• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California To Secede From The Union? OK!

Ikari said:
I mean, he's just throwing out the term. But the discussion is on the EC, and Hillary didn't capture the MidWest, which is why she lost. And he's saying that she lost because of idiots...ergo.

See, this is the blind egotism that Hillary also threw out there. Maybe he didn't mean to call the midwest idiots, but from context of discussion, it can certainly be taken that way. You cannot insult people and think they're going to support you.

Hillary lost because she couldn't connect with middle America, Hillary lost because she ran a **** campaign. E-mails, Russia, "idiots" blah blah blah. She was running against Trump, everything was surmountable. But she didn't perform. It's not the ECs fault it's not "idiots" fault, it's her fault. She did a **** job, she lost.

How many countries popularly elect their Head of Government? How many? I know of a few off hand in central/south America. The popular vote for Head of Government is not a good idea because it will focus down on the big cities and leave the rural communities out in the cold. You can see this already in America. Illinois, New York/New Jersey...dominated by their big cities. It's not a good choice on the federal level. We need something like the EC to keep the rest of the country relevant as well, and if you want to be President, you got to play in Peoria.

Trump won, Hillary lost, get over it, move on. There's a crap ton of work to do over the next 4 years to minimize damage, we can't be crying into our porridge because Hillary couldn't muster enough EC votes to beat Trump.
Click to expand...

He said she lost because she did not pander to idiots(both whether she did pander to them, and whether that is why she lost is debatable). If, for example, 5 % of the population is an idiot, that is more than enough to swing an election. Geography is not the issue.
 
chromium said:
do you even realize that this would require 2/3 of the house and senate and 3/4 of the states? That has *nothing* to do with what i just said
Click to expand...

Exactly why I said it. Spend your time trying to change it or shut up and accept the results and the peaceful transition of power, something that you guys blasted Trump for.
 
Tucker Case said:
:prof California didn't exists in 1787, thus your statement cannot possibly be true.

The electoral college exists because the founders didn't trust direct democracy, plain and simple. The method of determining the number of electors that each state gets was put in place to maintain the institution of slavery.



What about rural voters in Illinois? Their votes are discarded in the EC system. Do they not matter?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter whether California existed at the time or not. The founders did not want one populous state to elect the president at the expense of every other state.
 
Tucker Case said:
I said the same thing I would have said if Romney or McCain had won: you're wrong. He's not going to send the country into the shutter.

I didn't vote for Obama. This election marks the first time in my life I voted for a major party candidate. Ever. I voted third party in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012.

That's because this was the first time in my life someone was running who I felt would run the country so poorly, so in competently that I had to vote against him in a symbolic gesture of opposition.

I'm certain that Trump will run this country in the same manner that he ran his business. That terrifies the **** out of me because the man managed to go bankrupt with casinos.

The most rigged in the owner's favor business that exists. Do you have any idea how hard it is to lose money as the house in a casino? And to do it four times! That's a major accomplishment. That's a truly impressive feat.

But he's a genius when it comes to branding. He could put a lump of **** in a box, slap his brand on it, and some ****ing idiot will buy it. Because, like most truly talented con artists, he understands how to separate suckers from their money.

And his rhetoric on the campaign trail was a pure masters course on branding. He got a bunch of people to buy that lump of **** in a box, and he's going to keep them happy by giving them new and improved lumps of **** (now with more corn!) every few months.

So, yes, I am taking the stance of actively opposing the grifter-in-chief.
Click to expand...

I understand how you feel. But if his business experience is the reason you oppose him, that is a bit short sighted and ignores the bigger picture.

Those who look objectively at Trump's Chapter 11 reorganizations--yes that could effectively be called business failures--was not the same as a Chapter 7. Trump's creditors got paid but under bankruptcy protection to give him, or more accurately the corporation, time to do that. It was during a time that none of the Atlantic City casinos were exactly thriving and many others went belly up. Those casinos were part of a grand enterprise that was supposed to restore Atlantic City to a former glory. But it turned out that casinos, by their very nature, are interested in luring tourist and recreational dollars and are not the least interested in the locals--so there was little or no interest in the local community. As Atlantic City declined, so did it decline as an attractive vacation or holiday destination. And it didn't help that many of those start ups were during a fairly deep recession in the early 1990's and financial woes were exacerbated by competition as casinos opened up in other places along the Atlantic seaboard.

An analysis of Trump enterprises shows an impressive 500+ successes in business as opposed to his inability to make a handful of businesses profitable. Anybody else who had a handful of losses amidst 500+ wins would certainly not be branded a loser.
 
Redress said:
He said she lost because she did not pander to idiots(both whether she did pander to them, and whether that is why she lost is debatable). If, for example, 5 % of the population is an idiot, that is more than enough to swing an election. Geography is not the issue.
Click to expand...

Well sort of brings to mind ol' Obiwan. Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him? Who is the bigger idiot? The idiot or the idiot who didn't use them properly enough to win?

But in the end, insults are not going to win it any longer. Hillary never really came out with talking about what she would do to make things better, just negative campaigning and trying to be all cutsie with misdirection (by not campaigning in the proper States because it may attract Trump's attention), and this neigh hands-off approach that was baffling. You cannot blame "idiots" for this. You have to blame Hillary. She ran the losing campaign.

The EC, IMO, is necessary to ensure the many states are considered at the federal level for Head of Government, not just NYC, Chicago, and LA. We've had the system for a long time, Hillary knew of it, she didn't play it, Trump did. Trump won. Sucks, but that's where we are. If people are going to be butthurt and start calling Trump supporters or voters idiots, you aren't going to make the necessary corrections to win next time. It wasn't the idiots, because "idiots" existed equally on both sides. It was that Hillary did a terrible job running against a powerderpuff she should have beaten in the EC hands down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom