• 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!

Charlie Daniels: It's only a matter of time before there is blood on the streets

Biggus Deacus said:
ChrisL68 said:
Funny how desperate the right wing is to delegitimize the popular vote result when their candidate suddenly wins an election with 3 million less votes than their opponent.

If anybody thinks this would have been allowed to be a common occurance in the history of the country without political system change is kidding themselves.[/QUOTE

Your post is cryptic and I'm not conservative.
Click to expand...

OK, but saying that the popular vote doesn't matter is a curious take. Of course it matters. More people voted for Donald Trump's opponent than Donald Trump, by a wide margin.

It demonstrates that this is a very unpopular president with little mandate.
Click to expand...
 
Biggus Deacus said:
I've likely posted this before, but the "popular vote" doesn't exist. It's a concept and creation in myth, just like Santa.
Click to expand...

No, it's very real it's just not the determining factor in the presidential election. Santa, sadly, is not tangible or real. He's imaginary. The votes cast are very much real.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Biggus Deacus said:
OK, but saying that the popular vote doesn't matter is a curious take. Of course it matters. More people voted for Donald Trump's opponent than Donald Trump, by a wide margin.

It demonstrates that this is a very unpopular president with little mandate.
Click to expand...

"Curious take," are you kidding me? Read the Constitution, and hell, the Federalist Papers wouldn't hurt. When I write about things, my arguments are mostly based in law. Electoral College is the law and the "Popular Vote" is not. I thought you were generally a non-partisan poster, but after reading this post, you're clearly a left-wing ideologue. Feels good to be labeled, right?

I had no horse in this race. You were obviously an HRC person I guess? Regardless, people had hope maybe and roughly half are starting to get what they voted for.

I guess we should get with the program and hope for the best. And, if you believe in the popular vote or one person one vote, you simply know nothing about our Democracy. If you can't accept that, move anywhere else in the world, which will afford you less freedom than here. A vote in rural Alabama was intended to be weighted more than one in urban Philadelphia, and I chose Philadelphia for a historical reason. Look it up, I'm not explaining this basic point.

I'll end with this, if the rules were changed in August and the "popular vote" was law, he would have won by 10 million votes, easy. As I said before, I'm not thrilled with this guy, but he's what our country elected, and all of us should support him.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Biggus Deacus said:
ChrisL68 said:
"Curious take," are you kidding me? Read the Constitution, and hell, the Federalist Papers wouldn't hurt. When I write about things, my arguments are mostly based in law. Electoral College is the law and the "Popular Vote" is not. I thought you were generally a non-partisan poster, but after reading this post, you're clearly a left-wing ideologue. Feels good to be labeled, right?

I had no horse in this race. You were obviously an HRC person I guess? Regardless, people had hope maybe and roughly half are starting to get what they voted for.

I guess we should get with the program and hope for the best. And, if you believe in the popular vote or one person one vote, you simply know nothing about our Democracy. If you can't accept that, move anywhere else in the world, which will afford you less freedom than here. A vote in rural Alabama was intended to be weighted more than one in urban Philadelphia, and I chose Philadelphia for a historical reason. Look it up, I'm not explaining this basic point.

I'll end with this, if the rules were changed in August and the "popular vote" was law, he would have won by 10 million votes, easy. As I said before, I'm not thrilled with this guy, but he's what our country elected, and all of us should support him.
Click to expand...

"Mostly."
Click to expand...
 
I know when I'm looking for opinion on the state of the world the first person I seek out is Charlie Daniels.
 
bobknightfan said:
America rejected liberalism in the last election. America is more than winning California by 4.3M votes and getting 95% of one 13% segment of the population.....and that is basically the only part of America that didn't reject liberal policy in this past election. And America has been rejecting extreme liberal policies all thru the past eight years, in spite of Obama's two personal wins. They lost many governorships, state legislatures, Senators & Congressmen over this period. The Democratic Party isn't even a national party anymore. It is not even competitive in around 80% of the country.....and it's going to get worse for them if they continue to let people like Elizabeth Warren & Bernie Sanders be the face of their party.

All of this is what liberals do not yet understand. Obama won because he was Obama....not because of his policies.
Click to expand...

I love the conservative move of just dismissing the parts of American where people, you know, live. The whole "if you take out California" line is so dumb. You could just as easily make the argument on the other side: if you take out Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina (combined population: less than California), what would Hillary's margin have been?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
No, it's very real it's just not the determining factor in the presidential election. Santa, sadly, is not tangible or real. He's imaginary. The votes cast are very much real.
Click to expand...

Appreciate comments like this and thank you for it. Nonetheless, you're wrong by definition on this point. Sadly, for you or whatever group that wants to push this thing, the "popular vote" means nothing and doesn't exist. Why? I could get detailed about it, but i'll just say HRC's legal team isn't taking it up because they can't. I mean, you can suppport this position and run for office or whatever, but changing that foundational principle is not gonna happen. If you want to waste your time, talk about it at length, instead of learning the lessons of why this election was lost and focusing on the mid-terms to come.

Sadly, I believe more in Santa than who we've got, but I feel that we've got to pull this thing together.

One thing would be for the MSM to ask targeted policy questions when they get the chance, instead of making them the story. Do you agree with that?
 
Biggus Deacus said:
ChrisL68 said:
"Curious take," are you kidding me? Read the Constitution, and hell, the Federalist Papers wouldn't hurt. When I write about things, my arguments are mostly based in law. Electoral College is the law and the "Popular Vote" is not. I thought you were generally a non-partisan poster, but after reading this post, you're clearly a left-wing ideologue. Feels good to be labeled, right?

I had no horse in this race. You were obviously an HRC person I guess? Regardless, people had hope maybe and roughly half are starting to get what they voted for.

I guess we should get with the program and hope for the best. And, if you believe in the popular vote or one person one vote, you simply know nothing about our Democracy. If you can't accept that, move anywhere else in the world, which will afford you less freedom than here. A vote in rural Alabama was intended to be weighted more than one in urban Philadelphia, and I chose Philadelphia for a historical reason. Look it up, I'm not explaining this basic point.

I'll end with this, if the rules were changed in August and the "popular vote" was law, he would have won by 10 million votes, easy. As I said before, I'm not thrilled with this guy, but he's what our country elected, and all of us should support him.
Click to expand...

Using the popular vote to determine a national election when you have one 13% subset of the election rubber-stamping one party's candidate by a 95% to 5% margin in every election would amount to "tyranny of the minority". Take a look at the numbers. A 13% subset of voters voting 95% to 5% works out to a margin of 12.35% to 0.65%. That means that only 1/8 of the total voters have arbitrarily given one candidate a 11.7% margin out of the total 100% vote in the country. In order to offset this enormous rubber-stamp margin, the other 87%...roughly 7/8 of the country...would have to vote for the other candidate by more than a 62.35% to 37.65% margin to prevent having 1/8 of the voters in the country electing every president in every election. And that is tyranny of the minority....when there is a good chance that 1/8 of the voters can overrule the wishes of 7/8 of the voters. That is also why Hillary's popular vote margin doesn't mean jack-shit. She was a landslide winner from 1/8 of the population and a solid loser from 7/8 of the population.

Changing to a popular vote to elect a president would 1) be completely opposite of the way our government was set up and has successfully operated for more than 200 years and 2) would create a far, far worse racial division in this country than anything you think you have seen to date as white voter habits would gradually tend to morph more toward black voters habits as they realized that they were being disenfranchised by a much, much smaller segment of the population.

In short, it would be a total disaster.....and those who are calling for that to happen are extremely uninformed and short-sighted.
Click to expand...
 
Biggus Deacus said:
Appreciate comments like this and thank you for it. Nonetheless, you're wrong by definition on this point. Sadly, for you or whatever group that wants to push this thing, the "popular vote" means nothing and doesn't exist. Why? I could get detailed about it, but i'll just say HRC's legal team isn't taking it up because they can't. I mean, you can suppport this position and run for office or whatever, but changing that foundational principle is not gonna happen. If you want to waste your time, talk about it at length, instead of learning the lessons of why this election was lost and focusing on the mid-terms to come.

Sadly, I believe more in Santa than who we've got, but I feel that we've got to pull this thing together.

One thing would be for the MSM to ask targeted policy questions when they get the chance, instead of making them the story. Do you agree with that?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't make any plans for this, were I you.
 
MysteryMen said:
I love the conservative move of just dismissing the parts of American where people, you know, live. The whole "if you take out California" line is so dumb. You could just as easily make the argument on the other side: if you take out Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, West Virginia, Nebraska, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, Alabama, and South Carolina (combined population: less than California), what would Hillary's margin have been?
Click to expand...

"If you just take out that 22-0 run we were right in it."
 
I wonder why that 13% of the population rubber stamps one party's candidate.
 
BarcaDeac said:
I wonder why that 13% of the population rubber stamps one party's candidate.
Click to expand...

When you look at the so-called fruit borne from all that loyalty, you really do wonder, don't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top