menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events Topic
Topic: Another protest
Page: 3 of 7
mail
person
rpbobcat
2/9/2017 7:12 AM
finnOhio wrote:expand_more
Also often forgotten is not only did the Democratic candidate gain more votes, but the Democratic party gained seats in the Senate (+2) and in the House of Representatives (+8). These numbers still kept them in the minority, however.
1.Mrs. Clinton's plurality in votes came from Ca. and N.Y.Take them out and she gets trounced in the popular vote.
That's hardly representative of the nation as a whole.
Then again,the popular doesn't determine the presidency anyway.

2.The week before the election the pundits were saying Mrs.Clinton would not only win,but most likely have an Electoral College "landslide".

3.The week before the election the pundits were saying there was no way the Republicans would hold the Senate and could loose the House too.

4.The 2018 midterms shape up better,especially in the senate for republicans.

5.One the state level,the democrats have been loosing Governers and legislative members for years.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
2/9/2017 9:32 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Also often forgotten is not only did the Democratic candidate gain more votes, but the Democratic party gained seats in the Senate (+2) and in the House of Representatives (+8). These numbers still kept them in the minority, however.
1.Mrs. Clinton's plurality in votes came from Ca. and N.Y.Take them out and she gets trounced in the popular vote.
That's hardly representative of the nation as a whole.
Then again,the popular doesn't determine the presidency anyway.
Oh, so if you remove 2 of the 4 most populous states, Trump wins the popular vote? Can I play too? If you remove Texas and Florida, Trump loses the popular vote by a lot more. Fun game.

New York and California and part of the United States. Therefore, they're representative of the United States. The role of voters is not to "represent the nation as a whole." This election was won by about 350,000 voters in 3 states. Care to make an argument as to why those 350,000 are more representative of the nation than the citizens of California or New York?
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
2/9/2017 10:23 AM
Really. Trump lost the pure vote. Twisting that is absurd.

Also, please show me any reasonably mainstream source or article which said a week before the vote that the Dems would gain control of either house of Congress. My memory is that no one of repute was saying that.


Nice job on the alternative facts, though.



Maybe you're right about 2018. But that's a prediction, not a fact. If you need help with that, let me know.


Here's a fact. Trump said this:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot... /


Sadly, he recognized there the stubborn, won't-reason quality of his followers.

You happy, bro?
mail
person
ts1227
2/9/2017 10:54 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
1.Mrs. Clinton's plurality in votes came from Ca. and N.Y.Take them out and she gets trounced in the popular vote.
That's hardly representative of the nation as a whole.
Then again,the popular doesn't determine the presidency anyway.
The old "if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle" argument. Always a classic, regardless of uselessness
mail
C Money
2/9/2017 11:04 AM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Also, please show me any reasonably mainstream source or article which said a week before the vote that the Dems would gain control of either house of Congress. My memory is that no one of repute was saying that.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-foreca...
mail
OhioCatFan
2/9/2017 11:24 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
I'm familiar with the facts of the case. Here's a far more detailed telling: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/sess... . Sessions, for what it's worth, was already once denied a federal judgeship for using racial slurs with colleagues.

While we're on the subject of what's wrong with US political factions, a huge issue on the right is their willingness to sacrifice their morality and get into bed with people like Jeff Sessions. His white supremacy continues. White supremacy isn't merely about the KKK and prosecuting high profile murder cases; it's also clear in notions like his decades long push against voter rights, his stance on both legal and illegal immigration, mandatory minimum sentencing, his continued support for policies that punish offenders arrested with crack at 100x the rate of those arrested with cocaine, and his push against holding police departments accountable for discrimination.

These are bad, racist practices. Because he's not wearing a white hood I'm supposed to, what, pat him on the back? Choose my words in describing Sessions more carefully than he chooses his?
. . . .
I'm afraid you've unwittingly proved my point. Being in favor of voter ID regulations is equated with a poll tax, or worse yet, physical reprisal, and is racist; wanting to tighten up illegal immigration is racist; mandatory minimum sentencing is racist; tougher sentences for more deadly forms of cocaine is racist. ETC. I can see that you might not like these positions. The crack vs. powder cocaine differential is not one I agree with personally. But, to take all of these positions to brand one as a white supremacist and racist is beyond the bar for me. I think this kind of extremist rhetoric is, in part, responsible for the realignment we are now seeing of the political parties -- with the GOP garnering more of the working class vote than has been true since before FDR. It's also interesting that Trump actually got a few percentage points more of the black vote than Romney. Still not much . . . but an interesting trend. I think we are living in interesting times and are beginning to see rather significant shifts in old New Deal Era coalitions. Stay tuned . . .
Last Edited: 2/9/2017 11:41:32 AM by OhioCatFan
mail
person
BillyTheCat
2/9/2017 11:26 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Also often forgotten is not only did the Democratic candidate gain more votes, but the Democratic party gained seats in the Senate (+2) and in the House of Representatives (+8). These numbers still kept them in the minority, however.
1.Mrs. Clinton's plurality in votes came from Ca. and N.Y.Take them out and she gets trounced in the popular vote.
That's hardly representative of the nation as a whole.
Then again,the popular doesn't determine the presidency anyway.
Oh, so if you remove 2 of the 4 most populous states, Trump wins the popular vote? Can I play too? If you remove Texas and Florida, Trump loses the popular vote by a lot more. Fun game.

New York and California and part of the United States. Therefore, they're representative of the United States. The role of voters is not to "represent the nation as a whole." This election was won by about 350,000 voters in 3 states. Care to make an argument as to why those 350,000 are more representative of the nation than the citizens of California or New York?
Love it! and very true, people want to get lost in some type of mandate, and the failure of the polls, but the reality is the numbers were so small in those states that predicting the winner was shear chance.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
2/9/2017 12:54 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I'm familiar with the facts of the case. Here's a far more detailed telling: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/sess... . Sessions, for what it's worth, was already once denied a federal judgeship for using racial slurs with colleagues.

While we're on the subject of what's wrong with US political factions, a huge issue on the right is their willingness to sacrifice their morality and get into bed with people like Jeff Sessions. His white supremacy continues. White supremacy isn't merely about the KKK and prosecuting high profile murder cases; it's also clear in notions like his decades long push against voter rights, his stance on both legal and illegal immigration, mandatory minimum sentencing, his continued support for policies that punish offenders arrested with crack at 100x the rate of those arrested with cocaine, and his push against holding police departments accountable for discrimination.

These are bad, racist practices. Because he's not wearing a white hood I'm supposed to, what, pat him on the back? Choose my words in describing Sessions more carefully than he chooses his?
. . . .
I'm afraid you've unwittingly proved my point. Being in favor of voter ID regulations is equated with a poll tax, or worse yet, physical reprisal, and is racist; wanting to tighten up illegal immigration is racist; mandatory minimum sentencing is racist; tougher sentences for more deadly forms of cocaine is racist. ETC. I can see that you might not like these positions. The crack vs. powder cocaine differential is not one I agree with personally. But, to take all of these positions to brand one as a white supremacist and racist is beyond the bar for me. I think this kind of extremist rhetoric is, in part, responsible for the realignment we are now seeing of the political parties -- with the GOP garnering more of the working class vote than has been true since before FDR. It's also interesting that Trump actually got a few percentage points more of the black vote than Romney. Still not much . . . but an interesting trend. I think we are living in interesting times and are beginning to see rather significant shifts in old New Deal Era coalitions. Stay tuned . . .
When every citizen is given a photo I.D., or access to one with no extra burden on them acquiring one then myself and many others would support such a thing. But when States close BMV's and limit access in certain areas, and the cost which can be prohibitive to some keep people from acquiring photo I.D.'s then we will continue to defend the access to those who are economically disadvantaged.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
2/9/2017 12:57 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I'm familiar with the facts of the case. Here's a far more detailed telling: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/sess... . Sessions, for what it's worth, was already once denied a federal judgeship for using racial slurs with colleagues.

While we're on the subject of what's wrong with US political factions, a huge issue on the right is their willingness to sacrifice their morality and get into bed with people like Jeff Sessions. His white supremacy continues. White supremacy isn't merely about the KKK and prosecuting high profile murder cases; it's also clear in notions like his decades long push against voter rights, his stance on both legal and illegal immigration, mandatory minimum sentencing, his continued support for policies that punish offenders arrested with crack at 100x the rate of those arrested with cocaine, and his push against holding police departments accountable for discrimination.

These are bad, racist practices. Because he's not wearing a white hood I'm supposed to, what, pat him on the back? Choose my words in describing Sessions more carefully than he chooses his?
. . . .
I'm afraid you've unwittingly proved my point. Being in favor of voter ID regulations is equated with a poll tax, or worse yet, physical reprisal, and is racist; wanting to tighten up illegal immigration is racist; mandatory minimum sentencing is racist; tougher sentences for more deadly forms of cocaine is racist. ETC. I can see that you might not like these positions. The crack vs. powder cocaine differential is not one I agree with personally. But, to take all of these positions to brand one as a white supremacist and racist is beyond the bar for me. I think this kind of extremist rhetoric is, in part, responsible for the realignment we are now seeing of the political parties -- with the GOP garnering more of the working class vote than has been true since before FDR. It's also interesting that Trump actually got a few percentage points more of the black vote than Romney. Still not much . . . but an interesting trend. I think we are living in interesting times and are beginning to see rather significant shifts in old New Deal Era coalitions. Stay tuned . . .
And you've unwittingly proven mine.

Put it this way: supporting those policies, in a vacuum, do not a racist make.

But Jeff Sessions doesn't earn the right to have his support for such positions viewed in a vacuum. He was passed over for a federal judgeship because his coworkers recounted times when he used racial slurs and defended the KKK in conversation. And he now heads the Department of Justice.

Think about the power he yields, and the important role that the courts play in our country, and how core the right to a fair trial is to the values of our country.

And not only does the Republican party not see a past riddled with accusations of racism as disqualifying, but they're actually more upset by the accusation of racism than they are by racism itself. There are plenty of potential Attorneys General without such concerns in their past, but conservatives have become so divorced from the values of their party that they don't care. Their default is just to write off any accusation of racism as liberal hyperbole, and to support policies that are fundamentally at odds with the values our country were founded on, not because they actually support those causes, but because liberals don't support those causes.

I'm genuinely curious: what is it about the stripping of the Voting Rights Act that you support? What part of it aligns with conservative values? How should it be interpreted if not as a means of disenfranchising minority voters?

Also, bear in mind, if you're going to lodge complaints about voter fraud (and I don't know your politics, I have no idea if you will) you need to show some sort of evidence that voter fraud is a real problem.
Last Edited: 2/9/2017 12:59:29 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
2/9/2017 1:29 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
You have every right to peacefully protest. Other have just as much right to think your protests are silly. That your energies would better be put to work doing something constructive. And, to conclude that whatever your protesting must indeed be a good thing not the bad thing you are claiming simply because they don't respect you as a protestor. MLK's protests were effective in the long run because after a while he gathered more and more people to his cause. It became clear to a vast majority of American's the apartheid-like conditions in the South were barbaric and had to go. He had the moral high ground. That's something that I can't say for the vast majority of the current protests. Your opinions may differ, but that's OK. But, I believe what I said above reflects the opinion of a majority of present citizenry.
The most constructive thing any American can do is to stop Trump from doing most of the things he wants to do.
mail
person
Deciduous Forest Cat
2/9/2017 1:31 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Also often forgotten is not only did the Democratic candidate gain more votes, but the Democratic party gained seats in the Senate (+2) and in the House of Representatives (+8). These numbers still kept them in the minority, however.
1.Mrs. Clinton's plurality in votes came from Ca. and N.Y.Take them out and she gets trounced in the popular vote.
That's hardly representative of the nation as a whole.
Then again,the popular doesn't determine the presidency anyway.
Oh, so if you remove 2 of the 4 most populous states, Trump wins the popular vote? Can I play too? If you remove Texas and Florida, Trump loses the popular vote by a lot more. Fun game.

New York and California and part of the United States. Therefore, they're representative of the United States. The role of voters is not to "represent the nation as a whole." This election was won by about 350,000 voters in 3 states. Care to make an argument as to why those 350,000 are more representative of the nation than the citizens of California or New York?
Because that's "real america" where they hunt sharks on their snow machines.
mail
OhioCatFan
2/9/2017 2:07 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
And not only does the Republican party not see a past riddled with accusations of racism as disqualifying, but they're actually more upset by the accusation of racism than they are by racism itself. There are plenty of potential Attorneys General without such concerns in their past, but conservatives have become so divorced from the values of their party that they don't care. Their default is just to write off any accusation of racism as liberal hyperbole, and to support policies that are fundamentally at odds with the values our country were founded on, not because they actually support those causes, but because liberals don't support those causes.

I'm genuinely curious: what is it about the stripping of the Voting Rights Act that you support? What part of it aligns with conservative values? How should it be interpreted if not as a means of disenfranchising minority voters?
Not much time to reply here. No, I'm not big into the voter fraud allegations. I'm sure there was some, but I'm really not sure that it was all that extensive. I think it was much less than in the past in such hotbeds of fraudulent voting as Chicago and certain parts of West Virginia.

In terms of the Voting Rights Act. Please look up why it was passed, which states the now-defunct Section 5 applied to, and why it only applied to those states. Now, look at those same states today and make a case -- based on evidence and not anecdotal information -- that the same conditions apply today in those states that did when the act was passed several decades ago. If you can make that case, then I'll be in favor of its extension. [For the record, Ohio was never covered by any section of the act.]

In terms of the charges against Sessions that he had used racial slurs in the past: Virtually all of those allegations came from one person. Sessions has denied most of them. He did admit to making an "off color" joke with racial overtones that he said did not reflect his true opinions on the matter. I can appreciate that since my sense of humor has gotten me in trouble more than once. Hillary and Bill Clinton have both in the past made jokes with racial overtones. The most recent that I recall had to with the use of the term "CP Time (or Colored People Time)." I personally thought the uproar over it was ridiculous. It's a term used in the African American community all the time. Hillary didn't use it in a derogatory way at all, just a funny way to explain why an event was staring off slowly, or something of that nature. But, some people are so sensitive.
Last Edited: 2/9/2017 2:11:46 PM by OhioCatFan
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
2/9/2017 4:48 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
And not only does the Republican party not see a past riddled with accusations of racism as disqualifying, but they're actually more upset by the accusation of racism than they are by racism itself. There are plenty of potential Attorneys General without such concerns in their past, but conservatives have become so divorced from the values of their party that they don't care. Their default is just to write off any accusation of racism as liberal hyperbole, and to support policies that are fundamentally at odds with the values our country were founded on, not because they actually support those causes, but because liberals don't support those causes.

I'm genuinely curious: what is it about the stripping of the Voting Rights Act that you support? What part of it aligns with conservative values? How should it be interpreted if not as a means of disenfranchising minority voters?
Not much time to reply here. No, I'm not big into the voter fraud allegations. I'm sure there was some, but I'm really not sure that it was all that extensive. I think it was much less than in the past in such hotbeds of fraudulent voting as Chicago and certain parts of West Virginia.

In terms of the Voting Rights Act. Please look up why it was passed, which states the now-defunct Section 5 applied to, and why it only applied to those states. Now, look at those same states today and make a case -- based on evidence and not anecdotal information -- that the same conditions apply today in those states that did when the act was passed several decades ago. If you can make that case, then I'll be in favor of its extension. [For the record, Ohio was never covered by any section of the act.]

In terms of the charges against Sessions that he had used racial slurs in the past: Virtually all of those allegations came from one person. Sessions has denied most of them. He did admit to making an "off color" joke with racial overtones that he said did not reflect his true opinions on the matter. I can appreciate that since my sense of humor has gotten me in trouble more than once. Hillary and Bill Clinton have both in the past made jokes with racial overtones. The most recent that I recall had to with the use of the term "CP Time (or Colored People Time)." I personally thought the uproar over it was ridiculous. It's a term used in the African American community all the time. Hillary didn't use it in a derogatory way at all, just a funny way to explain why an event was staring off slowly, or something of that nature. But, some people are so sensitive.
Just an fyi, the CP Time thing was DeBlasio. Hillary was just there.

Regarding the Voting Rights Act, the specific impediments minority voters had to overcome to vote have changed over the years. Literacy tests, poll taxes, etc. were all terrible things, but the act itself has been expanded to include rights for non-English speakers, and it's clear that the gutting of the Voting Rights Act is step one in making it easier to create new obstacles for minorities (and the poor) to vote. Mississippi is already expanding voter ID laws. North Carolina already implemented a voter ID law that the Supreme Court overturned (or more specifically, they supported a lower court's opinion). In that case, a staffer in North Carolina asked "Is there any way to get a breakdown of the 2008 voter turnout, by race (white and black) and type of vote (early and Election Day)?" before putting together the specifics of the law. The aide to the State Speaker asked for ""a breakdown, by race, of those registered voters in your database that do not have a driver's license number."

The obstacles are evolving, and the destruction of the Voting Right Act instead of its expansion to include new obstructions is anti-Democratic.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
2/9/2017 5:04 PM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Nominating and confirming a white supremacist Attorney General will turn people off too, right? Or are protesters you don't agree with somehow worse than that?
One of the big problems that the left in this country has now is the indiscriminate way in which opponents are smeared as "racist," or "white supremacist." These terms have real, and very important meanings, yet when they are used to describe nearly anyone you don't agree with they start to lose the power they should have. Before you call someone a racist or white supremacist, you need to make very sure you have all the facts. Here's an article about Jeff Sessions that portrays a person that while he might not fit your ideal as an attorney general, doesn't really come under any reasonable definition of those terms. This article describe how he helped to impanel a Federal Grand Jury in Alabama in order to convict some KKK folks who were guilty of a lynching of an African American. It was recommended because Alabama grand juries would only sit for a limited amount of time and Federal grand juries can sit until they complete their business. At least one of these domestic terrorists (KKK men) was executed as a result of these investigations. Does this really sound like a white supremacist to you?

https://tinyurl.com/jsdjv2n
I'm familiar with the facts of the case. Here's a far more detailed telling: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/sess... . Sessions, for what it's worth, was already once denied a federal judgeship for using racial slurs with colleagues.

While we're on the subject of what's wrong with US political factions, a huge issue on the right is their willingness to sacrifice their morality and get into bed with people like Jeff Sessions. His white supremacy continues. White supremacy isn't merely about the KKK and prosecuting high profile murder cases; it's also clear in notions like his decades long push against voter rights, his stance on both legal and illegal immigration, mandatory minimum sentencing, his continued support for policies that pinish offenders arrested with crack at 100x the rate of those arrested with cocaine, and his push against holding police departments accountable for discrimination.

These are bad, racist practices. Because he's not wearing a white hood I'm supposed to, what, pat him on the back? Choose my words in describing Sessions more carefully than he chooses his?

That's the problem with the right. Ultimately, all they are nowadays is just not the left. Their identity is about little more than their opposition to Liberals and PC culture, and they're totally willing to support discriminatory policy and let dog whistles be dog whistles, but the moment a spade is called a spade "words have serious meaning."

+1
mail
RSBobcat
2/9/2017 10:40 PM
catfan28 wrote:expand_more
How sad that you..and some of your colleagues here...are so stuck on labels that you can't get any farther, can't/won't deal with facts and reality and their likely consequences and how to proceed from those facts and consequences.

A closed mind is a sad thing.
Do you disagree with that connotation? Liberal = Support for Socialist Policies and Big Government. Some people support that. I don't. But we're allowed to disagree. However, to deny that is the connotation is naive.

"Facts" are so arbitrary. We have no idea what's true most of the time. Personally, I don't believe anything I hear in the media. You have to make up your own mind as to what's true. All of these "leaks" about Trump are ridiculous. Do you really think he's walking around in a bathrobe yelling at the TV? Even some of my more liberal-leaning friends have started to laugh at the coverage.

The media (and liberal politicians) are jumping the shark. It won't be long until they are completely discredited...and I, for one, look forward to it.

Republican Supermajority in 2018. That's the safest bet in Vegas.
Does your interpretation of "Big Government" include enacting laws that restrict freedoms (voting, assembly, women's rights, LGBT rights, etc.), and does your interpretation of "Socialist" include infrastructure funding (including "wall building"), Military funding, Medicare, Business/Sector subsidies, - Etc., Etc., Etc?
mail
person
rpbobcat
2/10/2017 6:55 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Also often forgotten is not only did the Democratic candidate gain more votes, but the Democratic party gained seats in the Senate (+2) and in the House of Representatives (+8). These numbers still kept them in the minority, however.
1.Mrs. Clinton's plurality in votes came from Ca. and N.Y.Take them out and she gets trounced in the popular vote.
That's hardly representative of the nation as a whole.
Then again,the popular doesn't determine the presidency anyway.
Oh, so if you remove 2 of the 4 most populous states, Trump wins the popular vote? Can I play too? If you remove Texas and Florida, Trump loses the popular vote by a lot more. Fun game.

New York and California and part of the United States. Therefore, they're representative of the United States. The role of voters is not to "represent the nation as a whole." This election was won by about 350,000 voters in 3 states. Care to make an argument as to why those 350,000 are more representative of the nation than the citizens of California or New York?
I merely pointed out the fact that Mrs. Clinton's plurality came primarily from two very populous,very liberal states.

But,as I said in the last sentence of what you quoted,the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency anyway.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
2/10/2017 8:30 AM
rpbobcat wrote:expand_more
Also often forgotten is not only did the Democratic candidate gain more votes, but the Democratic party gained seats in the Senate (+2) and in the House of Representatives (+8). These numbers still kept them in the minority, however.
1.Mrs. Clinton's plurality in votes came from Ca. and N.Y.Take them out and she gets trounced in the popular vote.
That's hardly representative of the nation as a whole.
Then again,the popular doesn't determine the presidency anyway.
Oh, so if you remove 2 of the 4 most populous states, Trump wins the popular vote? Can I play too? If you remove Texas and Florida, Trump loses the popular vote by a lot more. Fun game.

New York and California and part of the United States. Therefore, they're representative of the United States. The role of voters is not to "represent the nation as a whole." This election was won by about 350,000 voters in 3 states. Care to make an argument as to why those 350,000 are more representative of the nation than the citizens of California or New York?
I merely pointed out the fact that Mrs. Clinton's plurality came primarily from two very populous,very liberal states.

But,as I said in the last sentence of what you quoted,the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency anyway.
So the point of your post was just to explain the electoral college? Thanks.
mail
person
rpbobcat
2/10/2017 9:09 AM
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:expand_more
Also often forgotten is not only did the Democratic candidate gain more votes, but the Democratic party gained seats in the Senate (+2) and in the House of Representatives (+8). These numbers still kept them in the minority, however.
1.Mrs. Clinton's plurality in votes came from Ca. and N.Y.Take them out and she gets trounced in the popular vote.
That's hardly representative of the nation as a whole.
Then again,the popular doesn't determine the presidency anyway.
Oh, so if you remove 2 of the 4 most populous states, Trump wins the popular vote? Can I play too? If you remove Texas and Florida, Trump loses the popular vote by a lot more. Fun game.

New York and California and part of the United States. Therefore, they're representative of the United States. The role of voters is not to "represent the nation as a whole." This election was won by about 350,000 voters in 3 states. Care to make an argument as to why those 350,000 are more representative of the nation than the citizens of California or New York?
I merely pointed out the fact that Mrs. Clinton's plurality came primarily from two very populous,very liberal states.

But,as I said in the last sentence of what you quoted,the popular vote doesn't determine the presidency anyway.
So the point of your post was just to explain the electoral college? Thanks.
Actually the point of my post,when taken in its entirety, was to point out that the results of the election were not as "rosy" for the democrats as you make it sound.

As far as explaining the Electoral College,you're quite welcome.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
2/10/2017 9:58 AM
And yet you won't defend the points you made.
mail
DelBobcat
2/10/2017 10:27 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
And not only does the Republican party not see a past riddled with accusations of racism as disqualifying, but they're actually more upset by the accusation of racism than they are by racism itself. There are plenty of potential Attorneys General without such concerns in their past, but conservatives have become so divorced from the values of their party that they don't care. Their default is just to write off any accusation of racism as liberal hyperbole, and to support policies that are fundamentally at odds with the values our country were founded on, not because they actually support those causes, but because liberals don't support those causes.

I'm genuinely curious: what is it about the stripping of the Voting Rights Act that you support? What part of it aligns with conservative values? How should it be interpreted if not as a means of disenfranchising minority voters?
Not much time to reply here. No, I'm not big into the voter fraud allegations. I'm sure there was some, but I'm really not sure that it was all that extensive. I think it was much less than in the past in such hotbeds of fraudulent voting as Chicago and certain parts of West Virginia.

In terms of the Voting Rights Act. Please look up why it was passed, which states the now-defunct Section 5 applied to, and why it only applied to those states. Now, look at those same states today and make a case -- based on evidence and not anecdotal information -- that the same conditions apply today in those states that did when the act was passed several decades ago. If you can make that case, then I'll be in favor of its extension. [For the record, Ohio was never covered by any section of the act.]

In terms of the charges against Sessions that he had used racial slurs in the past: Virtually all of those allegations came from one person. Sessions has denied most of them. He did admit to making an "off color" joke with racial overtones that he said did not reflect his true opinions on the matter. I can appreciate that since my sense of humor has gotten me in trouble more than once. Hillary and Bill Clinton have both in the past made jokes with racial overtones. The most recent that I recall had to with the use of the term "CP Time (or Colored People Time)." I personally thought the uproar over it was ridiculous. It's a term used in the African American community all the time. Hillary didn't use it in a derogatory way at all, just a funny way to explain why an event was staring off slowly, or something of that nature. But, some people are so sensitive.
I know it was already pointed out that HRC is not the one who said CP Time, but nonetheless do you not think there is a difference between saying that (which is, in my opinion, in poor taste but not hateful) and saying that the KKK wouldn't be so bad if they didn't smoke weed? It seems to me that the former is a bad attempt at identifying with a group of people you are speaking to and the latter is revealing of a person's true feelings.
mail
DelBobcat
2/10/2017 10:30 AM
C Money wrote:expand_more
Also, please show me any reasonably mainstream source or article which said a week before the vote that the Dems would gain control of either house of Congress. My memory is that no one of repute was saying that.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-foreca...
Wait, is this supposed to prove something? Fivethirtyeight said that they had a roughly 50.7% chance of taking the Senate. That is not the same as saying they will take the Senate.
mail
person
rpbobcat
2/10/2017 12:13 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Really. Trump lost the pure vote. Twisting that is absurd.

Also, please show me any reasonably mainstream source or article which said a week before the vote that the Dems would gain control of either house of Congress. My memory is that no one of repute was saying that.


Nice job on the alternative facts, though.



Maybe you're right about 2018. But that's a prediction, not a fact. If you need help with that, let me know.


Here's a fact. Trump said this:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/23/politics/donald-trump-shoot... /


Sadly, he recognized there the stubborn, won't-reason quality of his followers.

You happy, bro?
1.Please define "pure vote" ?
President Trump won the only vote that counts in selecting a president in the
United States.

2.So you're admitting that CNN,ABC,CBS and NBC aren't "mainstream" ?

3.As far as 2018,it is a fact that,at this time,the political landscape favors
republicans.
What will happen over the next 20 months or so,who knows.

4.Guess I'm one of what you call "stubborn,won't reason " followers of President Trump.
I'm also,according to Mrs. Clinton a deplorable and uneducated.

Am I happy President trump won ?

Happier,especially when it comes to the Supreme Court,then if Mrs. Clinton had .
mail
OhioCatFan
2/10/2017 12:20 PM
DelBobcat wrote:expand_more
I know it was already pointed out that HRC is not the one who said CP Time, but nonetheless do you not think there is a difference between saying that (which is, in my opinion, in poor taste but not hateful) and saying that the KKK wouldn't be so bad if they didn't smoke weed? It seems to me that the former is a bad attempt at identifying with a group of people you are speaking to and the latter is revealing of a person's true feelings.
I would agree that the KKK-weed remark is worse. But, Sessions said it was a bad joke. That he didn't mean it seriously. Since I've told some very bad jokes in my life, I can accept that explanation. His actions against the KKK speak loader than his telling an awful joke in my book. I think you'll find out that as US AG he will be fair and impartial, and if some case involving the KKK were to surface he'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.
mail
person
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
2/10/2017 12:48 PM
I look forward to fair and impartial Jeff Sessions prosecution of General Flynn for his now admitted federal offense.
mail
DelBobcat
2/10/2017 12:55 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I know it was already pointed out that HRC is not the one who said CP Time, but nonetheless do you not think there is a difference between saying that (which is, in my opinion, in poor taste but not hateful) and saying that the KKK wouldn't be so bad if they didn't smoke weed? It seems to me that the former is a bad attempt at identifying with a group of people you are speaking to and the latter is revealing of a person's true feelings.
I would agree that the KKK-weed remark is worse. But, Sessions said it was a bad joke. That he didn't mean it seriously. Since I've told some very bad jokes in my life, I can accept that explanation. His actions against the KKK speak loader than his telling an awful joke in my book. I think you'll find out that as US AG he will be fair and impartial, and if some case involving the KKK were to surface he'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.
I hope that's the case. But someone here already pointed out that his actions against the KKK have been overblown and overstated by the GOP. I'd also add that he has a long history of saying and doing things that could be construed as racist (and allegedly using the n-word freely). I do believe that he would likely rule against the KKK but I'm not convinced that he'll stand up for civil rights. The best I can hope for is that he doesn't actively undermine them.
Showing Messages: 51 - 75 of 170
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)