Will, Sanders will be so jazzed he'll agree to anything just to have AT LEAST 4 years in that House.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Hunting
Printable View
Will, Sanders will be so jazzed he'll agree to anything just to have AT LEAST 4 years in that House.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Hunting
I blame the Senate more than the EC at this point. The 2008 election gave a pretty fucking clear impression of what Americans want going by either the EC or a popular vote, and since then the senate has been the place where any meaningful post financial crisis reform went to die.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
of course he wants in that house; free boarding, free everything!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thread
The senate also contributes to the EC problemQuote:
Originally Posted by Will Hunting
How so, 21, seriously?Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Son you're the one who has a media empire behind him. Ain't no media in this country that has Bernie's back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thread
True, bum, but, after MSM has done everything to waylay Bernie & he is left standing at the end anyway they'll embrace him. It won't be Clinton, or, Obama, but, it'll be close enough. (They'll) get in there & lay down the law to him.Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
The media will never embrace a threat to the oligarchy like Bernie. Never. Not in a million years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thread
If Bernie wins the nomination what's going to happen is Bloomberg runs a third party spoiler campaign and the non-Fox, non-ClearChannel, non-Sinclair media will fawn all over him. Which gets us four more years of our Dear Leader in charge. Grim days, cubby.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by baseline bum
Which is crazy. Not sure why they don't want to get behind the candidate who can likely beat Trump. It sure won't be Biden.
the number of Electoral College votes you get from each state is the number of Representatives + Senators a state has. for example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Thread
Texas has 36 state reps, 2 senators = 38 electoral votes
Wyoming has 1 state rep, 2 senators = 3 electoral votes
Texas has ~25 million people per the last census, while wyoming has ~563k
so texas has roughly 44x more people than wyoming. in an ideal world, TX would therefore have 44x the electoral votes of wyoming for the math to be sound, and for every american's vote to carry the same weight.
if you just go by the representatives, you are close, but not quite there (36 to 1). when you factor in the senators, the small states disproportionately benefit. the 38 electoral votes for TX and 3 for WY amount to just under a 13:1 ratio, even though their populations are 44:1
small states disproportionately benefit from the senate, and that inequality also contributes to the math of the EC
the media is owned by the oligarchy, their investors, all Capitalists, none whom want to pay the taxes that Bernie and Liz want.Quote:
Originally Posted by florige
While Liz looks weak now, the DNC, Clintons/Obama, the $$$ corporatist Dems will block Bernie. He doesn't have chance.
... confirming that voting is a sham. If by a miracle, Bernie gets into the WH, the non-progressive Dem House will not hand him the bills he ran on,
and he will not be able to rebuild the Exec branch agencies after the years of destruction by the Repugs and Trash.
America is fucked and unfuckable.
We wouldn't have a United States without the senate and EC compromise.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Yep. Thanks, slavery!Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
The Game is Rigged
Let’s not beat around the bush. The game is rigged. The fix is in.
I’m not just talking about the
neofascistic Donald Trump,
the Republican Party,
the Republican-controlled United States Senate and
the fake-impeachment trial that body just concluded.
I’m talking about their neoliberal enablers, the Democrats too.
Certain Depressing Things Explained
The deeply conservative corporate and imperialist Democratic Party politics and media complex is
determined to deny the progressive neo-New Deal Democrat Bernie Sanders the presidential nomination.
The Democratic establishment is determined to stop Sanders at all costs.
As I’ve been saying for years,
the corporate Democrats
prefer to lose to the ever more viciously right-wing Republicans and the demented fascist oligarch Trump
than to the moderately left wing of their own party.
This is why the establishment Democrats and their many media allies
(at the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, The Hill, CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and elsewhere)
have issued repeated dire warnings over the supposed “radical Leftism” and “extremism” of the mildly social-democratic Sanders.
It’s why Democratic Party-affiliated funders and media
opened the campaign season by touting the clownish center-right dementia victim Joe Biden as their “front-runner.”
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/07/the-game-is-rigged/
you could say the same for every single provision of the constitution that was later amended. we also wouldn't have a United States if the 13th amendment was up for debate in 1789Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
like i said in another thread talking about the EC, it made sense in the context where states dealt with the general election in different ways. in the first presidential election, only 6 states allowed for the people to vote for president. others left it to legislatures. some had a district by district popular vote, some had a statewide popular vote. so the rationale was let each state figure out on their own how to assign electoral votes, and then the EC will tally them up
now that every state uses a state-wide popular vote, there's no real reason for the EC process anymore, since we have a full national popular vote already taking place on the same day
:lol they called him the frontrunner because he was ahead in the initial polls.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Why would you call anyone else the frontrunner at that time?
This is the kind of butthurt that will get Dennison reelected.
no. complaining about stuff at this point isn't getting dennison reelected. there's no reason people shouldn't be able to air grievances (even if they are misguided or you disagree with them)Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
its people staying home or voting the other way that would get Dennison reelected
And this kind of butthurt will lead to just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
that's ignoring the entire reason he gets the money the way he does thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Thread
I thought we must protect the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
We've changed the Constitution several times. Maybe you didn't know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
So protect it by changing it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Well good luck with that lol
You're against all the changes that were made to the Constitution?Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBoy
That explains a lot tbh lol.
Don't want those women or dark folk voting, do you?
Or maybe you could recognize that protecting and amending are two different things.
Nah, you just don't like women or dark folk. Good luck with that lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1...cc480d13c9.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
true, and still is, but that's hardly the point of the article.
anyway, Paul Street's "butthurt" is fringe, will have no effect on Dem voters.
iow, America is fucked and unfuckable beyond doubt
if dementia victim Biden runs against dementia victim Trash.
Biden is still ahead nationally, but if he loses, again badly, in NH, I don't think he and his team can deliver The Comeback Kid.
Then the DNC will support Buttigieg as establishment corporate/capitalist toy who has NO financial/economic policies that would bother the oligarchy.
America won't elect a "faggot", so that means Trash wins 2020.
The only hope is that the Dems take the Senate,
or Moscow Mitch will totally destroy the Federal judiciary, including replacing Notorious RBG with another Gorsuch/Kavanaugh oligarchy whore, SCOTUS whores 6-3 for decades,
while the Repugs continue to destroy the Exec branch agencies with "acting" managers, directors.
Paul Street is naive to think that the Trash/Repug cult mob of "42%" will wake up or accept defeat.
The only solution is violent revolution that is way beyond fatass, teevee watching Americans.
More likely will be continued domestic terrorism from DHS, the police state, and dickless KKK militia men, with the Christian supremacist evangelical Reconstructionists remaining silent during the mayhem as part of End Times.
Eh, it doesn't take many butthurt people to turn a close election.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
I'm voting for whomever the Democrats pick. I hope you do the same.
:lol Chump being ultra pessimistic. Too much Facebook?
I have a friend like that too. Guy thinks Trump will get re-elected via landslide because he only sees trumpers online. Oh and he lives in north Carolina. :lol
Trump basically owns Facebook. How any same person keeps using that trash is beyond me.
:lmao Yup. Got to sperm shield for everyone in the meantime.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lmao Dump confirming what I've been saying for months.
Tell us who you're ultra optimistic about, tranny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reck
I don't think it will be a landslide.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reck
Trash ran on and won with the anti-Magic-knitter vote, just as the magik knitter won on "anybody but a Repug"Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
If Trash loses, it will be with the "anybody but Trash" vote. iow, the anti-Trash vote, rather than pro-Dem.
That I'll vote for anyone running against the idiot you worship?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
:lmao I've been saying that for years.
:lmao Yea, you've been "butthurt" for this whole time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lmao Irony.
There is only 2 true choices if you really want to win. Biden and Bernie. It's always been between them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Either of them beat Trump if you believe the polls and it's aggregates. But we know you dont cuz....derp amirite?
:lmao derp can't follow any conversationQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
:lmao takes credit for realizing what I have explicitly said for years
I never said you weren't butthurt about Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
:lol Dump trying to fake turn tables.
:lmao derp spiraling into nonsenseQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
What are you even arguing now?
Bernie would've got creamed by Trump in 2016 despite all his snowflake followers adamantly saying it would not be so. In the last four years the left has clearly shifted more left, so the base would be more mobilized this time around. I don't know if it would be enough; I tend to doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reck
Biden is likely not the best system candidate at this point because he's just too decrepit and creepy. But I have said he'll do better in a one on one scenario with full system backing rather than trying to stand out in a field. I don't know what you think is ultimately going to set him so far apart from Trump and make people want to vote against prosperity and an having an alpha in the White House.
Word salad white flag.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
What part of my post did you not understand?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
I understood your white flag.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
No, you called it word salad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
That means you didn't understand it.
What part did you not understand?
Just answer or say you will never answer.
Good luck getting 2/3 to ratify the "let three states run the country" amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
abolish the EC, it's a total failure, electors did not block Trash as the FFs wanted
also make Senate proportional by population, not alloted by land
yeah, nothing will change, America is constipated into shithole stasis, can't fix shit, can't solve problems because the oligarchy controls the country which the oligarchy has rigged in its insane favor.
The Confederacy, and all the Johnny Rebels who migrated out West, have won, finally.
such a silly idea for the majority of the country to run the country. my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
makes much more sense for the minority of the people to govern the rest. as long as they're spread out geographically, it makes sense!
Idiot. How do you propose abolishing the EC and making the senate population proportionate like the house?Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
You might as well move because the constitution will never let you change it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
a) :lol didnt address how much sense it makes for a minority to govern the majority, as long as they are spread out geographically. because you cant justify it other than "well it's helped my team recently"Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
b) the constitution lets you change the constitution
Damn you are stupid. Yes, the constitution allows for amendments which have to be approved by 2/3 in both houses of Congress and then 3/4 of the states. Joseph Heller says hi.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
If other states object, they should work harder to be less shitty, so that people wanna live there. Pull themselves up by their bootstraps, etcQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Like all the people and companies moving to Texas from California?
You'd imagine such, but, she's liable to last the additional 4 years. Wouldn't surprise me an iota.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Hell, she's out there lifting weights.
She will send herself to a taxidermist to be stuffed in her chair before she let's a republican president replace her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thread
cool. i never said it can be done with a 50% vote. glad we agreeQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
now, can you justify why it makes sense for the minority to govern the majority as long as they are spread out geographically?
I dont have to justify it. It's the US constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
:lol pussyQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
nobody here "has" to justify or support anything they say. i'm asking if you can. if you cant and it comes down to "my team has benefitted from it recently" then just say so.
Lol. Suck a dick. Move to another country if you dont like it. It was specifically written to prevent a few urban centers from being able to discriminate against the rest of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Mainly to preserve slavery.
:lol ok, so you cant justify the concept of a minority of people governing over the majority just because they live farther apart from one another. of course, you dont have to justify it. its just nice to know you cantQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
got it :tu
You are one stupid fuck. Wa Wa Wa. Life is unfair. WA Wa Wa.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
:lol all i wanted to know is if you can justify it. i didnt think you'd be able to. you didn't disappoint. now you're upset about it. that does disappoint. i didnt take you as sensitiveQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Will you please justify why gravity is unfair? It's clearly unfair to fat asses like you.
:lmao even derp's meltdowns are more graciousQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
All this lashing out because CC hit you with kill shots. :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
:lol Rent freeQuote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
Just pointing out that whining about the senate and the EC makes just as much sense as whining about gravity.
Does whining about slavery make about as much sense too?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
and regardless of what you think about the feasibility of changing it, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule is a better and more fair system than a popular vote?
:lol "Minority rule"Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
You don't even give a sh** about the majority having to pay for illegals and leaches right now. You weren't crying when activist judges struck down 187 in Cali.
Your schtick is sad, Lite.
how else do you describe it when the side with less votes wins?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
187 had nothing to do with majority/minority derp. The measure passed. It was just unconstitutional.Quote:
You don't even give a sh** about the majority having to pay for illegals and leaches right now. You weren't crying when activist judges struck down 187 in Cali.
Your schtick is sad, Lite.
Activist judge is just code for judge who’s decision you disagree with politically
I describe it as we're a republic. I don't get to pick 434 of 435 Congressmen and 98 of 100 Senators. Same pretty much goes for everyone else. I get to pick 0 of 9 Supreme Court justices. The list goes on....Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Really. Cos I found nothing in the California Consitution that said we have to give a sh**load of free services to illegals.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Activist judges are minority rule. This has been the Democrats game for decades. Your tears are bull sh**.
It was against the US constitution not the CA constitution. Federal court struck it downQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
Yea, I found nothing in either Constitution, Lite.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
You've been doing minority rule all along.
and you’re not a judgeQuote:
Originally Posted by Spurtacular
it infringed on feds ability to regulate immigration and was preempted by existing federal law on welfare benefits
no. The judiciary is an equal branch of governmentQuote:
You've been doing minority rule all along.
Bull shit it infringed on their ability.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Like I said, you've been doing minority rule this whole time. Your contention that we need majority rule is a facade.
The 14th amendment pretty much set that slavery strawman on fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Popular vote is fine within the state. This is what we do. We are run first by state governments, and the states report to the federal government. Do you want to abolish state governments and have one country under the federal government? This is really the only way total popular vote makes any sense.
States elect the POTUS through the EC. Get rid of the United States and you can get rid of the EC.
(They) abolished (due process) to facilitate their needs & wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
slavery was constitutional for all that time. People whined about that. It got changed. I thought whining about the constitution was as useless at whining about gravity.
And i think you meant thirteenth
Also, what if it's not a 2 party election, like there are 4 people and no one gets more than 30% of the vote? So someone gets elected with 30% of the popular vote and somehow that's more democratic than someone getting 49% of the popular vote?
I feel like the dems look at a system historically decided by the EC and then magically apply popular vote as if the election and turnout wouldn't be totally different under that totally different system - as if the dems could just remove the results of the EC and cherry pick the popular vote totals in those cases.
:lol no. That’s a ridiculous comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
How about you keep state governments in place, preserve the current balance between state and federal autonomy, and have the presidential election decided by popular vote.
Members of the house are elected via popular vote by the people they represent (their district). Same for members of the senate (their state). It’s apparently radical to do the same for the president who represents the nation
the EC doesn’t have a built in solution for that either :lol. They let the house vote for president. If you like tradition so much, you can keep that as the contingency plan. Or ranked choice voting helps get you past thatQuote:
Originally Posted by DMC
How would turnout be impacted?Quote:
I feel like the dems look at a system historically decided by the EC and then magically apply popular vote as if the election and turnout wouldn't be totally different under that totally different system - as if the dems could just remove the results of the EC and cherry pick the popular vote totals in those cases.
It comes down to an objectively unfair system that has benefitted your team in recent years, so you bend over backwards doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify it
My personal preference would be against Medicare for all since I don’t think it’s run very well now, already bankrupt just covering senior citizens, and doesn’t cover everything compared to private insurances. It’s just very inefficient overall and cares more about costs than actually helping patients. That’s just from my experience. Covering everyone would make it more comparable to Medicaid instead of actual Medicare now. I’m in favor of a healthy balance between private and government insurance. I think everyone should have coverage but not by Medicare. I would prefer paying for private insurance than having Medicaid or Medicare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Hunting
Not sure if this is what you’re saying but I think you’re right in the sense that if things were decided by pure popular vote then Trump would spend a lot more time campaigning in California because it’s where the most popular votes could be had and even though he’d still lose the popular vote in CA it wouldn’t be by such a wide margin. Still think Shillary stills wins the popular vote but not by as wide of a margin. No way to know though.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
My counter argument to that would be great and we’d have a much different looking Republican Party if it didn’t get to ignore California (same thing with the Democratic Party in Texas). The EC has created a dynamic where each party completely ignores huge demographics / huge population centers and it’s led to a never ending partisan pissing match.
No meant the 14th. The civil rights act of 1964. States agreeing without a freaking war that we needed to put discrimination behind us.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
What? without a fight?Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
the 14th amendment was one of the civil war amendments and the civil rights act was federal and imposed on the Jim Crow states that didn’t want to change :lol
:lol what just happened here?
My mistake. Should have looked it up instead of going by memory. Still, didn't take a civil war to pass it.
:lol No, that doesn't make any sense at all. You're comparing apples to oranges.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Actually it took 188 years including a civil war to get to that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
But the states are supposed to be taking those people into account when they send representatives to Washington.Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Hunting
Not only would candidates campaign differently, but people in polarized states wouldn't avoid voting because their vote doesn't change the outcome, so you'd not be able to go into a retrospective analysis mode where you say Gore would have won, Hillary would have won, etc... Different system altogether, doesn't jive with revisionist history.
I’m not exactly sure tbh. Something about the electoral college? Not sure how we got to that time when Alabama and Mississippi pushed for the civil rights act and the 14th amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
The next logical direction for this convo is some dinesh D’Souza memes
Prager University video incoming.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
Still haven’t explained why we’d have to abolish states to allow for a popular vote. Instead of just keeping our system in place as is but switching to a popular voteQuote:
Originally Posted by DMC
Recount would be done on a nationwide basis, which would entail not only state counting methods but counties as well. Imagine recounting 130 million votes with thousands of different counting systems. Under one governmental body, the voting system and canvassing would all be the same. With state governments, each state would have a different counting method, different voting methods, different ballots.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21
You'd be opening a can of worms, not very well thought out tbh
I'd be ok with dividing up the electoral votes based on percentages though.
Can't even get one state like Iowa to canvass properly but you expect 50 to do so at the same time? :lol
:lol he’s so done
His campaign knew what it was doing when it was hiding him from public appearances as much as humanly possible, but now that he has ground to make up in the polls they can’t hide him anymore and it’s a disaster :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by TSA
Uh, doesn't that actually happen every election or are you saying multiple states are a disaster every federal election?Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
So the objection to the popular vote is no longer some obscure “we need to change our whole government for it to make sense” argument, but rather a question of logistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMC
Thats progress. Still falls flat
right now in the general election, each state records it’s own popular vote totals. It’s already done. Now you just tally those results. A step which is already taken every election.
If a particular state had reporting issues you can still have that one state do a recount if needed.
We already have a nationwide popular vote so there isn’t a need to change the mechanics. You just put away the napkin math
Why not do away with the EC and go with the popular vote? It's really pretty simple. Article 2, section 1, clause 2 of the US Constitution. You can wish all you want but you are stuck with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurraider21