Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Body in Congress? Oh you mean Marjorie!

[formermav43 4,599]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

One person, one vote. It's not a hard argument to make. 

 

Well that’s better than the “your argument is stupid/history is dumb/it’s common sense” trifecta that you went with before.

[Gatorubet 30,135]

Just an incredible sentence after 4 years of Donald Trump, who lost the popular vote,  and MAGA currently infecting this country. 

And the EC could save us from a MAGA plurality in a slightly different scenario where Orangeman wins the plurality and Biden wins the EC.

The Constitution was not designed in order to get one political side better at winning elections Hank. Trump’s one term is an anomaly in the several hundred year scheme. Recent EC umbrage is purely a result of result driven unhappiness, not concept/structural concerns.

[Hank Kingsley 20,725]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

Races would be run in completely different manners if the goal was 50% + 1 of the nationwide vote. 

From your lips to God's ears.

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20,725]

6 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

And the EC could save us from a MAGA plurality in a slightly different scenario where Orangeman wins the plurality and Biden wins the EC.

The Constitution was not designed in order to get one political side better at winning elections Hank. Trump’s one term is an anomaly in the several hundred year scheme. Recent EC umbrage is purely a result of result driven unhappiness, not concept/structural concerns.

Stop trying to tell me what I think. 

It is 100% because of concept/structural concerns. The fact that you can't understand people have actual convictions isn't surprising I guess. I'm not a rah rah Democrat. 

[Hank Kingsley 20,725]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

This attitude presupposes we couldn’t get someone like Trump with simple majority vote.

If a simple majority vote gets us someone like Trump, SO FUCKING BE IT. The people have spoken. 

How fucking hard is this to understand? 

[Sawbonz 27,445]

1 minute ago, Hank Kingsley said:

If a simple majority vote gets us someone like Trump, SO FUCKING BE IT. The people have spoken. 

How fucking hard is this to understand? 

So you don’t care if we are fucked as long as it’s by a process you prefer?

[wildcat09 29,270]

14 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

And the EC could save us from a MAGA plurality in a slightly different scenario where Orangeman wins the plurality and Biden wins the EC.

The Constitution was not designed in order to get one political side better at winning elections Hank. Trump’s one term is an anomaly in the several hundred year scheme. Recent EC umbrage is purely a result of result driven unhappiness, not concept/structural concerns.

Lol, eat shit. One person, one vote should be fundamental to any democracy and my commitment to that has nothing to do with the fact that it would benefit the party I vote for.

[Hank Kingsley 20,725]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

So you don’t care if we are fucked as long as it’s by a process you prefer?

I believe this country has already been fucked by the antiquated process we currently have. The results are in...not great, Bob!

[wildcat09 29,270]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

 

LOL. If you want to see representative democracy updated, ask for more Senators per state as a tweak, with bigger populations than the Montanas of the world not getting just 2 damn Senators.

Your main beef with the EC is not getting the results you wanted recently. I have real issues with pure democracy, as we are indeed a nation of idiots and sorely need some checks on the emotional braindead unwashed masses. That is why we have (in theory) a six year senate term - to make the tough votes with time as a cover for doing the right thing. The House has always been more asshat, lighting rod, think of the moment.

Hank does not argue a position. He states a conclusion and gives examples that have nothing to do with the EC. You might as well say “The Founders liked slavery, so we should abolish the Executive and just have plurality vote on every issue so the people have a voice...!” But that would be stupid.

The purpose of checks and balances is ALWAYS hated by the side being checked. Your team not getting to do what it wants all the time by virtue of plurality vote is just the designed check on the ‘Tyranny of the Majority’.

If you want to get rid of a particular check and balance because it does not benefit your side politically, fine. I’d prefer a better fleshed out argument than Bama Chick’s “we lost Al and Hillary’s election” and Hanks “Old stuff is no good - ‘cause had slaves and women no vote.”

I agree that we get to use the Amendment process. What is the argument besides my team almost lost this time and did last time?

 

Missed this, but the electoral college has nothing to do with "checks and balances." That phrase refers to the balance of powers distributed between the three branches of government, not how one particular official is elected. Jesus fucking christ, at least do you homework before acting like you know everything about it.

The electoral college was a shitty compromise made in haste because everyone wanted to go the fuck home. That's it. To pretend that it was part of some grand design is ridiculous.

[Sawbonz 27,445]

2 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I believe this country has already been fucked by the antiquated process we currently have. The results are in...not great, Bob!

In which countries is the head of the executive determined by popular vote? 

[Gatorubet 30,135]

What this dumbfuck, Gaetz and the others don’t understand is there is no Trump money coming for them. It will all go to daddy

This. Trump forms his own party a month after he is not convicted by the GOP for the sole purpose of access and control of Patriot Party funds. His kids will get 7 figure jobs out of it, and he will buy Patriot Party stuff from a Chinese vendor which is Ivanka, and sell it to a willing Cletus at full pop.

Everything he touches turns to shit. He has been dry humping the GOP for years. That’s bad touch, but touching never the less. The GOP does not need to worry about GOP primary challenges. They will be running against Democrats and Patriot Party candidates.

Straight. Into. My. Veins.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,075]

14 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

She fired back that he’s weak and is bad for the republicans party. 
 

We know McConnell is a calculating morherfucker, but would anyone here be surprised if she gets folks to turn on Mitch? The irony if his final undoing was at the hands of this lunatic. God help us. 

I'd be surprised if she doesn't get folks to turn on the turtle.  All bets are off; it's a new frontier in the GOP.

[Guest Lobo]

She can get a handful of voters to turn on Mitch and be loud about it.  But his true power is marshaling intra-election money for himself, his Senate Conference and his party.  She's a threat to that and so she will be taken out via Jewish Space Laser. 

[Dr. Teeth 5,832]

The issue isn't whether Rs can get money now. Mitch definitely has a lot of backing. But if the crazy half of the party turns out in the primaries, that establishment goes away. They have to be nice to these idiots to save their jobs. Mitch is playing both sides right now because he can. He just got re-elected and he won't lose his standing in the Senate. But he needs the money from donors AND the votes from the crazies. He is choosing to get the money back on board first. That will still hurt him in the short-term, but he and others will pivot once we start hearing about primary challenges in about 6 months.

She will win the war against Mitch in the long-term. Trump still has a strangle hold on the party and is hyping her up simply because she defended him and because Mitch didn't. Trump has no chess strategy. He is helping those that went crazy for him. And that will hurt Mitch and others until they get back on board with her craziness.

And because no one other than the crazies are giving to the Patriot Party, they will have to learn to deal with each other so Microsoft and Facebook can keep funneling money into the two party system.

[Gatorubet 30,135]

Missed this, but the electoral college has nothing to do with "checks and balances." That phrase refers to the balance of powers distributed between the three branches of government, not how one particular official is elected. Jesus fucking christ, at least do you homework before acting like you know everything about it.
The electoral college was a shitty compromise made in haste because everyone wanted to go the fuck home. That's it. To pretend that it was part of some grand design is ridiculous.

There are checks and balances in other ways. An appointed Senate and an elected House was one. Six versus two year terms, respectively, was another. Even the North wanting a slave to be a percentage of a white man was meant to be a check on Southern political power.

If you don’t think that the EC was not meant to be a check on a pure popular vote, then pray tell us why they compromising - what was that about?

[WhatTheBuck 28,718]

I don’t think the founding fathers considered the Electoral College to be their finest accomplishment. 

[BrickHorn 18,197]

1 minute ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I don’t think the founding fathers considered the Electoral College to be their finest accomplishment. 

The Framers of the Constitution were most proud of the right to purchase high capacity magazines and that part that says no one can be mean to Josh Hawley.

[Gatorubet 30,135]

I don’t think the founding fathers considered the Electoral College to be their finest accomplishment. 

Totally agree. Not saying it was some divinely inspired good thing. Just saying it is a hot item now because of recent Trump experience, and that one-off in and of itself - no matter how bad - is not the most persuasive argument.

[Js1 85,141]

2 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Totally agree. Not saying it was some divinely inspired good thing. Just saying it is a hot item now because of recent Trump experience, and that one-off in and of itself - no matter how bad - is not the most persuasive argument.

"What am I, chopped liver?" - The Year 2000

Just because it's been correct most of the time doesn't make it perfect.  

[wildcat09 29,270]

5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Totally agree. Not saying it was some divinely inspired good thing. Just saying it is a hot item now because of recent Trump experience, and that one-off in and of itself - no matter how bad - is not the most persuasive argument.

There was also that fiasco in 2000. Maybe you don't remember it?

[TexasEd 8,064]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Lol, eat shit. One person, one vote should be fundamental to any democracy and my commitment to that has nothing to do with the fact that it would benefit the party I vote for.

One person, one vote for your state's allotment of electors in the Democratic Republic form of government we have.  This was all a balance between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans.  The EC and the Senate were ways for the states to check the Federal Government and help preserve states' rights.  Yeah, we had a war over some of those states rights because of slavery.  Now we have fascists trying to grease the skids for take over by calling for federal election standards instead of letting the 50 states determine the way their electors are chosen. 

--Break--

The electoral process being decentralized was arguably a strength in this case because Trump could not bend all the election boards to his will. 

[SydneyCarton 47,927]

Why are we still talking about the electoral college in the crazy cunt thread?

[Js1 85,141]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There was also that fiasco in 2000. Maybe you don't remember it?

Also I'd argue the single biggest EC mistake was 1876.  The Compromise of 1877 basically set the South back to 1850 for the next 80 years.  

[bolverk 29,415]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

In which countries is the head of the executive determined by popular vote? 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/22/among-democracies-u-s-stands-out-in-how-it-chooses-its-head-of-state/

[Sawbonz 27,445]

4 minutes ago, bolverk said:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/22/among-democracies-u-s-stands-out-in-how-it-chooses-its-head-of-state/

Pull out the G20

 

eta I’m talking about who runs the executive branch not heads of state.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Sawbonz

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,345]

Oh, Lord .. it's hilarious seeing her rip McConnell for not being a vicious-enough partisan bastard.

[WhatTheBuck 28,718]

G20, G21, whatever it takes. 

[wildcat09 29,270]

26 minutes ago, TexasEd said:

One person, one vote for your state's allotment of electors in the Democratic Republic form of government we have.  This was all a balance between the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans.  The EC and the Senate were ways for the states to check the Federal Government and help preserve states' rights.  Yeah, we had a war over some of those states rights because of slavery.  Now we have fascists trying to grease the skids for take over by calling for federal election standards instead of letting the 50 states determine the way their electors are chosen. 

--Break--

The electoral process being decentralized was arguably a strength in this case because Trump could not bend all the election boards to his will. 

"States rights" isn't a thing. States don't have rights, they have powers. People have rights.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,075]

JFC, start an EC thread. 

[Guest Lobo]

Well, that’s not the popular opinion dude. 

[Gatorubet 30,135]

There was also that fiasco in 2000. Maybe you don't remember it?

"What am I, chopped liver?" - The Year 2000
Just because it's been correct most of the time doesn't make it perfect.  

Hey, I get that peeps don’t like results. I wanted to talk more about the “whys” than “my team lost and the other guy not winning the popular vote is an ass I don’t like!”

So I’ll play: 1) the rise of faithless elector statutes takes away the reason of electors not letting ass-hats get elected. That original gate keeping role is diminished; 2) more important (to me) than the fact of popular vote the winner as a philosophical choice is the fact that a popular vote would empower non participating voters to vote. That Blue State conservative has a voice, that liberal Wyoming voter has a voice. It is easy to say “Fuck it” if your vote will not matter, and the state’s electoral votes will go opposite your vote. A popular vote makes your vote matter more, which may help to increase participation in the franchise.

Sorry for thread hacking. MTG’s election is not the best example for supporting one person, one vote and pure democratic plurality. So that got me thinking.

[Ojo Rojo 1,908]

Definitely will be interesting to see what happens.  Their only goal, though it should not be, is to maintain as much power and money as possible. That means they will do what they think is most politically advantageous, even if doing so is bad for, and would ultimately mean the end of, the United States of America as we know it. 

The question is, is a win more assured with or without MAGAts?  It may turn out that the longer the Republican party embraces and supports MAGAt fascism the more votes they lose.  That would be the case if sane Republicans are more numerous or grow faster than MAGAts. There are some indications, based on the reactions to Jan. 6, that is the case. The other strategy is to continue to embrace and support MAGA because it's the only coalition under which Republicans can win.  They tolerate and suppress as much as they can while still keeping the dumb evil motherfuckers in the fold.

My hope is that Mitch kicks the MAGAts to the curb and that Trump starts the Patriot Party. That would kill the Republican party for a while, which is why it won't happen.  MAGAts are dumb enough to do it; Mitch and the R establishment are not.

[wildcat09 29,270]

8 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

 

 

Hey, I get that peeps don’t like results. I wanted to talk more about the “whys” than “my team lost and the other guy not winning the popular vote is an ass I don’t like!”

So I’ll play: 1) the rise of faithless elector statutes takes away the reason of electors not letting ass-hats get elected. That original gate keeping role is diminished; 2) more important (to me) than the fact of popular vote the winner as a philosophical choice is the fact that a popular vote would empower non participating voters to vote. That Blue State conservative has a voice, that liberal Wyoming voter has a voice. It is easy to say “Fuck it” if your vote will not matter, and the state’s electoral votes will go opposite your vote. A popular vote makes your vote matter more, which may help to increase participation in the franchise.

 

 

Thanks for repeating the very good and persuasive arguments we've all made dozens of times before, I guess?

[TexArcher 37,534]

4 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

This attitude presupposes we couldn’t get someone like Trump with simple majority vote.

Well, he lost one election by 3 million votes and another by 7 million votes.

A simple majority vote makes it at least a little harder for the cons to win.  

[Guest Lobo]

Start an EC thread and begin by describing in excruciating detail how the mechanics of a federal election would work.  And give examples of those other large-scale Western Republics that seat their head of state that way.  

[Dr. Teeth 5,832]

14 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Well, he lost one election by 3 million votes and another by 7 million votes.

A simple majority vote makes it at least a little harder for the cons to win.  

If you take out 8 million illegal votes, it gets him closer. So that's pretty much two wins.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,850]

this bitch still in congress?

[Brisketexan 104,694]

8 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

this bitch still in congress?

Well, yeah.....she can't win the presidency till 2024.

[jimmyjazz 45,574]

2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Totally agree. Not saying it was some divinely inspired good thing. Just saying it is a hot item now because of recent Trump experience, and that one-off in and of itself - no matter how bad - is not the most persuasive argument.

I'm sorry, but this is utter bullshit.  People have been complaining about the EC at least my entire life, which is 57 years now.  You really need to dial it back.  I'm sorry you got fucked by the Trumpkins.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,345]

My modest proposal is this: everybody has to take a basic civics test. 100 questions. The higher you score, the more votes (up to 100) you get.  So if I score 98, my 98 votes go to my candidates, and if Jimmy Jazz scores 22, his 22 votes go to his candidates.

In the end, the candidate with the most points wins, even if it's just one more point than his opponent. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[TexArcher 37,534]

26 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, but this is utter bullshit.  People have been complaining about the EC at least my entire life, which is 57 years now.  You really need to dial it back.  I'm sorry you got fucked by the Trumpkins.

I had no idea you were old enough to be Armybrat's great-grandson.

[jimmyjazz 45,574]

Just now, TexArcher said:

I had no idea you were old enough to be Armybrat's great-grandson.

I type young for my age.

[Hookah Horns 3,082]

4 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Trump’s one term is an anomaly in the several hundred year scheme. Recent EC umbrage is purely a result of result driven unhappiness, not concept/structural concerns.

2000 says hi. 

Nah, it's a result of the concept that the candidate the most voters want to be president should be president. And a lot of us in solid red or blue states hate it because our vote for president pretty much never matters.

This has probably already been addressed by other posters, but I never pass up an opportunity to shit on the EC. 

[Bama Chick 28,596]

Bitch, she videoed HERSELF saying that abhorrent shit and posted them on her personal and campaign social media!

WTF he talking about with this “are they accurate or have they been manipulated”???

[Hookah Horns 3,082]

26 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

My modest proposal is this: everybody has to take a basic civics test. 100 questions. The higher you score, the more votes (up to 100) you get.  So if I score 98, my 98 votes go to my candidates, and if Jimmy Jazz scores 22, his 22 votes go to his candidates.

In the end, the candidate with the most points wins, even if it's just one more point than his opponent. 

This would be great. I'd add some questions about the dumbest conspiracy theories like Q; you automatically get a 1 if you believe any of that shit. 

I'm actually kind of surprised something like this has never been the law, especially in the Jim Crow south (it makes more sense than the literacy tests imo). I'm sure it's been attempted. 

[Hookah Horns 3,082]

11 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Bitch, she videoed HERSELF saying that abhorrent shit and posted them on her personal and campaign social media!

WTF he talking about with this “are they accurate or have they been manipulated”???
 

I guess he's talking about her stupid excuse that other people posted on her account. But yeah that wouldn't apply to the vids. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Hookah Horns

[TexasEd 8,064]

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/22/among-democracies-u-s-stands-out-in-how-it-chooses-its-head-of-state/

Trump wants in on that Hereditary Monarch scene

[elfenix 34,188]

6 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

What this dumbfuck, Gaetz and the others don’t understand is there is no Trump money coming for them. It will all go to daddy

assuming gaetz's ambitions are head fratboy of congress and not some further goal, he doesn't need trump money.  his district is florabama.  he can represent it until he drowns following a keg stand gone wrong. 

Edited February 2, 2021 by elfenix

[TexasEd 8,064]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, yeah.....she can't win the presidency till 2024.

nah, she's on a more aggressive timeline and will Impeach Biden and disqualify Kamala and then she would be # 537 in line of succession!

[atomheartbevo 89,465]

7 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

What this dumbfuck, Gaetz and the others don’t understand is there is no Trump money coming for them. It will all go to daddy

They aren't all total dumbfucks - think of some of them as dogs who have been abused by their owner.   They need that Daddy Trump approval, because they know if they don't get it, they get kicked to the curb/abandoned in favor of somebody else.  And so when Trump whistles, they run to his side, and attack anybody he doesn't like.

While MTG and Colorado's Finest are dumbfucks (and I fully expect Fitlump to eventually rise to a Congressional seat based on those two), Gaetz and Hawley and those in that group (toss in Cruz as well), all know that they absolutely need Daddy Trump's approval, even if they don't get the money.

I do think Trump will toss a little money against Republicans that they view as standing in their way, or at the very least, will hold rallies against those Republicans (which amounts to the same thing), and some of that money will probably find its way back into Trump Co. coffers. 

When it came out that Gaetz was trying to hurt Cheney's future last month, all I could think of was that he was gunning for her Chair of the House Republican Caucus.  Lest we forget, the previous two people who held Cheney's spot were Jeb Hensarling of Texas and Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington.  Most people could not tell you who they are, which is surprising, given how important that position is.  Gaetz could absolutely make a run at that spot.  And if Hawley truly isn't running for President in 2024 (he is), he'll be gunning for Mitch's spot at some point.

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by atomheartbevo