SC Kennedy Retiring
Tom_R said:
There are people who think that our Senate's Democrats should be just as obstructionist as the Republicans were during President Obama's administration.
I think it's a road to folly.
President Trump won the last election. Live with it.
TomR
FACT: Was selected by the Electoral College, lost the popular election.
I mean, there's a word for elections where the candidate who got 3 million more votes loses.
Illegitimate
Klinker said:
I mean, there's a word for elections where the candidate who got 3 million more votes loses.
Illegitimate
I’d bet anything that if HRC won the electoral college and lost the popular vote you’d think it not only legitimate but a godsend, and we wouldn’t even be debating this. Except to tell Republicans claiming what you’re currently claiming that they’re wrong, that she won fair and square, and they should just suck it up.
So please, spare me the armchair quarterbacking. It’s silly.
ctrzaska said:
Klinker said:I’d bet anything that if HRC won the electoral college and lost the popular vote you’d think it not only legitimate but a godsend, and we wouldn’t even be debating this. Except to tell Republicans claiming what you’re currently claiming that they’re wrong, that she won fair and square, and they should just suck it up.
I mean, there's a word for elections where the candidate who got 3 million more votes loses.
Illegitimate
So please, spare me the armchair quarterbacking. It’s silly.
We will never know because, the way the deck is stacked, it is always the Republican who wins the EC and loses the popular. It just doesn't cut both ways. In this century, 40% of the Presidential elections have been won by Republicans who lost the election but won the selection. In the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNION, not democrat has won under such circumstances.
40%? What the hell are you talking about?? Besides GWB (who later rode in on a 2nd term anyway), you’d have to go back to the 1800s, and even then only once was there even a majority.
Still, it changes nothing. Fact remains, no Dem would be ******** about the electoral college if HRC won. Period. They’d still be dithering over superdelegates with the BernieBots if anything.
ctrzaska said:
40%? What the hell are you talking about?? Besides GWB (who later rode in on a 2nd term anyway), you’d have to go back to the 1800s, and even then only once was there even a majority.
Still, it changes nothing. Fact remains, no Dem would be ******** about the electoral college if HRC won. Period. They’d still be dithering over superdelegates with the BernieBots if anything.
Trump and Bush. We have had 5 Presidential elections in the 21st Century and 2 of them have been won by Republicans who lost the popular vote and won the EC (Bush and Trump).
Do the math, dude.
Yup, my bad. Irrelevant, however. Why not just pick this decade and call it half? Doesn’t change my point.
ctrzaska said:
Yup, my bad. Irrelevant, however. Why not just pick this decade and call it half? Doesn’t change my point.
Sure it does. Something that happened almost never in the first 200 years of the Republic is happening all the time now and, when it does happen, it always favors the same party. Those two facts make this a serious problem for anyone who is concerned about just governance.
Klinker said:
I wonder how the Canadian immigration website is doing tonight.
It was slow but I was able to fill out a questionnaire that at least showed I might be able to apply for refugee status and they’d let my kids stay with me
Klinker said:
Do the math, dude.
Tee-hee. The 2000 election was last century.
DaveSchmidt said:
Klinker said:Tee-hee. The 2000 election was last century.
Do the math, dude.
Going to start up that fight again? (By the way I agree with you that the year 2000 was part of the 20th century).
When women are justifiably worried about challenges to Roe V Wade, "Live with it" is a little hard to deal with and there is a certain amount of irony in that choice of words, considering the number of women who lost their lives getting illegal abortions. We will have these challenges decided by men in power as we usually do. And of course if the retort Live with it, is still the response, yes, we do and we are doing our best to change that.
Klinker said:
I wonder how the Canadian immigration website is doing tonight.
A former boss of mine moved to Mexico - San Miguel de Allende, seems to like it.
Klinker said:
ctrzaska said:Sure it does. Something that happened almost never in the first 200 years of the Republic is happening all the time now and, when it does happen, it always favors the same party. Those two facts make this a serious problem for anyone who is concerned about just governance.
Yup, my bad. Irrelevant, however. Why not just pick this decade and call it half? Doesn’t change my point.
Check out the election of 1876 and the disastrous consequences.
dave23 said:
NotoriousEAM said:I don't trust the Dems to have the gumption to push back very hard.
dave23 said:The nerve of McConnell. The Democrats have to do whatever they can to block any far-right selection through intense, unrelenting questioning. The only hope is to agree to a not-too-far-right nominee. Without the filibuster in their back pocket and being in the minority, there's not a whole lot they can do, unfortunately.
McConnell on Kennedy retiring: "It's imperative that the president's nominee be treated fairly."
Honestly, what can the Democrats possibly do? I don't think unrelenting questioning is going to work. McConnell is practically gleeful over this.
All I know is I'm deeply worried for my daughter's future in this country.
Perseverance said:Honestly, what can the Democrats possibly do? I don't think unrelenting questioning is going to work. McConnell is practically gleeful over this.
All I know is I'm deeply worried for my daughter's future in this country.
What the Republicans would do: raise holy hell, even if it's in a losing cause. Form a united front and try to woo Susan Collins. At least effing fight. Never stop reminding everyone what McConnell did after Scalia died in Feb 2016.
Klinker said:
Tom_R said:FACT: Was selected by the Electoral College, lost the popular election.
There are people who think that our Senate's Democrats should be just as obstructionist as the Republicans were during President Obama's administration.
I think it's a road to folly.
President Trump won the last election. Live with it.
TomR
Your statement of fact(s) is accurate.
Yet, I fear, I am missing your point.
Please elaborate.
TomR
I just read that Anthony Kennedy's son was Trump's banker at Deutsche Bank.
hmmmm
developing....
Tom_R said:
Klinker said:Your statement of fact(s) is accurate.
Tom_R said:FACT: Was selected by the Electoral College, lost the popular election.
There are people who think that our Senate's Democrats should be just as obstructionist as the Republicans were during President Obama's administration.
I think it's a road to folly.
President Trump won the last election. Live with it.
TomR
Yet, I fear, I am missing your point.
Please elaborate.
TomR
I think you're missing the point.
Unfortunately, American Presidential elections can leave us with a winner who is in a very real sense illegitimate, since they got fewer votes than their opponent. That illegitimacy should never be forgotten and should be used to fight him
Besides, you seem to be excusing McConnel's obstructionism on Garland. Are you?
dave said:
Won with fewer votes than his opponent. Obstruction is fine. Live with it.
Where DJT's opponent did not receive more than 50% of the popular vote. This is one of the instances (originally envisioned) where the electoral college is intended to produce a majority winner at the electoral college level.
It's now clear to me that there are stupid, ignorant people who vote against their own interests on both sides of the aisle.
RealityForAll said:
dave said:Where DJT's opponent did not receive more than 50% of the popular vote. This is one of the instances (originally envisioned) where the electoral college is intended to produce a majority winner at the electoral college level.
Won with fewer votes than his opponent. Obstruction is fine. Live with it.
I believe you are incorrect if you are focusing on no candidate winning over 50% of the popular vote. I am not sure the Founders even though there would be a nationwide popular vote, let alone worrying about pluralities vs. majorities.
They did get one thing wrong which was soon changed by amendment, that being that the person who came in second in the Electoral College would become Vice President.Amendment XII.
drummerboy said:Unfortunately, American Presidential elections can leave us with a winner who is in a very real sense illegitimate, since they got fewer votes than their opponent. That illegitimacy should never be forgotten and should be used to fight him
I disagree. For better or for worse the electoral college is our system of how the U.S. President is elected. Being President is a binary thing-- you're either president or you're not. Once somebody is president, even if s/he lost the popular vote, s/he has full powers of the office, same as if s/he had won in a landslide.
Saying Trump and W are illegitimate presidents b/c they lost popular vote is essentially negating our electoral system. Fine if that's your opinion but that's what you're saying.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:I disagree. For better or for worse the electoral college is our system of how the U.S. President is elected. Being President is a binary thing-- you're either president or you're not. Once somebody is president, even if s/he lost the popular vote, s/he has full powers of the office, same as if s/he had won in a landslide.
Unfortunately, American Presidential elections can leave us with a winner who is in a very real sense illegitimate, since they got fewer votes than their opponent. That illegitimacy should never be forgotten and should be used to fight him
Saying Trump and W are illegitimate presidents b/c they lost popular vote is essentially negating our electoral system. Fine if that's your opinion but that's what you're saying.
You are both correct. I am serious.
The fact that Trump lost the popular vote should be used by his opponents as a tool against him. At the same time it is clear that he is the legal President.
The fact that Bill Clinton won the Electoral College did not stop people from bringing up the fact that he didn't win near 50% of the popular vote or arguing that Ross Perot was a spoiler.
LOST said:
Smedley said:You are both correct. I am serious.
drummerboy said:I disagree. For better or for worse the electoral college is our system of how the U.S. President is elected. Being President is a binary thing-- you're either president or you're not. Once somebody is president, even if s/he lost the popular vote, s/he has full powers of the office, same as if s/he had won in a landslide.
Unfortunately, American Presidential elections can leave us with a winner who is in a very real sense illegitimate, since they got fewer votes than their opponent. That illegitimacy should never be forgotten and should be used to fight him
Saying Trump and W are illegitimate presidents b/c they lost popular vote is essentially negating our electoral system. Fine if that's your opinion but that's what you're saying.
The fact that Trump lost the popular vote should be used by his opponents as a tool against him. At the same time it is clear that he is the legal President.
The fact that Bill Clinton won the Electoral College did not stop people from bringing up the fact that he didn't win near 50% of the popular vote or arguing that Ross Perot was a spoiler.
I don't think anyone should forget that Trump lost the popular vote either. I don't think that anyone should forget that the 51 Republican Senators represent tens of millions fewer people than the 49 Democratic Senators.
It's incredible how the Supreme Court -- which is by design profoundly undemocratic -- is an extension of two other bodies of government, the presidency and Senate, that themselves are undemocratic.
But I don't know what we can do. We can't change the Constitution.
We need a word other than "democracy" for the US government. When our system of government has this egregious a gap between public opinion, voting totals, and power and yet we cannot change the rules that cause those disparities, something is deeply wrong.
Won with fewer votes than his opponent. Obstruction is fine. Live with it.