• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Federal search warrant executed at Rudy Giuliani’s NYC apartment

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,669
21,850
136
It's the very reason I was quite sure Trump would beat Clinton. Democrats simply failed to realize how good Trump could sound and how well he knew how to disguise his real nature. They failed to take him seriously and gave us 4 years of living hell where the worst in people was made to sound OK and even proper.

I think you may get a glimpse of the truth about people like that when you see them eventually begin to ridicule their opposition. It's that contempt for others that is revealing.
People keep saying they were so sure Trump would beat Clinton but to the best of my memory not a single person saying this made the claim that Trump would lose the popular vote by a significant margin and then squeak in because of electoral college luck.

If he could sound so good why did he get so many fewer votes than his opponent in both elections? That sounds like someone people dislike to me.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
17,158
2,471
126
People keep saying they were so sure Trump would beat Clinton but to the best of my memory not a single person saying this made the claim that Trump would lose the popular vote by a significant margin and then squeak in because of electoral college luck.

If he could sound so good why did he get so many fewer votes than his opponent in both elections? That sounds like someone people dislike to me.
Fewer people liked him, but more states did.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,669
21,850
136
Fewer people liked him, but more states did.
Right, but nobody predicting his win in 2016 was predicting he would win the electoral college while losing the vote by millions.

It really does show you how bad and useless the electoral college is though. It failed in the only duty it was given by the people who designed it.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,937
3,742
126
People keep saying they were so sure Trump would beat Clinton but to the best of my memory not a single person saying this made the claim that Trump would lose the popular vote by a significant margin and then squeak in because of electoral college luck.

If he could sound so good why did he get so many fewer votes than his opponent in both elections? That sounds like someone people dislike to me.
Actually, I think I was among a tiny fraction of people who were warning he could win and my opinion was based solely on the lack of credibility I thought I saw paid to what I observed to be a dangerous ability he had to appeal to a deeply suppressed side of human nature, the suppression of which creates a profound psychological need for release. Millions of people, the majority may have already know who Trump was, but he was successfully able with Russian help, to sell himself to the psychologically unsophisticated sufficiently to win. I believed and still believe Democrats couldn't see that coming and didn't react, mainly because all they could see was a criminal clown and not a dangerous master manipulative psychopath. The prick still has his fangs sunk deep in the necks of millions of people and it isn't over yet.

I hope you will understand that I profoundly admire your intellectual acumen and deep rationality but I also am rather convinced that when it comes to understanding how people work at an unconscious level, I see more deeply into that than you do. This is why I think your efforts and opinions surrounding things like homelessness, while profoundly rational and make good technical sense would, if enacted cause a war within the Democratic Party. I think that is obvious enough to enough politicians in Sacramento, that efforts in your direction haven't gotten anywhere. That makes for a situation, then and in my opinion, where we get nothing or we try something else. To my way of thinking, for example, that will mean shifting demand for housing to the creation of desirability, opportunities for employment to other places in California and other states. Maybe we need to switch from things like Silicon Valley to Silicon State or even nation through Business Campuses and distributive manufacturing, and scientifically designed cities. We might also want to try communal villages where groups of say 30 people have private rooms for personal living but common kitchens where meal preparation and toilet facilities are shared.
Anonymity, in my opinion, is a prime cause of human despair. Feeling loved and belonging somewhere is good for the development of empathy, I think.

NYC has some pretty high density housing. How are the rents? Can you rent at minimum wage and raise a family? I really don't know but I wouldn't live there. Terms like concrete jungle don't happen without reason.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,669
21,850
136
Actually, I think I was among a tiny fraction of people who were warning he could win and my opinion was based solely on the lack of credibility I thought I saw paid to what I observed to be a dangerous ability he had to appeal to a deeply suppressed side of human nature, the suppression of which creates a profound psychological need for release. Millions of people, the majority may have already know who Trump was, but he was successfully able with Russian help, to sell himself to the psychologically unsophisticated sufficiently to win. I believed and still believe Democrats couldn't see that coming and didn't react, mainly because all they could see was a criminal clown and not a dangerous master manipulative psychopath. The prick still has his fangs sunk deep in the necks of millions of people and it isn't over yet.
Right, but I strongly suspect your thought was that Trump would win outright, not that he would lose the popular vote but still squeak in.

I hope you will understand that I profoundly admire your intellectual acumen and deep rationality but I also am rather convinced that when it comes to understanding how people work at an unconscious level, I see more deeply into that than you do. This is why I think your efforts and opinions surrounding things like homelessness, while profoundly rational and make good technical sense would, if enacted cause a war within the Democratic Party. I think that is obvious enough to enough politicians in Sacramento, that efforts in your direction haven't gotten anywhere. That makes for a situation, then and in my opinion, where we get nothing or we try something else. To my way of thinking, for example, that will mean shifting demand for housing to the creation of desirability, opportunities for employment to other places in California and other states. Maybe we need to switch from things like Silicon Valley to Silicon State or even nation through Business Campuses and distributive manufacturing, and scientifically designed cities. We might also want to try communal villages where groups of say 30 people have private rooms for personal living but common kitchens where meal preparation and toilet facilities are shared.
Anonymity, in my opinion, is a prime cause of human despair. Feeling loved and belonging somewhere is good for the development of empathy, I think.
I think my ideas are winning, and we are getting closer every year. It’s only a matter of time until the law moves dramatically in my direction.

We have tried things like shifting job creation to currently less desirable states for years now and it’s nearly always failed at great expense

NYC has some pretty high density housing. How are the rents? Can you rent at minimum wage and raise a family? I really don't know but I wouldn't live there. Terms like concrete jungle don't happen without reason.
It does have some pretty high density housing, and in the past when housing was being built quickly it was definitely affordable for regular people.Sadly, in recent decades per capita housing starts in NYC have cratered, which has caused housing costs to explode. It’s really a perfect showcase for my point.


In addition, New York City issued fewer housing unit permits on a per capita basis than nearly every other large city, including not only fast-growing Seattle and Austin, but also cities that face similar constraints to development. New York issued permits for 40 percent fewer units per capita than San Francisco, half as many as Boston, and nearly two-thirds less than Washington, D.C.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
17,158
2,471
126
Right, but nobody predicting his win in 2016 was predicting he would win the electoral college while losing the vote by millions.

It really does show you how bad and useless the electoral college is though. It failed in the only duty it was given by the people who designed it.
Interesting take on the subject. I would say that the electoral college worked exactly as intended.
You and I have been down this road before, it's clear we'll never see eye to eye on the subject. Though I suspect it wouldn't be all that much of an issue if we hadn't had Trump.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
61,599
14,595
136
Interesting take on the subject. I would say that the electoral college worked exactly as intended.
You and I have been down this road before, it's clear we'll never see eye to eye on the subject. Though I suspect it wouldn't be all that much of an issue if we hadn't had Trump.
It's been an issue in two out of five of the last elections. In both cases, the majority of voters had more sense than the majority of electors.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,669
21,850
136
Interesting take on the subject. I would say that the electoral college worked exactly as intended.
Uhm, what?

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
Federalist 68 is explicitly saying that the electoral college is to act as insurance against the election of an unqualified demagogue, which Trump pretty undeniably is.

So maybe you can explain why the exact result the EC was designed to prevent happening is it working as intended?

You and I have been down this road before, it's clear we'll never see eye to eye on the subject. Though I suspect it wouldn't be all that much of an issue if we hadn't had Trump.
I mean the electoral college also gave us Bush, who was also an unmitigated catastrophe.

I guess opinions vary but I think a system that twice in 16 years overrules the will of the people to give us two of the worst chief executives in modern history is bad.
 

kt

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2000
5,364
238
106
Interesting take on the subject. I would say that the electoral college worked exactly as intended.
You and I have been down this road before, it's clear we'll never see eye to eye on the subject. Though I suspect it wouldn't be all that much of an issue if we hadn't had Trump.
No, the electoral college has not worked as intended for a long while now. It's unconscionable that a voter from swing state is heavily weighted over another voter from a non-swing state all because of the electoral college system. Popular vote will put all voters on equal footing and my vote is equally important as yours. I would welcome your explanation why one voter is more important than another, let's hear it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,669
21,850
136
No, the electoral college has not worked as intended for a long while now. It's unconscionable that a voter from swing state is heavily weighted over another voter from a non-swing state all because of the electoral college system. Popular vote will put all voters on equal footing and my vote is equally important as yours. I would welcome your explanation why one voter is more important than another, let's hear it.
No one has ever been able to make a logical and coherent argument as to why the electoral college yields better results than a popular vote. (This is because there are no logical and coherent arguments in favor of it.)
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,621
20,365
136
Interesting take on the subject. I would say that the electoral college worked exactly as intended.
You and I have been down this road before, it's clear we'll never see eye to eye on the subject. Though I suspect it wouldn't be all that much of an issue if we hadn't had Trump.
Then again, you reject the intent of the founders and the constitution. Donald Trump is the exact, perfect example of the type of piece of shit scoundrel human that the EC was designed to protect the presidency against.

It isn't a matter of opinion, it is straight from their very mouths and pens. You may disagree with this, but "working as intended" is indisputably incorrect, if you actually know what the intent of the EC was. It appears that you do not.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
9,502
1,486
126
It's been an issue in two out of five of the last elections. In both cases, the majority of voters had more sense than the majority of electors.
The fact that republicans can, over and over again, win the EC vote but lose the popular vote tells you something is majorly wrong with the system. Funny how no democrat presidential candidate has won an election by this method. How republicans can pull this off is with gerrymandering the states and fudging with the national census, but you can damn well bet in the very next election when a republican presidential candidate wins more of the popular vote while the democrat is elected by winning the EC vote, then republicans would be hell bent on stopping that from ever happening again.

Just imagine if Biden had lost the popular vote in 2020 (which, by the way he did not), but just imagine... Republicans would be more determined than they are now to reverse the outcome of that 2020 election. To add to their conspiracy insisting Donald Trump really won. Like I said in another post, if America really does want what poll after poll shows that America really wants, then America must elect democrats and only democrats into those US house and those US senate seats. It's really so simple. But Biden must push this goal at each and every opportunity. Joe must make an enormous big deal about electing democrats in 2022, and removal of republicans. Joe should say this on a daily basis, at every opportunity, and with going out of his way to say this. And the Whitehouse Press Secretary Jen Psaki must also repeat this goal at every opportunity given. Say this right into the face of those Fox News reporters sitting in the Whitehouse pressroom. They gotta to do this one thing and be relentless about it. Relentless!!!
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
29,020
9,166
136
No one has ever been able to make a logical and coherent argument as to why the electoral college yields better results than a popular vote. (This is because there are no logical and coherent arguments in favor of it.)
No, it’s not that there are no logical or coherent arguments in favor of it, it’s that those arguments are completely blown away by reality. Trump was the case model the founding fathers had in mind when they designed the electoral college and the system failed miserably.

It’s like claiming to have built an unsinkable ship called the titanic, which then sinks and then declaring the boat worked as intended. The intentions and design of the electoral system were good but ultimately failed at its primary function. Had it worked as intended the argument for an electoral college would remain valid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
26,364
11,575
136
Interesting take on the subject. I would say that the electoral college worked exactly as intended.
You and I have been down this road before, it's clear we'll never see eye to eye on the subject. Though I suspect it wouldn't be all that much of an issue if we hadn't had Trump.
Where in the world has minority rule ever worked out?
 

Lost_in_the_HTTP

Platinum Member
Nov 17, 2019
2,329
1,310
96
The EC worked as intended. It balanced the will of the people in less populous states with that of the people in more populous states. That was the whole point of it ... to make sure that a smaller numbers of states with more people could not determine elections regardless of how smaller states voted.

If there were a similar plan within states balancing county votes, the Orange Turd would have won GA, MI and a few others also.


Now on the point of unfitness to serve, you might make the argument it failed, but would probably still lose. We all knew he was total and complete trash, but that alone doesn't mean 'unfit'.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,669
21,850
136
The EC worked as intended. It balanced the will of the people in less populous states with that of the people in more populous states. That was the whole point of it ... to make sure that a smaller numbers of states with more people could not determine elections regardless of how smaller states voted.

If there were a similar plan within states balancing county votes, the Orange Turd would have won GA, MI and a few others also.


Now on the point of unfitness to serve, you might make the argument it failed, but would probably still lose. We all knew he was total and complete trash, but that alone doesn't mean 'unfit'.
Absolutely didn’t work as intended. Originally the electoral college actually had two purposes.

1) to incorporate the 3/5ths compromise into presidential elections in order to protect slavery. As slavery no longer exists, this purpose is both evil and moot.

2) to prevent a demagogue from seizing the presidency. I literally quoted one of the founders on this and it clearly failed in that respect.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
71,669
21,850
136
What they show is why the minority of the states should not be able to determine the outcome.
Uhmm, what? So in other words if the majority of voters who voted for the democrats in both elections hopped in their cars and took a drive to spread themselves out more THEN their majority should count. That makes absolutely no sense.

I would love to hear a logical and coherent argument for why the validity of a majority depends on how spaced out they are.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY