This topic has been locked by a moderator.
JEDIT: Return of the Double.
California isn’t a monolithic hive mind. No states are. That’s the problem. You can’t just arbitrarily remove one to make a point.
Of course it’s not. Didn’t say it was. Explained data-based reasons for choosing California. I removed Texas too. I wrote about Iowa. Now discussing 4 other states. All while some dwell on perceived secret motivations.
No perceived secret motivations. Doesn’t matter which state you choose, I think it’s a silly premise for an argument.
California isn’t a monolithic hive mind. No states are. That’s the problem. You can’t just arbitrarily remove one to make a point.
Nice try, Massachusetts liberal. You just wNt to protect your own interests!!!1!!!
Ha! Joke’s on you, I don’t live in Massachusetts anymore, I moved to California this summer!
…oh
California isn’t a monolithic hive mind. No states are. That’s the problem. You can’t just arbitrarily remove one to make a point.
Of course it’s not. Didn’t say it was. Explained data-based reasons for choosing California. I removed Texas too. I wrote about Iowa. Now discussing 4 other states. All while some dwell on perceived secret motivations.
No perceived secret motivations. Doesn’t matter which state you choose, I think it’s a silly premise for an argument.
Firstly, good, sorry for reading more into your post. I think if we are comparing the current system with a NPV system and debating the relative importance of states, it is a good illustration.
Similarly, you might hold up Florida in the 2000 election as an illustration of the problem with the EC system. At least, I think that would be a valid premise. Even though Missouri was also very close and could have changed the election result notwithstanding Florida.
The blue elephant in the room.
Mrebo said:
it’s funny that California would negate the popular choice of the 49 other states. Consider further that even if we also exclude Texas’s votes, Trump still wins the popular vote in the remaining 48 states. That is how big a difference the people of California can make in a popular vote system.
(a) might that be true in reverse for large red states?
(b) does it therefore follow that California shouldn’t factor in at all (as is the case now)?
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
I don’t understand this idea that people’s votes for the president should be considered lesser than others purely because of the state they live in. This is the president of all fifty states and everybody that lives in each and every one of them. He should be elected popularly. So what if Trump wins the popular vote if you exclude California? To me that’s basically just saying, “If three million Hillary voters hadn’t had there votes counted, then Trump would’ve won the popular vote?” So what?
The Person in Question
This is big.
During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.
About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.
Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.
The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.
I don’t understand this idea that people’s votes for the president should be considered lesser than others purely because of the state they live in. This is the president of all fifty states and everybody that lives in each and every one of them. He should be elected popularly. So what if Trump wins the popular vote if you exclude California? To me that’s basically just saying, “If three million Hillary voters hadn’t had there votes counted, then Trump would’ve won the popular vote?” So what?
The president is supposed to lead the executive branch of a government that concerns itself with the interests of states as well as the People generally. States are central to our system of government. Our constitutional system was set up so that the federal government would be beholden to the states no less than the people. That is why Senators were originally elected by state legislatures. It is also why we have two senators for every state no matter the size.
I appreciate the impulse for every vote to carry equal weight for a position like the presidency. As a rule, I want the president to win the popular vote. But in order to have a president that appeals to the interests of each state, I think it an acceptable cost that once in awhile a president will win only the Electoral Vote.
It is fun to think of Americans as a single writhing mass of red and blue, but that’s not really the case. The laws in each state contribute to the culture and values of their people. People build a tolerance and affinity for the rules as they know them. I like the example of New Jersey forbidding drivers from pumping their own gas, ostensibly for safety reasons. West Virginia loves coal. Many states ban smoking in restaurants and bars while a number of states don’t. Iowa loves ethanol. Nevada loves gambling. Some states have very strict gun control law that contribute to anti-gun culture. In states where the laws make guns not so taboo, people are more tolerant of them. The laws of each state affect what the people of each state accepts as tolerable and desirable.
If you have a few highly populated states that have created a culture favorable/hostile to issue X, a candidate could appeal that that majority constituency, ignoring how important those interests are to certain states. I think we should mitigate against that tyranny of the majority. A way to do that is to compel presidential candidates to appeal to the People on a state-by-state basis.
The blue elephant in the room.
This is big.
During a night of heavy drinking at an upscale London bar in May 2016, George Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, made a startling revelation to Australia’s top diplomat in Britain: Russia had political dirt on Hillary Clinton.
About three weeks earlier, Mr. Papadopoulos had been told that Moscow had thousands of emails that would embarrass Mrs. Clinton, apparently stolen in an effort to try to damage her campaign.
Exactly how much Mr. Papadopoulos said that night at the Kensington Wine Rooms with the Australian, Alexander Downer, is unclear. But two months later, when leaked Democratic emails began appearing online, Australian officials passed the information about Mr. Papadopoulos to their American counterparts, according to four current and former American and foreign officials with direct knowledge of the Australians’ role.
The hacking and the revelation that a member of the Trump campaign may have had inside information about it were driving factors that led the F.B.I. to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia’s attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump’s associates conspired.
What am I missing here? Isn’t this just more of the same that’s basically already known?
The dossier didn’t lead to the Russia investigation, as Trump has said.
Also, I don’t think we knew about the London meeting before.
Trump lied about something? Well that is new!
Also, this new info further establishes the timeline. We now have yet more confirmation that the Trump campaign knew the Russians had Clinton’s e-mails months before they were released to Wikileaks (meaning the high-level link between the campaign and Russian intelligence). Every new independent confirmation is a new set of witnesses for the Trump legal team to attempt to discredit. Smearing Australian diplomats is certainly not below them, but you can only smear so many unrelated figures before it starts to look suspicious to even some of your partisan supporters.
Police murder an innocent man based on a fraudulent phone call. The police brutality angle is what people are ignoring here. Apparently all it takes for an officer to go in ready to kill is a single unsubstantiated report.
The Person in Question
A stupid moron screams at a sculpture and thinks he’s a political activist for doing so. Welcome to Earth!
The Person in Question
Over a loudspeaker, a Disney employee asked Malsky to sit down and be quiet. Another person yelled “He’s not real!” ― presumably in reference to the Trump robot.
Lol.
Someone is going to go Sarah Connor on that robot. Wait and see.
Where were you in '77?
Put up at Mike Pence’s Colorado vacation home.
Police murder an innocent man based on a fraudulent phone call. The police brutality angle is what people are ignoring here. Apparently all it takes for an officer to go in ready to kill is a single unsubstantiated report.
B-but it’s alright because he was Reaching For His Waistband™
Put up at Mike Pence’s Colorado vacation home.
Is that a little snowman on top or a snow dildo?
Where were you in '77?
Reporting by Russian journalists on Russian election meddling: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/12/russia-hackers-journalism-press-freedom-troll-factory/549422/?utm_source=feed
The blue elephant in the room.
Police murder an innocent man based on a fraudulent phone call. The police brutality angle is what people are ignoring here.
Looks like at least half of the feedback on Yahoo News to this article is about the inappropriate police response. Even some police responding saying that the lack of verification before sending in a SWAT team, let alone drawing weapons, was very strange. Nobody seems to be ignoring it.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Put up at Mike Pence’s Colorado vacation home.
Is that a little snowman on top or a snow dildo?
It’s a little snowman with an even smaller snowdick.
LOL!
Where were you in '77?
Police murder an innocent man based on a fraudulent phone call. The police brutality angle is what people are ignoring here.
Looks like at least half of the feedback on Yahoo News to this article is about the inappropriate police response. Even some police responding saying that the lack of verification before sending in a SWAT team, let alone drawing weapons, was very strange. Nobody seems to be ignoring it.
And it appears the instigator has now been apprehended.
Police murder an innocent man based on a fraudulent phone call. The police brutality angle is what people are ignoring here.
Looks like at least half of the feedback on Yahoo News to this article is about the inappropriate police response. Even some police responding saying that the lack of verification before sending in a SWAT team, let alone drawing weapons, was very strange. Nobody seems to be ignoring it.
Media coverage tends to be ignoring it, or at least downplaying it and focusing on the person that falsely reported the guy instead of also on the police response.
The Person in Question