Jump to content

Trump Lost The Election. Hillary Is The Rightful President.


bludog
 Share

Recommended Posts

The more I think about it, the more unacceptable it seems.  The Electoral College went into effect in 1804, when there were only 17 states,  the Louisiana Purchase was still a howling wilderness and the Lewis & Clark expedition had not yet been launched.. 

 

No other Democracy or Republic has a mechanism which enables the loser to take office and forces the winner to concede.  If ANY other country had an established provision for the loser to defeat the winner, hypocritical Republican politicians would be screaming bloody murder.

 

But in the last 18 years, two Democratic presidential races were denied to the winner.  First in 2000, by decree of the Supreme Court, where Bush became president despite Gore having won the vote.  And just now in 2017 where Hillary won the election by nearly 3 million votes, only to be denied by a relic Electoral College, making the loser, Trump president. 

 

Clinton's popular-vote margin over Trump was greater than that of Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey in 1968, and John Kennedy over Nixon in 1960.  This election was not in doubt ...  The clear winner, Hillary Clinton was forced to concede.  There is a terrible electoral injustice in the USA and its name is the Electoral College. 

 

At this stage in our history, the Electoral College has become just another Republican dirty trick, comparable to gerrymandering, meant to keep Republicans in power, against the will of the people.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Thom Hartmann put it, as I recall, it's worse than that - it's a relic of the compromises needed to get the slave states in agreement. Yes, the electoral system (there's actually nothing called the 'electoral college', it's just a term that started being used) is a violation of democracy, making votes unequal.

 

And the people who get the overrepresentation have no respect for democracy or fairness - they are dedicated to preserving their benefit.

 

It's a wonder any groups who didn't have the vote, like women or black people, got it.

 

Ever notice how self-righteous the trump supporters are that they 'won', without any admission that it's because the elections are rigged by this system?

 

Same thing happened in 2000, except in a way, that was even worse, because it turned out Gore had won even electorally. 534 votes officially but wrongly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The electoral college system gives states with low populations more power than their populations warrant, under the fiction that states rights mean something.

 

The fact is that the right howls about states rights when the want to oppress, but they're perfectly happy to crush states rights whenever they feel like it. Legality of marijuana in California and other pot states is a case in point. Another is the status of California as a sanctuary state. Whether or not one agrees with those issues, Republican pretensions to states rights have evaporated in those cases.

 

I believe individual rights should mean more than states rights or the rights of businesses (because businesses aren't people). And individuals should nevertheless not have the right to opress others in the name of individual rights.

 

Someone's right to dislike being around people of type X ends when the rights of people of type X to move about freely are infringed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree that the electoral college is not necessary, and we can dump it at this point.

 

But it is what it is.  Candidates have strategized forever to take electoral college votes, and they know very well how to go about doing that.  

 

If there is a shock and a disappointment to come out of that election, it isn't that Hillary didn't win.  It's that she only got 3 million more votes than a man literally famous for being a no-class, double-dealing, scrappy punk who likes to throw his weight around even if only to attract attention and force people to pretend to respect him.

 

One of the most disgusting human beings I can think of at the moment...and he only lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.

 

There is a message here, and it isn't that the EC doesn't work (but it doesn't).  It's that the disenfranchisement of the lower and middle class has severely rattled a pretty big group of people, to the point that they actually voted for Donald Trump.  I still can't believe he got a single vote, but there it is.  Granted, you've got your mindless partisans who would have voted for anybody as a Republican.  But it wasn't just them.

 

So we can dump the EC.  But we have other things going on that we probably need to address first, namely that the offerings of our ruling parties are so unbelievably unpalatable that a lunatic stole the fully democratic primary and won the general election by the rules of the day.  Are they really that out of touch?  Can they rally and adapt?  And let's be honest, we really need it to be the DNC.  And yet they are the party that has entrenched systems that perpetuate the old school, the "made guys" as Bill Burr calls them.  Their platform is a home run as far as I'm concerned.  But they need leadership that has the intelligence and the courage to run with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, splunch said:

I can agree that the electoral college is not necessary, and we can dump it at this point.

 

But it is what it is.  Candidates have strategized forever to take electoral college votes, and they know very well how to go about doing that.  

 

When a candidate wins by such an indisputable number and is forced to capitulate to the loser, it marks the complete failure of Representative Government.  When the highest office in the World is usurped by a pretender,  it is nothing to be blase about.  Since the Electoral College made it possible and could do so again, it must be abolished.

 

2 hours ago, splunch said:

There is a message here, and it isn't that the EC doesn't work (but it doesn't).  It's that the disenfranchisement of the lower and middle class has severely rattled a pretty big group of people, to the point that they actually voted for Donald Trump.  I still can't believe he got a single vote, but there it is.  Granted, you've got your mindless partisans who would have voted for anybody as a Republican.  But it wasn't just them.

 

IMO, the DNC fielded an incredibly weak candidate in Hillary.  Her over-cautiousness and lack of spontaneity ...  The exaggerated sense of entitlement she projected ... Her late flip-flops and overdue embrace of many of Bernie's stances ...   Her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and financial obligations to Big Pharma ...  The eccentricity ...  The unpredictable, bizarre facial expressions ....  The Nehru tunics. 

 

Maybe the only reason she won by nearly 3 million votes was because of the appalling nature of her opponent.

 

Trump offered seductive lies, to the gullible and under-educated,  about resurrection of the middle class through out bargaining China and ending outsourcing.  He offered racism and Fascism.  And he offered a bully-boy image that the Republican Party loves so well.  The perception of Trump as a kind of rebel against a self-important but impotent establishment is still attractive to his base, despite his obvious failure as Chief Executive.

 

2 hours ago, splunch said:

One of the most disgusting human beings I can think of at the moment.

 

Many do not share this assessment.  We need free education, through the PhD level, for all those willing and able.

 

2 hours ago, splunch said:

So we can dump the EC.  But we have other things going on that we probably need to address first, namely that the offerings of our ruling parties are so unbelievably unpalatable that a lunatic stole the fully democratic primary and won the general election by the rules of the day.  Are they really that out of touch?  Can they rally and adapt?  And let's be honest, we really need it to be the DNC.  And yet they are the party that has entrenched systems that perpetuate the old school, the "made guys" as Bill Burr calls them.  Their platform is a home run as far as I'm concerned.  But they need leadership that has the intelligence and the courage to run with it.

 

Agreed, the DNC needs an overhaul, and new blood

 

But on a more basic level, we need Campaign Finance Reform and publicly funded elections, ending the dependence, even of many Democrats, on Big Money Interests.  It would go far to return power to the electorate instead of the corporations and plutocrats who own them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People can and will argue that the EC acts to prevent California and NY from deciding who every President will be.  It's kind of a fair point, but obviously it needs to be addressed in some way.  That 3 million is a really significant chunk of everyone that voted.

 

I am doubtful about how specifically campaign finance reform works.  If I were a millionaire who loved a candidate, should I be allowed to buy a billboard telling everyone how great he is?  How do you justify stopping me from doing that?  Or even a billboard that just pushes a point on a big issue of the day, one of the wedge issues, but something I am passionate about...I cannot buy that billboard or that TV time?

 

So-called "regulation" did wonders for us a long time ago.  In hindsight, not allowing a handful of billionaires to own all of our mainstream media outlets was a good idea.  Who knew!?!  Not allowing deposit and investment banks and insurance companies to co-exist under the same roof was a good idea.  Again, who knew!  Shocking.

 

The problem is not that wealth influences politics.  That has always been true.  The problem is that that influential wealth and power are so unbelievably concentrated now.

 

One could reasonably argue that we will never have the progressive taxes and trust-busting justice department we need until we reform the elections so we can elect the people who will enact those things.  But one could just as easily argue that we will never have meaningful campaign finance reform until the influence of that wealth is checked.  So are we stuck?  Is it too late?  Too far down that feedback loop to stop it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some influence of wealth on politics is unavoidable.  But it can be minimized.  Today, the ultra wealthy are gaining more control over government due to increasing concentration of wealth.

 

As wealth concentrates into fewer hands, gigantic surpluses belonging to a handful of people, accumulate ...  This extra accumulation of wealth in the hands of the 1% is more than any one family can can reasonably spend.  Much of it is deposited in foreign banks to illegally evade US taxes.  And much has been used to spend on legalized bribery, to elected officials of both parties, in return for favorable legislation ...  Almost all of it promoting what passes for Conservatism, now ...  Destructive policies which despoil the environment, create inequality and shovel more wealth from the lower and middle class, to the very top.

 

When the very wealthy are taxed at a high enough rate to allow them to maintain their lifestyles but prevent them from accumulation of gigantic surpluses, they have less to spend influencing politics.

 

=======================================================================================================================

 

There are many proven ways for nations to fight corruption:

https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/how_to_stop_corruption_5_key_ingredients

 

And different electoral systems and government types than our own work better than ours to fulfill the will of their citizens.  If not for the self-defeating idea of "American Exceptionalism", there's nothing to prevent us from following other models.  New Zealand, for instance, has an outstanding electoral system and government setup which works for its citizens.

https://www.vox.com/2014/9/23/6831777/new-zealand-electoral-system-constitution-mixed-member-unicameral

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly how I see it, BD.  We have to address the runaway wealth concentration, the markets run amuck.

 

We long ago lost sight that our markets and our economy have a purpose besides just being a playground for people to scrap for the biggest pile of cash.  There is no social purpose served by rigging the system to increasingly favor the concentration of wealth, in a feedback loop, without any limitations or end.  I think conservatives completely forget that the reason competition in the marketplace is a good thing is because it serves a purpose.  It drives innovation and efficiency.  If it isn't serving that purpose, it has lost its moral high ground, its entire justification for existing.  To that end, the game should be refereed to maximize competition and ACTION so that we get what we want out of the market:  efficiency, innovation, development, problem solving.

 

When the market is gamed so that all it does is tilt further and further so cash flows down into the bank accounts of the 0.01%, there is no social or philosophical justification for it.  And all of the corruption we lament follows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2018 at 4:32 AM, laripu said:

The electoral college system gives states with low populations more power than their populations warrant, under the fiction that states rights mean something.

 

The fact is that the right howls about states rights when the want to oppress, but they're perfectly happy to crush states rights whenever they feel like it. Legality of marijuana in California and other pot states is a case in point. Another is the status of California as a sanctuary state. Whether or not one agrees with those issues, Republican pretensions to states rights have evaporated in those cases.

 

I believe individual rights should mean more than states rights or the rights of businesses (because businesses aren't people). And individuals should nevertheless not have the right to opress others in the name of individual rights.

 

Someone's right to dislike being around people of type X ends when the rights of people of type X to move about freely are infringed. 

 

I'd like to clarify the issue of 'states rights'.

 

States' rights DO matter. In the sense that historically, states came from independent colonies that were almost like their own countries, and when they agree to form a union of 'United States', their intent was to have a limited federal government and to preserve the powers of states as well on many or most issues.

 

But that's an entirely different matter and issue than saying that smaller population states' voters deserve to be represented more than larger states' voters. You can fully preserve 'states rights' without our saying that the vote of a voter in a small state should carry more weight and be able to change the election from the popular vote.

 

THAT was simply a political compromise made that violated democracy - like the 3/5 compromise on how to count slaves for representation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Craig234 said:

 

I'd like to clarify the issue of 'states rights'.

 

States' rights DO matter. In the sense that historically, states came from independent colonies that were almost like their own countries, and when they agree to form a union of 'United States', their intent was to have a limited federal government and to preserve the powers of states as well on many or most issues.

 

Whatever happened in the late 18th or early 19th centuries to form this country has long been overtaken by events.

 

Many millions of people immigrated to the United States (myself among them) and none of them had the intention to immigrate to a state; their intention was to come to a country, to the United States.

 

A bitter civil war was fought and won that showed that federal law could supercede states rights to property.

 

The country is built on money and commerce, and there is freedom of movement, so the federal right to regulate interstate commerce gives the feds de facto power over nearly everything in the states. Control of borders and immigration gives then the power over everything left out of the above. 

 

States can't even regulate criminals: New Hamster can say, for example: a felon can't get a concealed carry gun license in New Hamster. But if a Hamster who was convicted of a felony is licensed in Kensucky, New Hamster must recognize that. So say the feds.

 

Does the state of Euphoria want to protect migrants? Sure, go ahead. Federal ICE agents will stop school busses or raid businesses and detain Latino looking people until they see papers - or deport them.

 

States rights are like a vestigial organ, like an appendix. We can have them until they get infected and start to ache, and then a skilled federal lawyer will excise them like an unnecessary piece of 18th century trivia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, laripu said:

 

Whatever happened in the late 18th or early 19th centuries to form this country has long been overtaken by events.

 

Many millions of people immigrated to the United States (myself among them) and none of them had the intention to immigrate to a state; their intention was to come to a country, to the United States.

 

A bitter civil war was fought and won that showed that federal law could supercede states rights to property.

 

The country is built on money and commerce, and there is freedom of movement, so the federal right to regulate interstate commerce gives the feds de facto power over nearly everything in the states. Control of borders and immigration gives then the power over everything left out of the above. 

 

States can't even regulate criminals: New Hamster can say, for example: a felon can't get a concealed carry gun license in New Hamster. But if a Hamster who was convicted of a felony is licensed in Kensucky, New Hamster must recognize that. So say the feds.

 

Does the state of Euphoria want to protect migrants? Sure, go ahead. Federal ICE agents will stop school busses or raid businesses and detain Latino looking people until they see papers - or deport them.

 

States rights are like a vestigial organ, like an appendix. We can have them until they get infected and start to ache, and then a skilled federal lawyer will excise them like an unnecessary piece of 18th century trivia.

 

That's not quite right - for example, look at the right-wing Supreme Court decision letting states refuse the ACA Medicaid expansion (a decision I disagree with). States rights is a permanent and important idea for the country, even if it is reduced over time. States continue to have a lot of rights.


The federal government takes power over the states in areas the federal government is granted powers, but the issue is that there are areas the federal government doesn't have those powers.

 

The federal government has tried to grab more power - for example, when they wanted a national drinking age of 21, they couldn't pass it - but withheld highway funds unless states passed it. That's a pretty controversial tactic. The 9th and 10th amendments were meant to protect states rights, even if they are not much utilized.

 

My point though was that the topic of states rights has nothing to do with the electoral system giving low-population states overrepresentation.

 

And the discussion seemed to be conflating the two issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Craig234 said:

 

That's not quite right - for example, look at the right-wing Supreme Court decision letting states refuse the ACA Medicaid expansion (a decision I disagree with). States rights is a permanent and important idea for the country, even if it is reduced over time. States continue to have a lot of rights.


The federal government takes power over the states in areas the federal government is granted powers, but the issue is that there are areas the federal government doesn't have those powers.

 

The federal government has tried to grab more power - for example, when they wanted a national drinking age of 21, they couldn't pass it - but withheld highway funds unless states passed it. That's a pretty controversial tactic. The 9th and 10th amendments were meant to protect states rights, even if they are not much utilized.

 

My point though was that the topic of states rights has nothing to do with the electoral system giving low-population states overrepresentation.

 

And the discussion seemed to be conflating the two issues.

 

I see your point, While the federal government is pretty good a grabbing power and coercion, they can be pushed back by the SCOTUS.

 

I would like to see the electoral college system scrapped too. And gerrymandering made impossible by mandating a straight line districting system, in which each district would be a rectangle... or near to that. In fact, when I retire I would volunteer to create the software to do just that, basing it on the last real estate rolls, census and utility data. It won't be perfect, but it will be close and will not be racially based or party based.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fourputt said:

The real nightmare would be somebody winning the election with only 25% of the popular vote

 

Republicans would have no scruples, if they could get away with it.  And it could conceivably happen if, for instance, enough electronic voting machines were tampered with, to flip the outcome.  And, having done the scam, they would fight like hell on earth against anyone who disputed them.

 

The GOP is rapidly stacking the deck in their favor.  Between The Right Wing Noise Machine, gerrymandering, the Electoral College and dirty tricks, government is making a sharp turn to the right and becoming unrepresentative of the will of the people.  Democratic lawmakers, many deeply beholden to Big Money, often make only pathetic efforts to fight back.

 

In 1787, when asked if we had a monarchy or a republic, Ben Franklin replied, with no hesitation "A republic, if you can keep it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We already didn't keep it ("A Republic"). I don't buy at all that Trump "won."  Yes, he was installed in office, but not by the will of the people. We are not being represented now, neither in the executive branch, nor the legislative branch, nor the Judicial branch nor the fourth estate (the media). In my opinion, it doesn't matter how many people we get to vote against the crooks, it can never be enough because they can flip the switch and convert votes to their side in the so called ballot counting machines.

 

Unless we somehow install fair open and honest elections, the criminals will continue their rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DonJoe said:

they can flip the switch and convert votes to their side in the so called ballot counting machines.

 

Then how do people like Barbara Mikulski,  Mark Takano, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and many other deeply Liberal members of Congress get elected?  They are thorns in the side of the GOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2018 at 5:41 PM, bludog said:

 

Then how do people like Barbara Mikulski,  Mark Takano, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown and many other deeply Liberal members of Congress get elected?  They are thorns in the side of the GOP.

Being elected prior to a lot of these shenanigans and remaining is one reason and being in deep blue districts for some will usually thwart any challenge from the right. More importantly right now is the fact our government is not any more prepared and may even be more vulnerable from Russian interference in November's midterm elections, Trump will not recognize that it even exists, probably feels it delegitimizes his very controversial win in 2016.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, fourputt said:

Being elected prior to a lot of these shenanigans and remaining is one reason

 

True.  Incumbents have a big advantage over opponents.  But large scale Republican cheating has been going on for about 30 years now.

 

19 minutes ago, fourputt said:

being in deep blue districts for some will usually thwart any challenge from the right.

 

Yes.  In deep blue districts, most Republican cheating, if they dared, would immediately be investigated and exposed.

 

20 minutes ago, fourputt said:

More importantly right now is the fact our government is not any more prepared and may even be more vulnerable from Russian interference in November's midterm elections, Trump will not recognize that it even exists, probably feels it delegitimizes his very controversial win in 2016.

 

Good point.  Russian interference does, in fact, delegitimize the 2016 electoral results since much of it was aimed at smearing Hillary on social media.  The US needs to take measures preventing the Russians from doing it again.  But that's unlikely to happen with Trump and the Conservatives in control of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump and his supporters are really missing the big picture here they only worry about squelching the fact Russia did interfere instead of doing their part in preventing this from continuing, IMO I think a far left group could just as easily hurt the Republican ticket and damage them far worse than the Russians are trying to disrupt our elections to help a conservative candidate. Of course when this happens have your earplugs ready for the hysteria.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, trump2020 said:

train trump

 

Trump is untrainable due to several intelligence deficits.

 

1 hour ago, trump2020 said:

you people are literally the stupidest.

 

Says the person who just typed the same phrase dozens of times.  Says the person who can't understand the phrase "Liberals Only".

 

1 hour ago, trump2020 said:

Our country has used the electoral college for 200 years. Many idiotic liberals have won, like "Slick Willie" Bill Clinton because of it

 

That is not true. Both times in which he was elected president, Bill Clinton had more of the popular vote than his nearest rival.

In 1992, Bill Clinton had 5,805,25 more votes than George HW Bush.

In 1996, Bill Clinton had 8,201,370 more votes than Bob Dole.

 

In 2016, Hilary Clinton had 2,864,974 more votes than Donald Trump.

 

Reference is here. You can sort the table by margin, and you'll see that it's the worst popular vote outcome for an electoral college winner.

 

Modern conservatives are not low-information voters anymore. They're "just-make-up-anything-that-you-think-supports-your-side-even-if-it's-not-true" voters.

 

You can fool some of the people some of the time, and that time is soon coming to an end. The edifice of falseness is falling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, trump2020 said:

trump train trump train

 

trump2020 - Do not post in the Liberal's Only Room again or I will take action.  The name Liberal's Only is self-explanatory to most people but evidently not to you.  You are welcome to join your fellow Conservatives and post in No Holds Barred and the rest of the forum but not in LO.   Notice your post has been deleted.

 

Rules for LO


×

Welcome to Liberals only forum

No conservatives allowed
Post respectfully, personal attacks will not be tolerated
No more than five new threads a day
No trash talking about members and their kids
No porn, or links to porn
No gore pictures
No cursing  in thread titles
No, 'outing' of members or their families; names, addresses, phone numbers, SSNs, etc.
No linking to other political forums
No solicitations

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/12/2018 at 1:07 PM, bludog said:

 

trump2020 - Do not post in the Liberal's Only Room again or I will take action.  The name Liberal's Only is self-explanatory to most people but evidently not to you.  You are welcome to join your fellow Conservatives and post in No Holds Barred and the rest of the forum but not in LO.   Notice your post has been deleted.

 

Rules for LO


×

Welcome to Liberals only forum

No conservatives allowed
Post respectfully, personal attacks will not be tolerated
No more than five new threads a day
No trash talking about members and their kids
No porn, or links to porn
No gore pictures
No cursing  in thread titles
No, 'outing' of members or their families; names, addresses, phone numbers, SSNs, etc.
No linking to other political forums
No solicitations

 

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

"I will take action"

 

LMAO

 

The only action you can take, unpaid loser, is moving spam and hiding threads and posts. What are you gonna do? Ban him? HAHAHAHA!!! Nope, you can't do it!

 

LMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2018 at 4:08 PM, SixShooter said:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

"I will take action"

 

LMAO

 

The only action you can take, unpaid loser, is moving spam and hiding threads and posts. What are you gonna do? Ban him? HAHAHAHA!!! Nope, you can't do it!

 

LMAO

 

SixShooter: ---  I'm giving you a second chance.  But if you post again in LO, you will get a nice little 5 day vacation.  Care to tempt fate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every day that passes I just keep telling myself is one less this scourge on humanity is invading the highest office in the land, Also I think this is obviously the low point in the political history of this country, I sense desperation on the other side that this is their last opportunity to have any real power in the way our government operates, since 1988 republicans have only garnered the popular vote once 2004, 30 year span and 2 out of 3 were popular vote losses. Once this electoral college gets scrapped they are done and they know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...