Sign in to follow this  
Princess of Tap

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

351 posts in this topic

Well, thankfully we have people like you in the world to tell us what's what. I mean, here I would have gone on with my life having an opinion, but I got you to set me straight. Thanks, chief!

 

I notice you didn't feel the need to highlight my comment in the same post where I said that Donald won the ******* election. But I guess I was just "stamping my feet" and "perpetrating a fraud on myself".

 

What a condescending ****heel you are sometimes. 

 

I didn't highlight that part because that was not what I was talking about. That wasn't part of the subject. Or at least a very small part.

 

Those comments were not directed at you, sorry ... it surely looks as if they were. I meant that obliquely to someone else and would like to disavow those remarks if that person is watching. 

 

That looks condescending all right and I worried a little about it. The subject has had several back and forths, actually started by me quoting Glenn...baum  of Intercept Site but it was the responses to James (who has it right IMO) and I felt that folks were off point (non-sequiturs, etc.) so I adopted that precise manner of speaking in order to make myself as clear as possible. Actually I didn't understand your comment that I highlighted but instead of asking you directly I chose to do this way. I didn't do it very well.

 

Apologies, Lawrence.

 

I am embarrassed but I'll get over it.

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.

 

A few months ago Trump said that he was going to allow Pence to run foreign policy and domestic policy because he didn't want to get into the details. When asked what HE was going to do, he said, "I'm going to make America great again."

 

In another interview, after the election I believe, he asked about his campaign strategy. He said, "You have to use a certain rhetoric to get people motivated. I don't want to seem like a dull guy."

 

 

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.

 

 

I know. A couple months of campaigning is more than enough. One national primary. It's just ridiculous. NO ELECTORAL COLLEGE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

It has no substance??? Tell that to the 2 million "extra" voters who voted for Hillary........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Trump could have campaigned in NY and California until he was blue in the face and he still wouldn't have made inroads. Hillary didn't campaign in these states either.

  • Like 1

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.

Now as long as the Republicans benefit from it and they control Congress, the presidency, most state governments.

Would take an amendment to Constitution and that  is not likely to happen.

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.

Not to worry, he doesn't have one.  His advisors and cabinet and other appointees will determine all that under the guidance of Bannon and Pence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to worry, he doesn't have one.  His advisors and cabinet and other appointees will determine all that under the guidance of Bannon and Pence.

 

They'll come up with a consensus? LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now as long as the Republicans benefit from it and they control Congress, the presidency, most state governments.

Would take an amendment to Constitution and that  is not likely to happen.

 

Yep. And ain't it funny that Donny just four years ago stated the following on his little twitter account for all to see:

 

"Electoral College a disaster for a democracy, a "total sham and a travesty and a great and disgusting injustice."

 

(...yep, that's our new President-Elect alright...a man of true commitment to the ideals that have made our country great...well, when they benefit him anyway) 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. And ain't it funny that Donny just four years ago stated the following on his little twitter account for all to see:

 

"Electoral College a disaster for a democracy, a "total sham and a travesty and a great and disgusting injustice."

 

(...yep, that's our new President-Elect alright...a man of true commitment to the ideals that have made our country great...well, when they benefit him anyway) 

 

Didn't that tweet continue by urging everyone to march on Washington to take back their country.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't that tweet continue by urging everyone to march on Washington to take back their country.

 

Yep, I think it did, Bogie.

 

(...saaay, maybe all those protesters out there are more Trump supporting than they THINK, eh?!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I DO believe we've gotten off the subject of this thread's original premise here, ol' buddy.

 

(...uh-huh, I'm pretty sure this thread WAS supposed to be about THAT FREAKIN' BORN AGAIN VICE-PRESIDENT ELECT???!!!)

 

LOL

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Did you watch the Rachel Maddow piece on Putin's brag about influencing the election for Trump? I know she is a liberal who is not fond of Trump and has a slanted take on all of this, but there are some cute little coincidences she addresses such as Gen. Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort (although he did get canned) having both Trump and Putin ties, as well as Trump saying he will meet with Putin personally before he is officially president. Eeek! I would hate to be a spy or Obama-appointed official investigating Putin and now know that his strongest ally is now in charge of me. This does... in a curious indirect way... resemble wartime France with changing people in power over you altering quite a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I DO believe we've gotten off the subject of this thread's original premise here, ol' buddy.

 

(...uh-huh, I'm pretty sure this thread WAS supposed to be about THAT FREAKIN' BORN AGAIN VICE-PRESIDENT ELECT???!!!)

 

LOL

 

;)

 

The latest is that he too has some emails he doesn't want exposed. After we were bombarded so much about Hillary's emails when so much was much to do about nothing, we are getting a taste of Mister Secretive really, really having things to hide.

 

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2016/11/14/whats-mike-pence-hiding-his-emails/92839560/

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pence-in-legal-fight-to-keep-email-secret/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/pence-email-privacy-indiana-231332

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latest is that he too has some emails he doesn't want exposed. After we were bombarded so much about Hillary's emails when so much was much to do about nothing, we are getting a taste of Mister Secretive really, really having things to hide.

 

 

Wait...you're not trying to say that a Republican politician is a hypocrite, and only holds to principles when they are politically expedient, are you? I mean, the Republicans are the good guys and holders of moral authority!

 

<_<

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump could have campaigned in NY and California until he was blue in the face and he still wouldn't have made inroads. Hillary didn't campaign in these states either.

 

You,  like so many others here still don't get it.   I know this because you use the term 'inroads'.    IF the winner of the election was based only  on who got the most popular votes,   there is no such concept as 'inroads' as it relates to individual states.   I.e. getting the MOST votes in A STATE,   doesn't matter since there is no concept of 'winning a state'.    This is the exact opposite of the electoral college system where WINNING a STATE is the only thing that matters and the margin of victory (number of voters over 50.01%) does NOT matter.

 

AGAIN,  it is folly to assume the total vote tally would be the SAME if the candidates knew BEFORE the election the WINNER would be decided only on who got the most votes.    Each candidate would have campaigned a lot differently.   A lot differently!

 

E.g.  CA;   Anyone that was anti-Clinton knew their vote for Trump was meaningless in CA (e.g. my mom didn't vote) since Clinton had a massive lead in the polls.  In addition the CA contest for the open Senate seat:   based on a new CA rule, BOTH the candidates in the general election were Dems.  BOTH.    This being the second most major contest on election day depressed GOP \ Moderate voter turnout in CA. 

 

BUT if these voters knew that their vote for Trump would count (which it would in a popular vote winner system),  their turnout may have increase big time.  

 

Of course turnout for Clinton may have also increased.    BUT remember one major reason Clinton lost was because many voters that voted for Obama in prior elections did NOT come out to vote.  They stayed home.     

 

BOTTOM LINE:  Voter turnout is a major factor in determining the final outcome;   NO ONE can predict what the voter turnout would have been if the rules were different.   To assume that voter turnout would be about the same is folly.

 

NOTE:  I'm NOT saying Clinton wouldn't have won a 'based on popular vote' only type election.  I'm just saying; NO ONE KNOWS and one can't use the results of a DIFFERENT type of election as a basis for making such a prediction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTE:  I'm NOT saying Clinton wouldn't have won a 'based on popular vote' only type election.  I'm just saying; NO ONE KNOWS and one can't use the results of a DIFFERENT type of election as a basis for making such prediction.

Correct and they would have campaigned differently as you stated.

However, just for the argument, need to remember all the votes she got in the states she barely lost to Trump.  We'll never know, but the sum of all votes may have been different.

Regardless, the system is not going to change and the popular vote does not matter.  Especially to Trump and his supporters.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you watch the Rachel Maddow piece on Putin's brag about influencing the election for Trump? I know she is a liberal who is not fond of Trump and has a slanted take on all of this, but there are some cute little coincidences she addresses such as Gen. Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort (although he did get canned) having both Trump and Putin ties

Well, Trump and Putin do manufacture fine neckwear. And don't call Rachel Maddow a piece.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Trump and Putin do manufacture fine neckwear. And don't call Rachel Maddow a piece.

 

Yeah, I hear that "neckware" they use on those dissidents over there hasn't failed in its job yet, alright.

 

(...although I have heard the scaffolding they use is somewhat suspect in its build-quality...but then again you how shoddy some of that Ruskie workmanship can be sometimes, doncha) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You,  like so many others here still don't get it.   I know this because you use the term 'inroads'.    IF the winner of the election was based only  on who got the most popular votes,   there is no such concept as 'inroads' as it relates to individual states.   I.e. getting the MOST votes in A STATE,   doesn't matter since there is no concept of 'winning a state'.    This is the exact opposite of the electoral college system where WINNING a STATE is the only thing that matters and the margin of victory (number of voters over 50.01%) does NOT matter.

 

AGAIN,  it is folly to assume the total vote tally would be the SAME if the candidates knew BEFORE the election the WINNER would be decided only on who got the most votes.    Each candidate would have campaigned a lot differently.   A lot differently!

 

E.g.  CA;   Anyone that was anti-Clinton knew their vote for Trump was meaningless in CA (e.g. my mom didn't vote) since Clinton had a massive lead in the polls.  In addition the CA contest for the open Senate seat:   based on a new CA rule, BOTH the candidates in the general election were Dems.  BOTH.    This being the second most major contest on election day depressed GOP \ Moderate voter turnout in CA. 

 

BUT if these voters knew that their vote for Trump would count (which it would in a popular vote winner system),  their turnout may have increase big time.  

 

Of course turnout for Clinton may have also increased.    BUT remember one major reason Clinton lost was because many voters that voted for Obama in prior elections did NOT come out to vote.  They stayed home.     

 

BOTTOM LINE:  Voter turnout is a major factor in determining the final outcome;   NO ONE can predict what the voter turnout would have been if the rules were different.   To assume that voter turnout would be about the same is folly.

 

NOTE:  I'm NOT saying Clinton wouldn't have won a 'based on popular vote' only type election.  I'm just saying; NO ONE KNOWS and one can't use the results of a DIFFERENT type of election as a basis for making such a prediction.

 

Thank you !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You,  like so many others here still don't get it.   I know this because you use the term 'inroads'.    IF the winner of the election was based only  on who got the most popular votes,   there is no such concept as 'inroads' as it relates to individual states.   I.e. getting the MOST votes in A STATE,   doesn't matter since there is no concept of 'winning a state'.    This is the exact opposite of the electoral college system where WINNING a STATE is the only thing that matters and the margin of victory (number of voters over 50.01%) does NOT matter.

 

AGAIN,  it is folly to assume the total vote tally would be the SAME if the candidates knew BEFORE the election the WINNER would be decided only on who got the most votes.    Each candidate would have campaigned a lot differently.   A lot differently!

 

E.g.  CA;   Anyone that was anti-Clinton knew their vote for Trump was meaningless in CA (e.g. my mom didn't vote) since Clinton had a massive lead in the polls.  In addition the CA contest for the open Senate seat:   based on a new CA rule, BOTH the candidates in the general election were Dems.  BOTH.    This being the second most major contest on election day depressed GOP \ Moderate voter turnout in CA. 

 

BUT if these voters knew that their vote for Trump would count (which it would in a popular vote winner system),  their turnout may have increase big time.  

 

Of course turnout for Clinton may have also increased.    BUT remember one major reason Clinton lost was because many voters that voted for Obama in prior elections did NOT come out to vote.  They stayed home.     

 

BOTTOM LINE:  Voter turnout is a major factor in determining the final outcome;   NO ONE can predict what the voter turnout would have been if the rules were different.   To assume that voter turnout would be about the same is folly.

 

NOTE:  I'm NOT saying Clinton wouldn't have won a 'based on popular vote' only type election.  I'm just saying; NO ONE KNOWS and one can't use the results of a DIFFERENT type of election as a basis for making such a prediction.

But you are still not giving a valid argument as to why a state-by-state winner take all method is better. This distinction reminds me of match play vs. medal play in golf. The vast majority of tournaments are medal play, for a good reason. Doing it on the basis of who wins the most holes is an interesting alternative, to be used occasionally as a change of pace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you are still not giving a valid argument as to why a state-by-state winner take all method is better. This distinction reminds me of match play vs. medal play in golf. The vast majority of tournaments are medal play, for a good reason. Doing it on the basis of who wins the most holes is an interesting alternative, to be used occasionally as a change of pace.

 

Bingo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the popular vote has no electoral relevancy (except in

Representative, Senatorial and most other contests), but with one

million votes heading for more, it does show that the theory that

a majority of voters support Trump is a fraud. Not that he will

admit that of course. If people were clamoring for a change he

would have won both the electoral and the popular vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the popular vote has no electoral relevancy (except in

Representative, Senatorial and most other contests), but with one

million votes heading for more, it does show that the theory that

a majority of voters support Trump is a fraud. Not that he will

admit that of course. If people were clamoring for a change he

would have won both the electoral and the popular vote.

If the electoral college system were all that great, they'd be using it in state races, in a county-by-county electoral college type system.

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