Re: 2016 Election
 

what is your definition of republic here?

Re: 2016 Election
 

5 and counting

Re: 2016 Election
 

Similar to the US for simplicity.

Re: 2016 Election
 

States are free to do that if they wish, and that's what Maine and Nebraska do now.

Everyone else uses winner-take-all because having a larger prize increases their influence.

Re: 2016 Election
 

The US began as a confederation, but quickly abandoned that model for a more centralized form of government.

Switzerland is a confederation, modeled somewhat on the US but it has an executive body that is appointed by its legislature instead of a single executive who is (sort of) elected as does the US.

Re: 2016 Election
 

You're one of those people that pretends to be nice while what you're really saying are some very not-nice things.

Nobody is buying what you're selling. Nobody believes, not for a minute, that you sit around with your 'illegal' friends, who you love to help - out of the generosity of your big heart, and call them 'illegals' to their face all day. Nor does anybody buy your fantastical anecdotes about them all referring to each other as 'illegals' in front of you. You look ridiculous and you need to stop making a fool of yourself over this. It's not big and it's not clever and we've all seen it a million times before.

There are two possibilities, either (1) you have an unnatural obsession with the word 'illegals' and your own personal need to say 'illegals' in an unfettered way or (2) you're trolling me personally. Either way -----> :yawn:

I made my point, in clear and succinct English, days ago. This doesn't take hours of debate and endless posts and paragraphs. It is a simple concept. You can disagree if you like (I also said that days ago) but you aren't going to shout me down or wear me down and you're never going to win this argument.

Re: 2016 Election
 

So does the BBC

Mexico steps up help for citizens in US after Trump win - BBC News

Re: 2016 Election
 

Actually perhaps you may have an open mind and consider that perhaps your above comments do not reflect reality. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt even if they disagree with me, and there is much about the debate and opinions on all sides which frankly I am trying to understand.

1. The word "illegals": Actually I never thought of it as a pejorative and as negative as you pointed out, and I admit I kind of resent the situation where I use a word which I have no idea that is now considered pejorative then hear that one can be criticized for such a word.

2. As far your comments "not buying...sitting around with your illegal friends" you couldn't be more wrong. I will answer because of my respect for your posts ( which I often find thought-provoking) that comment. My family attends Church which has one service per week in Spanish which is the one we attend ( as my wife is Hispanic), and we go to many social activities with people from the Church, as one can imagine living in the Midwest my wife likes to hear Spanish and be around Latin people. So we are quite familiar with the situation - I am unsure how much direct experience you may have had with such a community to judge my comments in the way you have. And yes we certainly feel obligated when one of them needs help with translation or navigating through the bureaucracy to help them especially considering the difficulties they can face. And yes it is quite common to hear in Spanish "us illegals face so many difficulties " or " I am illegal so I am afraid to drive to often" or similar usage of the word.

3. No I am not obsessed with the word illegal, just amazed how the vehemence you expressed about someone who would use the word. Perhaps you are right that using the word in English is pejorative in some circles, I certainly had never thought of that.

As far as looking ridiculous on what you call anecdotes, I would have thought we all learn from observations from others. If you speak Spanish and regularly or in the past have spent time with Mexican and Central American immigrants in the United States I certainly would be interested in what anecdotes you would have, whether they agreed with my political views or not. I am assuming , perhaps unfairly, you haven't spent much time in the homes of undocumented Mexicans or Central Americans so I am unsure how you can make such judgements.

Re: 2016 Election
 

To be clear, though - my main point was that we should not read too much into who won the popular vote this time around, because that was not the goal. We cannot assume, just because Clinton won the popular vote with our current setup, that she would have won the popular vote if the popular vote were to be the deciding factor.

Re: 2016 Election
 

However, republicans are competitive in congressional and state races throughout California and New York (to take the two big examples.) So they campaigned hard and dragged Trump through on THEIR coat tails!

My district in rural NYS, for instance, used to elect a conservative democrat, now elects a Trump-supporting conservative Republican, Elise Stefanik. She won with a landslide this time, and Trump won big time up in our neck of the woods too (after Obama won handily in his two elections.)

So, I'm just pointing out that Republicans don't completely ignore the presidential race in states they won't win.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Circular argument then. Take Ireland, for instance. It's a republic. But it's a parliamentary democracy, with structures closely modelled on the British, and not much in the way of US-like features.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Very impressive - you know your history sir :goodpost:

Re: 2016 Election
 

I have argued this on other sites. Without the Electoral College the campaign would have been run far differently by both sides. No way of knowing how it may have turned out.

Re: 2016 Election
 

They probably wouldn't have had Dumb and Dumber to chose from for a start.

Re: 2016 Election
 

Without an electoral college, there would be no state primaries and the election cycle would probably be much shorter. So you're probably right.