|
0 members (),
23
guests, and
2
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,587
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
Welcome back again, SenHat. I wish to provide a lengthy response to your tirade/posts, but I don't want to appear to be picking on you. I would suggest, however, two things: One, actually read the post before dismissing it. You are missing a lot of significant data, something that a true conservative wouldn't do. Second, we still have rules here at the Rant, and yes, they can result in sanctions. The kind of dismissive tone you have taken, and personal attack is unjustified. (See notes below) Even if you disagree, even vehemently, you should disagree with the substance (and provide citations for assertions), and not disparage and characterize the poster. That goes for everyone, BTW. We have been a bit lax about some rules recently, but that is not one that has varied. Thanks for the arrogant lecture. It would be nice if you practiced what you preach. In this reply you missed or apparently didn't read my post. I have a dismissive tone? Damn near everyone of your replies to me has been written with a dismissive tone! This is a caricature of Conservatism. The only place it is accurate is in the author's egotistical closed mind. The links he used to support his views are liberal ones that reinforce his egregiously erroneous opinion of Conservatives. Perhaps, my friend, you can provide examples that demonstrate your point? Quite the dismissive tone there, my friend. If Conservatism is a failed and dying ideology why do 27 of the 50 states have Republican governors? Why do Republicans control 22 state legislatures while the Democrats control only 14? I can answer that! The majority of States in the United States have rural populations. The most populous States, and those with more urban areas, are resoundingly Democratic. In some cases, the makeup of the State chambers and offices is an accident of geography. Increasingly, however, the makeup is skewed by virtue of gerrymandering and vote suppression. Those are topics for other threads, so I won't lard this one with citations. I will also note that "conservative" and "Republican" are not coextensive, as you have used them here. No, the majority of states do not have rural populations. In all states the majority of the population lives in urban areas. https://www.statista.com/statistics/985183/size-urban-rural-population-us/But that people vote for Republicans is something you and others have said has been caused by gerrymandering and vote suppression. That is not true. What it is, is an excuse for the fact that people do not vote for Democrats as you believe they should. Perhaps your belief that people should vote for Democrats is an indication that you might be a little arrogant? The author of this comment lives in an ideological cocoon and doesn't even know it! He, like a lot of closed minded liberals, thinks Pres. Trump is the Republican Party. I commend you on your mindreading prowess! But, you make a huge mistake in asserting that "Liberals" are, generally-speaking, "close minded". I am not sure what you are basing that characterization on, but, in my view, it is pretty far from an accurate assessment - indeed, it would be hard to see reality from there. I am basing my statement that liberals are close minded on the replies I've received to my posts here at the Rant. Trump is not the Republican Party nor is Trump much of a Conservative! On the first point, you are decidedly wrong. On the second, I have a hard time disagreeing. Pres. Trump is not the Republican Party. As the highest elected Republican he is temporarily the leader of the GOP, he is not the party! When Obama was our President he was temporarily the leader of the Democrat Party, he was not the party. His opening statement saying that the Electoral College is the last vestige of slavery demolishes the rest of what he has to say. Care to elaborate? There is substantial scholarly support for the assertion. It would be nice if you were to elaborate on your claim of substantial scholarly support for the racism of the Electoral College? Here is proof that it isn't. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-b...o-claim-electoral-college-is-racist-needWithout the Electoral College the city and county of Los Angeles would determine who wins our Presidential elections. Again, hyperbole does not do much to further your argument. Substantively, there is not much to work with here, as the statement has no empirical support whatever. The Greater Los Angeles metropolitan area has a population of 13,131,431, about half of whom are voting age. That represents a little less than 4% of the US population, and even less of the voting population. Hyperbole? Only when you ignore the link I posted that showed how the Electoral College does give large urban areas the power to decide who our President will be. Here is the link you ignored. But then it appears you would rather lecture me than have a discussion with me. https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...y-with-the-electoral-college-think-againDoes anyone here want Los Angeles to decide who are President is? I doubt that anyone does. Anyone except for closed minded egotistical arrogant liberals. This statement is based upon a fundamentally flawed logic. I think what you really mean (please correct me if I am wrong) is that because the greater part of the population is a) more liberal than you like, and b) concentrated in urban areas, you don't wish that majority population to make policy decisions on behalf of the United States. The problem is, that is inherently illogical. The central premise of "democracy" is that majority rules, yet you prefer that the minority dictate the rules for the majority of the population (generally and historically speaking 3-4% more than conservatives) simply because your minority views clash with their sensibilities. How is this in any way logical or in keeping with the spirit of democratic rule? The flawed logic is yours, NW and you are wrong. It is the urban areas that are predominately liberal. The rest of the country is conservative. (If I knew how to post a meme here I would post one that shows how the large liberal urban areas voted for Clinton, the liberal candidate. But the rest of country, the conservative areas voted for Trump, who compared to Clinton was the conservative candidate.) The Electoral College was created to prevent the tyranny of the majority from controlling our Presidential elections. To prevent the tyranny of the majority is why 49 out of the 50 states have bicameral legislatures. That makes our governments, state and federal, republics not democracies. I don't mind a vigorous political debate. There is significant evidence to the contrary. Lectures are not debates. However, that is impossible with someone who is as smug and obnoxious as the author of this comment. Nor is he alone in that attitude. I have temporarily returned to the Rant because this comment is so obnoxious, condescending and wrong! If my comment gets me banned from the Rant I don't care. I believe you do care, my friend, which is why I welcome your return. All I ask now is two things: Be polite (it's a rule), and put up (provide support for your assertions). I returned because a post so egregiously wrong that I had correct it. To be polite is show respect for the opinions of others, not to lecture them. I usually do provide support for my assertions but when you ignore them, NW, it might be a waste of time to do so. Do you ignore them so you can spend more time writing your lectures?
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
There is too much in this post to "correct", so I will concentrate on just one glaring error: You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College. This is a repetitive error used in support of the EC that is demonstrably, empirically, and logically wrong. As emotionally resonant as it seems, it is just that - an appeal to emotion. Here's where the error comes from: Nearly every State uses the "winner take all" strategy to entice candidates to "win" their State by campaigning there. That is, inherently, an anti-democratic stance as it essentially negates the votes of the minority - whatever their political bent. It skews the outcome of elections and - is almost entirely ineffective. There are currently about 10-12 EC relevant "swing" States. They get a disproportionate share of attention in every election. The other States, representing over 100 electoral votes for each side, are "non competitive". We know where their votes are going to go even before the first vote is cast. So the argument that the EC improves the standing of Wyoming or North Dakota during elections just isn't true. Do you know the last time a presidential candidate campaigned there? They don't either. With a popular vote, however, every State counts, because all the voters in those States count. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Out of 130 million votes cast. That is a small margin. The margins in previous elections have been closer. If every vote counted, rather than just those of "swing" States all candidates have an incentive to campaign everywhere. Republicans would go to California and New York to campaign, not just fundraise, and Democrats would hit Texas, Kansas, and Wyoming to get out the Democratic vote. The voters would actually matter more in small States than they ever have.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
There is too much in this post to "correct", so I will concentrate on just one glaring error: You have that backwards. The votes of 1/3 of people do count because of the Electoral College. This is a repetitive error used in support of the EC that is demonstrably, empirically, and logically wrong. As emotionally resonant as it seems, it is just that - an appeal to emotion. Here's where the error comes from: Nearly every State uses the "winner take all" strategy to entice candidates to "win" their State by campaigning there. That is, inherently, an anti-democratic stance as it essentially negates the votes of the minority - whatever their political bent. It skews the outcome of elections and - is almost entirely ineffective. There are currently about 10-12 EC relevant "swing" States. They get a disproportionate share of attention in every election. The other States, representing over 100 electoral votes for each side, are "non competitive". We know where their votes are going to go even before the first vote is cast. So the argument that the EC improves the standing of Wyoming or North Dakota during elections just isn't true. Do you know the last time a presidential candidate campaigned there? They don't either. With a popular vote, however, every State counts, because all the voters in those States count. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Out of 130 million votes cast. That is a small margin. The margins in previous elections have been closer. If every vote counted, rather than just those of "swing" States all candidates have an incentive to campaign everywhere. Republicans would go to California and New York to campaign, not just fundraise, and Democrats would hit Texas, Kansas, and Wyoming to get out the Democratic vote. The voters would actually matter more in small States than they ever have. Twice now in your rush to lecture me you have ignored a link I posted. A link that would show that your assertion is wrong.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,005 Likes: 133
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 12,005 Likes: 133 |
Taking a look at the rationales for the electoral college, it seems pretty messy on the surface, and the intended benefits are not all that clear or relevant today, in my opinion. So I decided to take an empirical approach to see what the functional results were in the five cases where the electoral vote prevailed over the popular vote. One would assume that if there is a positive side to the electoral vote, then it should make an appearance in the quality of the presidents that were not winners of the popular vote. Historical rankings of U.S. presidents 1824: John Quincy Adams (D/R)- Adams is an outlier due to the system being different at that time; he was actually chosen by Congress out of four candidates, none of whom won a majority of the popular vote or the required number of electoral votes. 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes (R) - ranks solidly within the 3rd quartile 1888: Benjamin Harrison (R) - ranks solidly within the 3rd quartile 2000: George W. Bush (R) - ranks 3rd-4th quartile 2016: Donald Trump (R) - ranks solidly within the 4th quartile According to this information, the evidence indicates that the electoral college has never elected an average, or above average president. There also appears to be a downward trend in the quality of "popular vote loser" presidents.
You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.
R. Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
This is just like a Conservative: ...Contesting it makes those who are doing so to be sore losers. Dems contesting an election that Republicans stole, makes Dems sore losers. Did you get that everybody? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
Taking a look at the rationales for the electoral college, it seems pretty messy on the surface, and the intended benefits are not all that clear or relevant today, in my opinion. So I decided to take an empirical approach to see what the functional results were in the five cases where the electoral vote prevailed over the popular vote. One would assume that if there is a positive side to the electoral vote, then it should make an appearance in the quality of the presidents that were not winners of the popular vote. Historical rankings of U.S. presidents 1824: John Quincy Adams (D/R)- Adams is an outlier due to the system being different at that time; he was actually chosen by Congress out of four candidates, none of whom won a majority of the popular vote or the required number of electoral votes. 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes (R) - ranks solidly within the 3rd quartile 1888: Benjamin Harrison (R) - ranks solidly within the 3rd quartile 2000: George W. Bush (R) - ranks 3rd-4th quartile 2016: Donald Trump (R) - ranks solidly within the 4th quartile According to this information, the evidence indicates that the electoral college has never elected an average, or above average president. There also appears to be a downward trend in the quality of "loser" presidents. Are you kidding? A Wikipedia poll of our Presidents?
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
This is just like a Conservative: ...Contesting it makes those who are doing so to be sore losers. Dems contesting an election that Republicans stole, makes Dems sore losers. Did you get that everybody? If the shoe fits...
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity.
I'm a conservative because I question authority.
Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831 Likes: 180
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831 Likes: 180 |
NWP, while all that seems to make sense, remember that the Senator has come out as un-democratic. Our nation is not a democracy and was never meant to be one.
The people are allowed to voice an opinion but the Electors decide who will actually reign. We elect our representatives, but they do as they are told by corporate interests. None of that is really here nor there.
Truth be told if they had lost two elections in recent memory to the vagueries of the EC and looked to possibly losing more in the future then I think you'd see the shoe on the other foot. We'd have that puppy throwed out in the snow pronto.
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
OP
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
To all, a public apology:
It has been a long time since I have been active in Moderating. I made an error in conflating Moderation comments with substantive comments. That post is now canon in this thread, so I'm not changing it, but noting it. I ask that we, as I will, be cognizant of our rules and procedures. If we have an issue with a post or poster, PM a Moderator, we'll address it. Knock off personal comments. Thank you for your cooperation.
I now return you to our regularly scheduled thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
This is just like a Conservative: ...Contesting it makes those who are doing so to be sore losers. Dems contesting an election that Republicans stole, makes Dems sore losers. Did you get that everybody? If the shoe fits... It's good that a Conservative validates that stealing an election is way better than whining about having an election stolen. You're so patriotic sir. Are there more Americans just like you? 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
