Trump is president; Who is to blame?

[abaris]

Because your actions matter.

Apart from you dragging yet another thread into bickering shit, how does another member's intent of putting someone on ignore effect your humble self or even the one being on ignore?

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't see the point in playing the blame game at this point. The more important question to me is "what now?"

Respectfully disagree. At this point, I think a post-mortem is vital for our country.

[Excited Penguin]

It occurs to me that Republican nominees seem to have hit on a sure-fire way to avoid assassination attempts. H.W. Bush had Quayle. W. had Cheney. McCain had Palin. And now Trump has given us a certified Jesus freak who has no problem enacting discriminatory policies.

It's genius.

What that reads as, at least partially, is an approval of political assassinations if they happen to suit your goals.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The more important question to me is "what now?"

Short of an impeachment, you have to sit it out. And even that, given that Pence would take the Donald's place doesn't seem all that thrilling. The whole world has to sit it out. Duck and Cover everyone, I would say.

Or as we used to say in the Air Force -- BOHICA -- upon changes of command.

Bend over, here it comes again.

[Crossless2.0]

That's true, but alpha male also has a point. There are a lot of people in consistently red or blue states who feel there is no reason to bother voting since their vote won't overcome historically wide margins that favor the party they oppose. Whether you are a conservative in Massachusetts or a liberal in Wyoming, the electoral college as we currently practice it is a strong disincentive to participate.

Not saying that it isn't...but there would be an even stringer disincentive for reds, particularly, if we made elections a matter of who could win the big cities.  Blues have been doing that...even in red states.  

Even if it was the end of retail politics and townhall meetings/debates, we could count on the media covering the major candidates and disseminating their talking points even if they never ventured out of the largest metropolitan areas.

If you thought you could count on that you must be thinking the way Hillary thought about it...and we see that it cost her the election, but only because of the electoral college as it currently applies...where trump only needed to tilt a few votes in town and crush, predictably, outside city limits.

And of course, if they restricted their active campaigning to those population centers, they would expose themselves to backlash from voters in the so-called fly-over areas who felt dismissed and ignored. One way or another, candidates are going to have to figure out ways to reach voters in every area and from all walks of life if the current EC system was eliminated or reformed.

But why would you need the smaller percentage of voters loosely spread out over a larger area if you could win it in the cities alone?

All good points. That's why I favor reforming the EC rather than going with a straight popular vote election. I'd rather see the contests in each state become more significant and worth fighting for than have a situation in which each candidate trained all of their fire on a relative handful of cities.

[Crossless2.0]

It occurs to me that Republican nominees seem to have hit on a sure-fire way to avoid assassination attempts. H.W. Bush had Quayle. W. had Cheney. McCain had Palin. And now Trump has given us a certified Jesus freak who has no problem enacting discriminatory policies.

It's genius.

What that reads as, at least partially, is an approval of political assassinations if they happen to suit your goals.

That's not my intent and, for the record, I think assassinating people is a bad thing. But I'm well aware that you have trouble identifying tongue-in-cheek posts when you encounter them.

For fuck's sake, it's not like I encouraged people to abort Trump (for those not in the know, an obscure reference to a thread in "Announcements").

[Thumpalumpacus]

You leveled an attack at someone for expressing their opinions.

You did exactly that yourself yesterday. Are you really this thoughtless? Color me skeptical, but it seems to me that you're a bit of a hypocrite.

[Crossless2.0]

You leveled an attack at someone for expressing their opinions.

You did exactly that yourself yesterday. Are you really this thoughtless? Color me skeptical, but it seems to me that you're a bit of a hypocrite.

*sigh*

Do I really have to post more Carlin bits?

[Thumpalumpacus]

What does your treating him as you do accomplish ? 

What would a more positive attitude bring to the table?

Why don't you try and find out ?

I, and many others, have tried treating him decently upon our first encounters, only to get a kick in the face.

Now, I don't know about you, but I reject "turn the other cheek" as a modus operandi. When someone takes a smack at me, I swing back, as you yourself have learnt.

This is just you sticking up for your own poison by proxy, and I ain't buying it. If someone doesn't like someone else and wishes to ignore that other, the first is not practicing censorship on the forum; they are practicing the common sense of ignoring someone who radiates more heat than light.