Serious question to Trump voters

[dmallord]

Communication delays may return as we run out of fossil fuels.

Based on our known reserve levels, running out of fossil fuels will take some time. We have about five years of oil reserves for the USA, assuming no imports. Globally it's estimated the world has around forty-seven years, but fossil fuels have nothing to do with this discourse.

Opening healthy discourses can shorten delays. Let's focus on the issue being discussed in the political realm. One element of that discussion, the Electoral College system, can be addressed far sooner than running out of fuel resources.

This leads to the next background session, a review of the above four systems:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC): This is not a replacement for the Electoral College itself but rather a way to work around it. The NPVIC is an agreement among states to award all their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of who wins the popular vote within the individual state. This compact only takes effect once states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes (the number needed to win the presidency) join it. Current states signing on to this proposal represent approximately 196 electoral votes and thus are short of the 270 required to activate the compact. The NPVIC addresses some criticisms of the Electoral College system by effectively ensuring that the candidate who wins the national popular vote also wins the presidency. States that join the compact pledge to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the individual state's outcome. This approach has gained popularity among those who believe that the national majority should directly elect the President. This solution isn't in our political debate area - yet if enough states sign on to it, it will prevent another episode like January 6th from rising. Though not activated by constitutional means, it seems a common-sense way of expediating a fair resolution.

Direct Popular Vote: This approach advocates abolishing the Electoral College altogether and having the President elected solely by a national popular vote. The candidate who receives the most votes nationwide will become the President. Proponents argue that this method ensures that the President represents the will of most citizens.

Ranked-Choice Voting (Instant Runoff Voting): This system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives an outright majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their voices are redistributed based on voters' second choices. This process continues until a candidate receives a majority of votes. This method ensures that the elected candidate is acceptable to most voters.

Proportional Allocation of Electors: Instead of the "winner-takes-all" approach used by most states, this proposal suggests that each state's electors be allocated proportionally based on the popular vote within the state. This would more accurately reflect the division of voters and lead to a closer alignment between the electoral and popular vote outcomes.

Hybrid Systems: Some proposals suggest a combination of direct popular vote and the Electoral College. For example, electors could be allocated based on the popular vote winner within each state, while additional electors could be awarded to the overall national popular vote winner. This approach would attempt to balance individual states' interests and the general national will.

It's important to note that any change to electing the President would require a constitutional amendment, a complex process involving approval by a supermajority of states, or a constitutional convention. As a result, proposals to replace or reform the Electoral College face significant political and logistical challenges, and discussions around these alternatives continue to be debated and considered. Politicians and or/political servants could facilitate this discussion among the public via public information announcements. Governors and legislators could advocate for this to be brought to vote under a Federal legislative bill with a two-thirds majority vote - given enough public voter support. Support gained by an informed public could also motivate a call to affect a Constitutional Amendment, a more challenging task to complete, yet it has been done before.

No one has asked any candidate for their view of fixing the Electoral College system today. Why, given the mechanism nearly ended our way of governance on January 6th?

Your thoughts?

 

[TrailerHitch]

Who the hell was bitching past maybe the end of the week and that's being generous. Yes, who was bitching 4 years later since I guess I get two questions. Cus I don't remember that at all. She was "robbed" but the stupid EC lets us get robbed basically every eight years. Its bullshit but that's how the world works sadly. And you don't mind not appealing to people but winning.

Who asked you? I responded to II74. Are you an ALT and forgot who you were posting as?

 

[Sean Renaud]

So you mean it didn't happen.

 

[TrailerHitch]

So you mean it didn't happen.

Nope, everything I said happened. The system worked as designed, both times. But neither side liked the results. If the big dogs don't trust the system why should the little dogs?

 

[dmallord]

•
My thoughts are that there are a few GLARING omissions in your synopsis about the electoral college.

In your quest for “civil discourse” you have dumbed down / white washed American history.

But at least “some” people won’t feel “uncomfortable”.

My overview of how the Electoral College came about was certainly brief and might seem dumbed down. Its purpose, as stated, was to provide a knowledge basis for discussion at a high school level. Given the limited space in the forum to comment, I made it a 'broad brushstroke' and by no means meant to whitewash the background of that constitutional convention. Sure, there is a lot to cover on that topic, but it isn't relative to the January 6th imbroglio situation in which fake electors and rioters tried to usurp our electoral procedures. Thank you for your courteous response. Perhaps you have seen my follow on comment already?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Nope, everything I said happened. The system worked as designed, both times. But neither side liked the results. If the big dogs don't trust the system why should the little dogs?

The system hasn't worked as designed since the 14th amendment was passed. You not caring about minorities is different than it working as designed. I get that Right Wingers are hateful bigots and no quarter can be given to them.

 

[massageguy1]

Literally half of what you list as lies probably are taken out of context and don't even matter to a logical human being.

Trump accomplished close to nothing in the Middle East. As for Korea I said I'm happy he tried but there was no genuine pay off other than making Kim Jong Il look good on the world stage. This is the exact same thing people accuse Joe of doing with China but we all know its a flat out lie.

The EC is so screwed that there is no real thing as an easy win.

Being afraid of the bigoted voters is pretty smart. We massively underestimated the level of hate the right has.

The Dems have a fuck load of questions. I mean we could start with they aren't Lefties or Liberals. Then they don't fight the Right. They don't actually go on the media nearly as much as they absolutely should be doing. They never defend each other which while honorable is not how you win a 1v1 game. If your team sets a building on fire you are obligated to look for termites until everybody moves on. Sucks but there it is.

Which half? Please be specific. I can back every one up with evidence.

I agreed that I wish more and better things had resulted in the Koreas. Sorry you can't acknowledge the historic things that did...

Trump helped broken peace deals between Israel and Bahrain and the UAE. Did you forget, or never know? Or simply refuse to acknowledge the first time Muslim countries accepted Israel's right to in over s decade.

 

[TrailerHitch]

The system hasn't worked as designed since the 14th amendment was passed. You not caring about minorities is different than it working as designed. I get that Right Wingers are hateful bigots and no quarter can be given to them.

So talk to a right winger about that issue. Past history shows that it doesn't apply to me. Voted dems and reps for president and even independents twice. Golly that sure doesn't sounds like hard core right winger to me.

But once again nice diversion...Your go to tactic. You are so predictable.

 

[icanhelp1]

Based on our known reserve levels, running out of fossil fuels will take some time. We have about five years of oil reserves for the USA, assuming no imports. Globally it's estimated the world has around forty-seven years, but fossil fuels have nothing to do with this discourse.

Opening healthy discourses can shorten delays. Let's focus on the issue being discussed in the political realm. One element of that discussion, the Electoral College system, can be addressed far sooner than running out of fuel resources.

This leads to the next background session, a review of the above four systems:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC): This is not a replacement for the Electoral College itself but rather a way to work around it. The NPVIC is an agreement among states to award all their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of who wins the popular vote within the individual state. This compact only takes effect once states with a combined total of 270 electoral votes (the number needed to win the presidency) join it. Current states signing on to this proposal represent approximately 196 electoral votes and thus are short of the 270 required to activate the compact. The NPVIC addresses some criticisms of the Electoral College system by effectively ensuring that the candidate who wins the national popular vote also wins the presidency. States that join the compact pledge to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, regardless of the individual state's outcome. This approach has gained popularity among those who believe that the national majority should directly elect the President. This solution isn't in our political debate area - yet if enough states sign on to it, it will prevent another episode like January 6th from rising. Though not activated by constitutional means, it seems a common-sense way of expediating a fair resolution.

Direct Popular Vote: This approach advocates abolishing the Electoral College altogether and having the President elected solely by a national popular vote. The candidate who receives the most votes nationwide will become the President. Proponents argue that this method ensures that the President represents the will of most citizens.

Ranked-Choice Voting (Instant Runoff Voting): This system allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives an outright majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their voices are redistributed based on voters' second choices. This process continues until a candidate receives a majority of votes. This method ensures that the elected candidate is acceptable to most voters.

Proportional Allocation of Electors: Instead of the "winner-takes-all" approach used by most states, this proposal suggests that each state's electors be allocated proportionally based on the popular vote within the state. This would more accurately reflect the division of voters and lead to a closer alignment between the electoral and popular vote outcomes.

Hybrid Systems: Some proposals suggest a combination of direct popular vote and the Electoral College. For example, electors could be allocated based on the popular vote winner within each state, while additional electors could be awarded to the overall national popular vote winner. This approach would attempt to balance individual states' interests and the general national will.

It's important to note that any change to electing the President would require a constitutional amendment, a complex process involving approval by a supermajority of states, or a constitutional convention. As a result, proposals to replace or reform the Electoral College face significant political and logistical challenges, and discussions around these alternatives continue to be debated and considered. Politicians and or/political servants could facilitate this discussion among the public via public information announcements. Governors and legislators could advocate for this to be brought to vote under a Federal legislative bill with a two-thirds majority vote - given enough public voter support. Support gained by an informed public could also motivate a call to affect a Constitutional Amendment, a more challenging task to complete, yet it has been done before.

No one has asked any candidate for their view of fixing the Electoral College system today. Why, given the mechanism nearly ended our way of governance on January 6th?

Your thoughts?

The sentiment expressed in your dissertation is based on blue state advocates supporting popular vote stemming from the 2016 college loss by Hillary Clinton. Before such a drastic initiative is even pondered upon we as an electorate should allow the cycle to complete itself. We as an electorate should experience the shoe on the other foot result. Wait and see if democrats would feel the same way if a democrat won the electoral college but loss the popular vote. IMHO

 

[massageguy1]

Hey. dmallord...thanks for a serious, thoughtful reply. I list my own reply because I inadvertently quoted yours. Toi long.

I think most proposals to abolish/reform the electoral college are well-intentioned, but misinformed. It's popular now to view states as artificial, arbitrary subdivisions useful for administration. But they were originally independent entities that agreed to form a union through a treaty - our constitution. I'm pleased to see that you agree that any change to the electoral college system would require an amendment. I'm disgusted by the prevalence of the easy notion 'Wouldn't it be nice if the federal
government would

Have a say in education

Support the arts

Support music and news stations

Regulate marriage.

None of these powers are enumerated in the Constitution, and, if the 10th amendment means anything...

But it doesnt.

People forget how quickly things have changed. DOMA passed with broad bipartisan support, and was signed into law by that right wingnuts prude...

Bill Clinton.

I opposed it for non PC reasons. Marriage has always been a state or even common law issue, not a federal one.

 

[icanhelp1]

Hey. dmallord...thanks for a serious, thoughtful reply. I list my own reply because I inadvertently quoted yours. Toi long.

I think most proposals to abolish/reform the electoral college are well-intentioned, but misinformed. It's popular now to view states as artificial, arbitrary subdivisions useful for administration. But they were originally independent entities that agreed to form a union through a treaty - our constitution. I'm pleased to see that you agree that any change to the electoral college system would require an amendment. I'm disgusted by the prevalence of the easy notion 'Wouldn't it be nice if the federal
government would

Have a say in education

Support the arts

Support music and news stations

Regulate marriage.

None of these powers are enumerated in the Constitution, and, if the 10th amendment means anything...

But it doesnt.

People forget how quickly things have changed. DOMA passed with broad bipartisan support, and was signed into law by that right wingnuts prude...

Bill Clinton.

I opposed it for non PC reasons. Marriage has always been a state or even common law issue, not a federal one.

It appears that people are not well versed in the federalist papers or familiar with the abrasive dialogue used by our forefathers. The constitution was crafted in such a way as to protect us from our own government. The last century though, we as a people has surrendered so much power to big government. We as an electorate are too quick to make changes to a document that stands the test of time. The constitution is a set of instructions as to how to protect the most important aspect of being an American * our individual liberties. * equal opportunity under the law, not equity. I digress. IMHO

 

[dmallord]

The sentiment expressed in your dissertation is based on blue state advocates supporting popular vote stemming from the 2016 college loss by Hillary Clinton. Before such a drastic initiative is even pondered upon we as an electorate should allow the cycle to complete itself. We as an electorate should experience the shoe on the other foot result. Wait and see if democrats would feel the same way if a democrat won the electoral college but loss the popular vote. IMHO

I am not clear about the last part of your statement; you may have misworded that intent. A Democratic Party winner of the Electoral College would be the President per your wording. S/he wouldn't be complaining, right? It would be the Republicans who might be upset as they, in your example, receive the popular vote count but lose the election via the Electoral votes going to the Democrats. Would you want to lose an election as a field test of how that would feel before you acted to make a change in the election process?

The origin of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) was first proposed by John R. Koza, a computer scientist and former Stanford University professor, in 2006. That pre-dates your Clinton example by ten years before her loss in 2016. So, the shoe has already been on the other foot, as a litmus test. In 2006 Koza was concerned about the possibility of presidential candidates winning the Electoral College while losing the national popular vote, as had occurred in the 2000 election [Bush and Gore.] The other shoe came later [Trump and Clinton.] Koza sought a way to address this disparity while working within the existing constitutional framework.

Here's how the NPVIC works:

States' Commitment: The NPVIC becomes effective when states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes (the number needed to win the presidency) agree to join the compact. This ensures that the compact will determine the outcome of the presidential election.

Allocation of Electoral Votes: Once the NPVIC is in effect, participating states pledge to allocate all their electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally, regardless of how their own citizens voted.

Withdrawal Clause: States that have joined the compact can choose to withdraw at any time, but withdrawal cannot occur in six months before the end of a presidential term.

The NPVIC addresses concerns about the disconnect between the popular vote and the Electoral College outcome by making the candidate with the most nationwide votes the de facto winner.

So far, these are the participating states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and the District of Columbia.

Of those I have discussed in this thread, this model is the only one that can function without a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Well, there you go again, assuming bigotry... Hillary told 'some lies?'

I handed over all the emails...

There was nothing classified on the emails

I only used one device...

I remember landing under fire in Bosnia.


I didn't vote for President Obama, but I had high hopes for him after the first election. How, exactly, did HE earn his prize. The nomination process started right after his election (and the impeachment process for Trump started right after his)

President Obama's m8st famous, most powerful lie was 'If you like your plan, if you like your doctor, you can keep 'em. Period.'

He amended that later, saying 'That's not what we said...'

Trump achieved serious treaties in the Middle East, got the leaders of the 2 Koreas to meet for the first time since the founding of both, 70 years ago. I wish they could have done more, but it was absolutely historic. I don't like him, either, but I recognize what he accomplished.

He must never be allowed to run again?

I'd think Dems would love to see him run again. Should mean an easy win.


Unless they're afraid of the voters...

BTW, after the Dems ignored the clear voice vote of their own delegates at a convention, I've often referred to them as the 'So-called Democratic party. "

We don't have a real reason to think she didn't hand over "all the emails." The Russians hacked her shit, sent it over and it never showed up. The shit she didn't hand over is probably shit like "Bill, my plane is late." If Republicans assume they got fuck all. The same with Hunter. We're still talking about it but so far we have the following.

Joe spoke to him and his friend while he was civilian. I'm not gonna pretend you ever lose those connections because you don't. But we all have doors that are open or could be opened to us that we couldn't open alone.

Hunter fucks hookers and does drugs. So he's older than Justin Beiber but other than that none of that is impoortant.

Classified is meaningless.

I don't remember her claiming to only use one device but again meaningless.

Her claiming to get shot at doesn't mean a damn thing and I don't even remember if that was proven false or just kinda sorta assumed but meaningless.

Is this bullshit about Obama's Peace Prize? Hillary even gets a vote?

Neither Hillary nor OBama lied about your doctor. They didn't have a 100% grasp on the system but most of us don't have doctors. We have whatever our employer is throwing us and Obama had no control over that. Should they have had more information? MAybe, it wouldn't have changed a damn thing but okay. LIE.

Trump didn't accomplish a damn thing worth noting in the Middle East and literally made things worse between us and the Iranians, Saudis and Palestienians. What wins did we get.

I congratulated him on gettingthe Koreans to talk for a second but the thing he REALLY accomplished is making Kim look good. This is literally why its bad policy to talk to some of these people because you give them credibility. If we'd gotten a genuine peace or something it would be one thing. Nixon talking to the Chinese worked out. I hate Reagan but him talking to the Russians mostly worked out. (I think they were the USSR at the time but I was seven or something and I'm not googling. We ultimately got nothing.

I would kill for Biden to raise the sanctions on Afghanistan and Cuba but we hate people of color so that's a thing.

So actually almost all lies. I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt. I do that far too often.

 

[Sean Renaud]

It appears that people are not well versed in the federalist papers or familiar with the abrasive dialogue used by our forefathers. The constitution was crafted in such a way as to protect us from our own government. The last century though, we as a people has surrendered so much power to big government. We as an electorate are too quick to make changes to a document that stands the test of time. The constitution is a set of instructions as to how to protect the most important aspect of being an American * our individual liberties. * equal opportunity under the law, not equity. I digress. IMHO

I know you're a slave, I'm not. Certainly not to the dead. I'm my own man and you wear a leash held by dust.

 

[massageguy1]

We don't have a real reason to think she didn't hand over "all the emails." The Russians hacked her shit, sent it over and it never showed up. The shit she didn't hand over is probably shit like "Bill, my plane is late." If Republicans assume they got fuck all. The same with Hunter. We're still talking about it but so far we have the following.

Joe spoke to him and his friend while he was civilian. I'm not gonna pretend you ever lose those connections because you don't. But we all have doors that are open or could be opened to us that we couldn't open alone.

Hunter fucks hookers and does drugs. So he's older than Justin Beiber but other than that none of that is impoortant.

Classified is meaningless.

I don't remember her claiming to only use one device but again meaningless.

Her claiming to get shot at doesn't mean a damn thing and I don't even remember if that was proven false or just kinda sorta assumed but meaningless.

Is this bullshit about Obama's Peace Prize? Hillary even gets a vote?

Neither Hillary nor OBama lied about your doctor. They didn't have a 100% grasp on the system but most of us don't have doctors. We have whatever our employer is throwing us and Obama had no control over that. Should they have had more information? MAybe, it wouldn't have changed a damn thing but okay. LIE.

Trump didn't accomplish a damn thing worth noting in the Middle East and literally made things worse between us and the Iranians, Saudis and Palestienians. What wins did we get.

I congratulated him on gettingthe Koreans to talk for a second but the thing he REALLY accomplished is making Kim look good. This is literally why its bad policy to talk to some of these people because you give them credibility. If we'd gotten a genuine peace or something it would be one thing. Nixon talking to the Chinese worked out. I hate Reagan but him talking to the Russians mostly worked out. (I think they were the USSR at the time but I was seven or something and I'm not googling. We ultimately got nothing.

I would kill for Biden to raise the sanctions on Afghanistan and Cuba but we hate people of color so that's a thing.

So actually almost all lies. I apologize for giving you the benefit of the doubt. I do that far too often.

FBi director Comey verifies what I said.

She lied when she said she hadn't received or shared classified info, she lied so when she said she used only one device, she lied when she said all emails were handed over.

No evidence???

We have video testimony under oath of the director of the freaking FBI

 

[Sean Renaud]

FBi director Comey verifies what I said.

She lied when she said she hadn't received or shared classified info, she lied so when she said she used only one device, she lied when she said all emails were handed over.

No evidence???

We have video testimony under oath of the director of the freaking FBI

Just that none of it seems to have mattered.

 

[massageguy1]

I believe the term is 'Denial...'

I'll accept 'willful ignorance ' or 'dishonesty ' too.

 

[massageguy1]

Sworn testimony by the head of the FBI is 'no evidence,' and 'doesn't matter?'

 

[Series 6]

The only reason I like Christie is because he's saying real criticisms of Trump from a conservative's pov. He's the only one on that side pointing out the emperor has no clothes. That said I wouldn't vote for him, because a Christie administration would be more tax-cuts and weakening of federal government-in other words the same we'd get out of another Trump administration.

I agree with you 100%. However, I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate when I ask these questions:

Does a Chris Christie presidency diffuse some of the heat from the cultural divide that we currently have between republicans and democrats? Could he be the one to create a little bit more willingness to work together?
Could Christie offer tangible solutions to the issues facing Social Security instead of kicking that can down the line like every president before?
Does he address the Mexican boarder issue better than previous administrations?

Don't mistake me as a Christie fan. I neither love nor hate Biden. But could there be positives if Christie became president?

Be gentle with your responses ( ha ha )

 

[ll74]

And this is your M.O. you asked me to explain my distrust of the system. I explained it clearly. I explained that both dems and reps have questioned the security of the system. So what do you do...You divert to something I posted several posts ago. You don't give a fuck about anything but playing games.

Yes, you've done nothing but confirm my original statement. You have no specific complaints about the process (outside of not liking that absentee votes are counted based on their postmark), because there is truly no complaint, and you believe the horseshit that parties and idiots tell you.

And when I pressed you for more specifics, you conflated your distrust of government and deflected back to me.

Thanks for confirming.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Yes, you've done nothing but confirm my original statement. You have no specific complaints about the process (outside of not liking that absentee votes are counted based on their postmark), because there is truly no complaint, and you believe the horseshit that parties and idiots tell you.

And when I pressed you for more specifics, you conflated your distrust of government and deflected back to me.

Thanks for confirming.

You're right. I confirmed you purposely seek my posts out. You purposely pull this interrogation and Spanish Inquisition of everything I post. Once again like a jack booted thug who believes you are the arbiter of truth. Let me give you your own advice, pass me by or put me on ignore. Either way I'm going to say whatever the fuck I want to, just like you.

 

[icanhelp1]

You're right. I confirmed you purposely seek my posts out. You purposely pull this interrogation and Spanish Inquisition of everything I post. Once again like a jack booted thug who believes you are the arbiter of truth. Let me give you your own advice, pass me by or put me on ignore. Either way I'm going to say whatever the fuck I want to, just like you.

Just cut the cord, it’s that simple.

 

[ll74]

You're right. I confirmed you purposely seek my posts out. You purposely pull this interrogation and Spanish Inquisition of everything I post. Once again like a jack booted thug who believes you are the arbiter of truth. Let me give you your own advice, pass me by or put me on ignore. Either way I'm going to say whatever the fuck I want to, just like you.

You're not a special snowflake. I comment on everyone's posts. In fact, I've earned a bit of a reputation by doing so

 

[18xoxo]

‘Listless Vessels’​

DeSantis Implies Trump Backers Mindlessly Back Ex-President, Campaign Wants Apology​

DeSantis is right

 

[Ignobel]

You're not a special snowflake. I comment on everyone's posts. In fact, I've earned a bit of a reputation by doing so

Your comments are more often then not thoughtless, and I cant really believe you believe what you write, No sane person can take the positions you take. You just simply take the opposite side of any post/thread offered by someone that differs from you. Dont be so proud of yourself.