(05-03-2019 11:21 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:49 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:46 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  ...troll but we can’t. It’s even celebrated by those hand out warnings in here. Double standard.

He was elected POTUS by tens of millions of people.

You have an internet connection.

uh, more people voted for Hillary...like 3 million more. Trump was elected POTUS by the electoral college.

more people voted against her and we live in a representative republic


3 million Mexicans don't count

so

reeeeeeeeeee

Couple of points:

1) Most western democracies/republics choose their chief executive indirectly. All Westminster parliamentary countries do, by definition. France has popular vote, but with a runoff required if no candidate gets over 50%. Most countries with direct election tend to be dictatorships. Given that track record, I'm not sure how great an idea popular vote for president actually is.

2) Suppose we actually did popular vote. Countries that do popular vote generally require the winner to get more than 50%, like France, and hold a runoff if nobody gets 50%. Remember, nobody got 50% in 2016. How would a runoff have gone? Let's assume the Stein votes went for Hillary, and the Johnson votes went for Trump, neither one an unreasonable assumption. Then your president would be--Donald Trump. Of course, there is a possibility that more Johnson voters would defect to Hillary than Stein voters would defect to Trump. How many would be the deciding factor. But there's a pretty good chance Trump wins a popular vote election if we require a runoff.

(05-03-2019 09:38 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Couple of points:

1) Most western democracies/republics choose their chief executive indirectly. All Westminster parliamentary countries do, by definition. France has popular vote, but with a runoff required if no candidate gets over 50%. Most countries with direct election tend to be dictatorships. Given that track record, I'm not sure how great an idea popular vote for president actually is.

2) Suppose we actually did popular vote. Countries that do popular vote generally require the winner to get more than 50%, like France, and hold a runoff if nobody gets 50%. Remember, nobody got 50% in 2016. How would a runoff have gone? Let's assume the Stein votes went for Hillary, and the Johnson votes went for Trump, neither one an unreasonable assumption. Then your president would be--Donald Trump. Of course, there is a possibility that more Johnson voters would defect to Hillary than Stein voters would defect to Trump. How many would be the deciding factor. But there's a pretty good chance Trump wins a popular vote election if we require a runoff.

1. yeah....you already said that....

so fk'n what...

please expound why that matters....

2. can you suck the Rand any more with that posit....jfc...

it's a two oar system...there isn't another in existence where 3 becomes 1, sir....

keep on, keepin' on....you lose ever single day and the eighth one.....

it doesn't mean dick whether ya like it or naught....

(05-03-2019 11:50 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 11:21 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  uh, more people voted for Hillary...like 3 million more. Trump was elected POTUS by the electoral college.

Which was put in place precisely so that 3 or 4 more densely populated states could not dictate to the other 46 states. It works perfectly.

The Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were doing when they devised that little mechanism while writing our Constitution. It's a check and balance on highly-populated cities and/or states. A necessary one, too.

(05-03-2019 12:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:46 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  ...troll but we can’t. It’s even celebrated by those hand out warnings in here. Double standard.

Holy crap....I had no idea that the President of the Unites States was on this board. Well, he would have to live by the same standards as the rest of us....so mod's please take action.

No he wouldn’t. He would have his knob slobed.

(05-03-2019 05:21 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 02:34 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:22 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 11:33 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  So, tens of millions didn’t vote for trump?

He lost by millions of votes.

Which votes?

The illegal ones.

He rigged it up.

(05-03-2019 09:48 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  1. yeah....you already said that....
so fk'n what...
please expound why that matters....
2. can you suck the Rand any more with that posit....jfc...
it's a two oar system...there isn't another in existence where 3 becomes 1, sir....
keep on, keepin' on....you lose ever single day and the eighth one.....
it doesn't mean dick whether ya like it or naught....

Per Wikipedia, countries that directly elect their head of state/head of government include Zimbabwe, Yemen, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, South Ossetia, Somaliland, Serbia, Senegal, Russia, Republic of the Congo, Paraguay, Northern Cyprus, Nigeria, Niger, Mozambique, Montenegro, Mexico, Mali, Madagascar, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Ireland, Indonesia, Haiti, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Georgia, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Egypt, East Timor, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad, Central African Republic, Cape Verde, Cameroon, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Bulgaria, Brazil, Bolivia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Afghanistan, and Abkhazia. Not exactly what I would call a great record for stability there. There are a few others like France that are more stable, to be sure, but the laundry list in the previous sentence are the majority. No thanks, I'll keep what we have rather than going there. I think there is something inherent in direct election systems that make them vulnerable to instability. The founders seemed to think that one advantage of an electoral college was greater stability, which they considered important for a fledgling republic, and that seems to be borne out by history.

The only way that I would even want to consider direct election is if we did two things:
1) Require a majority, and a runoff if no candidate got more than 50%.
2) Greatly reduce the power of the executive by transferring power back to the legislature. This second point seems to get lost, but it is a significant one. The system envisioned by the founders was really intended to be dominated by congress, with the president simply administering the policies set by congress. That has been lost in modern two-party politics, but I think we should move back in that direction.

(05-04-2019 05:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:48 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  1. yeah....you already said that....
so fk'n what...
please expound why that matters....
2. can you suck the Rand any more with that posit....jfc...
it's a two oar system...there isn't another in existence where 3 becomes 1, sir....
keep on, keepin' on....you lose ever single day and the eighth one.....
it doesn't mean dick whether ya like it or naught....

Per Wikipedia, countries that directly elect their head of state/head of government include Zimbabwe, Yemen, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, South Ossetia, Somaliland, Serbia, Senegal, Russia, Republic of the Congo, Paraguay, Northern Cyprus, Nigeria, Niger, Mozambique, Montenegro, Mexico, Mali, Madagascar, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Ireland, Indonesia, Haiti, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Georgia, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Egypt, East Timor, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad, Central African Republic, Cape Verde, Cameroon, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Bulgaria, Brazil, Bolivia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Afghanistan, and Abkhazia. Not exactly what I would call a great record for stability there. There are a few others like France that are more stable, to be sure, but the laundry list in the previous sentence are the majority. No thanks, I'll keep what we have rather than going there. I think there is something inherent in direct election systems that make them vulnerable to instability. The founders seemed to think that one advantage of an electoral college was greater stability, which they considered important for a fledgling republic, and that seems to be borne out by history.

The only way that I would even want to consider direct election is if we did two things:
1) Require a majority, and a runoff if no candidate got more than 50%.
2) Greatly reduce the power of the executive by transferring power back to the legislature. This second point seems to get lost, but it is a significant one. The system envisioned by the founders was really intended to be dominated by congress, with the president simply administering the policies set by congress. That has been lost in modern two-party politics, but I think we should move back in that direction.

are you shittin' me?

how about any of what you mentioned doesn't have the resource or resound to compete with the format of choice within the current status....

I'm fine with the states splaying their lunacy as they see fit....

what that does is promote further growth in others when they either 'foul it off or strike the fk out'....

the west coast and NE biatches are getting their nuts kicked up the throat....

I can't figure out why....

I'm going to laugh my arse off all the way to the grub worms.....

intentional edit: oh yeah......#henceDJT

I love how people act like the election campaign/results wouldn't have changed at all if the popular vote was what ultimately mattered.

(05-04-2019 02:05 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:08 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:46 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  ...troll but we can’t. It’s even celebrated by those hand out warnings in here. Double standard.

Holy crap....I had no idea that the President of the Unites States was on this board. Well, he would have to live by the same standards as the rest of us....so mod's please take action.

FIFY

(05-04-2019 05:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:48 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  1. yeah....you already said that....
so fk'n what...
please expound why that matters....
2. can you suck the Rand any more with that posit....jfc...
it's a two oar system...there isn't another in existence where 3 becomes 1, sir....
keep on, keepin' on....you lose ever single day and the eighth one.....
it doesn't mean dick whether ya like it or naught....

Per Wikipedia, countries that directly elect their head of state/head of government include Zimbabwe, Yemen, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, South Ossetia, Somaliland, Serbia, Senegal, Russia, Republic of the Congo, Paraguay, Northern Cyprus, Nigeria, Niger, Mozambique, Montenegro, Mexico, Mali, Madagascar, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Ireland, Indonesia, Haiti, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Georgia, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Egypt, East Timor, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad, Central African Republic, Cape Verde, Cameroon, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Bulgaria, Brazil, Bolivia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Afghanistan, and Abkhazia. Not exactly what I would call a great record for stability there. There are a few others like France that are more stable, to be sure, but the laundry list in the previous sentence are the majority. No thanks, I'll keep what we have rather than going there. I think there is something inherent in direct election systems that make them vulnerable to instability. The founders seemed to think that one advantage of an electoral college was greater stability, which they considered important for a fledgling republic, and that seems to be borne out by history.

The only way that I would even want to consider direct election is if we did two things:
1) Require a majority, and a runoff if no candidate got more than 50%.
2) Greatly reduce the power of the executive by transferring power back to the legislature. This second point seems to get lost, but it is a significant one. The system envisioned by the founders was really intended to be dominated by congress, with the president simply administering the policies set by congress. That has been lost in modern two-party politics, but I think we should move back in that direction.

France, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, and Taiwan use direct elections and these aren't exactly third-world countries or anything lol

but I do agree that if we did go that route 'instant runoffs' would be a good thing...

(05-03-2019 09:46 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  ...troll but we can’t. It’s even celebrated by those hand out warnings in here. Double standard.

What a ridiculous comment. May as well ask why strippers aren't allowed to strip in the grocery store, but are in a strip club. Double standard.

Trump is not a poster on this forum that I know of. If he is, he's held to the same standards as everyone else, mostly because mods on here don't know who many posters are IRL.

I don't know whom you're referring to, but I don't think I've EVER celebrated a Trump tweet and have often said I wish he would refrain.. I've said the same about lots of posters on here as well. I'm consistent as hell

(05-05-2019 01:12 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(05-04-2019 05:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 09:48 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  1. yeah....you already said that....
so fk'n what...
please expound why that matters....
2. can you suck the Rand any more with that posit....jfc...
it's a two oar system...there isn't another in existence where 3 becomes 1, sir....
keep on, keepin' on....you lose ever single day and the eighth one.....
it doesn't mean dick whether ya like it or naught....

Per Wikipedia, countries that directly elect their head of state/head of government include Zimbabwe, Yemen, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Sudan, South Ossetia, Somaliland, Serbia, Senegal, Russia, Republic of the Congo, Paraguay, Northern Cyprus, Nigeria, Niger, Mozambique, Montenegro, Mexico, Mali, Madagascar, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Ireland, Indonesia, Haiti, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Georgia, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Egypt, East Timor, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Chad, Central African Republic, Cape Verde, Cameroon, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Bulgaria, Brazil, Bolivia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Afghanistan, and Abkhazia. Not exactly what I would call a great record for stability there. There are a few others like France that are more stable, to be sure, but the laundry list in the previous sentence are the majority. No thanks, I'll keep what we have rather than going there. I think there is something inherent in direct election systems that make them vulnerable to instability. The founders seemed to think that one advantage of an electoral college was greater stability, which they considered important for a fledgling republic, and that seems to be borne out by history.

The only way that I would even want to consider direct election is if we did two things:
1) Require a majority, and a runoff if no candidate got more than 50%.
2) Greatly reduce the power of the executive by transferring power back to the legislature. This second point seems to get lost, but it is a significant one. The system envisioned by the founders was really intended to be dominated by congress, with the president simply administering the policies set by congress. That has been lost in modern two-party politics, but I think we should move back in that direction.

France, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, and Taiwan use direct elections and these aren't exactly third-world countries or anything lol

but I do agree that if we did go that route 'instant runoffs' would be a good thing...

or turn it into vertical VZ and be done with it....

it would be then borders and your bank acct would become meaningless....

I don't choose yaz' version of that shitehole...

good luck promoting any form of that bs....

The system we have works perfectly well and there is no reason to change it.

Do you guys want the 4 or 5 liberals on this board to go away? I can understand your frustration with the left in general, but I'd say with some confidence that we're not the ones doing the things that you point out in various posts as being inflammatory in this country (at least I know I'm not).

I get the sense sometimes that all your frustration with the media and social media is being directed at us for some reason, and that just seems like a huge miscalculation. Unless there is a specific post (I had one the other day that got a bit dramatic I admit), the vitriolic attacks seem a bit much. JMHO.

(05-05-2019 03:12 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Do you guys want the 4 or 5 liberals on this board to go away? I can understand your frustration with the left in general, but I'd say with some confidence that we're not the ones doing the things that you point out in various posts as being inflammatory in this country (at least I know I'm not).

I get the sense sometimes that all your frustration with the media and social media is being directed at us for some reason, and that just seems like a huge miscalculation. Unless there is a specific post (I had one the other day that got a bit dramatic I admit), the vitriolic attacks seem a bit much. JMHO.

Nah.

What we would like is some actual intelligent liberals. It gets boring dealing with imbeciles and outright trolls all the time.

I'll make you a trade offer. Get me an intelligent president and I'll find you an intelligent liberal to post here.

(05-05-2019 04:00 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I'll make you a trade offer. Get me an intelligent president and I'll find you an intelligent liberal to post here.

You've already got what you are asking for, you are just too stupid and partisan to see it.

Booming economy
Revitalized industrial base
More money in the taxpayer's pockets
Rebuilding our military after eight years of absolute neglect.
Putting Constitutional scholars instead of activists on the federal bench
Working to level the playing field in regards to international trade.
Strengthening the NATO alliance by demanding others to meet their requirements.

And accomplished all that with absolutely zero help from the other side of the political aisle. Seems pretty damn smart to me.

Now go find us a smart liberal.

(05-05-2019 03:12 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Do you guys want the 4 or 5 liberals on this board to go away? I can understand your frustration with the left in general, but I'd say with some confidence that we're not the ones doing the things that you point out in various posts as being inflammatory in this country (at least I know I'm not).

I get the sense sometimes that all your frustration with the media and social media is being directed at us for some reason, and that just seems like a huge miscalculation. Unless there is a specific post (I had one the other day that got a bit dramatic I admit), the vitriolic attacks seem a bit much. JMHO.

I don't... though I haven't read most of the comments in this thread.

(05-04-2019 02:06 AM)swagsurfer11 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 05:21 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 02:34 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 12:22 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(05-03-2019 11:33 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  So, tens of millions didn’t vote for trump?

He lost by millions of votes.

Which votes?

The illegal ones.

He rigged it up.

Please show your work. I've asked several times and you've conveniently had an excuse, so either put up or shut up.