Enemy of the People

[rah]

an electoral system that allows a candidate who gets less votes than another candidate to win an election is legitimate

If the rules had been different, we don't know what the outcome would have been. You must plan your strategy based on the rules of the game.
Stop whining about the rules and figure out a way to win in the future. Unless you can change the rules, you're just wasting your energy.

But to continually claim that the person that won based on the rules of the game is not legitimate is just plain sour grapes. No matter how big of a clown he is.

 

[Lexicus]

If the rules had been different, we don't know what the outcome would have been. You must plan your strategy based on the rules of the game.
Stop whining about the rules and figure out a way to win in the future. Unless you can change the rules, you're just wasting your energy.

But to continually claim that the person that won based on the rules of the game is not legitimate is just plain sour grapes. No matter how big of a clown he is.

Did you even bother to read the post there or did you just get triggered by my attack on the electoral college? Why do you love it so much anyway?
As you would know if you had read the post, I am not 'whining' about the 2016 election, simply noting that supporting undemocratic systems is an example of an undemocratic political opinion.

Stop whining about the rules

plain sour grapes.

How about you stop reflexively defending the electoral college because you secretly get off on the fact that Trump beat Clinton? See, two can play this idiot game you've started...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Are there any 'fair and balanced' media outlets un-contaminated by partisan politics? Preferably something on TV... Or maybe we need the partisanship, the 2 sides fight it out flinging mud at each other and somewhere in the melee the truth makes brief appearances.

Sift through some Youtubers who physically visit sites and give sources. If you're concerned about accuracy, grab a few with different view points as a cross-reference/intellectual counterbalance. These options sadly have a significantly better track record for reliability and are less likely to be openly dishonest.

 

[rah]

When I was growing up I totally supported the electoral college but as I've gotten older my support has wavered. Populations densities are changing and the protection of the state rights that the rule was designed for seems to be less important now. But it is the rules so if you win by the rules, you're legitimate, end of discussion.
i may have over reached on my comment but you have used that theme quite frequently along with many other here. So yeah, it triggered me.
But to say that I secretly get off on Trumps victory is low, even for you. You really shouldn't insult those of us abandoning the party and voting for the other side if you really want to impact change.

If you don't like the rule, fight to change it, don't whine about it.

 

[Farm Boy]

the rules of the game

I know, at least they aren't complaining about the Senate at the moment, perhaps because if we actually hold the principle that the system has to account for financial might in skewing political representation towards the less powerful, the Senate looks pretty wildly progressive these days*?

But somehow, just somehow, I don't think principles are actually in play.

*Hawaii, Alaska, and the NE seaboard are kinda humping it though.

 

[rah]

When you consider the populations of NY, CA, TX and Florida make up a considerable percentage of the Total US population yet their Senate percentage is less the 10% you might consider that it's about time to rethink this a bit.

 

[Lexicus]

But to say that I secretly get off on Trumps victory is low, even for you. You really shouldn't insult those of us abandoning the party and voting for the other side if you really want to impact change.

If you don't want to be insulted, try not insulting me by telling me I'm whining and being a sour grape. It's one thing to do that when we're actually talking about the 2016 election. It's quite another when I imention that the electoral college is undemocratic in passing, in a conversation about something totally different, and you pop out of nowhere and accuse me of basically just being mad Hillary lost.
You gonna do that, you can expect to get clapped back with "you're just happy Trump won."

But somehow, just somehow, I don't think principles are actually in play.

I know you won't respond, but is "one person, one vote" not enough of a principle for you?

 

[Farm Boy]

With high(ish) median household incomes except for FL. I said wildly progressive.

 

[Dachs]

I know, at least they aren't complaining about the Senate at the moment, perhaps because if we actually hold the principle that the system has to account for financial might in skewing political representation towards the less powerful, the Senate looks pretty wildly progressive these days*?

But somehow, just somehow, I don't think principles are actually in play.

Hey, if you restructure the Senate to be something like a reverse Prussian three-class voting system where the poorest third of the country has the greatest proportionate voting power, I don't think that any of the progressive Dems on the forum would complain. Why bring states into it at all?

 

[Farm Boy]

Because they're the relevant diversifying force when it comes to the Federal? I understand that's off the script. The Republicans have all three branches and they can't accomplish any of the "flagship" issues(except for free money for powerful people, but that's always candycrack stupid). It's not like they have ideological purity to enforce, they're more scattered in their interests than "densely populated consumption and service based economic units."

 

[rah]

If you don't want to be insulted, try not insulting me by telling me I'm whining and being a sour grape.

If you tell me that you've never posted a complaint about it, then I'll apologize. (even though I kind of already did in post 84)
Feel free to quote any post that I've ever made where I even remotely seemed pleased that Trump won. So that insult was baseless and I know you can do better).
And I know, you've told me many times not to have any high expectations of your behavior since that's not who you are, but I'm old so I forget.

 

[Lexicus]

And I know, you've told me many times not to have any high expectations of your behavior since that's not who you are, but I'm old so I forget.

Sorry dude, you have no high ground to stand on when you started this exchange by insulting me and trying to make me mad on purpose.

 

[rah]

I always get nose bleeds when I'm on the high ground so I usually avoid it.

 

[Berzerker]

Lock Rudio up as well, because hes was the one that iniated Steele Dossiar research Wheres the outrage about that ? What about the NRA recieveing Russian money as well as helping a Russian Spy Wheres the outrage about that ? Roger Stone meet with Russian intelligence agent Wheres the outrage about that ? Coffeeboy Paradopolous travel to UK to meet with Russian asset Wheres the outrage about that ? Russian spy who was at the Trump tower meeting turned up for the Trump inguration Wheres the outrage about that ?

Like I said with J

1) Is there any differance between an ALLY the UK and an adversary RUSSIA ?
2) If this was a crime why did Steele pass on hes information directly to the FBI ?
3) Why did Rudio campaign pay for the Steele for opposition research ?

1) if I cant buy dirt from a foreign national then it doesn't matter, not that Trump got the dirt - wiki got it
2) the 'crime' was a campaign getting the information, but lets ask the FBI
3) same reason Hillary did, get dirt on Trump

What about all those other people? Yes, the Trump campaign has plenty of people with ties to Russia. And Russia helped get him elected because they didn't like Obama and Hillary, ie our foreign policy. Some of those people should do time but not for trying to get dirt on Hillary. That raises 1st Amendment issues, free speech, press, the flow of information, our 'right' to know. The Democrats wouldn't care about this if somebody leaked information hurting Trump, they've been praising and defending the Steele Dossier.

Yeah, but an undemocratic political opinion would be something like "I don't believe in having elections" or "an electoral system that allows a candidate who gets less votes than another candidate to win an election is legitimate", not "these people voted in a dumb way"

Is it undemocratic to promote a 2 party system by shaming 3rd party voters? He didn't say they were dumb - and he (a 'journalist') shouldn't be doing that either - he blamed them for his candidate losing. Like how some people blamed Nader for Gore's loss, as if Gore was entitled to their votes. Republicans do the same thing when they accuse libertarians of costing them an election. Telling someone else who to vote for is undemocratic. Shaming them for not doing so is undemocratic. As for the system, the candidates spend their money where it helps, not where it doesn't. They are trying to win states, not the popular vote.

 

[Lexicus]

Telling someone else who to vote for is undemocratic.

So now we're back to "having opinions is undemocratic"

 

[rah]

I think there is a difference from saying they wasted their vote and telling them who to vote for. One is an opinion that is their right to have but the other isn't.
But it's probably just quibbling

 

[Lexicus]

I think there is a difference from saying they wasted their vote and telling them who to vote for. One is an opinion that is their right to have but the other isn't.
But it's probably just quibbling

What exactly are you saying here? I agree that forcing someone to vote a certain way is wrong. But the idea that you guys actually think having an opinion on who other people should vote for is somehow illegitimate is mind-boggling to me.

 

[rah]

Well he did say

Like how some people blamed Nader for Gore's loss, as if Gore was entitled to their votes.

Which is closer to telling them. But as I said just quibbling and your definition is probably equally good here. I do agree that no candidate is entitled to a vote.
Like I couldn't vote for Trump but that didn't mean I HAD to vote for Hillary even if it helped Trump. In Illinois it wasn't an issue but in other states it might have.

 

[Lexicus]

Dude, you don't have to do anything, and if anyone wants to force you to vote a certain way that's one thing, but people are "allowed" to attach whatever urgency they want to their opinion of who you should vote for. If you get sick of hearing people tell you who you should vote for or who you "have to" vote for, that's fine and you can/should just say so, but to pretend that it's somehow objectively wrong for people to say that is just silly.

 

[rah]

Nit picking. If they just said it, that would be fine, but when they attempt to belittle you because of it, that crosses the line. And I'm with Berz on this one, that a lot of people went beyond a simply saying it. I took a lot of crap for not voting for Hillary even though, as a life long republican, i refused to vote for Trump. Screw them.