Pruitt resigns!

[SMOGZINN]

What we have here though is a situation where the minority party controls government if they win, if they tie, and if they lose, just so long as they don’t lose in a historic landslide.

I started to like this, but realized I don't like this. I hate this. I just agree with it.

Even if they get that landslide win the Republicans have been working at stacking the courts to make sure that they can undermine anything the Democrats do when the do get in power. Between the obstructionism, the gerrymandering, and the stacking of the courts, the Republicans have effectively dismantled our democracy. We are becoming a plutocracy. I'm very much afraid that we are closing into the point where the tree of liberty must be refreshed again.

 

[thilanliyan]

even conservatives should oppose it if they care about country more than party.

Does not compute

 

[fskimospy]

I started to like this, but realized I don't like this. I hate this. I just agree with it.

Even if they get that landslide win the Republicans have been working at stacking the courts to make sure that they can undermine anything the Democrats do when the do get in power. Between the obstructionism, the gerrymandering, and the stacking of the courts, the Republicans have effectively dismantled our democracy. We are becoming a plutocracy. I'm very much afraid that we are closing into the point where the tree of liberty must be refreshed again.

It is unbelievable to me that SCOTUS did not rule that a system of government deliberately designed to ensure the ruling party continues to win almost regardless of any plausible vote total did not violate the 'one man, one vote' rule. I guess that's what happens when the courts get corrupted by partisanship.

 

[tweaker2]

To the victor goes the ability to entrench themselves in power and dig in deeper and deeper, forever purifying and distilling itself into an entity that our Constitution and BOR never expected to be challenged with.

Correct me if I'm wrong but common sense tells me the Electoral College was never meant to allow a minority party to rule over the party of the majority. Our Constitution and BOR was never meant to be turned against itself where a ruling class of aristocrats supported by a select demographic of gullible and more than willing peasant class seizes the reins of power through the highly corruptive use of their wealth and ill-gained influence over the entire system of government.

All this to give this very small minority of "citizens" and the ever shrinking demographic it exploits to keep power to themselves the ability to dictate terms to the vast majority concerning what limits they are to hold themselves to in order to keep the majority from possessing the described majority rule they rightfully deserve as stated in their "Rules of Law" from which our nation was founded.

I mean really, were our "Rules of Law" meant to divide and conquer the populace so as to give a very small and very wealthy group of families total control over the fate of our nation? Really? Well look at where we as a nation is staring at not a fraction of an inch in front of our noses. We have a POTUS Who Would be King attempting to cram his visions of absolute power over the nation by anointing himself the ability to ignore the "Rules of Law" he previously swore to uphold.

He swayed a minority of the nation to give him this power and have convinced his subjects that are weirdly beholden to him that the majority of the nation are an existential threat to him, to THEM and his personal desire to enrich himself and his clan beyond their wildest dreams, precisely as every other Banana Republic "shithole country" dictator has attempted to do and have done.

So this is what our nation has devolved into? But this is exactly what Trump's loyalists want in order to fulfill whatever dreams and goals that Trump has managed to fill their heads and hearts with.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Correct me if I'm wrong but common sense tells me the Electoral College was never meant to allow a minority party to rule over the party of the majority.

Okay, I'll correct you. That is exactly what the Electoral College was meant to do. It was put in place for two reasons, one because our founding fathers did not really trust in the wisdom of the masses and wanted to put a aristocratic buffer in the decision process, and second because they did not want the bigger more populous states to have the only say in our national elections, so the Electoral College was intended to spread the vote out a little more allowing the minorities party to get a larger say.

Our Constitution and BOR was never meant to be turned against itself where a ruling class of aristocrats supported by a select demographic of gullible and more than willing peasant class seizes the reins of power through the highly corruptive use of their wealth and ill-gained influence over the entire system of government.

I don't know about that. Remember that our founding fathers did not even allow non-land owners vote. They most definitely was setting up a simi-aristocratic system.

Now, of course, I agree with your sentiment and believe that we had vastly improved that original system which we are in real danger of sliding back to. But when we talk about our history it is worth remembering it accurately if we are to learn from it.

 

[ivwshane]

Okay, I'll correct you. That is exactly what the Electoral College was meant to do. It was put in place for two reasons, one because our founding fathers did not really trust in the wisdom of the masses and wanted to put a aristocratic buffer in the decision process, and second because they did not want the bigger more populous states to have the only say in our national elections, so the Electoral College was intended to spread the vote out a little more allowing the minorities party to get a larger say.



I don't know about that. Remember that our founding fathers did not even allow non-land owners vote. They most definitely was setting up a simi-aristocratic system.

Now, of course, I agree with your sentiment and believe that we had vastly improved that original system which we are in real danger of sliding back to. But when we talk about our history it is worth remembering it accurately if we are to learn from it.

Bullshit. The purpose of the electoral college was specifically to override the ignorant electorate, when necessary, to ensure someone so unqualified or potentially damaging to our democracy wasn't given the most powerful office in the land. The electoral college was to prevent a Hitler or a trump from being elected and it failed miserably.

The safeguard against larger states running roughshod over the smaller states is the senate. Had the intention of the founding fathers been to limit larger states influence with regard to who picked the president, they would have limited the number of electoral votes each state got, just like they did for the senate.

You should take your own advice and learn some history.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Okay, I'll correct you. That is exactly what the Electoral College was meant to do. It was put in place for two reasons, one because our founding fathers did not really trust in the wisdom of the masses and wanted to put a aristocratic buffer in the decision process, and second because they did not want the bigger more populous states to have the only say in our national elections, so the Electoral College was intended to spread the vote out a little more allowing the minorities party to get a larger say.

To be fair (and I am overall agreeing with you) it was also put in place to put checks on the stupidity of the people - by allowing the electorates to make the ultimate choice

Bullshit. The purpose of the electoral college was specifically to override the ignorant electorate, when necessary, to ensure someone so unqualified or potentially damaging to our democracy wasn't given the most powerful office in the land. The electoral college was to prevent a Hitler or a trump from being elected and it failed miserably.

The safeguard against larger states running roughshod over the smaller states is the senate. Had the intention of the founding fathers been to limit larger states influence with regard to who picked the president, they would have limited the number of electoral votes each state got, just like they did for the senate.

You should take your own advice and learn some history.

Agree/disagree- it was actually for both points... So that states without populace can feel represented - as well as localities to feel represented. If we were to make the electoral college system work - we should not allow states to dedicate all of their representatives to the party that barely won and instead split them. That goes the same for liberal meccas like California as it does for conservative ones like Texas.

 

[tweaker2]

Okay, I'll correct you. That is exactly what the Electoral College was meant to do. It was put in place for two reasons, one because our founding fathers did not really trust in the wisdom of the masses and wanted to put a aristocratic buffer in the decision process, and second because they did not want the bigger more populous states to have the only say in our national elections, so the Electoral College was intended to spread the vote out a little more allowing the minorities party to get a larger say.



I don't know about that. Remember that our founding fathers did not even allow non-land owners vote. They most definitely was setting up a simi-aristocratic system.

Now, of course, I agree with your sentiment and believe that we had vastly improved that original system which we are in real danger of sliding back to. But when we talk about our history it is worth remembering it accurately if we are to learn from it.

Ah yes, the "Tyranny of the Majority" and how our system of gov't have made certain restrictions to prevent that from happening? If that's what you're referring to, then yes, there is merit in those restrictions even though it has produced the opposite effect as that of the "Tyranny of the Minority" over the majority.

The controversy around how our Constitution and BOR is applied to the present day State of The Union is I guess where most of the labor is plowed into wrt what the Legislature and the SCOTUS have been dealing with, especially so with issues that brought forth the likes of Citizen's United and the other new age conservative interpretations of the 1st and 2nd Amendments.

 

[SMOGZINN]

To be fair (and I am overall agreeing with you) it was also put in place to put checks on the stupidity of the people - by allowing the electorates to make the ultimate choice

Yes, that is what I meant by 'not trust the wisdom of the masses'. Apparently I was not very clear about that in my writing, that is my fault.

The safeguard against larger states running roughshod over the smaller states is the senate. Had the intention of the founding fathers been to limit larger states influence with regard to who picked the president, they would have limited the number of electoral votes each state got, just like they did for the senate.

You should take your own advice and learn some history.

The convention was split between three groups, one that wanted a more direct democracy, that would allow the president to be selected through popular vote, and another that wanted Congress to select the president from one of their number, and a third that thought that the governors of the states should select the president from one of their number. The argument over this became contentious enough that they ended up tabling the matter and sending it to the Committee of Eleven.

Late in the convention, the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters, devised the electoral college system in its original form. This plan, which met with widespread approval by the delegates, was incorporated into the final document with only minor changes. It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation. It is worth noting that just a few elections later they had to revise this system with the 12th Amendment, as it turned out the system in the Constitution does not work very well. The very first election in which George Washington was not on the ballot (he won unanimously on both of his terms) it split the president and vice president from competing parties, both of which worked to undermine each other for who America supported in the French Revolutionary Wars.

In the end the electoral college was part of the compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3, which gave considerably more voting power to the smaller states then a direct vote would.

So, yes. I know my history.

 

[ultimatebob]

Lol my side? You mean the side of logic, facts and reasoning?

The lesson learned from 2016 is for Democrats to keep doing what they've been doing, except do it in even more areas.

As far as Clinton goes, yeah, she's horrible at politicking. Bernie on the other hand is great at it, its who he's a career politician with zero legislative accomplishments of any importance.

The "Trump is Evil, vote for our slightly less evil alternative!" approach didn't work in 2016... What makes you think it will work in 2020?

Sure, the liberal base agrees with your "Trump is Evil" statement, but you need moderates to elect a president. If the economy is still good 2 years from now, that's going to be a tough sell.

 

[zinfamous]

Moderate conservatives, the majority of the right, viewed Hillary as another Obama for another 4/8 years and voted for Trump to break the cycle even though they didn’t really want or like him.

"moderate" holds no discernible relevance in a party that voted in very large numbers for Donald Fucking Trump. Anyone that supports this proven fascist has no business calling themselves a moderate. The GOP has not been a majority moderate party since well before New Gingrich.

If your immediate response is to yet again repeat: "Yeah, well thinking that is why you dems will lose again," then I repeat: It is not on dems to apologize to you for your lack of self-reflection. If you support Donald Trump, for any reason, but consider yourself a moderate, it is not an issue with the rest of the world and how they understand you--it's an issue with your fast and loose understanding of the world and your ever-sliding fall off the cliff of rational discourse.

I think it's about time for the party of "self reliance" and "responsibility" to actually adopt some of that. All you're saying, still, is that it's all those other people that are calling me names.

..and you can read all of the "you"s in this comment as a "royal 'you'"

 

[zinfamous]

Why didn’t you call him snowball?

37 DICKS!?!!!?

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, that is what I meant by 'not trust the wisdom of the masses'. Apparently I was not very clear about that in my writing, that is my fault.



The convention was split between three groups, one that wanted a more direct democracy, that would allow the president to be selected through popular vote, and another that wanted Congress to select the president from one of their number, and a third that thought that the governors of the states should select the president from one of their number. The argument over this became contentious enough that they ended up tabling the matter and sending it to the Committee of Eleven.

Late in the convention, the Committee of Eleven on Postponed Matters, devised the electoral college system in its original form. This plan, which met with widespread approval by the delegates, was incorporated into the final document with only minor changes. It sought to reconcile differing state and federal interests, provide a degree of popular participation in the election, give the less populous states some additional leverage in the process by providing “senatorial” electors, preserve the presidency as independent of Congress, and generally insulate the election process from political manipulation. It is worth noting that just a few elections later they had to revise this system with the 12th Amendment, as it turned out the system in the Constitution does not work very well. The very first election in which George Washington was not on the ballot (he won unanimously on both of his terms) it split the president and vice president from competing parties, both of which worked to undermine each other for who America supported in the French Revolutionary Wars.

In the end the electoral college was part of the compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3, which gave considerably more voting power to the smaller states then a direct vote would.

So, yes. I know my history.

No, clearly you don't. The reason states have a minimum of three electoral votes is because each state received one for each senator and one for each house representative (as in 2 senators and a minimum of 1 representative per state).

Which brings up another issue. Congress capped the number of representatives which has significantly hampered not only the amount of representation people in government but it also has impacted the influence the more populous states have had on the electoral college. But that's for another discussion.

 

[ivwshane]

The "Trump is Evil, vote for our slightly less evil alternative!" approach didn't work in 2016... What makes you think it will work in 2020?

Sure, the liberal base agrees with your "Trump is Evil" statement, but you need moderates to elect a president. If the economy is still good 2 years from now, that's going to be a tough sell.

Actually it worked pretty well. What didn't work was not visiting places Democrats typically thought of as safe states. Trump won by a margin of less than 200k votes across 3(?) states. States not visited by Hillary.

A 3 million voter advantage and an electoral loss due to 200k votes across a couple of states doesn't warrant a complete overhaul of the party or its strategy, it warrants tweaks to it. Its partly why Democrats are winning now despite having essentially the same message they have always had (which is basically a barely coherent message at all).

 

[Younigue]

"moderate" holds no discernible relevance in a party that voted in very large numbers for Donald Fucking Trump. Anyone that supports this proven fascist has no business calling themselves a moderate. The GOP has not been a majority moderate party since well before New Gingrich.

If your immediate response is to yet again repeat: "Yeah, well thinking that is why you dems will lose again," then I repeat: It is not on dems to apologize to you for your lack of self-reflection. If you support Donald Trump, for any reason, but consider yourself a moderate, it is not an issue with the rest of the world and how they understand you--it's an issue with your fast and loose understanding of the world and your ever-sliding fall off the cliff of rational discourse.

I think it's about time for the party of "self reliance" and "responsibility" to actually adopt some of that. All you're saying, still, is that it's all those other people that are calling me names.

..and you can read all of the "you"s in this comment as a "royal 'you'"

Tell it Zin!

 

[Younigue]

"moderate" holds no discernible relevance in a party that voted in very large numbers for Donald Fucking Trump. Anyone that supports this proven fascist has no business calling themselves a moderate. The GOP has not been a majority moderate party since well before New Gingrich.

If your immediate response is to yet again repeat: "Yeah, well thinking that is why you dems will lose again," then I repeat: It is not on dems to apologize to you for your lack of self-reflection. If you support Donald Trump, for any reason, but consider yourself a moderate, it is not an issue with the rest of the world and how they understand you--it's an issue with your fast and loose understanding of the world and your ever-sliding fall off the cliff of rational discourse.

I think it's about time for the party of "self reliance" and "responsibility" to actually adopt some of that. All you're saying, still, is that it's all those other people that are calling me names.

..and you can read all of the "you"s in this comment as a "royal 'you'"

meant to push the like button.

 

[soundforbjt]

Actually it worked pretty well. What didn't work was not visiting places Democrats typically thought of as safe states. Trump won by a margin of less than 200k votes across 3(?) states. States not visited by Hillary.

A 3 million voter advantage and an electoral loss due to 200k votes across a couple of states doesn't warrant a complete overhaul of the party or its strategy, it warrants tweaks to it. Its partly why Democrats are winning now despite having essentially the same message they have always had (which is basically a barely coherent message at all).

Actually it was around 80,000 votes over three states.

 

[SMOGZINN]

No, clearly you don't. The reason states have a minimum of three electoral votes is because each state received one for each senator and one for each house representative (as in 2 senators and a minimum of 1 representative per state).

Yes that is how they did it, but that was just a way of measuring it, the senators and representative were specifically banned from being electors (and still are). The reason they decided on that system was the same as the reason they choose the number of senators and representatives in the first place, it was intended to mimic the congressional system for the same reasons. Specifically to give Delaware a larger say then their popular votes would otherwise. Delaware had something like only 600 people vote in the election of 1796 while Virginia had around 20,000.

 

[ivwshane]

Actually it was around 80,000 votes over three states.

Thanks. I think my point is on even more solid ground now

 

[ivwshane]

Yes that is how they did it, but that was just a way of measuring it, the senators and representative were specifically banned from being electors (and still are). The reason they decided on that system was the same as the reason they choose the number of senators and representatives in the first place, it was intended to mimic the congressional system for the same reasons. Specifically to give Delaware a larger say then their popular votes would otherwise. Delaware had something like only 600 people vote in the election of 1796 while Virginia had around 20,000.

Yeah no. That makes zero sense when the main reason behind the electoral college is to override an ignorant electorate. You are basically saying that the founding fathers thought that smaller states should have more say when it comes to overriding the popular vote because the electorate chose wrong, because reasons.

The electoral college was a safeguard, as you and I both agree. It wasn't a system to undermine democracy but a system designed to save it.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Yeah no. That makes zero sense when the main reason behind the electoral college is to override an ignorant electorate. You are basically saying that the founding fathers thought that smaller states should have more say when it comes to overriding the popular vote because the electorate chose wrong, because reasons.

The electoral college was a safeguard, as you and I both agree. It wasn't a system to undermine democracy but a system designed to save it.

The actual point of the electoral collage was as a part of a compromise between the the federalists and anti-federalists over a series of issues that nearly undid The Union before it was even able to be formalized. That is the main thing to remember about it, it was a compromise that no one actually wanted, but were willing to settle for because it gave both sides a little of what they wanted. Given their way the Federalists would have had the President be chosen from the members of Congress by Congress. The anti-federalists would have had it be chosen from the state governors by the congress of governors. The popular vote plus electors was a compromise and a true exhibition of the art of statesmanship, an art all but lost today.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Plus the added benefit of if John Johnson won the vote, which one won. There could be dozens of local candidates or what if Jesus won. Who would be President.

Electoral College is a dated idea and generates candidates target to win key states

 

[ultimatebob]

Plus the added benefit of if John Johnson won the vote, which one won. There could be dozens of local candidates or what if Jesus won. Who would be President.

Electoral College is a dated idea and generates candidates target to win key states

And I doubt that other side really wants it to change, because the cost of running attack ads against your opponent in all 50 states to insure that you have the majority vote would be insanely expensive.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

And I doubt that other side really wants it to change, because the cost of running attack ads against your opponent in all 50 states to insure that you have the majority vote would be insanely expensive.

I still wonder if people in battleground states would sign off on it simply because it would mean far fewer political ads, robo calls and a shorter ad cycle in general.

 

[SP33Demon]

To the victor goes the ability to entrench themselves in power and dig in deeper and deeper, forever purifying and distilling itself into an entity that our Constitution and BOR never expected to be challenged with.

Correct me if I'm wrong but common sense tells me the Electoral College was never meant to allow a minority party to rule over the party of the majority. Our Constitution and BOR was never meant to be turned against itself where a ruling class of aristocrats supported by a select demographic of gullible and more than willing peasant class seizes the reins of power through the highly corruptive use of their wealth and ill-gained influence over the entire system of government.

All this to give this very small minority of "citizens" and the ever shrinking demographic it exploits to keep power to themselves the ability to dictate terms to the vast majority concerning what limits they are to hold themselves to in order to keep the majority from possessing the described majority rule they rightfully deserve as stated in their "Rules of Law" from which our nation was founded.

I mean really, were our "Rules of Law" meant to divide and conquer the populace so as to give a very small and very wealthy group of families total control over the fate of our nation? Really? Well look at where we as a nation is staring at not a fraction of an inch in front of our noses. We have a POTUS Who Would be King attempting to cram his visions of absolute power over the nation by anointing himself the ability to ignore the "Rules of Law" he previously swore to uphold.

He swayed a minority of the nation to give him this power and have convinced his subjects that are weirdly beholden to him that the majority of the nation are an existential threat to him, to THEM and his personal desire to enrich himself and his clan beyond their wildest dreams, precisely as every other Banana Republic "shithole country" dictator has attempted to do and have done.

So this is what our nation has devolved into? But this is exactly what Trump's loyalists want in order to fulfill whatever dreams and goals that Trump has managed to fill their heads and hearts with.

Amazing. Simply amazing.

Blame yourself, blame hillary's horrible statistical polling team, and create a PAC that can convince Reagan Democrats to come back to your party. Otherwise, talk is cheap. Trump did the legwork and had more intelligent higher-IQ people working with his campaign (e.g. Cambridge Analytica) so to the victor goes the spoils, and the victors get to write the history books - not the losers.