Right, Left and coddling

[Upchurch]

The 2.8 millions of surplus votes Clinton got.

I am super confused. How does Clinton's surplus of popular votes indicate that "A majority of people plus states decided that Trump is fit"?

Wouldn't a majority of people not voting for Trump indicate that they decided he's not fit? (Or, at least, that he shouldn't be President?)

 

[aleCcowaN]

I am super confused. How does Clinton's surplus of popular votes indicate that "A majority of people plus states decided that Trump is fit"?

Wouldn't a majority of people not voting for Trump indicate that they decided he's not fit? (Or, at least, that he shouldn't be President?)

The system is a mixture by design. You want to segregate it for the parts to say what you'd want to read in them.

The fact is that a constitutional majority said Trump is fit. Domage!

 

[Ziggurat]

Truncating a quote in the middle of a sentence, and implying meaning from the fragment quoted is dishonest.

It was truncated for brevity. Even with the full quote, my interpretation would have been the same. And you're only objecting to this now, well into the discussion of the topic, which suggests to me this isn't really the issue.

 

[aleCcowaN]

"Survey results released by YouGov Friday show that 51 percent of Republicans said they think former President Barack Obama was born in Kenya, compared to just 14 percent of Democrats. Perhaps unsurprisingly, respondents who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 election were especially convinced of Obama's African origins: Fully 57 percent said it was "definitely true" or "probably true" that the 44th president came from Kenya."
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-birther-obama-poll-republicans-kenya-744195

"Just 35 percent of Republicans believed global warming was caused by humans, compared with 40 percent at about this time in 2017 when Trump had barely taken office. A full 89 percent of Democrats, meanwhile, believed humans caused global warming.

Just 42 percent said most scientists believe global warming is occurring, down from 53 percent last year."
http://www.newsweek.com/trumps-amer...believe-climate-change-real-poll-shows-864550

PRINCETON, NJ -- There is a significant political divide in beliefs about the origin of human beings, with 60% of Republicans saying humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/108226/republicans-democrats-differ-creationism.aspx

About half of Republicans would support postponing the 2020 election so the country can address claims of voter fraud, according to a new poll by the Washington Post’s Monkey Cage blog.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...blicans-voter-fraud-delay-2020-elections-poll

It is obvious Republicans are divorced from reality, and the problem is getting worse.

What about only 41% of Democrats knowing each state has two senators, as opposed to 58% of Republicans? What about only 31% of Democrats knowing the Senate confirms a Supreme Court justice, as opposed to 50% of Republicans? (Taken from Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate - 2016 National Civics Survey Results)

 

[Upchurch]

The system is a mixture by design. You want to segregate it for the parts to say what you'd want to read in them.

The fact is that a constitutional majority said Trump is fit. Domage!

I absolutely agree that Trump won the Electoral vote. That is not at all in contention. However, there is no way you make the claim that a majority of people decided that Trump is fit. That is the definitively false.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

What about only 41% of Democrats knowing each state has two senators, as opposed to 58% of Republicans? What about only 31% of Democrats knowing the Senate confirms a Supreme Court justice, as opposed to 50% of Republicans? (Taken from Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate - 2016 National Civics Survey Results)

As to the Supreme Court justice, if I recall correctly the last justice appointed was not confirmed by the Senate as all others have been previously. It seems things change.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I absolutely agree that Trump won the Electoral vote. That is not at all in contention. However, there is no way you make the claim that a majority of people decided that Trump is fit. That is the definitively false.

I said a majority of "people and states". That's what the Constitution prescribes. And that is true. The same if Clinton won TX, FL, PA and lost NH, VM, DE, RI, CN ... (make it 10 small states): A majority of "people and states" would have decided Clinton was the president (a fit one, by definition).

Besides these Byzantine exchanges, what I meant is that is not for anybody -but the Congress via impeachment- to determine a president is "unfit". Once you leave your personal opinions to substitute reality you can't be taken seriously.

Because the Constitution is not only designed to protect the people from the whims of the officials in the government, but also to protect those officials from the whims of the people.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The 2.8 millions of surplus votes Clinton got. The Constitution is designed in a way 10 more states trumps those votes. That's deliberate, not a mistake.

It isn't designed. The early elections had significantly closer distribution of electors to population than current elections. Locking the size of the house fundamentally breaks any intent of the distribution of electoral votes.

 

[Fudbucker]

What about only 41% of Democrats knowing each state has two senators, as opposed to 58% of Republicans? What about only 31% of Democrats knowing the Senate confirms a Supreme Court justice, as opposed to 50% of Republicans? (Taken from Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate - 2016 National Civics Survey Results)

Ignorance of civics is an American past-time, and there's plenty to go around on both sides.

"The APPC survey, conducted Aug. 9-13 among 1,013 adults in the United States, finds that 53 percent think that people who are here illegally do not have any rights under the Constitution. That incorrect belief is especially strong among self-identified political conservatives – 67 percent think it is accurate, compared with 48 percent of moderates and 46 percent of liberals."

This is more alarming than not knowing the Senate confirms justices. believing that a class of people is not protected by the constitution can lead to all sorts of problems.

There is a difference between being ignorant about how government works, and believing in stuff that is blatantly wrong: Climate denialism, birtherism, creationism, massive voter fraud...

People not knowing about senators confirming justices doesn't concern me much. The current President claiming climate change is a Chinese hoax, Obama was born in Kenya, and millions of illegals cost him the popular vote concern me greatly.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... Why doesn't the average Trump voter expand their hand to understand the other side?

Because the price of owning up to historical and contemporary fact is way, way, waaaay too high, and impacts too severely on self-image, especially for those whose main claim to fame is to be from where they were born. Same goes for most any other people or nation. So: myth.

This dire need to protect self, along with the sad fact that commitment to democracy has ever been wallet-deep, guarantees the rise of Trumps when reality contradicts the promises of national/tribal myth, or it seems threatened (Obama). Which is why you have to keep such myth in check, meaning why you need to keep today's GOP in check, while merely fretting about nonsense on today's left. Both sides, however, share the same addiction to Rosy Mirror, just with differing predilections about what they want to see, each meanwhile listening to their own preferred peanut galleries.

Luckily, in the world there are skeptics, who have all learned to reason from first principle. I mean, none of us fall prey to such transparently artificial contrivances as nationalism and patriotism, right? Surely.

 

[aleCcowaN]

As to the Supreme Court justice, if I recall correctly the last justice appointed was not confirmed by the Senate as all others have been previously. It seems things change.

"On April 7, 2017, the Senate confirmed Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court with a 54–45 vote, with three Democrats joining all the Republicans in attendance." from Wikipedia - Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination

So, it really seams there are fears that may be googled away in a couple of minutes, but don't...

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

"On April 7, 2017, the Senate confirmed Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court with a 54–45 vote, with three Democrats joining all the Republicans in attendance." from Wikipedia - Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination

So, it really seams there are fears that may be googled away in a couple of minutes, but don't...

By what percentage has every single other Justice cleared the Senate, which Gorsuch did not and had to have a special rule put in place so that he didn't need to? Your googling should help here.

 

[Fudbucker]

It was truncated for brevity. Even with the full quote, my interpretation would have been the same. And you're only objecting to this now, well into the discussion of the topic, which suggests to me this isn't really the issue.

Please. We're not talking about taking a sentence out of a long paragraph. You dishonestly cut off my quote in mid-sentence. And when called out on it, you try to say it was for "brevity". Don't bother expecting replies from me anymore.

 

[BobTheCoward]

By what percentage has every single other Justice cleared the Senate, which Gorsuch did not and had to have a special rule put in place so that he didn't need to? Your googling should help here.

What makes the rule special from any other senate rule? All senate rules are special.

 

[aleCcowaN]

By what percentage has every single other Justice cleared the Senate, which Gorsuch did not and had to have a special rule put in place so that he didn't need to? Your googling should help here.

Who set the special rule and what does it say?

 

[Ziggurat]

Please. We're not talking about taking a sentence out of a long paragraph. You dishonestly cut off my quote in mid-sentence. And when called out on it, you try to say it was for "brevity". Don't bother expecting replies from me anymore.

You replied multiple times before, and never objected to that truncation. It's only after I kept pointing out that the left also has irrational fears that you got upset about this point. I cannot compel further replies, I wouldn't even if I could, and any further replies from you are likely to be light on meaningful content anyways, but I can't take your umbrage seriously.

 

[Upchurch]

I said a majority of "people and states". That's what the Constitution prescribes. And that is true.

...er, no. It really isn't.

The Constitution prescribes the Electoral College and how electors may vote, but leaves the selection of the electors up to the states. The indirect popular vote is tradition, but not Constitutionally prescribed. Not even how the electors are distributed based on the popular vote is defined by the Constitution, which is why some states are winner-take-all and some are not.

It isn't even necessary to win a majority of states, because not all states are equal.

Besides these Byzantine exchanges, what I meant is that is not for anybody -but the Congress via impeachment- to determine a president is "unfit". Once you leave your personal opinions to substitute reality you can't be taken seriously.

That's true, but it's also moving the goal posts.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

What makes the rule special from any other senate rule? All senate rules are special.

Who set the special rule and what does it say?

Here you go. Apparently the 2013 use of the special rule did not solve the problem of empty judge benches in the states as something like a third are still not filled.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Here you go. Apparently the 2013 use of the special rule did not solve the problem of empty judge benches in the states as something like a third are still not filled.

What makes it special compared to the rule before?

 

[Ziggurat]

By what percentage has every single other Justice cleared the Senate, which Gorsuch did not and had to have a special rule put in place so that he didn't need to? Your googling should help here.

Gorsuch was approved with a narrower margin than most justices, but not by the narrowest margin. Clarence Thomas was approved 52-48. And Stanley Mathews was approved 24-23. Simple majority suffices. That has always been the case.

The difference was not the percentage of senators voting in favor or against Gorsuch. The difference was the attempt by the minority to filibuster his nomination, and the decision to circumvent that filibuster through a rules change. But the filibuster rule is itself a purely senatorial invention.