|
Post by ag87 on Jun 21, 2020 15:37:01 GMT -8
Help the process. Dislike or like the results all you want, but I know some elections people and they work very hard to make sure that the elections are run accurately. This is often in the face of technological, social and political interference that makes things that much tougher. Vote, and let whomever represents you know that the outcome is what it is. Why do we seem to increasingly enjoy tearing the system down so much like little kids knocking down the stack of blocks they just built. The minute you start letting the losers and threats from incumbents to devalue the system if they lose, the closer you let us move towards a civil conflict that will tear down our society. Look how fractured we are now. it's like Gary Anderpants was hired, but we have to wait four full years before we fire him.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 21, 2020 16:06:28 GMT -8
You offer nothing to this conversation but diatribe and rhetoric. You don’t even TRY to understand what I wrote, so I give up. So here’s your triple-confirmation, which surely means ALL of what you have WRITTEN is TRUE. Truth > made-up stuff Dude, you are exasperating. Truth matters when discussing truths. I wasn’t. I was simply characterizing the common thoughts of the two disagreeing parties. You took issue with the side you agree with, but you could have taken issue just as well with the other side. But you probably hold that statement to be “true.” That is, that in a popular vote election, the election would be controlled by a few of the largest cities. That’s just as much BS, but it is a sentiment that is often expressed in favor of keeping the EC. The opposite side may say something like I had offered. That is, that in the current system, rural states with a lack of diversity, end up controlling the election because their votes are worth more. This is the path to the presidency for the current and the last Republican president, neither of whom won the popular vote, though one has said that he did. LOL. Now, I have explained it twice to you. And really I don’t care. Think what you want. But if you can’t understand a message, it usually isn’t wise to attack the messenger when it’s your own damn fault.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 21, 2020 17:12:51 GMT -8
Dude, you are exasperating. Truth matters when discussing truths. I wasn’t. I was simply characterizing the common thoughts of the two disagreeing parties. You took issue with the side you agree with, but you could have taken issue just as well with the other side. But you probably hold that statement to be “true.” That is, that in a popular vote election, the election would be controlled by a few of the largest cities. That’s just as much BS, but it is a sentiment that is often expressed in favor of keeping the EC. The opposite side may say something like I had offered. That is, that in the current system, rural states with a lack of diversity, end up controlling the election because their votes are worth more. This is the path to the presidency for the current and the last Republican president, neither of whom won the popular vote, though one has said that he did. LOL. Now, I have explained it twice to you. And really I don’t care. Think what you want. But if you can’t understand a message, it usually isn’t wise to attack the messenger when it’s your own damn fault. Nice FAIL. Explain it twelve more times how when you said, "Our fear is that a few backwater states control the election, which is what has happened in two recent elections" you were just talking theoretically/metaphorically (about the part in bold) and not actually literally meaning it..
You are so full of ____ it's coming out your ears, because it's plain as today is long that you were referring to your own characterizations about two (actual) recent (presidential) elections.
Keep backpedaling, though and blaming it on my misunderstanding. Priceless.
Three times?
OK. So explain to me how a couple major cities would control the election. Is there any truth to that? Start there, because it's probably what you believe.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 21, 2020 17:20:17 GMT -8
Try this instead. Ibram X. Kendi is well-recognized for his work on racism and has been on the New York Times bestseller list multiple times. His first book, Stamped from the Beginning, won the National Book Award. His current book, How to be an Antiracist, is #1 still on the New York Times bestseller list.
A long intro, but his talk is excellent.
|
|
|
Post by pitbeavs on Jun 21, 2020 17:24:37 GMT -8
Why are you filled with such hate? What is wrong with you? Thanks for the double-confirmation. No such "backwater states" had ANY effect on the 2016 Electoral College numbers. He doesn't tell you because he knows you can't read a map.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 21, 2020 17:35:07 GMT -8
Geez guys, why not give it a rest? It’s Father’s Day for heck sake. Do something fun!
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 21, 2020 17:56:10 GMT -8
Three times?
OK. So explain to me how a couple major cities would control the election. Is there any truth to that? Start there, because it's probably what you believe.
That's irrelevant. I wasn't addressing that part. Ever. Only the second part.
LOL
|
|
|
Post by kersting13 on Jun 22, 2020 8:54:07 GMT -8
That kind of attitude surely won't cause any resentment from your political opponents at all. Sad times we live in where people can't be bothered to even listen to one another. Well, this is what our system has come down to. Years of Democrats and Republicans in Congress voting completely upon party lines without regard to what is right or wrong has created a populace that identifies more fully with their chosen party than with right or wrong. It’s sort of Orwellian. If they can keep the people divided, it works to their advantage. When Obama was in office, Republicans kept their constituents distracted with calls for his birth certificate or trying to stop his call for health care reform. With Trump in office, Democrats have kept their constituent distracted with his golf outings, his trips to Mar-a-Lago and the quid pro quo. It keeps us divided because Republicans “know” that Obama isn’t a real citizen, and Democrats “know” that Trump acted illegally. Meanwhile, the show continues and the rich get richer and the working men get upset about stuff that they want us to get upset about. Black Lives Matter is more organic than the others. (I know that some of you will disagree with this, but recognize that it has come from the people working together and it continues that way.) Orwell’s mistake in 1984 is not recognizing that we don’t need an external enemy to hate when the enemy is our fellow Americans. We’re still being played by the system. Trump, Obama, Bush. It doesn’t really matter. They want you on one side of the 49-51 split. Just my thoughts. I don't understand how ANYONE can identify with EITHER party any longer. You'd literally have to be insane to 100% follow either party line.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jun 22, 2020 10:39:05 GMT -8
Nice FAIL. Explain it twelve more times how when you said, "Our fear is that a few backwater states control the election, which is what has happened in two recent elections" you were just talking theoretically/metaphorically (about the part in bold) and not actually literally meaning it..
You are so full of ____ it's coming out your ears, because it's plain as today is long that you were referring to your own characterizations about two (actual) recent (presidential) elections.
Keep backpedaling, though and blaming it on my misunderstanding. Priceless.
Three times?
OK. So explain to me how a couple major cities would control the election. Is there any truth to that? Start there, because it's probably what you believe.
So you are wigging out because I said "A couple of cities should not rule a nation of this size."? It was an example of how geography was important, maybe a bit of an exaggeration but really not that far from the truth. I was born in the 50s, and for long as I can remember the two major media, news, television and movie hubs in this country have been New York City and Los Angeles. They have been the drivers of American culture and thought for decades. Those two cities have been voting roughly 70/20 in favor of democratic nominees for President since Reagan was finished. The last republican presidential nominee to win in New York City was Calvin Coolidge back in 1924. I would bet that if a nuclear bomb went off in NYC and LA today and our media/entertainment centers were suddenly moved to Houston and Phoenix (which are both in the top 5 of populations for US cities), along with all new news anchors representing the local thought, our country would look quite a bit differently politically over the course of time. A couple of cities/states alone can have LOTS of influence on American elections. I think the EC improves the representation for all of the states.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 22, 2020 13:22:45 GMT -8
Three times?
OK. So explain to me how a couple major cities would control the election. Is there any truth to that? Start there, because it's probably what you believe.
So you are wigging out because I said "A couple of cities should not rule a nation of this size."? It was an example of how geography was important, maybe a bit of an exaggeration but really not that far from the truth. I was born in the 50s, and for long as I can remember the two major media, news, television and movie hubs in this country have been New York City and Los Angeles. They have been the drivers of American culture and thought for decades. Those two cities have been voting roughly 70/20 in favor of democratic nominees for President since Reagan was finished. The last republican presidential nominee to win in New York City was Calvin Coolidge back in 1924. I would bet that if a nuclear bomb went off in NYC and LA today and our media/entertainment centers were suddenly moved to Houston and Phoenix (which are both in the top 5 of populations for US cities), along with all new news anchors representing the local thought, our country would look quite a bit differently politically over the course of time. A couple of cities/states alone can have LOTS of influence on American elections. I think the EC improves the representation for all of the states. No, I am not wigging out. My hope was to get beaverfever to understand that on both sides, people say these kinds of things. And neither is exactly true.
I also believe that a couple of big cities shouldn't determine the fate for all of the US. I don't think that this would necessarily be the case in a popular vote election. Look at Reagan whom you brought up. He managed to get a lot of the popular vote. IIRC Bush senior did, as well--not as much as Reagan, but more than his Democratic competitor.
As for the influence of New York and LA because of their contributions to the TV and film industry, I don't exactly agree. First of all, who is influenced exactly by shows like Real Housewives of wherever? TV and film has changed dramatically so that where things are filmed and how people consume it are no longer constant. Back when "mainstream" was the only stream, perhaps that was so, but these days, people find the content that they are looking for--whether it is Kpop music, Fox News, or Bolton's new book. It's all out there, waiting for us to consume it.
If we are speculating (and why not?), I think Chicago would replace New York City, not that it's really possible to replace the Big Apple. Chicago has the history and I think enough style to pull it off. I don't much care for LA, so that's a more challenging call. I think Las Vegas would make an interesting replacement. Or perhaps someplace in Florida. Or if things keep warming up, maybe Portland. Portland could be ideal with weather like LA.
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Jun 22, 2020 14:25:57 GMT -8
So you are wigging out because I said "A couple of cities should not rule a nation of this size."? It was an example of how geography was important, maybe a bit of an exaggeration but really not that far from the truth. I was born in the 50s, and for long as I can remember the two major media, news, television and movie hubs in this country have been New York City and Los Angeles. They have been the drivers of American culture and thought for decades. Those two cities have been voting roughly 70/20 in favor of democratic nominees for President since Reagan was finished. The last republican presidential nominee to win in New York City was Calvin Coolidge back in 1924. I would bet that if a nuclear bomb went off in NYC and LA today and our media/entertainment centers were suddenly moved to Houston and Phoenix (which are both in the top 5 of populations for US cities), along with all new news anchors representing the local thought, our country would look quite a bit differently politically over the course of time. A couple of cities/states alone can have LOTS of influence on American elections. I think the EC improves the representation for all of the states. No, I am not wigging out. My hope was to get beaverfever to understand that on both sides, people say these kinds of things. And neither is exactly true.
I also believe that a couple of big cities shouldn't determine the fate for all of the US. I don't think that this would necessarily be the case in a popular vote election. Look at Reagan whom you brought up. He managed to get a lot of the popular vote. IIRC Bush senior did, as well--not as much as Reagan, but more than his Democratic competitor.
As for the influence of New York and LA because of their contributions to the TV and film industry, I don't exactly agree. First of all, who is influenced exactly by shows like Real Housewives of wherever? TV and film has changed dramatically so that where things are filmed and how people consume it are no longer constant. Back when "mainstream" was the only stream, perhaps that was so, but these days, people find the content that they are looking for--whether it is Kpop music, Fox News, or Bolton's new book. It's all out there, waiting for us to consume it.
If we are speculating (and why not?), I think Chicago would replace New York City, not that it's really possible to replace the Big Apple. Chicago has the history and I think enough style to pull it off. I don't much care for LA, so that's a more challenging call. I think Las Vegas would make an interesting replacement. Or perhaps someplace in Florida. Or if things keep warming up, maybe Portland. Portland could be ideal with weather like LA.
Seriously though, New York is where America gets the bulk of it's news feed. All three major networks are based out of there, most of the major cable news programs (albeit more opinion than news, problem is the major networks are leaning more and more towards opinion rather than straight news) are based out of there. New York and California have a lock on most of our entertainment television and movies. Googling top US new sources gets you this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_in_the_United_States Take a look at their list of top news sources, the bulk of it is based out of NYC, some California. Then take a look at the paragraphs on agenda setting. Now I don't know if the writer of this particular bit leans right, but our media does set agendas when it chooses what news it's going to present. Back in the day, newsmen and journalists asked questions then quoted answers, now they seem to feel their job is to sway opinion... and in order to shape opinion odds are they have an opinion. I'm not saying Houston and Phoenix would be the replacements, just saying that any time the bulk of the information is coming from one or two locations, you unknowingly are going to be fed information skewed by the local viewpoint these days, and if Houston and Phoenix were the centers we get our news from, the thought process of many in this country would be somewhat different down the line simply because of the geographical influence. Do you think our society would be the same today if Houston and Phoenix had been the primary base of our media and entertainment feeds the last 60-100 years? The bulk of our news does have a lean, one direction or another. Alternative views exist readily, I do switch between ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN and a smattering of MSNBC (depending on who the hosts are) along with some Bloomberg radio, as well as a ton of internet research, to get what I hope is a reasonable broad base of opinions.. and I find them all to have some type of bias. A lot of people get just one or two sources and stick with what their fed. It sounds stupid, but actors, newscasters, sports figures and "social influencers" carry a LOT of weight on US opinion, people hopefully aren't influenced at all by "Real Housewives", but it's pretty much realistically said that the TV and movies we watch, even the music we listen to, shapes minds over time. I realize just how much watching the Walking Dead has dulled my reaction to violence on TV and film, I suspect I can't help but having been influenced politically by the things I've seen on the news.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 22, 2020 15:01:59 GMT -8
Dude, you are exasperating. Truth matters when discussing truths. I wasn’t. I was simply characterizing the common thoughts of the two disagreeing parties. You took issue with the side you agree with, but you could have taken issue just as well with the other side. But you probably hold that statement to be “true.” That is, that in a popular vote election, the election would be controlled by a few of the largest cities. That’s just as much BS, but it is a sentiment that is often expressed in favor of keeping the EC. The opposite side may say something like I had offered. That is, that in the current system, rural states with a lack of diversity, end up controlling the election because their votes are worth more. This is the path to the presidency for the current and the last Republican president, neither of whom won the popular vote, though one has said that he did. LOL. Now, I have explained it twice to you. And really I don’t care. Think what you want. But if you can’t understand a message, it usually isn’t wise to attack the messenger when it’s your own damn fault. Places where votes count the most: State Vote Weight1. Wyoming 2.97 2. District of Columbia 2.45 3. Vermont 2.42 4. Alaska 2.39 5. Hawai'i 2.37 6. North Dakota 2.21 7. Rhode Island 2.19 8. South Dakota 2.06 9. West Virginia 1.78 10. Delaware 1.72 11. New Mexico 1.59 12. Montana 1.54 13. Nebraska 1.50 14. Idaho 1.47 15. New Hampshire 1.36 16. Maine 1.36 17. Nevada 1.35 .... 43. Wisconsin 0.85 44. Michigan 0.85 45. Massachusetts 0.84 46. Ohio 0.83 47. Pennsylvania 0.83 48. Virginia 0.83 49. Colorado 0.82 50. North Carolina 0.80 51. Florida 0.78
You are citing a truism that is not true. Most of the states/districts among the first 17 tend to be vote Democrat, and the Electoral College punishes voters in the nine mostly Republican states at the bottom.
Pretty much every representative democracy "suffers" from where the lines are drawn. The only nation on Earth that I am aware of that has a pure first past the post system (what anti-Electoral College peeps have tended to support since 2000) is Mexico. If you want the system that you are advocating, please feel free to emigrate to Mexico and have your vote counted in their elections.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 22, 2020 15:24:00 GMT -8
No, I am not wigging out. My hope was to get beaverfever to understand that on both sides, people say these kinds of things. And neither is exactly true.
I also believe that a couple of big cities shouldn't determine the fate for all of the US. I don't think that this would necessarily be the case in a popular vote election. Look at Reagan whom you brought up. He managed to get a lot of the popular vote. IIRC Bush senior did, as well--not as much as Reagan, but more than his Democratic competitor.
As for the influence of New York and LA because of their contributions to the TV and film industry, I don't exactly agree. First of all, who is influenced exactly by shows like Real Housewives of wherever? TV and film has changed dramatically so that where things are filmed and how people consume it are no longer constant. Back when "mainstream" was the only stream, perhaps that was so, but these days, people find the content that they are looking for--whether it is Kpop music, Fox News, or Bolton's new book. It's all out there, waiting for us to consume it.
If we are speculating (and why not?), I think Chicago would replace New York City, not that it's really possible to replace the Big Apple. Chicago has the history and I think enough style to pull it off. I don't much care for LA, so that's a more challenging call. I think Las Vegas would make an interesting replacement. Or perhaps someplace in Florida. Or if things keep warming up, maybe Portland. Portland could be ideal with weather like LA.
Seriously though, New York is where America gets the bulk of it's news feed. All three major networks are based out of there, most of the major cable news programs (albeit more opinion than news, problem is the major networks are leaning more and more towards opinion rather than straight news) are based out of there. New York and California have a lock on most of our entertainment television and movies. Googling top US new sources gets you this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_media_in_the_United_States Take a look at their list of top news sources, the bulk of it is based out of NYC, some California. Then take a look at the paragraphs on agenda setting. Now I don't know if the writer of this particular bit leans right, but our media does set agendas when it chooses what news it's going to present. Back in the day, newsmen and journalists asked questions then quoted answers, now they seem to feel their job is to sway opinion... and in order to shape opinion odds are they have an opinion. I'm not saying Houston and Phoenix would be the replacements, just saying that any time the bulk of the information is coming from one or two locations, you unknowingly are going to be fed information skewed by the local viewpoint these days, and if Houston and Phoenix were the centers we get our news from the thought process of many in this country would be somewhat different down the line simply because of the geographical influence. Do you think our society would be the same today if Houston and Phoenix had been the primary base of our media and entertainment feeds the last 60-100 years? The bulk of our news does have a lean, one direction or another. Alternative views exist readily, I do switch between ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN and a smattering of MSNBC (depending on who the hosts are) along with some Bloomberg radio, as well as a ton of internet research, to get what I hope is a reasonable broad base of opinions.. and I find them all to have some type of bias. A lot of people get just one or two sources and stick with what their fed. It sounds stupid, but actors, newscasters, sports figures and "social influencers" carry a LOT of weight on US opinion, people hopefully aren't influenced at all by "Real Housewives", but it's pretty much realistically said that the TV and movies we watch, even the music we listen to, shapes minds over time. I realize just how much watching the Walking Dead has dulled my reaction to violence on TV and film, I suspect I can't help but having been influenced politically by the things I've seen on the news. I know ABC is in California and I thought CNN is somewhere in the South...Georgia, right? I think CNN is the weakness in your argument. Hailing from the deep South, one would expect it to champion the conservative views that surround it. But it doesn’t. In fact, some conservatives think it is too liberal. And you have Fox in New York, so I wonder if it would really matter if things were located in Phoenix or Houston at all. To be honest, I don’t find a strong reason to believe that the media consumption is a problem. After all, things in the US have been contentious before, such as during the 60s. I think it’s partly who we are as a people. We believe in ourselves and we believe in our country. Everyone wants to make the USA strong, but we all have different ideas, different experiences, different beliefs. It’d be nice to see this diversity celebrated more. Or if not celebrated, recognized as being part of the fabric of our nation.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 22, 2020 15:26:22 GMT -8
Dude, you are exasperating. Truth matters when discussing truths. I wasn’t. I was simply characterizing the common thoughts of the two disagreeing parties. You took issue with the side you agree with, but you could have taken issue just as well with the other side. But you probably hold that statement to be “true.” That is, that in a popular vote election, the election would be controlled by a few of the largest cities. That’s just as much BS, but it is a sentiment that is often expressed in favor of keeping the EC. The opposite side may say something like I had offered. That is, that in the current system, rural states with a lack of diversity, end up controlling the election because their votes are worth more. This is the path to the presidency for the current and the last Republican president, neither of whom won the popular vote, though one has said that he did. LOL. Now, I have explained it twice to you. And really I don’t care. Think what you want. But if you can’t understand a message, it usually isn’t wise to attack the messenger when it’s your own damn fault. Places where votes count the most: State Vote Weight1. Wyoming 2.97 2. District of Columbia 2.45 3. Vermont 2.42 4. Alaska 2.39 5. Hawai'i 2.37 6. North Dakota 2.21 7. Rhode Island 2.19 8. South Dakota 2.06 9. West Virginia 1.78 10. Delaware 1.72 11. New Mexico 1.59 12. Montana 1.54 13. Nebraska 1.50 14. Idaho 1.47 15. New Hampshire 1.36 16. Maine 1.36 17. Nevada 1.35 .... 43. Wisconsin 0.85 44. Michigan 0.85 45. Massachusetts 0.84 46. Ohio 0.83 47. Pennsylvania 0.83 48. Virginia 0.83 49. Colorado 0.82 50. North Carolina 0.80 51. Florida 0.78
You are citing a truism that is not true. Most of the states/districts among the first 17 tend to be vote Democrat, and the Electoral College punishes voters in the nine mostly Republican states at the bottom.
Pretty much every representative democracy "suffers" from where the lines are drawn. The only nation on Earth that I am aware of that has a pure first past the post system (what anti-Electoral College peeps have tended to support since 2000) is Mexico. If you want the system that you are advocating, please feel free to emigrate to Mexico and have your vote counted in their elections.Love it or leave it, eh? Nice.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 22, 2020 15:55:18 GMT -8
Dude, you are exasperating. Truth matters when discussing truths. I wasn’t. I was simply characterizing the common thoughts of the two disagreeing parties. You took issue with the side you agree with, but you could have taken issue just as well with the other side. But you probably hold that statement to be “true.” That is, that in a popular vote election, the election would be controlled by a few of the largest cities. That’s just as much BS, but it is a sentiment that is often expressed in favor of keeping the EC. The opposite side may say something like I had offered. That is, that in the current system, rural states with a lack of diversity, end up controlling the election because their votes are worth more. This is the path to the presidency for the current and the last Republican president, neither of whom won the popular vote, though one has said that he did. LOL. Now, I have explained it twice to you. And really I don’t care. Think what you want. But if you can’t understand a message, it usually isn’t wise to attack the messenger when it’s your own damn fault. Places where votes count the most: State Vote Weight1. Wyoming 2.97 2. District of Columbia 2.45 3. Vermont 2.42 4. Alaska 2.39 5. Hawai'i 2.37 6. North Dakota 2.21 7. Rhode Island 2.19 8. South Dakota 2.06 9. West Virginia 1.78 10. Delaware 1.72 11. New Mexico 1.59 12. Montana 1.54 13. Nebraska 1.50 14. Idaho 1.47 15. New Hampshire 1.36 16. Maine 1.36 17. Nevada 1.35 ....
?
|
|