Sign in to follow this  
Princess of Tap

Mike Pence-- Who is He and What is his Agenda?

351 posts in this topic

The electoral college would have been abolished years ago if it regularly happened that a different candidate won the popular vote than the one who won the electoral vote. Now it has happened twice in 16 years. Time for it to go.

 

As long as Republicans keep benefiting from it, and they control most state governments, it will not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as Republicans keep benefiting from it, and they control most state governments, it will not happen.

The reason this is happening now is that migrating minorities and new citizens (who vote mostly Democratic) are settling only in certain states, giving huge Democratic pluralities in those states (mostly New York, California, and Illinois).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The electoral college would have been abolished years ago if it regularly happened that a different candidate won the popular vote than the one who won the electoral vote. Now it has happened twice in 16 years. Time for it to go.

 

It looks like it may get worse with cities growing in population and the midlands emptying out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like it may get worse with cities growing in population and the midlands emptying out.

Time for the Democrats to start forcibly moving people around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for the Democrats to start forcibly moving people around.

It's kind of difficult to make the case that most Americans supported

you when you're a million votes behind in the popular vote. Well

difficult for most people, not for pols.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as Republicans keep benefiting from it, and they control most state governments, it will not happen.

 

 

Yep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of difficult to make the case that most Americans supported

you when you're a million votes behind in the popular vote. Well

difficult for most people, not for pols.

Nadler said today that when all the votes are counted, it will be two million ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHO IS MIKE PENCE? A PATRIOT. WHAT IS HIS AGENDA? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

 

Mike Pence Will Be the Most Powerful Christian Supremacist in U.S. History

 

"Trump appointed a white nationalist, Steve Bannon, as chief White House strategist — which was promptly celebrated by the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan. Bannon and other possible extremist Trump appointees, such as John Bolton, a neocon who believes the U.S. should “bomb Iran,” and the authoritarian Rudy Giuliani, are now receiving much deserved public scrutiny.

 

The incoming vice president, Mike Pence, has not elicited the same reaction, instead often painted as the reasonable adult on the ticket, a “counterbalance” to Trump and a “bridge to the establishment.” However, there is every reason to regard him as, if anything, even more terrifying than the president-elect.....

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/mike-pence-will-be-the-most-powerful-christian-supremacist-in-us-history/

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nadler said today that when all the votes are counted, it will be two million ahead.

Shouldn't Nadler, by weight, get at least two votes? 2 million as the

eventual total is the same figure I saw. I was on one of the local sites

and someone linked to something saying that Trump was ahead by

700,000 votes. There was an official looking count too. Got to keep

your eye on the nutjobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And no one knows what Trump's position on the middle east is.  'I never wanted to promote regime change and go into Iraq' or the guy who wants to bomb the s out of them and seize all of their oil.  I don't think Trump even knows.  It was all just BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nadler said today that when all the votes are counted, it will be two million ahead.

 

 

Shouldn't Nadler, by weight, get at least two votes? 2 million as the

eventual total is the same figure I saw. I was on one of the local sites

and someone linked to something saying that Trump was ahead by

700,000 votes. There was an official looking count too. Got to keep

your eye on the nutjobs.

 

 

The "Hillary won the popular vote" myth has already been debunked by JakeHolman. Didn't you guys read that those extra votes were all from illegals, and therefore invalid? And wasn't someone rambling on about the states where Hillary got so many more votes being states in which Trump didn't really campaign, therefore those votes should be discounted by some twisted logic? Get with the program guys, or you'll miss the Trump Train to American Greatness!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Hillary won the popular vote" myth has already been debunked by JakeHolman. Didn't you guys read that those extra votes were all from illegals, and therefore invalid? And wasn't someone rambling on about the states where Hillary got so many more votes being states in which Trump didn't really campaign, therefore those votes should be discounted by some twisted logic? Get with the program guys, or you'll miss the Trump Train to American Greatness!

Read it, didn't exactly believe it. The nutjob sites will flood the first page

of Google with the same story and it often takes a while to get things

straightened out. Heck, if it's on a ball cap, you just know it has to be

true. As Peter Tosh sang Stop That Train. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Hillary won the popular vote" myth has already been debunked by JakeHolman. Didn't you guys read that those extra votes were all from illegals, and therefore invalid? And wasn't someone rambling on about the states where Hillary got so many more votes being states in which Trump didn't really campaign, therefore those votes should be discounted by some twisted logic? Get with the program guys, or you'll miss the Trump Train to American Greatness!

 

Of course Clinton got more popular votes but it doesn't mean, per se that if the election would have been based solely on the popular vote she still would have received more popular votes.   The reason should be obvious;   Trump would have campaigned (e.g. spend money on ads,  held rallies)  in states like CA where Clinton clearly was going to win all the electoral college delegates. 

 

I fail to see how that is twisted logic.

 

The bottom line is that no one can't say how the 'what if' of NO electoral college would have played out.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night, I sat through TCM's airing of The Sorrow And The Pity. Interesting stuff... those four years in France, 1940-1944. Made me think of the next four years...

Pétain's government was a collaborationist government to assist the German Nazi- occuppied government of France-- as France was split into two zones under the auspices of each group

 

However, Trump's government will be one of American citizens. The only similarities you might try to insinuate would be if Trump was collaborating with the Russian President Vladimir Putin to overthrow our government or if you perceive that Trump's government will promote anti-Semitism and other forms of racism, as state policy.

 

Under Pétain Jewish French citizens lost their property, professions and many were deported to death camps.

 

Pétain was a national French hero from World War 1 who choose to front the collaboration or Vichy government in France because he thought that was what was best for the French people.

 

Pétain had been a hero in World War 1 - - and that may have been the only thing that saved him from execution for treason after the end of World War II.

 

Pierre Laval, the man who really ran the French occupation government at Vichy was executed by the Free French government lead by Gen. Charles de Gaulle at the end of World War II in Europe.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Clinton got more popular votes but it doesn't mean, per se that if the election would have been based solely on the popular vote she still would have received more popular votes.   The reason should be obvious;   Trump would have campaigned (e.g. spend money on ads,  held rallies)  in states like CA where Clinton clearly was going to win all the electoral college delegates. 

 

I fail to see how that is twisted logic.

 

The bottom line is that no one can't say how the 'what if' of NO electoral college would have played out.   

 

I'm trying to decipher that last sentence. Did you use the words that you intended to use?

 

Saying that Hillary's popular vote win is meaningless since Trump didn't campaign the "right way" to win the popular vote is ridiculous. If either of them did things differently they would have had different results. That makes as much sense as saying Trump's electoral win should be discounted because Hillary didn't campaign to exclusively win that way.

 

I'm not saying that Trump didn't win the presidency. He won the electoral college, and that's the way things are set up, so he's the legitimate winner. But to discount Hillary's popular vote win all together is also foolish. Only 58% of the population voted, and less than half of those chose Trump. Not exactly a rapturous mandate from the people. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to decipher that last sentence. Did you use the words that you intended to use?

 

Saying that Hillary's popular vote win is meaningless since Trump didn't campaign the "right way" to win the popular vote is ridiculous. If either of them did things differently they would have had different results. That makes as much sense as saying Trump's electoral win should be discounted because Hillary didn't campaign to exclusively win that way.

 

I'm not saying that Trump didn't win the presidency. He won the electoral college, and that's the way things are set up, so he's the legitimate winner. But to discount Hillary's popular vote win all together is also foolish. Only 58% of the population voted, and less than half of those chose Trump. Not exactly a rapturous mandate from the people.

Rod Serling's gotta be around the corner here somewhere.

 

But, I'm actually looking for Jack Webb & Dragnet - - "just the facts ma'am."

 

The fact remains that the majority of Americans who voted in the presidential election last Tuesday voted for Hillary Clinton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to decipher that last sentence. Did you use the words that you intended to use?

 

Saying that Hillary's popular vote win is meaningless since Trump didn't campaign the "right way" to win the popular vote is ridiculous. If either of them did things differently they would have had different results. That makes as much sense as saying Trump's electoral win should be discounted because Hillary didn't campaign to exclusively win that way.

 

I'm not saying that Trump didn't win the presidency. He won the electoral college, and that's the way things are set up, so he's the legitimate winner. But to discount Hillary's popular vote win all together is also foolish. Only 58% of the population voted, and less than half of those chose Trump. Not exactly a rapturous mandate from the people. 

 

A campaign decides their strategy based on the existing system (rules) in place for deciding who WINS the election.    Currently that means the electoral college system and NOT the overall popular vote.  

 

Each campaign would have come up with a different strategy IF the system (rules) for WINNING was based solely on the overall popular vote.    Therefore NO ONE knows what the final outcome would have been in the 'what if' situation of deciding the WINNER based solely on the overall popular vote.

 

When someone says having the most overall votes is 'meaningless' they mean as it relates to who WINS.   This is why I'm putting WINNIER and WINS'  in caps.     Because in an election the only meaningful thing to me is who is the WINNER and who is NOT.

 

BUT;  if your point here is that Trump doesn't have any kind of mandate because he didn't get the most overall votes;  THAT I agree with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, Trump's government will be one of American citizens. The only similarities you might try to insinuate would be if Trump was collaborating with the Russian President Vladimir Putin to overthrow our government or if you perceive that Trump's government will promote anti-Semitism and other forms of racism, as state policy.

 

I am still suspicious that was just a gag that Putin half went along with to amuse himself. It will not surprise me in the least if we later find out that the DNC server was leaked by passionate Brietbart members working inside the FBI after they got bored whispering sweet nothings into Jimmy Comey's ear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rod Serling's gotta be around the corner here somewhere.

 

But, I'm actually looking for Jack Webb & Dragnet - - "just the facts ma'am."

 

The fact remains that the majority of Americans who voted in the presidential election last Tuesday voted for Hillary Clinton.

 

Yes,  more Americans voted for Clinton than Trump.   Another fact is that Trump is the President-Elect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing The Sorrow and the Pity when it first came

out in the U.S. I saw it again a while later on PBS, but haven't

seen it since. I watched just a small part of it last night. The

person I remember best was the cigar smoking former German

officer with the blase attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing The Sorrow and the Pity when it first came

out in the U.S. I saw it again a while later on PBS, but haven't

seen it since. I watched just a small part of it last night. The

person I remember best was the cigar smoking former German

officer with the blase attitude.

 

Vautrin--

 

 

I just finished watching a fantastic French TV show which is called A French Village-- it was six seasons of what it was like to live in a French Village during the occupation under the Vichy regime.

 

It was a historical fictional drama. But what made it so poignant for me was that after each episode they had actually created a 10-15 minute documentary program interviewing survivors of the French occupation. These eyewitnesses to history discussed what had actually happened to them and their families. Some of these participants were Jewish.

 

This was broadcasted on my local PBS station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still suspicious that was just a gag that Putin half went along with to amuse himself. It will not surprise me in the least if we later find out that the DNC server was leaked by passionate Brietbart members working inside the FBI after they got bored whispering sweet nothings into Jimmy Comey's ear.

JL--

 

You should write for SNL!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to decipher that last sentence. Did you use the words that you intended to use?

 

Saying that Hillary's popular vote win is meaningless since Trump didn't campaign the "right way" to win the popular vote is ridiculous. If either of them did things differently they would have had different results. That makes as much sense as saying Trump's electoral win should be discounted because Hillary didn't campaign to exclusively win that way.

 

I'm not saying that Trump didn't win the presidency. He won the electoral college, and that's the way things are set up, so he's the legitimate winner. But to discount Hillary's popular vote win all together is also foolish. Only 58% of the population voted, and less than half of those chose Trump. Not exactly a rapturous mandate from the people. 

 

Hillary's popular vote is meaningless because going for the popular vote was not the goal. The popular vote stat has no meaning whatsoever. The candidates knew that and appropriately neither cared a whit for it. There was no strategy that either candidate used to ensure a higher popular vote count. They chose the States that were meaningful in winning the Electoral College. This has stark consequences for Trump because he quite rightly neglected California and New York for obvious reasons. Clinton would have campaign there as well so maybe an offset but it's not be presumed on how that might have turned out. We won't know.

 

But in this election the popular vote as a stat is meaningless. Going only for the States will still ensure that there will be the inevitable popular vote count but in this case, the stat is incidental. It has no rational justification to be assigned any meaning.

 

Those who choose to stamp their feet and maintain defiantly that "The fact remains that Hillary got more votes" might be a feel-good thing but it is fraud perpetrated on oneself. Facts like this rarely stand alone, especially if it contained in a wider context. It could wind up being prejudicial or of substance. Imo, it's prejudicial, and has no substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The popular vote does show that the federal elections system is no longer working.  Why are votes in New Hampshire way more important than those in Mississippi or California?  That in itself is not right.  Rural de-populated areas now have more significance.  And if the person who wins gets two million less votes than the loser then it begins to look like an utter farce.  I mention these criticisms for elections going forward.  This one is sadly over.

Another thing that is ridiculous is the length of time spent on these elections.  It's not just a waste of billions of dollars but it also serves to exasperate the divisiveness in the country.  You govern for four years but two of them are spent on the next election?  Trump benefited a lot from months of television exposure that he would not have had in a short race and both sides fell into the the trap of concentrating on extreme divisiveness.  None of which makes for a healthy country.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us