Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 124   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump II  (Read 53292 times)

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2406
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #43 on: February 06, 2017, 01:51:41 PM »

I see this statement over and over again, and it shows the gross misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of civics and the history of pure democracies by those who say it. 

First, the electoral college is not antiquated.  According to Google, antiquated means old-fashion or outdated.  Well, the Electrical College has been around only for the age of the USA; pure democracies, which is what you are advocating for, have been around for eons.  The Electoral College is not old-fashion in comparison; it's the opposite.
I was a political science minor in college with an emphasis on American government.  Without getting into the weeds the Electoral College was established because of the founder's distrust in absolute democracy.  It was the same reason that the senators were not elected by popular vote for a considerable period of time after the Constitution was adopted.  There has been a lot of scholarly articles written about the Electoral College over the years predicting that there would be continuing problems regarding a differential between the popular and electoral vote.

Quote
Second, pure democracies don't work by the tyranny of the majority.  Having a pure democracy allows the majority to only consider what is best for them, eventually causing dissidents amongst the minority.  Read the Federalist Papers by James Madison for an argument against pure democracies with no checks on power that is more eloquent that what I can muster here. 
I'm well versed in the Federalist Papers.

Quote
Third, the Electoral College forcThere are examples of this playing out through history that has indirectly led to the downfall of governments.  es our presidential confidantes to pay attention to the entire country, which I see as a plus.
This is utter nonsense.  Candidates spend time and media money in maybe 10 or so states so I don't understand how you can say this is a national campaign.  Of course the media outlets in the those states love the Electoral College as it means big advertising money coming in.  Consider the top ten states by population which make up over 1/2 of the total number of citizens in the country.  Out of these states, candidates were very active in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.  There was some campaigning in North Carolina and next to NONE in California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Georgia and New Jersey not too mention most of the other states with lessor amounts of Electoral Votes (anyone go to the Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming not to mention Alaska and Hawaii?).  Now maybe you consider that this means that Trump and Clinton paid attention to the entire country, if so you and I have differing views of what 'entire' means.  I still don't understand you you square paying attention to the 'entire country' and then not receiving a majority of the votes cast is then something meaningful.  President Trump is governing with a minority of support from the people in this country (unless you subscribe to the voter fraud agreement). 

Quote
I consider the Electoral College, regardless if my candidate wins or looses, an ingenious way to avoid to the pit falls of pure democracies and another great example of the many checks and balances our government has.
That's pure nonsense as the US with its two party system and bifurcated leadership is immune to the problems that plague most parliamentary systems.
Logged

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
Re: Trump II
« Reply #44 on: February 06, 2017, 02:02:17 PM »

The Electoral College, like many aspects of our governmental structure was a compromise. It was related to the "big state little state" issue of representation. The intention was for the person elected president to receive the majority of votes from the majority of states; not just the majority of votes.  But how to do that in a way that is fair to small populated states and fair to large populated states.  That's the problem that our founding dudes were faced with. After much harrumphing a compromise arose. A good compromise is where both sides are equally unhappy.   ;D

It is an imperfect system, but after over 700 bills in congress to come up with something better, the Electoral College, warts and all, still remains.

It can be said that the electoral college is advantageous to our, mostly, two party system and that is probably a viable opinion.

The solution is not to get rid of the Electoral College (it would be far too difficult) but to fix it.  One simple fix would be that each state would choose to allot their electoral votes along proportional methods and get rid of the "winner takes all".  Each state has the authority to do so without congressional permission and would not necessitate any changes to the constitution.

Hence, the protests should be directed to the individual state legislative branches and not the federal government. The only thing preventing a state from changing how it allots its electoral votes is the state itself.
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

Sharon VL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 184
Re: Trump II
« Reply #45 on: February 06, 2017, 02:11:12 PM »

I'm with you Schewe! I was not a fan of Hillary but there is no way on earth I would ever have voted for such a morally weak person as Trump. How anyone could vote for a man who talked about sexually assaulting women staggers the mind. We are so invested in our polarized viewpoints, we are willing to accept a degenerate rather than admit "their" side has the better candidate.

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1509
Re: Trump II
« Reply #46 on: February 06, 2017, 02:25:47 PM »

I was a political science minor in college with an emphasis on American government.  Without getting into the weeds the Electoral College was established because of the founder's distrust in absolute democracy.  It was the same reason that the senators were not elected by popular vote for a considerable period of time after the Constitution was adopted.  There has been a lot of scholarly articles written about the Electoral College over the years predicting that there would be continuing problems regarding a differential between the popular and electoral vote.
 I'm well versed in the Federalist Papers.
This is utter nonsense.  Candidates spend time and media money in maybe 10 or so states so I don't understand how you can say this is a national campaign.  Of course the media outlets in the those states love the Electoral College as it means big advertising money coming in.  Consider the top ten states by population which make up over 1/2 of the total number of citizens in the country.  Out of these states, candidates were very active in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.  There was some campaigning in North Carolina and next to NONE in California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Georgia and New Jersey not too mention most of the other states with lessor amounts of Electoral Votes (anyone go to the Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming not to mention Alaska and Hawaii?).  Now maybe you consider that this means that Trump and Clinton paid attention to the entire country, if so you and I have differing views of what 'entire' means.  I still don't understand you you square paying attention to the 'entire country' and then not receiving a majority of the votes cast is then something meaningful.  President Trump is governing with a minority of support from the people in this country (unless you subscribe to the voter fraud agreement). 
That's pure nonsense as the US with its two party system and bifurcated leadership is immune to the problems that plague most parliamentary systems.

First, your first paragraph does not refute mine in the least bit.  I am well aware of the reasons for the electoral college being created and appreciate the brief partial history/reasons of/for it. However, if you intended to debate my comment, I fail to see how you did, and it appears very much like a red herring argument designed to change my attention. 

You said the EC was antiquated; compared to the only other option given so far, it is not.  If you have something to suggest other then a pure democratic vote or the EC, please let us know what it is. 

Now, although I do not disagree that there are flaws in the EC (after all, men are flawed), I do think it is a better system then a pure democracy, which has been shown throughout history as an unfair system of voting due to what James Madison so eloquently explains. 

Second, to say that candidates only campaign in 10 states only applies to single time frames, but if you look at the history of campaigns in general, they do represent the majority of the states, collectively. 

Humans are complacent creatures.  We tend to vote consistently and those who lead, tend to assume those peoples whom have been with them in the past will continue to do so.  So candidates partly rely on party lines and state affiliations on where to campaign (or really were not to).  Since so many states have a strong history of voting either blue or red, it is only natural to ignore those states and assume they are a sure win, or loss.  Better to spend time in the swing states, right. 

Eventually though, those in those states being ignored become dissident and start looking at the other side, creating opportunity for a shift.  As I am sure you know since this your subject, FL was not always a swing state and not campaigned in nearly as much. 

Also, consider WV, did anyone really think Bush could have changed that state?  No, which is why Gore ignored them and then Bush did just that.  Hillary ignored PA, WI and MI for the same reasons, and found out that was a bad idea. 

Although little serious campaigning has been done in those states and they are not part of your 10 (I assume), I am sure that will change in 2020.  Will we see more then just 10 states being seriously campaigned in?  Maybe, maybe not, however, if not, it will be a different 10 states then before, even if just by one, and the process will repeat itself somewhere else, in some other state, over time. 

That's the beauty of the EC.  Sure, it does not dictate that every candidate pay attention to every state in every national election, but it is more of a rotating act keeping hubris and complacency at bay.

Last, I never said the USA government is immune to problems present in other parliamentary governments, so I am not sure how you arrived at that.  ??? 

We have our own problems, some of which overlap with other countries, but hey, at least were not like Great Britain.  Watching parliament on C-Span is both entertaining and confusing, confusing because in that environment how does anything actually get done?
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 02:41:07 PM by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Raul_82

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 256
    • My Website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #47 on: February 06, 2017, 02:28:57 PM »

I don't understand these complaints about the electoral system in the US, if both candidates agree to participate in such system then the result is to be respected. The fact that Trump won fair and square doesn't make the whole thing it any less tragic and scary.

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10165
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #48 on: February 06, 2017, 02:39:09 PM »

... We are so invested in our polarized viewpoints, we are willing to accept a degenerate rather than admit "their" side has the better candidate.

Maybe because it is not always about candidates' personalities, but issues?

Then again, just imagine how much one side must have been pissed off with Democrats' positions on issues, to vote a "degenerate" in instead.

Also, let's not blame Trump for everything Democrats lost. They've been losing under Obama steadily, long before Trump: "1042 state and federal Democratic posts, including congressional and state legislative seats, governorships and the presidency."

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2036
Re: Trump II
« Reply #49 on: February 06, 2017, 02:47:15 PM »

Yikes! If this is as serious an issue to get Jeff riled up enough to post a lengthy LuLa topic on the subject, I guess I better pay attention.

As a life long Democrat in the heavily Republican red state of Texas, I was one who didn't vote because I really didn't believe from the cartoon-ish persona of Trump that he was going to win. I also saw the lines even in early voting, so I just stayed home.

But I think there's going to be a kind of silver lining from a Trumps presidency in that now more than ever the majority of the voting population will be made even more aware due to increased scrutiny from the media AND social networking TO NEVER EVER VOTE FOR A P***K LIKE THAT AGAIN!

In a way Trump is doing us a favor to the nation to pay attention, we can all make a difference.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 02:59:04 PM by Chris Sanderson »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10165
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #50 on: February 06, 2017, 02:50:41 PM »

The speaker in the Uk parliament has stated that Trump will not be allowed to address the members of parliament if he visits the UK on a state visit. Loud applause greeted the announcement.

And then there is this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/02/06/john-bercow-does-not-speak-britain-just-monstrous-ego/

Sharon VL

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 184
Re: Trump II
« Reply #51 on: February 06, 2017, 02:57:45 PM »

Maybe because it is not always about candidates' personalities, but issues?



You can change a person's mind about issues, but his character is set...he's 70 years old.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2406
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #52 on: February 06, 2017, 03:03:50 PM »

You said the EC was antiquated; compared to the only other option given so far, it is not.  If you have something to suggest other then a pure democratic vote or the EC, please let us know what it is. 

Now, although I do not disagree that there are flaws in the EC (after all, men are flawed), I do think it is a better system then a pure democracy, which has been shown throughout history as an unfair system of voting due to what James Madison so eloquently explains. 
I imagine that you are not troubled by the five elections where the winner of the popular vote was not elected President.  I am troubled by it and believe as do the citizens of the states that have approved legislation that allows those states to cast their electoral votes in favor of the candidate that wins the popular vote.

[quot]Second, to say that candidates only campaign in 10 states only applies to single time frames, but if you look at the history of campaigns in general, they do represent the majority of the states, collectively. [/quote]
This is certainly not the history in recent elections.  One cannot compare this election with those in the pre-Civil War era where there were far fewer people, fewer states, and it cost much less to campaign.

Quote
Eventually though, those in those states being ignored become dissident and start looking at the other side, creating opportunity for a shift.  As I am sure you know since this your subject, FL was not always a swing state and not campaigned in nearly as much. 

Also, consider WV, did anyone really think Bush could have changed that state?  No, which is why Gore ignored them and then Bush did just that.  Hillary ignored PA, WI and MI for the same reasons, and found out that was a bad idea. 

Although little serious campaigning has been done in those states and they are not part of your 10 (I assume), I am sure that will change in 2020.  Will we see more then just 10 states being seriously campaigned in?  Maybe, maybe not, however, if not, it will be a different 10 states then before, even if just by one, and the process will repeat itself somewhere else, in some other state, over time.
The EC votes don't change until after the 2020 election so we will have the same set up.  The only major state that "may" be more contested next time is Texas where the Latino vote is expected to increase significantly.  I don't see the politics of New York, California, or New Jersey changing at all.  All three states are also every expensive in terms of media markets so if the current Dem/Rep ratio stays as is and there is no reason to expect otherwise, the Republican candidate would be a fool to spend any money there. 

Quote
Last, I never said the USA government is immune to problems present in other parliamentary governments, so I am not sure how you arrived at that.  ??? 
parliamentary governments under proportional representation regulations are as close to pure democracy as one can get.

Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1509
Re: Trump II
« Reply #53 on: February 06, 2017, 03:27:36 PM »

I imagine that you are not troubled by the five elections where the winner of the popular vote was not elected President.  I am troubled by it and believe as do the citizens of the states that have approved legislation that allows those states to cast their electoral votes in favor of the candidate that wins the popular vote.

[quot]Second, to say that candidates only campaign in 10 states only applies to single time frames, but if you look at the history of campaigns in general, they do represent the majority of the states, collectively.
This is certainly not the history in recent elections.  One cannot compare this election with those in the pre-Civil War era where there were far fewer people, fewer states, and it cost much less to campaign.
The EC votes don't change until after the 2020 election so we will have the same set up.  The only major state that "may" be more contested next time is Texas where the Latino vote is expected to increase significantly.  I don't see the politics of New York, California, or New Jersey changing at all.  All three states are also every expensive in terms of media markets so if the current Dem/Rep ratio stays as is and there is no reason to expect otherwise, the Republican candidate would be a fool to spend any money there. 
parliamentary governments under proportional representation regulations are as close to pure democracy as one can get.

I am really not troubled by it.  We can not approve of a system when it works in favor of our choices and then disapprove of it when it does not.  I believe that a popular vote will only eventually backfire and create more divide, and perhaps lead to another civil war.  It may take a generation or two, but the likelihood is strong. 

Also, like I said, the EC is flawed, but so is every other form of governance.  There is no perfect solution to governing man, and I would surely take the flaws of a superior system than an mildly overall flawed system. 

Second, we do not need to look at pre-Civil War eras; states have been ignored by their favored party and changed in the last century.  CA is a great example; remember, it use to be a strong republican state.  Texas use to vote strongly democratic.  They both changed in the middle of the last century. 

Now I purposely used CA and TX as examples above since you mentioned it would be unlikely that those states would change parties.  Well, they did once already (two counter examples here, remember you only one to disprove a statement).  Sure, it is not going to happen over 4 years, or even 8, but it certainly can happen. 

Last may I state here, you still have not argued against my rebuttal of your statement that the EC is antiquated, only provided more red herrings, although interesting and perhaps not intentional, distracting my attention, which is the very definition of a red herring argument. 
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6231
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #54 on: February 06, 2017, 03:43:41 PM »

Well it's to bad that you didn't spend some time "walking" in Viet Nam itself at the time.

To be clear, I was eligible for the draft for 3 years...my number selected never came out below 200 or so and the draft never got over 150 those last 3 years...not sure what I would have done if drafted. I had friends who fled to Canada and Europe and I never heard anything about them. But if you were alive at the time of the Vietnam War, it was pretty clear the nation no longer wanted to be there. Ironically, I have friends who went and survived...a couple when back to visit Vietnam a couple of years ago and felt very welcomed by the people. Seems America is much admired by the people of Vietnam these days even though we were at war with them.

Not sure what you are trying to get at with the rest of your post...so you wanted me fighting in Vietnam in an immoral war? Or you think I'm throwing a temper tantrum?

Either way, I'll not respond to such baiting because I see the current situation in America unacceptable and I'm planning on doing something about it.
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2406
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #55 on: February 06, 2017, 03:44:23 PM »

Second, we do not need to look at pre-Civil War eras; states have been ignored by their favored party and changed in the last century.  CA is a great example; remember, it use to be a strong republican state.  Texas use to vote strongly democratic.  They both changed in the middle of the last century. 

Now I purposely used CA and TX as examples above since you mentioned it would be unlikely that those states would change parties.  Well, they did once already (two counter examples here, remember you only one to disprove a statement).  Sure, it is not going to happen over 4 years, or even 8, but it certainly can happen.
Texas as all the other southern states moved to the Republican column after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that.  California move away from the Republican party after Governor Wilson's xenophobic adoption of strict immigration controls at the state level.  This was amply documented in Kevin Starr's wonderful history of California during that era "Coast of Dreams:  California on the Edge - 1990 - 2003" where Repblicans today stand no chance of winning any statewide office. 

Quote
Last may I state here, you still have not argued against my rebuttal of your statement that the EC is antiquated, only provided more red herrings, although interesting and perhaps not intentional, distracting my attention, which is the very definition of a red herring argument.
  One final try here.  The EC is inherently undemocratic in that it violates the 'one person - one vote' paradigm.  Because each state gets a minimum of 3 EC votes regardless of population, a vote in Wyoming counts more than a vote in California.  California gets 1 EV for every 508K people whereas Wyoming its 1 EV per 143K.  Thus a Californian has 1/5 the voting power of someone in Wyoming.  Slate published a good MAP showing the disparity.
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6231
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #56 on: February 06, 2017, 04:00:52 PM »

Is this fake news?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-greene/is-donald-trump-mentally_b_13693174.html

Nope not fake, the NPD diagnosis is very real (see my OP and post on Facebook)...but it's also not sanctioned by the Psychiatric community in general because back in the 1964 elections, Barry Goldwater was diagnosed as not being fit by 1,189 psychiatrists out of 12,000 surveyed and the Psychiatric community came up with the Goldwater Rule

From the section about the rule:

"The American Psychiatric Association (APA) condemned the use of psychiatric commentary for political purposes, and nine years later declared unethical psychiatrists' public commentary on public figures who have not been personally examined and had not given consent for disclosure. This dictum, established as Section 7.3 of the APA Code of Ethics,2 is informally known as the Goldwater Rule."

But there's nothing to keep me from calling Trump a victim of Narcissistic Personality Disorder...

Here's what I wrote in my Facebook post:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM5)) is a serious personality disorder. According to the DSM-5, individuals with NPD have a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. Has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.

3. Believe that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with other special or high-status people (or institutions)

4. Requires excessive admiration

5. Has a sense of entitlement

6. Is interpersonally exploitative

7. Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her.

9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.”

Note, that phrase as indicated by five (or more). Trump ticks all 9 and then there's the degree of which the individual suffers the disorder. Trump doesn't exhibit a mild form of any of the 9 criteria, Trump exhibits an excess of each of the 9 criteria.

I'm pretty sure it is not in America's best interest to have somebody suffering from NPD to be President...
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1509
Re: Trump II
« Reply #57 on: February 06, 2017, 04:03:49 PM »

Texas as all the other southern states moved to the Republican column after the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  You can draw whatever conclusion you want from that.  California move away from the Republican party after Governor Wilson's xenophobic adoption of strict immigration controls at the state level.  This was amply documented in Kevin Starr's wonderful history of California during that era "Coast of Dreams:  California on the Edge - 1990 - 2003" where Repblicans today stand no chance of winning any statewide office. 
  One final try here.  The EC is inherently undemocratic in that it violates the 'one person - one vote' paradigm.  Because each state gets a minimum of 3 EC votes regardless of population, a vote in Wyoming counts more than a vote in California.  California gets 1 EV for every 508K people whereas Wyoming its 1 EV per 143K.  Thus a Californian has 1/5 the voting power of someone in Wyoming.  Slate published a good MAP showing the disparity.

I do not dispute your first paragraph.  However, they did change parties, regardless of how or why it happened.  To say it can not happen is contrary to history. 

Second, although I do agree (again) with the points you just made about the EC, that is still not a rebuttal, just another red herring. 

Your original premise that I took issue with was the EC is antiquated, not undemocratic.  If you feel you wrote antiquated by mistake, admit so, correct yourself and I will accept your new points as being another discussion, not a distraction. 

If not, you have neither addressed the premise in a logical manner about why the EC is antiquated (old-fashion and out-dated, nothing to do with undemocratic) when compared to the only other option listed, a pure democratic vote, which is a centuries old concept, nor have you provided another modern, more efficient and proven method of voting for national figures, which would by the definition of antiquated prove your point. 
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 04:45:25 PM by JoeKitchen »
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2406
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #58 on: February 06, 2017, 04:07:46 PM »

If not, you have neither addressed the premise in a logical manner about why the EC is antiquated (old-fashion and out-dated, nothing to do with undemocratic) when compared to the only other option listed, a pure democratic vote, which is a centuries old concept, nor have you provided another modern, more efficient and proven method of voting for national figures, which would by the definition of antiquated prove your point.
We will need to let this one end on this point and we shall both declare victory for our respective opinions.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1509
Re: Trump II
« Reply #59 on: February 06, 2017, 04:13:29 PM »

We will need to let this one end on this point and we shall both declare victory for our respective opinions.

+1

Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 124   Go Up