(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Neither party reflects what America wants right now, so we elected a populist who could at least express some of the frustrations. That's what happens when people are totally frustrated]

we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Pretty much what you are a proponent of are the cities of New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco dictating to the rest of the country how they will be governed. Not me.

It's also interesting that most large cities have remained economic powerhouses not because of how they are governed, but in spite of it. Most large cities governance resembles watching a slow moving train wreck.

(08-11-2018 05:12 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Neither party reflects what America wants right now, so we elected a populist who could at least express some of the frustrations. That's what happens when people are totally frustrated]

we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Still not a popular election. It’s 50 individual state elections, which does its job and doesn’t give a small group of states the entire power.

If the EC was putting libs in the White House?...They would be all in favor of it. The lack of honesty on this issue among liberals is transparent. Thankfully the founders were smarter than most of us today in regard to critical thinking skills and devised the EC.

(08-12-2018 09:14 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Neither party reflects what America wants right now, so we elected a populist who could at least express some of the frustrations. That's what happens when people are totally frustrated]

we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Pretty much what you are a proponent of are the cities of New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco dictating to the rest of the country how they will be governed. Not me.

It's also interesting that most large cities have remained economic powerhouses not because of how they are governed, but in spite of it. Most large cities governance resembles watching a slow moving train wreck.

I shudder to think what a train wreck the USA will become if popular vote is enacted as our method of electing the POTUS.

(08-12-2018 09:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I’m betting on the Democrats heading for a centrist sitting Governor that can communicate a simple message effectively... The Democrats need to throw out a "Kasichlike" candidate that will attract independents and GOP voters that are not happy with Trump.

Do you have anybody in mind?

Quote:Putting any polarizing candidate up against him is an instant defeat. That plays directly into his hand.

True.

(08-12-2018 09:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 09:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I’m betting on the Democrats heading for a centrist sitting Governor that can communicate a simple message effectively... The Democrats need to throw out a "Kasichlike" candidate that will attract independents and GOP voters that are not happy with Trump.

Do you have anybody in mind?

Good question. In 1992 they had Bill Clinton. Don't really see one this time.

(08-12-2018 09:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 09:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I’m betting on the Democrats heading for a centrist sitting Governor that can communicate a simple message effectively... The Democrats need to throw out a "Kasichlike" candidate that will attract independents and GOP voters that are not happy with Trump.

Do you have anybody in mind?

Quote:Putting any polarizing candidate up against him is an instant defeat. That plays directly into his hand.

True.

Steve Bullock from Montana. He would fit the bill as a centrist, tax cutter and budget balancer in his state. He is also folksy and well spoken. There are already rumbling about him in 2020.

(08-12-2018 09:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 09:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 09:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I’m betting on the Democrats heading for a centrist sitting Governor that can communicate a simple message effectively... The Democrats need to throw out a "Kasichlike" candidate that will attract independents and GOP voters that are not happy with Trump.

Do you have anybody in mind?

Steve Bullock from Montana. He would fit the bill as a centrist, tax cutter and budget balancer in his state. He is also folksy and well spoken. There are already rumbling about him in 2020.

I believe it would be difficult for him to raise the $$$, and he doesn’t seem to hit any of the Dems’ current demographic/ ideological sweet spots, the way (for example) Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren do.

But we shall see.

(08-12-2018 09:22 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 09:14 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Pretty much what you are a proponent of are the cities of New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco dictating to the rest of the country how they will be governed. Not me.

It's also interesting that most large cities have remained economic powerhouses not because of how they are governed, but in spite of it. Most large cities governance resembles watching a slow moving train wreck.

I shudder to think what a train wreck the USA will become if popular vote is enacted as our method of electing the POTUS.

no W or Trump? OK, I'm down...

(08-12-2018 09:14 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-10-2018 10:50 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Neither party reflects what America wants right now, so we elected a populist who could at least express some of the frustrations. That's what happens when people are totally frustrated]

we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Pretty much what you are a proponent of are the cities of New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco dictating to the rest of the country how they will be governed. Not me.

It's also interesting that most large cities have remained economic powerhouses not because of how they are governed, but in spite of it. Most large cities governance resembles watching a slow moving train wreck.

I'm a proponent of the person who gets the most votes winning the election...it's not complicated.

(08-12-2018 08:51 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Stay on that train forever if you like, but it will never reach its destination. The United States has conducted 58 presidential elections and the Electoral College was there for every single one of them. Not changing anytime soon.

It's one reason I proudly voted for Steve Cohen.

https://wreg.com/2017/01/05/cohen-propos...l-college/

(08-12-2018 10:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 09:14 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Pretty much what you are a proponent of are the cities of New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco dictating to the rest of the country how they will be governed. Not me.

It's also interesting that most large cities have remained economic powerhouses not because of how they are governed, but in spite of it. Most large cities governance resembles watching a slow moving train wreck.

I'm a proponent of the person who gets the most votes winning the election...it's not complicated.

Well, the person with the most votes in each state wins that state and EC votes.......so there is that.

(08-12-2018 10:07 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 10:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 09:14 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Pretty much what you are a proponent of are the cities of New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco dictating to the rest of the country how they will be governed. Not me.

It's also interesting that most large cities have remained economic powerhouses not because of how they are governed, but in spite of it. Most large cities governance resembles watching a slow moving train wreck.

I'm a proponent of the person who gets the most votes winning the election...it's not complicated.

Well, the person with the most votes in each state wins that state and EC votes.......so there is that.

that is NOT what I said...but yes, I understand how the EC works.

hell, if we go by how the Founding Fathers planned it...Hillary should be VP right now.

I'm sure the EC made sense and was needed in the late 1700s...not so much today IMHO.

(08-12-2018 10:13 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 10:07 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 10:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 09:14 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]
I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.
I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon. :coffee3:

Pretty much what you are a proponent of are the cities of New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco dictating to the rest of the country how they will be governed. Not me.
It's also interesting that most large cities have remained economic powerhouses not because of how they are governed, but in spite of it. Most large cities governance resembles watching a slow moving train wreck.

I'm a proponent of the person who gets the most votes winning the election...it's not complicated.

Well, the person with the most votes in each state wins that state and EC votes.......so there is that.

that is NOT what I said...but yes, I understand how the EC works.
hell, if we go by how the Founding Fathers planned it...Hillary should be VP right now.
I'm sure the EC made sense and was needed in the late 1700s...not so much today IMHO.

I think the EC is more needed now than then. Back then the worry was that Virginia would dominate. Now it’s the same concern, but that NYC, Chicago, and LAX would dominate. And I for one don’t want the whole country to go the way of NYC, Chicago, and LAX.

(08-12-2018 09:12 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I'm kinda wary. The last time democrats didn't have anybody, they found Bill Clinton. Though I have to admit, I'd take 1992-2000 Bill Clinton over any democrat I see on the horizon, and many republicans for that matter. Bill was the last democrat that I saw do anything to move his party back toward the center. Unfortunately, he seems to have forgotten that, or maybe just gotten run over by the party's hard charge to the left.

I agree Owl. Im betting on the Democrats heading for a centrist sitting Governor that can communicate a simple message effectively. NONE of the currently mentioned clowns has a chance against Trump. They are all too polarizing. The Democrats need to throw out a "Kasichlike" candidate that will attract independents and GOP voters that are not happy with Trump. Putting any polarizing candidate up against him is a instant defeat. That plays directly into his hand.

This x1000.

It’s so freaking simple. These potential Democratic candidates are seeing who can race each other furthest to left. Why? They are chasing a bunch of votes in the general election that they already have. You don’t need to chase the democratic socialist vote; you had them at “Not Trump”.

It’s the equivalent of the Republicans running some far right evangelical conservative like Hukabee or Santorum. That’s going to fire up the Southern Baptist in Mississippi who thinks every Democrat is the anti-Christ, and get slaughtered in the general.

I think someone like Steve Bullock, Deval Patrick, or even Mitch Landrieu would be a home run. Keeping my fingers crossed the party will smarten up and go that route but not holding my breath.

(08-12-2018 10:07 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 08:51 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  The United States has conducted 58 presidential elections and the Electoral College was there for every single one of them. Not changing anytime soon.

It's one reason I proudly voted for Steve Cohen.

https://wreg.com/2017/01/05/cohen-propos...l-college/

Steve Cohen can keep you company while you wait for the Electoral College to go away.

Meabwhile, I would be interested to see the text of Cohen’s proposed popular-voteAmendment, but the link did not include it.

(08-12-2018 10:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 09:14 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 11:37 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  we the people elected Clinton by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college put Trump in office.

Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Pretty much what you are a proponent of are the cities of New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco dictating to the rest of the country how they will be governed. Not me.

It's also interesting that most large cities have remained economic powerhouses not because of how they are governed, but in spite of it. Most large cities governance resembles watching a slow moving train wreck.

I'm a proponent of the person who gets the most votes winning the election...it's not complicated.

Populism and mob rule....yeah that sounds about right. The founding fathers were truly inspired people. We are not it seems.

(08-12-2018 11:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the EC is more needed now than then. Back then the worry was that Virginia would dominate. Now it’s the same concern, but that NYC, Chicago, and LAX would dominate. And I for one don’t want the whole country to go the way of NYC, Chicago, and LAX.

Do the initials “LAX” now symbolize the entire City or Metro area of Los Angeles? I remember when it just meant the airport.

(08-12-2018 11:45 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 11:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think the EC is more needed now than then. Back then the worry was that Virginia would dominate. Now it’s the same concern, but that NYC, Chicago, and LAX would dominate. And I for one don’t want the whole country to go the way of NYC, Chicago, and LAX.

Do the initials “LAX” now symbolize the entire City or Metro area of Los Angeles? I remember when it just meant the airport.

I think it’s become pretty widely accepted as shorthand for the metro area. Like ATX for Austin or ATL for Atlanta.

(08-12-2018 11:43 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 10:05 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-12-2018 09:14 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 05:09 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Wrong. The electoral college did nothing but carry out the instructions of those who elected them.

Oh, I know, 230 years ago the founders said, “Someday a woman will run for president. How do we keep her from beoinh elected? I have a great idea. Let’s do an electoral college.”

I'm in absolute and total shock...we don't agree...how could this possibly be since we've agreed on so much over the years?[/sarcasm]

I'm glad you now see that I'm 100% correct that 'we' elected Clinton President by more than 2.8 million votes...the electoral college elected Trump.

I've disliked the electoral college since 2000 and I'm not getting off that train anytime soon.

Pretty much what you are a proponent of are the cities of New York, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles and San Francisco dictating to the rest of the country how they will be governed. Not me.

It's also interesting that most large cities have remained economic powerhouses not because of how they are governed, but in spite of it. Most large cities governance resembles watching a slow moving train wreck.

I'm a proponent of the person who gets the most votes winning the election...it's not complicated.

Populism and mob rule....yeah that sounds about right. The founding fathers were truly inspired people. We are not it seems.

then lets make Hillary VP like our founding fathers planned.

John Kasich will hand the White House to the Democrats.

Either he will be their nominee, or his third party run will siphon off enough votes for a Democratic victory.

Either way, Kasich is THE problem for the Republicans.