Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
glad we can agree on something. could you imagine how pissed people would be at our government if they got a daily tally of how many people our government has murdered overseas or got a tally of how many billions of dollars the government is wasting while accomplishing nothing good for the american people? they may actually demand a decent government that is accountable to its citizens.
Or better yet, could you imagine how many New Jerseyans would stop going to Walmart if they got a report on working conditions in Cambodia? Or how many would stop eating beef if they got a daily report on South American deforestation?
Or better yet, could you imagine how many New Jerseyans would stop going to Walmart if they got a report on working conditions in Cambodia? Or how many would stop eating beef if they got a daily report on South American deforestation?
well, they see a benefit to poor working conditions in cambodia. the only benefit they see when obama sends a drone missile into someones house is the potential for an act of retaliatory terrorism (blowback) on American soil.
If we had a real popular vote system we have no way of knowing who would win based just on the electoral college popular vote.
We could get some idea. Democrats would certainly be advantaged because there are more registered Democrats in the largest states (Florida and Texas excepted). While you could make the argument that the inevitability of a state like New Jersey going blue depresses Republican turnout, you could also make the argument it depresses Democratic turnout.
We haven't really seen an election with a strong turnout/groundgame operation in a large Blue state. North Carolina's turnout is likely maxed out. Texas will become more competitive for Democrats in the coming years due to rapid demographic changes, so any Democratic candidate will be able to eat into a Republican's margins there. The same is true of Georgia. I guess the question would be whether a Republican could sufficiently eat into Democratic margins in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, Philadelphia, etc.
I think a Republican would have to run a very different campaign to win...far less emphasis on issues important to rural voters. More than 50% of the country's population lives in our 25 largest MSAs.
you could also make the argument it depresses Democratic turnout.
I did make this argument in my post. The point is that under the current system we don't really know exactly who votes and who doesn't. We can't say for sure who would win a true popular vote and by how much.
The people who are equating HRC's popular vote win with an actual popular vote win (therefore she should have won because she DID win) are making no real point at all. We don't have that system so it doesn't work that way. If we did... I really don't know what we would see. We may be in for some surprises.
Edit: Actualy I misunderstood, I didn't make that point in my post, but it's very true. When you know your state will go a certain color, maybe fewer voters come out to vote in both parties.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 11-23-2016 at 03:08 PM..
I did make this argument in my post. The point is that under the current system we don't really know exactly who votes and who doesn't. We can't say for sure who would win a true popular vote and by how much.
The people who are equating HRC's popular vote win with an actual popular vote win (therefore she should have won because she DID win) are making no real point at all. We don't have that system so it doesn't work that way. If we did... I really don't know what we would see. We may be in for some surprises.
for one thing, it may expedite demands of rural/suburban areas to be more independent or maybe even completely independent. there has been a great deal of noise about a california secession after this election but prior to this election there was plenty of noise about northern california seceding because they dont like the large influence that the cities have over the rural/suburban areas in the north. this issue can also be found in several other states around the country.
we dont really have blue vs red states, we have cities vs rural/suburban areas.
you can bet that once a legalization of current illegals law kicks in, there will magically be closer to 30 million illegals not 11 million. that is a bs number.
also, my googling shows closer to 2.2 million people in prison in america.
My figures were from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, using their percentages, it would seem if there are 2.2 million people in prison in the US and 20% were of Hispanic origin, (since they seem to all get lumped in as "Mexicans") and using the 11 million figure, that would mean less than 10% of the illegal "Mexicans" in jail are "killers and rapists". To use your "30 million" figure would make it even less. As I said, most of them want to stay under the radar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
I don't just mean Mexico doesn't literally stop people at the border. What are they doing to improve their country so that people don't feel they have better opportunities here? Same with other countries around there that give us a lot of illegals. Seeing so many citizens over the years jump ship and illegally enter a neighbor to their north should make these countries wonder what they're doing wrong and work on fixing it.
Gee, in an effort to improve their country Mexico entices Ford and other manufacturers to move there. Cheaper labor, less restrictive environmental laws, plus, there is a South American market for automobiles. Then we complain because they moved the plant there???
The USA consumes goods from all over the world. Computers, and other electronic devices pretty much ALL are manufactured in China. I know I'm using an HP computer and it came from China, IBM had Lenovo making their laptops. Then I believe they sold the laptop business to Lenovo. How many people shop at Walmart? Why? Low prices. Same with Amazon, or the other online retailers. Supposedly "small business" is supposed to be the backbone of the US. Although all the "big box" stores have put most of the ma and pa business out of business.
A lot of little ma and pa businesses in Indiana and Ohio used to make things for the auto industry, stuff like door knobs, etc. Their all gone, along with the auto plants. I remember during the recession in the 80's seeing a bumper sticker: "Out of Work? Hungry? Eat your Import!"
I did make this argument in my post. The point is that under the current system we don't really know exactly who votes and who doesn't. We can't say for sure who would win a true popular vote and by how much.
But we do know, in a rough sense, who votes and who doesn't. Republicans voters tend to be older, whiter, more rural/exurban, and we know that they are more reliable voters than core Democratic constituencies. So in theory, Democrats have more room for improvement in urban areas than Republicans do in exurbs and rural areas (where higher-propensity voters live).
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415
The people who are equating HRC's popular vote win with an actual popular vote win (therefore she should have won because she DID win) are making no real point at all. We don't have that system so it doesn't work that way. If we did... I really don't know what we would see. We may be in for some surprises.
Well, it is an "actual popular vote win" in that she received more raw votes than Trump. I don't know too many people who are saying that she should be President because she won more votes. I think you can recognize the legitimacy of the Electoral College while simultaneously pointing out that it disadvantages more heavily populated states.
One thing Mexico can do is work to make the country safer. Safety is an issue in many Latin American countries. Mexico needs more than jobs to make it a better place to live but more jobs/better industry is a good start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Well, it is an "actual popular vote win" in that she received more raw votes than Trump. I don't know too many people who are saying that she should be President because she won more votes. I think you can recognize the legitimacy of the Electoral College while simultaneously pointing out that it disadvantages more heavily populated states.
By "actual popular vote win" I meant a win in a popular vote system, which we don't have. The popular vote we have/she won isn't a relevant popular vote because of the electoral college. As I've been saying, results would be different in a real popular vote system. She may still have won but we may have seen some diffferent numbers - maybe higher turnout, maybe it would have been a closer call, maybe she wouldn't have even won. Results would be different and the results of the popular vote don't even matter anyway.
I have no issues with the electoral college, I am just tired of seeing "but but but she won the popular vote!!" all over the internet and even IRL. Because the answer is:... so?. For these reasons.
for one thing, it may expedite demands of rural/suburban areas to be more independent or maybe even completely independent. there has been a great deal of noise about a california secession after this election but prior to this election there was plenty of noise about northern california seceding because they dont like the large influence that the cities have over the rural/suburban areas in the north. this issue can also be found in several other states around the country.
we dont really have blue vs red states, we have cities vs rural/suburban areas.
Or to bring things closer to home, we've heard a great deal of noise about Staten Island seceding.
I don't know if it's strictly an urban/rural thing although it does seem many metro areas swung bluer this time around while many rural areas reddened. I think this was an "identity" election among people with two competing views of America. I think it really is, in some ways, a battle of Cosmopolitanism vs Americanism.
ill give you one of my personal secrets for what makes me a great troll.
i find making people mad online to be relaxing for me. so while they are boiling, im relaxed and enjoying. feel free to feel sorry for me for that. its also why im very good at in person confrontation. they get mad, im perfectly fine.
LOL, seriously after reading what you post you are not very good at it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
