Sign in to follow this  
Princess of Tap

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

354 posts in this topic

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.

That sounds somewhat familiar. I may have read about

it somewhere. It takes a French village to shave your hair off.

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.

 

James did not take a stance on that in the post to which you answer, unless I'm missing something. He was comparing the two systems, pop vs electoral to make a point, and a very good one. Perhaps you are referring to an earlier comment he made on the subject. But I don't think that was James' purpose here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It's just a useless relic now. Just about every political contest is

decided by popular vote except for the most powerful office in

the country. Duh. But in practical terms, it's not going anywhere soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James did not take a stance on that in the post to which you answer, unless I'm missing something. He was comparing the two systems, pop vs electoral to make a point, and a very good one. Perhaps you are referring to an earlier comment he made on the subject. But I don't think that was James' purpose here.

 

You're right, James wasn't debating the merits of the 2 systems, only that the popular vote should be disregarded as it is meaningless and inconsequential, and dwelling on it will achieve nothing, not when we have Mexicans to deport. Get to it, already! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, James wasn't debating the merits of the 2 systems, only that the popular vote should be disregarded as it is meaningless and inconsequential, and dwelling on it will achieve nothing, not when we have Mexicans to deport. Get to it, already! 

 

You seem to be looking at this from a prejudicial point of view. Hillary won the pop but lost the election and you think this is horrible because Trump won. And therefore we must emphasize that Hillary won the pop to what---make oneself feel better? That's fine as far as it goes as a personal opinion or as necessary for one's mental health, but that has nothing to do with what James was saying in his post. Nothing !

 

What James' says and what I agree with is really less about politics and more about logic. I don't know how many goddam times it has to be said that depending what system is being used the two candidates would have campaigned in an entirely different manner. In the Electoral C system, the pop vote cannot logically be seen as a palliative for wounded Hillary voters because the candidates had no concern whatsoever for popular. Neither candidate cared a whit for that and so accordingly did not campaign for that thereby it is not logically sound to attribute any significance to the actual numbers of the popular vote. It's merely an incidental stat, a curio perhaps, but no more. Logically, that is ... now if one might emotionally cling to the comforting idea that Hillary won the popular vote, that's another story, but that is more about the clinger than about any reasonable analysis of viable significance.

  • Like 1

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.

 

Another thing proven by the fact Clinton received more popular votes than Trump but less electoral votes is that Trump's campaign staff had a lot better understanding of what it takes to win an election for President than Clinton's staff. 

 

The people in most states where clamoring for change but clearly not in the two largest states CA and NY.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds somewhat familiar. I may have read about

it somewhere. It takes a French village to shave your hair off.

Vautrin--

 

That's exactly what happened to one upscale lady in the village who openly had an affair with the Nazi officer in charge of the village occupation.

 

The part was played by the beautiful redheaded French actress named Audrey Fleurot.

 

Audrey made quite a name for herself in the French TV police drama Spiral (Engrenages).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thread that has gotten way off track.

suggest that anyone interested in the Electoral College do some searching and read up on why it came to be.

It is here to stay.

As for the popular vote, it's primary significance is that it shows that Trump (or Bush) does not have a mandate from the people of America.  Heck, a mandate is what LBJ got in 64 and Reagan got in his second election.

The popular vote should be interpreted by Trump and the Republicans as a significant indicator that a lot of people don't necessarily agree with their policies and plans.  Therefore they need to find some way to work with those people.  Not just write them off.

I think Clinton's staff understood better what it took to win the Electoral College.  However, they were deceived by their own expectations into making major mistakes in how they pursued victory.  Trump's staff were probably as surprised as Washington Post and MSNBC that he won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to be looking at this from a prejudicial point of view. Hillary won the pop but lost the election and you think this is horrible because Trump won. And therefore we must emphasize that Hillary won the pop to what---make oneself feel better? That's fine as far as it goes as a personal opinion or as necessary for one's mental health, but that has nothing to do with what James was saying in his post. Nothing !

 

 

My apologies. This seems to have upset you a great deal. I'll refrain from responding to any more posts from you. It wasn't my place to interject, anyway, as you were lecturing someone else, and I butted in. It won't happen again.

 

Apologies to James, as well. I won't mention the popular vote again. Now I know that that was me being prejudicial and working on my mental health.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thread that has gotten way off track.

suggest that anyone interested in the Electoral College do some searching and read up on why it came to be.

It is here to stay.

As for the popular vote, it's primary significance is that it shows that Trump (or Bush) does not have a mandate from the people of America. Heck, a mandate is what LBJ got in 64 and Reagan got in his second election.

The popular vote should be interpreted by Trump and the Republicans as a significant indicator that a lot of people don't necessarily agree with their policies and plans. Therefore they need to find some way to work with those people. Not just write them off.

I think Clinton's staff understood better what it took to win the Electoral College. However, they were deceived by their own expectations into making major mistakes in how they pursued victory. Trump's staff were probably as surprised as Washington Post and MSNBC that he won.

2016 presidential election was very similar to the 1960 presidential election in terms of the outcome-- it's always close when you buy an election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies. This seems to have upset you a great deal. I'll refrain from responding to any more posts from you. It wasn't my place to interject, anyway, as you were lecturing someone else, and I butted in. It won't happen again.

 

Apologies to James, as well. I won't mention the popular vote again. Now I know that that was me being prejudicial and working on my mental health.

 

 

The post wasn't about you. Are you being too sensitive? You sound like someone who likes to pout.

 

The references to prejudicial and the mental health quip were not for you, but for the 'general' you. I used your post not to offend you but to use as a springboard for a response to the subject at hand.

 

If I didn't make that clear then I will apologize again.

 

None of this is worth it if I have to lose a friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The post wasn't about you. Are you being too sensitive? You sound like someone who likes to pout.

 

 

I know I said I wouldn't respond to you again, but one more for the road: If you didn't intend to direct your post at me, perhaps refrain from quoting my post at the beginning of it. That tends to lead one to believe that the following comment is directed at that person. Or maybe I've been misunderstanding how all this works.

 

As for my "pouting", someone in this thread does seem to have a serious emotional attachment to this particular subject (which, by the way, isn't even the topic of this thread [check the title]), but I wouldn't say it was me. Physician, heal thyself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I said I wouldn't respond to you again, but one more for the road: If you didn't intend to direct your post at me, perhaps refrain from quoting my post at the beginning of it. That tends to lead one to believe that the following comment is directed at that person. Or maybe I've been misunderstanding how all this works.

 

As for my "pouting", someone in this thread does seem to have a serious emotional attachment to this particular subject (which, by the way, isn't even the topic of this thread [check the title]), but I wouldn't say it was me. Physician, heal thyself!

 

I should not have referenced your post and then later claim that I was using the "general" you, you are correct. I apologized for that and still do.

 

I went back and indeed I was the one who started the discussion. I quoted Glenn Greenwald from the same article that a member quoted early on and mistakenly assumed that it was germane to the thread but it was not.  My post would have better elsewhere even perhaps a thread of its own.  Mea Culpa.

 

Apologies to you and to all.

 

Emotional attachment in the sense that I was surprised to meet with so much resistance with what I was saying and it became somewhat exasperating for me. I still feel it's a cut-and-dry argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing proven by the fact Clinton received more popular votes than Trump but less electoral votes is that Trump's campaign staff had a lot better understanding of what it takes to win an election for President than Clinton's staff. 

 

The people in most states where clamoring for change but clearly not in the two largest states CA and NY.   

I don't know if Trump's people had a better idea than Clinton's.

Clinton just assumed that she would win in those Rust Belt states

that Dems have been winning in for the last twenty years. That

sure proved to be wrong. I feel sorry for those folks clamoring

for change. I have a feeling they ain't going to get much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vautrin--

 

That's exactly what happened to one upscale lady in the village who openly had an affair with the Nazi officer in charge of the village occupation.

 

The part was played by the beautiful redheaded French actress named Audrey Fleurot.

 

Audrey made quite a name for herself in the French TV police drama Spiral (Engrenages).

I did see a short scene where a woman was placed on a platform and had

her head shaved. I can understand why people did that, but there is

also usually a lot of score settling that has little to do with what some folks

actually did or rather didn't do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies. This seems to have upset you a great deal. I'll refrain from responding to any more posts from you. It wasn't my place to interject, anyway, as you were lecturing someone else, and I butted in. It won't happen again.

 

Apologies to James, as well. I won't mention the popular vote again. Now I know that that was me being prejudicial and working on my mental health.

How about this example? State A and State B both have 15 electoral votes. Trump wins State A by 5,000 votes. Hillary wins State B by 500,000 votes. Just on the basis of these two states, the two are dead even in the Presidential race. Is this proper?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thread that has gotten way off track.

suggest that anyone interested in the Electoral College do some searching and read up on why it came to be.

It is here to stay.

As for the popular vote, it's primary significance is that it shows that Trump (or Bush) does not have a mandate from the people of America.  Heck, a mandate is what LBJ got in 64 and Reagan got in his second election.

The popular vote should be interpreted by Trump and the Republicans as a significant indicator that a lot of people don't necessarily agree with their policies and plans.  Therefore they need to find some way to work with those people.  Not just write them off.

I think Clinton's staff understood better what it took to win the Electoral College.  However, they were deceived by their own expectations into making major mistakes in how they pursued victory.  Trump's staff were probably as surprised as Washington Post and MSNBC that he won.

 

 

 

They've already interpreted it as a mandate.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

And around the world! LOL. Don't count on it..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this example? State A and State B both have 15 electoral votes. Trump wins State A by 5,000 votes. Hillary wins State B by 500,000 votes. Just on the basis of these two states, the two are dead even in the Presidential race. Is this proper?

It is what country will have long after we are gone.

Only possible change would be to allocate votes by some percentage formula, but each state gets to decide that for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Electoral College has a thread of its own. I would kindly request that the discussion regarding same please continue over there.

 

I unwittingly derailed this thread and the hope is we can get back to Pence.

 

Coincidentally, a newsletter I receive daily concerned the Electoral College. I received this one just today and have used that to kick off of the new thread.

 

Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no mandate for Trump. He baited his followers with what they wanted to hear: immigrant-bashing, muslim-bashing, etc. etc. etc. Plus his calls that the election was rigged got his people frothing to go vote.

 

Besides Hilary's sense of preordination, and their campaign running an exemplary by-the-books campaign, in what was the wrong year for that, what with Trump stoking people's anger, real.or imagined. Clinton also had Comey meddle in a partisan fashion, stopping her momentum cold. She and the Dems also were the victims of all the GOP voter suppression tactics, which kept many individuals in Democratic leaning constituencies from voting.

 

So the election WAS rigged, but only it was the Republicans were doing it. Of course, ths biggest rigging of all is the undemocratic and indefensible electoral college, and arcane throwback established as a sop to get slaveholding territories to enter the Union. It needs to be done away with asap.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no mandate for Trump. He baited his followers with what they wanted to hear: immigrant-bashing, muslim-bashing, etc. etc. etc. Plus his calls that the election was rigged got his people frothing to go vote.

 

Besides Hilary's sense of preordination, and their campaign running an exemplary by-the-books campaign, it was the wrong year for that, shat with Trump stoking people's anger, real.or imagined. Clinton also had Comey meddle in a partisan fashion, stopping her momentum cold. She and the Dems also were the victims of all the GOP voter suppression tactics, which kept many individuals in Democratic leaning constituencies from voting.

 

So the election WAS rigged, but only it was the Republicans were doing it. Of course, ths biggest rigging of all is the undemocratic and indefensible electoral college, and arcane throwback established as a sop to get slaveholding territories to enter the Union. It needs to be done awaway with asap.

Wait till 01-20-2017 and we will see what happens. The Trump juggernaut is on the way with a clear and unavoidable mandate, lady. You lost. Understand?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donny has been backpedaling since the election. A wall, a fence,

a couple of croquet wickets. No mass deportations. No complete

repeal of Obamacare. This must be the only juggernaut that

moves backwards instead of forwards.

  • Like 1

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