President Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
I don't think everyone needs to go to college but there are millions of jobs that are not filled because they need people with skills that people aren't getting training for.
Click to expand...
There aren't a million jobs in any small town in rural America. It doesn't matter what your skills may be. Those are the people who elected him.
 
shuize said:
I'm not sure about "free," but I like the idea of more training in the skilled trades. I'm not going to tell anyone not to go to university, but I think many people would be better off without the student loan debt for a B.A. in art history or other completely unmarketable degrees.
Click to expand...

I have one of those unmarketable degrees. I have a degree in political science from the University of Washington. The joke was, now I'm qualified to vote and teach and teaching was questionable. I then spent 30 years in sales. I still think I would be better off if I had chosen engineering.

But I do think it should be free or damn close to free. Most of my college was paid for though scholarships and government grants. I can't imagine being saddled with 100 thousand dollars of debt as so many people are these days.
 
William Parcher said:
There aren't a million jobs in any small town in rural America. It doesn't matter what your skills may be. Those are the people who elected him.
Click to expand...
There are millions of job opportunities in America not specifically in the sticks. But there are lots of small factories in small towns all across the country. No leader is going to reverse the demographic shift to the cities.
 
We don't know what the popular vote would have looked like without the electoral college, because the fact that if exists heavily informs campaign strategy. Trump put very little focus in California, knowing that there was no way he could surpass 50% of the vote. Similarly, voter turnout was suppressed because a lot of people won't bother voting when they know the candidate they support has zero chance of taking any electoral votes in the state. If it was a popular vote, Trump would have campaigned hard in the state and thousands more would have gone to vote knowing that every vote mattered and it wasn't just a throwaway. Hillary would still have won more than 50% in the state, but not by nearly as large a margin.
 
Last edited:
Ambrosia said:
Don't sweat it. I watched his victory speech, and he sounded more presidential then than at any point in his campaign, so maybe there's a chance that President Trump is better than many of us fear.
Click to expand...
I didn't see it, but I'm encouraged by your description.

So I guess he must've apologized for his pathological lying, his contemptible behavior to the press, his heartless mocking of the disabled? He no doubt offered heartfelt regret for his treatment and disregard of women (not to mention minorities), his un-American contempt for the constitution, his blatant greed? And I bet it was wonderful to hear him finally apologize to President Obama for his multiyear campaign to undermine and delegitimize his eligibility and citizenship, right?

What, he did none of those things?

Then please don't suggest that somehow Donald Trump, who's been Donald Trump for 70 years, is suddenly not going to be Donald Trump. Please don't imagine that if we only let it simmer on the stove a little longer a frying pan of feces is going to turn into sirloin steak.

Honestly.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why people make the "save the small States from big States" claim with regards to the EC. The small fly-over States are not swing States and get no attention anyway. The large States like California and New York are too lopsided and get no attention as well.

In practice it is the few competitive States that decide the election vs the majority (in number and population) non-competitive ones that are ignored. This is reflected in campaigning.

As for the "will of the Founders", the current system is a jury rigging of the original one, which was even more undemocratic.

The idea that we need to preserve State dignity or some such thing is archaic nonsense as well. We are a federation with a national government, not a confederation or vague union like the UN or EU. No one is loyal to their State like they were in the Articles of Confederation days.
 
Last edited:
Ambrosia said:
That may well be true. I'm from the UK so how you choose your leaders is your business, but, there must be a better way to apportion votes for the most important office in the land than the existing rules.

If the roles of 50 equal sovereign states needs to factor into the choice of the POTUS then outright abolishing the Electoral College is bad, but it's also bad to keep using a system that was setup long before the difference in population between states was so large.
Click to expand...


Here's the big problem, though: short of a straight-up revolution, only the winners have the power to change the system, and they won't be very inclined to "fix" the very system that made them winners in the first place. They take the fact that they won, and not the other person, as evidence it isn't broken.
 
Last edited:
Doghouse Reilly said:
We don't know what the popular vote would have looked like without the electoral college, because the fact that if exists heavily informs campaign strategy. Trump put very little focus in California, knowing that there was no way he could surpass 50% of the vote. Similarly, voter turnout was suppressed because a lot of people won't bother voting when they know the candidate they support has zero chance of taking any electoral votes in the state. If it was a popular vote, Trump would have campaigned hard in the state and thousands more would have gone to vote knowing that every vote mattered and it wasn't just a throwaway. Hillary would still have won more than 50% in the state, but not by nearly as large a margin.
Click to expand...


Yes. This describes many of my right of center family members in California who often stay home because they feel their votes are Basically worthless.
 
We don't know what the popular vote would have looked like without the electoral college, because the fact that if exists heavily informs campaign strategy. Trump put very little focus in California, knowing that there was no way he could surpass 50% of the vote. Similarly, voter turnout was superseded because a lot of people won't bother voting when they know the candidate they support has zero chance of taking any electoral votes in the state. If it was a popular vote, Trump would have campaigned hard in the state and thousands more would have gone to vote. Hillary would still have won, but not by nearly as large a margin. It's very possible, even likely, that Trump would have won a popular vote contest if that had been the system within which they were campaigning.
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
I didn't see it, but I'm encouraged by your description.

So I guess he must've apologized for his pathological lying, his contemptible behavior to the press, his heartless mocking of the disabled? He no doubt offered heartfelt regret for his treatment and disregard of women (not to mention minorities), his un-American contempt for the constitution, his blatant greed? And I bet it was wonderful to hear him finally apologize to President Obama for his multiyear campaign to undermine and delegitimize his eligibility and citizenship, right?

What, he did none of those things?

Then please don't suggest that somehow Donald Trump, who's been Donald Trump for 70 years, is suddenly not going to be Donald Trump. Please don't imagine that if we only let it simmer on the stove a little longer a frying pan of feces is going to turn into sirloin steak.

Honestly.
Click to expand...


yes, discounting him worked so well before, do continue to take that route, I'm sure it will work out great....this time
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not sure that matters. How do you get rid of it?

1. It's part of the Constitution and amending it has become close to an impossibility.
2. The popular vote has issues as well, but it might work today.
Click to expand...

Amending the Constitution is not necessary. While the Electoral College is established by the Constitution, it is the state governments that determine how their electoral votes are awarded. Most states go by the winner take all strategy, but if a group of states worth more than 270 electoral votes agreed to give their votes to whoever won the nationwide popular vote, we can have a de facto popular vote for president.
 
Random said:
Amending the Constitution is not necessary. While the Electoral College is established by the Constitution, it is the state governments that determine how their electoral votes are awarded. Most states go by the winner take all strategy, but if a group of states worth more than 270 electoral votes agreed to give their votes to whoever won the nationwide popular vote, we can have a de facto popular vote for president.
Click to expand...

The states have always been allowed to apportion their votes as the states themselves see fit. So I guess you are right Your idea would be an end around to amending the constitution.
 
acbytesla said:
The states have always been allowed to apportion their votes as the states themselves see fit. So I guess you are right Your idea would be an end around to amending the constitution.
Click to expand...

Not really his idea, but an actual movement discussed on PBS NewsHour the other day. I don't recall the name of the pact.

Note the downside: there will be no reason really to visit rural areas, since dense areas give more bang for the buck in a purely popular election. It ends up removing emphasis from the states and placing it on population density.
 
phiwum said:
Not really his idea, but an actual movement discussed on PBS NewsHour the other day. I don't recall the name of the pact.

Note the downside: there will be no reason really to visit rural areas, since dense areas give more bang for the buck in a purely popular election. It ends up removing emphasis from the states and placing it on population density.
Click to expand...


Not to mention diluting their influence in the overall election. But, hey, fair's fair. I say we start by asking Democrats to give up their headlock on the 84 electoral votes California and New York represent.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Not really his idea, but an actual movement discussed on PBS NewsHour the other day. I don't recall the name of the pact.

Note the downside: there will be no reason really to visit rural areas, since dense areas give more bang for the buck in a purely popular election. It ends up removing emphasis from the states and placing it on population density.
Click to expand...

This is true but right now they are ignoring New York, Massachusetts, California, Texas and a dozen other states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom