Animavore wrote:Fucking strawman. They don't really believe he isn't president. And the left do get things done. They've been out in force protesting and storming townhalls, having Republicans on the run.

Strawman you say?

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote: Trump is about as unpopular as a politician can be yet he'll end up affecting more change in his first year of being a politician...

He hasn't done and won't do fuck all.

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:Fucking strawman. They don't really believe he isn't president. And the left do get things done. They've been out in force protesting and storming townhalls, having Republicans on the run.

Strawman you say?

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote: Trump is about as unpopular as a politician can be yet he'll end up affecting more change in his first year of being a politician...

He hasn't done and won't do fuck all.

I don't follow.

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:Fucking strawman. They don't really believe he isn't president. And the left do get things done. They've been out in force protesting and storming townhalls, having Republicans on the run.

Strawman you say?

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote: Trump is about as unpopular as a politician can be yet he'll end up affecting more change in his first year of being a politician...

He hasn't done and won't do fuck all.

I don't follow.

You claimed the idea that people don't believe Trump is a real president with real powers is a strawman. Well, I can show at least one person claiming he "hasn't done and won't do fuck all". Now normally finding one quote somewhere on the internet to contradict a claim of a strawman is pretty lame but I think it applies in this case.

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:Fucking strawman. They don't really believe he isn't president. And the left do get things done. They've been out in force protesting and storming townhalls, having Republicans on the run.

Strawman you say?

Animavore wrote:

He hasn't done and won't do fuck all.

I don't follow.

You claimed the idea that people don't believe Trump is a real president will real powers is a strawman. Well, I can show at least one person claiming he "hasn't done and won't do fuck all". Now normally finding one quote somewhere on the internet to contradict a claim of a strawman is pretty lame but I think it applies in this case.

Oh wow! You found a quote made by an Irishman on Paddy's Day. I shouldn't have to express why that should be discounted.

Now look at all of my posts detailing major concerns, especially with regards the environment.

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Strawman you say?

I don't follow.

You claimed the idea that people don't believe Trump is a real president will real powers is a strawman. Well, I can show at least one person claiming he "hasn't done and won't do fuck all". Now normally finding one quote somewhere on the internet to contradict a claim of a strawman is pretty lame but I think it applies in this case.

Oh wow! You found a quote made by an Irishman on Paddy's Day. I shouldn't have to express why that should be discounted.

Now look at all of my posts detailing major concerns, especially with regards the environment.

FWIW, I had remembered the quote but not who'd said it. I've seen that sentiment elsewhere with the "notmypresidenters" but specifically recalled it being posted on this forum so when you claimed it was a strawman I decided to look it up (searching my own posts) for reference. I wasn't trying to pick on you or anything but you did ask why I had a "bee in my bonnet" over these things and it's an attitude I've seen increasingly since Trump's election.

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:
I don't follow.

You claimed the idea that people don't believe Trump is a real president will real powers is a strawman. Well, I can show at least one person claiming he "hasn't done and won't do fuck all". Now normally finding one quote somewhere on the internet to contradict a claim of a strawman is pretty lame but I think it applies in this case.

Oh wow! You found a quote made by an Irishman on Paddy's Day. I shouldn't have to express why that should be discounted.

Now look at all of my posts detailing major concerns, especially with regards the environment.

FWIW, I had remembered the quote but not who'd said it. I've seen that sentiment elsewhere with the "notmypresidenters" but specifically recalled it being posted on this forum so when you claimed it was a strawman I decided to look it up (searching my own posts) for reference. I wasn't trying to pick on you or anything but you did ask why I had a "bee in my bonnet" over these things and it's an attitude I've seen increasingly since Trump's election.

I think I remember I had read this article below not long prior when I said that, but didn't articulate it very well.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ing-214775

Something like that.

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:

purplerat wrote:

Animavore wrote:Fucking strawman. They don't really believe he isn't president. And the left do get things done. They've been out in force protesting and storming townhalls, having Republicans on the run.

Strawman you say?

Animavore wrote:

He hasn't done and won't do fuck all.

I don't follow.

You claimed the idea that people don't believe Trump is a real president with real powers is a strawman. Well, I can show at least one person claiming he "hasn't done and won't do fuck all". Now normally finding one quote somewhere on the internet to contradict a claim of a strawman is pretty lame but I think it applies in this case.

These two things don't follow.

Having the title and powers does not automatically mean one understands them or is capable of responsibly performing the job.

Whether he has or has not actually managed to do anything speaks directly to whether he is actually capable of performing the job. Whether the things he has promised divide or unite, are possible, are legal, are lauditory, or are even within the remit of a President are likewise directly applicable to his suitability for the possition.

Trump is in the job but he isn't close to displaying the ability, competence or responsibility required to be a president's arsehole. That's what people mean by "not a president". I.E. president but not ptesidential.

It's really not hard.

Er? Every single president has done something that could be argued to be not "presidential". There is no definition of what presidential means and is a subjective qualifier. Nice try though.

willhud9 wrote:Er? Every single president has done something that could be argued to be not "presidential". There is no definition of what presidential means and is a subjective qualifier. Nice try though.

Keep straining them gnats Will.

Indeed, every single President will do stuff not considered Presidential by some demographic somewhere sometime.

Yippee

Surprisingly some people can differentiate between the way things are done and the things that are done, or not done, and often why. Helps if the presidential moments outweigh the venal blithering idiot moments though.

Now let's all double down with some more semantics.

willhud9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

purplerat wrote:@Thomas Eshuis,

I can't see how you think the popular vote is separate from the EC when it only exists as a function of the EC.

Because, as I've pointed out in my response to Will's post, my case was never about the EC.
My case is about people being justified in not recognising a president as theirs (as in, not representing their values), if they did not vote for that president and even more so, if most other people in the country also did not.

But those people are not justified.

You really need to demonstrate how they are not.

willhud9 wrote: We live in a representative democracy meaning our voices are placed in the control of elected officials and not directly in our control. I live in a conservative, predominantly Republican district for my state. My district's representative is Dave Brat, the guy who was conservative and tea-party enough to oust Eric Cantor from his House Majority Leader seat. Just because he does not align with my views, just because I did not vote for him, does not give me any leg to state that he is not my district's representative.

Read again what I posted.

No one is claiming Trump understands the power he has or is capable of doing the job of POTUS. By all accounts he's ill-informed and incompetent as a lawmaker.

That's​ precisely why it's scary that he is POTUS.

purplerat wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

purplerat wrote:@Thomas Eshuis,

I can't see how you think the popular vote is separate from the EC when it only exists as a function of the EC.

Because, as I've pointed out in my response to Will's post, my case was never about the EC.
My case is about people being justified in not recognising a president as theirs (as in, not representing their values), if they did not vote for that president and even more so, if most other people in the country also did not.

purplerat wrote: It's not like the two happened separately but concurrently. And if you want to get really technical nobody casted a vote for Clinton or Trump.

They vote with the reasonable expectation that their vote will contribute to Clinton or Trump winning the EC.

purplerat wrote: The votes were cast for electors who were pledged to one or the other. Saying Clinton won the popular vote is about as meaningful as saying she "won" in the pre-election polling.

Except that it isn't. As one is not the actualy vote people cast and the other is.

purplerat wrote:
You keep saying your argument isn't this or that, so what exactly did you mean by:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Except that in this case there's a valid argument to be made: Trump was not elected democratically. He was elected through a non-representative system.

If Trump wasn't elected by a democratic system then no president elected under the same system was.

But, as I said before, there were only four results that differed from the popular vote.

purplerat wrote: If the system is undemocratic then it's undemocratic. If by happy coincidence the person elected by such an undemocratic system would also have been elected by a democratic that doesn't mean they were actually elected democratically.

Never said it did.
The point is that people have to deal with a president that was not the president they, or the majority of the country voted for.
And that, that is a valid basis to not recognise that president as their president.

What exactly is the point here?

That people are justified in not recognising Trump as a representative of their views and ideals.

purplerat wrote:Not recognizing that he's president doesn't change that he is in fact president.

Never said it does.

purplerat wrote: Even with the complete shit show that has been his first 100 days he's still already implemented long lasting changes, first and foremost in getting his SCOTUS nominee through and on the bench.

I'm not sure exactly what people think burying their heads in the sand and pretending this is not happening is supposed to achieve. About the only thing these people are achieving is a great demonstration in why conservatives regularly mop the floor with liberals in US politics. Say what you will about the right but when shit doesn't go their way they actually go out and do something about it rather than alternating between wallowing in self-pity and pretending it just didn't happen.

I am not sure exactly why people fail to adresss what their interlocutors actually post, rather than projecting things upon them.

We interrupt this broadcast to remind viewers that Bill O'Reilly is a sexist, bigoted, anti-science, dishonest, stupid loudmouth who has finally received his long overdue come-uppance. Thank you.

Blackadder wrote:We interrupt this broadcast to remind viewers that Bill O'Reilly is a sexist, bigoted, anti-science, dishonest, stupid loudmouth who has finally received his long overdue come-uppance. Thank you.

It seems like a long time coming.

OlivierK wrote:

proudfootz wrote:I would prefer to do away with the EC, but I'm not aware of any likely path to its elimination.

Don't know about "likely" but this seems the best bet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_ ... te_Compact

Sounds like a good 'end run' around the worst aspects of the EC.

If it ever goes into effect I wonder if it will withstand court challenges.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:No one is claiming Trump understands the power he has or is capable of doing the job of POTUS. By all accounts he's ill-informed and incompetent as a lawmaker.

That's​ precisely why it's scary that he is POTUS.

And that we have to actually have a discussion as to whether he really POTUS is or not when he's doing really scary shit as POTUS and very capable of doing far worse makes it even scarier.

Outside of the Trumpkins who the fuck really cares if he's "presidential" or not? He could be "presidential" and still be a really shitty president. We've had plenty of those so what does it really matter at the cost of confusing whether this particular president actual has the power to do really bad shit (he does)?

I hear they gave this pinhead a 25 million dollar severance package. He'd apparently just signed a $100 million contract.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bill-o-reilly-severance-fox-news-host-expected-get-25-n748916

Some shits get all the breaks.

Yeah. It ain't fucking FAIR, I tell ya!

I'd have done it for 10 million.

OlivierK wrote:The problem here seems to be a conflation of two different concepts:

The total popular vote made by people voting to choose Electoral College electors, and

The total popular vote made by people voting directly for President (NPV, or National Popular Vote, which currently doesn't happen)

There are good reasons to think that the percentages of the vote won by major party candidates under the two systems would be similar, and there are good reasons to believe that the percentages of the vote won by major party candidates under the two systems would not be the same.

History can only guide us with how well the EC vote lines up with popular-vote-under-EC-conditions, not popular-vote-under-NPV-conditions.

This is all true, but a far more important aspect, and why it's a bit silly to tout popular vote wins, is in how the campaigns are run. From the beginning, all their strategies, all their resource allocations, the places they hold rallies, the TV and radio stations, and newspaper an magazine's, etc, chosen to run ads in, where to put workers doing door to doors, etc etc etc, everything is focused on getting the 270, the popular vote doesn't enter the equations. if the election were by popular vote, we'd see vastly different campaigns.

Whether you want to call Trump president, or whether you think he deserves respect due to the title or not, one thing you can say is the office of POTUS will be tainted with an orange tint, diminished for the foreseeable future if not permanently. Will the orange tint prove indelible?