President Trump: The NEW one and only politics thread

It would if they did an ice bucket challenge to go along with it.

 

Batman, people are people. You want to talk clustered constituents, try Alabama or Wyoming. This is pure bullshit. Your side won because our system was designed not to reflect the will of the people or even demographic reality to placate the slave power. I had my way, the states of the Confederacy would still be under military rule. Fortunately for all, I don't have my way. But don't bring that weak shit in here. More people voted for Clinton and Trump won anyway. That's what on the table. Don't try to dress it up with such nonsense.

 

I'm about as close to the middle as you can possibly be in terms of policy preferences, but here's my thoughts. A state's value to the country isn't tied to population. The flyover states are valuable to the United States because there aren't a lot of people there. That's why they are able to produce so much of our food and energy.

Making our elections all about popular vote basically takes those people out of the equation and that creates new problems. There already aren't nearly enough people in Washington who have any idea what farmers need.

So I get that it's not fair. But figuring out the best way to fix one problem without causing a bunch of new problems isn't simple. I don't want to see minority votes marginalized, but throwing out the electoral college (or Senate) without a better plan would have unintended consequences. I have no idea what the best way to address how our country is changing would be.

 

The Yankees really won the '60 Series ... they outscored the Pirates 43-39.

 

Saw someone today proudly post a pic on Facebook of their "Nasty women get shit done" coffee mug. That's a coffee mug that needs to stay in the cupboard for a few weeks.

 

No one is claiming Clinton actually won.

Baseball actually is a bit of a dumb sport because of the sheer disconnect between the inputs and the results in the short term.

 

I would be more amenable to this argument if it wasn't handing those farmers total control. It isn't preventing mob rule, it is handing rule to a slightly smaller mob.

 

You can try to frame this as wisdom, but there is no interpretation of it that isn't "that guy's vote counts triple because we say so."

 

Well, I wasn't saying they should have full control, just that a simple move to popular vote creates other problems. There's probably a way to make it both fair and functional, but somebody smarter than me would have to figure it out.

 

Anyone wearing a safety pin yet?

 

You believe in majority rule or you don't. The founding fathers sure as hell didn't, which is why we have the system we have -- that, and the fact EVERYTHING in the Constitution is an uneasy compromise between the slaves states and not-miserable humans. Jake, you are one of the real moderates on the board and I honor you for it. But what makes where you lived/have lived more valuable to the country than where I lived and have lived?

 

I don't think where I live is more valuable. I also don't think Boston is more valuable than Benkelman, Nebraska, simply because of the population difference. We need both urban and rural communities in this country. I hate that there's such a divide between the two. I wish there were more African Americans and Latinos raising cattle in Benkelman. The system is outdated in a lot of ways, and maybe the original reasons for creating it were flawed, but you also have to be careful about tossing it aside without thinking about how to replace it. Could it be adjusted to continue to protect various industries and commodities we need without limiting the power of minority voters? I honestly don't know.