Trump will be reelected

[columbus]

No it was designed to grant more power to the minority than a typical minority has in a demoracy.

Not just any minority, it was designed to protect the wealthy white elite landowners who were the superrich of the day. It still does, it was not designed to protect any other minority like blacks, immigrants, or Catholics. Protecting the rights of minorities is the function of The Constitution and the courts.
And you know it.

It was also designed based on the concept of sovereign states in a union aka Federal government.

The sovereignty of the states went away a long time ago. That's just one of the ways things are dramatically different in the USA from a couple of centuries ago.
Another is that the president didn't have much influence over domestic policies then. He was mainly the representative of the USA to foreign governments. Domestic policies were mostly the business of the democratic republic States. And many (most) of the modern issues didn't even exist then. There was no Federal Income tax or Healthcare system. The USA military wasn't the world's police force.

Etc. Etc.

Protecting the wealthy minority by disenfranchising millions of voters makes no more sense in the modern world than preventing women from voting.

The Electoral College needs to go away.

Tom

 

[Shad]

Not just any minority, it was designed to protect the wealthy white elite landowners who were the superrich of the day.

No it was an actual compromise. See the 3/5 compromise.

It still does, it was not designed to protect any other minority like blacks, immigrants, or Catholics. Protecting the rights of minorities is the function of The Constitution and the courts.
And you know it.

The fact that you think minorities means demographic shows you have no idea what you are talking about regarding the US constitution. I was talking about the voting minority vs majority as in elections. More so SCOTUS and the post civil-war administration did use the constitution to free slaves and grant citizenship.

The sovereignty of the states went away a long time ago.

Not legally.

That's just one of the ways things are dramatically different in the USA from a couple of centuries ago.

Not really. The difference is a lot of people in the present are clueless.

Another is that the president didn't have much influence over domestic policies then.

Enough that even the idea of freeing slaves triggered a war.

He was mainly the representative of the USA to foreign governments. Domestic policies were mostly the business of the democratic republic States.

Still is.

And many (most) of the modern issues didn't even exist then. There was no Federal Income tax or Healthcare system. The USA military wasn't the world's police force.

Which only establishes the expansion of the Fed.

Protecting the wealthy minority by disenfranchising millions of voters makes no more sense in the modern world than preventing women from voting.

The national vote is not part of the US system.

The Electoral College needs to go away.

Tom

So NY, Texas and Cali can decide the fate of a nation? Cali...... Seriously....

 

[columbus]

No it was an actual compromise. See the 3/5 compromise.

You're telling me that you believe that the Electoral College was designed to protect the black minority?
Do you really mean to say that, on the internet?
Tom

 

[columbus]

Not really. The difference is a lot of people in the present are clueless

You mean, because we "people in the present" see women and blacks and indigenese as persons with rights?

That makes us "clueless"?
Tom

 

[Shad]

You mean, because we "people in the present" see women and blacks and indigenese as persons with rights?

That makes us "clueless"?
Tom

No. My point was never about race but ignorance of US history and law. Such as people thinking the popular vote means something for national elections.

 

[Shad]

You're telling me that you believe that the Electoral College was designed to protect the black minority?

Nope. I am just pointing out your interpretation is wrong. I even said I am not talking about demographics but clearly you have issues with reading or your eyesight.

Do you really mean to say that, on the internet?
Tom

Your imagination is running wild. Keep it in check. Try reading next time...

 

[metis]

He seems to be frank, strong & decisive in contradistinction to many other presidents.
He believes and acts for "USA first.

If ignorance and dishonesty prevail, he will likely be reelected.

 

[Revoltingest]

If ignorance and dishonesty prevail, he will likely be reelected.

It depends more upon whom the Democrats run.
If 2020 sees a candidate as inspiring as Hillary,
Trump will be all....

 

[leibowde84]

He seems to be frank, strong & decisive in contradistinction to many other presidents.
He believes and acts for "USA first.

He is also the most ignorant, divisive, angry, and thin-skinned president in living history. He is also the most embarrassing president of my lifetime. He has control of the minds of about 30% of the population, but that could change if he keeps up these constant hissy fits and his immature, snowflake attitude.

 

[metis]

He is also the most ignorant, divisive, angry, and thin-skinned president in living history. He is also the most embarrassing president of my lifetime. He has control of the minds of about 30% of the population, but that could change if he keeps up these constant hissy fits and his immature, snowflake attitude.

And the above is a compliment.

 

[Sunstone]

He is also the most ignorant, divisive, angry, and thin-skinned president in living history.

I think what a lot of people don't understand is that there are millions of ignorant, divisive, angry, thin-skinned Americans who neither think of themselves nor think of Trump as being anything out of the usual --- much less as in any way bad people. In fact, it's likely they love Trump because he's just like them. Trump's support among that crowd is not going to diminish. It was them he was referring to when he said he could shoot a man in the face in broad daylight on Fifth Avenue and not lose any supporters.

 

[Revoltingest]

He is also the most ignorant, divisive, angry, and thin-skinned president in living history. He is also the most embarrassing president of my lifetime. He has control of the minds of about 30% of the population, but that could change if he keeps up these constant hissy fits and his immature, snowflake attitude.

I don't disagree with your assessment.
But unless the Dems run someone better, they'll be spanked once again.

 

[averageJOE]

I don't disagree with your assessment.
But unless the Dems run someone better, they'll be spanked once again.

I have to agree. If the Democrats rig the primaries again and force a corporate hack through, like Biden, Harris, or Booker, then I could see Trump getting re-elected. I'd even add Warren to that list.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So NY, Texas and Cali can decide the fate of a nation? Cali...... Seriously....

That's a misrepresentation of what's really going on. I went into the details recently here:

Should America be Run by a Political Minority or a Political Majority?

The Electoral College is only slightly about weighting states relative to each others and much more about weighting the majority vote vs. the minority vote in each state.

The general trend is that when the Democrats win a state, they win it by a large margin (but don't get anything extra because of it) and when Republicans win a state, they win it by a very small margin, (but the close margin doesn't get reflected in the results).

It's not about Democrats in California; it's about Democrats in Florida and Michigan.

 

[Shad]

That's a misrepresentation of what's really going on. I went into the details recently here:

Should America be Run by a Political Minority or a Political Majority?

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...political-majority.214307/page-5#post-5855963

Re-read my post and what it was replying to. It was a response to switching to the popular vote which was avoided by the FF for good reasons.

The Electoral College is only slightly about weighting states relative to each others and much more about weighting the majority vote vs. the minority vote in each state.

That was state choice not EC designed.

The general trend is that when the Democrats win a state, they win it by a large margin (but don't get anything extra because of it) and when Republicans win a state, they win it by a very small margin, (but the close margin doesn't get reflected in the results).

State issue not EC.

It's not about Democrats in California; it's about Democrats in Florida and Michigan.

Again state issue.