Electoral College: Closer to being gone than you think

[CorporalCaptain]

Kirk personally stepped up to stop the enhanced interrogation of a prisoner by a Federation member. The American right wing cries every time that episode airs. Kirk was no conservative, by today's American standards.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

A creep is someone who ejaculates over an intern's dress and pokes cigars up her..

Yes, Bill Clinton was a creep for doing that with an adult subordinate in the Oval Office while he was married, and for similar acts with others. Stipulated. Now that you've got that out of the way and since it's not 1996, Bill Clinton wasn't running for president, Hillary was. Holding the wife responsible for her husband's misdeeds is all kinds of messed up.

Donald Trump on the other hand:

- Allegedly physically assaulted and then raped his wife Ivana after she was recovering from plastic surgery, as she recounted under deposition. She later softened but didn't fully recant her position after a gag order forced her to keep quiet about the incident in exchange for a settlement.

- Bragged on video about using his celebrity status as a means to an end to sexually assault women he encountered; "grabbing them by the pussy", moving in to kiss them against their will (which he demonstrated on the young woman greeting him in the video), or forcing married women he desired up against a piece of furniture "moving on her like a bitch."

- Would routinely walk unannounced into the dressing rooms of the beauty pageants he owned to catch the women by surprise as they were undressing, including underage girls in the Miss Teen USA pageant, a fact that he proudly bragged about on air and was corroborated by multiple contestants.

- Would routinely take flights on billionaire Hollywood mogul and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein's "Lolita Express" underage sex party plane down to what was referred to as his sex slave island (so did Bill Clinton, so fuck him too).

- Was accused of making unwanted physical contact and sexual advances by over a dozen women in the 80s-2000s, some of which he openly bragged about.

- Was accused of multiple sexual assaults against married friend and employee Jill Harth over many years.

- Verbally abuses women on a regular basis over their looks, weight, voice, attitude, if they stand up to him or don't show an interest in him, ethnicity, etc.

So yeah, congratulations on not voting for the wife of the guy who wasn't running and then own-goaling one of the biggest scumbags towards women in the known world into the Oval Office instead of a woman who would actually care about women's rights and women's health concerns (among others) and had a proven track record in that regard. And surprise surprise, Trump's policies routinely disadvantage women at every turn. Who could have seen that coming, besides everyone?

 

[MacLeod]

^Unfortunatly not enough people in the right states saw it. But it sounds as the US mid-term elections next year might prove interesting.

 

[Refuge]

If Trump broke any laws I'm sure all the hysterical witch hunting media will rally the lefty sore losers and he'll get impeached. There is so much noise around Trump so many people hating on him that it serves you right that no one knows what accusations are provable and what are just your own wet dreams. And be honest when the likes of Bill Clinton stared down the camera and lied to his people about not having sexual relations with that woman his supporters were tripping over themselves excusing him. Hillary being the worst.

Have more faith in the system. Not every Republican is a right wing extremist just because they are Republican. If Trump can be removed it will require a little more tolerance of each other because that too is a numbers game.

 

[urbandefault]

As rough around the edges as Trump comes across, he's not stupid.

There won't be impeachment proceedings unless there's absolute proof of "high crimes and misdemeanors." That's why we're starting to see rumblings of a 25th Amendment removal. But that won't fly without the VP and a majority of the Cabinet. I seriously doubt that will happen.

Trump is not your father's politician. He's a ruthless businessman and he's doing things the way he knows how to do them. It's a rough ride for those of us who are used to the status quo.

Social media tends to create panic with every miniscule event.

It's only four months in. I recommend we wait and see.

In other words: "Have a Coke and a Smile."

 

[Refuge]

I've never thought he was stupid but there seems to be an almost pathological need for Democrats to label Republicans.. stupid. Bush, Palin, Trump. Even Reagan. I think the idea is to call someone stupid and then that means they can be dismissed. Sorry it doesn't work that way.

It would be more constructive if his detractors did just have a Coke and smile but they are so busy playing hurt when I can almost guarantee most of them are sitting pretty and always have been, like that dolt Meryl Streep. If you can afford to be a movie actress or tap out notes on a Star Trek forum you're not exactly poverty stricken suffering because the candidate you wanted elected beat out his opponent, who was too inept to run a campaign that WAS based on Electoral votes. If she couldn't work out the rules of the game how on earth was she going to navigate running a country? Takes more than your own Internet server and how to cover up dodgy land deals to do that.. allegedly

 

[ichab]

I will never, ever, understand how some people can reconcile a far right wing conservative ideology with a fandom for the Star Trek universe.

For the same reason that many enjoyed The West Wing or liberals enjoyed All In The Family. It was smart television that entertained you even when you disagreed with the slant of some of the characters.

I got into Star Trek with TWOK and subsequent movies. DS9 will always be my favorite because it dared to question the perfect world that TNG had tried to formulate. I never even knew that there was a large contingent of liberals who latched onto the franchise as their own until the internet came along. I didn't know there were people who were so into the franchise that they actually believed that the only way to possibly enjoy it was to subscribe to a certain idealogy. It's a very narrow minded viewpoint.

Anyways, back to the actual topic of the thread..

 

[GabyBee]

What specifically baffles me is how people can view Star Trek and believe that it has some sort of conservative message. I fully understand conservatives who can enjoy it because it is good storytelling and entertaining; but Star Trek undeniably has a very progressive message across all of its TV series and movies.

To flip the equation: I am an unabashed socialist. I also enjoy reading Ayn Rand. Her novel Atlas Shrugged is a fascinating work of fiction, and a good story (just skip Galt's speech) that is a pleasure to read. But I wouldn't ever presume to suggest that the ideology promoted in the work is somehow pro-socialism. It is literally the opposite.

Similarly, I can understand conservatives enjoying Star Trek for the sake of enjoying Star Trek. But what truly baffles me is when conservatives try to shoehorn their own politics into Star Trek's message, when that message is anything BUT conservative.

 

[Refuge]

Who said people shoehorn their own politics into Star Trek? I watch a variety of shows and often enjoy them up until the point where they shove some anti-conservative line into one of the characters as if everyone is on board with it. I sneer at it and then move on forgiving the character of his or her's ignorance.

You don't get the same topical stuff with Star Trek as in a current politician's names etc dropped in like an inside joke. Some of the storylines are heavy handed but mostly I like the ideals Star Trek tries to reach for. The whole Federation thing, I just don't agree with every single one. Like the Tuvix thing on Voayger I liked how Janeway favored Tuvok and Neelix. The Equinox story.. I was so okay with Janeway threatening the Ransom's crew guy. However they may not be me being conservative, lol. I might just be mean. What irks me about Star Trek at times is the hypocritical humanoid favoritism over other species. Those creatures in Equinox and Species 8472 etc. I often secretly want them to shake up the status quo..

I don't understand why there would not be messages that conservatives don't appreciate. Most people are very rarely extremists and the franchise is not just about socialist messages..

 

[MacLeod]

Leaving aside the EC for a moment, more pople voted for the Democratic platform than the GOP platform. That would suggest more people agree with the ideals that the Democrats hold over than the ideals the GOP hold. In that scenario it would be prudent to make some conessions to what the majority of the people who voted want, but it seems (at least from an outsiders point of view) that the GOP are trying to bulldoze through what the minority want. Now I'm not saying sometimes that has to be done, but take the PPACA it would seem that the majority actually like it, but the GOP want to repeal it and replace it with what is likely to be an inferior plan. What about same sex marriages are Democrats more likely to support it than Republicans? Why oppose it what impact does it have on your day to day affairs?

 

[Refuge]

Leaving aside the EC for a moment, more pople voted for the Democratic platform than the GOP platform. That would suggest more people agree with the ideals that the Democrats hold over than the ideals the GOP hold. In that scenario it would be prudent to make some conessions to what the majority of the people who voted want, but it seems (at least from an outsiders point of view) that the GOP are trying to bulldoze through what the minority want. Now I'm not saying sometimes that has to be done, but take the PPACA it would seem that the majority actually like it, but the GOP want to repeal it and replace it with what is likely to be an inferior plan. What about same sex marriages are Democrats more likely to support it than Republicans? Why oppose it what impact does it have on your day to day affairs?

That's would be stupid. You don't go into Government to pander to the platform of the losing side, you try and meet the needs of those that got you there.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Under the popular system the smaller population US states might get overlooked as the most populas states are targeted in order to win the most votes.

With a direct election, there'd be no point in targeting states. Candidates would have to address the entire population because every vote would count.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

And be honest when the likes of Bill Clinton stared down the camera and lied to his people about not having sexual relations with that woman his supporters were tripping over themselves excusing him. Hillary being the worst.

Tripping over themselves excusing him? Seriously?

How old were you when Bill Clinton was impeached? Were you even born? Because that's... not at all how I remember it. I was in my 20's and 30's during the Ken Starr witch hunt and the subsequent impeachment circus, and I remember it much differently. Here's what I remember:

By the time of the impeachment, Bill Clinton's political enemies had been after him for years to get him for something. After years of investigation by Ken Starr over Whitewater, Travelgate, and Paula Jones, the only thing Clinton's enemies could come up with against him had to do with sex and lying about sex. Much to their disappointment and to their embarrassment, there were no bodies, there were no criminal conspiracies, there was no political corruption, there was no abuse of Presidential power, such as what they'd been after.

It must suck for Trump supporters to know that Bill Clinton had a better approval rating across his whole Presidency than Trump does now. While Clinton was getting impeached, it wasn't even close. That's because people know the difference between being the target of an actual witch hunt and being a snowflake.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/12/21/u...r-president-for-closure-emerges-unshaken.html

And yet, people knew at the time that what Bill Clinton did was wrong. People had no illusions that he was lying.

http://www.people-press.org/1998/08/04/americans-unmoved-by-prospect-of-clinton-lewinsky-testimony/

Why else do you think there were so many "is-is" jokes, and the jokes were so popular at the time? Or, maybe you don't member those either for some reason.

There was no stark contrast between his supporters tripping over themselves to excuse Clinton and whatever is insinuated to be the opposite of that. The fact that you would suggest such extreme hyper-partisan support is a pretty clear giveaway that you're looking back on history through a lens that's biased in terms of today's polarized public opinions. No, what happened at the time was that Clinton had broad popular support and forgiveness, despite most people understanding that what he did was wrong.

So, in short, you're really dead wrong. Feeling charitable, I'll chalk it up to misinformation.

As for your jab at Hillary, please. Don't make me laugh at the ignorance you're displaying.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Sorry for the double post, but my previous post had been concerned with the first part of what I quoted in @Refuge's post. Now I feel the need to address the rest, the part about "Hillary being the worst."

And be honest when the likes of Bill Clinton stared down the camera and lied to his people about not having sexual relations with that woman his supporters were tripping over themselves excusing him. Hillary being the worst.

Here is a retrospective piece published during the last election that aligns with my recollection of the what it was like at the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...dad5d4-6fb1-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html

Hillary was not excusing Bill. She was unwaveringly declaring her trust in him on multiple occasions, even though it would later come out that he'd violated that trust.

Why is that an important distinction? Because she was engaging in behavior that social conservatives ostensibly support: she was standing by her man and honoring her marriage vows. For social conservatives to penalize her for not divorcing her husband is the height of hypocrisy.

But moreover, the atmosphere of the time when she was put into the limelight and expected to respond about her husband's infidelities was one of Schadenfreude. Beyond the hypocrisy, that's just low character on the part those pushing to get her side of it.

Of course, the right knew that Hillary was a politician even at that time, so anything to make trouble for her was considered fair game.

It was truly ugly. And people at large understood that.

The high road would have been to leave Hillary out of it. She herself wasn't having the alleged affairs. Instead, her enemies just delighted in seeing her squirm in humiliation. Such delight is an indication of low character.

 

[Jax]

I will never, ever, understand how some people can reconcile a far right wing conservative ideology with a fandom for the Star Trek universe.

Large amounts of Alcohol and self shaming masturbation, one thinks.

 

[ichab]

What specifically baffles me is how people can view Star Trek and believe that it has some sort of conservative message. I fully understand conservatives who can enjoy it because it is good storytelling and entertaining; but Star Trek undeniably has a very progressive message across all of its TV series and movies.

To flip the equation: I am an unabashed socialist. I also enjoy reading Ayn Rand. Her novel Atlas Shrugged is a fascinating work of fiction, and a good story (just skip Galt's speech) that is a pleasure to read. But I wouldn't ever presume to suggest that the ideology promoted in the work is somehow pro-socialism. It is literally the opposite.

Similarly, I can understand conservatives enjoying Star Trek for the sake of enjoying Star Trek. But what truly baffles me is when conservatives try to shoehorn their own politics into Star Trek's message, when that message is anything BUT conservative.

Gotcha. Haven't really seen that but it would certainly be awkward. I certainly don't think Trump could ever adapt his message to the federation. Maybe the Borg?

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

Gotcha. Haven't really seen that but it would certainly be awkward. I certainly don't think Trump could ever adapt his message to the federation. Maybe the Borg?

Ferengi, he's even kinda got the complexion for it.

 

[MacLeod]

That's would be stupid. You don't go into Government to pander to the platform of the losing side, you try and meet the needs of those that got you there.

But any Government is there to serve the best needs of ALL the people not just the ones that elected them. The US has a President who has executive authority (some Presidents around the world are cerimonial in nature with little executive authority) and due to the EC you can have the result of a President who was elected with fewer votes than another candidate. It's a lot easier to claim a mandate when you win the highest number of votes, in situations where you received fewer votes surely it is better to moderate your positions.

But if the Presidential Platform is so great, then surely the President should have a high approval rating? Has Trump ever had a net positive rating?

Besides surely the aim of any party is to increase its vote share, number of elected officals etc... So sometimes it is wise to moderate your position just enough that you can widen your appeal outside of your base support without losing that bse support.

Is today's world (at least in Western countries) more liberal than say a generation ago? If countries have become more liberal over the years parties either have to move with the times or see themselves moving more to the ends of the spectrum.

 

[tomalak301]

I don't want the Electoral College to go away completely, mainly because if it does, the small states will be irrelevant. What I do want is the EC to be modified so the various counts comes by region or county. For example, I'm in California, and unless I vote for a Democrat, my vote is meaningless. We have 54 electoral votes and when the polls close at 8:00 at night, the news already gives California to the democrat candidate at 8:01. I'm sorry, but there is no way you count the results of a huge state like California in a minute. For all the talk about voting matters and stuff like that, it really doesn't unless you vote the popular party of said state. At least if it's proportional, they might actually hold off on calling the result for at least an hour or so.

 

[Skywalker]

I don't want the Electoral College to go away completely, mainly because if it does, the small states will be irrelevant.

No, the people living in those states will simply have the same amount of voting power as any other person does. As it currently is, someone living in Wyoming has more voting power than you do. Removing the electoral college would make the people matter, not the states. And that's how it should be.