Electoral College

[Guest]

Apparently, some people don't understand why the electoral college was part of the Constitution.

http://theweek.com/articles/665750/which-states-got-screwed-worst-by-electoral-college-2016

[anatess2]

What a bunch of bullcrap.  These guys continue to live in a bubble made out of their own farts.

This article is just like saying the SeaHawks would've won Superbowl 49 if the game was scored on rushing yards... really?  If the game was played on rushing yards, the Patriots would've hired ace running backs instead of an ace quarterback and stopped throwing footballs so much.

 

Fact:  The elections were fought off of an electoral map.

Because of this fact, both Clinton's and Trump's campaigns were DESIGNED to win electoral votes.  Trump won that battle.

Now, what makes these fart-sniffing people think that if the elections were fought off popular vote that Clinton would win?  If elections were fought on popular vote then the Trump campaign would, of course, change its design to get groundwork on populist netting rather than State netting.  And Clinton would still lose.  Because she sucks.  Plain and simple.

 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

What a bunch of bullcrap.  These guys continue to live in a bubble made out of their own farts.

Now, what makes these fart-sniffing people think that if the elections were fought off popular vote that Clinton would win?  If elections were fought on popular vote then the Trump campaign would, of course, change its design to get groundwork on populist netting rather than State netting.  And Clinton would still lose.  Because she sucks.  Plain and simple.

I just can't stand it when you hold back.  Can you just tone down your politically correct language and tell us how you really feel?

Edited December 8, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I just can't stand it when you hold back.  Can you just tone down your politically correct language and tell us how you really feel?

These guys continue to swim in a river of their own puke?

[Traveler]

I watched an interview the other day with an individual from Texas that was not going to cast his electrical vote for Trump.  He said he had a moral obligation not to vote for Trump because Trump did not get a majority vote from the national voting public.  I did not think the news guy asked the proper question.  I would have asked this Texas guy if he felt morally obligated to trash (refuse to represent) those citizens he was elected to represent in Texas.  As an electoral delegate for Texas – I thought his moral obligation was to represent those that elected him to represent them????  I realize that in Texas there is no legal binding requirement for the electoral representatives but where does someone get the idea that there is no moral obligation to represent the citizens of tje state that elected them?

 

The Traveler

[unixknight]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I watched an interview the other day with an individual from Texas that was not going to cast his electrical vote for Trump.  He said he had a moral obligation not to vote for Trump because Trump did not get a majority vote from the national voting public.  I did not think the news guy asked the proper question.  I would have asked this Texas guy if he felt morally obligated to trash (refuse to represent) those citizens he was elected to represent in Texas.  As an electoral delegate for Texas – I thought his moral obligation was to represent those that elected him to represent them????  I realize that in Texas there is no legal binding requirement for the electoral representatives but where does someone get the idea that there is no moral obligation to represent the citizens of tje state that elected them?

 

The Traveler

I think I saw an interview with the same guy.  That particular interviewer did ask him that question, and the Elector's answer was to dodge it by pointing out that the Constitution didn't require him to vote according to the people's will.  The conversation sort of circled back to it and again he leaned on the fact that the Constitution doesn't require it and interpreted that to mean his will, not that of the people in the election, was what mattered.  What's idiotic about that is it essentially negates the entire point of a national election.

[yjacket]

46 minutes ago, unixknight said:

What's idiotic about that is it essentially negates the entire point of a national election.

Actually, the guy who did the interview is correct. The founders set up a process where the people were never to directly vote for President or Vice-president, but they were to vote for electors who expressed a preference for one person over another.  So the real process is that we vote for electors who then vote for President rather than directly voting for President.

The Founders original view was that no president would ever be directly elected in a general election.  At the time of the founding of the USA, the colonies were more like actual individual countries in a confederation rather than one united country (in many ways very similar to the EU today).  The founders originally thought that what would happen is that each state would run their own "favored son" for president and the electors would pair down the list to a few candidates who Congress would then select from.

Another factor is originally everything was done by local committees and conventions. It was a bubble-up representative democracy.  The actual individual votes were democratic, but each layer was built on representation.  Thus, the revolution started with local Committees of Correspondence who elected people from their ranks to attend the Continental Congress.  

We still have vestiges of this system in the Republican/Democrat Primary process where you have local Mass Precinct Meetings that elect representatives to go to County Conventions that vote on County issues and elect representatives to the State Convention (and conduct state business) and then elect people to represent them at the National Committee level.

Originally set-up the only portion of the federal government that was directly accountable to the people was to be the House of Representatives (and at 30,000 people per Rep-it was truly accountable to the people). Now at at least 500-1million people per Representative claiming that a House of Rep. member is accountable to his local people is laughable.

So actually, yes the guy is technically correct-we are founded and set-up the way he claims, the electors are accountable to the people who elected him.   In some states (IIRC) the electors are actually on the ballot and in most states the electors are chosen by the Republican/Democrat party either at their State Conventions or chosen by the State Committee.  So yes the electors are elected . . . but to become an elected elector you have to be heavily involved in the R/D party. But yes, once elected they have the autonomy to vote as they see fit-it is their right as an elector. 

[yjacket]

So technically, he might be correct-mass execution of it would most likely lead to some very bad things simply b/c people do not understand the process of government we have.

A comparable would have been the Republican National Convention and the #NeverTrumpers at the RNC.  Yes, once the actual delegates are voting they can vote however they want to and are not bound by plurality votes, popular votes, etc. but to have done so in mass would have lead to some very bad things.  

Not b/c doing so is wrong, but because people do not understand that we are a representative democracy and that is why you have to be very careful about the people you elect to represent you at the next level.

[unixknight]

41 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Actually, the guy who did the interview is correct. The founders set up a process where the people were never to directly vote for President or Vice-president, but they were to vote for electors who expressed a preference for one person over another.  So the real process is that we vote for electors who then vote for President rather than directly voting for President.

I know all that, but the point is that the way the Elector explained his side implied that the people who elected him were absolutely no factor at all in his decision.   If an Elector isn't even going to take that into consideration, that's a problem.  It would be one thing if he had said "I know that's what the voters want and I really hate to go against them, but I think in this blah blah blah."  Instead, it was more like "The will of the people, shoooot who cares about them?"

[yjacket]

36 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I know all that, but the point is that the way the Elector explained his side implied that the people who elected him were absolutely no factor at all in his decision.   If an Elector isn't even going to take that into consideration, that's a problem.  It would be one thing if he had said "I know that's what the voters want and I really hate to go against them, but I think in this blah blah blah."  Instead, it was more like "The will of the people, shoooot who cares about them?"

Oh I completely agree with you on this; but that is a common attitude among the elite. Unfortunately what has happened is that people have become less and less involved in politics yet more and more politicized.  So you have very few people actually show up to the GOP County Conventions, State Conventions, etc. where a lot of these decisions about who is an elector is actually made.  The people who are involved have a very elitist attitude that they know what is right for the party regardless of what the normal people think.

That "the will of the people . . .who cares about them attitude" that is the exact attitude of the elites on both sides of the isle and it is the reason why Trump was elected in the first place.  The political bodies have lost the touch with the common man and no longer even care about them-they are just in it for the power, money and glory.

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Oh I completely agree with you on this; but that is a common attitude among the elite. Unfortunately what has happened is that people have become less and less involved in politics yet more and more politicized.  So you have very few people actually show up to the GOP County Conventions, State Conventions, etc. where a lot of these decisions about who is an elector is actually made.  The people who are involved have a very elitist attitude that they know what is right for the party regardless of what the normal people think.

That "the will of the people . . .who cares about them attitude" that is the exact attitude of the elites on both sides of the isle and it is the reason why Trump was elected in the first place.  The political bodies have lost the touch with the common man and no longer even care about them-they are just in it for the power, money and glory.

You know it's funny... back during the primaries a liberal friend of mine was (understandably) outraged when Howard Dean, a delegate, said he planned to ignore the results of the primaries in his state and vote for Clinton regardless.  (My friend was a Sanders guy.)  He said that was elitist and a way of ignoring the will of the people.

This exact same friend is hoping the Electoral College will vote Clinton in.

For me, that's an example of how our culture has lost all semblance of objectivity and consistency.

[Guest MormonGator]

37 minutes ago, unixknight said:

You know it's funny... back during the primaries a liberal friend of mine was (understandably) outraged when Howard Dean, a delegate, said he planned to ignore the results of the primaries in his state and vote for Clinton regardless.  (My friend was a Sanders guy.)  He said that was elitist and a way of ignoring the will of the people.

This exact same friend is hoping the Electoral College will vote Clinton in.

For me, that's an example of how our culture has lost all semblance of objectivity and consistency.

My brother is a Sanders guy and he thinks that calls for ending the electoral college are absurd. He thinks it's time to "move on".Ironically another one of my closest friends is also a Sanders guy and while he's not happy with the results, he also thinks it's time to move forward. Go figure! 

[Guest]

Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

[NeuroTypical]

[Traveler]

I am starting to feel buyer’s remorse.   I had high hopes for Trump because I saw him as a nonpolitician and Washington outsider.  However, the only thing that worries me more than big government is big business.   I believe the potential for evil is greater with big business than big government.  The money to corrupt big government comes from and through big business.

If Trump nominates Exxon Mobil CEO (the world’s single largest corp.) Tillerson as secretary of State – I am officially off the Trump bandwagon and any hopes I had are off the table.  It is hard to believe that someone would be worse than Hillary.  As bad as the economy is and as much as the economy could use some attention – there are things more important than economy – like freedom, liberty and justice – the same justice for everyone.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

I am starting to feel buyer’s remorse.

That is the worst feeling in the world. My dad used to tell me "You don't get buyers remorse on things you don't buy." Sounds like it's obvious/cliche ridden advice, but in reality it's actually quite insightful. 

[bytebear]

Do you ever notice that the losers always want the rules changed?

[Blackmarch]

On December 8, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Carborendum said:

Apparently, some people don't understand why the electoral college was part of the Constitution.

http://theweek.com/articles/665750/which-states-got-screwed-worst-by-electoral-college-2016

Make that a lot of people.

[mordorbund]

On 12/11/2016 at 11:15 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Why does Canada get so much say in a US election?

[anatess2]

On 12/12/2016 at 0:27 AM, Traveler said:

I am starting to feel buyer’s remorse.   I had high hopes for Trump because I saw him as a nonpolitician and Washington outsider.  However, the only thing that worries me more than big government is big business.   I believe the potential for evil is greater with big business than big government.  The money to corrupt big government comes from and through big business.

If Trump nominates Exxon Mobil CEO (the world’s single largest corp.) Tillerson as secretary of State – I am officially off the Trump bandwagon and any hopes I had are off the table.  It is hard to believe that someone would be worse than Hillary.  As bad as the economy is and as much as the economy could use some attention – there are things more important than economy – like freedom, liberty and justice – the same justice for everyone.

 

The Traveler

You and I couldn't be any more opposite regarding Tillerson.  You have not presented any sound reasoning about your opposition to Tillerson other than that he was the CEO of Exxon making you assume that he's in it for big business.  You had no problems with Romney who founded and still holds ownership of Bain Capital in blind trusts.  Tillerson was an employee, not the owner of Exxon.  He was the CEO of the Boy Scouts too   So, in your estimation, if your resume includes being a CEO of a big business then you're not qualified to be Secretary of State?  But it's ok if you own the thing?  Carly Fiorina does not qualify for Sec of State because she was the CEO of HP?  Or is it just "big bad oil" you have a problem with?  

Read my assessment of Tillerson here.  

[Blackmarch]

On December 8, 2016 at 9:57 AM, anatess2 said:

What a bunch of bullcrap.  These guys continue to live in a bubble made out of their own farts.

This article is just like saying the SeaHawks would've won Superbowl 49 if the game was scored on rushing yards... really?  If the game was played on rushing yards, the Patriots would've hired ace running backs instead of an ace quarterback and stopped throwing footballs so much.

 

Fact:  The elections were fought off of an electoral map.

Because of this fact, both Clinton's and Trump's campaigns were DESIGNED to win electoral votes.  Trump won that battle.

Now, what makes these fart-sniffing people think that if the elections were fought off popular vote that Clinton would win?  If elections were fought on popular vote then the Trump campaign would, of course, change its design to get groundwork on populist netting rather than State netting.  And Clinton would still lose.  Because she sucks.  Plain and simple.

 

Because they want to kill the electoral college.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

You and I couldn't be any more opposite regarding Tillerson.  You have not presented any sound reasoning about your opposition to Tillerson other than that he was the CEO of Exxon making you assume that he's in it for big business.  You had no problems with Romney who founded and still holds ownership of Bain Capital in blind trusts.  Tillerson was an employee, not the owner of Exxon.  He was the CEO of the Boy Scouts too   So, in your estimation, if your resume includes being a CEO of a big business then you're not qualified to be Secretary of State?  But it's ok if you own the thing?  Carly Fiorina does not qualify for Sec of State because she was the CEO of HP?  Or is it just "big bad oil" you have a problem with?  

Read my assessment of Tillerson here.  

 

I am suspicious of big banks, big business and Wall Street.  In fact I am as concerned with big business involvement in things as I am with big government.  I do not believe big business is less a target for secret combinations than are governments.  I do not like the fact that many corporations have boards of directors that as individuals have interests in other corporations with board of director member ship.  In fact I am more concerned with separation of corporate and state than I am with separation of church and state. 

I believe there is good reason to be suspicious of an industrial military complex deeply rooted into government.  If there is any reason to be concerned with Hillary as president – at least anyone with an IQ above room temperature realizes she is foolish and incompetent.   But her connections and willingness to make deals is a major concern – yet, we all realize she is not very good at it. Anyone past kindergarten knows email is not secure communication for sensitive information. 

But Trump is a wild card and unknown.  Yes I am concerned – Why would the CEO of the world’s largest corporation be interested in stepping down from a life time career of being the top guy for a temporary position in government and under the command of someone else?  If Tillerson had been a scout master – I would be impressed but sitting on the board of directors – I am not impressed with that.

One thing I like about LDS leadership – they do not make a lot of money – money is not an incentive for someone called to serve in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Why does Canada get so much say in a US election?

Because they are really the ones behind the Russian hack into US politics and controlling the election. 

 

The Traveler

[anatess2]

29 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

But Trump is a wild card and unknown.  Yes I am concerned – Why would the CEO of the world’s largest corporation be interested in stepping down from a life time career of being the top guy for a temporary position in government and under the command of someone else?  If Tillerson had been a scout master – I would be impressed but sitting on the board of directors – I am not impressed with that.

 

The Traveler

So you're saying you would react the exact same way if Trump would have chosen Romney?  A CEO is an employee.  He leaves the company and would be just like the janitor leaving the company.  He loses all influence.  Romney, on the other hand has controlling interests as the founder of Bain Capital. 

But the problem here is that you made such a knee-jerk harsh judgment of Tillerson simply because he was the CEO of Exxon without looking at any other pertinent information about the experiences, principles, and character of the guy nor the circumstances of his nomination.

Why would Tillerson leave Exxon for a low-paying government job?  Because he was asked.  Unlike Romney, he did not apply for the job.  Rather, Preibus recommended him to Trump.  Trump knows of the guy but has never met him beforehand.   Trump, just like what he has said on the campaign trail and what Ben Carson said on the campaign trail are sacrificing their lucrative place in the private sector to serve the country.  Trump asked Tillerson to serve his country and true to his Eagle Scout honor he said yes.  This, after Trump and Pence has announced their plan to ban any cabinet member from lobbying for 7 years after the end of their public service and a lifetime ban on lobbying for foreign entities.  Tillerson is a high caliber upright guy with a calm and humble demeanor whose only blight in your estimation is he happened to land the top spot at Exxon.  This guy is the ultimate diplomat that can build bridges, strengthen influence, or demand respect as necessary.

if you read what I wrote on Tillerson in that other thread plus watch that video of his confirmation hearing that I posted in the comments you'll see why I jumped right on board with Tillerson the minute he was announced.  This is the guy the Philippines has been waiting for to straighten that hornets nest in our neck of the woods.  Him and Mattis.  Both awesome choices that point to Trump's seriousness in his promise to make America great by stopping the politicization of foreign policy.

Edited January 18, 2017 by anatess2

[Traveler]

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So you're saying you would react the exact same way if Trump would have chosen Romney?  A CEO is an employee.  He leaves the company and would be just like the janitor leaving the company.  He loses all influence.  Romney, on the other hand has controlling interests as the founder of Bain Capital. 

But the problem here is that you made such a knee-jerk harsh judgment of Tillerson simply because he was the CEO of Exxon without looking at any other pertinent information about the experiences, principles, and character of the guy nor the circumstances of his nomination.

Why would Tillerson leave Exxon for a low-paying government job?  Because he was asked.  Unlike Romney, he did not apply for the job.  Rather, Preibus recommended him to Trump.  Trump knows of the guy but has never met him beforehand.   Trump, just like what he has said on the campaign trail and what Ben Carson said on the campaign trail are sacrificing their lucrative place in the private sector to serve the country.  Trump asked Tillerson to serve his country and true to his Eagle Scout honor he said yes.  This, after Trump and Pence has announced their plan to ban any cabinet member from lobbying for 7 years after the end of their public service and a lifetime ban on lobbying for foreign entities.  Tillerson is a high caliber upright guy with a calm and humble demeanor whose only blight in your estimation is he happened to land the top spot at Exxon.  This guy is the ultimate diplomat that can build bridges, strengthen influence, or demand respect as necessary.

if you read what I wrote on Tillerson in that other thread plus watch that video of his confirmation hearing that I posted in the comments you'll see why I jumped right on board with Tillerson the minute he was announced.  This is the guy the Philippines has been waiting for to straighten that hornets nest in our neck of the woods.  Him and Mattis.  Both awesome choices that point to Trump's seriousness in his promise to make America great by stopping the politicization of foreign policy.

 

Okay here is something you may not know.  The drug cartels in Mexico have been moving into new markets.  One of the big problems in Mexico is that the drug cartels have been stealing from the Mexican government oil companies.  They are taking crude and refined products and selling their stolen property on the black market.  Exxon Mobile is one of their biggest customers.

 

The Traveler

Edited January 18, 2017 by Traveler