Support NeoGAF

[theignoramus]

While better than all the recent Presidents, Obama still had scandals (stolen from some article):

1. Operation Fast and Furious
2. Benghazi
3. The IRS targeted conservative organizations
4. The DOJ seized Associated Press phone records as well as phone and email records from Fox News reporter James Rosen
5. The NSA conducted mass surveillance against American citizens without a warrant
6. The Obama administration paid ransom to Iran for hostages, and lied to the American people about it
7. Hillary's email scandal
8. The Environmental Protection Agency poisoned a Colorado river
9. The EPA also broke federal law in promoting a regulation
10. The General Services Administration scandal
11. The Secret Service scandal

source: http://www.dailywire.com/news/10982/obama-says-hes-had-scandal-free-administration-aaron-bandler

The last president started an illegal war, blocked UN inspectors in the last hours before the invasion and sanctioned torture.
Clinton was a degenerate womaniser with a past that included rape allegations. He ushered himself into office executing a mentally ill Black man to prove he was tough on crime.
His predecessor was elected into office using Birth of a Nation style racial fear mongering with Willie Horton ads.
Reagan lied to the American people about an arms scandal, supported terrorist deaths squads in Latin America, lied to Congress about Pakistan's nuclear weapons program and gave weapons to the Islamist fanatics that would go on to blow up the World Trade Center.

I'll take Obama everyday of the week over those men.

 

[Reeks]

The point is there was no failure. I do not see it as a failure if the popular vote winner doesn't become President. For some reason others think that and imo it's silly. The EC is all that matters win that you win end of story no failure there. A popular vote win condition means a different campaign.

Ohh yikes. So that wasn't a joke and it wasn't sarcasm?

 

[Nibiru]

Ohh yikes. So that wasn't a joke and it wasn't sarcasm?

Wait you think the person that wins the popular vote should be President?

 

[PatThePassive]

*millions* more americans voted for the candidate who lost. the system is a farce.

I wouldn't feel good about it if my candidate won by getting millions less votes. I'd still be saying we need to change it.

It'd be like if the cubs lost the world series after winning 4 games and everyone saying the cubs needed a better strategy. it's a farce

The proper baseball analogy would be the cubs lose the world series despite having the most points total but all those points were in 3 of the seven games.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

*millions* more americans voted for the candidate who lost. the system is a farce.

I wouldn't feel good about it if my candidate won by getting millions less votes. I'd still be saying we need to change it.

It'd be like if the cubs lost the world series after winning 4 games and everyone saying the cubs needed a better strategy. it's a farce

If the Cubs lost the World Series after winning 4 games, that'd be wrong because the stated rules of the World Series are to win four games.

Here's a more analogous situation. The Cubs outscore the Indians 58-10, but lose four games. The Cubs then whine that they were the better team since they outscored the Indians and thus deserve the Championship. But outscoring the opponent in aggregate was never the rules of the game. Just winning the four games was.

The stated rules of the American electoral system is not to get the majority of the popular vote. It's a bunk and shitty comparison when there are more astute ways to attack the system.

Edit: ding ding ding.

The proper baseball analogy would be the cubs lose the world series despite having the most points total but all those points were in 3 of the seven games.

 

[slit]

Yes, this is precisely why the electoral college exists. Because we are one country, and it's important to listen to the states with fewer people and have their voices be heard.

This time, it failed Democrats and progressives throughout the nation. Reacting brashly and moving to abolish the electoral college would be a step in the wrong direction.

When an election doesn't go our way, the correct way to react is to not change the election system so it now always favors Democrats. It's to fight back within the existing political system that has defined our nation and push for Democratic change in the states where we failed.

Except that's not why it exists at all. The founding fathers were concerned about foreign influence which is why it exists. Quite ironic considering this election, huh?

 

[Imperfected]

Wait you think the person that wins the popular vote should be President?

So, how do you feel about the possibility of faithless electors flipping the outcome?

 

[ZOONAMI]

Yes, this is precisely why the electoral college exists. Because we are one country, and it's important to listen to the states with fewer people and have their voices be heard.

This time, it failed Democrats and progressives throughout the nation. Reacting brashly and moving to abolish the electoral college would be a step in the wrong direction.

When an election doesn't go our way, the correct way to react is to not change the election system so it now always favors Democrats. It's to fight back within the existing political system that has defined our nation and push for Democratic change in the states where we failed.

That isn't why the EC was incepted and we can get rid of a 200+ year old election system from when there were less than 13 states when it has failed twice in the last 4 elections to align with the popular vote.

 

[zeelman]

Man, I respect Obama so much, but this was disheartening...

The US needs so much more right now than a reminder to vote and for the press to tone it down

Hilary has almost 3 million more votes than Trump. We did our part. We can't help that our country has this shitty electoral college system that doesn't represent the popular vote.

 

[John Rabbit]

The point is there was no failure. I do not see it as a failure if the popular vote winner doesn't become President. For some reason others think that and imo it's silly. The EC is all that matters win that you win end of story no failure there. A popular vote win condition means a different campaign.

You do understand that the EC votes are basically determined by the popular vote at a state level right? So yes, the popular vote matters very much.

 

[Caja 117]

The point is there was no failure. I do not see it as a failure if the popular vote winner doesn't become President. For some reason others think that and imo it's silly. The EC is all that matters win that you win end of story no failure there. A popular vote win condition means a different campaign.

A system where is possible to get 70% of the popular vote and still not get elected president is a failure.

 

[Reeks]

Wait you think the person that wins the popular vote should be President?

Obama referred to the EC as a vestige with good reason. I'll second his reasoning.

 

[El_Mau]

All we fucking do is argue about everything every single day on this forum. You don't know what you're talking about.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm talking about opposing views when we talk about anything Trump related, I know GAF it's far from a hive mind, but recently all the threads about Trump have ended with an apocalyptic view of the future. Yes, the next four years will be hard, but you guys have survived worst situations.

 

[oreomunsta]

I mean realistically we can't expect him to clean the country's mess in 30 days. He won't be here in the future to save any of us, that's on the electorate itself at this point.

No, he can't, you're right. I was somewhat hoping he could pull a political red card on some of the shenanigans going on, but he took a very restrained stance.

He did catch my attention, though, when he threw a vague threat at Russia for its interference, but couldn't say more on the matter

 

[Nibiru]

So, how do you feel about the possibility of faithless electors flipping the outcome?

It's allowed according to the constitution and is the whole point of electors so I don't have a problem with them at all I just think the chance of it happening this year is a pipe dream. I have no problem with them though. It's part of the rules.

 

[Dr.Acula]

I found it interesting that he didn't say he believed the electoral collage should be bound by the votes, rather that the electoral collage operates independently.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Yes, this is precisely why the electoral college exists. Because we are one country, and it's important to listen to the states with fewer people and have their voices be heard.

This time, it failed Democrats and progressives throughout the nation. Reacting brashly and moving to abolish the electoral college would be a step in the wrong direction.

When an election doesn't go our way, the correct way to react is to not change the election system so it now always favors Democrats. It's to fight back within the existing political system that has defined our nation and push for Democratic change in the states where we failed.

When republicans win an election they do everything in their power to make shit immensely favor them. See North Carolina.

 

[ZOONAMI]

I found it interesting that he didn't say he believed the electoral collage should be bound by the votes, rather that the electoral collage operates independently.

Because according to the constitution and the United States Code, it does.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Obama referred to the EC as a vestige with good reason. I'll second his reasoning.

If anything, it's a reminder that we can't win without swaying moderates in the swing states. This election proves that Blue states will vote - and the majority of them in those states are voting (as seen by the Popular vote).

And that a city is not the state alone.

The task of pushing moderates in a swing state is bloody hard though. Being a swing state, you're basically fighting Repubs tooth and nail for every vote since they're just as present as you are.

 

[oreomunsta]

Hilary has almost 3 million more votes than Trump. We did our part. We can't help that our country has this shitty electoral college system that doesn't represent the popular vote.

Yeah, voters did their part. Lots more people didn't vote this time around, though, if I recall correctly.

 

[jackal27]

Well that basically felt like a big "You made your bed, now sleep in it."

 

[mnz]

Wait you think the person that wins the popular vote should be President?

Of course. This system is ridiculous.

 

[Reeks]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I'm talking about opposing views when we talk about anything Trump related, I know GAF it's far from a hive mind, but recently all the threads about Trump have ended with an apocalyptic view of the future. Yes, the next four years will be hard, but you guys have survived worst situations.

We've never seen anything like this. The veil (however thin) is now completely gone. It's not an unnatural response to see the end when we've already witnessed the absurd come to pass. We're just upside-down for now. I sure hope you're right...

If anything, it's a reminder that we can't win without swaying moderates in the swing states. This election proves that Blue states will vote - and the majority are listening to us for voting.

And that a city is not the state alone.

We should still be able to overcome within the current architecture, yes. But that was a separate point.

 

[Chuck Norris]

Obama handled a medical emergency during a conference with class and speed. Imagine how President Burnt Sienna would have responded.

Probably would have asked the people in the crowd to knock him out and throw him out

 

[Blizzard]

lol, it was a Hawaiian phrase, and I believe it's "Merry Christmas".

Spoiler

"Death to America and suck my fucking balls, dorks. Allah up in this bitch. "

"Merry Christmas"

Apparently it was Hawaiian.

Did he say mele kalikimaka? Darn, if I'd been watching I would have actually understood that.

 

[uncleniccius]

Yes, this is precisely why the electoral college exists. Because we are one country, and it's important to listen to the states with fewer people and have their voices be heard.

This time, it failed Democrats and progressives throughout the nation. Reacting brashly and moving to abolish the electoral college would be a step in the wrong direction.

When an election doesn't go our way, the correct way to react is to not change the election system so it now always favors Democrats. It's to fight back within the existing political system that has defined our nation and push for Democratic change in the states where we failed.

I am not American but it really doesn't seem to serve this purpose in practice. All it does is hand the power over picking the executive to the people of a handful of swing states.


A first past the post system with constituencies the size that they are in the US is problematic. If you made the states proportional (IE: electoral college votes split depending on popular vote) then in practice it would actually do this. Small states would have a larger voting power than their populations would suggest they should, and the power wouldn't all be in the few states. Trump would have won either way I believe, but it would be a much better system. AND it would make voter turnout higher as people in solid red/blue states that will never change can actually turn up knowing their vote matters.

And interestingly, it ends up giving more power to a number of highly populated states (Florida, Virginia etc) and making votes in these places far more valuable. Furthermore, it would make campaigning in a greater number of states worthwhile, and it wouldn't make politicians just stick to the urban areas as popular vote would. d

 

[Jobbs]

If the Cubs lost the World Series after winning 4 games, that'd be wrong because the stated rules of the World Series are to win four games.

Here's a more analogous situation. The Cubs outscore the Indians 58-10, but lose four games. The Cubs then whine that they were the better team since they outscored the Indians and thus deserve the Championship. But outscoring the opponent in aggregate was never the rules of the game. Just winning the four games was.

The stated rules of the American electoral system is not to get the majority of the popular vote. It's a bunk and shitty comparison when there are more astute ways to attack the system.

Edit: ding ding ding.

I don't give a fuck what the stated rules are. The stated rules are garbage.

Everyone has an idea of what voting means. Everyone understands what democracy means. Everyone understands what "rule of majority" means.

It's incredibly, incredibly counterintuitive that one side can decisively get more votes, millions more votes, and lose. I don't know how anyone accepts this. It's an ancient, outdated, purposeless idea that is only doing great harm and no good whatsoever

 

[chillybright]

Of course. This system is ridiculous.

What is your opinion on the Senate?

 

[Arc]

Yes, this is precisely why the electoral college exists. Because we are one country, and it's important to listen to the states with fewer people and have their voices be heard.

This time, it failed Democrats and progressives throughout the nation. Reacting brashly and moving to abolish the electoral college would be a step in the wrong direction.

When an election doesn't go our way, the correct way to react is to not change the election system so it now always favors Democrats. It's to fight back within the existing political system that has defined our nation and push for Democratic change in the states where we failed.

Everytime actually.

 

[Acorn]

A man with that poor of a clothesline cannot be trusted.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I don't give a fuck what the stated rules are. The stated rules are garbage.

Everyone has an idea of what voting means. Everyone understands what democracy means. Everyone understands what "rule of majority" means.

It's incredibly, incredibly counterintuitive that one side can decisively get more votes, millions more votes, and lose. I don't know how anyone accepts this. It's an ancient, outdated, purposeless idea that is only doing great harm and no good whatsoever

If you don't care what the rules are, you lose. You play to the strengths that allow you to win in a given system. Don't play cricket and then whine when the rules were actually baseball. This isn't a democracy and was never intended to be one. The founding of this country was based on a fear of direct democracy and a fear of the rule of an imperious majority.

If you want to change that go ahead, but until then, you need to learn to deal with the way the system exists. Dean's all encompassing 50-State Strategy would be a good place to start.

 

[John Rabbit]

Did he say mele kalikimaka? Darn, if I'd been watching I would have actually understood that.

Yes

 

[oreomunsta]

Did he say mele kalikimaka? Darn, if I'd been watching I would have actually understood that.

Yeah, that's what he threw in right at the end

 

[Imperfected]

A man with that poor of a clothesline cannot be trusted.

It's more of an aggressive hug.

 

[PatThePassive]

I don't give a fuck what the stated rules are. The stated rules are garbage.

Everyone has an idea of what voting means. Everyone understands what democracy means. Everyone understands what "rule of majority" means.

It's incredibly, incredibly counterintuitive that one side can decisively get more votes, millions more votes, and lose. I don't know how anyone accepts this. It's an ancient, outdated, purposeless idea that is only doing great harm and no good whatsoever

Didn't the Romans have a proper majority rules republic? That's a little more dated then the representative Republic

Fuck Obama's outward facing hope that Trump won't use his evil cabinet to fuck over the world and americans.

What do you want him to do? Lets be realistic

 

[MattKeil]

Yes, this is precisely why the electoral college exists. Because we are one country, and it's important to listen to the states with fewer people and have their voices be heard.

This is not what the electoral college does. The states with the least population are as roundly ignored as those with the most population. All the EC does is create a focus on a select group of mid-population states instead.

 

[Reeks]

I don't give a fuck what the stated rules are. The stated rules are garbage.

Everyone has an idea of what voting means. Everyone understands what democracy means. Everyone understands what "rule of majority" means.

It's incredibly, incredibly counterintuitive that one side can decisively get more votes, millions more votes, and lose. I don't know how anyone accepts this. It's an ancient, outdated, purposeless idea that is only doing great harm and no good whatsoever

"rules are rules. na-nah-nah-nah-nahhh-nahhh" <<Insert poorly thought out baseball analogy>>

 

[ant_]

I am not American but it really doesn't seem to serve this purpose in practice. All it does is hand the power over picking the executive to the people of a handful of swing states.


A first past the post system with constituencies the size that they are in the US is problematic. If you made the states proportional (IE: electoral college votes split depending on popular vote) then in practice it would actually do this. Trump would have won either way I believe, but it would be a much better system. AND it would make voter turnout higher as people in solid red/blue states that will never change can actually turn up knowing their vote matters.

I agree with your latter point. The electoral vote should be proportional within the state, not a winner-take-all system. That's a more recent development, as far as I know.

To everyone that quoted me saying that's not the point of the Electoral College, I disagree with you. The Electoral College was put into place to protect against the "tyranny of the majority" which was believed to be an inherent weakness of Direct Democracy.

I agree with everyone that the Electoral College has backfired on us. When something goes wrong, however, my first instinct is not to abolish it.

 

[Opto]

Fuck Obama's outward facing hope that Trump won't use his evil cabinet to fuck over the world and americans.

 

[theignoramus]

This about-face the right has done on Putin is astounding to me.

He's a White nationalist strongman they were naturally going to align with, given the shifting demographics of America and the surge of xenophobia.

 

[ZOONAMI]

All these trump supporters come out of the woodwork to support the EC when I'm sure they were eating up trumps tweets about the EC being terrible, rigged system, etc.

If HRC had won the EC but lost the popular vote you'd all want to get rid of the electoral college. If that were the case I would be agreeing with you, not defending an obvious relic that doesn't uphold the will of the people.

And yeah it's laughable, republicans don't engage in gerrymandering or voter suppression at all. /s

 

[Caja 117]

If you don't care what the rules are, you lose. You play to the strengths that allow you to win in a given system. Don't play cricket and then whine when the rules were actually baseball. This isn't a democracy and was never intended to be one. The founding of this country was based on a fear of direct democracy and a fear of the rule of an imperious majority.

If you want to change that go ahead, but until then, you need to learn to deal with the way the system exists. Dean's all encompassing 50-State Strategy would be a good place to start.

Sometimes rule get outdated and need to be change. I personally believe that how it is now, you will see more and more Presidents getting elected while loosing the popular vote, and you will see more and more one side doing gerymandering to get such results.

 

[uncleniccius]

I agree with your latter point. The electoral vote should be proportional within the state, not a winner-take-all system. That's a more recent development, as far as I know.

To everyone that quoted me saying that's not the point of the Electoral College, I disagree with you. The Electoral College was put into place to protect against the "tyranny of the majority" which was believed to be an inherent weakness of Direct Democracy.

I agree with everyone that the Electoral College has backfired on us. When something goes wrong, however, my first instinct is not to abolish it.

Fair enough then. I do think this change is needed, but a popular vote system also seems to have its problems.

In the UK we also have first past the post, but we have 650 constituencies (!) each worth 1 seat, and with the considerably smaller country size + much more constituencies it works much better.. it is still an imperfect system though. I guess that is because we have a greater number of parties earning >10% of the vote.

I will leave this now though before I fully derail the thread.

 

[Jobbs]

"rules are rules. na-nah-nah-nah-nahhh-nahhh" <<Insert poorly thought out baseball analogy>>

Except it was the correct analogy. We all understand what voting means. If you and your friends vote on what movie to watch next you understand what that means. Likewise we understand what a score in a baseball game is. We intuitively understand that most votes = win... Except in America it doesn't mean that because hundreds of years ago people living in an entirely different time were afraid of direct democracy for no good reason.

If ANYONE lost the election after winning millions more votes I'd say the system needs to change, regardless if they were my preferred candidate. It's absolute bunk.

 

[Nibiru]

All these trump supporters come out of the woodwork to support the EC when I'm sure they were eating up trumps tweets about the EC being terrible, rigged system, etc.

If HRC had won the EC but lost the popular vote you'd all want to get rid of the electoral college. If that were the case I would be agreeing with you, not defending an obvious relic that doesn't uphold the will of the people.

This is absolute truth. So it's probably best it just stays how it is.

 

[perfectchaos007]

Did he say mele kalikimaka? Darn, if I'd been watching I would have actually understood that.

This is the scene everyone should know the phrase from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2pk4p_yqH8

 

[ClosingADoor]

Sometimes rule get outdated and need to be change. I personally believe that how it is now, you will see more and more Presidents getting elected while loosing the popular vote, and you will see more and more one side doing gerymandering to get such results.

How do you gerrymander the electoral college? It's based on population and you can't redraw state lines like you do districts.

 

[Nafai1123]

This is absolute truth. So it's probably best it just stays how it is.

How do you come to that conclusion when he was saying the exact opposite?

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Except it was the correct analogy. We all understand what voting means. If you and your friends vote on what movie to watch next you understand what that means. Likewise we understand what a score in a baseball game is. We intuitively understand that most votes = win... Except in America it doesn't mean that because hundreds of years ago people living in an entirely different time were afraid of direct democracy for no good reason.

If ANYONE lost the election after winning millions more votes I'd say the system needs to change, regardless if my preferred candidate won. It's absolute bunk.

My vote where I live in the Uk is worth something like 0.1 of the average vote. This isn't something thats unique to America.

p.s. direct democracy gave us brexit

 

[ZOONAMI]

This is absolute truth. So it's probably best it just stays how it is.

Wut