Likes: 
Faceplams: Originally Posted by Madmya
That's not even what he meant. He meant that he knew the pardon would get attention despite the hurricane.
Hairy Member
That's not even what he meant. He meant that he knew the pardon would get attention despite the hurricane.
Hairy Member
He cared so little that he approved the disaster declaration before the storm ever hit and mobilized everything the federal government could do to help. Yeah, doesn't care one bit. Maybe stop whining that he isn't on TV crying about it and pay attention to the fact that he actually did things to help.
Trollhunter
Who are you? Gone since 2013 and resurfaced to defend Trump.
Yeah, he did the bare minimum required of him then made it about ratings and crowds. It was the least he could do which he immediately ruined by opening his mouth. Wowee! <golf clap>
Last edited by Swykk; 08-30-2017 at 12:08 PM.
Bite me
No President has ever done enough when disaster hits, though. It's just the way it is. Obama got shit, GW Bush got shit.
I saw an interesting clip on Maddow last night about how the first President to ever visit a disaster site was LBJ; someone called him begging for help, and he flew down there within hours. He was in a shelter with no electricity and held a flashlight to his face saying "I'm your President, I'm here to help." And every President since has been pretty much expected to go to survey disasters.
What has really impressed me are all the people and organizations that really stepped up in this catastrophe. Amazon is matching all Red Cross individual donations up to a million dollars. Sandra Bollock donated a million bucks. The Kardashian sisters donated $500,000. Some mattress store owner opened his stores to storm victims AND their pets. It's just a huge list of the goodness of Americans and even MEXICO that are coming to the rescue. It's heartwarming.
The Government is always SLOOOOOOOW to provide assistance. People waited YEARS in New Jersey. Some in NOLA are still waiting.
Last edited by allegro; 08-30-2017 at 12:55 PM.
Trollhunter
@allegro Except Joel Osteen, who had to be publicly shamed before doing anything. The hypocrite actually said he didn't respond right away because "nobody asked me to." As a kid, I remember being forced to hear all about how Jesus would've died for everyone's sins if anyone just asked him to.
Once again, what has people so angry is Trump's complete lack of compassion. All ego stroking and personal gain no matter the circumstances.
Last edited by Swykk; 08-30-2017 at 12:45 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
@allegro , this point here isn't about a president rushing in to be a savior or his team handling it right... It's exhaustion from listening to a narcissist leader make EVERYTHING about himself, and exhaustion at people distanced from that 24/7 experience by the sweet relief of living on another continent telling you that you're overreacting. It's a self-perpetuating tunnel of "fuck this!!!!"
tempus est umbra in mente
1. I don't think you know what "identity politics" means.
2. We "anti-trumpeters" constitute the majority of Americans. We won the popular vote, and if the election happened tomorrow, we'd fucking win the technical vote too.
3. Nothing is more obnoxious than snide indifference to distress from across the pond. Check that shit, it's a bad look.
Hairy Member
You think you do because you exist in an echo chamber. Meanwhile the 'silent majority' will continue to vote out dems in 2018 and re-elect DJT in 2020.
And "we won the popular vote" is nice, but we don't elect presidents based on the popular vote. Nor should we, or else we'd be subject to the tyranny of idiots.
tempus est umbra in mente
Ok, help me step out of my bubble and check out this "silent majority."
Impressive!
Most impressive!
Check out that silent majority!!!
Oh wow, right! If idiots controlled who we elected president, imagine where we might end up!?!?!? We might even elect an unqualified failed-businessman con-artist reality-TV star with no political experience! If idiots controlled the vote, we might wind up with a misogynistic clown crafting our policy! Fuck that'd be awful! Who knows where we'd wind up as a country if that happened! We might see something crazy like emboldened Nazi rallies and a resurgence of the Klan! No, that's too far fetched... we'd never do something that fucking stupid, RIGHT?!!!!And "we won the popular vote" is nice, but we don't elect presidents based on the popular vote. Nor should we, or else we'd be subject to the tyranny of idiots.
Thank fuck we have this bulletproof, anachronistic electoral college system to protect us from that EVER happening, right?
The electoral college: The one instance where republicans LOVE IT when a minority overwhelms and dictates the fate of the majority. Never mind the actual historical foundation that factored into the crafting of the electoral college system, or the fact that the "modern" justification for it doesn't even make any fucking sense in a modern world, it's gonna save us from the "tyranny of idiots!"
Also, fun fact! Did you know that the term "silent majority" was coined by Nixon to claim that the majority of Americans supported the Vietnam War?
Last edited by Jinsai; 08-30-2017 at 07:37 PM.
Banned
If Obama stepped out in a hat of his own that you could buy, people in this thread would not bat an eyelid. That is identity politics @Jinsai . Everything is judged based on who it is coming from, not the policy or act in itself. That is you. That is many people in this thread.
There is reason to believe in a silent majority when the opinion polls suggest one thing and the actual polls suggest the opposite.
To criticise the college system is fundamentally stupid and further proof you are irrational and illogical. If elections came down to the popular vote you'd only set policies that favoured the cities - that doesn't present a good outcome for a nation.
Banned
Whoa, mate, settle down champ. You're hysterical.
tempus est umbra in mente
i·den·ti·ty pol·i·tics
noun
- a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
The resounding majority of people in this country did not vote for Trump, and do not support this shit. Unless you're speaking in code, what you're saying is just bizarre.There is reason to believe in a silent majority when the opinion polls suggest one thing and the actual polls suggest the opposite.
Read the link I provided. Go ahead, actually READ it.To criticise the college system is fundamentally stupid and further proof you are irrational and illogical. If elections came down to the popular vote you'd only set policies that favoured the cities - that doesn't present a good outcome for a nation.
But let's look at the "logic" of this argument... the way it works now, campaigning is pretty much isolated and focused on appealing to swing states, so the opinions of highly populated and industrious cities are ignored. It has the opposite effect of what you claim is its distinct purpose. You're also over simplifying the functioning nature of our government, but we don't even need to go there really. Parties cater to their constituents. You don't think there's powerful Republicans in California and New York? You don't think there's powerful democrats in Tennessee and Texas?
You make it sound like the electoral college has repeatedly swung the vote, that this is a common occurrence or something. It may seem that way now, because it's happened twice since I've been old enough to vote. Do you know how many times it's happened in the entire history of this country? FOUR. So 2016, and before that 2000. Guess how far we have to go back in time before we see that upset the popular vote again? 1888. We went a hundred and twelve years before the electoral college swooped in to save the day to protect us from the "tyranny of the majority."
Now it's happened twice in the past 16 years.
I get it, you're not going to look into the foundational element that is tied to slavery. Oh well. Your loss there. Your reasoning is flawed though, and it rests on a logical fallacy. On the flip side, if the election can be won by playing a numbers/misinformation campaign full of empty promises pledged to rural swing states, with the assured support of hard red states, why shouldn't republicans craft policy that caters to that voting base exclusively, and give fuck all about the needs and wants of people in the blue states?
Your cookie cutter understanding of how this system functions is ridiculous, but somehow you don't need to understand it. You can just parrot this insane justification and ignore anything else that someone says, and support a voting system that was primarily rooted in slavery, and offer up some specious defense that is rolled in on the suggestion that voter representation was properly future proof when it was crafted in a time before airplanes, cars, or the internet existed.
Just cut the shit and admit you like the electoral college because it's only favored the side you support, and I don't know why you're that concerned and supportive, since you don't live here, but what-the-fuck ever. I actually live here, and I live in California, which means, because of this stupid decision, my vote for president means nothing. If you were a liberal living in Austin, sorry, your vote is ultimately never going to be truly counted.
Last edited by Jinsai; 08-30-2017 at 09:11 PM.
Bite me
California has FIFTY FIVE electoral votes, more than any other state.
California's electoral votes ABSOLUTELY matter.
Each state gets votes proportionate to its population.
This is because each state is a separate and independent voting entity, free from Federal interference.
State's rights is one of the most important parts of our country's design.
Here's a fact: A little more than half of the eligible voters in this country ACTUALLY VOTE.
The voter turnout for the 2016 Presidential election was the LOWEST IN 20 YEARS.
In 2008, 64% of eligible voters got out there and voted.
The more that Feds interfere with the voting process (like Trump's administration now subpoenaing voting records from each state, violating voting privacy laws, and pretty much every state is telling them to go fuck themselves) the less States have rights and the bigger the potential for manipulation and fraud.
http://www.historycentral.com/electi...collgewhy.html
Hillary Clinton's loss in the states that flipped parties for Trump is TOTALLY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S FAULT. It's NOT the fault of the electoral college.
Blaming the electoral college for Trump's win is like blaming your car for running out of gas.
Last edited by allegro; 08-30-2017 at 11:44 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
I'm not blaming the electoral college exclusively. It's a piece of a puzzle. Ultimately though, it's the system that was gamed. Yes, the DNC is largely responsible for failing to play that round of the game right. They fucked up. They were overconfident that generally-blue swing states would vomit at the idea of president Trump.
The expression "don't blame the player, blame the game" comes to mind though. I'm also aware of how stupid that saying is, and I guess that's (in part) why I don't ENTIRELY fault the system. But it's a fucked up system.
I know California's electoral votes matter - but we're a foregone conclusion. Individual votes feel disenfranchised. This applies as much to a liberal like me as it does to a conservative who lives in Bakersfield, Orange County, or the far north. I personally know people who wanted Sanders (most of my friends did/do), but some of them stayed at home on election night because they viewed the DNC as corrupt and didn't want to place a vote for Clinton, who they felt cheated their choice. Some others told me they wrote in Sanders. I thought that was kind of a ridiculous way to look at things, and tried to insist that Trump would be an absolute disaster. They insisted that their vote for whomever doesn't matter, because there isn't a chance in hell of Trump carrying CA.
Turns out, we were both right. Here. In California.
You're right though, lack of enthusiasm and voter turnout are targets we can chastise more cleanly, but realistic solutions to that issue involve changing the system. The electoral college system fucks up voter turnout in hard blue/red states. You want more people to vote? Don't make them feel like their vote is going to be disregarded as part of a larger sum which could ultimately be disregarded.
California's votes matter, a lot, yes, but THEY SHOULD. We have a smeared version of how much they should matter though. There's nearly 40 million people living here. We're a third the size of the population of Japan.
If you live in New Hampshire, you get a skip in your step on voting day. You matter. You might be the deciding team. That's ridiculous. I hated the electoral college system before I was even eligible to vote. I thought it was stupid and unnecessary, and only allowed for a strategic, oversimplified game that ignored how complex ideological ties run in this country. If we want a higher voter turnout, we need to seriously address that, and change it. I hated it, but never envisioned that it would be the spoiler in 2/5ths of the elections I've been eligible to vote on.
The whole reason we came up with this "solution" started w/ consideration towards a slave-vote "problem," and then it evolved into a compromise. Now the defense is "but the big cities will decide everything, and democracy is actually kind of a bad thing." Those dated concepts are intrusive in the modern world, and functionally the excuses for its persistence become rapidly less and less plausible, but I never thought we'd get to the point where we say pure democracy is stupid because of dummies.... in a world where Donald Trump has become president.
So no, I'm not blaming my car for running out of gas, I'm asking why we're still using purely gas-powered cars when that technology is incredibly outdated.
Bite me
If we eliminate the EC, then the small states' votes won't matter at all. It's not the EC's problem that your entire state tends to vote one way. That can always change. The South used to be pretty much ALL DEMOCRATS until the Civil Rights Act and Nixon's Southern Strategy. Black people used to be in the Party of Lincoln, Republicans.
Also, that link you provided was the OPINION OF A FEW PEOPLE; it's not really the whole story; it's slanted. Read the link I provided. The original desire was to make things "fair" - counting slaves in southern states to decide the number of EC votes so that the South could compete with the North was what they thought was "fair" over 200 years ago, but the EC has evolved. We didn't let WOMEN vote until 1920.
The EC isn't a game. It may be to the candidates but, ultimately, the voters are the ones who decide. And the three Rust Belt states that decided this election have often voted Blue; but they're angry, unemployed or underemployed, and even the Labor Unions have lost faith in the Democratic Party. Along comes a guy who says he's not establishment, not part of the system that's been fucking these people over, etc. and he promises them hope and help. And Clinton ignored those states, thinking she'd already bagged them. These are human beings as part of this alleged "game" except it's not; one candidate reached out to those states, appealed to those particular voters' fears and anger. And the winner-take-all EC votes for those states went to the candidate that was most appealing.
The EC concept is no more "dated" than any other portion of our Constitution. Once in a while, the EC doesn't work out the way you want it. But, again, that's not the EC's fault. Giving all the votes to the big states and no voting power to the smaller states would make the smaller state citizens not bother voting. There is no perfect system, but the EC not only attempts to keep it fair but also to keep it independent of the Feds.
We are NEVER getting rid of the EC. Won't happen. If you want an exciting election, move to Nevada.
Last edited by allegro; 08-31-2017 at 12:28 AM.
tempus est umbra in mente
the small states will matter in the general election, and I still don't understand how people can argue against a system where the supreme leader of the whole country, who dictates laws that
float over the heads of your states rights, should be elected by a bizarre consensus that is not based upon the collective will of the people, rather than a numbers game.
I'm pretty sure I'm never going to agree with you here. You want people to vote, and then you endorse a system that discourages voting.
tempus est umbra in mente
If we eliminate the EC, then small states INDIVIDUAL votes matter just as much as the votes in California.
If your main issue is that it's impractical to do away with the EC, well, that's a different conversation.
tempus est umbra in mente
look, if the electoral college is "a game" to the candidates, then it's a fucking game. full stop.
The DNC lost that game. Trump won it, with some foreign assistance. If we want to look at it as less than a game, we need to separate it from the game in the framing of the conversation discussing it.
And here we are, having that incredibly confusing conversation, and we're back at square one.
Bite me
No, because the big states will dictate the vote every time. Look, Montana's entire population is 600,000 and that's not the number of actual eligible voters let alone how many will actually get to the polls. The Chicago area has more people than that in one county (Cook, 5.238 million).
You could call the popular vote a game, too. The entire election is a "game" to candidates, complete with strategies etc. But that doesn't mean they are "gaming" the system, because that's impossible.
We have 51 separate elections, because each state has its own voting laws and procedures and the winner of each state gets that many respective EC votes. Each state's EC vote is based on the will of the voters from that state.
The 3 million extra actual votes that HC got were likely from California, not necessarily spread out all over the country evenly. Here is the list of votes from 2016.
Total individual votes cast, examples of disparity:
California 14,181,595
Delaware: 443,814
Illinois: 5,536,424
Montana: 497,147
New York: 7,721,453
Alaska: 318,608
Florida: 9,420,039
South Dakota: 370,093
Congress pretty much uses the same system: The House of Representatives is made up of representatives from each state based on population, while the Senate is comprised of 2 Senators from each state no matter the population.
It's not just about fairness in numbers, it's about how the opposite - which is one big Federal election - is an invitation to corruption and removes states' rights.
Anyway, it hasn't matched the popular vote FOUR fucking times out of FIFTY SEVEN Presidential elections. That's 0.07%. This isn't a huge issue.
I don't believe that the Russians affected our Presidential election process one iota.
Last edited by allegro; 08-31-2017 at 03:30 PM.
Hairy Member
Trump won with Hillary's assistance.
Now hes going to win again with ANTIFA, and the obstructionists assistance.
Last edited by bigbadjesus; 08-31-2017 at 12:07 PM.
tempus est umbra in mente
Want to bet? Seriously. Put up or shut the fuck up.
Active Member
Anyone else get the impression by watching Pence greet Harvey victims that he is auditioning for the presidency.
Active Member
Active Member
Could Pence primary Trump for the nomination in 2020? Would it be a first for the VP to challenge incumbent POTUS?
Hairy Member
I'll bet you 5 USD for 2018, and another 5 for 2020.
Just in case you decide to edit your post later on
Last edited by bigbadjesus; 08-31-2017 at 01:31 PM.
Active Member
Be quiet, adults are talking.
tempus est umbra in mente
no bet holder is going to work with ten bucks. Think bigger. Send me a pm
Last edited by Jinsai; 08-31-2017 at 02:46 PM.
Bite me
Good question. Some notable Republicans are already talking about how Trump won't automatically be the Republican nominee for President in 2020.
The Kasich (R) / Hickenlooper (D) combo running in 2020 is interesting, I guess they'll run as Independents.
If Pence knows that Trump isn't intending on running in 2020, some inside knowledge, then maybe that's why? Or, yeah, I wonder if Pence could drop from a 2nd term ticket and go up against Trump on his own. Seems totally possible.
Last edited by allegro; 08-31-2017 at 04:24 PM.
Active Member
Nope. Adams v. Jefferson.
Active Member
Well if 2016 taught me anything, it's that literally anything could happen and that no one should be too surprised when it does.
Posting Permissions
