Make Liberalism Great Again

[st0wandgrow]

I do agree, Hillary could have been 'a better candidate', I certainly had my legitimate hangups about her. However it's not Hillary's fault she lost the election, more than 2.5 million voters voted for her than did for Trump. That is quite a significant margin and something that should not be ignored. Doing so plays into the hand of those who gerrymandered it that way and completely disenfranchises the 2.5 million voters who's vote didn't count.

Also, Hillary didn't lose, neither did Bernie. America lost. And I really honestly hope I'm wrong when I say that.

It bothers me that she took shit for granted though. She assumed that Michigan and Wisconsin were in the bag. I don't believe she made even one appearance in Wisconsin during the general election.

Every single radio spot of hers that I heard here in Michigan was focused on Trump. How evil and scary he is. Nothing about how she was going to go to work for the huge swaths of blue collar people here. Nothing about what she was going to do to make people's lives better. It really came off as arrogant and tone def. You cant run a campaign on "vote for me cuz the other guy sucks".

 

[see4]

It depends on what they do. If they implement trumps policy that will be good. If not he may actually fire them. The guy went through 3 campaign managers and kicked chris christie off the transition team.

Plus bernie was threatened. Very obviou to anyone who watched his speeches and then saw him 180. The wikileaks talk of the hillary camp having some sort of agreement with him and leverage they could use against him.

 

[see4]

It bothers me that she took shit for granted though. She assumed that Michigan and Wisconsin were in the bag. I don't believe she made even one appearance in Wisconsin during the general election.

Every single radio spot of hers that I heard here in Michigan was focused on Trump. How evil and scary he is. Nothing about how she was going to go to work for the huge swaths of blue collar people here. Nothing about what she was going to do to make people's lives better. It really came off as arrogant and tone def. You cant run a campaign on "vote for me cuz the other guy sucks".

Yes, totally agree, she could have done better. And her campaign played right into the Trump game. But again, she received 2.5 million more votes than Trump. A very large margin. Not to be ignored.

 

[ttystikk]

It depends on what they do. If they implement trumps policy that will be good. If not he may actually fire them. The guy went through 3 campaign managers and kicked chris christie off the transition team.

Plus bernie was threatened. Very obviou to anyone who watched his speeches and then saw him 180. The wikileaks talk of the hillary camp having some sort of agreement with him and leverage they could use against him.

Can't fire cabinet members.

 

[see4]

Can't fire cabinet members.

In Trumptopia you can. And you can also drain swamps by filling it with a cesspool. And your supporters will be proud!

 

[spandy]

Yes, totally agree, she could have done better. And her campaign played right into the Trump game. But again, she received 2.5 million more votes than Trump. A very large margin. Not to be ignored.

So be not ignoring it, do you mean to continue to cry about it?

Unless you really think 2/3s house/senate and 38 states are behind you, all you are doing is crying.

 

[st0wandgrow]

Yes, totally agree, she could have done better. And her campaign played right into the Trump game. But again, she received 2.5 million more votes than Trump. A very large margin. Not to be ignored.

This is true, but unfortunately this will change nothing for Hillary. Hopefully it prompts some changes in how we go about deciding who becomes President, because it does need to be changed, but she knew how the game was played going in to this, and her strategy didnt work.

 

[see4]

So be not ignoring it, do you mean to continue to cry about it?

Unless you really think 2/3s house/senate and 38 states are behind you, all you are doing is crying.

Drain that swamp!! Drain that swamp!! Drain that swamp!!

And replace it with a cesspool.

Dumbass.

 

[see4]

This is true, but unfortunately this will change nothing for Hillary. Hopefully it prompts some changes in how we go about deciding who becomes President, because it does need to be changed, but she knew how the game was played going in to this, and her strategy didnt work.

Exactly my point. The election is over, now we need to revisit how our President is elected. 2.5 million votes have been completely disregarded. That is not a democratic process.

Strategy? Why should there be a strategy for winning the President election game? Why is there a President Election Game in the first place?

Shouldn't candidates run on a platform and a set of agendas? Platforms and agendas shouldn't need a strategy.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Exactly my point. The election is over, now we need to revisit how our President is elected. 2.5 million votes have been completely disregarded. That is not a democratic process.

Strategy? Why should there be a strategy for winning the President election game? Why is there a President Election Game in the first place?

Shouldn't candidates run on a platform and a set of agendas? Platforms and agendas shouldn't need a strategy.

You are right it isn't a democratic process. It is a democratic republic process.

Small states also get bonus votes. Mainly because of the 3/5 rule that the southern slave states benefited from. They wanted to be able to count 100% of their slaves in the census to gain greater representation in congress. The northern states (also smaller) wanted to eventually abolish slavery and also feared tyranny of the majority would stifle all debate.

So the EC balanced the power between densely populated states and less densely populated states.

This forces presidential candidates to form a message and a platform that reaches the majority of regions in the country. They must have a broad inclusive platform that benefits everyone.

 

[Flaming Pie]

In the absence of constitutional or statutory provision, the President can, by virtue of his general power of appointment, remove an officer, even though he were appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. This power (assuming, but not deciding, that Congress could deprive the President of the right to exercise it in such a case as this) cannot be taken away by mere inference or implication, and, in the absence of plain language in the statute, Congress will not be presumed to have taken it away.

Under section 12 of the Customs Administrative Act of June 10, 1890, providing for the appointment of general appraisers and their removal by the President for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance in office, the President may also remove such officers without any of the causes specified under his general power of removal.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/189/311/

 

[ttystikk]

You sure about that? I am reading something about a 1987 congressional inquiry into this.

Prove me wrong, then.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Prove me wrong, then.

See above. supreme court case in 1909

 

[ttystikk]

See above. supreme court case in 1909

I don't see it happening.

 

[Flaming Pie]

I don't see it happening.

Short version

long version

It's already been happening. Throughout his career, campaign, and transition it has happened. It is allowed during presidency. It will happen.

 

[ttystikk]

Short version

long version

It's already been happening. Throughout his career, campaign, and transition it has happened. It is allowed during presidency. It will happen.

Well, he's turned everything else he's ever done into reality TV, who am I to say he can't do it to the Presidency?

 

[Flaming Pie]

Well, he's turned everything else he's ever done into reality TV, who am I to say he can't do it to the Presidency?

Using his legal ability to fire/force resignation of his own appointments is bad?

 

[ttystikk]

Using his legal ability to fire/force resignation of his own appointments is bad?

Those are your words, not mine.

 

[see4]

You are right it isn't a democratic process. It is a democratic republic process.

Small states also get bonus votes. Mainly because of the 3/5 rule that the southern slave states benefited from. They wanted to be able to count 100% of their slaves in the census to gain greater representation in congress. The northern states (also smaller) wanted to eventually abolish slavery and also feared tyranny of the majority would stifle all debate.

So the EC balanced the power between densely populated states and less densely populated states.

This forces presidential candidates to form a message and a platform that reaches the majority of regions in the country. They must have a broad inclusive platform that benefits everyone.

Didn't make sense in ~1803, doesn't make sense now. But using the logic you proposed, California electoral votes should be roughly 4 times bigger than it is currently.

They gerrymandered back then and have been doing every since.

Remove the concept of gerrymandering and manipulating the vote and have every vote count.

The only reason you won't go for that is because 'your team would lose'. For you, and people like you, it's about being on the winning team. For me its about improving America and everyone who participates in its society.

 

[Flaming Pie]

Those are your words, not mine.

So you just think he won't make use of his ability? Your comment seemed to imply you thought using his ability would be turning the presidency into a reality show. I took that as a negative view of dismissing/firing someone who isn't performing the tasks assigned to them.