Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    82239
    28 Oct '18 06:53
    When the dust settles and the GOP loses control in both houses, will it prove once and for all time, that Trump's electoral college victory was simply, anyone but Hillary?
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    28 Oct '18 11:50
    63 Million people voted for Donald Trump for president. Sure, with a better Democratic candidate, maybe that would have been 60 million and the Democrat would've won. But this election wasn't about Clinton, it was about morons being morons. The midterms will tell the same story even if the Republicans lose two or three percent of the vote.
  3. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    28 Oct '18 12:30
    @kmax87 said
    When the dust settles and the GOP loses control in both houses, will it prove once and for all time, that Trump's electoral college victory was simply, anyone but Hillary?
    You're about 90% correct. Hillary wasn't a very good candidate, but gerrymandering of districts and voter suppression will enable the GOP to hang on to the Senate. The House is already lost and the GOP knows it, they are already crafting their speeches, trying to put the best spin on this. It will be up to the voters in 2020 to undo the damage of our jackass in chief, and his little minions in Congress.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    28 Oct '18 13:37
    @mchill said
    You're about 90% correct. Hillary wasn't a very good candidate, but gerrymandering of districts and voter suppression will enable the GOP to hang on to the Senate. The House is already lost and the GOP knows it, they are already crafting their speeches, trying to put the best spin on this. It will be up to the voters in 2020 to undo the damage of our jackass in chief, and his little minions in Congress.
    GOP gerrymandering has no effect on the Senate.

    The most likely reason the Republicans will hold on to the Senate is that this "class" of Senators has 26 Democrats and 9 Republicans and that many of the Democrats are running in normally deep red States. It seems probable to me the Republicans will have a plus Senate midterm (perhaps up 2) while losing control of the House.
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    28 Oct '18 14:13
    @kazetnagorra said
    63 Million people voted for Donald Trump for president. Sure, with a better Democratic candidate, maybe that would have been 60 million and the Democrat would've won. But this election wasn't about Clinton, it was about morons being morons. The midterms will tell the same story even if the Republicans lose two or three percent of the vote.
    Right, it had nothing to do with Hillary.

    It was all Putin's fault.

    Everyone knows that.
  6. Standard membersh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    New York
    Joined
    26 Dec '07
    Moves
    17585
    28 Oct '18 15:10
    @kmax87 said
    When the dust settles and the GOP loses control in both houses, will it prove once and for all time, that Trump's electoral college victory was simply, anyone but Hillary?
    No.

    But it probably was anyone but Hillary anyway insofar as that, IMO, any decent Dem candidate would have won.
  7. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    138610
    28 Oct '18 15:16
    @sh76 said
    No.

    But it probably was anyone but Hillary anyway insofar as that, IMO, any decent Dem candidate would have won.
    I still think that Trump would have creamed Bernie Sanders in 2016.

    I just don't see America embracing Bernie's Socialism.

    GOP could have run a jackass against Bernie and won.

    Oh wait !!!
    I'll stop here. 😛
  8. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81346
    28 Oct '18 15:33
    @kmax87 said
    When the dust settles and the GOP loses control in both houses, will it prove once and for all time, that Trump's electoral college victory was simply, anyone but Hillary?
    a baseless question?
  9. Standard membervivify
    rain
    Joined
    08 Mar '11
    Moves
    9780
    28 Oct '18 15:53
    @whodey said
    Right, it had nothing to do with Hillary.

    It was all Putin's fault.

    Everyone knows that.
    Hillary absolutely made the difference in an election decided by one percent in some states, and even less than that in others. Those closely contested states probably would've swung in favor of Sanders had he been the choice instead of Clinton.

    Still, there's no reason why Trump should've even come close to winning the nomination of a major party. He's an unintelligent, lying, racist buffoon; so much so, that not even Republicans dispute this. He should've been laughed off the campaign trail but won the GOP's nomination. That has zero to do with Hillary.
  10. Joined
    05 Nov '06
    Moves
    81346
    28 Oct '18 16:001 edit
    @vivify said
    Hillary absolutely made the difference in an election decided by one percent in some states, and even less than that in others. Those closely contested states probably would've swung in favor of Sanders had he been the choice instead of Clinton.

    Still, there's no reason why Trump should've even come close to winning the nomination of a major party. He's an unintelligent, ...[text shortened]... been laughed off the campaign trail but won the GOP's nomination. That has zero to do with Hillary.
    Trump beat out 17 polished politicians, then beat the Clinton machine.

    If Trump is an unintelligent buffoon, then what are the ones he beat?
  11. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56305
    28 Oct '18 17:54
    Why do small states with tiny populations get an equal amount of
    represetntatives as giant states?

    Surely this does democracy no good at all?
  12. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    28 Oct '18 18:091 edit
    @shavixmir said
    Why do small states with tiny populations get an equal amount of
    represetntatives as giant states?

    Surely this does democracy no good at all?
    Roughly the same reason small countries get equal representation in the Council of the EU.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

    There is disparity in the size, wealth and political system of member states, but all have de jure equal rights. In practice, certain states are considerably more attractive than others. While in some areas majority voting takes place where larger states have more votes than smaller ones, smaller states have disproportional representation compared to their population.
  13. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    56305
    28 Oct '18 18:29
    @athousandyoung said
    Roughly the same reason small countries get equal representation in the Council of the EU.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

    There is disparity in the size, wealth and political system of member states, but all have de jure equal rights. In practice, certain states are considerably more attractive than others. While in some ...[text shortened]... aller ones, smaller states have disproportional representation compared to their population.
    I sincerely doubt it’s the same.
    The council runs parallel with the parliament and most votes need both council and parliament approval.

    The parliament votes on what’s best for the voters.
    The council (consisting per subject of 1 minister from each country) votes along national parliamentary interests.

    I’m pretty sure the US system doesn’t represent two seperate layers of democracy (national and international interests).
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    28 Oct '18 18:31
    @athousandyoung said
    Roughly the same reason small countries get equal representation in the Council of the EU.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_state_of_the_European_Union

    There is disparity in the size, wealth and political system of member states, but all have de jure equal rights. In practice, certain states are considerably more attractive than others. While in some ...[text shortened]... aller ones, smaller states have disproportional representation compared to their population.
    They don't, and shouldn't - even your quote says "smaller states have disproportional representation compared to their population."
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    iEn guardia, Ingles!
    tinyurl.com/y43jqfyd
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    28 Oct '18 18:33
    @kazetnagorra said
    They don't, and shouldn't - even your quote says "smaller states have disproportional representation compared to their population."
    Yes. Small EU states have disproportional representation compared to their population. Just like small US states have disproportional representation compared to their population.
Back to Top