jakee

Right. We also don't have an Executive branch of government in the same way as the States, and the PM is not an analogue for the Pres. That said, the UK election is another great example of why first past the post systems suck at representing people. First, the Tories got only 37% of the vote but ended up with a true majority with over 50% of MPs in the House. Second, Scotland. Oh good lord, look at Scotland. The SNP took exactly 50% of the vote across all of Scotland, and ended up with 56 MPs out of a possible 59 constituencies. 50% of the vote translated in 95% of the representation in government! Across all of Britain, the SNP polled 1.5M votes total and those 56 MPs. The Lib Dems polled 2.5M votes and elected only 8 MPs. 70% more votes, 7 times fewer MPs. That is how political power gets concentrated into certain regions - with first past the post systems like the UK parliament or the Electoral College. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

But if a state screws up the count and awards its electoral votes the wrong way, it's ok to accept those? Mistaken electoral college votes don't matter? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

If the electoral college had decided to vote for Clinton instead of Trump, as they were perfectly entitled to do, would you say the same thing? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Wisconsin was red, bro. Confused much? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Dude I'm going to be laughing for days. Why would I want to calm down from that, it's brilliant! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Haha, don't worry dude, when I swear it doesn't mean I'm worked up, it's just how I talk. Especially for emphasis when someone says something particularly dumb. I'm not angry that you're saying dumb things, I'm just pointing it out. Cool?

How was that possible? How did she manage that without clearance! Then you need to update your knowledge Honestly, blind partisanship is the only way that anyone makes that statement. "There was no conflict of interest, she was simply leveraging Trump's election success to gain special access to the highest levels of Japanese government to discuss her clothing business while sat next to the next President of the USA, who could be counted on to take a personal interest in the success or failure of those discussions. How could anyone possibly think this was a conflict of interest?" BAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I'm digging deep to do my part .02 cents. It's a start. Check out some of these Wacko Birds...what a bunch of idiots protesting like they just came of the set of "Game of Thrones" SHAME...SHAME...SHAME...the women in purple, she could use some professional help, I think she has lost her freaking mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2fbnF3kn5Y The electors in that room had no Constitutional duty to vote for Trump. Clearly the protestors were simply trying to persuade them to vote for Clinton, as is their right and as the EC was intended to work. Do you support the EC system or not? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

I meant why is the modern argument about states. When discussing the merits of either system there is no reason to be stuck framing the discussion in the same way it was framed 250 years ago. (And by people who would have been quite happy if the EC had rebelled and chosen Clinton, I might add.) Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No it isn't, it has nothing to do with that. If you're saying the minority needs to be protected from the majority in a presidential election then you're saying the minority needs to be protected from the president. Well guess what - you get a president either way. So you've just swapped inflicting an unwanted president onto the minority for inflicting an unwanted president on the majority. So who the fuck are you protecting? A) You would never that in a popular vote. B) You have more of that with the EC than with the popular vote. C) Why is it about states instead of people? Why is one American's opinion less valid because they live within an arbitrarily created political division that has lots of people in it? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No it isn't. If the Presidency was decided by popular vote California would not have elected Clinton - the entire country would have. Would you have accepted the result if enough EC members who weren't bound by the results of their state's popular vote had switched sides and elected Clinton? That would have been the EC working as intended. Then why the fuck are you arguing about where the popular vote majorities for either side were concentrated? You're trying (unsuccessfully!) to use those concentrations to argue against the popular vote but you're also arguing that no-one knows if those concentrations would exist if the popular vote was used! Why are you arguing against yourself? No-one is refusing to accept the results except you. You won and yet you're still too much of a crybaby to accept the vote without first pretending the US only has 49 states Do you want to have an ideagasm?

To my knowledge they might be involved to some degree in the transition, but I was unaware they are receiving high level security clearances and positions within the administration to meet with such heads of state. Where will they find the time to run the Trump Empior as been reported by the media? First, I chose my words carefully and I did not say heads of state. Mostly because heads of state are often unelected figureheads and relatively unimportant on the world of influence peddling. Second, if you are unaware of Trumps kids sitting in on meetings with foreign representatives then you are terminally clueless. Third, if you don't think that meeting with such people could help them run said empire, then you are irredeemably stupid. However, I don't think you are either of those things. I think you're just arguing because Trump has a R next to his name, and therefore must be protected at all costs - because at the end of the day, isn't left vs right all that really matters? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yeah, your fact is that if you take out California the rest of the contry voted for Trump - by a fraction. My fact is that if you take out any of the states Trump won, the rest of the country voted Clinton by a landslide. And my other fact is, if you take out no states at all, the entire country voted Clinton, by quite a sizeable margin. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

What do you call what you're doing? When you say, in effect, "Take away a massive block of Hilary's strongest supporters and Trump wins the popular vote!" you're not stupid enough to think that you're making a real point, are you? Honestly, I hope you're trolling, otherwise damn! Do you want to have an ideagasm?

False. Some people think that the accusation that a Secretary of State was allowed to enrich themselves using their position of power is a batant right wing smear with no basis in fact. Yes, if those children weren't allowed to sit in on Presidential meetings with government representatives of countries in which their business is operating it would be so terribly unfair on the little darlings. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Yes Ron, we get it. You poor downtrodden white, conservative, christian males are the most discriminated against class in the whole of western society. Life must be so hard for you. My heart bleeds. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No, it was widely reported that he claimed he would fund his own campaign. Then you can't have been listening very hard. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Well, you see it as the concept breaking down but to be quite honest I see a lot of evidence that actually, it is the concept. Oh, and the best part? While the company goes bankrupt while being sued by the Government for corrupt business practices, the taxpayer ends up bailing out the students who were shafted and the executives who perpetrated the fraud get to waltz away with their multi-million dollar salaries and bonuses happily padding their bank accounts. Lovely system. Brilliant system. A lot of people say it's the best system! A lot of CEOs say that, anyway. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Justify that statement. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

An example of ego-linear binary thinking, both your statement and my response. So you don't have any will, tenacity or determination then? Shame. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

There are millions of Americans out there who don't believe a word that doctors say about vaccines anymore. But that doesn't mean anything except that there are millions of morons. There are millions of Americans out there who don't believe a word that biologists say about evolution. But that doesn't mean anything either, except that there are millions of morons. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

No, they didn't need to assume anything. Every other state had also already voted. The results were in. Sanders had admitted defeat and endorsed Clinton already. Hilary Clinton was the candidate before the Virginia convention as surely as Donald Trump is President Elect even though the Electoral College has not yet made it so. How about June the 7th, because that's when the result of state primaries and caucuses gave her an unassailable mjority of DNC delegates? As in, she already had the recorded support of the rank and file voters? Go ahead and look it up for yourself, Bob. June 7th. Unassailable majority. Right? Agreed? The Virginia state convention was on June 18th. Do ya get it now? Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Americans who voted for Clinton aren't real Americans. And since only real Americans matter, Trump actually won with 89% of the vote. QED. Do you want to have an ideagasm?

So? Texas indicated a preference for Trump, the rest of the country was a landslide for Clinton. Do you want to have an ideagasm?