 of 1535 (821483)
10-08-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1299 by Rrhain
10-08-2017 12:40 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
Also, it's completely tangential to the point that it's possible for a 3rd party vote to have valid meaning, even if it helped Trump win.

What we are arguing is:
1. Is the cost of making the point worth it.

How would you know except in hindsight?

The idea that the only way one could have known that Trump would be a disaster is in "hindsight" is to be disingenuous at best.

Your response doesn't make sense - seems you've missed the point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1299 by Rrhain, posted 10-08-2017 12:40 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1302 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2017 12:52 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19292
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 1302 of 1535 (821484)
10-08-2017 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1301 by New Cat's Eye
10-08-2017 12:00 PM


People who voted for Jill Stein were voting for their preferred candidate
I'm going to throw a comment in here to see if anyone gets it.

Once a candidate gets 51% of the votes in a district all other votes for that candidate are irrelevant.

Thus people in heavily favored democrat or republican districts can cast votes for candidates they like instead for the lesser evil.

But those won't send as strong a message to the parties as votes in swing states.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1301 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2017 12:00 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1303 of 1535 (821485)
10-08-2017 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1296 by New Cat's Eye
10-07-2017 12:09 AM


Re: People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it
New Cat's Eye writes:

George HW Bush would disagree.

Good, he's a moron. So I must be right. Was he right about anything?

And you're agreeing with Bush, so good job.

I think you've misread Taq's comment. When Taq said that Bush disagrees with you it wasn't intended to be taken literally. It was a reference to Nader taking enough votes from Gore to lose him Florida, precisely what you said could not happen (you said, "Voting for Candidate 3 [Nader] does not contribute to the election of Candidate 1 [Bush].").

Even though your reply wasn't relevant I'd like to comment anyway. I think you're wrong about Bush being a moron. As our current Secretary of State has made clear, Trump is a moron. Bush is far smarter than Trump and therefore couldn't be a moron. How about boob?

I highly doubt that a significant portion of Bernie supporters would truly prefer Trump over Hillary, but I could be wrong.

Are you trying to imply that only Bernie supporters voted 3rd party?

Since Taq's message was just one of a number he posted on a subthread titled, "People who voted for Jill Stein were tricked, and we are all paying for it," obviously he's not "trying to imply that only Bernie supporters voted 3rd party."

Third party voters that I know voted that way because they were anti-Hillary and couldn't bring themselves to vote for Trump. But anything other than Hillary - so we're good.

You must know some very unusual third party voters. Very few Stein or Sanders supporters would have preferred Trump to Hillary. Were voting for Stein or Sanders not possible for some reason, then some of those voters would have voted for Clinton, some wouldn't have voted (but many under the misconception that Clinton's lead in the polls made her winning a safe bet), and some very tiny minority would have voted for Trump.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1296 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-07-2017 12:09 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1306 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-08-2017 8:58 PM Percy has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2171
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 1304 of 1535 (821514)
10-08-2017 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1300 by Rrhain
10-08-2017 12:47 AM


Time for Civics and History Lessons
Rrhain writes:

Exactly what part of "she won" are you having trouble with?

Try the simple fact that she did not win to start with. Otherwise she would be the President, not Trump.

Your post stating Hilary Clinton won the election is false.

Apparently you are unfamiliar with who controls Presidential elections. This part of the Constitution is still in force but is amended so I will post both in their entirety:

quote:
Article II (Article 2 - Executive)
Section 1

1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.8

4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.


The relevant amedment:

quote:
[Article XII] (Amendment 12 - Election of President)

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.14 —The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.


Just in case, like Faith, you refuse to read or perhaps don't understand what you read, it means the following:

The President is chose by a majority vote of the Electoral College, not the majority votes by individuals.

That is the law, that is the reality.

Why are you the only person here, despite national origin, unable to understand this?

There is also a procedure for amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College, something that is in that very document I quoted and even provided an example of, something Democrats may want to consider as part of "upping their game" but I will save that for later should I deem it necessary.

They fielded one of the most qualified candidates in history who was in step with the majority of the country on most every policy and that candidate proceeded to actually win the election with the second largest number of votes in history.

She did not win the election, as I said that is a false statement due to the laws quoted above. While Clinton may have been the most qualified, that does not necessarily mean she won.

Here are the facts concerning the 2016 election:

Trump Clinton

Electoral vote 304 227
States carried 30 + ME-02 20 + DC
Popular vote 62,984,825 65,853,516
Percentage 46.1% 48.2%

270 Electoral votes needed to win.

Exactly what "game" is there that needed to be "upped"? And exactly how would that be achieved?

Simple answer, the game and what needs to be upped is "winning elections." I already offered two ways on how that can be achieved in my previous post, namely run for something instead of running against someone and demanding a paper trail on computer voting machines.

Here are some more:

1) Local politics must not be ignored. During the Obama Presidency:

quote:
At the beginning of Obama’s term, Democrats controlled 59 percent of state legislatures, while now they control only 31 percent, the lowest percentage for the party since the turn of the 20th century. They held 29 governor’s offices and now have only 16, the party’s lowest number since 1920.

source

The DNC needs to either do a better job of organizing and funding at the state and local level. If they only want to disenfranchise Sander;s voters, then replace them.

2) Get involved. As a member of the DSA, i am involved in volunteer actions with other groups just to make our brand more visible rather than sitting on my ass whining about third parties.

3) Fight for the majority of the voters, not just rich donors. Don't do stupid crap like speak to Goldman-Sacks for big money without releasing the transcripts because it makes you look like you have something to hide.

4) Take positions the majority supports, make sure they know it, and hammer that nail relentlessly. Clinton lost because she ran against Trump and not for her progressive policies.

5) Tell the truth, be open, no taint of scandal. I think this principle should be self-evident.

That's just a start, more to come. This post is already too long.

By this logic, the Supreme Court shouldn't be looking at gerrymandering in Wisconsin because the Democrats should "up their game," right? I mean when Republicans win less than 50% of the vote but take more than 60% of the seats in the legislature, that simply means *Democrats* need to change their tactics, right?

Did they win or not? If not, then they may want to consider "upping their game" instead of whining or pointing fingers at their natural allies. Also I'll take help where I can get it, be it the Supreme Court, the LBGTQ community, or the undocumented.

Also, I did what many did in the last election, I held my nose and voted for Clinton, despite misgivings, due to the fact Trump is a mentally challenged corrupt narcissist who is not qualified to be without supervision, be it due to criminal or mental health issues.

Edited by anglagard, : missing letters


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1300 by Rrhain, posted 10-08-2017 12:47 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1305 by Percy, posted 10-08-2017 8:10 PM anglagard has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16293
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 1305 of 1535 (821519)
10-08-2017 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1304 by anglagard
10-08-2017 6:14 PM


Re: Time for Civics and History Lessons
That was one of the longer "not getting the point" posts I've ever read. It's a safe bet Rrhain understands everything you decided to lecture him on, and it's a safe bet you know he understands it, so what a waste of time.

Concerning your relevant points, I don't think upping their game is bad advice for the Democrats, but I think it misses the most important point. The Democrats used to be the party of the common man, but now they're the party of the elite. That they own certain important issues is helpful, like clean environment and climate and LGBT and diversity and so forth, but these are elite issues, not "your average guy" issues. For people worried about employment and American culture and living standards the Democrats are the exact wrong party, and that has to change.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1304 by anglagard, posted 10-08-2017 6:14 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1307 by anglagard, posted 10-08-2017 11:32 PM Percy has responded
 Message 1313 by NoNukes, posted 10-09-2017 2:48 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
8586
87
8889
...
103NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017