0
rushmc

President Trump?

Recommended Posts

DanG

Quote

In Glasser's Reality Therapy, that is called catastrophic thinking.



Hmm. Is that what you call what you've been engaged in for the last eight years?

SHTF indeed.



You know, that is actually a good point.

William Glasser approached neurosis from the standpoint of imagined fear and real fear. Both your point and mine are dealing with imagined fear. The main difference I see is that you have no evidence to support your fear. I, on the other hand, base my fear on social unrest and domestic terrorism which has already begun since Trump's victory.

Here is one headline.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-protests-in-us-231165

The progressive liberal elite are not going to stop disrupting our society and culture just because they lost this battle. The fact is the war continues because their path to power is founded in chaos.

Since conservatives won this round our job is to make America a place where the majority has a good chance for a good life. Progressive liberals want the majority to have a struggling, depressed life and then they will rely on government to make them feel good.

I am here for you. Let me know how I can help as you deal with your readjustment.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

William Glasser approached neurosis from the standpoint of imagined fear and real fear. Both your point and mine are dealing with imagined fear. The main difference I see is that you have no evidence to support your fear. I, on the other hand, base my fear on social unrest and domestic terrorism which has already begun since Trump's victory.

Here is one headline.
http://www.politico.com/...rotests-in-us-231165



And to continue the lesson we have a wonderful example of confirmation bias.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iago

******
The electoral votes are based on population are they not? Therefore the votes to count same



Low population states get proportionately more electoral votes than high population states. If California got as many electoral votes per person as Wyoming, it would get about 188, instead of the 55 which it gets.

The reason the proportions are skewed is because of the mandated 2 for the Senate. Removing those two brings the proportions roughly in line across most of the 50 States.

Thank you, Captain Obvious .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wmw999

So then it's land mass that should vote, rather than individuals?

Wendy P.



One need only look at the county by county electoral map to see the system worked as designed. The states get the number of votes based on population. Really Wendy, I can't believe anybody thinks that this country should be run by little tiny pockets of high population while not taking a look at the country as a whole.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I can't believe anybody thinks that this country should be run by little tiny pockets of high population while not taking a look at the country as a whole.




One man one vote. Isn't that the definition of democracy?

APOLOGIES TO WOMEN
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

Quote

I can't believe anybody thinks that this country should be run by little tiny pockets of high population while not taking a look at the country as a whole.




One man one vote. Isn't that the definition of democracy?

APOLOGIES TO WOMEN



We are not a democracy.

We are a representative republic.


Works on the principal as the supreme court does when is strikes down laws that push majority ideal on minorities.
Or should that be changed to?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freddysdaddy

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=3jL3yxQVa9U

God bless America. [:/]B|B|



Kids who were raise to love their country.

And at least they are not closing down major highways and breaking car windshields !!!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk



APOLOGIES TO WOMEN



Exit poll information.

Interesting and you really should have read it before you posted what you did here.

BTW
Read ALL of it before you reply.
It is very mixed


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-exit-polls-how-donald-trump-won-the-us-presidency/
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

***

APOLOGIES TO WOMEN



Exit poll information.

Interesting and you really should have read it before you posted what you did here.

BTW
Read ALL of it before you reply.
It is very mixed


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-exit-polls-how-donald-trump-won-the-us-presidency/


Dude, I was apologizing for my non inclusive comment about one man on vote. I understand that many women voted for Trump.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm talking about general opinion and the way people work. If literally HALF of a population feels disenfranchised (or more - thanks electoral college!) then that is not good for the country. A certain amount of friction is to be expected, but equally opposed forces are inherently unstable in nature and should be avoided.

If there were no electoral college and the president were decided by popular vote it would not change the outcome of half the population feeling disenfranchised. What it would do is exacerbate the problem. Those living in other than the most populated cities/states would NEVER have a chance at electing a candidate that addressed their views. Out of 45 Elections this is the 5th time a president has lost the popular vote but won the presidency, however, in 1824 neither candidate received enough electoral votes to win. The house of representatives elected John Quincy Adams. Before the 2000 election, the last time this occurred was 1888. This is not a rare occurrence but it isn't common either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
firemedic

Those living in other than the most populated cities/states would NEVER have a chance at electing a candidate that addressed their views.


That only makes sense if you think of a State like a person - a homogenous blob with one opinion. But it isn't. In the 2012 breakdown there were only 5 states out of 51 (counting DC) where the majority had more than a 65% share of the vote. And the winner takes all setup of almost every state makes an absolute mockery of the situation.

Under the Electoral College the minority in a smaller state not only has to accept that they have zero influence on the presidency, they have to sit and watch the majority in their state - who may have only won by a few points - exert their disproportionate influence solely for the other guy.

Take New Hampshire - a margin of 40,000 people took 4 electoral votes. In California a margin of 3,000,000 took 55 votes. That's a margin of 10k people per elector vs 55k people per elector.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Sorry Bill. That is not a lie.

Yes, it is a lie. There has not been a criminal investigation by the FBI into the Clinton foundation for over a year.

> But I know for you it's the charge that counts.

I am good with the facts. You have been going on about how Clinton is GUILTY! GUILTY! for over a year now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jakee

***Those living in other than the most populated cities/states would NEVER have a chance at electing a candidate that addressed their views.


That only makes sense if you think of a State like a person - a homogenous blob with one opinion. But it isn't. In the 2012 breakdown there were only 5 states out of 51 (counting DC) where the majority had more than a 65% share of the vote. And the winner takes all setup of almost every state makes an absolute mockery of the situation.

Under the Electoral College the minority in a smaller state not only has to accept that they have zero influence on the presidency, they have to sit and watch the majority in their state - who may have only won by a few points - exert their disproportionate influence solely for the other guy.


FYI Maine and Nebraska have modified the winner-take-all EC votes, so it can be spilt on congressional districts: http://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0