Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who will face Trump in the election of 2020?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by The Berean View Post
    Harris as president would be HORRIBLE. She'd be 10x worse than Trump and I dislike Trump quite a bit.

    I could put up with Elizabeth Warren as President.
    How would Harris be worse than Warren?

    Also, how would either be better than Trump, or better than some other GOP nominee?

    That is, what if something happens to Trump before the election, and the GOP has to replace him as nominee?

    Does the GOP have anyone in the wings who can take on the Dem candidate? Or, does the GOP have all of its eggs in one basket?

    Remarkably, the Dems currently have five different candidates who all can either beat or match Trump in one-on-one polls.

    But who does the GOP have (besides Trump) who can overcome any of the Dem candidates?

    For, imagine (God forbid) if something were to happen to Trump before the election. The GOP would then have to watch in horror as a hapless Pence is eaten alive by Harris the tigress, by Harris the predator.

    Unless Christie is allowed somehow to step in as the GOP nominee. For he could swallow Harris whole.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
      No, it isn't. It was to keep regionalism from destroying the necessary unity of a new nation. There weren't that many cosmopolitan areas then and a lot of people were spread out across a great divide, with no instantaneous media to give us a feel for the candidates who weren't from our neck of the woods.

      That's no longer the case. And the founding fathers didn't trust the unlanded non-gentry. We had no free public education in those days. They feared an easily manipulated public.

      Lastly, the Constitutional establishment did not create the winner take all effect we see in states today, so the unusual split we saw in the last election, where the popular and electoral votes differed and the lesser of the former won the job wasn't a thing built into the process. It was added in later.

      Well, the sections of 'regionalism' were basically the greater number of people in the larger towns and cities, and we still have 'easily manipulated public', just look at the news cycle. And as for 'the winner take all effect' how far do you want to break down the vote, per region, counties, streets, or per 'household'. It is just as controversial to try to do that, so no matter what you choose, someone will not be happy, and the winner take all is the best way for states.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Hobie View Post
        Well, the sections of 'regionalism' were basically the greater number of people in the larger towns and cities, and we still have 'easily manipulated public', just look at the news cycle.
        What you see as a problem now just wasn't a concern for our founders, because the population was much less concentrated and was overwhelmingly agrarian. Regionalism was about communication and the newly minted nature of our nation. In 1790 it's estimated that 1 in 20 Americans lived in a city. After the industrial revolution and by 1870 that number was 1 in 4, and by the 1920s it was half. By the 1960s it was 4 in 5.

        So the modern concern some people have about concentrated populations and political pull is a relative new one and wasn't the reason for the EC.

        And as for 'the winner take all effect' how far do you want to break down the vote, per region, counties, streets, or per 'household'.
        Look at Maine and Nebraska. They don't have the winner take all approach to the EC. There, you have a proportionate take of the EC votes.
        You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

        Pro-Life






        Comment


        • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
          So the modern concern some people have about concentrated populations and political pull is a relative new one and wasn't the reason for the EC.
          That is exactly wrong. It's the very reason for the EC in the first place.
          All of my ancestors are human.
          Originally posted by Squeaky
          That explains why your an idiot.
          Originally posted by God's Truth
          Father figure, Son figure, and Holy Spirit figure.
          Col 2:9 (AKJV/PCE)
          (2:9) For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

          1Tim 4:10 (AKJV/PCE)
          (4:10) For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

          Something that was SPOKEN OF since the world began CANNOT be the SAME thing as something KEPT SECRET since the world began.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
            That is exactly wrong. It's the very reason for the EC in the first place.
            Well, no. As I noted in my last, the population was overwhelmingly agrarian and found outside of cities. The urbanization of America was largely the result of the Industrial Revolution and didn't lead to a dominance of city populations greater than the outlying populations until well into the last century.

            A number of issues made the EC make a good deal of sense, but not the concern that cities might have more power or a disproportionate power, that concentrations of population would run roughshod on the farmlands, because most people were in those farmlands, not in the cities.

            Again, 1 person in 20 lived in the city when the Founders created the EC.

            Today, it's 4 in 5, with the tipping point coming in the living memory of some people walking around today.
            You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

            Pro-Life






            Comment


            • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
              What you see as a problem now just wasn't a concern for our founders, because the population was much less concentrated and was overwhelmingly agrarian. Regionalism was about communication and the newly minted nature of our nation. In 1790 it's estimated that 1 in 20 Americans lived in a city. After the industrial revolution and by 1870 that number was 1 in 4, and by the 1920s it was half. By the 1960s it was 4 in 5.

              So the modern concern some people have about concentrated populations and political pull is a relative new one and wasn't the reason for the EC.


              Look at Maine and Nebraska. They don't have the winner take all approach to the EC. There, you have a proportionate take of the EC votes.
              But still, the populated centers had more undue say and political impact unless the electoral system brought it back into a fair balance. All I can say about Maine was it seemed a waste as the state would not be as important as a winner take all, as for Nebraska I would have to look at the breakdown of the votes and see how it came out.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hobie View Post
                But still, the populated centers had more undue say and political impact unless the electoral system brought it back into a fair balance.
                Well, no. You're still thinking about it from our context. At the time the power wasn't in cities. Again today it's 4 in 5 people living in cities. Then it was 1 in 20. So 19 out of 20 people lived outside of the cities.

                Cities were clearing houses and business/commerce hubs. Vital, but largely as helpmates for the work going on beyond their borders. That changes with the Industrial Revolution here, but the first industrial mill didn't even begin that trend until 1790.

                All I can say about Maine was it seemed a waste as the state would not be as important as a winner take all, as for Nebraska I would have to look at the breakdown of the votes and see how it came out.
                Maine and Nebraska don't appear to think its the case. I don't either. You have to remember the larger states would be in the same position. So you can't automatically assume that you have anything in your pocket just because you're doing better than the other guy.
                You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                Pro-Life






                Comment


                • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                  What you see as a problem now just wasn't a concern for our founders, because the population was much less concentrated and was overwhelmingly agrarian. Regionalism was about communication and the newly minted nature of our nation. In 1790 it's estimated that 1 in 20 Americans lived in a city. After the industrial revolution and by 1870 that number was 1 in 4, and by the 1920s it was half. By the 1960s it was 4 in 5.

                  So the modern concern some people have about concentrated populations and political pull is a relative new one and wasn't the reason for the EC.


                  Look at Maine and Nebraska. They don't have the winner take all approach to the EC. There, you have a proportionate take of the EC votes.
                  So you don't think a 'easily manipulated public' was an issue, well have you ever heard of 'Yellow Journalism' or the 'House Committee on Un-American Activities', it dragged us into terrible things as the 'public' demanded action. It was a factor even in the early days of the country as the "War Hawks” manipulated it into the War of 1812.

                  As for Maine and Nebraska, it diminishes their importance as winner take all definitely gets the attention and more time from the running politicians.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by bibleverse2 View Post
                    You didn't see, for example, the recent, "Pride" parades?
                    Oh, that's what you meant by "mob?"

                    Well, I hope you didn't miss the pride parade in Starkville MS.



                    Who said that was moral, or supported in any way by the GOP?
                    Who said that was moral, or supported in any way by the GOP?
                    Who said that child abuse is moral, or supported in any way by the GOP?
                    Who said anything about it being supported by the GOP? You're moving the goalposts. You seem to think that only the best people live in red states. I'm pointing out to you that because a state is red it doesn't means its people are more "moral." You're the one who referred to the "moral, red, and central expanse."

                    Also, what is the worst child abuse is the murder of children in abortion, which the coastal mobs clamor for and practice endlessly.
                    Did you know that a pro-life organization commissioned a survey which found that 70% of the respondents who'd obtained an abortion identified as Christian?

                    There's your mission outreach, right there in your own community.
                    Last edited by annabenedetti; July 12th, 2019, 08:11 PM.

                    Tried and waited then got tired, that's about it

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hobie View Post
                      So you don't think a 'easily manipulated public' was an issue
                      I actually said that was a concern, related to regionalism and education. What it wasn't related to is the city/country bit as per your:

                      "But still, the populated centers had more undue say and political impact unless the electoral system brought it back into a fair balance."

                      The answer still being, "No," for the reasons set out prior. The urban vs rural consideration is a modern one. If anything, the residents of cities would have had that fear at the time the EC was created, being so comparatively small a piece of the American pie.


                      As for Maine and Nebraska, it diminishes their importance as winner take all definitely gets the attention and more time from the running politicians.
                      I answered you on this and you haven't added anything new to it. So here it is again: Maine and Nebraska don't appear to think its the case. I don't either. You have to remember the larger states would be in the same position. So you can't automatically assume that you have anything in your pocket just because you're doing better than the other guy.

                      You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                      Pro-Life






                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Town Heretic View Post
                        I actually said that was a concern, related to regionalism and education. What it wasn't related to is the city/country bit as per your:

                        "But still, the populated centers had more undue say and political impact unless the electoral system brought it back into a fair balance."

                        The answer still being, "No," for the reasons set out prior. The urban vs rural consideration is a modern one. If anything, the residents of cities would have had that fear at the time the EC was created, being so comparatively small a piece of the American pie.



                        I answered you on this and you haven't added anything new to it. So here it is again: Maine and Nebraska don't appear to think its the case. I don't either. You have to remember the larger states would be in the same position. So you can't automatically assume that you have anything in your pocket just because you're doing better than the other guy.

                        Well, the problem you have is that perception becomes reality, and those in the populated centers are seen as overwhelming the more rural sections of the country. So the electoral college is seem as a bulwark against the New York or California controlling the outcome of all elections, and that is a perception not much will change.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bibleverse2 View Post
                          How would Harris be worse than Warren?

                          Also, how would either be better than Trump, or better than some other GOP nominee?

                          That is, what if something happens to Trump before the election, and the GOP has to replace him as nominee?

                          Does the GOP have anyone in the wings who can take on the Dem candidate? Or, does the GOP have all of its eggs in one basket?

                          Remarkably, the Dems currently have five different candidates who all can either beat or match Trump in one-on-one polls.

                          But who does the GOP have (besides Trump) who can overcome any of the Dem candidates?

                          For, imagine (God forbid) if something were to happen to Trump before the election. The GOP would then have to watch in horror as a hapless Pence is eaten alive by Harris the tigress, by Harris the predator.

                          Unless Christie is allowed somehow to step in as the GOP nominee. For he could swallow Harris whole.
                          I cant see the Democrats selecting another woman after going down with Hillary in the last election, too much baggage, but we shall see. As for the Republican ticket, they need to start looking for younger candidates and promoting them, or all you will have is a bunch of old men or worn out retreads, once Trump is no longer there.

                          Comment


                          • Click image for larger version

Name:	cheifbull.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	11.4 KB
ID:	2434948

                            I think many will vote for Pocahontas.
                            So, what?

                            believe it!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Hobie View Post
                              Well, the problem you have is that perception becomes reality, and those in the populated centers are seen as overwhelming the more rural sections of the country.
                              I'd say that's certainly the narrative the right wing media outlets are pusing. They aren't really saying how that manifests, but they're certainly making hay from it.

                              So the electoral college is seem as a bulwark against the New York or California controlling the outcome of all elections, and that is a perception not much will change.
                              Time for someone to stand up to the message and note the problems in it on the national stage. I suspect you'll get a bit of that during the cycle.
                              You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

                              Pro-Life






                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                                I hope you didn't miss the pride parade in Starkville MS.
                                Why? Why would anyone be proud of practicing the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27)?

                                Originally posted by annabenedetti View Post
                                You seem to think that only the best people live in red states.
                                The red states rightly do not require people to support homosexuality, or the murderous practice of abortion.

                                For example, may God bless the Oklahoma state judge who recently supported the state's legislative and executive ban on dismemberment abortion.

                                It is shocking that anyone would support it.

                                Imagine a living child being ripped apart, limb from limb, and calling this "reproductive care".

                                Such a monstrous, murderous lie can only have come from Satan himself (John 8:44).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X