What's Trump up to now?

[Vergil]

, since it doesn't give any region a disproportional amont of influence in the election; you need to reach out to everyone, as you should in a republic/democracy

Which is exactly what the Electoral College does.
This post sums it up fairly well. (and please for the love of God read the whole thing before responding I beg you)

Basically, without this system you essentially get people living in small, densely packed cities deciding the fate of the rest of the country. You Europeans have to understand that for some of you we have states that are close or even bigger than your whole country population wise. The system has to be able to represent all of us from North to South and East to West and it's a big and diverse fuckin country.
I would rather a bunch of people in LA, New York, Chicago and another handful of cities get to decide whose gonna lead the country when they only represent a pretty small part of the actual country both in size and demographics.

It also tends to increase voter participation I found; France has a whopping 80% of its population voting in presidential elections, with a (I think) all time high of something like 85-86%. Compare that to US elections whi have a hard time breaking the 60% line these days. If memory serves, 2016 saw a mere 54% people voting. That's just embarassing IMO.

More people voting doesn't automatically equal good. There are a lot of people who don't know or care a damn thing about politics, do you really want them going out and voting for whoever because a catchy ad campaign told them to? Not to mention just plain stupid people...
Everyone should have the right to vote but not every one probably should vote.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Let us hypothetically, just for the sake of the argument say, Clinton won trough the electoral College and Trump won the popular vote.
You would simply accept that result and argue in favour of the Electoral College?

Just to say this, I am neither arguing for nor against the Electoral College. There are points that speak for it, and points that speak against it, and I don't have nearly enough knowledge about the US ellection, so I really don't have the competence to speak for or against it. But I am just curious about what you think, because you're not tweeting as regulary like some other folks.

 

[Vergil]

Let us hypothetically, just for the sake of the argument, say Clinton won trough the electoral College and Trump won the popular vote.
You would accept that result and argue in favour of the Electoral College?

This is nothing more pointless than a hypothetical question of this nature.
We've already been over this, I can respond with literally whatever answer I want whether it's true or if I even have any idea what I would do in a hypothetical situation like that.
Not to mention it doesn't change the facts I've presented or the argument for the electoral college.

because you're not tweeting as regulary like some other folks.

>4 years ago a man with no political campaigning experience makes an uninformed tweet
Wow really makes you think.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Neither do you have experience with 'political campaigning' and yet ... you speak for it. Besides, it isn't an answer to my question.

And it is not a question about Trumps nature, but yours. - Though something tells me that you would condemn the Electoral Collegue, if we would be talking about Clinton as President right now.

 

[Vergil]

Neither do you have experience with 'political campaigning' and yet ... you speak for it.

And I've presented valid reasoning for why I feel this way. I also don't have any experience getting my testes crushed with a ball-peen hammer but like with the Electoral College, I've seen data and points presented about the subject to be able to feel capable of speaking about whether it's a net positive or negative.

Besides, it isn't an answer to my question.

Because it's a stupid and pointless question.
If I said "yes" you'd call me a liar just trying to look good and if I said "no" you'd call be a hypocrite and refuse to even look at any further arguments I present for the Electoral College.

Though something tells me that you would condemn the Electoral Collegue, if we would be talking about Clinton as President right now.

Ah yes I too have a magic crystal ball that tells me what other people I've never met would do in a hypothetical situation I conjured up.
Something tells me you would definitely join your fellow serbs in cleansing the Balkans of moslems in a grand crusade if only given the opportunity. ;^)

 

[Crni Vuk]

Because it's a stupid and pointless question.
If I said "yes" you'd call me a liar just trying to look good and if I said "no" you'd call be a hypocrite and refuse to even look at any further arguments I present for the Electoral College.

And that, right there, is the ghist of the problem, when ever someone gets in an argument with you.

No one here, particulary us old-timers on NMA, actually knows what you really want. You never share anything about your self. No one knows if you can be trusted. And most of the time you're posts are borderline trolling with a very passive agressive behaviour.

See, if Hass makes a point, as a scientist, then I believe him, because I kinda trust what he says about him self. If Walpknut talks about graphic/design, then I also believe him, for the same reason. Trust. THey add something to the community and they are ... how do I call it? Consistent. They bring someting into this community. But as far as you go? The only thing that I really get from you, and that seems sincere and honest, is a deep fetish for Trump, for what ever reason. But you will have no problem to contradict your self, or what you said, just so that you can continue with your own little Bubble. Trump? He is the perfect president. He can't do ANYTHING wrong. Except, when it serves your point - see above. Trump was against the Electoral Collegue? NO PROBLEM. He was just uninformed. But since he won the presidencey, it's ok now. Who cares what he said 4 years ago.

 

[Vergil]

And that, right there, is the ghist of the problem, when ever someone gets in an argument with you.

No one here, particulary us old-timers on NMA, actually knows what you really want. You never share anything about your self. No one knows if you can be trusted. And most of the time you're posts are borderline trolling with a very passive agressive behaviour.

See, if Hass makes a point, as a scientist, then I believe him, because I kinda trust what he says about him self. If Walpnut talks about graphic/design, then I also believe him, for the same reason. Trust. THey add something to the community and they are ... how do I call it? Consistent. They bring someting into this community. But as far as you go? The only thing that I really get from you, and that seems sincere and honest, is a deep fetish for Trump, for what ever reason. But you will have no problem to contradict your self, or what you said, just so that you can continue with your own little Bubble. Trump? He is the perfect president. He can't do ANYTHING wrong. Except, when it serves your point - see above. Trump was against the Electoral Collegue? NO PROBLEM. He was just uninformed. But since he won the presidencey, it's ok now. Who cares what he said 4 years ago.

That's great and all but unless you can show me where I've contradicted myself or offer refutations to the points I've made it's pretty useless. I don't need to be a political scientist or whatever when I have things to back up my statements and beliefs and I wouldn't just blindly trust whatever some dude on the internet says because he's a "scientist" or whatever without legitimate evidence either and it's rather amusing that you admit to doing so. Hass could pretty much get away with saying all sorts of nutty shit if he wanted to and you'd trust him cuz hez a scienceman!
I've never said Trump can do no wrong. It's pretty clear he's my favourite canidate by a longshot but I do have grievances with him, it's just not the same one's any of you have and more often than not, I'm sorry, yours are just plain wrong and I've never shied away from telling you so and why.

 

[Crni Vuk]

You're favourite candidate? I would say the only person you endorse more then Trump is Griffith ... albeit he is probably not very far behind her.

 

[Vergil]

You're favourite candidate? I would say the only person you endorse more then Trump is Griffith

I only go so far to endorse Trump because everyone goes so far to insult and disparage him over falsehoods.
You cannot deny that a large majority of this site (particularly the older members and regulars) has a pretty large liberal bent to it.
Imagine if you had to go day after day reading a forum about why the Sherman is a shitty tank for completely inaccurate reasons like "it's paint looks dumb" or "it grabs German tanks by the Chasis" or whatever the fuck I dunno anything about tanks.

Griffith ... albeit he is probably not very far behind her.

http://niceme.me/

 

[Ilosar]

Which is exactly what the Electoral College does.
This post sums it up fairly well. (and please for the love of God read the whole thing before responding I beg you)

Basically, without this system you essentially get people living in small, densely packed cities deciding the fate of the rest of the country. You Europeans have to understand that for some of you we have states that are close or even bigger than your whole country population wise. The system has to be able to represent all of us from North to South and East to West and it's a big and diverse fuckin country.
I would rather a bunch of people in LA, New York, Chicago and another handful of cities get to decide whose gonna lead the country when they only represent a pretty small part of the actual country both in size and demographics.

More people voting doesn't automatically equal good. There are a lot of people who don't know or care a damn thing about politics, do you really want them going out and voting for whoever because a catchy ad campaign told them to? Not to mention just plain stupid people...
Everyone should have the right to vote but not every one probably should vote.

First, ''you Europeans''? I'm Canadian as I stated several times, try giving me lessons on how big your country is.

Except the big cities alone aren't enough to win the election, you still need to appeal to 50%+1; that's far, far more people than just the big cities, which all have much different issues in between them anyway. If the Republicans can't appeal to the people in said cities, well maybe they could, you know, change their message.

And anyway, how is it any different from Trump being able to win the election by appealing to people living in rural States and the Rust Belt by promising them a new golden age that he's hardly going to be able to deliver because of simple economics? You can say that these people produce more food; fair enough, but reducing the American finance system to ''producing nothing'' is laughably uninformed on an economics level. Some would say that Wall Street, and the absurd amount of investing capital it controls, is more important to the US's economic well-being than all the farms of the country put together, and then some. If we reduce ''productivity'' to ''makes the most food'', well China and India beat the US in that department.

Point is, no region should have such a disproportionate power in the system. A bit more than 100k people in the Rust Belt decided over 2.2 millions all across the country; that's a travesty as far as I'm concerned from a democratic point of view. I know why the EC exists and it purpose; I'm saying it's outdated and not needed anymore. We're not in 1789 anymore; the government doesn't need to placate the Southern states by giving them more power over the executive than they deserve. The Senate is there to give every State a fair representation as it should.

Of course it's not going to be changed. And I'm not overly affected by it anyway, AND it's the rules of a game where the Democrats fairly lost. But them's shitty rules, is all.

 

[Vergil]

First, ''you Europeans''? I'm Canadian

Ah, the fact that you referred to the Canadian and American systen the way you did and using Europe as an example through me off.

as I stated several times,

I don't read every single one of your posts

try giving me lessons on how big your country is.

Well considering we have a state larger (population wise) than your whole country....

Except the big cities alone aren't enough to win the election,

The one city I have you already has more people than 4 states combined and that's just New York city, not even New York State itself.
Do you really think that's not a problem when it comes to representing everyone?

which all have much different issues in between them anyway.

It's well known that big cities have a liberal bent to them. Just look at the election map by county. Almos all the big cities are bright blue.

If the Republicans can't appeal to the people in said cities, well maybe they could, you know, change their message.

So the big cities totally aren't big enough to be the defining factor in an elections.... but Republicans need to compromise their core beliefs change their message to appeal to those city voters? Which is it?

And anyway, how is it any different from Trump being able to win the election by appealing to people living in rural States and the Rust Belt

Because Trump has to go all around those states and areas within during his campaign instead of just stopping by a couple of big cities. If it was just the popular vote candidates would mainly focus on appealing to the more liberal city dwellers and leave more rural voters in the dust.
Also GG acting like it's just the Rust Belt that one the election. He won just about every battleground state including the highly contested Florida. He appealed to a whole hell of a lot more than the Rust Belt.

promising them a new golden age that he's hardly going to be able to deliver because of simple economics?

I love it when you randomly segway into baseless conjecture.
Try to stay focused on the topic at hand.

You can say that these people produce more food; fair enough,

But it's not just that they make food, it's that they make food both for basic human consumption AND for feed to fuel other big industries like the beef industry. Those four states form a very large ecosystem that produces a lot of food and money for the country.

but reducing the American finance system to ''producing nothing'' is laughably uninformed on an economics level. Some would say that Wall Street, and the absurd amount of investing capital it controls, is more important to the US's economic well-being than all the farms of the country put together,

I get that you're like an economic genius and everything but I find people who actually produce things and don't just move money around at the very least just as important and worthy of representation than those who do.

If we reduce ''productivity'' to ''makes the most food'', well China and India beat the US in that department.

.....which is a thing I never fucking did btw.
The point is these people produce things for the general populace and giant, important industries and I think that makes them pretty important compared to guys in wall street watching stocks and manipulating currency.

Point is, no region should have such a disproportionate power in the system.

.... and the point is the EC does just that.

A bit more than 100k people in the Rust Belt decided over 2.2 millions all across the country; that's a travesty as far as I'm concerned from a democratic point of view.

But if it was a direct democracy and the people who live in the big cities decided for the entire rest of the country that's vastly different from the city that'd be fine? People in the city don't get life in the rural states, they're culturally different. People in the city tend to have different values and needs/wants than people outside of the city and giving so much power to tiny regions with such specific needs that don't fit with the rest of the nation is the real travesty.
America is supposed to represent all the states, not just the one's with the big cities.

I know why the EC exists and it purpose; I'm saying it's outdated and not needed anymore.

And I'm saying you're completely wrong. It's worked just as intended for well over 200 years and actually shows the great foresight and intelligence of our founders. Without this system rural states would be eternally fucked by big cities (but of course you're a liberal so I guess you'd prefer it that way). I don't trust a bunch of people in the big city to be able to make such a large decision virtually without the words of rural states as they're tiny compared to the big liberal cities.

We're not in 1761 anymore;

The Revolutionary War wasn't until 1776......
The current American government wasn't till about 1789....
Oh dear.

the government doesn't need to placate the Southern states by giving them more power over the executive than they deserve.

And who are you to say how much they "deserve"? Giving rural states a say in things is now trying to "placate" them? Why should the government placate the cities by giving them more power over the executive than the rest of the country despite being small little densely packed areas who don't produce nearly as much as they consume then? You come across as very biased against the South here which is odd becaue the examples I've mainly used have been flyover states so that's odd. Why do rural voters not matter as much? We're not all dumb hicks you know.

The Senate is there to give every State a fair representation as it should.

.....the senate isn't even involved in picking the president..... what the fuck are you going on about now?
So because the Senate gives states fair representation in it's duties it's ok if choosing the PRESIDENT doesn't? This is... logic?

But them's shitty rules, is all.

Considering your PM, his policies, and where Canada is headed... I don't think I want to play by your rules.

 

[Ilosar]

I'm not engaging in space-wasting quote war.

Point is, you defend the system as it works in theory; in practice, it didn't make anyone go around and focus on everyone. Leaving aside the myriad of other issues that affected the vote, Clinton focused on the big cities and local regions, believing it enough to win; Trump focused on rural areas and southern states. The latter won, sure, but by a narrow margin vote wise, mostly because he happened to make a promise (revive the manufacturing sector) that appealed to a subset of people in the Rust Belt. So it's not even a rural vs city thing, as much as you try to make it out to be. It's really just ''I said things this particular region wanted to hear, and I won because swing states are cool''. As befit the rules of the game, sure, but still.

So you say the EC is made to represent everyone; in practice, it meant that people in a certain region have far more power over who gets to be President than others in other region based on a theoretical belief that, IMO, doesn't translate into reality. It just creates a bit more than a handful of swing states who decide everything, whereas the guy in Arizona or California might as well not vote because his State is already all but guaranteed anyways, so politicians pay less attention to them. And, surprise surprise, it means a lot of people do stop voting, since nothing crushes democratic enthusiam more than feeling your vote's pointless. So you end up with a ridiculously partisan system where parties only care about propping up their base, + whatever can make them win the next election, since reaching out to more is close to pointless. Thus you contribute to the venomous and counter-productive political climate that exists in the US today. This is why you want more people to vote, so politicians actually ARE forced to care about everyone, not the 50% who do vote plus the few stragglers that can hand them swing states.

And who said I support the Canadian system anyway? It has many of the same issues as the EC does; but unlike the US, we elect the legislative and executive all at once so the problems are more inherent in the machine and changing things would be more far-reaching; whereas changing the EC has much less collateral damage (albeit of course, it's again not happening because of its constitutionnal roots). And I didn't vote Trudeau so, again, your ad hominem falls on deaf ears.

 

[Vergil]

I'm not engaging in space-wasting quote war.

Right, large gish-tier unfocused paragraphs where it's harder to tell exactly what you're responding to are much better.

Point is, you defend the system as it works in theory; in practice, it didn't make anyone go around and focus on everyone.

Without this system they would have only went to the cities with a large density of people. They (well, mostly Trump) did a fucking huge amount of campaigning and was constantly going all across the country. Leaving aside the myriad of other issues that affected the vote, Clinton focused on the big cities and local regions, believing it enough to win; Trump focused on rural areas and southern states.

The latter won, sure, but by a narrow margin vote wise,

You act like unless they win by the hundreds of thousands of votes it just shouldn't count because it's "too close". You can try to disparage a victory you don't like by saying it was by a "narrow margin" but it won't change that Trump won and by a landslide.

mostly because he happened to make a promise (revive the manufacturing sector) that appealed to a subset of people in the Rust Belt. So it's not even a rural vs city thing, as much as you try to make it out to be.

Also GG acting like it's just the Rust Belt that one the election. He won just about every battleground state including the highly contested Florida. He appealed to a whole hell of a lot more than the Rust Belt.

Pro-Tip: If you actually read what the other person posted instead of repeating yourself, you look far less foolish than you do right now.

It's really just ''I said things this particular region wanted to hear, and I won because swing states are cool''. As befit the rules of the game, sure, but still.

Ok so did he win because of the fucking swing states or because of the Rust Belt make up your mind.

So you say the EC is made to represent everyone; in practice, it meant that people in a certain region have far more power over who gets to be President than others in other region based on a theoretical belief that, IMO, doesn't translate into reality. It just creates a bit more than a handful of swing states who decide everything, whereas the guy in Arizona or California might as well not vote because his State is already all but guaranteed anyways, so politicians pay less attention to them.

This is completely fucking wrong in just about everyway. The issue with states like California or Arizona is due to demographics and due to those cities I was talking about earlier. California used to actually be a contestable state until Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals who all became Democrat voters. It has nothing to do with the electoral college that Cali is always so Democrat leaning, it's due to demographics.

And, surprise surprise, it means a lot of people do stop voting, since nothing crushes democratic enthusiam more than feeling your vote's pointless.

Like I said, that's an issue with rapidly changing demographics than an issue with the EC itself. It would still be a problem in a direct democracy. A conservative in California would still be fucked because of the large liberal majority in the cities. Actually really all this would do is fuck more conservative right leaning voters who might as well give up their pointless vote due to the scales being weighed against them.

This is why you want more people to vote, so politicians actually ARE forced to care about everyone, not the 50% who do vote plus the few stragglers that can hand them swing states.

Right so every uneducated mong who doesn't give a fuck about politics or know anything about the subject should vote so politicians have to appeal to an even more retarded voter base. Great plan.
In typical fashion it seems the video i posted was ignored.

And who said I support the Canadian system anyway? It has many of the same issues as the EC does; but unlike the US, we elect the legislative and executive all at once so the problems are more inherent in the machine and changing things would be more far-reaching; whereas changing the EC has much less collateral damage (albeit of course, it's again not happening because of its constitutionnal roots).

Look your system gave you Trudeau and the legalization of blowing your dog I'm sorry but I'm not gonna take Canada's political situation very seriously right now. Like I get that making fun of America is the hip thing to do but at least I get in trouble for my horse fondling.

And I didn't vote Trudeau so, again, your ad hominem falls on deaf ears.

Then it's a good thing I never said you did and was referring to the sytem your country has in place.

 

[TorontoReign]

Voter participation here (OK) is so low it hurts. Possibly due to a lot of democrats not even trying to vote since the state is solid red. Fucking blood red. I wager a lot of liberals are living in the closet here.

 

[MutantScalper]

States like Oklahoma, Wyoming, Alabama, etc. voted most for Trump. I think Wyoming most pro-Trump state.

So, basically, America, it's time to welcome TorontRayne, your new (rural) overlord!

I kid about the rural-part.

 

[Kremin]

Hell, I don't know why anyone would think getting rid of the electoral college would be a good thing. It gives the states other than the ones with the large cities a fair chance in any election.

 

[zegh8578]

This is pretty cool, Trump went to the NY Times for an interview.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html
The gist of it: Obama is a pretty cool guy, climate change could be man-made, prosecuting the Clintons is not a good idea, touching the First Amendment and suing newspapers for libel is also terrible, disavows the alt-right HAIL TRUMP crowd, wants to make peace between Israel and Palestine, wants to take care of Syria.

Huh, seems like my kinda guy all of a sudden!

 

[Ilosar]

Hell, I don't know why anyone would think getting rid of the electoral college would be a good thing. It gives the states other than the ones with the large cities a fair chance in any election.

The flip side is that those Republicans that are in California or New York, or those Democrats that are in Texas or Indiana, will now actually have a voice instead of being drowned into the blue or red noise around them. Why is this always ignored? You can't appeal only to former strongholds because none of them are 100% devoted to a single party, even the most solid blue or red states have 25-30% people voting the other way the vast majority of the time.

 

[GonZo_626]

First, ''you Europeans''? I'm Canadian as I stated several times, try giving me lessons on how big your country is.

Except the big cities alone aren't enough to win the election, you still need to appeal to 50%+1; that's far, far more people than just the big cities, which all have much different issues in between them anyway. If the Republicans can't appeal to the people in said cities, well maybe they could, you know, change their message.

And anyway, how is it any different from Trump being able to win the election by appealing to people living in rural States and the Rust Belt by promising them a new golden age that he's hardly going to be able to deliver because of simple economics? You can say that these people produce more food; fair enough, but reducing the American finance system to ''producing nothing'' is laughably uninformed on an economics level. Some would say that Wall Street, and the absurd amount of investing capital it controls, is more important to the US's economic well-being than all the farms of the country put together, and then some. If we reduce ''productivity'' to ''makes the most food'', well China and India beat the US in that department.

Point is, no region should have such a disproportionate power in the system. A bit more than 100k people in the Rust Belt decided over 2.2 millions all across the country; that's a travesty as far as I'm concerned from a democratic point of view. I know why the EC exists and it purpose; I'm saying it's outdated and not needed anymore. We're not in 1789 anymore; the government doesn't need to placate the Southern states by giving them more power over the executive than they deserve. The Senate is there to give every State a fair representation as it should.

Of course it's not going to be changed. And I'm not overly affected by it anyway, AND it's the rules of a game where the Democrats fairly lost. But them's shitty rules, is all.

Yes but we have much the same problem in our country of Canada where 2 provinces can decide our whole federal election. Meaning that everybody in the rest of the country pretty much has no say. I don't know exactly where you live but I think that it is a travesty that Ontario and Quebec decide the fate over people who have almost nothing in common besides the country we come from. Our own country is moving toward being as divided as the US is.

Personally I think we in Canada should move towards a system of removing power from the federal government and having more of it in the hands of the provinces, territories, and municipalities as I know I have nothing in common with most of the people in those two provinces, especially with P.M. Selfie the Clown telling people in Quebec that the only good P.M.'s come from a province that has a huge amount of people that would be happy leaving our country.

Mind you I would happily jump on a movement for western separation nowadays.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Isn't this topic supposed to be about Trumps policy?