T1B

Screw_Michigan wrote:3 million fewer people voted for this walking pile of human excrement. Stop acting like he was an overwhelming victor.

Trump may be an oily, loathsome huckster with all the charm of a rotten-toothed carny, but the majority of voting Americans liked Hilary less...
Trump wasn't some jack-in-the-box, surprise package. He's made it abundantly clear exactly who he is for decades now.

You voted for Obama's "Hope and Change" promises and instead you got bail-outs, corporate graft and continued bullshit wars.
...and you're flabbergasted at Joe Lunchbox's disgust of Democrat (and Republican) three card monte...

Shlomart Ben Canuck wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:3 million fewer people voted for this walking pile of human excrement. Stop acting like he was an overwhelming victor.

Trump may be an oily, loathsome huckster with all the charm of a rotten-toothed carny, but the majority of voting Americans liked Hilary less...

The last part of your sentence is false.

Goober McTuber wrote:
The last part of your sentence is false.

What kind of bizarre, freshly waxed reality do you inhabit?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:majority of voting Americans liked Hilary less...

Wait, what? :?

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:majority of voting Americans liked Hilary less...

Wait, what? :?

He's going to remind us of our stupid electoral college.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:
The last part of your sentence is false.

What kind of bizarre, freshly waxed reality do you inhabit?

The part where Hillary had 3 million more votes than Trump. Stick to Canuckian politics, Slowmo.

Never had Evan Williams. That's cheap shit.

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Never had Evan Williams. That's cheap shit.

Which is exactly why I put it there. You are what you drink. Plus - it's all you can afford since you've spent everything else on booze... :(

Huh?

BSmack wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:majority of voting Americans liked Hilary less...

Wait, what? :?

He's going to remind us of our stupid electoral college.

Why did our founding fathers set up the electoral college I wonder?

No I don't. So large cities don't skew election results. We do agree that a majority of the country was orange on election night, don't we?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:Never had Evan Williams. That's cheap shit.

Which is exactly why I put it there. You are what you drink. Plus - it's all you can afford since you've spent everything else on booze... :(

I think it's time to ease up on Tardspray. He's looking a bit damaged. Another day like yesterday could land him in the emergency room with ruptured blood vessels and stuff. I'm just going to send him good thoughts until he has a chance to heal.

Top of the morning to you, Buttsy.

Joe in PB wrote:Why did our founding fathers set up the electoral college I wonder?

No I don't. So large cities don't skew election results. We do agree that a majority of the country was orange on election night, don't we?

Federalist 68 says you're full of shit.

"It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief."

Obviously the founders never contemplated today's political climate. They also likely were not worried too much about big cities at the time since 90% of the population lived in rural areas. But go ahead and keep regurgitating what your 1960s era High School history text told you.

Hard to complain about a system that works. If you take a look at the last video I posted in the #walkaway thread, you'll see a former Obama intern, who describes the Democratic party as east and west coast elitists. Who consider the south, midwest, and basically the middle of the country fly over states. Seems most of those states felt the same way in 2016.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

BSmack wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:majority of voting Americans liked Hilary less...

Wait, what? :?

He's going to remind us of our stupid electoral college.

Yes, the electoral college is very stupid. Pure democracies on a national level always fare well and never fall victim to mob rule.

Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Trump won the state vote 31 to 19 (DC also went to Clinton). Trump won by county, ~2,600 to ~500.

So it's not wrong to say that the majority of voting Americans liked Hillary less.

While Federalist 68 didn't specifically reference larger cities, Federalist 10 considered the possibility of something like that existing:

"In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice."

Here is a very good opinion piece on the Electoral College vis-a-vis the Federalist Papers. This also has a direct rebuttal to Federalist 68.

https://themacweekly.com/2016/12/on-the ... st-papers/

BSmack wrote: He's going to remind us of our stupid electoral college.

The one where if we didn't have it, the country would be run by rich liberals in new york and california and the rest of people peons?

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:I think it's time to ease up on Tardspray. He's looking a bit damaged. Another day like yesterday could land him in the emergency room with ruptured blood vessels and stuff. I'm just going to send him good thoughts until he has a chance to heal.

Top of the morning to you, Buttsy.

Oh my- sorry I hurt your feelings, lil’ fella. :(

So terribly sorry to disappoint you, big guy, but no feelings were hurt. Much fun was had. At least on my side. :grin:

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:So terribly sorry to disappoint you, big guy, but no feelings were hurt. Much fun was had. At least on my side. :grin:

Hair of the dog. You need to quickly address your hangover. Don’t worry, you’ll feel better in no time.

What is this hangover thing you speak of? :?

I don't get hangovers, either. At least I don't when I drink Scotch, Bourbon or good beer. I had 5-6 Coors Lights after softball the other night and had the worst headache the next day. That beer is awful.

Madison was arguing in favor of a unified federal system in Federalist 10. He was not even talking about the Electoral College. Madison's argument was that a larger unified Republic would be a better bulwark against tyranny then many small republics.

Specifically, no. But the concepts of the electoral college are laid out in the paragraph I cited, as well as others.

Killian wrote:I don't get hangovers, either. At least I don't when I drink Scotch, Bourbon or good beer. I had 5-6 Coors Lights after softball the other night and had the worst headache the next day. That beer is awful.

I don't get hangovers, but I might if I had 5-6 drinks of any kind. I probably had a few hangovers when I was your age, but at some point it just became not worth it.

I'm almost 40, and those were spread out over 4 hours or so.

If I drink a 6 pack of two hearted, I have a great buzz and no hangover the next day. Light beers and lagers for some reason do a number on me.

May have something to do with preservatives. I'm pretty certain that Dinsdale would know for sure.

Papa Willie wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote:What is this hangover thing you speak of? :?

Your life.

Killian wrote:Specifically, no. But the concepts of the electoral college are laid out in the paragraph I cited, as well as others.

No. The electoral college was designed to take the choice for the Chief Executive away from the people. The founders were afraid pitchforks and torches, not latte drinking hipsters.

Sure it is. They both talk about larger areas and smaller areas being equally represented. If you choose not to see it that way, I can see why you think the electoral college is stupid.

Killian wrote:Sure it is. They both talk about larger areas and smaller areas being equally represented. If you choose not to see it that way, I can see why you think the electoral college is stupid.

Yes, in the SENATE. The EC was designed to be a bunch of wise property owning white dudes who would convene and pick one of their own to be president. Obviously you never studied history.

Sure it was. That's why the last guy was black.

Good faith debates are fun and often time educational. When people ignore basic facts and make shit up, it gets really fucking tedious.

But sure, let's go to a pure democracy. Nothing bad could possibly happen. But I'm the one who hasn't studied history.

Killian wrote:Sure it was. That's why the last guy was black.

The system devolved pretty quickly. By 1803 there were already two amendments addressing the reality of party factions that the framers were trying to avoid.

Of course 44 was eligible because of the 13th and 14th Amendment.

You really don't know your history. I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that was Charlton Heston on the 20 dollar bill.

BSmack wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if you thought that was Charlton Heston on the 20 dollar bill.

Peter Gammons.

Rooster wrote:The thing about running for President is that it makes the fun politician you were into just another Stepford pol. Bob Dole had a wonderfully vicious wit that he used on saps who deserved it, but as soon as he put his hat in the ring for the Oval Office he boxed it up and threw it in the closet. Same with McCain. He was a funny guy and could rip some one liners off on you, but once he got on the Straight Talk Express, he was just as boring as every other guy who ran for prez.

Give Trump his due— he certainly has not fallen into that trap. Dude’s interesting on a daily basis.

Problem with Trump is that he isn't witty or viciously clever. He's just a rude, boorish man who has a lot of trouble getting along with people. And while he does put on quite a show, to me it isn't particularly interesting to watch. It's actually kind of embarrassing. And it's frustrating to hear people talking these days more about how they feel about Trump than they do about how they feel about issues. I'll be glad when he's no longer president, not because I'm a liberal, but because I'm tired of hearing about him.