(November 9, 2016 at 12:31 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Lol, "destruction of U.S. industry."  Is that why unemployment is down to 4.9% and Obama added 9.3 million jobs compared to the 5.2 million added by his predecessor?

This is why we have Trump.  Because we're full of morons who are convinced they're thinking for themselves by swallowing total bullshit.

That and the Democrats are truly inept.

Who are you talking to?

I'll take the blame for this one. I should have worn my lucky socks.

Boru

(November 9, 2016 at 12:33 pm)Bella Morte Wrote: Who are you talking to?

The person that uses this forum as his personal toilet.

Drippy.

(November 9, 2016 at 12:08 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 9, 2016 at 12:00 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You're calling people who make $50,000 high-earners?

You're familar with the term "more than"? Cause that's what it says. Apart from 50.000 already meaning they're making approximately 4.000 a month. You think that the average truck driver or field hand or office clerk gets that kind of money?

Either way I'm not sure what to make of it. What matters most is household income. I do not recall the source but as I understand it, $45k is the threshold below which a household is better off relying on public assistance. If that is true, then it makes sense that those below that threshold would vote to preserve their dependency, even if they would prefer working for a living. While everyone hopes for a better life, it seems that fear of losing what little you have is the stronger motivation. That rule would apply to those at the top of the income scale as well.

That said, I consider household income between $50,000 and $100,000 the general range needed for a low to middle-class lifestyle, at least in the Chicago area.

(November 9, 2016 at 11:21 am)Kingpin Wrote: Candidates only focus on states they need to get to that magic 270 number and completely disregard the majority of America.

This. There was virtually no campaigning in this region. Saw a few political signs for Trump (who lost very badly here), but it was quite apparent that neither party really gave a shit about us or wanted to spend any $ here - again.

(November 9, 2016 at 12:47 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(November 9, 2016 at 11:21 am)Kingpin Wrote: Candidates only focus on states they need to get to that magic 270 number and completely disregard the majority of America.

This.  There literally was virtually no campaigning in this region.  Saw a few political signs for Trump (who lost very badly here), but it was quite apparent that neither party really gave a shit about us or wanted to spend any $ here - again.

Yet we'll slavishly maintain the Electoral College because the Founders weren't just really bright guys working out a decent but flawed set of compromises but were inspired visionaries writing Holy Writ that we question at our peril.

And I'm not griping about the Electoral College because I'm disappointed by the election result. I've long thought it a vestige of our past we would do well to eliminate. If there is no prospect of getting big money out of the election system, then at least make the bastards fight for every vote in every damn state.

(November 9, 2016 at 12:53 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Yet we'll slavishly maintain the Electoral College because the Founders weren't just really bright guys working out a decent but flawed set of compromises but were inspired visionaries writing Holy Writ that we question at our peril.

And I'm not griping about the Electoral College because I'm disappointed by the election result. I've long thought it a vestige of our past we would do well to eliminate. If there is no prospect of getting big money out of the election system, then at least make the bastards fight for every vote in every damn state.

I'm all for getting rid of it, but there's the small matter of getting 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment - and there's more than a quarter that I can think of where it's likely not in their interest to do so.

The electoral college would work far better (not saying it'd be perfect) if we just got rid of the first-past-the post system. The fact that someone can win a state by less than 1%, but then gets electoral votes equal to 100% of its population is like saying that half the state's desires don't matter.

(November 9, 2016 at 12:53 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(November 9, 2016 at 12:47 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: This.  There literally was virtually no campaigning in this region.  Saw a few political signs for Trump (who lost very badly here), but it was quite apparent that neither party really gave a shit about us or wanted to spend any $ here - again.

Yet we'll slavishly maintain the Electoral College because the Founders weren't just really bright guys working out a decent but flawed set of compromises but were inspired visionaries writing Holy Writ that we question at our peril.

And I'm not griping about the Electoral College because I'm disappointed by the election result. I've long thought it a vestige of our past we would do well to eliminate. If there is no prospect of getting big money out of the election system, then at least make the bastards fight for every vote in every damn state.

Yes, this is one of the reasons I despise the Electoral College and the straight party ticket voting.