ADVERTISEMENT

48% Say Vote To Confirm Justice Now

No he’s filling the seat because that’s what his voters expect him to do. Many people miss one of the main attractors to Trump. We conservatives were getting tired over the years of our spineless leaders caving in all the time and saying one thing and doing another. You can say what you want about Trump but he doesn’t give a rats rear end about what anyone else thinks. His irreverent attitude about the ‘rules’ in dc is a big draw. So in short, youre wrong about his motivations. But sure he could lose too.
You haven’t figured out that Trump does what’s best for him. He has figured out he won’t get enough votes to win so he’s corrupting the court to attempt a coup.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
You're making the argument for a popular vote. Nobody campaigns in California, Illinois and New York because they're already in the bag. Imagine how different our politics would be if Republicans had to appeal to Orange County and upstate NY Republicans, and if Democrats had to appeal to their more conservative voters who still vote D in the solid South in order to win the national vote. Instead of just saying that "they resent being ruled by the whims and desires" of the blue areas, why not give them some actual power?
There are still campaign events in CA, IL, and NY. They already enjoy the benefit of outsized EC delegates based on their populations. It isn't how the framer's intended it, but it is better than a straight up national majority vote. Everything is checks and balances. The executive is supposed to be a check on the house of representatives (the president was supposed to be elected by an EC constituted by delegates appointed by the State senates). So is the Senate (a non representative body in terms of population by design). So is the Judiciary. It is no coincidence that the framer's designed it so that the one purely democratic body of the government had every other branch aligned in opposition to it to ensure that majority rule couldn't just run amok.
 
Lol...actually that is exactly what inalienable rights mean. If rights only spring from a government which is ruled by popular vote, then they are not inalienable and you don't actually have them...they are simply on loan and at the continual mercy of a transitory majority
Then the term has no purpose outside of fantasy. In reality it means you can act on the right, society protects it. In the real world rights can be added and taken away. We have both witnessed that truth.
 
Then the term has no purpose outside of fantasy. In reality it means you can act on the right, society protects it. In the real world rights can be added and taken away. We have both witnessed that truth.
...so, back off the train then. Too bad. I thought maybe you were finally having an epiphany and were overcoming your preoccupation with semantics to actually understand and appreciate the philosophy.
 
...so, back off the train then. Too bad. I thought maybe you were finally having an epiphany and were overcoming your preoccupation with semantics to actually understand and appreciate the philosophy.
I appreciate the tangible.
 
I appreciate the tangible.
Me too. The philosophy of inalienable rights that undergirds our governmental system has resulted in more tangible good than any other societal compact in the history of the world.
 
Me too. The philosophy of inalienable rights that undergirds our governmental system has resulted in more tangible good than any other societal compact in the history of the world.
No, written legal tangle rights has.
 
Maybe those states should apportion their delegates based on vote percentage then if straight up democracy is the gold standard? If Dems didn't start every national election with CA, NY, and IL in the can and ALL the electoral votes that go with it, it would be very hard for them to win on the national stage. Upstate NY, Downstate IL, the interior of CA...they all significantly resent being ruled by the whims and desires of the big cities in their states and don't feel represented. The cities suck up all the resources and leave the rest of the state struggling. That would just play out nationally. Delegates are already proportioned based on population anyway, the EC just smooths out the influence of super densely populated areas (which still have a lot more pull) and provides some level of protection to more rural areas.

Do you not think that 50%+1 would have it's own limitations on where candidates will spend time? Why would anyone ever go to a state like Iowa? Why would 49% of the population be content with being ruled by NYC, LA, SF, etc who feel like they can just change whatever laws they choose and modify whatever rights as they see fit?
So more gerrymandering? Or something similar? That's what you are calling for? I assume you have a problem with Wyoming citizens having a bigger representation in the Senate than California also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
So more gerrymandering? Or something similar? That's what you are calling for? I assume you have a problem with Wyoming citizens having a bigger representation in the Senate than California also.
Good lord. And you are a teacher? I sure hope you don't teach civics.
 
Maybe those states should apportion their delegates based on vote percentage then if straight up democracy is the gold standard? If Dems didn't start every national election with CA, NY, and IL in the can and ALL the electoral votes that go with it, it would be very hard for them to win on the national stage. Upstate NY, Downstate IL, the interior of CA...they all significantly resent being ruled by the whims and desires of the big cities in their states and don't feel represented. The cities suck up all the resources and leave the rest of the state struggling. That would just play out nationally. Delegates are already proportioned based on population anyway, the EC just smooths out the influence of super densely populated areas (which still have a lot more pull) and provides some level of protection to more rural areas.

Do you not think that 50%+1 would have it's own limitations on where candidates will spend time? Why would anyone ever go to a state like Iowa? Why would 49% of the population be content with being ruled by NYC, LA, SF, etc who feel like they can just change whatever laws they choose and modify whatever rights as they see fit?
Trump got selected through the current system. That's all the evidence you need to show it is not a good system for the entire country.

When you have (theoretically) the possibility a candidate can 'win' the 12 most populous states by a mere one vote in each state, lose all the other states by 10s of millions of votes, and still be selected president, there is something seriously flawed with that system.

The electoral college is no longer meeting the needs it did when our founding fathers designed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sob5 and Huey Grey
No he’s filling the seat because that’s what his voters expect him to do. Many people miss one of the main attractors to Trump. We conservatives were getting tired over the years of our spineless leaders caving in all the time and saying one thing and doing another. You can say what you want about Trump but he doesn’t give a rats rear end about what anyone else thinks. His irreverent attitude about the ‘rules’ in dc is a big draw. So in short, youre wrong about his motivations. But sure he could lose too.
Trump caves all the time. He is a master at running away from the issue. He caved on his wall, repeal and replace, and his trade war. Even his conservative court hasn't fulfilled his promise to overturn Roe v Wade.

As for caring what others think, that is literally all Trump cares about. He is desperate for the attention his daddy didn't give him. It's pathetic watching a 74 year old man use the office to fulfill the emotional void daddy dearest left him.
 
Which part? Please enlighten me. I'm already guessing from your reply that your lost already.
For starters, how you got gerrymandering from anything I said. Also, your non-comprehension of how the Senate is designed, constituted, and why it was specifically and purposefully done that way (Wyoming citizens do not have bigger representation in the Senate than Californians do) in intentional contrast to how the HOR is constituted.
 
There are still campaign events in CA, IL, and NY. They already enjoy the benefit of outsized EC delegates based on their populations. It isn't how the framer's intended it, but it is better than a straight up national majority vote. Everything is checks and balances. The executive is supposed to be a check on the house of representatives (the president was supposed to be elected by an EC constituted by delegates appointed by the State senates). So is the Senate (a non representative body in terms of population by design). So is the Judiciary. It is no coincidence that the framer's designed it so that the one purely democratic body of the government had every other branch aligned in opposition to it to ensure that majority rule couldn't just run amok.
This image shows the number of campaign events by both Clinton/Kaine and Trump/Pence in 2016 per state. “Campaign events” are defined here as public events in which a candidate is soliciting the state’s voters (e.g., rallies, speeches, fairs, town hall meetings), and does not include interviews, or visits to their own campaign state offices.

Tell me how many "campaign events" there were in the 2016 presidential race in NY, California, and Illinois.

data from which image was compiled




map-2016-campaign-events-v2-2019-04-14.png
 
Trump got selected through the current system. That's all the evidence you need to show it is not a good system for the entire country.

When you have (theoretically) the possibility a candidate can 'win' the 12 most populous states by a mere one vote in each state, lose all the other states by 10s of millions of votes, and still be selected president, there is something seriously flawed with that system.

The electoral college is no longer meeting the needs it did when our founding fathers designed it.
Hating Trump is not a reason that the system is bad. I didn't vote for Trump, and I wasn't a big fan of Obama either. What has California or NY wanted to do in the last four years that Iowa or Wyoming has prevented?

Also, your hypothetical scenario doesn't make much sense. The 12 most populous states represent almost 200M people. To lose by tens of millions of voting age people in the remaining states, someone would have to be pulling 80%+ pluralities across the board everywhere else. But, even if that were the case, if someone can convince enough people in as varied a subsection of the country as the populations of CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI, NJ, and VA are...well, you have a pretty legitimate candidate I would say. That is both coasts and in between, north and south, metropolitan, suburban, and rural. What is the problem here? The EC continues to meet the needs almost precisely as the founders designed and intended it, minus the fact that the state legislatures have been removed as an intermediary to a direct popular vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hawkman34
For starters, how you got gerrymandering from anything I said. Also, your non-comprehension of how the Senate is designed, constituted, and why it was specifically and purposefully done that way (Wyoming citizens do not have bigger representation in the Senate than Californians do) in intentional contrast to how the HOR is constituted.
What's the population of California? How many Senators do they have? What's the population of Wyoming? How many Senators do they have? Now do the math. That small number has the same amount of say as that really big number...and you hypocritically don't have a problem with that.

Non-comprehension. LOL.
 
This image shows the number of campaign events by both Clinton/Kaine and Trump/Pence in 2016 per state. “Campaign events” are defined here as public events in which a candidate is soliciting the state’s voters (e.g., rallies, speeches, fairs, town hall meetings), and does not include interviews, or visits to their own campaign state offices.

Tell me how many "campaign events" there were in the 2016 presidential race in NY, California, and Illinois.

data from which image was compiled




map-2016-campaign-events-v2-2019-04-14.png
OMG...are you telling me that contested battleground states get more campaign attention than states where polling shows massive advantages already established for one candidate or the other? Are you suggesting that the combined 104 EC delegates from CA, NY, and IL don't get counted? That candidates don't have representatives there at all? I mean, if the candidate themselves doesn't have a tightly defined official event there, obviously they can't have an active organization in the state interacting with the population and taking their concerns into account. I mean, have you seen the Democrat Party platform? It is like they aren't listening to the citizens of CA, NY, and IL at all! :rolleyes:
 
What's the population of California? How many Senators do they have? What's the population of Wyoming? How many Senators do they have? Now do the math. That small number has the same amount of say as that really big number...and you hypocritically don't have a problem with that.

Non-comprehension. LOL.
I initially wasn't sure if you were trying to make some other subtle point that might have some level of sophistication or understanding of the US government and constitution...thank you for clearing that up. BTW...have you heard of the HOR? You know...the other half of the legislative branch? Please tell me you are a PE teacher or something and we aren't counting on you to provide useful information to our children...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: UKGrad93
OMG...are you telling me that contested battleground states get more campaign attention than states where polling shows massive advantages already established for one candidate or the other? Are you suggesting that the combined 104 EC delegates from CA, NY, and IL don't get counted? That candidates don't have representatives there at all? I mean, if the candidate themselves doesn't have a tightly defined official event there, obviously they can't have an active organization in the state interacting with the population and taking their concerns into account. I mean, have you seen the Democrat Party platform? It is like they aren't listening to the citizens of CA, NY, and IL at all! :rolleyes:
What the heck are you talking about?

You said "There are still campaign events in CA, IL, and NY. "

How many campaign events as defined above took place in California, Illinois, and New York in 2016?
 
I initially wasn't sure if you were trying to make some other subtle point that might have some level of sophistication or understanding of the US government and constitution...thank you for clearing that up. BTW...have you heard of the HOR? You know...the other half of the legislative branch? Please tell me you are a PE teacher or something and we aren't counting on you to provide useful information to our children...
So you have nothing then. Don't even act like, due to who you follow, you understand or care about the Constitution.

HOR...lol...address the Senate. You're whole stance is hypocritical...which I called you out on...and yet here you stay.

Idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
Hating Trump is not a reason that the system is bad. I didn't vote for Trump, and I wasn't a big fan of Obama either. What has California or NY wanted to do in the last four years that Iowa or Wyoming has prevented?

Also, your hypothetical scenario doesn't make much sense. The 12 most populous states represent almost 200M people. To lose by tens of millions of voting age people in the remaining states, someone would have to be pulling 80%+ pluralities across the board everywhere else. But, even if that were the case, if someone can convince enough people in as varied a subsection of the country as the populations of CA, TX, FL, NY, PA, IL, OH, GA, NC, MI, NJ, and VA are...well, you have a pretty legitimate candidate I would say. That is both coasts and in between, north and south, metropolitan, suburban, and rural. What is the problem here? The EC continues to meet the needs almost precisely as the founders designed and intended it, minus the fact that the state legislatures have been removed as an intermediary to a direct popular vote.
What part of theoretically don't you understand?

The electoral college does not work any longer.
 
So you have nothing then. Don't even act like, due to who you follow, you understand or care about the Constitution.

HOR...lol...address the Senate. You're whole stance is hypocritical...which I called you out on...and yet here you stay.

Idiot.
Lol. Too bad you weren't there at the constitutional convention to point out that the Senate wasn't tethered to population. How did they miss that?!?!?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UKGrad93
What part of theoretically don't you understand?

The electoral college does not work any longer.
Was it working when it selected Obama twice? Or was that just a broken clock right twice a day type thing?
 
What the heck are you talking about?

You said "There are still campaign events in CA, IL, and NY. "

How many campaign events as defined above took place in California, Illinois, and New York in 2016?
Do we get to count the primaries, campaign events with VP and other staff, or only select data points artificially limited to create your narrative? Do you seriously think that CA, NY, and IL get no consideration?
 
Lol. Too bad you weren't there at the constitutional convention to point out that the Senate wasn't tethered to population. How did they miss that?!?!?
This was never the point of the argument. You're basically proving my point from my very first response to you. You think I don't understand. I do. I also understand that my point with you still stands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fluffles
Do we get to count the primaries, campaign events with VP and other staff, or only select data points artificially limited to create your narrative? Do you seriously think that CA, NY, and IL get no consideration?
Not near the consideration as do the handful of ‘swing states.’ That is not even debatable.
Another metric is amount of campaign cash spent per state.
 
This was never the point of the argument. You're basically proving my point from my very first response to you. You think I don't understand. I do. I also understand that my point with you still stands.
What point is that? You have some unspecified beef with our bicameral legislature? Because in the Senate, states are represented equally? You can make an inane point about how that relates to population that a 3rd grader makes before an informed person explains why it was designed that way?

You don't like Trump. You don't like Republicans. Anything that isn't currently under the control of your team is bad and needs to go. We get it.
 
Not near the consideration as do the handful of ‘swing states.’ That is not even debatable.
Another metric is amount of campaign cash spent per state.
Do you think if CA was in play that nobody would go there? If Ohio was a lock that they would still drop in there constantly and run a bunch of ads? You already showed that 2/3s of the population lives in 12 states...how much attention do those other 38 states get under a national popular vote?
 
I am not sure I want to know what you are referring to as "tangle rights"... 🙂
Things that are written down and you can enforce with the law. If the Trump administration is evidence of anything, it’s the need for legalism.
 
Do you think if CA was in play that nobody would go there? If Ohio was a lock that they would still drop in there constantly and run a bunch of ads? You already showed that 2/3s of the population lives in 12 states...how much attention do those other 38 states get under a national popular vote?
50% + 1 is far better than the current system. I already showed you the vast majority of campaigning takes place in only a handful of states.
 
50% + 1 is far better than the current system. I already showed you the vast majority of campaigning takes place in only a handful of states.
You showed me that politicians trying to win a national election focus on critical battle ground states (that change over time). Insert captain obvious gif. This is compelling if you completely ignore the entire primary process, the hundreds of conventions and PAC activities that occur across the country, and the allocation of EC delegates based on population.
 
I have no problem if they do....I just want an explanation why/how this time is different than 4 years ago, when Mitch and Chuck refused to interview Garland. Pull your ass out of your ascending colon Iowa......sometimes you are sooooo phuquing obtuse its pitiful.
Well, 4 years ago Obama was nominating a judge the Republican majority in the senate did not want. Now, Trump is nominating a judge that I will assume they do want. This isn't rocket science...
 
You showed me that politicians trying to win a national election focus on critical battle ground states (that change over time). Insert captain obvious gif. This is compelling if you completely ignore the entire primary process, the hundreds of conventions and PAC activities that occur across the country, and the allocation of EC delegates based on population.
You will never understand why the electoral college is no longer the best system of choosing the president.
The value of a vote is disproportionately higher in smaller states.
 
ADVERTISEMENT