The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[CID1990]

If Carville and his wife can make it work....maybe the Conways have a shot.

Matalin and Carville actually respect each other and keep their different politics out of the limelight. I actually think that Carville is one of the funniest leftish commentators around. The Conways, by contrast, are self-absorbed crybabies.

True.

Have you noticed how Conway tosses around the woman card when things don’t go her way?

She’s on a rant right now about Pelosi dismissing her like a maid or something.

As bad, if not worse than the “War on Wimmin” progtards


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Matalin and Carville actually respect each other and keep their different politics out of the limelight. I actually think that Carville is one of the funniest leftish commentators around. The Conways, by contrast, are self-absorbed crybabies.

I don't remember their hay-day in the 90s but I do agree with your assessment of the Conway's.

*heyday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

Again, it's not about the country failing. There are cycles. There will be ups and downs. I'm rooting for the next inevitable down to come at a time that maximizes the likelihood of getting rid of Trump. That would be the best thing.

I wan the country to succeed. And getting rid of Trump would be a success. Wouldn't eliminate the failure represented by having Trump end up as President in the first place. But it'd at least be correcting the mistake.

You are in the minority, stop talking poorly about Americas President. You are going to have 6 more years of him

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

It's possible that I could have 6 more years of an atrocity as President. But I am not in the minority. Most citizens of the United States do not want this guy as President. Most citizens of the United States did not want him as President on election day 2016 and most citizens of the United States do not want him as President now.

[css75]

You are in the minority, stop talking poorly about Americas President. You are going to have 6 more years of him

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

It's possible that I could have 6 more years of an atrocity as President. But I am not in the minority. Most citizens of the United States do not want this guy as President. Most citizens of the United States did not want him as President on election day 2016 and most citizens of the United States do not want him as President now.

TDS at its best. He won fair and square, just because Hildabeast didn’t know to campaign in certain states, had a crappy platform and raunchy personality does not mean she won. Prepare for 6 more years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

It's possible that I could have 6 more years of an atrocity as President. But I am not in the minority. Most citizens of the United States do not want this guy as President. Most citizens of the United States did not want him as President on election day 2016 and most citizens of the United States do not want him as President now.

TDS at its best. He won fair and square, just because Hildabeast didn’t know to campaign in certain states, had a crappy platform and raunchy personality does not mean she won. Prepare for 6 more years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I didn't say he didn't win according the system we have. But he got a lower percentage of the overall vote among US Citizens than Romney did. He's not the choice of "The People." I do think what happened in 2016 confirmed, if there was any previous doubt, that we need to get rid of the Electoral College system.

I am "prepared" for 6 more years if it happens. But let's hope that it doesn't. And it's a reasonable hope. We are not talking about a guy who is supported by a majority of the People. We are talking about a guy who has consistently NOT been supported by a majority of the People.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

It's possible that I could have 6 more years of an atrocity as President. But I am not in the minority. Most citizens of the United States do not want this guy as President. Most citizens of the United States did not want him as President on election day 2016 and most citizens of the United States do not want him as President now.

TDS at its best. He won fair and square, just because Hildabeast didn’t know to campaign in certain states, had a crappy platform and raunchy personality does not mean she won. Prepare for 6 more years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Exactly they are mentally ill

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

TDS at its best. He won fair and square, just because Hildabeast didn’t know to campaign in certain states, had a crappy platform and raunchy personality does not mean she won. Prepare for 6 more years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I didn't say he didn't win according the system we have. But he got a lower percentage of the overall vote among US Citizens than Romney did. He's not the choice of "The People." I do think what happened in 2016 confirmed, if there was any previous doubt, that we need to get rid of the Electoral College system.

I am "prepared" for 6 more years if it happens. But let's hope that it doesn't. And it's a reasonable hope. We are not talking about a guy who is supported by a majority of the People. We are talking about a guy who has consistently NOT been supported by a majority of the People.

What happened in 2016 confirmed precisely WHY there is an Electoral College system. As a resident of a state that would become even MORE irrelevant (if that were even possible), I would think you would understand that. You want all your national policy decisions made by California and NY? Not me, motherfucker.

[GannonFan]

I didn't say he didn't win according the system we have. But he got a lower percentage of the overall vote among US Citizens than Romney did. He's not the choice of "The People." I do think what happened in 2016 confirmed, if there was any previous doubt, that we need to get rid of the Electoral College system.

I am "prepared" for 6 more years if it happens. But let's hope that it doesn't. And it's a reasonable hope. We are not talking about a guy who is supported by a majority of the People. We are talking about a guy who has consistently NOT been supported by a majority of the People.

What happened in 2016 confirmed precisely WHY there is an Electoral College system. As a resident of a state that would become even MORE irrelevant (if that were even possible), I would think you would understand that. You want all your national policy decisions made by California and NY? Not me, motherfucker.

Yup. The Electoral College is there precisely for the idea that an overwhelming majority of a single region or state, if populous enough, could tilt an election every time. It's the whole reason the Senate, despite Madison's best effort (advocating for a Virginia that could tilt elections based on population), is equal representation rather than proportional. The only time the Electoral College has been controversial is when the electorate has been pretty evenly split. The system isn't the problem, it's the quality of the candidates running. Get better candidates and this isn't an issue. And really, we're never going to get enough states to change the Constitution to change the setup of the Senate or the Electoral College so moaning about it does little other than provide an outlet to moan.

[houndawg]

So what’s the “over” on the remaining lifespan of the George-Kellyanne Conway marriage?

If Trump is re-elected, two years max.

If Carville and his wife can make it work....maybe the Conways have a shot.

Unless George gets that Lasik surgery and finds out he's married to a Northern Pike.

[CID1990]

What happened in 2016 confirmed precisely WHY there is an Electoral College system. As a resident of a state that would become even MORE irrelevant (if that were even possible), I would think you would understand that. You want all your national policy decisions made by California and NY? Not me, motherfucker.

Yup. The Electoral College is there precisely for the idea that an overwhelming majority of a single region or state, if populous enough, could tilt an election every time. It's the whole reason the Senate, despite Madison's best effort (advocating for a Virginia that could tilt elections based on population), is equal representation rather than proportional. The only time the Electoral College has been controversial is when the electorate has been pretty evenly split. The system isn't the problem, it's the quality of the candidates running. Get better candidates and this isn't an issue. And really, we're never going to get enough states to change the Constitution to change the setup of the Senate or the Electoral College so moaning about it does little other than provide an outlet to moan.

Its a simple concept about a representative republic that many supposedly smart people dont get.

A direct national election would only serve the wants and needs of CA, NY, and a few other states. Smaller states would be completely disenfranchised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

What happened in 2016 confirmed precisely WHY there is an Electoral College system. As a resident of a state that would become even MORE irrelevant (if that were even possible), I would think you would understand that. You want all your national policy decisions made by California and NY? Not me, motherfucker.

Yup. The Electoral College is there precisely for the idea that an overwhelming majority of a single region or state, if populous enough, could tilt an election every time. It's the whole reason the Senate, despite Madison's best effort (advocating for a Virginia that could tilt elections based on population), is equal representation rather than proportional. The only time the Electoral College has been controversial is when the electorate has been pretty evenly split. The system isn't the problem, it's the quality of the candidates running. Get better candidates and this isn't an issue. And really, we're never going to get enough states to change the Constitution to change the setup of the Senate or the Electoral College so moaning about it does little other than provide an outlet to moan.

Its there to make sure the Establishment gets the final word. The dfounding fathers were not big fans of "one man, one vote".

[JohnStOnge]

Guys, if the Electoral College worked as it was conceived we'd never have something like Trump happen. I actually would be more comfortable with how it was conceived. As it was conceived there would not be things like Party primaries and national state by state popular votes. The State legislatures would choose electors. Those electors would then engage in deliberations to choose a President without necessarily being committed to any particular candidate beforehand. They would pick someone. One premise of it was that these electors would be more educated and informed than the general population. The general population would have a role but it wouldn't be "I will vote for Trump in my State then all the electors from my State will go vote for Trump."

The concept is described in Federalist 68:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

So the people choose some smart people capable of "capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station" then those people choose the President. If it was like THAT there is NO way someone like Trump would ever be President. We would be protected from such lunacy.

What we have now is a distorted populist system where it's populist and you have all of the disadvantages of what the framers were trying to avoid AND you can also have someone most people don't want as President end up as President.

It may be a good system as it was conceived back then. But it is not a good system as what it has evolved into.

And there is a question as to whether it is a good system as it was conceived back round 1800 in today's world.

[JohnStOnge]

A direct national election would only serve the wants and needs of CA, NY, and a few other states. Smaller states would be completely disenfranchised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As it is now most of the PEOPLE are disenfranchised. If they live in a State that is reliably Republican and they want to vote Democrat their vote means nothing. If they live in a State that is reliably Democrat and they want to vote Republican their vote means nothing.

The President is the one office voted on by ALL the people. Every vote should have equal value. And the Electoral College system is not consistent with that principle. If we are going to say that the People should be voting directly on who the President is going to be (which is NOT how the Electoral College was originally designed to work) at all the popular vote should rule.

The larger States have more impact in the Electoral College anyway. If a candidate had a "choice" between winning California or Wyoming they are going to pick California.

The "large state" concern is a relic of a time when we didn't have the communications capabilities that we have now. There was concern that a candidate that had to be physically present to campaign would predictably spend his time campaigning where there were large concentrations of people. People in the hinterlands would be ignored. Nowadays a candidate can reach just about anybody anywhere.

Meanwhile a system has evolved in which candidates focus on States polling identifies as close while writing off millions of voters in States identified as being locks for one candidate or the other. In 2016 4.5 million people in California voted for Trump and 3.9 million people in Texas voted for Clinton. But all those people were written off well before election day because everybody knew their votes would not matter.

[JohnStOnge]

Now for an update on the stock market thing.

As of yesterday's close the DJIA was at 25,586. Had the DJIA increased from November 9, 2016 through yesterday at the "average" rate characterizing it from the start of the current bull market through November 8, 2016 it would have closed yesterday at 26,463.

I put "average" in quotes because it's not really the average of all the increases from one daily session to the next. Actually it's taking the DJIA on November 8, 2016 as a proportion of the DJIA at the start of the bull market (that give you about 2.77 as the November 8, 2016 level was about 277% of the level at the start), taking the 1935th root of that (there were 1935 sessions during the period) to get about 1.005 to get the daily increase, raising that to the 698th power (698 sessions since November 8, 2016) to get about 1.44, then multiplying that number by the DJIA level on November 8, 2016.

But as you can see it's easier to just say "average." If I really did just take the average percent increase for each trading session the number for yesterday's close would be 27,353.

Either way, we are now firmly in the realm of being able to say it's not clear at all that the stock market is any higher than it would have been at this point if it had just continued basically as it was doing over time during the bull market before Trump took office.

Unfortunately most people don't realize that. I'm sure if a poll on that question were done the majority would say they think the DJIA average is higher than it would be if Trump hadn't gotten the job.

[Ivytalk]

It may be a good system as it was conceived back then. But it is not a good system as what it has evolved into.

And there is a question as to whether it is a good system as it was conceived back round 1800 in today's world.

In other words, you’re one of those “living Constitution” motherfuckers. Some conservative/Libertarian you are.

[BDKJMU]

Guys, if the Electoral College worked as it was conceived we'd never have something like Trump happen. I actually would be more comfortable with how it was conceived. As it was conceived there would not be things like Party primaries and national state by state popular votes. The State legislatures would choose electors. Those electors would then engage in deliberations to choose a President without necessarily being committed to any particular candidate beforehand. They would pick someone. One premise of it was that these electors would be more educated and informed than the general population. The general population would have a role but it wouldn't be "I will vote for Trump in my State then all the electors from my State will go vote for Trump."

The concept is described in Federalist 68:

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

So the people choose some smart people capable of "capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station" then those people choose the President. If it was like THAT there is NO way someone like Trump would ever be President. We would be protected from such lunacy.

What we have now is a distorted populist system where it's populist and you have all of the disadvantages of what the framers were trying to avoid AND you can also have someone most people don't want as President end up as President.

It may be a good system as it was conceived back then. But it is not a good system as what it has evolved into.

And there is a question as to whether it is a good system as it was conceived back round 1800 in today's world.

A direct national election would only serve the wants and needs of CA, NY, and a few other states. Smaller states would be completely disenfranchised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As it is now most of the PEOPLE are disenfranchised. If they live in a State that is reliably Republican and they want to vote Democrat their vote means nothing. If they live in a State that is reliably Democrat and they want to vote Republican their vote means nothing.

The President is the one office voted on by ALL the people. Every vote should have equal value. And the Electoral College system is not consistent with that principle. If we are going to say that the People should be voting directly on who the President is going to be (which is NOT how the Electoral College was originally designed to work) at all the popular vote should rule.

The larger States have more impact in the Electoral College anyway. If a candidate had a "choice" between winning California or Wyoming they are going to pick California.

The "large state" concern is a relic of a time when we didn't have the communications capabilities that we have now. There was concern that a candidate that had to be physically present to campaign would predictably spend his time campaigning where there were large concentrations of people. People in the hinterlands would be ignored. Nowadays a candidate can reach just about anybody anywhere.

Meanwhile a system has evolved in which candidates focus on States polling identifies as close while writing off millions of voters in States identified as being locks for one candidate or the other. In 2016 4.5 million people in California voted for Trump and 3.9 million people in Texas voted for Clinton. But all those people were written off well before election day because everybody knew their votes would not matter.

Now for an update on the stock market thing.

As of yesterday's close the DJIA was at 25,586. Had the DJIA increased from November 9, 2016 through yesterday at the "average" rate characterizing it from the start of the current bull market through November 8, 2016 it would have closed yesterday at 26,463.

I put "average" in quotes because it's not really the average of all the increases from one daily session to the next. Actually it's taking the DJIA on November 8, 2016 as a proportion of the DJIA at the start of the bull market (that give you about 2.77 as the November 8, 2016 level was about 277% of the level at the start), taking the 1935th root of that (there were 1935 sessions during the period) to get about 1.005 to get the daily increase, raising that to the 698th power (698 sessions since November 8, 2016) to get about 1.44, then multiplying that number by the DJIA level on November 8, 2016.

But as you can see it's easier to just say "average." If I really did just take the average percent increase for each trading session the number for yesterday's close would be 27,353.

Either way, we are now firmly in the realm of being able to say it's not clear at all that the stock market is any higher than it would have been at this point if it had just continued basically as it was doing over time during the bull market before Trump took office.

Unfortunately most people don't realize that. I'm sure if a poll on that question were done the majority would say they think the DJIA average is higher than it would be if Trump hadn't gotten the job.

The sum of JSO's last 3 back to back to back posts. You know JSO, for almost everyone here, for all the drivel you post, its:

[CID1990]

A direct national election would only serve the wants and needs of CA, NY, and a few other states. Smaller states would be completely disenfranchised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As it is now most of the PEOPLE are disenfranchised. If they live in a State that is reliably Republican and they want to vote Democrat their vote means nothing. If they live in a State that is reliably Democrat and they want to vote Republican their vote means nothing.

The President is the one office voted on by ALL the people. Every vote should have equal value. And the Electoral College system is not consistent with that principle. If we are going to say that the People should be voting directly on who the President is going to be (which is NOT how the Electoral College was originally designed to work) at all the popular vote should rule.

The larger States have more impact in the Electoral College anyway. If a candidate had a "choice" between winning California or Wyoming they are going to pick California.

The "large state" concern is a relic of a time when we didn't have the communications capabilities that we have now. There was concern that a candidate that had to be physically present to campaign would predictably spend his time campaigning where there were large concentrations of people. People in the hinterlands would be ignored. Nowadays a candidate can reach just about anybody anywhere.

Meanwhile a system has evolved in which candidates focus on States polling identifies as close while writing off millions of voters in States identified as being locks for one candidate or the other. In 2016 4.5 million people in California voted for Trump and 3.9 million people in Texas voted for Clinton. But all those people were written off well before election day because everybody knew their votes would not matter.

Irrelevant.

Direct elections would be decided by the largest population centers and their desires would be foisted on the rest of the States.

It is a very simple concept which you just don’t have the capacity to grasp, apparently.

BTW- don’t you wonder how it is that heartland voters inexplicably voted against their own interests by voting for Trump? How is it that you can wonder about that, but not about your own arguments in favor of abrogating what little political say-so Louisiana has left?

You have twisted yourself into a contradictory knot and you are blind to it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

Thanks Trump!

https://www.npr.org/2019/05/22/72375796 ... witter.com




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

JSO is the Analjelly of this thread. But for him, it might have died long ago.

[JohnStOnge]

It may be a good system as it was conceived back then. But it is not a good system as what it has evolved into.

And there is a question as to whether it is a good system as it was conceived back round 1800 in today's world.

In other words, you’re one of those “living Constitution” motherfuckers. Some conservative/Libertarian you are.

I did not say we can "interpret" our way out of it. I am only a "living Constitution" person in the sense that I recognize that the Constitution includes a process for changing it. I favor amending the Constitution to get rid of the Electoral College system. I don't see it happening in my lifetime if ever. But if it were to happen it would happen according to the Constitution. The problem I have isn't with changing the Consitution if the changing is through the process provided. The problem I have is with judges effectively changing it through "interpretation."

[JohnStOnge]

Direct elections would be decided by the largest population centers and their desires would be foisted on the rest of the States.

It is a very simple concept which you just don’t have the capacity to grasp, apparently.

I grasp the concept. I just don't agree with the idea of, in today's context, thinking of it in terms of States instead of as people. Right now we have a situation where the majority of the People can have the desires of a minority of the People foisted upon them under circumstances where the votes of people in small States count more than the votes of people in large States do.

And, again, there is that problem with the fact that a very substantial proportion of the population is disenfranchised by the state by state "winner take all" principle combined with the fact that many if not most States are not close. The thing where a person's Presidential vote is meaningless, for example, if they are a Republican living in California.

A very simple concept: Each person's vote should be equal in value and impact to every other person's vote.

BTW- don’t you wonder how it is that heartland voters inexplicably voted against their own interests by voting for Trump? How is it that you can wonder about that, but not about your own arguments in favor of abrogating what little political say-so Louisiana has left?

I have never wondered about why heartland voters voted against their own interests. I do have beliefs about why people voted for Trump. For instance I have beliefs about why White Evangelical Christians did what they did. And I'm more concerned about an individual person who is a United States citizen living in Louisiana having their voice effectively silenced when to Presidential elections because they favor the Democrats than I am about Louisiana having its voice silenced. The Senate is there to equalize the voices of all States in a powerful sub-branch of government. Minority voice is fine. Minority rule is not. From January 2016 through January 2018 we had minority rule. Something is wrong with a system that allows that to happen.

[HI54UNI]

Direct elections would be decided by the largest population centers and their desires would be foisted on the rest of the States.

It is a very simple concept which you just don’t have the capacity to grasp, apparently.

I grasp the concept. I just don't agree with the idea of, in today's context, thinking of it in terms of States instead of as people. Right now we have a situation where the majority of the People can have the desires of a minority of the People foisted upon them under circumstances where the votes of people in small States count more than the votes of people in large States do.

And, again, there is that problem with the fact that a very substantial proportion of the population is disenfranchised by the state by state "winner take all" principle combined with the fact that many if not most States are not close. The thing where a person's Presidential vote is meaningless, for example, if they are a Republican living in California.

A very simple concept: Each person's vote should be equal in value and impact to every other person's vote.

BTW- don’t you wonder how it is that heartland voters inexplicably voted against their own interests by voting for Trump? How is it that you can wonder about that, but not about your own arguments in favor of abrogating what little political say-so Louisiana has left?

I have never wondered about why heartland voters voted against their own interests. I do have beliefs about why people voted for Trump. For instance I have beliefs about why White Evangelical Christians did what they did. And I'm more concerned about an individual person who is a United States citizen living in Louisiana having their voice effectively silenced when to Presidential elections because they favor the Democrats than I am about Louisiana having its voice silenced. The Senate is there to equalize the voices of all States in a powerful sub-branch of government. Minority voice is fine. Minority rule is not. From January 2016 through January 2018 we had minority rule. Something is wrong with a system that allows that to happen.

So how do you explain why your white, evangelical christian wife voted for Trump?

[AZGrizFan]

It’s not a democracy, John. That’s the part you can’t seem to grasp. It was SPECIFICALLY set up this way for this very reason. It is NOT a national election. It’s 50 STATE elections. You may not like it, but it’s worked perfectly and exactly the way the founding fathers set it up to work.

[AZGrizFan]

Now for an update on the stock market thing.

As of yesterday's close the DJIA was at 25,586. Had the DJIA increased from November 9, 2016 through yesterday at the "average" rate characterizing it from the start of the current bull market through November 8, 2016 it would have closed yesterday at 26,463.

I put "average" in quotes because it's not really the average of all the increases from one daily session to the next. Actually it's taking the DJIA on November 8, 2016 as a proportion of the DJIA at the start of the bull market (that give you about 2.77 as the November 8, 2016 level was about 277% of the level at the start), taking the 1935th root of that (there were 1935 sessions during the period) to get about 1.005 to get the daily increase, raising that to the 698th power (698 sessions since November 8, 2016) to get about 1.44, then multiplying that number by the DJIA level on November 8, 2016.

But as you can see it's easier to just say "average." If I really did just take the average percent increase for each trading session the number for yesterday's close would be 27,353.

Either way, we are now firmly in the realm of being able to say it's not clear at all that the stock market is any higher than it would have been at this point if it had just continued basically as it was doing over time during the bull market before Trump took office.

Unfortunately most people don't realize that. I'm sure if a poll on that question were done the majority would say they think the DJIA average is higher than it would be if Trump hadn't gotten the job.

As always, missing the bigger picture economically. You do you, John.

[css75]

https://youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU

I will post this again for JSO benefit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk