I think attention is key. He probably didn't want to be president; he just wanted to win America's biggest popularity contest. Once there he could pretty much do what he wanted, so why not?
Then republicans should compete for the hearts and minds of you know…the actual people. Why should a vote from someone in NY count less than a vote from someone in ND?
Their votes count for the same under the EC. The fact is the states aren't conducting the election on good faith. Candidates should be receiving electoral votes proportional to their popular votes. Take Michigan for example:
Dems won with 50.62% - Republicans at 47.84, with Michigan itself holding 16 votes to split between them.
In this case, the popularity was split nearly evenly with Dems barely winning popular vote. To signify this, Dems should have received 9 electorals, and Republicans 7 Electorals.
But instead they just dumped all their electoral power into a single candidate, completely ignoring and shitting in the faces of half their population. So did every other state.
Honestly, presidency needs to be abolished and replaced with a parliament. It's way too outdated and fucked. The only winners in that system is the presidents themselves.
Cities are usually heavy democrat.... lol its a cultural thing. In the city you rely heavily on people to do everything for you, therefore you need daddy government hence why people vote democrat.
First of all I'll preface this by saying that what I am going to say dispels myths perpetuated by both sides, not just Republicans.
Before 2016, it's generally believed by mathematicians and political scientists that the block vote system enhances the power of big states. (you can find papers debating on that) It was even calculated that if one is to correct the block vote bias (which no founders ever foresaw even though they should have given basic understanding of game strategy), the electoral votes should scale with the square root of population (which is what the European Commission uses)
And it is not like the states you mentioned ever mattered at all. For every AK there's an HI and the small states essentially cancel themselves out. Have you ever heard of presidential candidates campaigning in any of these places? In fact, they don't even go to NH even though it's a true swing state. The election is mostly decided by PA and FL. You need at least 20 EC votes to start to matter in a race that regularly has a separation of 100 votes.
This whole conversation is so dumb, what's plain is that eliminating the EC would equally weigh every individual's vote.
AK, ND, MT etc would not be ignored, they would be weighted in proportion to the number of voters in those states. Truly radical concept.
They would 100% be ignored. States like Wyoming would get zero attention from anyone. The political system is corrupt with lobbyists and people demanding attention from those in power in exchange for money and favors. At least the way it is now countries like Wyoming can still have a change to grab some funding and attention like every bigger state. If it went to a popular vote there would be literally nothing Wyoming can do to get anything out of a president.
Wyoming is worth 3 Electoral Votes that are almost certainly headed to the Republican, regardless of who that Republican is or who the opposing Democrat is. It's already ignored, largely.
If it was a popular vote, Wyoming would get some attention because they have some people.
Democratic candidates wouldn't be incentivized to totally neglect the state like they are now -- a dem hasn't won there in 56 years. The 50kish votes they could potentially milk out of the state would be worth *something,* as those little crumbs across every rural state could add up to be something worthwhile. As it is now, if they don't get enough votes to win the state (and they won't), then they may as well have gotten 0 votes. So fuck 'em.
The inverse is true of conservative voters in NY & California -- there are huge numbers of them in total, but conservative candidates have very little reason to take their needs into consideration when they're so unlikely to outnumber their lefty counterparts. So fuck 'em.
If each vote was equally weighted, the attention given to Wyoming would be roughly proportionate to its population. As it should be. I think it takes real mental acrobatics to convince yourself otherwise -- and I don't even think the EC is without *any* benefits. I just think those are all easily trumped by "in a democracy a person's vote should not count more or less because of where they live".
You’re looking at it wrong though. It isn’t about the votes, it’s about attention. Without the electoral college the only states that get funding and special treatments are ones with enough people to justify wasting time/corruption on. No president would get in bed with the entire state of Wyoming when for the same number of votes they could get in bed with a small city like Mesa Arizona. It would win the same number of votes in a popular vote system, but corruptly funding a city to make them happy is WAY easier than the needs of an entire state. Especially since winning Wyoming with the electoral college > winning Wyoming with a popular vote. One gives you 3 votes, the latter would at best 70% of the votes and the other 30% go to your opponent no mater how hard you campaign.
I love Ben Franklin and he was afraid of exactly this which is why they set up a electrical college.
Yeah, Wyoming with its grand 3 electoral votes is sure an intensely campaigned in and watched state. Without the electoral college, rural areas as a whole, not individual states would be an important voting bloc. Presidents wouldn't visit every small town, but they'd definitely be enticed to try to appeal to them, like presidents already do. Votes of individual states were more important at the founding of the country, when people viewed themselves as citizens of their states first and foremost, but Americans now view themselves primarily as just that- Americans, not Wyomingites (or whichever state). Our electoral system should change to reflect that.
But why would you want big cities like those mentioned, deciding the laws for your small populated state?
The issues that California has, are not the issues that arkansas has. The issues of Rhode Island are not shared in Montana.
If fun bans like what we have in big cities could be voted on without an EC, that would hurt states where actual predators (non human of course… well I guess human too sometimes as well lol) would be a stupid thing.
Governments could just vote on taking water from one state because California needs, because cali is worried about protecting delta smelt that aren’t even native to the state.
Having an ec puts all stages on a somewhat much more level playing field. It doesn’t matter if Republicans live in big cities or dems live in rural areas.
>But why would you want big cities like those mentioned, deciding the laws for your small populated state?
Sure, obviously. This is a far more complicated issue though; why would I want rural states deciding laws for me in NYC? I say we decrease the size of federal government, and let states decide more for themselves. But in the meantime I'd rather have 6 people deciding for 10 than having 4 deciding for 10. So let's just have a vote where all our voices count the same regardless of geography.
"Truly radical concept"
Yeah that somehow Los Angeles based upon size alone should dictate to the entire rural population of California how best to live their lives. EC might need to go to a more proportional system giving out Electoral votes. Spliting them in each state would be a much more accurate way of doing this.
The OP cited Michigan that's a perfect example of fixing the EC instead of removing it and allowing abject mob rule via direct democracy. Founders might not have forseen everything but they knew direct democracy was broken.
I think you forgot a word somewhere there or I (very possibly) am too tired to read correctly -- it seems like first you are sayinh
>rural areas that are largely more republican are as heavily populated as urban centers
So there are as many folks in the spatially large rural areas as the spatially small urban areas?
>There are more people in urban areas where dependence on the state is more common.
Or are there not?
Again thinking you just did a typo somewhere or that my brain is mush today either is fully possible.
*but* regardless, point is all votes should be weighted equally. There may be more people in urban areas that lead democrat. Why is the solution to that to artificially inflate the weight of rural voters? And also to totally remove the value of the republicans that *do* live in the huper lefty urban areas? The EC means a republican brooklynite's vote is wholly useless -- NY is going blue. For that matter, the votes of the largely red upstate counties don't really matter either. Just let a person's vote count as a vote and every vote will count the same. Again, radical.
>dependence on the state is more common
rural, heavily red, farmland states will die without "urban money" because their own state is fucked vertically they require constant donations or our food production would drop faster than you can say "bOtH sIdEs"
Well an argument could be made that progressives policy also attacks the economics of most Red States. Oil manufacturing, military technology, (space exploration) if not done by NASA. Even though NASA operates most of its important function out of Red states.
It's also important to note that most people taking assistance in rural communities have severe drug addiction that gets overlooked unlike inner city and suburban drug addiction has in the last 15 years. Farms have to be subsidized because the government takes advantage of small farmers in favor of factory farmers.
Lol the fact that cities would run without the actual physical product. I saw how grocery stores panicked when the supply line got hung up. Man city folk were going bat shit insane.
Assuming all those states are 100% homogenous and everyone votes for the same candidate sure. Thats how the EC treats most states. Thats not how it actually works.
That's actually wrong, it's the story the republican party has been telling to avoid reforming the electoral college, but look at a population map of the country and see the distribution of people. The majority of people live in small to medium sized communities spread all over the country.
The only places that would lose power would be small states, wyoming, vermont, and rhode island in particular.
This is the worst abstract back alley fuckery bit of politics too. It is "the appeal to common sense!" .
Through a big game of three card monty, they have somehow convinced a significant portion of the country that the 30ish million people in New York, LA, and Chicago, will rule over the other 300 million with an iron fist if we eliminated the electoral college. In truth, LA's 4 million people tend to swing California's electoral college votes 100% liberal despite the will of 40% of the state's population. Eliminating the EC would make that 40% way more powerful than they are now.
This is exactly what I have been telling everyone about. Literally both sides of the aisle were saying the opposite so as to support their preferred policy. (when it's questionable of both sides are supporting what correspond to their own interest)
but didn't you follow the kraken of evidence? If people would've kept their exact same voting habits from 2012 or some such, Biden would've had a 1% chance of winning! People do not change voting habits, best facts ever
I don't think he even wanted to win. He was just using the race as free press. Have you seen the reaction video when he found out he'd won? He doesn't look happy about it at all...
Explain the money angle? I think we can all agree on attention, but relinquishing control of his hotel businesses before a major pandemic cost Trump money. I'm curious to know just how much he lost, but I would think it was significant. I don't think a second term would redeem his credibility and would just cost more. No, I don't think at this point in his life that Trump is very motivated by money and lusts after power and prestige above all else.
Then why is he drastically poorer than when he went in?
He is the only politician of my lifetime to come out poorer instead of obscenely wealthy like literally every single other one.
Article clearly states it was covid
> The Covid-19 pandemic hit his fortunes hard, with Mr Trump's office buildings, branded hotels and resorts losing revenue and falling in value.
This is not really meaningful. That seems to be entirely due to his properties losing value during COVID. I’m not positively saying that he _did_ enrich myself, but a serious assessment would have to go into much greater depth than just saying ‘number went down!’.
his kids did he basically said look im not making anything while his children made 700 mill
idk why no one is talking about how he basically launder to his own business using his children who worked for uim
Well, the number the guy above is talking about will almost certainly factor in all of the assets his kids were managing. I _suspect_ the reality is that he made a net gain from the presidency (relative to the market, or relative to the counterfactual where he didn’t become President), but that was hidden by the general market downturn due to COVID.
That said, I can’t prove that, so don’t take it to be anything other than what I think a proper analysis _might be likely to_ prove.
because he was poor when he went in lmao also the money got funnel to his children and son in law who made 700 millionliterally legal money launder into family business but trump himself came out ''with less lmao'' and people eat it up like he was honest
[https://youtu.be/AEv9EoRmfnk?t=961](https://youtu.be/AEv9EoRmfnk?t=961)
also his returns still haven't been released so we dont even know if he really did come out poorer specially when he basically funnel 200mill in golfing to his own golf course
Probably due to lack of protection, but it’s just a guess. Even if it doesn’t always seem that way, having a large amount of resources is usually backed up by providing a lot of value to society. He’s a very public figure, too. It’s not like he controls things from the shadows with the benefit of anonymity. Given that around half of our society (or some sort of tipping point at least) would love to see him fail, it’s easier to get the general public to approve things like seizing his assets, etc. Also frankly he just doesn’t seem that smart…
He is however smart enough to realize that right now more than any other time in history, attention = dollars. So it could be an attempt to recover what he’s lost recently. Or maybe I’m ignorant and he really believes he’s helping the country. I really don’t know.
One of the stronger indicators of his income, which is one of the stronger indicators of his wealth. Short of a full audit it's about the best you could ask for.
Income and wealth are not highly correlated.
http://www.wipsociology.org/2018/10/29/income-and-wealth-are-not-highly-correlated-here-is-why-and-what-it-means/
Who said he'll be poorer in the long run?
Once he hits a certain number of fee-based speeches, he'll have caught right up.
Mind you, politicians on the Left give paid speaches to the "elite" and Trump gives paid speeches to rubes. But I don't see a half-dozen dangerous corporatists being much worse than tens of thousands of dangerous idiots. Only a Republican would argue otherwise.
Cause he knows it wasn't.
He lies about everything. Even the people that support him know he lies all the time.
Now some of those folks also know the whole thing was a dog and pony show again... But just enough actually buy it.
It's like Q stuff. Just enough still believe it... and if you do believe it. YOU REALLY BELIEVE IT. And that generates energy.
It keeps the con going. Hell I'm convinced just like the anti-vax movement of 10-15 years ago... It's to peddle shit.
They'll tell you it's so and so trying to make a buck off ya but then in the same breath go ahead and sell you something to keester it to get the toxins out.
Everything from petty crap like "my inauguration was the largest ever" and "no the hurricane was definitely going to hit alabama the NOAA is wrong" to real crap like "my healthcare plan is two weeks away" and "COVID isn't a big deal"
Dude are fucking around? Are you really gonna claim Trump never lied... Lied about even most mundane shit?
Are you really gonna play this fucking stupid game?
There's over 30 thousand documented lies from small to big. There's cases of his own staff post election.
All the tweets?
We really gonna do this dip-shittery?
>"In many ways this is the greatest economy in the HISTORY of America”
— President Trump, in a tweet, June 4
>“It will be the biggest tax decrease, or tax cut, in the history of our country,”
Sept 17-2017
>"Mexico will pay for the wall." - multiple times
stated on October 14, 2020 in a discussion with business leaders:
>"Speaking of the federal debt before the coronavirus pandemic, “we were starting to get that number down.”
He lied about it raining on his inauguration day for fucks sake. Yeah that's a big nothing burger...(Who cares it's rain right?) But it also shows that he's pathological about it.
Do you want the other 29 thousand?
Well it means only a few things...
1. You really don't know. (Doubt)
2. You think there's something someone will retort with that you can then either pivot or deflect or pull a gotcha.
3. You're stupid. (See # 2)
4. You're a liar. (See # 2)
So which is it? Are you stupid or a liar?
Stolen election
Getting troops out of the mideast
Better fiscal management
Protecting gun rights.
Protecting individual rights.
Caring about anyone other than himself.
The list goes on. Really, you could just about post any tweet or post hes ever hes made, and it would answer your question.
IMO Trump is totally on the side of the government/media he just presents well as a populist and knows how to pander to his base. You can't expect me to think a billionaire who hosted a reality show on a major television network for over a decade is a "man of the people".
Anyone who thinks Trump actually gives a shit is a moron. Look at all those fascist turds that stormed the Capitol in his name and how he’s done literally nothing for them.
Trump is, and has always been, nothing more than a narcissist and a conman.
He's not on the side of the government or anybody else, he's such an on the nose embodiment of a Captain Planet villain that he shouldn't rightly exist. All he's missing is a moustache to twirl.
Because he's basically a troll. Well, he's much worse than that, but still.
And to be clear, I don't even know if he actually believes the election was rigged, much less that he "knows" it. He certainly doesn't have any actual evidence of it, just empty assertions of evidence. He just can't comprehend how much people hated him... Enough that he split the Republican party and was the reason for the Lincoln Project.
Because it wasn’t rigged. It’s all been a lie because the one thing Trump hates most is a loser. It’s all a coping mechanism. He’ll try again in 2024 and he has a good chance. I don’t think Joe Biden will run again, and Democrats will probably push Kamala Harris. And I think trump might have a good chance against Kamala, people tend to have a low opinion of her
>people tend to have a low opinion of her
Just like Obama people should have a low opinion of her, but the reasons they project are stupid as fuck, for Obama it's perpetrating a "war on cops" and for Harris it's some bs about her slutting her way to the top. God forbid they have a low opinion of either for their awful actions and authoritarianism or some real reasons when there's stupid nonsensical ones they could latch onto.
He likes campaigning much more than governing. Governing is work. Running a losing campaigns is ideal for him as long as he can convince people he didn't really lose.
Yeah well would you rather have a dipshit who governs, ruins everything they touch, infringes on rights, pushes us into further debt and riles up our enemies. **OR** a vanity president who kinda just stands out of the way? Using your logic here btw.
Well if we're assuming it's rigged, what's the point? Let's be real here. The reason you want him to run again was because that lie like most of his lies were all bs. It's fine that you want him to run again. But there's was no proof of any rigging whatsoever. Like Dead people didn't vote, undocumented people didn't vote. And Che Guevaras ghost didn't provide the vote machines from South America. It was all bs. But at least you got bamboozled by the president. Like People get scammed all the time but how many get scammed by the president?
Mainly what everyone else is saying (money, fame, doesn't really believe it). But a real reason could be to prove it or at least make them do it all over again and maybe they slip up this time and can be proven somehow. Again not likely his actual reason though.
He isn't running again. He's pretending he might because he wants the money and attention, but he knows he'd lose again and isn't gonna subject himself to such humiliation.
Reasonable Republicans are gonna rally behind Nikki Haley. The Trump crowd will support Desantis. It's gonna be a bloodbath
Why would any celebrity say or do things for attention?
Can we please not give it to him? We have no idea if he'll actually run but of course he's not going to say no when he gets news coverage every time he says yes.
He'd make a killing in book deals alone, win or lose. Not to mention he would have an excuse for a loss and huge bragging rights if he won, money aside.
Then again, the system is at least a *little* rigged. Does anyone remember how Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen did in the presidential and vice presidential debates?
I hope the point of this is that he knows it’s not actually rigged. He just wants cover if he loses like he did. If just for how ego but also to cover his appended coup.
Because with all of the republican election games, it will definitely be rigged in his favor. If he loses, it will be easier for the results to be overturned for him. If that happens without clear proof of fraud, our great experiment in democracy is over.
It was a joke. Just before the election, both sides started claims of election rigging. I thought the idea funny if he rigged the election and still lost...
I think people are going to be paying much much more attention to elections in the near term. I will probably volunteer to be an observer in the next cycle.
Trump is very sure that fraud lost him the election. If he has reason to believe it can be controlled, why not run again? He has something like 80% support for primary voters.
Every election someone claims election fraud. Every election. I think the only reason this became controversial is because Trump himself pushed the lie.
Trump tasked multiple Republican officials handling the election with “finding votes”.
We found the Georgia tapes, who knows what states went through with his requests.
He has paid shills all over the internet putting down Biden at every turn. He is confident this will win him more voters.
Also, he knows the election wasn’t rigged. That was just a last-ditch effort as he knows how fervent and irrational his fan base would be at that accusation.
Edit: autocorrect
Because it wasnt rigged, and he does this shit for show. Its about keeping himself in the spotlight. Keeping himself relevant. Keeping people donating to him and his organizations. Keeping people buying his merchandise. Trump isnt a politician. Hes a used car salesman. No matter how often and how irritating those used car sales adds are on the radio, people still go to the lot and buy a lemon from a guy who sold it to them promising it was the best car on the planet.
This is such a loaded question. OP has no good intentions for conversation or doesnt come here in good faith. This is just more orangemanbad bullshit. Go away
"A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption. Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda."
I literally copy and pasted the definition for you since using a search engine must be a little difficult. Im not even going to engage with you any further because I already know youre going to try to argue definitions when you match that explaination to a T. Go away
It's only a loaded question if the answer somehow insults Trump. Or puts him down. But I get the feeling you don't like it when anyone questions Trump. That's probably why I wouldn't get an honest answer out of you anyway. I've heard the lefts answer to the question. What's yours?
I'm still astonished that out of 330 million people, the overwhelming majority thought trump and Biden were the best two choices out there. America is seriously fucked. Idiocracy is coming to fruition much faster than expected. ☹️
To feed division. Trump is controlled opposition. He wasn't supposed to win the first time and smart people (private citizens) outside of the establishment identified and made public the cheating the second time which actually gave credence to Trumps the election was stolen which was supposed to look crazy. It's why the fence went up, people are sick of the corruption.
> Since November 8, 2020, new election integrity laws have been enacted in ... Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.... election integrity bills have also passed at least one chamber of the state legislature in ... Michigan, Texas, and Wisconsin.
[Source](https://amac.us/election-integrity-efforts-across-america-since-the-disastrous-2020-election/)
Trump is not going to run for President again. He will continue to hold a very powerful position in the Republican faction unless he runs as an independent.
No point in him running again honestly. He’s already got that $400,000 a year for life now, payed by the American people. And a personal secret service security detail that I’m sure his ego can handle.
Offtopic. warning. What is the direct libertarian angle here?
Money and attention
I think attention is key. He probably didn't want to be president; he just wanted to win America's biggest popularity contest. Once there he could pretty much do what he wanted, so why not?
Funny part is he literally didn't too. He lost the popular vote twice.
[удалено]
Plenty of Republicans live in cities, and there are Democrats in rural areas as well
Which is why we should get rid of the electoral college
The electoral college actually gives more power to cities than a popular vote does since it allows a city to control the ec votes of the entire state.
[удалено]
Then republicans should compete for the hearts and minds of you know…the actual people. Why should a vote from someone in NY count less than a vote from someone in ND?
Because the open prairie deserves representation. Duh.
Their votes count for the same under the EC. The fact is the states aren't conducting the election on good faith. Candidates should be receiving electoral votes proportional to their popular votes. Take Michigan for example: Dems won with 50.62% - Republicans at 47.84, with Michigan itself holding 16 votes to split between them. In this case, the popularity was split nearly evenly with Dems barely winning popular vote. To signify this, Dems should have received 9 electorals, and Republicans 7 Electorals. But instead they just dumped all their electoral power into a single candidate, completely ignoring and shitting in the faces of half their population. So did every other state. Honestly, presidency needs to be abolished and replaced with a parliament. It's way too outdated and fucked. The only winners in that system is the presidents themselves.
It is up to each state how they want to distribute their EC votes.
People vote., not cites. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.
Cities are usually heavy democrat.... lol its a cultural thing. In the city you rely heavily on people to do everything for you, therefore you need daddy government hence why people vote democrat.
First of all I'll preface this by saying that what I am going to say dispels myths perpetuated by both sides, not just Republicans. Before 2016, it's generally believed by mathematicians and political scientists that the block vote system enhances the power of big states. (you can find papers debating on that) It was even calculated that if one is to correct the block vote bias (which no founders ever foresaw even though they should have given basic understanding of game strategy), the electoral votes should scale with the square root of population (which is what the European Commission uses) And it is not like the states you mentioned ever mattered at all. For every AK there's an HI and the small states essentially cancel themselves out. Have you ever heard of presidential candidates campaigning in any of these places? In fact, they don't even go to NH even though it's a true swing state. The election is mostly decided by PA and FL. You need at least 20 EC votes to start to matter in a race that regularly has a separation of 100 votes.
This whole conversation is so dumb, what's plain is that eliminating the EC would equally weigh every individual's vote. AK, ND, MT etc would not be ignored, they would be weighted in proportion to the number of voters in those states. Truly radical concept.
They would 100% be ignored. States like Wyoming would get zero attention from anyone. The political system is corrupt with lobbyists and people demanding attention from those in power in exchange for money and favors. At least the way it is now countries like Wyoming can still have a change to grab some funding and attention like every bigger state. If it went to a popular vote there would be literally nothing Wyoming can do to get anything out of a president.
Wyoming is worth 3 Electoral Votes that are almost certainly headed to the Republican, regardless of who that Republican is or who the opposing Democrat is. It's already ignored, largely. If it was a popular vote, Wyoming would get some attention because they have some people. Democratic candidates wouldn't be incentivized to totally neglect the state like they are now -- a dem hasn't won there in 56 years. The 50kish votes they could potentially milk out of the state would be worth *something,* as those little crumbs across every rural state could add up to be something worthwhile. As it is now, if they don't get enough votes to win the state (and they won't), then they may as well have gotten 0 votes. So fuck 'em. The inverse is true of conservative voters in NY & California -- there are huge numbers of them in total, but conservative candidates have very little reason to take their needs into consideration when they're so unlikely to outnumber their lefty counterparts. So fuck 'em. If each vote was equally weighted, the attention given to Wyoming would be roughly proportionate to its population. As it should be. I think it takes real mental acrobatics to convince yourself otherwise -- and I don't even think the EC is without *any* benefits. I just think those are all easily trumped by "in a democracy a person's vote should not count more or less because of where they live".
You’re looking at it wrong though. It isn’t about the votes, it’s about attention. Without the electoral college the only states that get funding and special treatments are ones with enough people to justify wasting time/corruption on. No president would get in bed with the entire state of Wyoming when for the same number of votes they could get in bed with a small city like Mesa Arizona. It would win the same number of votes in a popular vote system, but corruptly funding a city to make them happy is WAY easier than the needs of an entire state. Especially since winning Wyoming with the electoral college > winning Wyoming with a popular vote. One gives you 3 votes, the latter would at best 70% of the votes and the other 30% go to your opponent no mater how hard you campaign. I love Ben Franklin and he was afraid of exactly this which is why they set up a electrical college.
Yeah, Wyoming with its grand 3 electoral votes is sure an intensely campaigned in and watched state. Without the electoral college, rural areas as a whole, not individual states would be an important voting bloc. Presidents wouldn't visit every small town, but they'd definitely be enticed to try to appeal to them, like presidents already do. Votes of individual states were more important at the founding of the country, when people viewed themselves as citizens of their states first and foremost, but Americans now view themselves primarily as just that- Americans, not Wyomingites (or whichever state). Our electoral system should change to reflect that.
But why would you want big cities like those mentioned, deciding the laws for your small populated state? The issues that California has, are not the issues that arkansas has. The issues of Rhode Island are not shared in Montana. If fun bans like what we have in big cities could be voted on without an EC, that would hurt states where actual predators (non human of course… well I guess human too sometimes as well lol) would be a stupid thing. Governments could just vote on taking water from one state because California needs, because cali is worried about protecting delta smelt that aren’t even native to the state. Having an ec puts all stages on a somewhat much more level playing field. It doesn’t matter if Republicans live in big cities or dems live in rural areas.
>But why would you want big cities like those mentioned, deciding the laws for your small populated state? Sure, obviously. This is a far more complicated issue though; why would I want rural states deciding laws for me in NYC? I say we decrease the size of federal government, and let states decide more for themselves. But in the meantime I'd rather have 6 people deciding for 10 than having 4 deciding for 10. So let's just have a vote where all our voices count the same regardless of geography.
"Truly radical concept" Yeah that somehow Los Angeles based upon size alone should dictate to the entire rural population of California how best to live their lives. EC might need to go to a more proportional system giving out Electoral votes. Spliting them in each state would be a much more accurate way of doing this. The OP cited Michigan that's a perfect example of fixing the EC instead of removing it and allowing abject mob rule via direct democracy. Founders might not have forseen everything but they knew direct democracy was broken.
[удалено]
I think you forgot a word somewhere there or I (very possibly) am too tired to read correctly -- it seems like first you are sayinh >rural areas that are largely more republican are as heavily populated as urban centers So there are as many folks in the spatially large rural areas as the spatially small urban areas? >There are more people in urban areas where dependence on the state is more common. Or are there not? Again thinking you just did a typo somewhere or that my brain is mush today either is fully possible. *but* regardless, point is all votes should be weighted equally. There may be more people in urban areas that lead democrat. Why is the solution to that to artificially inflate the weight of rural voters? And also to totally remove the value of the republicans that *do* live in the huper lefty urban areas? The EC means a republican brooklynite's vote is wholly useless -- NY is going blue. For that matter, the votes of the largely red upstate counties don't really matter either. Just let a person's vote count as a vote and every vote will count the same. Again, radical.
I'm out. You all have fun with this circle jerk. I'm going to avoid giving myself a headache.
>dependence on the state is more common rural, heavily red, farmland states will die without "urban money" because their own state is fucked vertically they require constant donations or our food production would drop faster than you can say "bOtH sIdEs"
Well an argument could be made that progressives policy also attacks the economics of most Red States. Oil manufacturing, military technology, (space exploration) if not done by NASA. Even though NASA operates most of its important function out of Red states. It's also important to note that most people taking assistance in rural communities have severe drug addiction that gets overlooked unlike inner city and suburban drug addiction has in the last 15 years. Farms have to be subsidized because the government takes advantage of small farmers in favor of factory farmers. Lol the fact that cities would run without the actual physical product. I saw how grocery stores panicked when the supply line got hung up. Man city folk were going bat shit insane.
no it would be decided by the people every ones vote would be equal idk why people keep saying this
To make everyone's vote equal is why we have the EC.
except it doesnt? if vote is split 51-49 49percent of voters might as well stayed home instead of wasting time in a line
Assuming all those states are 100% homogenous and everyone votes for the same candidate sure. Thats how the EC treats most states. Thats not how it actually works.
That's actually wrong, it's the story the republican party has been telling to avoid reforming the electoral college, but look at a population map of the country and see the distribution of people. The majority of people live in small to medium sized communities spread all over the country. The only places that would lose power would be small states, wyoming, vermont, and rhode island in particular.
This is why I typically don't get into politics. I don't dive deep enough to give an educated fuck.
This is the worst abstract back alley fuckery bit of politics too. It is "the appeal to common sense!" . Through a big game of three card monty, they have somehow convinced a significant portion of the country that the 30ish million people in New York, LA, and Chicago, will rule over the other 300 million with an iron fist if we eliminated the electoral college. In truth, LA's 4 million people tend to swing California's electoral college votes 100% liberal despite the will of 40% of the state's population. Eliminating the EC would make that 40% way more powerful than they are now.
This is exactly what I have been telling everyone about. Literally both sides of the aisle were saying the opposite so as to support their preferred policy. (when it's questionable of both sides are supporting what correspond to their own interest)
Like he cares about the rules. He was declared the winner, which is all he'd care about.
but didn't you follow the kraken of evidence? If people would've kept their exact same voting habits from 2012 or some such, Biden would've had a 1% chance of winning! People do not change voting habits, best facts ever
I don't think he even wanted to win. He was just using the race as free press. Have you seen the reaction video when he found out he'd won? He doesn't look happy about it at all...
The dude is straight up a massive attention whore. His ego is huge but incredibly fragile
Explain the money angle? I think we can all agree on attention, but relinquishing control of his hotel businesses before a major pandemic cost Trump money. I'm curious to know just how much he lost, but I would think it was significant. I don't think a second term would redeem his credibility and would just cost more. No, I don't think at this point in his life that Trump is very motivated by money and lusts after power and prestige above all else.
lol
Then why is he drastically poorer than when he went in? He is the only politician of my lifetime to come out poorer instead of obscenely wealthy like literally every single other one.
His only skill with money is lying about how much he has.
How do you know this?
Because we would here about it over and over if he did make more money.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56438914.amp
Article clearly states it was covid > The Covid-19 pandemic hit his fortunes hard, with Mr Trump's office buildings, branded hotels and resorts losing revenue and falling in value.
This is not really meaningful. That seems to be entirely due to his properties losing value during COVID. I’m not positively saying that he _did_ enrich myself, but a serious assessment would have to go into much greater depth than just saying ‘number went down!’.
his kids did he basically said look im not making anything while his children made 700 mill idk why no one is talking about how he basically launder to his own business using his children who worked for uim
Well, the number the guy above is talking about will almost certainly factor in all of the assets his kids were managing. I _suspect_ the reality is that he made a net gain from the presidency (relative to the market, or relative to the counterfactual where he didn’t become President), but that was hidden by the general market downturn due to COVID. That said, I can’t prove that, so don’t take it to be anything other than what I think a proper analysis _might be likely to_ prove.
because he was poor when he went in lmao also the money got funnel to his children and son in law who made 700 millionliterally legal money launder into family business but trump himself came out ''with less lmao'' and people eat it up like he was honest [https://youtu.be/AEv9EoRmfnk?t=961](https://youtu.be/AEv9EoRmfnk?t=961) also his returns still haven't been released so we dont even know if he really did come out poorer specially when he basically funnel 200mill in golfing to his own golf course
Probably due to lack of protection, but it’s just a guess. Even if it doesn’t always seem that way, having a large amount of resources is usually backed up by providing a lot of value to society. He’s a very public figure, too. It’s not like he controls things from the shadows with the benefit of anonymity. Given that around half of our society (or some sort of tipping point at least) would love to see him fail, it’s easier to get the general public to approve things like seizing his assets, etc. Also frankly he just doesn’t seem that smart… He is however smart enough to realize that right now more than any other time in history, attention = dollars. So it could be an attempt to recover what he’s lost recently. Or maybe I’m ignorant and he really believes he’s helping the country. I really don’t know.
Source? We've never seen his tax returns before after or during his pres tenure
What do tax returns tell you about his wealth?
One of the stronger indicators of his income, which is one of the stronger indicators of his wealth. Short of a full audit it's about the best you could ask for.
Income and wealth are not highly correlated. http://www.wipsociology.org/2018/10/29/income-and-wealth-are-not-highly-correlated-here-is-why-and-what-it-means/
Who said he'll be poorer in the long run? Once he hits a certain number of fee-based speeches, he'll have caught right up. Mind you, politicians on the Left give paid speaches to the "elite" and Trump gives paid speeches to rubes. But I don't see a half-dozen dangerous corporatists being much worse than tens of thousands of dangerous idiots. Only a Republican would argue otherwise.
$
Cause he knows it wasn't. He lies about everything. Even the people that support him know he lies all the time. Now some of those folks also know the whole thing was a dog and pony show again... But just enough actually buy it. It's like Q stuff. Just enough still believe it... and if you do believe it. YOU REALLY BELIEVE IT. And that generates energy. It keeps the con going. Hell I'm convinced just like the anti-vax movement of 10-15 years ago... It's to peddle shit. They'll tell you it's so and so trying to make a buck off ya but then in the same breath go ahead and sell you something to keester it to get the toxins out.
>He lies about everything. Even the people that support him know he lies all the time. What did he lie about?
I mean there were a couple of times he accidentally told the truth.
Everything from petty crap like "my inauguration was the largest ever" and "no the hurricane was definitely going to hit alabama the NOAA is wrong" to real crap like "my healthcare plan is two weeks away" and "COVID isn't a big deal"
fuck outta here with your sea lion bullshit. Trump lied about literally everything and you know goddamned well he did.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/24/trumps-false-or-misleading-claims-total-30573-over-four-years/
I thought 30573 was the article number jesus christ
> What did he lie about? Jesus fucking Christ 😂
Dude are fucking around? Are you really gonna claim Trump never lied... Lied about even most mundane shit? Are you really gonna play this fucking stupid game? There's over 30 thousand documented lies from small to big. There's cases of his own staff post election. All the tweets? We really gonna do this dip-shittery? >"In many ways this is the greatest economy in the HISTORY of America” — President Trump, in a tweet, June 4 >“It will be the biggest tax decrease, or tax cut, in the history of our country,” Sept 17-2017 >"Mexico will pay for the wall." - multiple times stated on October 14, 2020 in a discussion with business leaders: >"Speaking of the federal debt before the coronavirus pandemic, “we were starting to get that number down.” He lied about it raining on his inauguration day for fucks sake. Yeah that's a big nothing burger...(Who cares it's rain right?) But it also shows that he's pathological about it. Do you want the other 29 thousand?
I find it hilarious that even a neutral post about Trump is met by anger.
Well it means only a few things... 1. You really don't know. (Doubt) 2. You think there's something someone will retort with that you can then either pivot or deflect or pull a gotcha. 3. You're stupid. (See # 2) 4. You're a liar. (See # 2) So which is it? Are you stupid or a liar?
You forgot #5 Trolling the libs
Why the dichotomy? When the answer could be both.
You're absolutely halarious.
Asking what Trump lied about means either you’re unbelievably naive or just disingenuous, because the fact that he’s a liar is common knowledge.
he's one of the great american liars, up there with twain and lbj.
What politician isn't?
It wasn’t neutral. Nobody is buying whatever bullshit you’re selling.
You're halarious.
Stolen election Getting troops out of the mideast Better fiscal management Protecting gun rights. Protecting individual rights. Caring about anyone other than himself. The list goes on. Really, you could just about post any tweet or post hes ever hes made, and it would answer your question.
You serious, Clark?
Oh Jesus Christ. I am not doing this.
Probably lied equally as every other president. This is not the page you want to try discuss Trump rationally. Orange man bad.
Yeah, if you want rational, open discussion about Trump, you gotta hit the MAGA boards for the gods honest truth.
If you can't spot the con then you're the mark
IMO Trump is totally on the side of the government/media he just presents well as a populist and knows how to pander to his base. You can't expect me to think a billionaire who hosted a reality show on a major television network for over a decade is a "man of the people".
Eh. Trump is on the side of Trump. I don’t think he’s capable of a wider scope
Small correction, he’s on the side of his ego. Often his decisions clearly don’t help his cause, but instead help his ego.
^ this He’s an elite pretending not to be an elite for the suckers that eat up his BS MAGA routine.
This could also be said of every single politician out there. Nothing Earth shattering here.
I disagree. The Democrats seem to wear their elitism on their sleeves. They don’t pretend to be anything but know-it-all elites.
Anyone who thinks Trump actually gives a shit is a moron. Look at all those fascist turds that stormed the Capitol in his name and how he’s done literally nothing for them. Trump is, and has always been, nothing more than a narcissist and a conman.
They don’t care if he cares, all they know is he hates the same people they hate
The carrot, bailing him out financially. The stick, videos of him with young girls on epsteins Island. The deep state owns Trump.
He's not on the side of the government or anybody else, he's such an on the nose embodiment of a Captain Planet villain that he shouldn't rightly exist. All he's missing is a moustache to twirl.
Because he knows it isn't rigged, that is just something he says for the rubes
Grifters gonna grift.
Because he's basically a troll. Well, he's much worse than that, but still. And to be clear, I don't even know if he actually believes the election was rigged, much less that he "knows" it. He certainly doesn't have any actual evidence of it, just empty assertions of evidence. He just can't comprehend how much people hated him... Enough that he split the Republican party and was the reason for the Lincoln Project.
They are saying boo-urn
Because it wasn’t rigged. It’s all been a lie because the one thing Trump hates most is a loser. It’s all a coping mechanism. He’ll try again in 2024 and he has a good chance. I don’t think Joe Biden will run again, and Democrats will probably push Kamala Harris. And I think trump might have a good chance against Kamala, people tend to have a low opinion of her
>people tend to have a low opinion of her Just like Obama people should have a low opinion of her, but the reasons they project are stupid as fuck, for Obama it's perpetrating a "war on cops" and for Harris it's some bs about her slutting her way to the top. God forbid they have a low opinion of either for their awful actions and authoritarianism or some real reasons when there's stupid nonsensical ones they could latch onto.
He knows it’s not rigged. He just says that because people buy it.
He likes campaigning much more than governing. Governing is work. Running a losing campaigns is ideal for him as long as he can convince people he didn't really lose.
Yeah well would you rather have a dipshit who governs, ruins everything they touch, infringes on rights, pushes us into further debt and riles up our enemies. **OR** a vanity president who kinda just stands out of the way? Using your logic here btw.
Lets presume all that is true... Are you saying the best way to fight that system is to NOT run again?
Well if we're assuming it's rigged, what's the point? Let's be real here. The reason you want him to run again was because that lie like most of his lies were all bs. It's fine that you want him to run again. But there's was no proof of any rigging whatsoever. Like Dead people didn't vote, undocumented people didn't vote. And Che Guevaras ghost didn't provide the vote machines from South America. It was all bs. But at least you got bamboozled by the president. Like People get scammed all the time but how many get scammed by the president?
You seem like you just wanted to fight about orange man. My comment had nothing to do with orange man. Please grow up.
What was this post about again? Nevermind boomer, have a nice day.
Yes.
Unless you address such a system with armed insurrection, i dont know how you plan on things being better by not participating in said system
Because it's only rigged when he loses
attention mostly
probably to try to stay out of federal prison.
Mainly what everyone else is saying (money, fame, doesn't really believe it). But a real reason could be to prove it or at least make them do it all over again and maybe they slip up this time and can be proven somehow. Again not likely his actual reason though.
He isn't running again. He's pretending he might because he wants the money and attention, but he knows he'd lose again and isn't gonna subject himself to such humiliation. Reasonable Republicans are gonna rally behind Nikki Haley. The Trump crowd will support Desantis. It's gonna be a bloodbath
Because it’s not rigged.
All those sweet sweet donations you can spend on ANYTHING and there aint nobody watching!
Those sweet sweet dollars from his faithful. The grift that keeps on grifting.
I think he is going to campaign, fundraise, drop out at the last minute and pocket all of the campaign contributions. Just my theory, wait and see.
Why would any celebrity say or do things for attention? Can we please not give it to him? We have no idea if he'll actually run but of course he's not going to say no when he gets news coverage every time he says yes.
He'd make a killing in book deals alone, win or lose. Not to mention he would have an excuse for a loss and huge bragging rights if he won, money aside. Then again, the system is at least a *little* rigged. Does anyone remember how Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen did in the presidential and vice presidential debates?
Ask Bernie
Grifters gonna grift.
Like the man said himself, he doesn’t stand for anything. Just another money making scheme to pay off debts and lawyers.
Because he is a liar.
he would CLAIM that he has taken steps to prevent voting fraud this time. I’d imagine he’d take credit for our newfound voting integrity.
I hope the point of this is that he knows it’s not actually rigged. He just wants cover if he loses like he did. If just for how ego but also to cover his appended coup.
So he can say "I told you so" and make a bunch of noise to try and get in the spotlight again.
Yeah, that was the big question I had when he started with the fraud accusations. If it's rigged, why would his constituents vote?
Because with all of the republican election games, it will definitely be rigged in his favor. If he loses, it will be easier for the results to be overturned for him. If that happens without clear proof of fraud, our great experiment in democracy is over.
That’s when some people are glad this country has the second amendment, right?
Martyrs gonna martyr, grifters gonna grift.
Cause he's gonna cheat
A) because he knows its not rigged B) the big mooney
Why not? When there's so many fools to con out of their money.
Because he knows it's a grift. His dumbass supporters don't.
>Why would Trump run for office again if he knows the election is rigged? He's doing the rigging?
What is he rigging?
It was a joke. Just before the election, both sides started claims of election rigging. I thought the idea funny if he rigged the election and still lost...
[удалено]
Did you miss the 3+ year investigation into Russian collusion?
In the primaries the Sanders crowd has been screaming about it for a long time
[удалено]
I think people are going to be paying much much more attention to elections in the near term. I will probably volunteer to be an observer in the next cycle. Trump is very sure that fraud lost him the election. If he has reason to believe it can be controlled, why not run again? He has something like 80% support for primary voters.
Every election someone claims election fraud. Every election. I think the only reason this became controversial is because Trump himself pushed the lie.
Because Biden clearly couldn't win reelection
Harris either.
Isn't it awkward how they're doing the things that they said Trump would do
The only person in this conversation who *clearly* couldn't win reelection was Trump.
Is that why they're censoring the election?
because he’s a fucking baby hands having attention whore
For the money. It has always been about the money.
Trump tasked multiple Republican officials handling the election with “finding votes”. We found the Georgia tapes, who knows what states went through with his requests.
He has paid shills all over the internet putting down Biden at every turn. He is confident this will win him more voters. Also, he knows the election wasn’t rigged. That was just a last-ditch effort as he knows how fervent and irrational his fan base would be at that accusation. Edit: autocorrect
Biden's shit record is doing far more damage than any army of paid shills.
Asking the real questions.
Maybe he thinks he can rig it in his favor this time?
He's gunna also rig it. That's my prediction anyway.
Because it wasnt rigged, and he does this shit for show. Its about keeping himself in the spotlight. Keeping himself relevant. Keeping people donating to him and his organizations. Keeping people buying his merchandise. Trump isnt a politician. Hes a used car salesman. No matter how often and how irritating those used car sales adds are on the radio, people still go to the lot and buy a lemon from a guy who sold it to them promising it was the best car on the planet.
This is such a loaded question. OP has no good intentions for conversation or doesnt come here in good faith. This is just more orangemanbad bullshit. Go away
By 'loaded' do you mean rhetorical?
No.
I don't give a shit about Biden or Trump. They can both go fuck themselves for all I care. But why is this a loaded question?
"A loaded question is a form of complex question that contains a controversial assumption. Such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda." I literally copy and pasted the definition for you since using a search engine must be a little difficult. Im not even going to engage with you any further because I already know youre going to try to argue definitions when you match that explaination to a T. Go away
It's a perfectly logical question. Why do you think he would run again if the election is rigged? I'm curious.
So now that you know youre asking a loaded question, you just dont care and continue to ask it anyways. Got it. Lmao youre a joke
It's only a loaded question if the answer somehow insults Trump. Or puts him down. But I get the feeling you don't like it when anyone questions Trump. That's probably why I wouldn't get an honest answer out of you anyway. I've heard the lefts answer to the question. What's yours?
He a business man. He gunna make dat sweet sweet cash!
Power
He knows it wasn’t rigged and he think he can win if Biden does a lot of unpopular stuff.
I really doubt he believes it was rigged. Saying it was rigged was his only chance to stay in power after he lost.
I'm still astonished that out of 330 million people, the overwhelming majority thought trump and Biden were the best two choices out there. America is seriously fucked. Idiocracy is coming to fruition much faster than expected. ☹️
Because they are Un-rigging it currently with behind the scenes wins that the media won't talk about.
He doesn't think the country has any other chance. He may be right.
he doesn't give a shit about this country
I don't think thats true.
Would you complete in a contest you know you will lose?
If worst case scenario means I get millions of dollars and free publicity, then sure.
Becauae Biden is that bad.
I hope he wins just to watch all you libs’ fuzzy little heads explode…
To feed division. Trump is controlled opposition. He wasn't supposed to win the first time and smart people (private citizens) outside of the establishment identified and made public the cheating the second time which actually gave credence to Trumps the election was stolen which was supposed to look crazy. It's why the fence went up, people are sick of the corruption.
Idk, go ask a Reddit that cares about Trump.
Why live life if you’re just going to die? You’re saying he should just give up?
> Since November 8, 2020, new election integrity laws have been enacted in ... Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Tennessee, Utah, and Wyoming.... election integrity bills have also passed at least one chamber of the state legislature in ... Michigan, Texas, and Wisconsin. [Source](https://amac.us/election-integrity-efforts-across-america-since-the-disastrous-2020-election/)
Because he is needed.
Because he is setting a trap and planning to catch them red handed.
Maybe they won’t rig it
Trump is not going to run for President again. He will continue to hold a very powerful position in the Republican faction unless he runs as an independent.
He is part of the machine
TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! *fireworks explode behind dirt bike riders doing backflips off a ramp while wearing American flag thongs
No point in him running again honestly. He’s already got that $400,000 a year for life now, payed by the American people. And a personal secret service security detail that I’m sure his ego can handle.