row_33 Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Yeah. It is. My main beef against the Electoral College is a person's vote in Iowa means more than my vote in New York. However, each presidential candidate knows the playing field and it's up to them to run a campaign that gives them the best chance of winning the electoral college. Trump did a much better job of that and Hillary continued to show she has terrible judgment. EC is a great thing. Kept the Reconstruction South from getting more power with a 99% vote for the Dems (who kept Jim Crow going for another century...) Chomsky was right. I've read a lot of his stuff, I don't see why the Left is beaming over it. It doesn't help them to hear and repeat that everything is fixed and sucks and you have no hope, unless you have millions in the bank like Chomsky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 The conflict between the bold text sentences speaks to the crux of the problem. It is delusional to think that your agenda applies to all of your constituents when you ignore that the majority of the electorate didn't vote for that agenda and that you are leading a fractured nation. Unfortunately, Trump is hopelessly out of his depth in that regard. And your response speaks further to the crux of the problem: the US government was designed to have a weak executive and stronger legislative body that actually represents the people, and as a weak central government in recognition of the fact that regional interests and needs can't be dictated as a one-size-fits-all platform at the federal level. The real problem is that people vote as though the president represents them. He doesn't, and as a practical matter can't, and any honest attempt to do so would result in weak centralized authority (which is not a bad thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 And your response speaks further to the crux of the problem: the US government was designed to have a weak executive and stronger legislative body that actually represents the people, and as a weak central government in recognition of the fact that regional interests and needs can't be dictated as a one-size-fits-all platform at the federal level. The real problem is that people vote as though the president represents them. He doesn't, and as a practical matter can't, and any honest attempt to do so would result in weak centralized authority (which is not a bad thing). it was designed with the Senate slowly and methodically plodding along and not bothering to react to anything without years and years and years of thinking about doing something. which is a great thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 EC is a great thing. Kept the Reconstruction South from getting more power with a 99% vote for the Dems (who kept Jim Crow going for another century...) I've read a lot of his stuff, I don't see why the Left is beaming over it. It doesn't help them to hear and repeat that everything is fixed and sucks and you have no hope, unless you have millions in the bank like Chomsky. No. Plessy v. Ferguson kept Jim Crow going. Until, the courts could start being packed the other way. Who packed more liberal courts? You know political party identity, ideology does change. Just because its name stays the same, doesn't mean ideology isnt in constant motion. Republicans today would side with Southern Dems of yesterday. One can claim the name only, all else is out the window. I hope you understand this. You get a pass if you are Canadian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Sorry about that 9th inning collapse. Isn't it amazing how you can out hit, out pitch the other team and STILL lose the game. It's a wacky game. The Bills gained more yards than the Giants in SB XXV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 And your response speaks further to the crux of the problem: the US government was designed to have a weak executive and stronger legislative body that actually represents the people, and as a weak central government in recognition of the fact that regional interests and needs can't be dictated as a one-size-fits-all platform at the federal level. The real problem is that people vote as though the president represents them. He doesn't, and as a practical matter can't, and any honest attempt to do so would result in weak centralized authority (which is not a bad thing). It becomes even more problematic when you consider how state districts are being redrawn to suit national interests on both sides of the aisle. State's rights and home rule are a concise way of ensuring a bit of lasting power remains vested in local legislatures...gerrymandering to further either national party REALLY does damage to the balance of power in government. As if balancing 50 moderately independent states under a federal umbrella weren't challenging enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 And your response speaks further to the crux of the problem: the US government was designed to have a weak executive and stronger legislative body that actually represents the people, and as a weak central government in recognition of the fact that regional interests and needs can't be dictated as a one-size-fits-all platform at the federal level. The real problem is that people vote as though the president represents them. He doesn't, and as a practical matter can't, and any honest attempt to do so would result in weak centralized authority (which is not a bad thing). But one-size-for-all platform can be dictated in a post agrarian, modern consumerist society that has existed since the early 20th Century. This even more so than the early Federalists may have believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 But one-size-for-all platform can be dictated in a post agrarian, modern consumerist society that has existed since the early 20th Century. This even more so than the early Federalists may have believed. Describe a coherent national water management policy that satisfies the needs of the Great Lakes watershed, lake Okeechobee, the Imperial Valley, and Kauai, You of all people should know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 The Bills gained more yards than the Giants in SB XXV. The Patriots* held the lead for 00:00 of Super Bowl LI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Describe a coherent national water management policy that satisfies the needs of the Great Lakes watershed, lake Okeechobee, the Imperial Valley, and Kauai, You of all people should know better. Silly goose, I can't explain anything coherently, let alone a water plan. It's just my job 5 days a week, all the science I don't understand. FWIW. Okeechobee and Great Lakes function under similar dynamics. Diversions are almost identical. Trivia: The second biggest lake in the US is Okeechobee, the first: Lake Michigan of course. And... BTW you could still tweak individual policy under one-size-fits-all. Still room for local practices. There are things like the National Electric Code (NEC) with other jurisdictions superseding it where applicable. A unified national can serve as a minimum. That not coherent enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Silly goose, I can't explain anything coherently, let alone a water plan. It's just my job 5 days a week, all the science I don't understand. FWIW. Okeechobee and Great Lakes function under similar dynamics. Diversions are almost identical. Great Lakes don't have hurricanes, and aren't 13 feet deep on average, and aren't surrounded by tropical wetlands. That's very different dynamics. And... BTW you could still tweak individual policy under one-size-fits-all. Still room for local practices. There are things like the National Electric Code (NEC) with other jurisdictions superseding it where applicable. A unified national can serve as a minimum. Aaaaand there's my point...you can't dictate a one-size-fits-all platform nationally. You need a slew of local and regional exceptions that you either define and manage locally, or you define nationally in a mammoth frankenpolicy that is anything but "one size fits all." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 And your response speaks further to the crux of the problem: the US government was designed to have a weak executive and stronger legislative body that actually represents the people, and as a weak central government in recognition of the fact that regional interests and needs can't be dictated as a one-size-fits-all platform at the federal level. The real problem is that people vote as though the president represents them. He doesn't, and as a practical matter can't, and any honest attempt to do so would result in weak centralized authority (which is not a bad thing). Outstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Outstanding. I'm honestly not sure if you just insulted me or not. This being PPP, I'm just going to assume yes, you did, because PPP. So !@#$ you. And if I'm wrong...!@#$ you anyway, because PPP. (I haven't insulted anyone yet today. God, that felt good.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 I'm honestly not sure if you just insulted me or not. This being PPP, I'm just going to assume yes, you did, because PPP. So !@#$ you. And if I'm wrong...!@#$ you anyway, because PPP. (I haven't insulted anyone yet today. God, that felt good.) No insult intended. I thought your post did a good job of capsulizing the importance of turning out to vote at ALL levels of representation in local, state, and federal government. I don't agree with your idea that the president doesn't represent the people, though. That's a superficial analysis at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 I don't agree with your idea that the president doesn't represent the people, though. That's a superficial analysis at best. The president heads the executive branch of the federal government, which has absolutely nothing to do with representing the American people. They serve us, but do not represent us. We are represented by the House of Representatives. The Senate represents the interest of each of the 50 states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 The president heads the executive branch of the federal government, which has absolutely nothing to do with representing the American people. They serve us, but do not represent us. We are represented by the House of Representatives. The Senate represents the interest of each of the 50 states. I think when they said "represent", they meant this: "More than anyone else, the President symbolizes the country its people and its beliefs. In this role, a President performs many ceremonial duties, such as receiving foreign dignitaries, throwing the first baseball of the season, and walking on red carpets while waving to crowds. These actions are not trivial. Strong Presidents must exude confidence, not just in themselves, but in the American people as well. The best ones have had an intangible charisma that engendered public confidence." This President does not engender public confidence. Trump is all time low. Like that wasn't predicted during the campaign. Trump is showing that he is unprepared to lead and lacks the qualifications, like that wasn't predicted too. What a mess. But 46%, if legit, which is debatable, wanted him. Now we are stuck with the raging scandals, dumpster fire of a presidency. Hey! But it is everybody else's fault... Stop picking on poor Donald! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 if elections were allowed to change anything, they would be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Gun Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 I think when they said "represent", they meant this: "More than anyone else, the President symbolizes the country its people and its beliefs. In this role, a President performs many ceremonial duties, such as receiving foreign dignitaries, throwing the first baseball of the season, and walking on red carpets while waving to crowds. These actions are not trivial. Strong Presidents must exude confidence, not just in themselves, but in the American people as well. The best ones have had an intangible charisma that engendered public confidence." This President does not engender public confidence. Trump is all time low. Like that wasn't predicted during the campaign. Trump is showing that he is unprepared to lead and lacks the qualifications, like that wasn't predicted too. What a mess. But 46%, if legit, which is debatable, wanted him. Now we are stuck with the raging scandals, dumpster fire of a presidency. Hey! But it is everybody else's fault... Stop picking on poor Donald! Haha whatever dude, get your coloring book and go to your safe space and suck your thumb. How is that russia scandal working out so far! How much $$$ are the USA tax payers NOT paying because of the Paris pullout? Looney left spewing make believe again, does it ever stop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 The president heads the executive branch of the federal government, which has absolutely nothing to do with representing the American people. They serve us, but do not represent us. We are represented by the House of Representatives. The Senate represents the interest of each of the 50 states. Wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 I'm honestly not sure if you just insulted me or not. This being PPP, I'm just going to assume yes, you did, because PPP. So !@#$ you. And if I'm wrong...!@#$ you anyway, because PPP. (I haven't insulted anyone yet today. God, that felt good.) And you lie like a mother!@#$er. There is no way you made it that far through the day without insulting anyone. Impossible!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts