The never-ending POTUS Election thread....

Sheik

Sheik

All-Pro
Messages
24,809
Reaction score
5
I wonder if someone had their phone recording Hillary going Rhonda Rousey on her campaign staff?
 
Dodger12

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,389
Reaction score
4,319
yimyammer said:
I bet they had a problem with it in 2000 too when Gore won the popular vote

guess that fervor never translated into getting the EC abolished

these fuckers on both sides create all kinds of bullshit election laws in an attempt to benefit their party. These laws need to be abolished imo, but thats next to impossible considering the people responsible for creating the laws would have to be relied upon to end them

effin' joke
Keep reading...

Sio you think they should abolish the electoral college and go straight popular vote?
 
dbair1967

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
58,623
Reaction score
9,079
NoMoRedJ said:
He probably doesnt want the headaches of AG. Sec of State is more prestigious isnt it?

Will Christie do anything significant?
Keep reading...

I think Sec of State is probably the more prestiigious but Rudy did seem like an ideal AG to me.

I wonder if Christie ends up as AG or something with Homeland Security.
 
NoMoRedJ

NoMoRedJ

UDFA
Messages
2,477
Reaction score
56
dbair1967 said:
I think Sec of State is probably the more prestiigious but Rudy did seem like an ideal AG to me.

I wonder if Christie ends up as AG or something with Homeland Security.
Keep reading...

But then there's been talk that bridge gate could be a problem even tho Christie wasnt blamed for it.
 
yimyammer

yimyammer

Pro Bowler
Messages
10,185
Reaction score
4,048
Dodger12 said:
Sio you think they should abolish the electoral college and go straight popular vote?
Keep reading...

No, I don't know what, if anything, should be done, I honestly haven't studied it enough to know if there is a legitimate gripe with the current system.

I've read about the desire to prevent the tyranny of the majority as well as how the system was set up to enable slave owners to benefit but thats about as far as I have gone. I tend to defer to the founding fathers as they were well aware of the importance of keeping one person from ever having absolute power and it appears they may have had a similar motivation with the EC. Having said that, there's an odd dichotomy for the founding fathers in that they crafted the Bill of Rights while many of the signers were slave owners. This is a huge WTF to me, clouds their judgement imo and makes me look at why things were set up the way they were with a skeptical eye.

My point is that these fuckers play all kinds of games with the rules and then when it doesn't work out to their favor, they start crying rigged election, racism, etc yet I don't recall any effort being made by the Dems after the same thing happened in 2000. I suspect they didn't because they really don't have a problem with it, knew the rules of the game and are just pissed because they lost what they thought was a slam dunk.

From a simplistic view, I will say it doesn't seem kosher to have someone elected who ended up with less votes.

PS... I'd love to see how the Republicans would react had the situation been reversed. I seriously doubt they go gently into that good night
 
Last edited:
Dodger12

Dodger12

Super Moderator
Messages
7,389
Reaction score
4,319
yimyammer said:
No, I don't know what, if anything, should be done, I honestly haven't studied it enough to know if there is a legitimate gripe with the current system.

I've read about the desire to prevent the tyranny of the majority as well as how the system was set up to enable slave owners to benefit but thats about as far as I have gone. I tend to defer to the founding fathers as they were well aware of the importance of keeping one person from ever having absolute power and it appears they may have had a similar motivation with the EC. Having said that, there's an odd dichotomy for the founding fathers in that they crafted the Bill of Rights while many of the signers were slave owners. This is a huge WTF to me, clouds their judgement imo and makes me look at why things were set up the way they were with a skeptical eye.

My point is that these fuckers play all kinds of games with the rules and then when it doesn't work out to their favor, they start crying rigged election, racism, etc yet I don't recall any effort being made by the Dems after the same thing happened in 2000. I suspect they didn't because they really don't have a problem with it, knew the rules of the game and are just pissed because they lost what they thought was a slam dunk.

From a simplistic view, I will say it doesn't seem kosher to have someone elected who ended up with less votes.

PS... I'd love to see how the Republicans would react had the situation been reversed. I seriously doubt they go gently into that good night
Keep reading...

The folks that thought of the electoral colleges were geniuses and forward thinkers. It keeps states like NH or VT in the game and having a stake in the election. Otherwise, NY and California would pick the President every year while the states that are less densely populated would really have no say. It's a fair system. And this is the 5th time a President was elected without having the popular vote, according to the below link.

Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote
 
peplaw06

peplaw06

2
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
Bolton is as interventionist as Hillary is. Trump has been pretty vocal about not being as involved in regime change around the world. Bolton would be a step right back in that direction... same old, same old, from a candidate who "wasn't establishment" and wants to change the way Washington operates.
 
ThoughtExperiment

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
Yeah, one of the many reasons I was against Hillary was her aggressive military stance. I'll be pissed if we go back to that.

But the president is the boss and he will have the real say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom