World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[BogusMeatFactory]

The fact that I could get banned really going into what I think at this point over these smug retorts I'm not going to keep this forward as arguing with moderators is suicide. Draw from that however you take it.

I love that this comes from a MAN who once said I deserved to have my throat slit and have my tongue pulled out through the hole because I disagreed with him over his belief that sony used nazi propoganda techniques to ruin Nintendo's reputation, but lets remember folks, he is the victim of some horrible crime.

[J T]

Will you two just please make out already. This catty sexual tension is killin' me.

[BogusMeatFactory]

Will you two just please make out already. This catty sexual tension is killin' me.

I'm game!

[CRTGAMER]

Well, it took a few days, but looks like the Electoral College bill is starting to heat up again. I wish the EC would be abolished, but doubt that will happen. Every state already has a voice with Reps in the House and Senate. The President represents all the people and should be chosen only by the Popular Actual Total Votes; the ballots tallied under just the entire nation wide count, no more winner take all for each state.

Interesting data at the link, shows how many states were visited during the 2016 Campaign and how many states so far have already passed bills leading to abolish the Electoral College. The EC will be abolished when enacted by states with only 105 more electoral votes to go!

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Two-Thirds of 2016 Presidential Campaign Was in Just 6 States; 94% of Campaign Was in Just 12 States.



Every Vote Equal Book Free PDF Download - http://www.every-vote-equal.com/

That stated, of course abolishing the Electoral College should have no bearing on the current election.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/16/ele ... p-hillary/

Why The Electoral College Should Not Drop Trump For Hillary
November 16, 2016 By Hrishikesh Joshi

Donald Trump is on the path to win the presidency with a resounding margin. The most likely scenario, after all the counting is over, gives him 306 electoral votes. Hillary Clinton will end up with 232. Nonetheless, Clinton is on track to win the popular vote. She is ahead by more than half a million votes, according to the present tally. This has caused a lot of frustration among Clinton supporters.

A widely circulated petition argues that because Clinton will likely have won the popular vote, electors should vote for her even if their particular state went for Trump. In other words, the Electoral College should vote for Hillary Clinton because she will win the popular vote. This frustration is understandable. Given the current Electoral College system, a candidate can win the presidency even if he or she does not attract the most number of votes. Given the divisive nature of this year’s election season, tensions are high.

Rule Changes Alter Play
Moreover, it is also understandable that people want to change the system going forward. There are many reasons in favor of doing so. For one, the system in its current form gives an outsized influence to voters from small states. Second, voters in deep blue states like California or New York, or deep red states like Kentucky, have very little influence compared to voters in swing states like Florida or New Hampshire. Perhaps even more importantly, the system incentivizes candidates to speak more to the concerns of voters in swing states. These are all good reasons to want the system to change so the president is elected based on the popular vote. However, calls to change the rules ex post facto are misguided. We have no reason to think Democrats would have won had the election been based on the popular vote to begin with.

If the name of the game were to win the popular vote, both parties would have campaigned much more in big states like New York, Texas, and California. As a result, their messaging, polling, and outreach programs would have looked markedly different. Who knows what the popular vote would have been in that case? Given the electoral system in its present form, parties aim to maximize electoral votes, not the popular vote, subject to budgetary constraints. Hence they play their ads and organize rallies in swing states because this is the best way to spend their money. The chance that a campaign dollar will make a difference is much greater if that dollar is spent in New Hampshire than in New York.

Primaries Would Also Change
The primary process would also look very different for both parties if the presidential election ultimately hinged on the popular vote. To remain competitive, both parties would design their primaries to favor candidates who had the best shot to win the popular vote in the general election. The simplest way to do this would be to base the primaries on popular vote, also. The Republican nominee would then be the candidate who received the most votes from registered Republicans (and perhaps Independents), and likewise for the Democrats.

But if that were the case from the beginning, it’s not clear that Trump would have been the Republican nominee. Nor is it clear that Clinton would have been the Democratic nominee. The whole process might have looked very different. The name of the game in this election was to win the most electoral votes. Clinton lost that game, and Trump won. Frustrated Clinton supporters should work towards reforming the system so that future presidents are those who win the popular vote. For now, Trump will be president for the next four years. That’s a reality we all have to accept.

CLICK IMAGE TO DOWNLOAD PDF OF THIS ANTIQUATED SYSTEM



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congress Nuclear Option
When Obama started his Presidency, there were difficulties in approving his cabinet choices in Congress due at the time three fifths vote approval required. Led by the Democratic party, Congress changed the vote allowing a President Cabinet Member nomination to be approved by a simple majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

The nuclear or constitutional option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by majority vote. Before November 2013, Senate rules required a three-fifths vote of the "duly chosen and sworn" members of the Senate – (usually 60 votes) to end debate on a bill, nomination or other proposal; they also require a two-thirds vote ("present and voting" – 67 or fewer votes) for a change to the Senate rules. Those rules effectively allowed a minority of the Senate to block a bill or nomination through the technique of the filibuster. This had resulted in a de facto requirement that a nomination have the support of 60 Senators to pass, rather than a majority of 51. A three-fifths vote is still required to end debates on legislation and Supreme Court nominations.

On November 21, 2013, the Senate voted 52-48, with all Republicans and 3 Democrats voting against, to eliminate the use of the filibuster against all executive branch nominees and judicial nominees other than to the Supreme Court. At the time of the vote there were 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation. The Democrat's stated motivation for this change was expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration.

Due to now both the House and Senate having Republican majority, the Nuclear Option has "blown up" on the Democrats! President Obama respects the democratic process; has stated a few days ago concerning Trump's upcoming cabinet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... annotated/

President Obama - "I think it's fair to say that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on every appointment that the president-elect starts making if I want to be consistent with the notion that we are going to try to facilitate a smooth transition. Donald Trump will be the next president, the 45th President of the United States. And it will be up to him to set up a team that he thinks will serve him well and reflect his policies. And those who didn't vote for him have to recognize that that's how democracy works. That's how this system operates."

[Tanooki]

Well done on that post CRT. The popular vote would be interesting if anything just to see how people actually go about attacking the problem of being nominated to the executive. I can say for the years I could vote in California, even though I did it, I saw no point in it either as since the 80s that place has been a good 60/40 split (at least for those who bother to vote) Dem/Rep there.

The question I have is, how many people in both parties, but in particular the continually losing side in a solid blue/red state don't bother voting? What if you had 2M voters in a state and it always goes blue and it's a 60/40 split. That would be a max of 1.2M to 8K voters max if everyone did. But we know we get a lot of low voter turnout across the board. How many more people on the losing end would then bother to run out and vote knowing their political enemies of the state could be thwarted by a combined effort nationwide or other like minded people? Would it shift? Would both sides still vote as furiously and not care or maybe just one over the other? I know I would have put a lot more effort into caring as I felt my vote was pointless, but in this setup it would not be a throw away.

[J T]

Considering his lingering legal woes I'm not fully opposed to impeachment if the circumstances call for it.

The girl that Trump allegedly raped when she was 13 at one of Joseph Epstein's pedophile parties had a court date set, but she dropped it amid death threats. We'll never know if her claims were real or just an attempt at political sabotage (or both).

The Trump University fraud case is set for November 28. I'm not expecting much to amount from this case. He might get a slap on the wrist for operating without the proper licenses for running an educational institution, but I don't expect him to be held to fire for not delivering on the promises the university made to people.

Well, I predicted wrong about the Trump University case. He paid a $25 million settlement. I should have known he would just pay to make it go away.

[CRTGAMER]

The Trump University fraud case is set for November 28. I'm not expecting much to amount from this case. He might get a slap on the wrist for operating without the proper licenses for running an educational institution, but I don't expect him to be held to fire for not delivering on the promises the university made to people.

Well, I predicted wrong about the Trump University case. He paid a $25 million settlement. I should have known he would just pay to make it go away.

Pretty much Trump had to settle, no one that is in the position of upcoming President needs to be bogged with things such as that when stepping up to run a country. So was Trump in the right or wrong concerning the University?

I feel Trump was wrong as far as even offering that course, using his name reputation and the idea of "Get Rich Quick" by following his example. On the other hand, anyone who is gullible to go for an unofficial University such as that was a fool. So should the fools get their money back? By settling the lawsuit, a precedence was (hopefully not) set that any student who cannot get a job upon graduating can sue their college! A shame in today's society people blame others for their poor judgement and inadequacies.

Well done on that post CRT. The popular vote would be interesting if anything just to see how people actually go about attacking the problem of being nominated to the executive. I can say for the years I could vote in California, even though I did it, I saw no point in it either as since the 80s that place has been a good 60/40 split (at least for those who bother to vote) Dem/Rep there.

The question I have is, how many people in both parties, but in particular the continually losing side in a solid blue/red state don't bother voting? What if you had 2M voters in a state and it always goes blue and it's a 60/40 split. That would be a max of 1.2M to 8K voters max if everyone did. But we know we get a lot of low voter turnout across the board.

How many more people on the losing end would then bother to run out and vote knowing their political enemies of the state could be thwarted by a combined effort nationwide or other like minded people? Would it shift? Would both sides still vote as furiously and not care or maybe just one over the other? I know I would have put a lot more effort into caring as I felt my vote was pointless, but in this setup it would not be a throw away.

I vote no matter what. I voted Obama twice for change and have voted for Trump for the same reason knowing this go around my Republican vote would not even be counted due to the ridiculous Electoral College system of winner take all. Still, as "uncounted", my vote for Trump sent a message in California how many did not want Clinton for President.

As to the proposed Popular Actual Vote only, yes your vote even if less in a given state will count towards the entire nation count. No more each state winner claims all the votes! Definitely will have more voter turnout now that EVERY vote would be equally counted.

Check out both links for interesting reads concerning Political Data and news. I bookmarked both; the National Popular Vote site for tracking when it will pass (download the free book PDF) and the Federalist site for political editorial news.

No matter what you should always vote. A non participation is a citizen's right, but has less of a statement to the system vs an actual vote. A voice lost by not casting a vote.

[Sarge]

I don't look forward to a world where our politics are dominated by California, Florida, Texas, and New York. As I've said before, pure popular vote would be a disaster for smaller states and rural areas.

If we want something to change, we could think about proportional allotment of electoral votes.

As for Trump settling, I am pretty sure he wouldn't have settled had he lost. He's biting the bullet to get a clean slate. That's a distraction he doesn't need right now.

[darsparx]

I don't look forward to a world where our politics are dominated by California, Florida, Texas, and New York. As I've said before, pure popular vote would be a disaster for smaller states and rural areas.

If we want something to change, we could think about proportional allotment of electoral votes.

That is exactly my fear if the electoral college was demolished. As annoying as it is, if popular vote was a thing then it would be dominated by those population centers(which for the most part always vote democrat without fail for the most part from the looks of it). That scares me for the same reasons you put in your post...

[CRTGAMER]

See previous page for my extensive Reply and Links concerning Congress Nuclear Option and the Electoral College.

I don't look forward to a world where our politics are dominated by California, Florida, Texas, and New York. As I've said before, pure popular vote would be a disaster for smaller states and rural areas.

If we want something to change, we could think about proportional allotment of electoral votes.

As for Trump settling, I am pretty sure he wouldn't have settled had he lost. He's biting the bullet to get a clean slate. That's a distraction he doesn't need right now.

You do know every state has a voice in Congress? The President is not a leader for some states, but the entire nation. As such should be voted into office by the majority of the population, no matter where they live. A proportional compromise does not work either; every vote should have an equal count.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Currently (votes still being counted) Clinton has the most actual votes in the nation with a 1.3 million lead!

1. Due to the Electoral College, my Republican vote in Democratic California was not counted due to the winner take all.

2. Due to the Electoral College, my Republican vote still won with much less of the total population!

The entire nation is all the people, not all the land mass. Don't forget that since the president is whoever captures 50%+1 of whatever system we use means he isn't want a very large portion of the country wanted. If half the country lives in dense urban areas their opinions and concerns are just as valid as the half that lives in spread out rural areas, and visa versa.

So the solution is to make the rural areas have a disproportional effect on the results? That seems like a violation of the fundamental idea behind democracy.

Also, don't forget that you still have the entire legislative branch that's apportioned by state and region and has the senate specifically to ensure small areas aren't left behind. The president doesn't actually create laws, remember?

Okay now this is wrong, the Electoral College with this much power and can change their minds for a given state's Popular Actual Vote! The vote by the people is really only advisory for just a select few actual voters in each state!

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/1 ... _vote.html

Hillary Clinton's lead over Donald Trump has topped 1.3 million <Actual Votes>, even as the push to have electors abandon the president-elect continues. Clinton's lead in the popular vote – which is expected to grow as more than 5 million ballots remain to be counted – would have her total numbers topping the winning margins of John F. Kennedy in 1960 or Richard M. Nixon in 1968. Trump's percentage of the popular vote is below that of the unsuccessful presidential campaigns of Mitt Romney in 2012, John Kerry in 2004, Al Gore in 2000 and Gerald Ford in 1976.

It takes 270 Electoral College votes to win the presidency
Bolstered by Clinton's popular vote win, her supporters are pushing the Electoral College to abandon pledges and state vote totals and switch from Trump to the Democratic nominee. Petitions calling for delegates to become "faithless electors" have launched and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, is introducing legislation to abolish the Electoral College.

Two Democratic members of the Electoral College have launched another effort to thwart Trump's White House bid. P. Bret Chiafalo, a Washington state elector, and Micheal of Colorado, have formed "Moral Electors" in an effort to persuade 37 Republican electors to dump Trump. In the unlikely event that happens, the election would be sent to the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, which would decide between the top three Electoral College vote-getters.

The two electors said their goal is not to have Clinton elected but to stop Trump
"This is a longshot. It's a Hail Mary," Chiafalo told Politico. "However, I do see situations where — when we've already had two or three (Republican) electors state publicly they didn't want to vote for Trump. How many of them have real issues with Donald Trump in private?"

The electors are encouraging GOP members to write in former presidential candidate Romney or Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

The Electoral College's 538 members will meet in their respective state capitals on Dec. 19.