[VIDEO] Trump drops a twitter-bomb: "They just didn't get it, but they do now!"

a reply to: mkultra11

I know this doesn't comport with the extremist media programming but ...

MOB RULE is the idea that the will of the many, the group, the "mob" overcomes the existing order, the laws, etc. Yes, the concept of "a mob" is usually a riotous gathering of people causing mayhem, but as you are using it (parroted from the media you consume) in application to the Electoral College, you have been told that "mob rule" would be an election based soley on the popular vote nationwide. The CONTEXT of the inaccurate use of the term seen here and in certain extremist media is directed toward that idea that rather than the popular vote in each STATE determining the President/Vice President allowing "the mob" nationally to elect the President would be undesirable, dangerous etc.

I'm not confusing anything. The people you're listening to have convinced you that DEMOCRACY is a bad word. Our Founders believed that democracy expressed through the rule-of-law and representative government (republicanism) was the bastion of individual freedom and Liberty.

The word the Founders used was "republican" ... perhaps you've noticed that in Article IV, Section 4?

I will admit that the Federalists arguing for a more centralized government under the proposed Constitution as opposed to the Articles tended to use rhetoric that castigates "pure" (direct) democracy, but that is always in the context of the well-established understanding that the United States was government of and by the People.

The very concept of the bicameral Congress establishes this fully. The House is based on POPULATION. That is our REPRESENTATIVES elected by POPULAR VOTE IN EACH STATE.

The President and Vice President (Executive Branch) are and have been elected based on the POPULAR VOTE IN EACH STATE by the "winner take all" system. The fact that there are Electors reflects the idea that the will of the People is enacted through their representatives.

What makes it republican is that the will of the People is expressed THROUGH the rule-of-law ... the highest expression of which is the Constitution.

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: Gryphon66

That's contrary to your previous position when you quizzed me on my understanding of the EC. The EC as ABSOLUTELY a defense against mob rule. It was a defense against the more populous areas having more sway over the less populous, i.e. where the FOOD was being made. Direct democracy will never work. That's why we have the EC. Because people are self serving, dumb, and given the choice they'll take the hand-out. It's human nature. It's actually life-nature, if I can coin the phrase. Life seeks to economize energy. If you can input more than you output, you're sitting pretty. That's not good for society. The product of our work is what makes us sustainable. That doesn't mean it needs to be free. People are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Man, this got off topic quick.

Nope. Not contrary at all. In fact, you emphasized the possibility of faithless Electors which has simply never affected the outcome of a Presidential Election.

The Electoral College focuses on the will of the People OF EACH STATE. Each State does and always has based the commitment of their Electors ON THE POPULAR VOTE IN THAT STATE.

It's simply absurd to claim that the Electoral College is not based on popular vote when it most evidently and certainly is through the rule-of-law, through the Constitution.

If it's off-topic, it's because you and others are merely repeating logically inconsistent rhetoric.

a reply to: Sublimecraft
I wish I could give you a million stars and flags. Bravo!! It is just sad there are still those that want the same old schtick. This president is trying to do something to right the ship. Leftist liberals do have a brain disorder. Sophomoric electing on their part reduces the presidency to a popularity contest. Liberals go back to high school and elect school presidents. In the real world hard ass decisions and rough play are needed sometimes. The NWO wants to take down this country get it. Now is the time to walk harshly not softly and carry a frickin BALL BAT. Because communism is on the march.

a reply to: Ansuzrune

Hmmm ... well, leftist liberals (whoever they are) didn't elect Trump, so your logic is sorta off, no?

I suggest that the reality of the situation is that the majority of Americans are not "left" or "right."

Sure we always have to vote one way or the other because that's the way the system has been presented to us, but that's not the way we are. We agree on more things than we disagree on.

This "us and them" mentality is utter BS. The "other side" isn't mentally ill or intellectually challenged. We are all Americans.

"Communism is on the march"? Are you a time-traveller from the 1950s?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Communism is on the march"? Are you a time-traveller from the 1950s?

Nope were just paying attention to current elections in New York.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Ansuzrune

Hmmm ... well, leftist liberals (whoever they are) didn't elect Trump, so your logic is sorta off, no?

I suggest that the reality of the situation is that the majority of Americans are not "left" or "right."

Sure we always have to vote one way or the other because that's the way the system has been presented to us, but that's not the way we are. We agree on more things than we disagree on.

This "us and them" mentality is utter BS. The "other side" isn't mentally ill or intellectually challenged. We are all Americans.

"Communism is on the march"? Are you a time-traveller from the 1950s?

I totally agree with this.

Time traveler from the 1950’s hahaha! That was good.

But yeah I’m with you on this definitely. I just wish those representatives could get their head out of their asses and realize this too, and get something done for once in our lives.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

The idea that the Founders had was that serving in the Congress (or the Presidency for that matter) was more of an onerous task that reflected duty to country rather than the psychotic power-trips and get-richer-quicker schemes that the positions are today.

I truly believe that term limits would have been in the Constitution were they aware of what the system would become.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Communism is on the march"? Are you a time-traveller from the 1950s?

Nope were just paying attention to current elections in New York.

Pfft.

One "democratic socialist" gets lucky and you guys are ready for Red Scare part II?

I'd be more worried about your buddies in Russia and China (and North Korea for that matter) on those scores.

a reply to: strongfp

trump fan boy! lol

i'm still puzzled how anyone can be a fan of trump!
with no redeeming qualities or qualities at all , its a puzzle for sure

trump posting this is just a very childish " see I told you so!"

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: strongfp

trump fan boy! lol

i'm still puzzled how anyone can be a fan of trump!
with no redeeming qualities or qualities at all , its a puzzle for sure

trump posting this is just a very childish " see I told you so!"

I can very easily see how people are Trump fans.

He's loud, boisterous, self-confident and untroubled by intellectual elitism. He's a caricature of the patriotic demogogue. He says what his base wants to hear. And, at the end of the day, he's quite often hilarious.

He's also the witting/unwitting instrument of deep cultural forces that will change the national and world landscape for years to come. So there's that.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I have to admit to chuckling at some things he says that, despite my amusement, would rather he not say. Then again, listening to Gowdy go after Schumer im not so sure that its only Trump who can get a little hot under the collar.

That said, things like "populism", to me, mean simply that the politician is responding to the people.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I have had respect for Gowdy but he is such a political hack. He's sharp as a damn tack though; if he'd run on an Independent ticket I'd vote for him for President.

I usually think of populism as a politician responding to some of the people.

originally posted by: RMFX1

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: RMFX1

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: RMFX1

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Watch video here - Donald Trump: twitter

VIDEO:

Anyway, this 2-minute long video is basically a big HaHaHa troll to leftists, the MSM and democrats in general direct from Trump for their arrogant presumptuousness pre-election that Trump could NEVER be President of the United States (stated with conviction by many, and a belly laugh) in which they are all eventually pwned, bigly.

The Young Turks get a front row seat for this vid, probably because their reactions on election night perfectly summed up the whole situation best, when they went from a smile to fetal position in the space of about 3 hours.

Enjoy.

Your president is an embarrassment and he humiliates you and your countrymen daily on twitter. But here you are whoop whooping at another one of his dumb twitter escapades.

The mind boggles.

Triggered.

Dude, I'm just telling it how the rest of the world sees it. If you consider that triggered that's OK. I don't mind.

Ah, I see so you speak for the entire rest of the world, got it thanks.

Umm, it's no secret that almost everyone on this side of the pond look at your current president and see him as a complete joke. It's the general consensus. If you don't want to believe that I'm OK with that as well.

I'm sorry man, I don't want you to think I'm attacking you or your political stance personally because I do understand that there are many reasons why people would have voted for him. But, I'm also 100% sure that even many that did do still realise that the man is a nitwit. I'm sure that deep down you know that too.

Not that any of us give a damn what the rest of the world thinks, but I think you need to worry about the problems y'all have across the pond, and quit worrying about us or our president.

Or is this just because Trump didn't go on a kiss the world's ass tour like our last president did?

originally posted by: mkultra11

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: Gryphon66

The electorate consists of nominally anonymous people who are duty bound, but not bindingly, to the will of the people they represent. If a state's popular vote falls to a candidate they can override that decision by voting differently. What's your understanding?

The number of Electors each State has is based on their Congressional representation (which is 80% based on population). Each State decides how their Electors will be split; all are governed by the popular vote. Three states are not "winner take all" but divide by other means. The "winner take all" states are indeed the very definition of "mob rule."

Electors overwhelmingly vote according to the way they are pledged as a result of the popular vote. Those that don't are called "faithless."

Faithless Electors have never affected the outcome of a Presidential Election.

The EC is indeed based on the the popular vote on a state by state basis rather than nationwide.

The comments about "mob rule" that you're repeating are mostly incorrect both in the spirit and the letter of American law. A Republic is a representative democracy rather than a direct one.

The will of the People remains the driving force. (At least in form.)

I don't know how this post developed from this thread, but thank you. Why do you suppose people would want to eliminate the electoral college? Is this ideological driven, but from where? Eliminating it would be mob rule and exactly against what the Founders intended.

Eliminating the EC is not necessarily a bad thing and solves a few potential problems.

The idea of inalienable rights, all men are created equal, one man - one vote is superseded by the EC. It creates the possibility that the loser of the popular vote can win the election. What many people fail to understand is that the Constitution does not now nor did it ever require a popular vote for POTUS. The EC rather than the popular vote decided the winner at least four times, the most recent in 2000. That equates to 7% of our Presidential elections, not a small amount and something to be concerned with.

The EC can indirectly influence policy which is not desirable. When viewed from an EC perspective Presidential elections are made of three perceived groups of states: guaranteed win, guaranteed loss, and swing states. This forces candidates to focus on the swing states to ensure a victory. The problem is for example Florida. A candidate who cannot project a win without Florida will pander to targeted groups of people who can deliver a block of votes. It that means softer relations with Cuba, incentives for orange growers, whatever, it will happen to get the votes. This is also evident in Iowa with ethanol subsidies. Most often the pandering focuses on older voters since the swing states typically have a large percentage of elderly people. As such, medicare, social security, etc, are all focal points for pandering.

The EC also further invalidates the one man - one vote ideal because electoral votes are not distributed based on population. It is based on the number of congressional representatives which by itself is more accurately based on population. However, when combined with the EC smaller states are sometimes over-represented in the EC. Based on 2010 census a single voter in Wyoming had between three and four times the EC weight of a voter in California.

The EC also creates the possibility of a tie meaning that there could be no verified winner on the normal date of inauguration. This is further complicated by an unforeseen hazard that says no EC can vote for both a President and Vice President that are both from the same state as the EC. This condition led to the twelfth amendment that allows EC's to specify a President and a Vice President to avoid the potential for a tie between running mates such as the one between Jefferson and Burr.

Another issue is that the system as it stands makes it almost impossible for a third party candidate to win elections, especially the Presidency, but it does make it possible for a third party candidate to change the outcome of the entire election by winning one significant swing state. This is diametrically opposed to the original purpose of the EC.

After all is said and done if there is still a tie the vote is thrown to the House but on a one vote per state rule. That means, again using Wyoming and California as examples, one vote in Wyoming represents 563,000 people and the one vote for California represents 37 million. One man - one vote is nonexistent at this point.

Lastly, every tier of population-based representation compounds the problem of illegal alien votes. Congressional representation is based on population. With so many states granting ID's and voter rights to illegals the true "citizen" vote is being diluted. This is compounded when that diluted vote is amplified by affecting the EC for that state. This is one of the main reasons democrats want our borders as open as possible: illegals tend to vote democrat. If there were millions of illegals trying to get in to this country to vote republican you can bet your bottom dollar the dems would fund and build a wall in no time at all.

I believe the EC should either be eliminated or modified from its present form. If nothing else, states should report EC results based on total number of EC votes, the largest going first and the least going last. This will lessen the effect of band-wagoning and deter manipulation to affect outcome. It would also give smaller states some attention from candidates that often overlook them because they are simply not strategically necessary.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So get ready for INTERESTING TIMES.

IMO.

The virtue of Chaos?

In the long view, Trump is necessary and overdue.

Like wildfires laying waste to thorny bushes and tangled dark growth, only to burn out and afford fertile ground and space for new growth.

The norms and values he is destroying most are the fake principles the GOP have falsely claimed for a generation.
They have offered no solutions, no new ideas, just choking and smothering new growth for decades.
Their façade is nothing but smoldering ash now.
No deep beliefs or roots to join the new growth. Just twitter trolling and moral ADHD burning itself out.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Communism is on the march"? Are you a time-traveller from the 1950s?

Nope were just paying attention to current elections in New York.

????

Are you paying attention to your buddies in Illinois Neo?

Neo-Nazi Arthur Jones wins Republican nomination for Illinois congressional seat
www.cnbc.com...

a reply to: soberbacchus

So what's your point?

The state Republican Party has said it wants nothing to do with Jones, who became the GOP's standard-bearer in the district after five prior failed attempts to win the nomination.

"Even if only myself and my wife voted for me, I'd win the primary because the Republican Party screwed up big time," Jones told The New York Times.

The party, which was not able to find anyone to run against Jones in the primary, says it will try to get an independent to run in the race.

"Arthur Jones is not a real Republican — he is a Nazi whose disgusting, bigoted views have no place in our nation's discourse," Illinois GOP Chairman Tim Schneider said in a statement.

Link

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Alien Abduct

The idea that the Founders had was that serving in the Congress (or the Presidency for that matter) was more of an onerous task that reflected duty to country rather than the psychotic power-trips and get-richer-quicker schemes that the positions are today.

I truly believe that term limits would have been in the Constitution were they aware of what the system would become.

Absolutely. We need to definitely somehow get term limits implemented.

a reply to: soberbacchus

Indeed.

I can't say that I'm happy to have understood the what-why of Mr. Trump's Presidency, but, at least I have some peace now in understanding the wider sweep of history.

I see not only realignments and rebirth in this country ... but in the world itself. Old alliances being reworked, old assumptions being destroyed ... again, not happy or excited per se for the coming CHAOS ... but, content with knowing that what follows is what needed to be.

It's (going to be) springtime in America again ... after the raging cultural wildfires/hurricaines/tsunamis, etc. complete.

Chaos, Shiva, Eris, Set, Discordia, Kek ... take your pick.