• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Roughly 3 weeks into Trump as PEOTUS...

That's different than not looking at both sides.
 
bobknightfan said:
You do not understand the concept of federalism, upon which our government is based. Also, Democrats pile up popular vote margins in relatively close elections by getting a monolithic 95% of the black vote while the rest of the voter subsets are looking at both sides and splitting their votes in varying degrees. When you obtain a popular vote margin basically by getting 95% of the vote from one roughly 13% subset of the voters it does not indicate that you have a consensus approval for your policies from the nation as a whole.

If you went by a straight popular vote and black voters who compromised about 13% of the total vote continued to cast their votes in a monolithic 95% to 5% manner, the end result would be that 13% of the population could overrule the combined wishes of the other 87% of the population in many of the closer elections.

Also, Hillary carried California by 4.3 million votes, I believe, the last time I checked. That means without California's vote she lost by 1.5 million votes. Just as one 13% subset of voters should not be allowed to elect a president over the wishes of the other 87% of the voters by giving virtually all of its vote to one candidate, neither should one large state be allowed to elect a president over the wishes of the other 49 states by giving one candidate a 2 to 1 margin with a huge number of votes.

This is why we have a federalist system of government. Hence the name: The United States of America.

By the way, I've never said that Trump had a mandate. He may have said that, but I haven't. Obviously, the nation is bitterly divided.....and I'm afraid that the bitterness and the division is only going to get worse. I know that I have voted Democratic for most of my life....and I have never been more pissed off in my life with a political party than I am right now with today's Democratic Party. Some of my friends who have known me for a long time and knew how strong a Democrat I had been (my only son is named after Robert Kennedy, whom I worked for while a senior at WF; I was the local McGovern campaign manager in 1972 after I got out of the army in 1971; I ran for county office as a Democrat in 2006....and you know about the Howard Dean thing) were shocked at my support for Trump and laughingly said that when the Democrats lost me they must be in really bad shape. Somehow, though, the Democrats have managed to do just that.
Click to expand...

Don't tell me what I do and don't understand. It is a ridiculously stupid system. I understand it is stupid. We have a system where the votes of 77,000 people in PA, MI, and WI, are worth far more that 2,800,000 million people in west coast cities. To use your racial divisions, the votes of white people in rural PA are worth more than the votes black people in L. A. Yes we are federalist republic, but we are also supposed to be a representative democracy, and currently 100% of the federal government is dominated by the party that won 46% of the votes. There is an absolute disconnect between voting and the ruling. I sympathize with the notion that people in cities should not dominate the federal government and its policies, but that is what the Senate with its two senators form every state regardless of population density is for, the EC system was a slave state appeasement and it is bullshit.

My only point in bringing this up is you and your ilk keep trashing liberals for not learning lessons, or whatever, when the only lesson we need to learn is about spatial distribution of votes. Democratic platform resonated with more people than the republican platform, so you can keep your gloating and condescending rhetoric. The only lesson here is that if democratic votes were more sparsely distributed in space we'd have won.
 
bobknightfan said:
Not at all. I have a problem, though, when one group with 13% of the total vote, a large percentage of which is concentrated in relatively few areas, blindly gives all of its votes to one candidate and thinks that their votes should override the other 87% of the voters spread across the country who are looking at both sides and splitting their votes accordingly.

That's basically what happened in this election.
Click to expand...

This is just dumb math. If 87% of the rest of the population voted for Trump he would have won in the biggest landslide since Monroe no matter what their spatial distribution.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
BS Most Pubs are still on cloud 9. Look at birdman's posts- sheer panic. He is terrified of the impact the Trump administration is going to have on the environment. To that I say, we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Click to expand...

True. See FB post:

I rented the movie "13 hours quote which is the story of been Benghazi, and am about to watch it. While Zizzo suspect it will be a heart wrenching story, there's something about being able to see it knowing that Hillary Clinton has been defeated that makes me feel good and that some degree of justice has been served by her being defeated and not elected as the president of these United States!
Click to expand...
 
birdman said:
Don't tell me what I do and don't understand. It is a ridiculously stupid system. I understand it is stupid. We have a system where the votes of 77,000 people in PA, MI, and WI, are worth far more that 2,800,000 million people in west coast cities. To use your racial divisions, the votes of white people in rural PA are worth more than the votes black people in L. A. Yes we are federalist republic, but we are also supposed to be a representative democracy, and currently 100% of the federal government is dominated by the party that won 46% of the votes. There is an absolute disconnect between voting and the ruling. I sympathize with the notion that people in cities should not dominate the federal government and its policies, but that is what the Senate with its two senators form every state regardless of population density is for, the EC system was a slave state appeasement and it is bullshit.

My only point in bringing this up is you and your ilk keep trashing liberals for not learning lessons, or whatever, when the only lesson we need to learn is about spatial distribution of votes. Democratic platform resonated with more people than the republican platform, so you can keep your gloating and condescending rhetoric. The only lesson here is that if democratic votes were more sparsely distributed in space we'd have won.
Click to expand...

Liberals didn't just lose the presidential election. In the last eight years under Obama they have been losing elections everywhere....all over the country. 1,042 total seats in state & federal elections.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/27/democrats-lost-over-1000-seats-under-obama.html

But 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue wasn’t the only locale to see a big partisan change since Obama took office in January 2009, according to figures from Ballotpedia.

Democratic U.S. Senate seats fell from 55 to 46. (Actually, they had 60 seats for a short period, and the count is now 52 GOP, 48 Democrat.) Their share of the House plummeted from 256 seats to 194. Republicans still control both chambers going into the next session.  (And the 2018 Mid-Term Senate elections are setting up to be a nightmare for Democrats, as they will be defending 25 seats....10 of which are in states carried by Trump. By contrast, the GOP will only be defending 8 seats...and almost all of them are in solidly Republican states.

Democratic governerships also became a rarity during this eight-year period, slipping from 28 to 16.

The Obama years, which saw the rise of the Tea Party as well as a new movement form around Trump that is still being defined, coincided with a loss of 958 state legislative seats for Democrats.

Democrats now control the governorship & both state houses in only 6 out of the 50 states. Republicans control all three in 25 states. The other 19 are split.


If you don't think the Democrats have any lessons to learn from this 8-year massacre, that's your problem.
 
Last edited:
BobStackFan4Life said:
What good would it do? I go look up an article by someone who makes the case, post it, it gets ignored, you post an article by a pro-Hillary establishment source who is opposed to voter id saying it's not a problem...If you want to see the case made for the possibility of illegals voting like never before (because there has never been a candidate they hated like Trump) do your own research. But you won't accept even the possibility.
Click to expand...

Also one would think you would be itching to prove your case if 800,000 non-citizens voted in California (presumably for Hillary but based on your logic from earlier, this is an unknown). If I had legitimate proof that 800,000 Russian bots voted for Trump, I would be screaming it from the rooftop and calling my legislators daily.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Also one would think you would be itching to prove your case if 800,000 non-citizens voted in California (presumably for Hillary but based on your logic from earlier, this is an unknown). If I had legitimate proof that 800,000 Russian bots voted for Trump, I would be screaming it from the rooftop and calling my legislators daily.
Click to expand...

I said there are 800,000 illegals in LA alone. I'm not saying they all voted.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
:rulz:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-inauguration.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

One of those shady pastors who asks for "seed money" in return for making parishioners rich or closer to god (same type that John Oliver profiled last year) to pray with Trump at inauguration.
Click to expand...

Her church with her ex-husband was huge in Tampa 10+ years ago. Biggest church in the area. They were up to a lot of shady dealings. She's a Trump-type preacher to the extent there can be one. Smoking hot blonde.
 
To think undocumented people (illegals to you) would risk being caught to vote is only feasible to abject, raving lunatics and mindless lemmings.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
That's not fair. Maybe I'm wrong about the number of illegals who voted. Doesn't matter. Trump won fair and square.
Click to expand...

Bob the entire discussion was around the popular vote, not whether trump won fair and square. You implied 800,000 people voted illegally in California and also said that you cannot trust elections out on the west coast. I asked you to provide some evidence because I would like to know whether this is true or not. You continue to deflect. It's your credibility on the line.
 
Last edited:
Newenglanddeac said:
Bob the entire discussion was around the popular vote, not whether trump won fair and square. You implied 800,000 people voted illegally in California and also said that you cannot trust elections out on the west coast. I asked you to provide some evidence because I would like to know whether this is true or not. You continue to deflect. It's your credibility on the line.
Click to expand...

I will strive to regain my credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top