The Right Side of the News

Yeah, I did a spit-take when I read this, too.But it does express the beliefs of the white nationalist core of Trump's supporters. The "American people" are the conservative, evangelical white nationalists, even when they don't make up more than 40% of the public. The rest of us are, at best, "mobs" who need to be marginalized and perhaps tolerated. At worst, we're traitors who should be eliminated.

It's actually solid historical truth he writes, and his knowledge of American history and the Constitution and our legal system is very impression, definitely someone I want to rely on. The book on the press reveals facts few are aware of and documents them. We on the right know its degeneration into a leftist mouthpiece from experience, but Levin documents how it all came about.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Founders knew that the high-population areas would drown out the voices in the lower population areas, specifically the rural areas, who would never have a voice if straight democracy prevailed. They were not enamoured of democracy. That's why they gave us the Electoral College, so that the rural states would have a voice. And it's true that the populations in the cities just vote as a mass, or mob as Marc put it, so that even if you get a larger individual count you're still only really getting a single voice as it were. That's why we need the Electoral College. The Founders really knew what they were doing with that one. Of course at the moment the Left loves the idea of straight democracy and hates the wisdom of the Founders, because the big cities are Leftist. The "white nationalism" line is utter nonsense, just a way to discredit and disenfranchise Trump supporters. Call us names so you can get rid of us. Impeach Trump who represents us and then you can probably succeed at shutting us up completely, right? Well, that does express the extreme ideological polarization we are suffering from these days. But most of us Trump supporters aren't violent at all and have no ideological wishes for violence either, and we are the ones being threatened with marginalization and even extermination, not you, because we ARE smaller in numbers though not by much. And remember, we are the "deplorables" and the "smelly Walmart shoppers" there's no shortage of reasons to throw us onto the trash heap.The Electoral College is the saving grace in such a time of ideological conflict. The Left's refusal to accept Trump's election is the problem, not the Electoral College. The "resistance" against our legitimate vote for Trump is the problem, not us "deplorables." The refusal of the Left to give Trump any of the usual support for a duly elected President, denying him the most basic freedom to do the will of his supporters, that's the problem, and that's the mentality that is going to destroy our Republic if it continues, and there is every sign it's going to continue whether Trump wins next year or not.

quote:

---

It's actually solid historical truth he writes, and his knowledge of American history and the Constitution and our legal system is very impression, definitely someone I want to rely on

---

But he doesn’t understand freedom of the press.

quote:

---

The book on the press reveals facts few are aware of and documents them. We on the right know its degeneration into a leftist mouthpiece from experience, but Levin documents how it all came about.

---

Since it hasn’t come about, I think you have a problem. The more interesting story is why you think that objective journalism is the same as right wing propaganda.Oh, and since Trump tweets are on topic I guess you’ll have to start labelling Fox News as leftist He prefers figures he’s made up Or maybe, just maybe, you should realise that Trump’s condemnations are simply based on personal dislike.

But it's okay to call you "deplorables" since it's okay for marc9000 to call people who live in coastal urban areas" inner city mobs", right?Or are you saying you don't like being called a "deplorable" so you agree marc9000 is being kind of a dick? So you're agreeing with me that marc9000 was being a bit silly when he called Trump's Electoral College win "the will of the people"?

I'm not complaining about being called "deplorable," I'm saying that it s WE who are marginalized, not the Left. The namecalling goes both ways and since we are the suppressed minority, who hardly ever get heard from, and never get heard from in the Leftist media, if you take away the Electoral College you might as well consign us to the actual oblivion we are already effectively relegated to anyway. We're "flyover" country, right?" And now we're the "deplorables" too and "smelly Walmart shoppers." In fact it's rather cheeky of you Leftists to act offended by any names we might think of to call you since we're the underdogs and the Left has the power by population and by media blackout and by intellectual elitist opinion and all the rest of it.I'm also not complaining about Marc's comments, in fact "will of the people" is a perfectly good way to say how Trump won, because the Electoral College DOES express the will of the people, which is what the Founders had in mind. They simply evened out the playing field so the mob mentality wouldn't overwhelm the will of the people. That was the point of the Electoral College.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

so the "inner city mob" aren't people, why don't you just come out and say what you really mean?

Trump never specifies where he gets his Republican approval ratings. Wherever it's from, no one can find it. Just poking around on the Internet just now I couldn't find an exact figure, but from what I read it's somewhere between 80% and 90%.Also untrue is that 95% would represent a record. The record was set by George W. Bush at 99% shortly after 9/11.And, of course, also untrue is the approval rating he cites. It is currently 43.5% (How Popular Is Donald Trump? | FiveThirtyEight).--Percy

Trump had 46.1% of the vote. Clinton had 48.2%. How did the Electoral College express the will of the people? Added by edit:48.2% of the voters are the "mob" whose decisions we must subvert; 46.1% of the voters are the "people" whose will must be respected?Maybe it's the other way around? How do we make that determination? Our own personal preference?Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

Is it difficult to nail yourself to a cross? It is really interesting to see a persecution complex combined with anti-democracy sentiments. But the people don't? What world do you live in? Where do you get that from? Can you cite a single founding father saying this?

Using 2010 census data, the population of the 50 states and the District of Columbia is 327 million. 51% of the country lives in just 9 states with 18 Senators. The other 49% of the country has 82 Senators. Half the population has 82% of the Senators. (List of U.S. states and territories by population - Wikipedia)This disparity is only a little worse than in 1790, when 50.2% of the population lived in just 4 states with 8 Senators. The other 49.8% of the country had 24 Senators. So back then half the country had 75% of the Senators, compared to 82% today. (1790 United States census - Wikipedia)But that the disparity causes no unfairness assumes a fair degree of homogeneity across the population, which was true in 1790 but definitely not true today. In 1790 only 5.1% of the population lived in urban areas. Today it is 80.7%. (Urbanization in the United States - Wikipedia). This makes the electoral college disparity huge because urban wants and desires are so different from rural.Put another way, in 1790 the electoral college disparity only disenfranchised potentially as much as 5.1% of the population. Today it potentially disenfranchises 80.7%. This huge difference is why the electoral college today is far less fair than in 1790.--Percy

The idea was to give the sparsely populated states an advantage because otherwise the densely populated states would always dominate elections. And those areas usually vote as a bloc.

Clearly the Founders wanted to give the sparsely populated areas an advantage to compensate for what they knew was the tendency of the denser areas to dominate the politics of the country.Surely it was not homogeity but lack of it that motivated them. Perhaps they wouldn't have anticipated the drastic ideological divide we have today but they would have known there would always be ideological divisions and that the more densely populated areas would promote a shared mentality that would dominate the less populated areas if nothing was done to compensate for that.You can't say 80% were disenfranchised. Only 2% could possibly be described that way but that's from thinking in terms of population which is exactly what the Founders were trying to even out. They wanted the states in particular to have an equal status, which is why each has the same number of Senators no matter what its population.The Democrats are now complaining about all that of course because they lost the election. They'd like to see the kind of system that would always favor the Democrats and never let the Republicans have a voice at all.Edited by Faith, :

As much fun as it would be to learn more about why the Constitutional Convention chose this method for electing the President, it's beside the main point: you can't really call the election of the candidate who couldn't even get a plurality of the vote "the will of the people".Dismissing the actual plurality as an "inner city mob" is just a lazy way of dismissing this embrassing election result.

I don't find it embarrassing, it's the way the Founders wanted it. Somone pointed out that two elections of the five since the year 2000 were won this way but it would be nice to know how many before that. Maybe I'll look it up.Anyway I don't have a problem with this at all. Cities tending to vote as a bloc is a real problem for fairness and this system balances it out. And I don't have a problem with calling it "the will of the people" because it gives the people in the boonies a voice for OUR will we'd never have otherwise.