6 ms·

> being completely opposed to everything the American people want has taken control of the entire government That's not remotely true. That's what the media po

by jack9 9y ago

> being completely opposed to everything the American people want has taken control of the entire government That's not remotely true. That's what the media portrays, however. Don't try to spread FUD to an audience who has grown up learning to separate sensationalism from fact cough MS cough. They were GIVEN control (despite the pervasive belief that campaign money would win the day for the presidency, but maybe it did?) and there are many aspects of the Republican party that continues to support what the American people want via the status quo and initiative that people in blue states tend to not like. That's not the same thing.

JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
>They were GIVEN control (despite the pervasive belief that campaign money would win the day for the presidency, but maybe it did?) The fact is, the majority of the voting public did not vote for Trump. Whether by gerrymandering or by unfortunate coincidence, Trump had a deficit, but the minimum votes needed in the areas that mattered. He's not opposed to -everything- the American people want, but he is the less popular of the two least popular candidates of all time. So yeah, he goes against the majority of America on a huge amount of policies. > there are many aspects of the Republican party that continues to support what the American people want via the status quo and initiative that people in blue states tend to not like. Aspects yes, but the I'd wager most of the decisions made have nothing to do with what the electorate actually want, and are more to do with what their corporate donors are pushing for. There are a lot of "safe" areas where it really doesn't matter what they do, voting repub/democrat is a way of life, not a choice.
- jack9 9y ago
  > The fact is, the majority of the voting public did not vote for Trump. If you want change, you have to focus on an issue. If this is the issue, then you need to stop saying "Trump" as if he is special, since it appears to be a partisan attack. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-... It should have been stopped at Bush but the Republicans are too short sighted to take aim at it right now, especially since it's helped them out about once a decade.
  - JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
    I think this is a comments board mature enough to realise we aren't doing attacks on people. We are discussing issues. If this was reddit or slashdot, I wouldn't phrase it that way.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > The fact is, the majority of the voting public did not vote for Trump. That only puts him in the company of Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. If you don't like the electoral college then fix it. But all that changes is how candidates will campaign. Republicans would still win half of elections, because that's the nature of a two party system. The only way out of that is to adopt a different voting system (e.g. range voting) so that there can be more than two viable parties.
  - consp 9y ago
    It's not hard to figure out all whom you name won both popular and electoral votes, though jfk only by a very small margin.
  - jrimbault 9y ago
    > That only puts him in the company of Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. The number of names is right, the names aren't.
    - jrimbault 9y ago
      PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... Abraham Lincoln, percent of popular vote 39.65% John Kennedy, percent of popular vote 49.72% Bill Clinton, percent of popular vote 43.01% (1992) / 49.23% (1996)
  - croon 9y ago
    > Republicans would still win half of elections, because that's the nature of a two party system. No it's not. (A lot) More than half of the population benefits/are catered to (what capitalists' Adam Smith would call maximized utility) by one party, while very few benefits from the other. That's why gerrymandering and lack of facts are vastly larger issues on one side.
- belorn 9y ago
  The concept of a majority vote was traded away when multiple states with different population was united into a single nation. The evening out of power difference between high population state and low population state is a very strong bargaining chip in avoiding a split back to the previous system.

by jack9 9y ago

JauntyHatAngle 9y ago

>They were GIVEN control (despite the pervasive belief that campaign money would win the day for the presidency, but maybe it did?) The fact is, the majority of the voting public did not vote for Trump. Whether by gerrymandering or by unfortunate coincidence, Trump had a deficit, but the minimum votes needed in the areas that mattered. He's not opposed to -everything- the American people want, but he is the less popular of the two least popular candidates of all time. So yeah, he goes against the majority of America on a huge amount of policies. > there are many aspects of the Republican party that continues to support what the American people want via the status quo and initiative that people in blue states tend to not like. Aspects yes, but the I'd wager most of the decisions made have nothing to do with what the electorate actually want, and are more to do with what their corporate donors are pushing for. There are a lot of "safe" areas where it really doesn't matter what they do, voting repub/democrat is a way of life, not a choice.

jack9 9y ago
> The fact is, the majority of the voting public did not vote for Trump. If you want change, you have to focus on an issue. If this is the issue, then you need to stop saying "Trump" as if he is special, since it appears to be a partisan attack. http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/ http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-... It should have been stopped at Bush but the Republicans are too short sighted to take aim at it right now, especially since it's helped them out about once a decade.
- JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
  I think this is a comments board mature enough to realise we aren't doing attacks on people. We are discussing issues. If this was reddit or slashdot, I wouldn't phrase it that way.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> The fact is, the majority of the voting public did not vote for Trump. That only puts him in the company of Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. If you don't like the electoral college then fix it. But all that changes is how candidates will campaign. Republicans would still win half of elections, because that's the nature of a two party system. The only way out of that is to adopt a different voting system (e.g. range voting) so that there can be more than two viable parties.
- consp 9y ago
  It's not hard to figure out all whom you name won both popular and electoral votes, though jfk only by a very small margin.
- jrimbault 9y ago
  > That only puts him in the company of Bill Clinton, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. The number of names is right, the names aren't.
  - jrimbault 9y ago
    PS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden... Abraham Lincoln, percent of popular vote 39.65% John Kennedy, percent of popular vote 49.72% Bill Clinton, percent of popular vote 43.01% (1992) / 49.23% (1996)
- croon 9y ago
  > Republicans would still win half of elections, because that's the nature of a two party system. No it's not. (A lot) More than half of the population benefits/are catered to (what capitalists' Adam Smith would call maximized utility) by one party, while very few benefits from the other. That's why gerrymandering and lack of facts are vastly larger issues on one side.
belorn 9y ago
The concept of a majority vote was traded away when multiple states with different population was united into a single nation. The evening out of power difference between high population state and low population state is a very strong bargaining chip in avoiding a split back to the previous system.