BRIGGS wrote:

holfresh wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Just like the vote Trump and co will shock again

Just sit back and listen to the inane obtuse ideas coming out of the mouths of the people not comprehending what this is all about. Trump is about nationalism Trump will rebuild infrastructure create millions of good paying jobs lower taxes while we see GDP growth rise up to 3.5-4.5% we will begin to lower our deficit and there will be many with cake on their faces but atleast they'll have a job!

The deficit is 587 billion thanks to Obama...Not much worries there..You must be talking about the debt..Trump's plan would add 6 trillion dollars to our 19.8 trillion dollar debt..That is an intentional increase of 30% by one man...Wall Street is giddy because they are about to get paid...One guy who doesn't think this is funny is bond king Bill Gross, who ran PIMCO for many years, now at Janus..He sees zero stimulus just like the Bush years...Companies are doing massive repurchasing to stock as we speak, why didn't they use that money to expand and "create more jobs" as Trump and other trickle down gurus are suggesting..This will be just another boondoggle that favors Wall Street...And trust me, I don't mind one bit, I just hate seeing middle class America being fed a load of BS...

He is Bill Gross on Trump's plan...

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000568635

I do not in anyway think the mc is being fed BS.

BRIGGS wrote:

Welpee wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Yeah, because land is more important than people. Got it.

Nice try but the argument is a lame, epic fail.

Come on this is an overwhelming concentration of the us despite the volume in areas of blue. In some ways this has to be one of the most dominant wins of all time if we factor in the forces against trump. Also give these guys a chance. Does Mike Pence and his wife deserve to go to a Broadway show in peace? And does he have to take a sermon from people when he's done absolutely nothing wrong? Give the guy a chance. Of I was wrong I'll lead the parade to get rid of them but I don't think this is about that. I think 100% opposite and well see. I'm looking to see them produce a lot of good jobs build us infrastructure including all inner cities get our debt and immigration under control. They all interrelate

Yep, if we just ignore the fact that those blue pockets are where most of the population live, and focus on a map that represents not people and votes, but square miles, then this is a pretty dominant win for Trump

markvmc wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

markvmc wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Welpee wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Yeah, because land is more important than people. Got it.

Nice try but the argument is a lame, epic fail.

Come on this is an overwhelming concentration of the us despite the volume in areas of blue. In some ways this has to be one of the most dominant wins of all time if we factor in the forces against trump. Also give these guys a chance. Does Mike Pence and his wife deserve to go to a Broadway show in peace? And does he have to take a sermon from people when he's done absolutely nothing wrong? Give the guy a chance. Of I was wrong I'll lead the parade to get rid of them but I don't think this is about that. I think 100% opposite and well see. I'm looking to see them produce a lot of good jobs build us infrastructure including all inner cities get our debt and immigration under control. They all interrelate

Yep, if we just ignore the fact that those blue pockets are where most of the population live, and focus on a map that represents not people and votes, but square miles, then this is a pretty dominant win for Trump

There's a lot of empty land that preferred Donald Trump.

Did particularly well in the National Parks.

I'm disappointed in Yellow Stone- I always knew the Grand Canyon would be solidly Trump, but man, how did Hilary lose Yellow Stone?

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Just like the vote Trump and co will shock again

Just sit back and listen to the inane obtuse ideas coming out of the mouths of the people not comprehending what this is all about. Trump is about nationalism Trump will rebuild infrastructure create millions of good paying jobs lower taxes while we see GDP growth rise up to 3.5-4.5% we will begin to lower our deficit and there will be many with cake on their faces but atleast they'll have a job!

In your postings in the past you've revealed you are homophobic, racist and that you put your hands round your wife's throat when youve argued ('just to show her you cared' or some such crap was your justification) so I'm not surprised you're excited about Trump's reign.

Mr Ad Hominem with a little guilt by association thrown in, nice example there of attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. Why do you want to attack him as a person? Is what he says sort of true? Yeah, it is. It is pretty clear that what Briggs said is Trumps plan. The guy has a better idea on how to fix this country and in part a lot of respectable people got behind him. You are witnessing it and will continue to. Give him a chance.

Answer me this, what are your honest views on LGBT rights, racism and misogyny? Im genuinely curious

First, answer my point above instead of getting me to answer you. That is fair. You attacked him. I'm not sure about what he said and there was no context given. But instead of talking about his points on Trump, you attacked his person. And I'm curious why. If Briggs is such a bad guy I think I would have been seeing it a lot and I've been on this board for years. Mostly people would complain because he made too many new threads, never heard him name called like you just did (At least I don't remember that).

At the moment it's all guess work/faith that he'll make the economy great- history would show what he's proposing won't help, but then again he was also lying so it's hard to fathom what he will actually end up doing. My issue is with the complete silence you and BRIGGs and co have regarding the bigotry. I can only assume it's because you either agree with trump, or simply don't care.

As for BRIGGs, he called for the nuclear inhalation of the Middle East, in a thread about domestic violence said what he does to his wife, in a thread about gay players said he wouldn't want to change in a locker room with them, etc etc. I've no interest in what Briggs is like as a person, he might be a nice guy, and he's done some very nice things for these boards and it's members, but I will always challenge his views.

It might be a bit of guess work and faith, but look at where we are at right now. The banking system is broken, unemployment is high and things just don't look that good. 2008 is catching up to us. The only thing that will get us out of here is some smart thinking. I really don't know if Trumps plan can soften the fall that we are continually getting closer to happening. But, I don't think the US Dollar fails before the Euro. If Trump can create some jobs and I think his plans idea is solid. But we need something drastically different as things are broken.

I see Brigg's reply to you, so I'll just keep out for now, but thanks for answering me there. Maybe you guys can clear things up. If I can say, if he put out personal stuff and wasn't bragging about it, and if he knew it wasn't the right thing but changed enough to share it, don't judge the guy. I don't mean that against you.

Regarding "what are your honest views on LGBT rights, racism and misogyny?"
I really don't separate people based on sexual preference, gender preference, etc. I grew up in Brooklyn and I never understood the hate for people that were different in that way. Never in my life. Likewise, I didn't understand why my good (black) friend at school wanted to be white (Cause the local guys threatened me to kill him if I brought the N*** back to the neighborhood.) That was a bit rough on me. They did end up killing some other black guys about a year later. That is when we left Brooklyn. I'm sure inside me there are some uncomfortable parts relating to people who are different, but I genuinely treat people like people, not based on anything about them that society doesn't accept.

Everyone is in a different position though, with their experiences, culture and family, etc. guiding them along the way. I really don't feel like hating on people who are racist, just as I don't hate on people of a different race. I actually met a Neo Nazi here and actually was super open and nice to him. Think it made him uncomfortable at times (as he was kind of bound up in a certain way, traditional, wearing the lederhosen, lol) I felt like he needed some love, so to speak. I take that over trying to fix someone (outright). Not making excuses either.

Regarding the hatred of women. See above, I really don't see separation of people(s) like that. I may say policeman out of habit, instead of policewoman. I don't get all the hate in the world. This thread, by far, is the most amount of hate that I experience - receive and "give". (Not that I hate something or somebody, but it gets testy at times, a bit personal it seems.)
I'm a bit tired of that, so will do my part to reduce it, and I hope others look in the mirror and do something too. None of us are perfect. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone sort of thing...

I don't have a problem with Trump, I'm gonna give him a chance.

I have never taken issue with your fed up-ness with corruption, and dislike of Hilary Clinton's relationship with Wall Street etc (I'm a Bernie Sanders man), on that side of things though I think you've been conned by trump, but we'll see (I'd love it if he did 'drain the swamp'- I just don't think he will). The emotive bit for me has been the other side- the kind of people he'll give power to. A lot of his supporters are likely very similar to you- we'd get on fine in person, but I'd struggle to get how they can go to holding views of basic decency to voting for someone who stands for the opposite, and that's something I've always struggled with in politics. Ugly stuff can hide behind good manners.

I have been getting increasingly worked up on this thread, because I've read your posts on how everything's going great, and then also read the other side of that and the real fear there is amongst black people, muslims, LGBT folk, etc, and I guess it's felt very antagonistic (and I know I've responded by being very antagonistic). I'm worried and I'm angry, man. Probably ended up directing more of it at you than is fair, maybe not (I don't actually know you so I can't determine that). I think sometimes you make posts that are actually quite antagonistic (whether that is your intent or not), and then rather than own it, you retreat to 'hey, whoa there, I'm a nice guy!", and don't seem to get why people have responded to you with antagonism (it's because they felt your post was antagonistic).

I guess time will tell if we've been conned by Trump. For the sake of everyone, I really hope not. I don't think one man can change anything, but one man can inspire and then the rest of us can take care of quite a bit. We will see.

At times I was being an antagonist against Hillary. But it was a chicken or egg thing, who started it? I think the collective right now shows division, anger, etc. I am a bit tired of it so want to do things in a more productive way. If someone attacks something Trump did like it is the end all, I might reply in like. But even that is getting tiring for me. I think this will burn out of its own accord and then hopefully we can work on things in a more productive way, Trump or no Trump. The Republican vs Democrat thing was old for me when I was a kid almost, hard to believe it has continued for so long.

To me, Trump is an expression of the collective (that being sick and tired of corruption). He is just a symbol for what most feel (whether or not you like him), though perhaps not the 1%, which ironically enough he is a part of. So, perhaps he just gets the ball rolling and then we can take over. Perhaps not, but I don't want to give up on humanity (not saying anyone else does either.)

Eventually, somethings got to give.

holfresh wrote:I can't wait for Republicans to roll back Obamacare and drop 20 million from healthcare..

Trump was real clear that that would not happen. Of course we are not going to dump 20 million people like that.
Why even say something like that? You have no proof of that and what has been said in interviews is to the contrary.

What is your agenda? Division? Attack? You certainly make no effort for cooperation.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:I can't wait for Republicans to roll back Obamacare and drop 20 million from healthcare..

Trump was real clear that that would not happen. Of course we are not going to dump 20 million people like that.
Why even say something like that? You have no proof of that and what has been said in interviews is to the contrary.

What is your agenda? Division? Attack? You certainly make no effort for cooperation.

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:I can't wait for Republicans to roll back Obamacare and drop 20 million from healthcare..

Trump was real clear that that would not happen. Of course we are not going to dump 20 million people like that.
Why even say something like that? You have no proof of that and what has been said in interviews is to the contrary.

What is your agenda? Division? Attack? You certainly make no effort for cooperation.

This is what Trump campaigned on but it was just one of his campaign lies. He campaigned on repealing Obamacare (which brought health care to these 20 million) without saying anything about what it would be replaced with or what help if any would be provided for those 20 million.

Is that really a lie? In interviews I saw he said it isn't like they would just cancel Obama care, but modify it and no one with current coverage would be excluded, and he was adamant on that point, and rightfully so - as you can't just dump people.

And maybe stick to just this point, it doesn't help to throw in "just one of his campaign lies." If you are going to say that, then give evidence (and I don't mean after the fact.)

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

markvmc wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Welpee wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Yeah, because land is more important than people. Got it.

Nice try but the argument is a lame, epic fail.

Come on this is an overwhelming concentration of the us despite the volume in areas of blue. In some ways this has to be one of the most dominant wins of all time if we factor in the forces against trump. Also give these guys a chance. Does Mike Pence and his wife deserve to go to a Broadway show in peace? And does he have to take a sermon from people when he's done absolutely nothing wrong? Give the guy a chance. Of I was wrong I'll lead the parade to get rid of them but I don't think this is about that. I think 100% opposite and well see. I'm looking to see them produce a lot of good jobs build us infrastructure including all inner cities get our debt and immigration under control. They all interrelate

Yep, if we just ignore the fact that those blue pockets are where most of the population live, and focus on a map that represents not people and votes, but square miles, then this is a pretty dominant win for Trump

There's a lot of empty land that preferred Donald Trump.

I don't agree with the exaggeration of that map, but there is some truth to it - in the sense that less populated areas that produce something e.g. crops, are large Trump supporters. The main point here is that the Electoral College didn't want a few big states deciding the outcome. IT can be made better, of course, but where are you taking things? If we are not careful, the hate is going to take over this thread. And then where are we?

Didn't you give me a hard time for my Twitter jokes (even though they were based on truths). Well, what are you doing here with those comments?
And I don't mind snide remarks on occasion, sometimes a little bit of a dark joke is not all that bad, but the more truth the better. Your comment has truth in it, albeit exaggerated, but it made me laugh, as did the followup comments, lol.

Maybe we should ask, should the electoral college be totally scrapped, modified or ?
If we go by a popular vote, we have other problems to consider and the campaigning will just change to reflect that.

Without the electoral college, the campaigning would change to reflect the will of the people. I'm not sure what twitter jokes you're talking about. Plenty of things are made in large cities too. That's where most American companies headquarters are. I think the derogation of cities and west coast states that Republicans (not just you) do is in poor taste. Someone else (maybe Vmart) was saying only the rural areas are the "bread and butter" of the country, which is BS. I'd rather just view and treat all hard working, tax paying, law abiding Americans as equals.

You are not proving anything with those statements, just stating preference. What do large cities produce? New York is a banking center and our banking system is broken, very much so. In an ironic way, the electoral college fixed that problem.

It is dangerous to just go by a popular vote, for a variety of reasons. I won't get into it here as the founding fathers created it for many reasons that we have spoken about.

Anyway, if they change it to a popular vote, then e.g. Trump would campaign in NY and CA more, changing the vote there, not saying he wins the States, but maybe then it doesn't have the same effect. To judge this election by the popular vote AFTER THE FACE, which wasn't how they campaigned, is not fair. Both of their campaigns were designed to get the electoral votes. Hillary tried that and lost.

Going forward, sure, we can talk about change, but not after the fact when campaigns were run with it in mind.

Anyway, I think there is a 1% chance of the result being changed. Not a concern. If that did happen, the small pockets of riots we now have would most certainly go in the direction of a civil war.

I'm opposed to having a minority party have absolute control over the country. (That's much more dangerous than having elections reflect the actual will of the people.) And I think if we had a popular vote, Trump would have lost even worse. (Him campaigning in NY sounds about as promising as Hillary campaigning in Mississippi.) It is dangerous when major politicians can ignore 90% of the states. It is dangerous that one party knows they can gain complete power without being accountable to most citizens. (Republicans have won the presidential popular vote only once since 1988!) That is much more dangerous than making politicians actually accountable to all Americans (even though no system is perfect).

HOWEVER, I realize the election is over and am more interested in having this never happen again. The more the issue is raised, the better. People can contact their Senators (http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/) to ask them to support Senator Boxer's proposal to eliminate the electoral college. It won't go anywhere in the short-term since the party in power prefers to have a rigged system. The only hope is that eventually Dems will gain full control and if we can keep the issue in the public in the meantime, maybe the Dems will fix the system.

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

markvmc wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Welpee wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Yeah, because land is more important than people. Got it.

Nice try but the argument is a lame, epic fail.

Come on this is an overwhelming concentration of the us despite the volume in areas of blue. In some ways this has to be one of the most dominant wins of all time if we factor in the forces against trump. Also give these guys a chance. Does Mike Pence and his wife deserve to go to a Broadway show in peace? And does he have to take a sermon from people when he's done absolutely nothing wrong? Give the guy a chance. Of I was wrong I'll lead the parade to get rid of them but I don't think this is about that. I think 100% opposite and well see. I'm looking to see them produce a lot of good jobs build us infrastructure including all inner cities get our debt and immigration under control. They all interrelate

Yep, if we just ignore the fact that those blue pockets are where most of the population live, and focus on a map that represents not people and votes, but square miles, then this is a pretty dominant win for Trump

There's a lot of empty land that preferred Donald Trump.

I don't agree with the exaggeration of that map, but there is some truth to it - in the sense that less populated areas that produce something e.g. crops, are large Trump supporters. The main point here is that the Electoral College didn't want a few big states deciding the outcome. IT can be made better, of course, but where are you taking things? If we are not careful, the hate is going to take over this thread. And then where are we?

Didn't you give me a hard time for my Twitter jokes (even though they were based on truths). Well, what are you doing here with those comments?
And I don't mind snide remarks on occasion, sometimes a little bit of a dark joke is not all that bad, but the more truth the better. Your comment has truth in it, albeit exaggerated, but it made me laugh, as did the followup comments, lol.

Maybe we should ask, should the electoral college be totally scrapped, modified or ?
If we go by a popular vote, we have other problems to consider and the campaigning will just change to reflect that.

Without the electoral college, the campaigning would change to reflect the will of the people. I'm not sure what twitter jokes you're talking about. Plenty of things are made in large cities too. That's where most American companies headquarters are. I think the derogation of cities and west coast states that Republicans (not just you) do is in poor taste. Someone else (maybe Vmart) was saying only the rural areas are the "bread and butter" of the country, which is BS. I'd rather just view and treat all hard working, tax paying, law abiding Americans as equals.

You are not proving anything with those statements, just stating preference. What do large cities produce? New York is a banking center and our banking system is broken, very much so. In an ironic way, the electoral college fixed that problem.

It is dangerous to just go by a popular vote, for a variety of reasons. I won't get into it here as the founding fathers created it for many reasons that we have spoken about.

Anyway, if they change it to a popular vote, then e.g. Trump would campaign in NY and CA more, changing the vote there, not saying he wins the States, but maybe then it doesn't have the same effect. To judge this election by the popular vote AFTER THE FACE, which wasn't how they campaigned, is not fair. Both of their campaigns were designed to get the electoral votes. Hillary tried that and lost.

Going forward, sure, we can talk about change, but not after the fact when campaigns were run with it in mind.

Anyway, I think there is a 1% chance of the result being changed. Not a concern. If that did happen, the small pockets of riots we now have would most certainly go in the direction of a civil war.

What do cities produce? Major advances in medicine, scientific research, education, and more. Do you know why we added 30 to 40 years to the average human lifespan since 1900? It's not because of the fantastic medical advances occurring in rural America! Of course, sometimes this stuff backfires and does more harm. Guess what? So does the stuff produced in rural America. Ever hear of contaminated meat or produce? I'd add there is value to entertainment too. (And good luck fielding major sports teams in rural Wyoming!)

I'm opposed to having a minority party have absolute control over the country. (That's much more dangerous than having elections reflect the actual will of the people.) And I think if we had a popular vote, Trump would have lost even worse. (Him campaigning in NY sounds about as promising as Hillary campaigning in Mississippi.) It is dangerous when major politicians can ignore 90% of the states. It is dangerous that one party knows they can gain complete power without being accountable to most citizens. (Republicans have won the presidential popular vote only once since 1988!) That is much more dangerous than making politicians actually accountable to all Americans (even though no system is perfect).

HOWEVER, I realize the election is over and am more interested in having this never happen again. The more the issue is raised, the better. People can contact their Senators (http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/) to ask them to support Senator Boxer's proposal to eliminate the electoral college. It won't go anywhere in the short-term since the party in power prefers to have a rigged system. The only hope is that eventually Dems will gain full control and if we can keep the issue in the public in the meantime, maybe the Dems will fix the system.

Yeah, Cities produce some important things, we just need to find a way to weigh things better, perhaps.

Well, I wonder how we can change the electoral college for the better? If the popular vote has matched it every time but 5 or 6, does that mean it just needs some tweaks? Are times just changing? Straight popular vote? I'm open but think we need to be real careful that the next system isn't (more) riggable.

In a way, fixing this is putting a band-aid on the problem. We need more than a two party system, eh? Here in Germany, not sure on the other EU Countries, if you get e.g. 10% of the vote, you represent accordingly. (Meaning you have influence on policy and such.) The US' winner take all approach is not a great system imo.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

markvmc wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Welpee wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

Yeah, because land is more important than people. Got it.

Nice try but the argument is a lame, epic fail.

Come on this is an overwhelming concentration of the us despite the volume in areas of blue. In some ways this has to be one of the most dominant wins of all time if we factor in the forces against trump. Also give these guys a chance. Does Mike Pence and his wife deserve to go to a Broadway show in peace? And does he have to take a sermon from people when he's done absolutely nothing wrong? Give the guy a chance. Of I was wrong I'll lead the parade to get rid of them but I don't think this is about that. I think 100% opposite and well see. I'm looking to see them produce a lot of good jobs build us infrastructure including all inner cities get our debt and immigration under control. They all interrelate

Yep, if we just ignore the fact that those blue pockets are where most of the population live, and focus on a map that represents not people and votes, but square miles, then this is a pretty dominant win for Trump

There's a lot of empty land that preferred Donald Trump.

I don't agree with the exaggeration of that map, but there is some truth to it - in the sense that less populated areas that produce something e.g. crops, are large Trump supporters. The main point here is that the Electoral College didn't want a few big states deciding the outcome. IT can be made better, of course, but where are you taking things? If we are not careful, the hate is going to take over this thread. And then where are we?

Didn't you give me a hard time for my Twitter jokes (even though they were based on truths). Well, what are you doing here with those comments?
And I don't mind snide remarks on occasion, sometimes a little bit of a dark joke is not all that bad, but the more truth the better. Your comment has truth in it, albeit exaggerated, but it made me laugh, as did the followup comments, lol.

Maybe we should ask, should the electoral college be totally scrapped, modified or ?
If we go by a popular vote, we have other problems to consider and the campaigning will just change to reflect that.

Without the electoral college, the campaigning would change to reflect the will of the people. I'm not sure what twitter jokes you're talking about. Plenty of things are made in large cities too. That's where most American companies headquarters are. I think the derogation of cities and west coast states that Republicans (not just you) do is in poor taste. Someone else (maybe Vmart) was saying only the rural areas are the "bread and butter" of the country, which is BS. I'd rather just view and treat all hard working, tax paying, law abiding Americans as equals.

You are not proving anything with those statements, just stating preference. What do large cities produce? New York is a banking center and our banking system is broken, very much so. In an ironic way, the electoral college fixed that problem.

It is dangerous to just go by a popular vote, for a variety of reasons. I won't get into it here as the founding fathers created it for many reasons that we have spoken about.

Anyway, if they change it to a popular vote, then e.g. Trump would campaign in NY and CA more, changing the vote there, not saying he wins the States, but maybe then it doesn't have the same effect. To judge this election by the popular vote AFTER THE FACE, which wasn't how they campaigned, is not fair. Both of their campaigns were designed to get the electoral votes. Hillary tried that and lost.

Going forward, sure, we can talk about change, but not after the fact when campaigns were run with it in mind.

Anyway, I think there is a 1% chance of the result being changed. Not a concern. If that did happen, the small pockets of riots we now have would most certainly go in the direction of a civil war.

What do cities produce? Major advances in medicine, scientific research, education, and more. Do you know why we added 30 to 40 years to the average human lifespan since 1900? It's not because of the fantastic medical advances occurring in rural America! Of course, sometimes this stuff backfires and does more harm. Guess what? So does the stuff produced in rural America. Ever hear of contaminated meat or produce? I'd add there is value to entertainment too. (And good luck fielding major sports teams in rural Wyoming!)

I'm opposed to having a minority party have absolute control over the country. (That's much more dangerous than having elections reflect the actual will of the people.) And I think if we had a popular vote, Trump would have lost even worse. (Him campaigning in NY sounds about as promising as Hillary campaigning in Mississippi.) It is dangerous when major politicians can ignore 90% of the states. It is dangerous that one party knows they can gain complete power without being accountable to most citizens. (Republicans have won the presidential popular vote only once since 1988!) That is much more dangerous than making politicians actually accountable to all Americans (even though no system is perfect).

HOWEVER, I realize the election is over and am more interested in having this never happen again. The more the issue is raised, the better. People can contact their Senators (http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/) to ask them to support Senator Boxer's proposal to eliminate the electoral college. It won't go anywhere in the short-term since the party in power prefers to have a rigged system. The only hope is that eventually Dems will gain full control and if we can keep the issue in the public in the meantime, maybe the Dems will fix the system.

Yeah, Cities produce some important things, we just need to find a way to weigh things better, perhaps.

Well, I wonder how we can change the electoral college for the better? If the popular vote has matched it every time but 5 or 6, does that mean it just needs some tweaks? Are times just changing? Straight popular vote? I'm open but think we need to be real careful that the next system isn't (more) riggable.

In a way, fixing this is putting a band-aid on the problem. We need more than a two party system, eh? Here in Germany, not sure on the other EU Countries, if you get e.g. 10% of the vote, you represent accordingly. (Meaning you have influence on policy and such.) The US' winner take all approach is not a great system imo.