Sarah Palin will work to defeat Ryan in primary for Trump stance

Yea, that voice is like finger nails on a chalkboard. But then, I find that Trump's and Hillary's to be just as unpleasant.

 

it's like small children huddled together against the unknown horrors of the dark. they whisper the mantra to each other in hopes of gaining some courage from it, "there are no monsters, there are no monsters, there are no monsters..."

 

You're the childish one. You're the one who's still singing her dumbass praises.

- - - Updated - - -

Me too, trust me, me too.

 

and finally you come down to the schoolyard taunt of "i know you are but what am i". that sure didn't take long. you can roll over now, you're done.

 

Lmao. Ummm, no. You're the one calling people names. Then when it got flipped on you THEN you get pissy. Sorry. That (*)(*)(*)(*) doesn't work on me.

- - - Updated - - -

You started this right here. If you don't want it flipped on you, THEN don't do it.

 

Zip it. Lol. Don't blame me because that one got pissy because he didn't like the script flipped on him.

 

The Electoral College, as envisioned when it was created, was a brilliant idea because it was based upon fair representation of the States in selecting the President where each state was considered to be equal based upon sovereignty where every state had two Electoral College members while also recognizing the "people" where each state had Electoral College members reflecting the population of permanent citizens and non-citizen residents counted every ten years by the federal government. As envisioned the Electoral College members would be highly educated individuals, representing both the state and the people of the state, that would select the President. The actual purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent the "people" from selecting the president because the "people" are generally ignorant politically and nothing demonstrates that better than the 2016 presidential election process.

There's no inherent problem with the Electoral College but there are significant problems with how the States select the Electoral College members. The Constitution leaves the manner for selection of the Electoral College members to the individual state legislatures. Unfortunately the states have turned the entire process over to the "people" that the Electoral College was designed to prevent. Additionally all of the states have, basically by mutual consent, decided that a simple majority of votes cast will determine all of the Electoral College members from the state. There isn't a proportional representation of the will of the voters. Both of these are serious problems that corrupt the Electoral College process for selecting the president and we need to blame that on the states and not the federal government or the US Constitution. Finally, the States also legislated the "right to vote" for all of the People counted by the US census away by changing the voting laws to prohibit the "non-citizen" person, that's counted by the census and upon which representation in the House and Electoral College is based, from voting in federal elections. Texas, for example, gains far more representation in Congress and the Electoral College than it should have based upon how many people are counted by the US census but not allowed to vote.

It's hard for me to imagine two more unqualified individuals to be president than Trump and Clinton and their apparent selection by the "people" reflects how politically stupid the average voter is in America and how nefarious the states are in our political processes as established under the US Constitution.

You touch on the actual change by mentioning that the Democrats are becoming the establishment today and there's a reason for that. During the Civil Rights era the "establishment" changed from being "social conservatives" to "social liberals" and that transition was lead by the Republican Party that was instrumental in the passage of the Civil Rights legislation during the 1960's. The Democrats represented the "social conservatives" predominately with the Dixiecrats of the Southern states that opposed civil rights. The Republican Party of that era, as best exemplified by the Eisenhower administration, were also fiscal conservatives that supported high taxation on the wealthy (e.g. the top tax rate was 92% under Eisenhower in 1953) where the government collected enough revenue to fund the authorized expenditures. Every tax cut, predominately championed by Republicans since the Eisenhower administration, has resulted in the eventual increase in deficit spending and our national debt. The fiscal conservatism of "first pay the bills" by taxing those that could afford the taxation the most (i.e. the wealthy) has long since left the Republican Party.

Beginning in the 1970's the Republicans switched from being "fiscal conservatives/social liberals" to being "fiscally irresponsible/social conservatives" and moved themselves out of the "establishment" that was based upon "fiscal conservative/social liberal" values.

There have always been the racists, the xenophobes, misogynists, and fascists in America but they were a minority and not representative of the American people as a whole and Donald Trump pandered to that minority and it's successfully propelled him to the Republican nomination.

Now people are going to be faced with a choice in November. Either support someone that panders to the "racists, the xenophobes, misogynists, and fascists" or support someone that is unquestionably a part of the "establishment" that opposes all of those traits of a minority of the American people. I don't like Hillary Clinton because I believe her to be a slime-bag politician that's a part of the "establishment" and I won't be voting for her but the choice for most American voters is clear.

In November most Americans are either going to vote for the slime-bag politician that represents the "Establishment" (the majority of Americans) or vote for the slime-bag politician that represents the "racists, the xenophobes, misogynists, and fascists" (a minority of Americans) because our political process has been corrupted by the States that ignored the intent of the Electoral College.

Not a very good choice in either case for the American people IMHO.

 

Interesting, so the "college" in Electoral College makes it out to be like some kind of university of voters(or to be more precise, like professors grading their student's paper.) Well, most professors let you know after the grade why they graded it that way. The Electoral College on the other hand, works like our juries, where they vote in secret and may not release their votes or why they chose to go that way. That's another part, the secrecy of the college itself(and the obvious apparent bias) where I myself simply do not trust the Electoral College.

Is it "God"? Can it truly determine who is a better choice? Maybe to you, it can if Donald Trump is seen as a racist, out of control xenophobe. But let's(with hindsight) look back to 2000 with Bush and Kerry. Could the Electoral College truly choose one of the two and know which one is better? Or make an argument for which one is better?

So we should identify the Electoral College truly, as a third participant in the system. One that can tilt the election to whomever it favors. The College was supposed to "reflect" the will of the people, not determine whether their stupidity was undermining them or not(Though we do agree to their incompetence lol)

But at real pet peeve here is "Democratic" or "Republican"-leaning or safe States, and the points appropriated to these States. Someone please tell me you don't see the disenfranchisement in how some 6-8 States might decide an election?

To put it very simply Shiva: I want an election where every State is "at-play". I want an election where the people's votes can indeed count for something and they won't be blocked by career politicians that you might deem to be "in our best interests". As of right now, the only way we can make every State "at-play" is for people to drop the Republican, Democratic parties and vote on virtue and merit instead.

Good freaking luck.

 

To try to address this let me begin by asking a question. You live in a Congressional district and there's was an Electoral College member assigned to represent that district in 2012. Who was the Electoral College member representing you and the voters of your district in 2012? I'd bet $100 that you don't know because I don't know who represented me either.

The Constitution doesn't specify the means for selection of the Electoral College members and leaves that process to the states. We don't have a Constitutional Right to vote for the President that many mistakenly believe we do but if the states want a popular vote then why aren't we voting for a local representative of our district to be our Electoral College member as opposed to voting for the "President" instead? Let's select someone we trust to exercise the role of Electoral College member where we send them to represent us in the selection of the President. This would truly be "representative" government by the People.

Of course the selected "Electoral College" members would not have to choose between just two candidates but could address all of those that have declared themselves to be candidate for the office. In 2000 it wouldn't have been just a choice between Kerry and Bush for the Electoral College and they could have selected the best candidate as opposed to just those two candidates.

How can we evaluate the performance of the Electoral College when we didn't vote for the members and don't even know who they are? Remember that since this nation was founded it's always been the Electoral College that elects the President and not the people but here we are over 200 years later and we don't actually vote for members of the Electoral College, we don't know who they are, and yet we're expected to trust them?

Once again this is a Political Party problem because it's actually the Political Party and not the Voters that are selecting the members of the Electoral College. Just imagine if we were allowed to vote for a "non-partisan" Electoral College members in our Congressional district as opposed to allowing the Political Party to select all of the Electoral College members based upon a partisanship criteria. There wouldn't be an (R), (D), (I), (L) or any other party label on those being selected by the voters to represent us in the selection of the President. We wouldn't judge them based upon party affiliation but instead based upon knowledge of their qualifications to select the president and our trust in them to do the right thing for America in selecting the best possible person to be President.

There wouldn't be a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump because neither are qualified to be President of the United States and the American People already know that neither of them are qualified to be President.

Well we know where the "People's Vote" got us this year. We have arguably the two most unqualified people possible as the likely next President of the United States.