Steve Bannon Quotes

[fishonjazz]

\ If Hillary had won the election but lost the popular vote you would not be making this argument. You'd be telling anybody who was, "She won, get over it."

I disagree with this. I think there are many of us who think the electoral college is stupid. Doesn't matter who the candidates are that are running.
4 times in the history of the U.S. the winner of the election got less votes than the loser of the election. All 4 times it was stupid and should never be allowed to happen.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I disagree with this. I think there are many of us who think the electoral college is stupid. Doesn't matter who the candidates are that are running.
4 times in the history of the U.S. the winner of the election got less votes than the loser of the election. All 4 times it was stupid and should never be allowed to happen.

I agree that the electoral college is stupid, but those are the rules and it was smart of the Trump team to play the game based upon the actual rules instead of playing it based upon what many people (including Trump) believe that the rules should be. And BTW, I'm in favor of a rule change (popular vote should decide the election) and have been for more than a decade, but until the rules change the only thing that matters is the electoral vote.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I think that in a country as diverse as we are, socially, politically, culturally, etc...it would be foolish to go to a straight popular. To me, I ask myself whether I want the candidate that carried the most votes or the most states? Ideally, both, however I think by going with the states we get a better overall view of what the entire country wants rather than just the coastal states. A popular vote basically tells the middle states that they're irrelevant. The candidates have no incentive to care about what they think or what. Does the electoral have faults? Of course! I mean, per electoral Montana votes are weighted higher than California. Stoked had an idea I liked where if a candidate won a state with 60% of the vote, they get 60% of the electoral votes. That gives voters incentives to vote, and protects each individual states wants.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I think that in a country as diverse as we are, socially, politically, culturally, etc...it would be foolish to go to a straight popular. To me, I ask myself whether I want the candidate that carried the most votes or the most states? Ideally, both, however I think by going with the states we get a better overall view of what the entire country wants rather than just the coastal states. A popular vote basically tells the middle states that they're irrelevant. The candidates have no incentive to care about what they think or what. Does the electoral have faults? Of course! I mean, per electoral Montana votes are weighted higher than California. Stoked had an idea I liked where if a candidate won a state with 60% of the vote, they get 60% of the electoral votes. That gives voters incentives to vote, and protects each individual states wants.

I don't see how Stoked's idea does what you say it does. I don't understand the point of maintaining the electoral college at all if you are going to a proportional vote. Can you imagine how frustrated everyone would be if somehow the candidate who got fewer popular votes won under that system?

 

[RandyForRubio]

I don't see how Stoked's idea does what you say it does. I don't understand the point of maintaining the electoral college at all if you are going to a proportional vote. Can you imagine how frustrated everyone would be if somehow the candidate who got fewer popular votes won under that system?

I think it just makes people's votes matter more, while still ensuring that each state matters. A popular vote does not protect each individual states will.

 

[Stoked]

I don't see how Stoked's idea does what you say it does. I don't understand the point of maintaining the electoral college at all if you are going to a proportional vote. Can you imagine how frustrated everyone would be if somehow the candidate who got fewer popular votes won under that system?

About as frustrated as people are now. Going proportional better reflects the voters IMO.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

If Hillary had won the election but lost the popular vote you would not be making this argument. You'd be telling anybody who was, "She won, get over it."

The **** I would. I have been in favor of getting rid of the electoral college, or at least adding a provision to allow the popular vote to override in a circumstance such as this, ever since Bush lost to Gore and was elected as winner.

If Hillary had won in such circumstances, I would be laughing and calling it payback for Bush, but I would still be 100% of the opinion that it should be changed.

You know why? Because only a ****ing moron would want our country to have a system where we elect the losers of an election. My hell, it's as if Republicans have become so insecure, that they are now admitting they are scared of a level playing field.

Has everyone lost their common sense? This really has absolutely nothing to do with this election at this point. The damage is done, and we stuck with Trump. This is about whether or not we want to continue electing losers in this country, and unless you are assuming your side is always going to come up short, I can't imagine a single reason why you'd want to keep things the way they are.



God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. -Abraham Lincoln

 

[NAOS]

The **** I would. I have been in favor of getting rid of the electoral college, or at least adding a provision to allow the popular vote to override in a circumstance such as this, ever since Bush lost to Gore and was elected as winner.

If Hillary had won in such circumstances, I would be laughing and calling it payback for Bush, but I would still be 100% of the opinion that it should be changed.

You know why? Because only a ****ing moron would want our country to have a system where we elect the losers of an election. My hell, it's as if Republicans have become so insecure, that they are now admitting they are scared of a level playing field.

Has everyone lost their common sense?

God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. -Abraham Lincoln

STFU, you'd be saying exactly what Joe needs you to say in order to confirm his ideology/agenda. You know it. Get on with it.

 

[Boris]

I don't believe for a second that he could have turned California significantly.

However, my answer to this, is if he could have gotten the majority of votes in this country, he deserves to be ****ing president.

Are we STILL crying? It is over thank goodness. You sound as happy as I that it is.

You know why we have electoral college an 2 senators per state but unequal representatives in congress? It is to balance power from the large cities overpowering the smaller states. This is simple history do they not teach this in schools to you pups any more? All I hear from [MENTION=499]LogGrad98[/MENTION] is popular vote popular vote popular vote. I know you are a smart guy loggrad an probably have a reason but all I see is people forgetting history an dooming us to repeat mistakes.

 

[NAOS]

Trivia time:
When was the last time the republicans won a presidential election at a time when there was no incumbent running (i.e. when the presidency was "open," since a 2-term president was leaving office)?

This **** has got to go.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

A popular vote basically tells the middle states that they're irrelevant. .

Not irrelevant, just more in line with population. I don't see why a small town of 5000 people should have an equal vote to a city of 50,000, just because of the state they are in. Many people avoid voting in areas where they know they are the minority, and their vote won't count for anything. A single vote in a state like Florida or Ohio count as much as a thousand/10 thousand votes or even more in California. Why is one American's views or opinions worth any more than another's? Each vote should count equally, and EVERY SINGLE DAMN person who votes should do so knowing their vote will count in the end.

This is how it should be, but we could achieve basically the same result without getting rid of the electoral college, simply by adding a provision that states something that if the electoral winner loses the ACTUAL vote by X amount, the popular vote overrides.

Either way, it should be unacceptable to every American that a candidate who gets the majority of votes, can somehow lose to the candidate who did not.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

The **** I would. I have been in favor of getting rid of the electoral college, or at least adding a provision to allow the popular vote to override in a circumstance such as this, ever since Bush lost to Gore and was elected as winner.

If Hillary had won in such circumstances, I would be laughing and calling it payback for Bush, but I would still be 100% of the opinion that it should be changed.

You know why? Because only a ****ing moron would want our country to have a system where we elect the losers of an election. My hell, it's as if Republicans have become so insecure, that they are now admitting they are scared of a level playing field.

Has everyone lost their common sense?

God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. -Abraham Lincoln

You and I agree that the election should be based on popular vote. Your proposal about using electoral unless it disagrees with popular is bizarre, though. Why have electoral in that circumstance?

But what we apparently don't agree on is that both candidates knew the rules before the election. Your argument is like saying that the team that makes the most baskets in a game ought to be declared the winner, even if the other team's baskets count for more points. I'm sure we could find many instances of games where the result would be in dispute if we applied that logic. The bottom line is that the election must be decided by the rules that are in place, not some alternate set of rules we would have preferred or that would have given someone the result they wanted.

 

[Stoked]

Trivia time:
When was the last time the republicans won a presidential election at a time when there was no incumbent running (i.e. when the presidency was "open," since a 2-term president was leaving office)?

This **** has got to go.

Carter. But let's get honest here I don't see the Ds upsetting incumbents either. Reagan, Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama all got re-elected.. Carter and Bush one are the last two incumbents to lose.

 

[Boris]

Not irrelevant, just more in line with population. I don't see why a small town of 5000 people should have an equal vote to a city of 50,000, just because of the state they are in. Many people avoid voting in areas where they know they are the minority, and their vote won't count for anything. A single vote in a state like Florida or Ohio count as much as a thousand/10 thousand votes or even more in California. Why is one American's views or opinions worth any more than another's? Each vote should count equally, and EVERY SINGLE DAMN person who votes should do so knowing their vote will count in the end.

This is how it should be, but we could achieve basically the same result without getting rid of the electoral college, simply by adding a provision that states something that if the electoral winner loses the ACTUAL vote by X amount, the popular vote overrides.

Either way, it should be unacceptable to every American that a candidate who gets the majority of votes, can somehow lose to the candidate who did not.

You really need to chill, take a American History class, an use some critical thinking.

Are you completely oblivious to the states rights vs federal powers debate? Do you not agree that in many instances locals should make there own governing decisions? You sound like a extreme federalist that wants nothing but too down with no checks an balances.

Are electoral college, 2 senators per state, representatives by numbers is designed to balance and check. How is this so hard to understand? Gods I hate having be the teacher in the room.

 

[Boris]

The way I read most of this popular vote nonsense is getting rid of every state, local, an city government. According to [MENTION=3123]Cappy_Smurf[/MENTION] logic why should a tiny state like Utah be allowed to vote a two senators? It should go to national popular vote for all 100. Dumbest logic of all time.

 

[Stoked]

The way I read most of this popular vote nonsense is getting rid of every state, local, an city government. According to [MENTION=3123]Cappy_Smurf[/MENTION] logic why should a tiny state like Utah be allowed to vote a two senators? It should go to national popular vote for all 100. Dumbest logic of all time.

Good thing that's not what anyone is saying.

Also HAHAHAHAHA. Senators are already popular vote for the people they represent.

 

[LogGrad98]

Are we STILL crying? It is over thank goodness. You sound as happy as I that it is.

You know why we have electoral college an 2 senators per state but unequal representatives in congress? It is to balance power from the large cities overpowering the smaller states. This is simple history do they not teach this in schools to you pups any more? All I hear from [MENTION=499]LogGrad98[/MENTION] is popular vote popular vote popular vote. I know you are a smart guy loggrad an probably have a reason but all I see is people forgetting history an dooming us to repeat mistakes.

I know you're a troll but what the hell. I actually proposed changes to the current electoral college, including proportional division of electors, that would make the popular vote more relevant. I also said I would support going to a full on popular vote as well. But done change needs to happen IMO so we don't have electors voting for John Ewards anymore.

 

[Boris]

Good thing that's not what anyone is saying.

Also HAHAHAHAHA. Senators are already popular vote for the people they represent.

That is exactly what is being said by cappy an loggrad98. Small states an rural areas should not matter. They should be ruled over by large cities who have different lifestyles an problems an can not relate. Do away with the electoral college so we can force are way of life down you uneducated rednecks throats.

Might as well do away with congress an make everything a popular vote.

 

[Stoked]

Also the Pentagon and State Dept are reporting that they have yet to be contacted by anyone in the President Elects team.

Also lawl [MENTION=4486]Boris[/MENTION] keep beating that drum buddy.

 

[Boris]

I know you're a troll but what the hell. I actually proposed changes to the current electoral college, including proportional division of electors, that would make the popular vote more relevant. I also said I would support going to a full on popular vote as well. But done change needs to happen IMO so we don't have electors voting for John Ewards anymore.

I do not know anything about that but one think I do know is if popular vote mattered democrats would never win a election again. You know how many big city republicans do not vote cause they know it is futile? What was the turnout in Utah? Like 1%?

Screw it let us go to popular vote on every candidate. You all saw the map. Trump won like 90% of the counties. Imagine if we engage voters in big cities. 90% plus picks up extra support from disenfranchised Californian an New York republicans.