Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The Senate and the courts act as a check. 

I mean Rhode Island must have not of  thought of that when Virginia told them to fuck off. 

Edited by workswithseed
Posted

Well of course the electoral college is the tits, it gave us two GOP presidents who lost the popular vote.  One started a never ending war and the other is here today making America great.  I’m sure that if an electoral-like system by the Brits negated a Conservative victory, he’d be all understanding and supportive...
 

I don’t get the electoral college as it focuses so much on swing states and tiny victories at the state level ensure inaccurate representation via the electoral votes.  It also ensures certain people have a much larger representation for each vote.  
 

I also don’t get why certain people here don’t just love on Trump and all things GOP ‘go team go’, they also root for Boris and Brexit.  It’s basically contrarian as a rule, which I think helps further explain this rise of nationalism/cultish behavior globally.  Not gonna stoop to calling y’all dumbasses, even if it’s true in some cases, but I am fairly confident history won’t be kind to this administration here or with the limeys.  

  • Like 3
Posted
43 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 


Brexit isn’t on the ballot. The parties don’t neatly align w stay/go and brexit is not high priority for many.

So, no, they’ve not essentially voted for it twice

 

Again, not a UK politics expert, but the election was called after Johnson couldn’t get his negotiated Brexit through in October. From what I’ve read and seen, it was the #1 issue by far. So it may not have literally been on the ballot, but figuratively? I’m gonna say yes. Happy to be corrected if any of the above is wrong. 

Posted (edited)

The electoral college is also a latent vehicle for voter suppression because it renders many voters powerless based on which state they live in.  If you’re a Republican in NY or CA, your Trump vote doesn’t count for shit. Same for a democrat in any solid red state.  Abolishing the EC world give every vote equal value and arguably increase voter participation. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 1
Posted

So we agree he's a bitch though.

So when the next Democrat wins, will it be because of the minority or majority? 

They win popularity already due to big cities as it is, but outside that it's usually another story.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

So we agree he's a bitch though.

So when the next Democrat wins, will it be because of the minority or majority? 

They win popularity already due to big cities as it is, but outside that it's usually another story.

It will be because they win 270 electoral votes. And that sucks.

They'll probably win the popular vote, too. After all, a Republican has won the popular vote and the electoral college only once since 1988.

Edited by David Dennison
Posted
38 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The electoral college is also a latent vehicle for voter suppression because it renders many voters powerless based on which state they live in.  If you’re a Republican in NY or CA, your Trump vote doesn’t count for shit. Same for a democrat in any solid red state.  Abolishing the EC world give every vote equal value and arguably increase voter participation. 

Maybe so but then that’s the compromise the founders made to form the nation. Did they intend for Bush and eventually a guy like trump winning the presidency as a result of course not. But they got more right than wrong. 

Should it now be changed? Probably so. But that would require a constitutional change agreed to by 2/3 of the states. Not something likely to happen anytime soon.

Posted
1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Maybe so but then that’s the compromise the founders made to form the nation. Did they intend for Bush and eventually a guy like trump winning the presidency as a result of course not. But they got more right than wrong. 

Should it now be changed? Probably so. But that would require a constitutional change agreed to by 2/3 of the states. Not something likely to happen anytime soon.

Agreed. Civil war is more likely.

Posted
1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Maybe so but then that’s the compromise the founders made to form the nation. Did they intend for Bush and eventually a guy like trump winning the presidency as a result of course not. But they got more right than wrong. 

Should it now be changed? Probably so. But that would require a constitutional change agreed to by 2/3 of the states. Not something likely to happen anytime soon.

The second the EC fucks over the GOP, they’ll want that shit gone.  Fat chance of it happening but it still doesn’t make advocating for abolishing the EC a bad idea.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The second the EC fucks over the GOP, they’ll want that shit gone.  Fat chance of it happening but it still doesn’t make advocating for abolishing the EC a bad idea.

The party of nihilism will of course want it gone if that ever happened, but as you acknowledge it’s not likely. 

Abolishing it is a good idea but there is no realistic mechanism to do so. Better to focus on other things. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like FISA abuse

Or criminal wanna be kings like the current guy calling himself the president.

This country don’t need no queens or kings I reckon.

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Or criminal wanna be kings like the current guy calling himself the president.

I mean, the electoral college had a pretty big role in that so maybe we should talk about it? I dunno. This idea that we the people are having the country plundered by a guy and his crime cult that “the people” didn’t duly elect is the kind of thing that sometimes starts a war.  Perhaps we should try to avoid that in the future. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Posted
So happy to see the end of the Corbyn era. Now it’s time for Labour to start rebuilding somehow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

4 words for you:

Hillary Clinton......British citizenship.
Posted
1 hour ago, Homercles said:

 It also ensures certain people have a much larger representation for each vote.  

i mean, that was the fucking point.

Quote

The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.

all goes back to white southern snowflakes. 

  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Corbyn is their Hillary, but worse.  He's a candidate so bad, the pathological liar buffoon can beat him.  He's an albatross around the neck of Labour.

Worse because Hillary didn't allow a pathological liar buffoon to beat her?

C-658VsXoAo3ovC.jpg

Posted
53 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I mean, the electoral college had a pretty big role in that so maybe we should talk about it? I dunno. This idea that we the people are having the country plundered by a guy and his crime cult that “the people” didn’t duly elect is the kind of thing that sometimes starts a war.  Perhaps we should try to avoid that in the future. 

Gagree

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

But what’s the fix you propose? That’s the question 

There are a few ways but they all involve advocacy and movement politics of sorts.  The popular movement is having the individual states award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.   Some states are already down with this.  If we get 270 electoral college votes among the states that agree to it then the electoral college is irrelevant and you don’t have to change the constitution. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
  • Like 1
Posted

They win popularity already due to big cities as it is, but outside that it's usually another story.


So, the 20% of Americans that live outside of cities should have a larger voice? Why? Because they’re country fuck sticks that married their cousin and weren’t smart enough to move where the jobs are?
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Message Board User said:

 

This is such a bullshit argument. Conservatives are holding the majority hostage by threatening to vote for an insane piece of shit if the rest of us don’t nominate someone that fits their conservative narrative. Fuck right off. Let’s battle. 

  • Like 3
Posted
48 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

 


So, the 20% of Americans that live outside of cities should have a larger voice? Why? Because they’re country fuck sticks that married their cousin and weren’t smart enough to move where the jobs are?

 

Man, why do you hate the poors?

Posted
2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So happy to see the end of the Corbyn era. Now it’s time for Labour to start rebuilding somehow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go fuck yourself. 

Posted
Man, why do you hate the poors?
Maybe they should take personal responsibility for their shitty life choices instead of fucking over the rest of us.
Posted (edited)

Well,  there are probably a lot of hot takes, but here’s one everyone’s seems to agree on: 

Jeremy Corbyn sucks. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

Well,  there are probably a lot of hot takes, but here’s one everyone’s seems to agree on: 

Jeremy Corbyn sucks. 

He’s a decent human being in a profession that attracts the absolute worst humanity can offer. 

Posted
2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

There are a few ways but they all involve advocacy and movement politics of sorts.  The popular movement is having the individual states award their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.   Some states are already down with this.  If we get 270 electoral college votes among the states that agree to it then the electoral college is irrelevant and you don’t have to change the constitution. 

This is my one foray into this morass that is the Politics Forum. 

Hugo, what do you think that you are going to accomplish by lying to people on a non consequential website such as this about their ability to usurp the US Constitution?

Do you actually think that your inane blathering is going to make an actual difference?

Seriously? Sure, most of the couple of hundred of people this politics forum are leftists and agree with you, but good luck to y’all actually changing the Constitution so that a handful of liberal, populous states can forever dictate the direction of this country. 

  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
49 minutes ago, Victor Lazlo said:

This is my one foray into this morass that is the Politics Forum. 

Hugo, what do you think that you are going to accomplish by lying to people on a non consequential website such as this about their ability to usurp the US Constitution?

Do you actually think that your inane blathering is going to make an actual difference?

Seriously? Sure, most of the couple of hundred of people this politics forum are leftists and agree with you, but good luck to y’all actually changing the Constitution so that a handful of liberal, populous states can forever dictate the direction of this country. 

You don't have to change the Constitution if enough states pass the National Popular Vote plan.

 

Posted
4 hours ago, Victor Lazlo said:

This is my one foray into this morass that is the Politics Forum. 

Hugo, what do you think that you are going to accomplish by lying to people on a non consequential website such as this about their ability to usurp the US Constitution?

Do you actually think that your inane blathering is going to make an actual difference?

Seriously? Sure, most of the couple of hundred of people this politics forum are leftists and agree with you, but good luck to y’all actually changing the Constitution so that a handful of liberal, populous states can forever dictate the direction of this country. 

“I don’t post in the CR” is the equivalent of “I didn’t vote for Trump, but” when it comes to opening sentences that almost certainly lead to a rant against liberals, leftists, Hugo, etc...

Again, I relish the thought of the EC putting a Democrat in office over a ‘Pub who won the popular vote...just to revisit this conversation later.  Because your argument ironically laments about a handful of liberal states dictating the countries direction...yet our country is already in the hands of a small collection of swing states like fucking Ohio.  Y’all just don’t care because it’s worked out for you.  
 

Speaking of lies, Trump falsely claims he won the popular vote.  He lied about biggest EC win in history.  Hugo bringing up a highly unlikely scenario is not lying, but I’m not surprised your definition of a lie is different from mine.  

  • Like 5
Posted
14 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Ironically, this might be the beginning of the end for the United Kingdom as we know it. Scotland is itching to have another independence vote and Catholics will be a majority in Northern Ireland by 2021.

Good times.

Don’t those places share more in common with UK than EU?

Posted
2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Great lesson for the Democrats.  Go too far left and you will lose to trump. 

But that’s not the lesson they’ll take away from 2020.

Instead, after losing to Trump, they’ll say they didnt go far enough and then nominate AOC in 2024.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Great lesson for the Democrats.  Go too far left and you will lose to trump. 

Lulz so I guess we should go with Hillary Clinton again.  

Never mind the 2018 midterms and Dems winning statewide races in the Deep South by running on healthcare.  



×
×
  • Create New...