OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lerxst said:
Right...but I'm still not sure how that's relevant to the discussion of how a great number of people, perhaps a majority of Americans, may be unhappy with the executive orders of the current administration.
Click to expand...
In a perfect world, all those who didn't vote for Trump would be unhappy with every decision he makes, and those who voted for him would be happy with every decision he makes.

That perfect world doesn't exist.

Anyone purporting to speak for the majority, like the dude who wrote that blog post would be wrong. And that's my point; he has no way of knowing his viewpoint is that of the majority. It might be, but it probably isn't - and I can say that with as much authority as he can: None.
 
mongooz said:
we can only hope!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

The detainees are allowed to go free but this is not the end. The Trump Administration will issue a negative statement about activist judges. The stay will be appealed and they'll come back with a more targeted, and possibly more vicious Executive Order.

This is only the beginning, but it's the beginning of a significant series of legal battles on multiple fronts.
 
16265232_10154225811191179_1010836597588247897_n.jpg
 
Help!I'maRock! said:
The detainees are allowed to go free but this is not the end. The Trump Administration will issue a negative statement about activist judges. The stay will be appealed and they'll come back with a more targeted, and possibly more vicious Executive Order.

This is only the beginning, but it's the beginning of a significant series of legal battles on multiple fronts.
Click to expand...

it may be the beginning of something MUCH larger. but i am going to be purposely vague about that.
 
wagdog said:
In a perfect world, all those who didn't vote for Trump would be unhappy with every decision he makes, and those who voted for him would be happy with every decision he makes.

That perfect world doesn't exist.

Anyone purporting to speak for the majority, like the dude who wrote that blog post would be wrong. And that's my point; he has no way of knowing his viewpoint is that of the majority. It might be, but it probably isn't - and I can say that with as much authority as he can: None.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that we have no way of truly knowing how many Americans support DJT's actions & how many do not. We could make some assumptions based on the popular vote, like the author of that post, or something like his historically low approval rating since taking office...both of which are representative & have some merit. There might be some indicators in favor of the Administration but I'm not sure what they are. Outside of that point, there's a lot more in that post that gets to the heart of what many people are upset about that's going undiscussed.

edit:
You know, after we recovered from the shock on 9-11, we had to decide as a country how we were going to respond to the threat of terrorism on our homeland & what we were willing to sacrifice in the name of security. I was proud of our country that we didn't close our minds, hearts or borders or lose all of our freedoms in the name of security. Yeah...Unfortunately, we've been locked in a cycle of war in the middle east that has destabilized the region, cost the lives and limbs of many Americans & shows no end (but that's another topic). Since that time the threat hasn't subsided but through the hard work & dedication of those who defend our country we have had zero successful terrorist attacks committed by foreign nationals or recent immigrants to our shores. The most deadly attacks on American soil since 9-11 have been committed by citizens of this country & this does zero to prevent that. By all means, I'm no expert on the subject but I'm sure there has always been a risk to permitting entry to foreigners to our country but it's also one of the core ideals of our nation. I haven't seen anything presented to prove a real threat from refugees to our shores & to target people of a specific faith or country with no just cause or than suspicion really seems un-American.
 
Last edited:
wagdog said:
Well guys, I see you feel passionately about abolishing the EC...

Git 'r done.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should get rid of the electoral college. I don't like the outcome of this election, but I don't think that is a reason to ditch the EC. I found the post election push to change the system as a means to alter the election results a very dangerous idea. I'm not talking about our discussions here, but the ramblings of lots of people on my social media feeds
 
Ok, greater development. The 2 detainees the ACLU represented can go free. The rest are in limbo. Judge didn't rule on constitutionality of the Executive Order. So that will have to be filed and the other detainees will need to be identified and represented.
 
Tiltsta said:
I don't think we should get rid of the electoral college. I don't like the outcome of this election, but I don't think that is a reason to ditch the EC. I found the post election push to change the system as a means to alter the election results a very dangerous idea. I'm not talking about our discussions here, but the ramblings of lots of people on my social media feeds
Click to expand...

Unless they give a proportionate amount of electors to each state, it should go. California has 37 million people and 55 electors where Wyoming has 560,000 people and 3 electors. That is one elector for every 670,000 people in CA to one for every 186,000 people. So a vote in Wyoming is worth about 4 times as much as a vote in CA. they say the EC was put in so candidates would pay attention to smaller states, but that doesn't happen. They spend all their time inVa, Fl, Pa, Oh and Mi. All they need to do is flip 3 to 4 of those states and it's a win. It ends up doing exactly what it was trying to prevent. Obviously I'm not calling for it to change the outcome of the last election, but it really needs to be fixed before the next one, that's twice in the last 5 elections the winner didn't win.
 
Tiltsta said:
I don't think we should get rid of the electoral college. I don't like the outcome of this election, but I don't think that is a reason to ditch the EC. I found the post election push to change the system as a means to alter the election results a very dangerous idea. I'm not talking about our discussions here, but the ramblings of lots of people on my social media feeds
Click to expand...

i am ok with the EC staying only as long as there is a federal law that prohibits states from requiring electors to vote according to the pop votes in their state.

the entire purpose of the EC, according to the founding fathers, was that it was a protection from a wacko popular vote that would have installed a crazy person, dictator as president. the EC is SUPPOSED to vote their conscious and make sure a wacko does not end up in the WH. that is exactly what DID NOT happen with this election.
if they are not going to look out for the best interests of the nation, then they have no purpose and should be abolished.
 
Tiltsta said:
I don't think we should get rid of the electoral college. I don't like the outcome of this election, but I don't think that is a reason to ditch the EC. I found the post election push to change the system as a means to alter the election results a very dangerous idea. I'm not talking about our discussions here, but the ramblings of lots of people on my social media feeds
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that the elector counts haven't been updated properly per state. Some states have less electors per capita than other states and it skews things.
 
GilmourD said:
I think the problem is that the elector counts haven't been updated properly per state. Some states have less electors per capita than other states and it skews things.
Click to expand...

They capped the number of the House in 1929. The number of electors is the sum of your house members and senators, so if they keep that in place, it means California would end up with over 1200 people in the house which would be insane. So they could ditch the EC or change the rule that the number of electors is the sum of the house and senate. I can't imagine increasing the house to the accurate number of representatives. Imagine paying the additional members all that cash to do nothing :grin:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top