more electors defected from Hillary Clinton than from Trump

[Yuuri 21,636]

3 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

Which is why Bernie will win in 2020

The truth is, he's old. And that one thing may be a winning or losing factor if he decides to run again. (I'm fine with almost any Democratic president)

[Born To Slay 10,996]

Just now, Misaki said:

The truth is, he's old. And that one thing may be a winning or losing factor if he decides to run again. (I'm fine with almost any Democratic president)

He still has the record of a winner

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

22 minutes ago, PaperIz said:

 

I honestly think that makes us better. The GP and half of you sacrifice your morals and this is what happens. Let a good candidate have a shot and maybe something good would happen. We were given two forms of evil and expected to choose. I won't stick with anyone I don't believe in. That's what the real issue is here. 

Here we go again....  🙄

If you think being out of power & letting everything we hold dear be abolished and done away with, just so we can still have our morals & hold our heads high is the way to go...

Then we can just agree to disagree on this one then!  

Becuase while you think Hillary was the devil himself/herself, there were many Hillary supporters who would NOT support Bernie either under any circumstances...  So we would just be back at square one then if Bernie had won the nomination.  

 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

2 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Here we go again....  🙄

If you think being out of power & letting everything we hold dear be abolished and done away with, just so we can still have our morals & hold our heads high is the way to go...

Then we can just agree to disagree on this one then!  

Becuase while you think Hillary was the devil himself/herself, there were many Hillary supporters who would NOT support Bernie either under any circumstances...  So we would just be back at square one then if Bernie had won the nomination.  

 

So wait, does that mean the Hillary fans are just as bad as the Bernie fans in terms of party loyalty?

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

5 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

So wait, does that mean the Hillary fans are just as bad as the Bernie fans in terms of party loyalty?

They weren't at first, but now they have come very close to being so...  I go on some Hillary fan pages on FB & all you see is hate for Bernie & Elizabeth Warren now!  And all I can do is just SMFH!  God help us if we are all still this divided in 4 years...  

 

[Gaga Monster 13,001]

18 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

He still has the record of a winner

Even if you take away all the money from the 1%, it still wouldn't pay a fraction of what Bernie proposed. He lives in an unrealistic dream world and his ideas are a danger to the USA.

All the free stuff he proposes would cost $18 trillion, if you take away the money from the 1% it would not even come close to $18 trillion.

Bernie would be one of the last people I would ever vote for, I really really dislike Hillary, she is the most corrupt politican I have ever seen run for office, and I would vote for her over him.

I think his ideas are unrealistic, too costly, and dangerous and would cost us serious serious debt. Nothing is free and Bernie voters should understand that.

[Redstreak 6,653]

1 hour ago, Born To Slay said:

The rural areas are not left out of the popular vote, they're votes count, if they more people vote for liberal policies then sorry but more people voted against you then with you.

 

If anything rural votes count MORE under the electoral system, it's gross

[Mistress Dita 331]

The electoral college is suppose to be weighted and make every state fair. Because those huge vities will always go democrat and a would always win then. The electoral college is somewhat fair. Really less votes shouls go to CA and NY etc. 

[JusKeepBreathin 19,311]

2 hours ago, Woolfsmck said:

http://www.vox.com/2016/12/19/14012970/electoral-college-faith-spotted-eagle-colin-powell?yptr=yahoo

 

I don't agree... The electoral  college is was designed to protect the rural population from being left out.  Hillary won most of the major cities and population centers. 

Regions she campaigned and made promises to the most.

The rural population was left out somewhat by the demeocratic party , hence Trump gained support in those regions.  

Trump garnered a greater land mass area of support but concentrated population centers went to Hillary, therefore she gained the popular vote edge.

It isn't perfect, but it does prevent the the rural population from being left out.

To me, Hillary lost the election more than Trump won it.

To be honest this isn't true. Because the vote that doesn't count comes from the much smaller party in the rural areas. 

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

2 minutes ago, Mistress Dita said:

The electoral college is suppose to be weighted and make every state fair. Because those huge vities will always go democrat and a would always win then. The electoral college is somewhat fair. Really less votes shouls go to CA and NY etc. 

More should go to CA and NY in my view, because they just have vastly more people period.  If the criteria is population anyway...

 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

9 minutes ago, Redstreak said:

If anything rural votes count MORE under the electoral system, it's gross

I know, it's absurd that there being less of them literally makes them count more. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

57 minutes ago, Mistress Dita said:

The electoral college is suppose to be weighted and make every state fair. Because those huge vities will always go democrat and a would always win then. The electoral college is somewhat fair. Really less votes shouls go to CA and NY etc. 

Well, if more people vote democrat, then the democrat should win. Whether the people live in the city or not. If the people in the Midwest can't build a coalition, then too bad for them.

[Luc 4,776]

2 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

Hillary didn't listen to her fellow Democrats that didn't initially support her and failed to see the threat of Trump's rhetoric in sparking a sentiment many Americans have been feeling for years. 

Honestly, many of us more liberal minded people underestimated what Trump's words could do. 

But her campaign FAILED us all. She didn't campaign harder where she needed to and now we're stuck with Trump. 

Her campaign did not fail anyone. It's easy to say it did in hindsight, but let's remember that all internal polling showed that

What failed HRC (and with that the interests of the US) is the way the US is structured. Thanks to how flawed the US system is, there's literally partisan government officials trying to influence an election! That's crazy! And he won't get any punishment, because that's how the US works. If anyone with bad intentions ever rose to power it would be damn easy to turn the US into a country like Hungary, Poland or Russia.

 

-

 

The big problems I have with the electoral college system and proponents' arguments:

1. The EC institutionalises racism in the context of the US by giving 'rural' (aka 99% white) voters more of a say while deeming urban (aka <50% white, with huge diversity in sexual orientation, religion and race) voters as inferior. This probably wasn't the intention of the 'Founding Fathers', but anyone who argumentates that rural votes are more important than urban votes today do know that urban areas are way more diverse.

2. What follows from (1) is that the constitution, with the purpose to protect minorities, actually decreases the power and rights of minorities. The way it's designed it protects privilege rather than protecting the unprivileged. If a constitution does not protect minorities nor democracy, it serves no purpose. It would even be better to have no constitution (like in the UK iirc).

3. The EC allows for extremely flawed election results, with the possibility of a president more popular than Reagan (2nd term) losing. The presidency could actually be won with less than 25% of the vote. 

4. There's no reason to give rural votes an extra say in choosing the president because the controlling chambers already do. The Senate gives enough disproportional power to the smaller states.

5. No state is 'rural'. Every state has a major city where most people live. NY and Cali have rural areas too and they have influence too.

6. The EC system was made in a time when relative distances were huge. Getting information from north to south took a long time. What followed is that it was more difficult to get to know what was going on in the other part of the country, and it was thus necessary to make these states be represented in a system like the EC, to let their voices be heard. Nowadays we're in the digital age, where the north-south distance for information is literally 0.001 seconds. State interests are way less important now, as it has become increasingly easy to transfer information, to form a community with long distances in between and to have common interests while living 1000 miles apart, rendering the whole concept of giving different locations (states) a different voice useless.

7. The US doesn't need to be a Federation because almost every US citizen is an American first. There's no Wyoming folk, or a history that all Texans share. A federal state makes sense in a country where different peoples/folks/ethnicities are seperated by states, but that's not the case in the US.

8. The EC makes campaigns focused on 10 states rather than 50 states. NYC people are just as important as Las Vegas people.

 

 

but back on topic: everyone who had read articles instead of just headlines would've known that the defectors were mostly Democrats who wanted to show how exceptional this election was. Not because they think HRC is unfit to be president

 

[Morphine Prince 109,998]

11 minutes ago, Luc said:

Her campaign did not fail anyone. It's easy to say it did in hindsight, but let's remember that all internal polling showed that

What failed HRC (and with that the interests of the US) is the way the US is structured. Thanks to how flawed the US system is, there's literally partisan government officials trying to influence an election! That's crazy! And he won't get any punishment, because that's how the US works. If anyone with bad intentions ever rose to power it would be damn easy to turn the US into a country like Hungary, Poland or Russia.

 

I read the list you posted and I agree with many of the points but I'm not quoting it for space issues haha. 

Anyway, Hillary lost Michigan to Bernie and she did not campaign there after, for example. She lost it in the general. 

Her campaign and many of us were so sure she was gonna win.

But looking back now it makes me angry she lost in states where she could have easily won with more effort  

 

[Emvee 8,869]

7 hours ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Liberals & Progressives are such sad excuses for voters(A lot of the Time)!  SMH

How are you going to stage an all out nationwide electoral boycott against Trump & then Hillary ends up being boycotted more??  

If that's how they wanna do things, then maybe we(Liberals) DESERVE to be out of power quite honestly!!  

Because unlike the Republicans, we can't seem to stand together for ****!  SMFH

 

Liberals and progressives are getting such a bad reputation coming out of this election and it's so sad because the progressive faction of the Democratic Party is the part that actually cares and is informed. 

That $18 trillion figure, for instance, was thrown out by the Wall Street Journal to scare and misguide people. $18 trillion over a TEN YEAR period and includes single payer healthcare - something we ALREADY PAY FOR through health insurance premiums. In fact, it is estimated that America will pay $42 trillion dollars for healthcare in the next ten years. Who benefits most out of that? Health Insurance companies. Who facilitates that? The neo-liberal faction of the Democratic Party and the political establishment in general. The people who get to keep their high paying positions thanks to large campaign contributions by special interest groups. None of Bernie Sander's proposals are radical ideas. Most of America wants single payer healthcare, most of America wants free higher education, and most of America DEFINITELY wants money out of politics. It would all get done if politicians actually gave a damn about their constituents. 

And that's why Donald Trump won. Because he gave desperate voters the hope of change... just as every politician before him has. Only this time, Donald Trump had the luxury of free media coverage because of the spectacles he created. Hillary Clinton, though? She boasted about being a moderate Democrat. She promoted "incremental change" as if it were something to be proud of. 

At this point, casting the blue vote for other candidates makes no difference to the overall outcome. It's more of a big "**** you" to the democratic establishment. The only chance would have been for red voters to choose another candidate so that it would go to congress, who would undoubtedly choose another republican. 

Edit: damn I just realized that I quoted the wrong person