I agree with abortion late or early. that's only because I don't want those kind of people having kids. If you know what I mean.

In other words it keeps the non responsible population lower. And other groups too...

As for the government telling people how to live there lives, if done in the right way I'd support it. Most would if they agree with the life style.

Well, I can't remember why that system was set up, but methinks the Founders were trying to set up some insulation for the election from the "passions of the people" - they were big on that sort of thing; that's why they originally set up the Senate to be elected by state legislatures (and, btw, intended the House to be the body 100% directly tied to the people). If that's the case then in this situation it failed 🤣

Small states being bullied by large states? Well, the problems with the system are twofold: you've got states with large rural areas that vote very conservative, and a few cities that vote very liberal and completely tilt the balance so the rural areas get screwed.

Also the states with the largest populations (i.e. the largest cities) get the most electoral votes and therefore more say; and the more (edit: and larger) cities a state has the more likely it is to vote liberal.

The result is that geographically, the country always votes overwhelmingly conservative. Population-wise, though, the cities rule the land.

This election was a major exception in that Trump did quite well in states that have very liberal urban areas (i.e., Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida, etc.) and don't normally vote conservative.

Jade Falcon wrote:

I agree with abortion late or early. that's only because I don't want those kind of people having kids. If you know what I mean.

In other words it keeps the non responsible population lower. And other groups too...

Following in the footsteps of Margaret Sanger, are we?

Jade Falcon wrote:

As for the government telling people how to live there lives, if done in the right way I'd support it. Most would if they agree with the life style.

And those who don't? What will be done about them? Don't forget the massive failure of Prohibition. Half of the people and most of the government telling the rest of the people how to live their lives. It didn't work. History, my man. That sort of thing doesn't work unless you have a totalitarian dictatorship that is willing to do anything under the sun to enforce its rules.

The electoral college exists so that rural states can not be bullied by urban states yes. A popular vote = mob rule and that would mean bad things

it can work without forcing it on the people, amish community's come to mind here. If a member does not fallow there mandated life stile they get exiled.

I also don't know who Margaret Sanger is.

The people who drew up these rules didn't like cities. Probably because they wanted people to settle the frontier rather than crowd together on the coast.

The people in these 'not my president' protests going on currently come across to me as very anti-American. We had a rather crappy but fair vote and there was bound to be a winner and loser.

They are basically throwing a tantrum, and to me, are behaving very childish. I feel like those protesting, if they don't like it they can and should leave the country.

Thankfully both candidates behaved with civility and respect over the results.

It's called millennials, they didn't get their way so now they want to throw a fit.

Remember that Trump was harping on about Obama's parentage and ineligibility to be president for years. So, they're only looking to him for their example.

Pepe, Trump and the 2016 election:

https://pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com/

Could it be so?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

snorg wrote:

Pepe, Trump and the 2016 election: […]
Show full quote

Pepe, Trump and the 2016 election:

https://pepethefrogfaith.wordpress.com/

Could it be so?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH1Q738UEsQ

candle_86 wrote:

It's called millennials, they didn't get their way so now they want to throw a fit.

We have a rather slang saying here like:

"You cannot open an umbrella after it is somehow already pushed into your ass ". Futile attempts. You cannot win because you are "less worse", you need to be better. So they lost and whatever happens will happen. Just like your democrats, ours need to learn this, too.

Yes, they didn't give enough people a reason to vote for her. For many, there wasn't a reason to vote for her. For many others, they apparently didn't even try.

As a result, millions of people stayed home and she lost.

keenmaster486 wrote:

The extremely extreme libertarian/anarchist/secularist point of view could be that since there's no God, there's also no moral code and everything from murder to theft to torture is acceptable since there's no divine standard to say it's wrong. This is a logical belief if you accept the premise of there being no absolute morals.

It is a belief we should get rid off, because it puts believers on high horse with tragic consequences. Last few decades brought us the means to explore morality empirically. It is just another function of our brains that influences us strongly yet rarely reach our awareness. Probably different sensitivity on few basic values is causing the usual conservative/progressive division.

leileilol wrote:

yeah about that (Content warning):(

I bet you wouldn't see this on that guy's page, would you? (content warning). 😐

Errius wrote:

Thoughts on the electoral college? Should states all have proportionately the same number of electoral votes? I assume the current system was set up to prevent small states from being bullied by larger ones. Is that still a concern?

Not bullied, but seeing their influence drop below a certain threshold and seeing decisions in Washington focus on the more populated areas is a valid concern, as in countries that use proportioned votes it is an actual problem.

In my own country this means large cities in the northern and eastern (lightly populated) part of the country have trouble making their voice heard, while the most densely populated part of the country (southwest mostly urbanized part) gets most of the funding. IMHO, that shows a lack of vision, because by more evenly spreading investments over the country some of the serious issues of the southwestern part could be alleviated (i.e. pollution, overpopulation, major traffic jams)...
Mitigating factors are that we have more than 2 or 3 political parties, and that funding of parties by commercial and rich parties is more limited. This means that a landslide victory is that much harder to achieve (although the parties currently in power seem to aim hard at making our own Trump achieve such a victory...).

candle_86 wrote:

It's called millennials, they didn't get their way so now they want to throw a fit.

Hey now, I fall in that designation (Can't say I'm proud of it). Plenty of people I know fall into that category as well. We're nothing like the "problem children" this country has right now.

Personally, I think a lot of this falls down to demographic and childhood uprising.

VileRancour wrote:

For now that too-vocal contingent is only concentrating even harder on vilification and divisiveness, adding a fresh defeat to their myth of victimization, blaming everyone but themselves, and blatantly refusing to accept the outcome (in an exact mirror image of the scary pictures they were painting for the opposite scenario).

Within the last.. 10 or 15 years I'd say. There's been this whole "Everything should be handed to me, nothing is my responsibility" mentality. Unfortunately it's getting worse as each generation gets older (of course there are exceptions, this isn't one size fits all)... and it's not just one thing that's caused it. It's a combination of many things such as bad parenting, media, etc...

I always wonder what would happen if the US had mandatory military service... would our country be like this now?

Sanders would've been the smart choice if only all that knowledge and talent was inside a dynamic 40 year old instead of a pensioner. This year all the top candidates were around 70 or older which is kinda strange. Although, Reagan was considered too old and I believe still is the oldest president, but despite this he had two terms which was nice. 😊 Too me, Trump has more entertainment than presidential value and I kind of enjoy all the drama that we are seeing on the news about this. 🤣

That sounds like the conflict between London and the other regions you see in England. Brexit wasn't just a revolt against the EU, but also against London and its domination of British politics.

dr_st wrote:

leileilol wrote:

yeah about that (Content warning):(

I bet you wouldn't see this on that guy's page, would you? (content warning). 😐

Yes, both sides are doing ridiculous things - one side out of fear/anger; the other side out of emboldenment of their ideologies.