Doug Jones on Sunday morning

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby Rvaughn » Sun Dec 17, 2017 9:41 pm

On the Sunday after the special Senate election in Alabama, Doug Jones shares some of his thoughts:
Doug Jones says time to move on from election; disagrees with calls for Trump to resign

"Let's get on with the real issues that are facing people of this country right now, and I don't think that the President ought to resign at this point," Jones said. "We will see how things go. But, certainly, those allegations are not new, and he was elected with those allegations at front and center."
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby KeithE » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:22 am

Rvaughn wrote:On the Sunday after the special Senate election in Alabama, Doug Jones shares some of his thoughts:
Doug Jones says time to move on from election; disagrees with calls for Trump to resign

"Let's get on with the real issues that are facing people of this country right now, and I don't think that the President ought to resign at this point," Jones said. "We will see how things go. But, certainly, those allegations are not new, and he was elected with those allegations at front and center."


Just like I thought about Moore, we need not buttress political cases against Trump (like Moore) with past sexual allegations, even though there has not been a public repentance shown by either Trump or Moore. We have so much other bad purely political “dirt” on both.

But character matters and we should judge the current character of candidates in the ballot booth. Let the sexual allegations of criminal acts be ruled on in the courts not Congress or in the court of public opinion.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8444
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby Tim Bonney » Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:16 pm

Everyone knew about Trump's inappropriate sexual behavior long ago. What would mean he should leave office to me is if he was actually involved in collusion with the Russians and obstructed justice to cover it up. If that happened, he is a traitor and should leave office.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5623
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby Sandy » Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:28 pm

Tim Bonney wrote:Everyone knew about Trump's inappropriate sexual behavior long ago. What would mean he should leave office to me is if he was actually involved in collusion with the Russians and obstructed justice to cover it up. If that happened, he is a traitor and should leave office.


I agree. Voters will have to decide what gets done about sexual harassment by people like Trump, and they did with Moore. The rest of it will be considered political grandstanding. If the Mueller investigation comes up with what it appears to be on track to uncover, based on the responses and attempts of the administration to distract, divert or discredit, it will be hard to call that political, and hard to avoid the consequences.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8272
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby Tim Bonney » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:06 pm

Sandy wrote:I agree. Voters will have to decide what gets done about sexual harassment by people like Trump, and they did with Moore. The rest of it will be considered political grandstanding. If the Mueller investigation comes up with what it appears to be on track to uncover, based on the responses and attempts of the administration to distract, divert or discredit, it will be hard to call that political, and hard to avoid the consequences.


Yes, I'm still wrapping my brain around the American electorate choosing Trump. But they did. So until something is proven that happened that the public didn't know about when they elected him, there is not a lot to do that is helpful.

His election has caused me to pretty much lose faith in the US presidential election system, including feeling that the electoral college has passed its usefulness. We now have a system where the least qualified candidate of any of the parties of any of the individuals running was the man who got elected without a majority of the national vote. Its a joke, and a really bad one.
Tim Bonney

First UMC of Indianola, Iowa - http://indfumc.org
My Blog - http://timbonney.com
User avatar
Tim Bonney
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5623
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 10:17 am
Location: Indianola, Iowa

Re: Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby Sandy » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:36 am

The electoral college was an anomaly for the American "experiment in Democracy" with philosophical ties to the old European idea of protecting the "landed aristocracy." In the case of the US, the main purpose it served was to secure support of the smaller colonies as smaller states for the ratification of the constitution. There are plenty of reasons why it should have been abolished after the Civil War, since it was the primary means by which politicians supporting slavery were able to hang on to power, and was the reason why the Civil War occurred in the first place. At any rate, the anomalies which have occured since the beginning of this century are large enough to demonstrate that the EC is obsolete, and needs to be abolished and replaced. If we're not going to have a consistent system of voting nationwide, at least everyone's vote should count the same.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8272
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Dec 19, 2017 11:08 am

Sandy wrote:The electoral college was an anomaly for the American "experiment in Democracy" with philosophical ties to the old European idea of protecting the "landed aristocracy." In the case of the US, the main purpose it served was to secure support of the smaller colonies as smaller states for the ratification of the constitution. There are plenty of reasons why it should have been abolished after the Civil War, since it was the primary means by which politicians supporting slavery were able to hang on to power, and was the reason why the Civil War occurred in the first place. At any rate, the anomalies which have occured since the beginning of this century are large enough to demonstrate that the EC is obsolete, and needs to be abolished and replaced. If we're not going to have a consistent system of voting nationwide, at least everyone's vote should count the same.


The electoral college definitely needs to be revisited in considering our scheme of government. We are in a day when national interests should trump regional ones, and we should be able to make national decisions, not just state ones. The direct election of US Senators has worked, so why not Presidents?
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7000
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby Sandy » Tue Dec 19, 2017 12:20 pm

The electoral college is a limit that was deliberately placed on national interests, based on fear of monarchy, and on what was at the time a very inequitable distribution of population and resources in the colonies. Each colony was thinking of itself as a political and national entity, not as part of a whole. Several of them even went to war with each other over economic interests and territory prior to the adoption of the constitution. As a result, there is no place in the government where the national interest is directly represented.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8272
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:21 pm

Tim Bonney wrote:His election has caused me to pretty much lose faith in the US presidential election system, including feeling that the electoral college has passed its usefulness. We now have a system where the least qualified candidate of any of the parties of any of the individuals running was the man who got elected without a majority of the national vote. Its a joke, and a really bad one.
Despite arguments pro & con for the electoral college, we do not now have a system that is different than we have had. No president has been elected because he won the popular vote. Five presidents have been elected who did not win the popular vote-- beginning with John Quincy Adams in 1824.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby Dave Roberts » Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:53 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Tim Bonney wrote:His election has caused me to pretty much lose faith in the US presidential election system, including feeling that the electoral college has passed its usefulness. We now have a system where the least qualified candidate of any of the parties of any of the individuals running was the man who got elected without a majority of the national vote. Its a joke, and a really bad one.
Despite arguments pro & con for the electoral college, we do not now have a system that is different than we have had. No president has been elected because he won the popular vote. Five presidents have been elected who did not win the popular vote-- beginning with John Quincy Adams in 1824.


The logic behind this was the Three-Fifths Compromise that counted slaves as 3/5 of a person for a state's representation but who could not vote. The popular vote would have vastly given power to the northern states over the southern ones. The electoral college allowed more representation for slave holding areas. Regardless of what we decide to do with it, we need to remember its genesis.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7000
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby Sandy » Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:56 pm

Rvaughn wrote:
Tim Bonney wrote:His election has caused me to pretty much lose faith in the US presidential election system, including feeling that the electoral college has passed its usefulness. We now have a system where the least qualified candidate of any of the parties of any of the individuals running was the man who got elected without a majority of the national vote. Its a joke, and a really bad one.
Despite arguments pro & con for the electoral college, we do not now have a system that is different than we have had. No president has been elected because he won the popular vote. Five presidents have been elected who did not win the popular vote-- beginning with John Quincy Adams in 1824.


There were circumstances in the three earlier elections where the popular vote winner didn't get the electoral vote to win that are different from the modern versions. In 1824, neither candidate got enough electoral votes to win, and the election was decided by the house. In 1876, there were questions about the vote totals in three states that Tilden and Hayes both claimed to have won, and the commission wound up selecting the Hayes electors, giving him a one vote win. In 1888, there were questions about whether the vote count from the largest state at the time, New York, was accurate. In all three cases, those incidents should have led to consideration to abolish the electoral college. The two modern occurrences, within 16 years of each other, simply underline the problem that geography becomes a factor in an election, with smaller states that have fewer votes having more influence, and representing fewer people per electoral vote than larger states. If it were a percentage allocation based on the vote, rather than a winner take all, it would work out better, though even in that arrangement, states with three votes would still have a greater voice.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8272
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Doug Jones on Sunday morning

Postby Rvaughn » Tue Dec 19, 2017 8:48 pm

Circumstances and differences notwithstanding, the point I was making is that we have never elected the POTUS by popular vote. Tim seemed to imply we have something new in saying, "We now have a system where the least qualified candidate of any of the parties of any of the individuals running was the man who got elected without a majority of the national vote." We have room for a discussion of changes that could be made, but "the majority of the popular vote" will only guarantee the election of the person who gets the majority of the popular vote -- not that the least qualified candidate doesn't get elected. I don't think we would have to look at all that many politicians to find that some "least qualified candidates" have been elected by popular vote in state, district, and local elections.

BTW, re the OP, I also agree with Doug Jones on things that were already known and Trump still elected despite them.
User avatar
Rvaughn
 
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:54 pm
Location: East Texas


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests