The Awesomeness of Trump

ZealotX wrote: What we need is a system that treats each voter, each American, fairly. But fairness to one side, as it does in my example, can create inequity on another. A more simple solution would be going by the popular vote.

No it would not. The college is a separation of power by both representation and population just like congress. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it, only the will of the individual state. Its actually not one national election, its 51 small state elections to elect a leader to represent all 51 of those states (and DC) at a national level. Its the same reason each state gets two senators no matter what population they have but also representatives based on population. You don't want to also combine congress do you? Because that's the equivalent of what you are asking for by eliminating the college. People make this mistake all the time. We are not simply a single national state but a collection of small states all working in cooperation and the national govt is that representation.

An issue often overlooked about the Electoral College is the economic disparity between states that it simple ignores. California has more Electoral College votes than other states because it has a larger population, but it should also have more voice being that it is the FIFTH largest economy in the world and FIRST in the U.S. based on GDP. The state pays WAY more taxes into the federal coffers than other states and thus funds more of the federal budget than any other state.

Now take a state like Massachusetts. It is tiny in comparison population wise, but is still TWELFTH on the list of U.S. states ranked by economy based on GDP, but has the same number of electoral votes as Arizona who is TWENTY FIRST. Massachusetts, who puts way more money into the economy of the U.S., has the same voting influence as Arizona and Tennessee.

Essentially, the Electoral College rewards states with more people by giving them a larger share of voice in an election regardless of what those people are actually contributing to the U.S. economy.

The irony of California's situation is that most of the state geographically by district is conservative, but the massive populations of L.A. and San Francisco make the total state population lean decidedly liberal. Some states actually allow their delegation to split Electoral College votes, which would be more realistic.

I'm not saying we should vote based on who makes the most money, but we do need to accept that there are many aspects of the Electoral College that are out of date. It doesn't represent an individual's vote fairly. There are huge numbers of eligible voters who don't even bother showing up because they know their state is going a certain way no matter what they vote. California will always be blue. Texas will always be red. So, our president gets picked by Florida and other swing states, which can be quite terrifying.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Its the same reason each state gets two representatives no matter what population they have but also senators based on population. You don't want to also combine congress do you? Because that's the equivalent of what you are asking for by eliminating the college. People make this mistake all the time. We are not simply a single national state but a collection of small states all working in cooperation and the national govt is that representation.

That's not a fair comparison. You could elect a president by popular vote, but still have a Senate with two Senators per state and a House of Representatives with number of Representatives per state based on population. The House and Senate check and balance each other (as happened in the health care debate), and then together as Congress they check and balance the President.

The Electoral College only elects the President, no one else.

Arisaig wrote:
I fail to see an answer to my questioning of your first point, the point on education affecting a person's view of how "awesome" Trump is.

Again... I didn't say which was which because I didn't want to.

If you followed the election coverage you know they discussed different demographics and how they voted. If a person is less intelligent the would be more easily swayed by Trump and less likely to hold him to a high standard of intelligence. They wouldn't judge him for not "sounding smart". They might even enjoy his limited vocabulary because they wouldn't feel like some elite was constantly trying to talk over their heads.

However, that doesn't mean if you're uneducated you're going to vote for trump because that's only ONE factor. Christians weren't voting for Trump because he was a Christian. This was painfully obvious after he said "two corinthians". That was one of the funniest bit of biblical bumbling I had ever witnessed but what many of them wanted was a Supreme Court pick who was going to share their values. They were willing to overlook the fact that Trump doesn't.

It is the EXCESS of factors that allowed so many people to vote for Trump, because even if they wouldn't have voted because of ONE factor there were at least 2 others that gave them a reason to ignore the other factor.

Let me put this into SW context just to make it a little less prejudicial.

When Palpatine was but a humble Senator from Naboo he had Jedi support because he seemed to be on the "right" side. They were so busy fighting on the same side (against enemies he created) that few people really stopped to question his motivations. Those who understood power simply became conscious of his growing influence but on a theoretical level. By the time he came to power, legally, all they could really do was sit around questioning why they could not see the threat. The fact that he ascended to power legally is what entangled the Jedi and kept them from taking more forceful and direct action. However, even though it seemed legal on the surface, he was after all... a lord of the Sith. The things he did to get into that legal position were anything but legal. In actuality he was the one who had committed treason, not the Jedi who came to stop him.

We are in the same position with Donald Trump. Like Anakin, there will be Jedi who think Trump is awesome. On the other hand, you'll have Jedi who are passionately against Trump and who want to see him impeached. Trump may actually be a traitor to the United States, working with Russia to win the election.

But if you're from Naboo...

How much do you care that your representative "might" be corrupt if you think he's acting on your behalf?

Donald Trump is factually a vagina grabber and a sexual predator. He said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and still maintain support and to a large extent this has proven true. People ignore everything that makes him the opposite of awesome. And even while we lose respect and leadership on the world stage, he continues to play to his base. "Drain the swamp!" he says. There has never been a United States politician more corrupt than Donald Trump, the business man. But if you're from Naboo...

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: What we need is a system that treats each voter, each American, fairly. But fairness to one side, as it does in my example, can create inequity on another. A more simple solution would be going by the popular vote.

No it would not. The college is a separation of power by both representation and population just like congress. Ethnicity has nothing to do with it, only the will of the individual state. Its actually not one national election, its 51 small state elections to elect a leader to represent all 51 of those states (and DC) at a national level. Its the same reason each state gets two senators no matter what population they have but also representatives based on population. You don't want to also combine congress do you? Because that's the equivalent of what you are asking for by eliminating the college. People make this mistake all the time. We are not simply a single national state but a collection of small states all working in cooperation and the national govt is that representation.

I'm just wondering why, if you are for state representation, you ignored that whole bit about one state one vote. I'll reiterate.

If you won florida and I won ohio, why can't we be tied? Why does it have to be 29 to 18?

Senan wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Its the same reason each state gets two representatives no matter what population they have but also senators based on population. You don't want to also combine congress do you? Because that's the equivalent of what you are asking for by eliminating the college. People make this mistake all the time. We are not simply a single national state but a collection of small states all working in cooperation and the national govt is that representation.

That's not a fair comparison. You could elect a president by popular vote, but still have a Senate with two Senators per state and a House of Representatives with number of Representatives per state based on population. The House and Senate check and balance each other (as happened in the health care debate), and then together as Congress they check and balance the President.

The Electoral College only elects the President, no one else.

Its an absolutely fair comparison. Why would you advocate the dismantling of part of the natural checks and balances of our federal govt but leave another in place? Once the electoral college is gone that makes it that much easier for people to say well we don't need congress structured like it is anymore either. lets change that as well. and the next thing you know you have a true democracy.. and from there a monarchy is one step away. These are the very reasons our founding fathers setup things like they did. They knew from history things like true democracy don't work, they implode eventually and so they set up this checks and balance of power in all aspects of our national govt. By giving in to a popular election you take power from the states and allow for the possibility that one portion of the nation, say the east coast for example, could begin to dominate the election through sheer numbers. This possibility is what our founding fathers designed against.

Also one more note, as to your comment on California and Texas always being one way. In fact you are not correct. California was actually a republican dominated state as late as 1988 and Texas also was different in that they used to vote Democrat. Swing states are always changing, nothing is set in stone and the second you say that it is will be when in changes.

ZealotX wrote: I'm just wondering why, if you are for state representation, you ignored that whole bit about one state one vote. I'll reiterate.

If you won florida and I won ohio, why can't we be tied? Why does it have to be 29 to 18?

Did I ignore it? I suggest you re-read my previous comments. One state one vote is the same as popular vote. It takes way the separation of power.

ZealotX wrote:

Arisaig wrote:
I fail to see an answer to my questioning of your first point, the point on education affecting a person's view of how "awesome" Trump is.

Again... I didn't say which was which because I didn't want to.

So your original statement cannot be backed up, or you made a statement that even you don't believe.

You didn't say which was because you didn't want to? But you did say it.

ZealotX wrote: Whether Trump is awesome or not depends on several key factors:

1. your level of education

You blatantly stated, in black and white for permanent record, that a person's level of education affected their ability to see Trump as "Awesome or not". I, for one, am intrigued by this and wish to know if you meant a higher education or lack thereof makes a person see Trump as, quote, "awesome" as your statement seems quite definitive, and should have some sort of evidence to back it up, no?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:
Its an absolutely fair comparison. Why would you advocate the dismantling of part of the natural checks and balances of our federal govt but leave another in place? Once the electoral college is gone that makes it that much easier for people to say well we don't need congress structured like it is anymore either. lets change that as well. and the next thing you know you have a true democracy.. and from there a monarchy is one step away. These are the very reasons our founding fathers setup things like they did. They knew from history things like true democracy don't work, they implode eventually and so they set up this checks and balance of power in all aspects of our national govt. By giving in to a popular election you take power from the states and allow for the possibility that one portion of the nation, say the east coast for example, could begin to dominate the election through sheer numbers. This possibility is what our founding fathers designed against.

Also one more note, as to your comment on California and Texas always being one way. In fact you are not correct. California was actually a republican dominated state as late as 1988 and Texas also was different in that they used to vote Democrat. Swing states are always changing, nothing is set in stone and the second you say that it is will be when in changes.

The founders also knew that things would change and the government would have to change with it.

So that's why there are these things called amendments...

I always find it interesting when fear is used as a reason not to make even one change. I guess this is the heart of conservative principles.

It's like if we were playing Jenga and pulled a piece out. By the nature of the game we would go back and forth pulling out pieces until the structure fell. However, there's nothing about the government that forces us to keep hacking away. Instead, if anything, we add blocks.

Look, things change over time. It's evolution. It doesn't have to be scary. There are parts of our bodies that we no longer use but are still there. Eventually, they may go away altogether but you wouldn't even notice it because you're not using it anyway. And sometimes they cause us problems and we have to remove them because their problems start to effect the general operation of the body. But just because the surgeon takes out something you don't need doesn't mean he's just going to start randomly dismantling you like he's Frankenstein or something. We can make things better, but often you have to tear down an old building so you can create a new better one in its place. Sometimes an entire bridge has to go.

The founders themselves were not perfect. If we did everything according to their first idea we'd still have slavery. And maybe that's what MAGA means to some people, but in my humble opinion, fear is not a good reason to avoid making changes. No one is interested in doing away with the separation of powers or checks and balances. If anything, Donald Trump has reinforced in our minds why these things make America so great! I'm even more proud to be an American because I know that we have a system of government that is able to resist a despotic ruler who tries to turn us against each other.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: I'm just wondering why, if you are for state representation, you ignored that whole bit about one state one vote. I'll reiterate.

If you won florida and I won ohio, why can't we be tied? Why does it have to be 29 to 18?

Did I ignore it? I suggest you re-read my previous comments. One state one vote is the same as popular vote. It takes way the separation of power.

Okay, I'll bite. How does it take away the separation of power?