Supermoto
Well-Known Member
Pence wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, not because he thinks killing babies is wrong. But because he thinks women shouldn't be allowed to make choices
trump vs hillary
- Thread starter domo
- Start date
- Status
Pence wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, not because he thinks killing babies is wrong. But because he thinks women shouldn't be allowed to make choices
Fat Trout
Well-Known Member
Ah yes, 2017 will soon be upon us. The year of the great finger pointing wars. "your a racist....no you are.....no yoooooou hate gays........no you do. Ah HA! you hate trans-race flat tire unicycle riding cross-religion-dressers" blah blah gonna be a fun year. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with crappy candidates, outright fabricated "facts" and hypocrisy galore....nah.
thegock
Well-Known Member
Can't we all just get along and hate fat bikers?
Juggernaut
Master of the Metaphor
Fat Trout
Well-Known Member
thegock
Well-Known Member
I actually own one too-don't let it get out.
Fat Trout
Well-Known Member
Like everyone here (I expect).....I'm pretty done with each sides news outlets showing how it won bigger or whatever. I'll agree with you on that. But with that said, there is something to think about in what you posted. Taking CNN's numbers for California and New York which I looked at separately. There is a 4.6 million vote advantage to the democrat side. Boil that down and quite a bit of it is city centers. So actually the Brietbart headline isn't far fetched....although I could care less about it or cross checking all of it.
I kind of have a new respect for the electoral college after this election. Not because Trump won but because I never understood how much influence (potentially) one group in a smaller area 3000 miles away could have. One way or another (democrat or republican) I don't want Los Angeles or NYC deciding everything for me any more than po-dunk Oklahoma, Texas etc. These people in different places think entirely differently. No one geographical area should tell all others how to think.
Full disclosure, I was very anti electoral college a month ago. In my ignorance I never realized the numbers were so big in select areas. That's my own ignorance....and I accept its hard to not make it look like the results of the election are the reason for me changing my tune.
Zaskar
Well-Known Member
My point is this is a fake and it's being published by Breitbart. Who was running Breitbart? The chief strategist of the president elect.
RSAmerica
Well-Known Member
That was Japan...
Zaskar
Well-Known Member
jnos
Well-Known Member
None of these places decided the election. The election was decided by the voters in swing states (35 of 50 states have voted the same party the last 4 elections, so no one gave a shit what they wanted). These are the jerks who got to decide this election. Depending on who you ask, there are 10 swing states, plus or minus a few. They account for about 20-25% of the US population (~8% of which is Florida).
thegock
Well-Known Member
U need to get out more...
gtluke
The Moped
I don't want to get dragged back into this thread a 3rd time but I believe what brietbart is trying to say is if you delete NY/NJ and CA that trump won by 8 million votes. Not that it matters since they DO count. But they are trying to point out that the "heartland" went to trump by a landslide.
This is why we have the electoral college, so that people in NYC and CA can't decide for the people that live in the other 48 States where the lines were much closer.
Also not that if we had just a popular vote the totals would be much much different. Think about how many people who live in ny, nj, ca, tx, exc don't bother to vote because it's such an improbability that their vote will change the way their state has swung for the last 50 years.
not exactly. that's applying modern times to the past. the real reason is that the founders were petrified of a direct democracy. they wanted a relief valve in case the population voted for someone unfit in their minds.
FTR i'm not saying trump is unfit!
check out the federalist papers. its not about heavily populated areas "controlling" elections. it was about not trusting people to be smart enough to tell the difference between someone who is dangerous to the country and someone who isn't.
“the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
gtluke
The Moped
Yeah I agree. Also they didn't have any way to tally the votes quickly and safely back then.
It's also more difficult to rig an election since you would have to rig multiple states at once vs just one federal poll.
Popular vote isn't always the answer, california made gay marriage illegal by popular vote via ballot prop just a couple years ago. CALIFORNIA.
- Status