Kudos to the President

[EyeDentist]

@anon50325502

Wasn’t Comey summoned to Capitol Hill specifically to testify in matters related to HRC?

The excoriation under discussion did not occur during testimony on the Hill; it was at a presser called by Mr. Comey.

[anon50325502]

@EyeDentist

@anon50325502

Look at it from a different angle, it’s an additional check against authoritarianism, which almost exclusively arises from populism.

The election of Mr Trump directly belies this argument.

Oh, I donno.

1. What percentage of the voting population even cast a vote? Point being, most American’s don’t really care, which is a problem.

2. HRC was a terrible candidate. I’ve never voted for a democrat but had they run say Jim Webb well…

3. People believe there are only ever two choice, which is a problem.

At any rate, that’s why we have more than one check…

@EyeDentist

The excoriation under discussion did not occur during testimony on the Hill; it was at a presser called by Mr. Comey.

Thanks for clarifying.

[DoubleDuce]

The authoritarianism of the majority (mob rule) was the subject I think.

[pfury]

@anon50325502

Conversely, if we use a popular vote and you’re born into a less populated state, then politicians won’t even bother with you or your state and your state’s cumulative votes mean almost nothing compared to the votes cast by highly populated areas.

This sounds in every way imaginable, the lesser of 2 evils.

@anon50325502

You should care about the states.

I care about the states. I just care about the citizens quite a bit more.

@DoubleDuce

If you are in favor of the majority always having their way, it means you are in favor of the minority never getting anything. You are anit-minority.

The implication being that I don’t want things to happen if it directly conflicts with the wants/needs of the majority? I don’t see how that’s a bad thing? Historically, if the minority wants something accomplished, they convince the majority that there is value in it.

@DoubleDuce

Alaska’s needs would never have any relevance in the federal government and Alaska would be governed by Californians. That’s not good. Californians lives and needs are completely different than Alaskans.

That’s what a state govt is for. I’m simply not in favor of telling people in highly populated states that they’re worth less than lower pop states.

@anon50325502

1. What percentage of the voting population even cast a vote? Point being, most American’s don’t really care, which is a problem.

58% of voting age Americans, someone threw the stat out yesterday in a different thread I think.

[anon50325502]

@pfury

This sounds in every way imaginable, the lesser of 2 evils.

I’m all ears for a better system, but I live in a state where my vote really doesn’t matter because the Baltimore/DC metro area decides what happens in MD. Of course, it doesn’t matter in the General either.

One of the shittest states in the union…

MD - 2016 electoral map

[DoubleDuce]

@pfury

The implication being that I don’t want things to happen if it directly conflicts with the wants/needs of the majority? I don’t see how that’s a bad thing? Historically, if the minority wants something accomplished, they convince the majority that there is value in it.

Because needs are different in different places and needs drive value. In Alaska a firearm can save you from being mauled by a bear. You cannot convince California of that value because in California that need doesn’t exist. What is good for one place may be bad for another and California laws could get Alaskans killed.

What would be the reason for a place like Alaska to be part of the US when you don’t think they should have a say in running it?

[pfury]

@DoubleDuce

What would be the reason for a place like Alaska to be part of the US when you don’t think they should have a say in running it?

Again, I’m not saying anyone SHOULDN’T have a say in the federal govt. I’m saying that everyone’s say should be equal. In an electoral college system, that’s simply not the case.

[DoubleDuce]

Do you believe that if you got 51% of the vote for it, all the wealth should be taken for the other 49% and given to the 51%?

[DoubleDuce]

But the alaskan needs and perspectives would be voiceless. Again, what reason would they have to stay?

[anon50325502]

@pfury

I care about the states. I just care about the citizens quite a bit more.

There are more citizens in NY City than the 9 least populated states in the union. If NYC voted 100% for Hitler and those bottom 9 states all voted for Jesus Christ, Hitler would win.

Voting becomes even less relevant when a popular vote is used with the way out population is spread out.

[SkyzykS]

@anon50325502

MD - 2016 electoral map

Could easily be re-titled “Worst place in the world to drive on Friday afternoon.”.

[anon50325502]

@SkyzykS

@anon50325502

MD - 2016 electoral map

Could easily be re-titled “Worst place in the world to drive, ever”.

Fixed that for you.

[SkyzykS]

@anon50325502

Fixed that for you.

Thank you. I got stuck there once from Fredricksburg to Richmond.

[norse84]

Bold move cotton.

[norse84]

Simply not true. It is a state by state election. Your vote is the exact same as everyone else’s in the state you vote in.

[zeb1]

@thehebrewhero

But let’s be real they most likely got picked up while conversating with Ruskies

Yes that must be it MSNBC and left wing wacko’s say so.

[Legalsteel]

@EyeDentist

Given (as you acknowledge) that both candidates were under investigation, but only one was publicly excoriated, your argument can do nothing but undermine itself. That is, being under active investigation is either not that big a deal (otherwise both or neither candidate’s investigations would have been discussed), or it is a big deal, and Comey’s selective excoriation of HRC was intended to benefit Mr. Trump (in which case said excoriation loses all credibility).

The problem in this instance was not that it wasn’t a big deal, but rather the public and congressional interest in HRC’s investigation. I would like to hope that had Trump’s had the same pressing interest, then the focus would have been on both.

I don’t like the way the dice fell, but I never put down to malice what I could put down to stupidity.

[zeb1]

@norse84

wondering how the hell she lost to an orange guy who once beat up Vince McMahon.

And that…what you said right there… is what is driving the left absolutely crazy. Not that she lost but to whom she lost to. Yes…and that is why I have not stopped smiling since election day.

[EyeDentist]

@Legalsteel

The problem in this instance was not that it wasn’t a big deal, but rather the public and congressional interest in HRC’s investigation. I would like to hope that had Trump’s had the same pressing interest, then the focus would have been on both.

I’m puzzled by the metric you’re using that deems HRC’s investigated-ad-nauseum-for-years server issue was of more pressing public interest than was the possibility that the Republican campaign for the presidency was in cahoots with the Russians to undermine the electoral process.

[zeb1]

@anon50325502

That would be even worse, though. Candidates would only campaign in densely populated areas. New York, California, Texas, and Florida would effectively choose the President every single election. The 16 least populated states represent about the same number of people as just Florida and it’s only the 4th most populated state.

The Electoral College isn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s much better than a popular vote especially for someone on the right side of the equation.

Great post.

When your candidate does not win it seems like the system is broken but it is well intact.