PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on November 18, 2016, 01:48:12 PM
-
Ok. Hillary appears to have garnered more popular votes than Trump but received fewer EC delegates. So her supporters want to ditch the EC.
Point 1:
Are they equally anxious to ditch the Democrats primary system that not only uses a similar delegate system, but they also use a truly fucked up system of "super delegates". Many say that is why Bernie lost.
Point 2:
As Trump said, he campaigned based on the existence of the EC. If the election was based on popular votes, then he would have campaigned differently, targeting the denser population areas more.
So can anyone explain to me just WHY they want to ditch the EC, other than the fact that they lost the election?
-
Ok. Hillary appears to have garnered more popular votes than Trump but received fewer EC delegates. So her supporters want to ditch the EC.
Point 1:
Are they equally anxious to ditch the Democrats primary system that not only uses a similar delegate system, but they also use a truly fucked up system of "super delegates". Many say that is why Bernie lost.
Point 2:
As Trump said, he campaigned based on the existence of the EC. If the election was based on popular votes, then he would have campaigned differently, targeting the denser population areas more.
So can anyone explain to me just WHY they want to ditch the EC, other than the fact that they lost the election?
They lost the election.
-
Part of the bargaining phase of grief.
-
Trying so hard to be calm and optimistic and now this!
https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2016/11/electoral-college-threats-murder-trump/
-
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/800x600q90/923/OgeJXB.jpg)
-
"Never mind the solid republican and federalist arguments in favor of the Electoral College, but the fact that it has now, in the space of less than 20 years, spared the nation both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton in the White House is enough to suggest it is divinely inspired."
Steven Hayward
-
Hillary won the popular vote by 1.7 million votes so far. She won California by 3.5 million votes. Remove California from the equation and Hillary would have lost the popular vote by 1.8 million votes. If we ditch the EC every close vote will be decided by California, we might as well save money and not have elections in the rest of the country if we dismantle the EC.
-
If "wishes" and "buts" were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas
It's somewhat interesting to look at the popular vote, but the US Presidential election is decided by the Electoral College vote totals, not popular vote.
We don't know how it would have turned out if popular vote was the criteria because both campaigns may have used different strategies.
Note that the total population of the states won by Trump far exceed the total population of the states won by hillary.
-
Hillary won the popular vote by 1.7 million votes so far. She won California by 3.5 million votes. Remove California from the equation and Hillary would have lost the popular vote by 1.8 million votes. If we ditch the EC every close vote will be decided by California, we might as well save money and not have elections in the rest of the country if we dismantle the EC.
This is exactly why the EC exists.
The shallow surface math of the election hides an actual landslide - as I have said before, the Dem's are at the weakest they have been in nearly a century, Barrack Hussein Obama has done more for the Republican brand, and done more damage to the Democrat party than can be understood without looking at the thousands of seats lost by the Dem's in State Houses, Governor's Mansions, and House and Senate offices.
They are barely a national party and yet demand to have a seat at the table and to dictate terms. A wishy-washy RINO squish would cave, and Trump may as well only time will tell, but they are the ones that have NO mandate due to their fractious coalition of the perpetually outraged who are slowly spiraling out of control. I predict dark days ahead in terms of political violence committed by and at the indirect behest of the Left, but I also predict a completely different response from a Trump DOJ, FBI and local LEO's who will have a government behind them instead of against them.
'Gimp
-
Hillary won the popular vote by 1.7 million votes so far. She won California by 3.5 million votes. Remove California from the equation and Hillary would have lost the popular vote by 1.8 million votes. If we ditch the EC every close vote will be decided by California, we might as well save money and not have elections in the rest of the country if we dismantle the EC.
The other side is very happy with this arrangement.
-
This is exactly why the EC exists.
The shallow surface math of the election hides an actual landslide - as I have said before, the Dem's are at the weakest they have been in nearly a century, Barrack Hussein Obama has done more for the Republican brand, and done more damage to the Democrat party than can be understood without looking at the thousands of seats lost by the Dem's in State Houses, Governor's Mansions, and House and Senate offices.
They are barely a national party and yet demand to have a seat at the table and to dictate terms. A wishy-washy RINO squish would cave, and Trump may as well only time will tell, but they are the ones that have NO mandate due to their fractious coalition of the perpetually outraged who are slowly spiraling out of control. I predict dark days ahead in terms of political violence committed by and at the indirect behest of the Left, but I also predict a completely different response from a Trump DOJ, FBI and local LEO's who will have a government behind them instead of against them.
'Gimp
I really hope you are wrong about the dark days, but I have several friends who agree with you and urge everyone who will listen to carry, they feel your life may depend on it. I hate to think that way, but these leftists are lunatics and reason seems to escape them.
-
The other side is very happy with this arrangement.
Yet they claim to be the much smarter, better educated side.
-
Yet they claim to be the much smarter, better educated side.
Many Progressives are very self important, and while many are also college educated, they often have art history degrees, journalism degrees or education degrees.
-
Every time I read about a group of lefty snowflakes being outraged about Donald Trump I discover that most of them didn't bother to vote. It all goes back to which side works the hardest and even if you are a cupcake, that doesn't guarantee you your way.
-
There continues to be a growing movement by the left (Democrats, Media, and their $$$ backers) to make the Electoral College illegitimate. This will allow the population centers of the East and West coasts to totally control the country from the Democrat side. Watch folks.
-
I'm sure if Hillary won the EC count and Trump had the majority in the "popular" vote, they would be calling for the end of the EC.
Fucking hypocrites.
-
It will take a Constitutional Amendment to do it. But they are so caught up in their feelings that I don't think they'll ever get that straight. Such an amendment doesn't have a snowballs chance in hades of making into law right now.
-
One of the funniest headlines I have ever read was about the democrats heading back to DC for the lame duck session, prepared to finalize the budget and pass laws to restrict republican activism.
-
"Never mind the solid republican and federalist arguments in favor of the Electoral College, but the fact that it has now, in the space of less than 20 years, spared the nation both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton in the White House is enough to suggest it is divinely inspired."
Steven Hayward
I have to say I did not vote for Al Gore but in hindsight, he would have been way better than GWB. History will not be kind to the junior Bush.
-
I'm waiting for Democrats to come out and say they will block all Trump appointments to the bench until a President is elected with a public mandate, ie. majority of popular votes. After all, didn't the Republican's say that very thing before the election to justify not acting on BHO's nominee? They didn't mention anything about waiting until the electoral college has spoken--it's always "The People."
I've said this before and I'll say it again--Republicans and Democrats are more alike than different. They use the same arguments but twist their wording to fit their agenda. I do hope Trump pushes through term limits or some other means to shake up the system otherwise it's gonna be more of the same.
-
I have to say I did not vote for Al Gore but in hindsight, he would have been way better than GWB. History will not be kind to the junior Bush.
How do you think Gore would have handled 9/11? As I recall, there were a lot of Democrats expressing how glad they were that Gore was not POTUS at that time.
And many prominent Democrats voted to go into Iraq.
Gore was, and is, rather loony, and not very smart. You don't hang your whole hat collection on one always-changing, fluid issue like the climate.
-
Gore was one of the ones, I think, who said during Gulf War I that all the oil well fires Saddam would start would burn for years and cause a climate catastrophe.
-
I have to say I did not vote for Al Gore but in hindsight, he would have been way better than GWB. History will not be kind to the junior Bush.
How do you figure that?
-
I'm waiting for Democrats to come out and say they will block all Trump appointments to the bench until a President is elected with a public mandate, ie. majority of popular votes. After all, didn't the Republican's say that very thing before the election to justify not acting on BHO's nominee? They didn't mention anything about waiting until the electoral college has spoken--it's always "The People."
I've said this before and I'll say it again--Republicans and Democrats are more alike than different. They use the same arguments but twist their wording to fit their agenda. I do hope Trump pushes through term limits or some other means to shake up the system otherwise it's gonna be more of the same.
The people have an innate wisdom that historically moves them to swerve back and forth between ideologies. That's healthy, really. The Electoral College gives a voice to the people who would not otherwise have one. So an Electoral College victory is a mandate, I think. You could nitpick if it were close, but it was not.
-
I'm waiting for Democrats to come out and say they will block all Trump appointments to the bench until a President is elected with a public mandate, ie. majority of popular votes. After all, didn't the Republican's say that very thing before the election to justify not acting on BHO's nominee? They didn't mention anything about waiting until the electoral college has spoken--it's always "The People."
I've said this before and I'll say it again--Republicans and Democrats are more alike than different. They use the same arguments but twist their wording to fit their agenda. I do hope Trump pushes through term limits or some other means to shake up the system otherwise it's gonna be more of the same.
They are not even waiting to turn him into a one-term President, as the Rs tried and failed to do with Obama. They are trying to pervert the election results by throwing a national tantrum.
-
They are not even waiting to turn him into a one-term President, as the Rs tried and failed to do with Obama. They are trying to pervert the election results by throwing a national tantrum.
I really don't know what their motives are. I accept the fact Trump won the election and don't think determining HRC had 2M more votes or 2M+ or 2M- makes a rat's a$$ difference. Trump should just ignore this distraction and concentrate on what he needs to be doing, not throwing tweet tantrums.
-
How do you think Gore would have handled 9/11? As I recall, there were a lot of Democrats expressing how glad they were that Gore was not POTUS at that time.
And many prominent Democrats voted to go into Iraq.
Gore was, and is, rather loony, and not very smart. You don't hang your whole hat collection on one always-changing, fluid issue like the climate.
Thank you GWB for water boarding, the "Patriot" Act, TSA, security theater, "Temporary" Flight Restrictions, TSA, Iraqi Freedom, Paul Bremer, and Homeland Security and TSA. Compared to GWB, Al Gore is Albert Einstein.
I've argued before that people supported going into Iraq because the GWB administration cooked the books concerning the intelligence presented to the public concerning WMD. Colin Powell was livid when it was discovered that the BS he put forward to the UN was crap intel. Allies that supplied some of the most crucial intel told our intel that they didn't put much stock in the sources--in other words, they didn't believe it but shared it with that caveat. GWB cronies put it out like it was the gospel truth knowing that the sources were unreliable but it fit their (the GWB administration's) agenda (take out Saddam).
-
I have to say I did not vote for Al Gore but in hindsight, he would have been way better than GWB.
Bullshit
-
I really don't know what their motives are. I accept the fact Trump won the election and don't think determining HRC had 2M more votes or 2M+ or 2M- makes a rat's a$$ difference. Trump should just ignore this distraction and concentrate on what he needs to be doing, not throwing tweet tantrums.
To be honest, I think he just enjoys tweaking them.
-
(http://)
-
I've been enjoying watching the hard left on FB. I have several that are pretty hard left and they post continuously on FB. They are truly unhinged and it is funny as hell to watch. Every time a new appointment is announced they go ape shit reacting to it. It truly is amazing.
I also enjoy how they feel they are entitled to have the Presidency and the thought of not having just makes their head spin.
-
I've been enjoying watching the hard left on FB. I have several that are pretty hard left and they post continuously on FB. They are truly unhinged and it is funny as hell to watch. Every time a new appointment is announced they go ape shit reacting to it. It truly is amazing.
I also enjoy how they feel they are entitled to have the Presidency and the thought of not having just makes their head spin.
It is disheartening to me, I have people whom I care about on FB and they are, just as you say, full on, apeshit cray cray - spewing the most hateful rhetoric while pointing to Trump and those of us who voted for him using the most vile, offensive yet baseless accusations.
Even though I understand the concern having lived through the Clinton (Bubba) Years and the last 8 years under Dumbo the Organizer In Chief, it is exceedingly difficult for me to maintain any sympathy following volley after volley of being called a fill-in-the-blank-ist rube....really disappointing.
'Gimp
-
The other side of that coin is having people I would never suspect admitting quietly that they voted for Trump. Lots of quiet revolutionaries out there.
-
It is disheartening to me, I have people whom I care about on FB and they are, just as you say, full on, apeshit cray cray - spewing the most hateful rhetoric while pointing to Trump and those of us who voted for him using the most vile, offensive yet baseless accusations.
Even though I understand the concern having lived through the Clinton (Bubba) Years and the last 8 years under Dumbo the Organizer In Chief, it is exceedingly difficult for me to maintain any sympathy following volley after volley of being called a fill-in-the-blank-ist rube....really disappointing.
'Gimp
I have not been able to make myself look on fb since November 9. I may never look at it again. I was actually shadow banned before the election. I prefer to let it become a liberal echo chamber.
-
Allen B. West:
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
-
Well stated.
-
Thank you GWB for water boarding, the "Patriot" Act, TSA, security theater, "Temporary" Flight Restrictions, TSA, Iraqi Freedom, Paul Bremer, and Homeland Security and TSA. Compared to GWB, Al Gore is Albert Einstein.
I've argued before that people supported going into Iraq because the GWB administration cooked the books concerning the intelligence presented to the public concerning WMD. Colin Powell was livid when it was discovered that the BS he put forward to the UN was crap intel. Allies that supplied some of the most crucial intel told our intel that they didn't put much stock in the sources--in other words, they didn't believe it but shared it with that caveat. GWB cronies put it out like it was the gospel truth knowing that the sources were unreliable but it fit their (the GWB administration's) agenda (take out Saddam).
Too bad his immediate predecessor dismantled the intelligence network because we were no longer in a "cold war" and Bubba's minions didn't like dealing with "deplorables" in foreign lands.
-
I've been enjoying watching the hard left on FB. I have several that are pretty hard left and they post continuously on FB. They are truly unhinged and it is funny as hell to watch. Every time a new appointment is announced they go ape shit reacting to it. It truly is amazing.
I also enjoy how they feel they are entitled to have the Presidency and the thought of not having just makes their head spin.
Pure entertainment.
-
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Richmond County (aka Staten Island) is a big time bedroom enclave of NYPD and FDNY members. No surprise there.
-
Allen B. West:
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Not sure where Mr. West got his data, I'll assume it is correct. This does illustrate that data, while accurately reported, can be mis-leading. Since a county can be colored either red or blue (depending on who won), Mr West uses that method even if a candidate "won" by only a single vote. Since no county voted 100% Republican or 100% Democratic, a better way may be to use additional colors to represent the balance between the two. Did find a site that tried to do that:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/
There is a LOT of purple out there. There is no doubt the President-elect lost the overall popular vote, yet had a very comfortable margin in the electoral college. This is a consequence of "winner takes all". Haven't found any data, but would be an interesting exercise to see what the result would be if the electoral votes were awarded proportionally to popular vote in the states.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
Neither should the more sparsely populated areas exclusively speak for the more densely populated areas. Elections are all about individual votes, not acreage. The electoral college does try to balance that to some extent, perhaps imperfectly, but it is better than nothing.
-
Electing a President isn't an American Idol contest. The low information voting populace is being indoctrinated with a warped sense of "fairness".
-
There is a LOT of purple out there. There is no doubt the President-elect lost the overall popular vote, yet had a very comfortable margin in the electoral college. This is a consequence of "winner takes all". Haven't found any data, but would be an interesting exercise to see what the result would be if the electoral votes were awarded proportionally to popular vote in the states.
That exercise would only be valid if the rules were established in advance of the campaign. As Trump said, if the election were based on popular vote, he would have campaigned more in New York, California and Florida and hew would probably have won any way.
That he would have campaigned differently is valid. Him winning anyway is conjecture, but the point is; you can't change the rules AFTER the election on an assumption that the rule changes would not have affected any other aspect of the vote.
Democrats are perfectly justified if they wish to sponsor legislation that will change the rules for future elections. But debating the results of the past election that were carried out under a set of rules that have been in effect forever is not justified. And whining about it afterwards is pitiable.
-
That exercise would only be valid if the rules were established in advance of the campaign. As Trump said, if the election were based on popular vote, he would have campaigned more in New York, California and Florida and hew would probably have won any way.
That he would have campaigned differently is valid. Him winning anyway is conjecture, but the point is; you can't change the rules AFTER the election on an assumption that the rule changes would not have affected any other aspect of the vote.
True. Didn't advocate in any way that the rules should be changed - just a mental exercise. Had the rules been different, the type of campaign would have been different for both candidates. Would that have changed the result - I have no idea.
Democrats are perfectly justified if they wish to sponsor legislation that will change the rules for future elections. But debating the results of the past election that were carried out under a set of rules that have been in effect forever is not justified. And whining about it afterwards is pitiable.
As are the Republicans (will they change the Senate filibuster rules now that it favors them?). ;D Debating about the results is what we do here, it is part of the fun! That being said, the election is over, time to move on. Seems that every election has some measure whining by the losers (or their supporters), it's pretty bi-partisan.
-
The Electoral College concept, and the Founding Fathers never anticipated the great divide we now see in our society. Metro area (cities, and now suburbs) which are largely Democrat, and all other geographic areas which are largely Republican. Metro areas are controlling entire states, and if it wasn't for the huge uprising, of the middle income earner this past election, we would have seen another Democrat victory.
The move of population towards urban areas, and the inevitable transformation of these people, especially their offspring to socialism (Democrat) is chilling.
-
The Electoral College concept, and the Founding Fathers never anticipated the great divide we now see in our society. Metro area (cities, and now suburbs) which are largely Democrat, and all other geographic areas which are largely Republican. Metro areas are controlling entire states, and if it wasn't for the huge uprising, of the middle income earner this past election, we would have seen another Democrat victory.
The move of population towards urban areas, and the inevitable transformation of these people, especially their offspring to socialism (Democrat) is chilling.
What is it about dense population (pun not intended, but it works) that swings the electorate to the left? Or, is it the other way around? Maybe someone did a dissertation on this subject.
-
What is it about dense population that swings the electorate to the left? Or, is it the other way around? Maybe someone did a dissertation on this subject.
Thesis: Liberals dominate cities because they are avoiding the goose-stepping facists in rural areas, want to have intelligent conversations with people who think exactly like they do, and the restaurants are better.
-
What is it about dense population that swings the electorate to the left? Or, is it the other way around? Maybe someone did a dissertation on this subject.
I'd like to see some objective research on this as well. I am just guessing, but I believe it is a form of peer pressure, and just hearing liberal/progressive views from others day in, and day out until a subtle (or not so subtle) form of indoctrination occurs. People like to "fit in", and when education, media, and your own government tells you something over, and over again, people tend to believe it.
I have seen this in my area which used to be semi-rural, and over the last twenty years has transformed into suburbia on the fringe of rural. Hillary won my county by a small margin, but just a few years ago, that would never have happened.
-
I'd like to see some objective research on this as well. I am just guessing, but I believe it is a form of peer pressure, and just hearing liberal/progressive views from others day in, and day out until a subtle (or not so subtle) form of indoctrination occurs. People like to "fit in", and when education, media, and your own government tells you something over, and over again, people tend to believe it.
I have seen this in my area which used to be semi-rural, and over the last twenty years has transformed into suburbia on the fringe of rural. Hillary won my county by a small margin, but just a few years ago, that would never have happened.
Dunno.. The higher the population density the greater the need for cooperation, shared infrastructure and shared services. It is also harder to be involved in local governmental affairs. That almost by necessity requires more "rules of conduct". It is a lot tougher to be a "rugged individualist" in a city. Greater population density also provides a concentration of skilled labor and intellect, easier transport and communication. Then again, historically, cites were not exclusively democratic, nor were rural areas strictly Republican. As far as city voters, seems to me they tend to vote for whoever can demonstrate they can provide those services.
-
Dunno.. The higher the population density the greater the need for cooperation, shared infrastructure and shared services. It is also harder to be involved in local governmental affairs. That almost by necessity requires more "rules of conduct". It is a lot tougher to be a "rugged individualist" in a city. Greater population density also provides a concentration of skilled labor and intellect, easier transport and communication. Then again, historically, cites were not exclusively democratic, nor were rural areas strictly Republican. As far as city voters, seems to me they tend to vote for whoever can demonstrate they can provide those services.
Groupthink. Japanese concept of nail sticking up gets hammered.
-
Groupthink. Japanese concept of nail sticking up gets hammered.
But in liberal thought process, if you have a nail sticking up shouldn't you just raise the board?
-
But in liberal thought process, if you have a nail sticking up shouldn't you just raise the board?
You nailed it. Raising the board = turn population-dense areas into groupthink strongholds.
-
Democrats hold onto dense population centers because they use money that was taken from the rest of us to bribe their way into power and ti stay in power by giving stuff away.
-
Can't type much now but I think the political differences of urban vs. rural are a fairly natural occurrence given the different needs and level of importance thereof.
-
Dunno.. The higher the population density the greater the need for cooperation, shared infrastructure and shared services. It is also harder to be involved in local governmental affairs. That almost by necessity requires more "rules of conduct". It is a lot tougher to be a "rugged individualist" in a city. Greater population density also provides a concentration of skilled labor and intellect, easier transport and communication. Then again, historically, cites were not exclusively democratic, nor were rural areas strictly Republican. As far as city voters, seems to me they tend to vote for whoever can demonstrate they can provide those services.
I don't disagree with this. Especially the part where higher density requires more "rules of conduct". But the reason for the need for these rules stems from the greediness of the individual. And when you live in a densely populated area, you become more dependent on others for even your most basic needs. When a greedy person becomes dependent on someone else, they feel that person is taking advantage of them.
This is all like a petri dish for liberal socialists.
Back in high school (almost 50 years ago), I read about a study where rats were put into an overcrowded environment. There were lots of conclusions drawn about their behavior, but the conclusions that stuck with me is that two behavior traits became common: homosexuality and cannibalism.
-
Back in high school (almost 50 years ago), I read about a study where rats were put into an overcrowded environment. There were lots of conclusions drawn about their behavior, but the conclusions that stuck with me is that two behavior traits became common: homosexuality and cannibalism.
;D Oh-No!! We now have to add a "C" to the LGBT community?
Understand your point about "greediness". That most certainly occurs, don't believe that is a trait exclusively of liberal socialists.
-
;D Oh-No!! We now have to add a "C" to the LGBT community?
Understand your point about "greediness". That most certainly occurs, don't believe that is a trait exclusively of liberal socialists.
No it is not.
Greedy conservatives (excluding thieves) aggressively work to earn wealth, and they expect to be paid.
Greedy liberals vote for politicians to force wealth redistribution.
(and before I get taken to task, I do not mean to imply that ALL conservatives earn their keep, and I don't mean NO liberals work. I am speaking in generalities).
-
Finally got a moment of quiet with a nice glass (or 2 or 3 by the time I'm done with this) of Merlot, with my dog at my feet. (Anyone familiar with Whippets?)
So about this urbran/rural divide. I think if we consider the fundamentals of the two types of communities, a fair amount of the political differences arise from those fundamentals. But I also think that our view of the cause and effect is a bit distorted. Our two-party system tends to exacerbate our differences. Often there seems no middle ground; you're either Republican (fascist) or Democratic (socialist); nothin' in between. I think the fact that there is no 3rd or 4th or 5th party helping represent "the middle way" makes it seem like there is this great divide between urban and rural views.
Since the dawn of agriculture and the resultant phasing out of nomadic lifestyles, we've tended to congregate in communities. And communities have further evolved into large metropolises in some areas. If you give it some thought, I think you'll admit that the fundamental wants and needs of a large metropolis, vs a rural community, are relatively different. I want to stress that one is not necessarily better than the other, just that they are different.
As a community grows into a city grows into a metropolis, the needs of the group change. Roads and public transportation must be more robust. Housing needs are different. Lack of space necessitates a central body (local government) that can create pockets of park and recreation areas. The sheer number of people with varying views and interests creates competition, drowning out the needs of some and creating focus on others. The rise of bigger businesses changes the flow of money within the community and local politics. Concentration of wealth creates pockets of people who have lost all connection with how things are produced (energy, food, etc.). Diversity in such a high density area is common, and acceptance of diversity is necessitated. Poverty is concentrated in specific areas, but said areas are fully visible to the rest of the community.
Many of these differences require a more active and visible governmental presence in cities. And so it becomes usual for denizens of an urban area to be familiar with government; with what it does and can do (and in some cases must do).
I think an acceptable analogy is this: In a rural area, if your kid needs a place to play, you build some play equipment on your lot. In a big city, if your kid needs a place to play, often you rely on local government to build a public park with tax dollars. Is one better than the other? No, and perhaps you could argue the former is better than the latter, even. But I don't think you can deny that there are some fundamental differences between the two types of communities.
Here's the thing. There is absolutely nothing preventing Republicans from embracing many needs of city-dwellers, and vice versa for Democrats and rural citizens. But our two-party system creates this wide chasm between us. You know what? I live in a big city. My county alone has more people than at least one entire state in the US. I am a liberal. But I value independence, too. I bought a broken jetski, put on some gloves, looked shit up, and fixed it. I work on my own car. I put in my own flooring. I bought a miter saw and did my own friggin' baseboards. I want my (step)kids to be independent, and able to work with their hands as well as go to college.
But in this election, at least, the two major party candidates were hugely, drastically far from anything I wanted to vote for. A criminal, slimy, boring, career politician, vs. a loudmouth, blowhard, womanizing jackass. I need a 3rd or 4th or 5th party, and I'm not gonna' get it. Bummer.
-
You have a nice writing style.
But basically, city dwellers lose touch with reality, become dependent on government and become liberals.
There is nothing wrong with that. Except that 3 or 4 areas of liberalism shouldn't dictate to the whole rest of the country that we have to accept their belief systems and their politicians.
If we would return to the concept of a loose Federal government and strong states, then states like New York and California could be as liberal as they choose, as long as they contribute their share to the national defense and strategic national projects (eg: the interstate system). And if I really hated the type of government my State chose, I could either work to change it, or I could move to another state in this great country.
-
How does all that explain telling people they can't drink sugary sodas if they so choose?
-
How does all that explain telling people they can't drink sugary sodas if they so choose?
Philly has that now, and the state has also upped the tax on Cigarettes. I am not a smoker, but a friend is, and he is now paying over $8/pack for cigs. The Mayor of Philly, Jim Kenney is as hard a leftist as De Blasio, and many others. He lives in La La land. These guys are quickly becoming DINOSAURS. The Mummer's Parade, (a weird Philly tradition) has always based its humor on NOT being politically correct. This year, the Mayor is forcing them to go to sensitivity training, and banning certain non PC themes.
-
There continues to be a growing movement by the left (Democrats, Media, and their $$$ backers) to make the Electoral College illegitimate. This will allow the population centers of the East and West coasts to totally control the country from the Democrat side. Watch folks.
How cute.
It will die out eventually, people are incapable of sustaining their anger. Next time they will lose the popular vote and win the electoral and they will remember that the electoral college is a good thing.
-
How cute.
It will die out eventually, people are incapable of sustaining their anger. Next time they will lose the popular vote and win the electoral and they will remember that the electoral college is a good thing.
I'm hoping they continue to lose the electoral college vote.
-
I'm waiting for Democrats to come out and say they will block all Trump appointments to the bench until a President is elected with a public mandate, ie. majority of popular votes. After all, didn't the Republican's say that very thing before the election to justify not acting on BHO's nominee? They didn't mention anything about waiting until the electoral college has spoken--it's always "The People."
I've said this before and I'll say it again--Republicans and Democrats are more alike than different. They use the same arguments but twist their wording to fit their agenda. I do hope Trump pushes through term limits or some other means to shake up the system otherwise it's gonna be more of the same.
The President is powerless to push through term limits or any Amendment to the Constitution. Only Congress (won't happen) along with the States, or the States' legislatures alone (could happen under Article V) can effect such change.
-
Allen B. West:
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties; Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.
Large, densely populated Democrat cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, etc) don’t and shouldn’t speak for the rest of our country.
Thanks for posting that. I saw that as well. It should be required reading for these anti-EC idiots.
-
The whole recount things is designed to cause people to question the voting process. It will give the left something to target.
-
The whole recount things is designed to cause people to question the voting process. It will give the left something to target.
Wait a minute! Haven't we been told, and lectured, by the left that there is no such thing as voter fraud, and that widespread voter fraud is all but impossible????
-
Wait a minute! Haven't we been told, and lectured, by the left that there is no such thing as voter fraud, and that widespread voter fraud is all but impossible????
Absolutely, we were told it's ludicrous...... In NH they have a domicile rule that ripe for abuse where if you stay in a hotel the night before you can register on the day of the election and vote. They finally ran the democrats out of the governor's office and hopefully that will be fixed.
-
Absolutely, we were told it's ludicrous...... In NH they have a domicile rule that ripe for abuse where if you stay in a hotel the night before you can register on the day of the election and vote. They finally ran the democrats out of the governor's office and hopefully that will be fixed.
Let's make it a federal crime to vote in more than one venue.
-
Let's make it a federal crime to vote in more than one venue.
I'm thinking it probably is, but don't know for sure.