Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
posty

Elizabeth Warren showing her stupidity yet again (this time the Electoral College)...

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, drobeski said:

Wow mike took a major beatdown in this one. 

I especially liked his, my bad, it's y'all's fault apology. Dude can never simply admit that he was wrong and full of sh!t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

This reparations talk is a great sign. Blexit is real and the libtards are in panic mode.  They have to have 90% of the black vote and a high turnout. Can't win without it.  Guarantee a black person is on the ticket. 

That is why they are now pushing to lower the voting age.  If they lose the minority vote, they are going to push for the uneducated white kid vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When will this fad on female candidates die out? We are the greatest nation in the history world, why in the fock would anyone entertain the idea of it being ran by something that bleeds once/month for days on end? I'd love to see Curt Schilling run against this gym teacher looking dyke in Mass and send her back into a kitchen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

It's idiotic to me, in this day and age with the access to information, that campaigning in a state or region has any effect on the way someone votes. Any rally or public speaking event can be found online. Electoral college made sense years ago before the internet became our main source of info. 

Even after believing that, I think as of how where a candidate campaigns still has quite a bit of influence over voting in the area. People want to feel special, I guess. It seems important to keep the electoral college as it is for now. 

It's crazy to me too but campaigning in a state helps a lot.

To think there are people out there who don't know who to vote for, but then see on the news that candidate x came to their state 4 days ago. So go vote for them. 

You know what I think it is name recognition. That's it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The popular vote is probably more fair to voters. I’d be more interested in a one-day national primary vote though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Let's see, so far we need to abolish the Electoral College, lower the voting age, allow illegals and felons to vote, completely alter the SCOTUS....

FFS, you guys lost an election. Get over it already. Next time don't put the shittiest candidate possible on the ticket and your odds might improve a little.  

You forgot pass laws to block Trump from being on the ballot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MDC said:

The popular vote is probably more fair to voters. I’d be more interested in a one-day national primary vote though.

That makes sense.  the electoral college was setup to protect all voters equally.  So that the value of votes is more true, the more populace regions could not rule over the less, I think it does a good job in that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

That makes sense.  the electoral college was setup to protect all voters equally.  So that the value of votes is more true, the more populace regions could not rule over the less, I think it does a good job in that way.

I get the rationale for it but in reality it gives more power to individual voters in less populous states than those in more populous states, so it’s unfair in a different way. It’s not something I feel strongly about realky because I know the EC isn’t going away.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MDC said:

I get the rationale for it but in reality it gives more power to individual voters in less populous states than those in more populous states, so it’s unfair in a different way. It’s not something I feel strongly about realky because I know the EC isn’t going away.

 

I have to concede this point.  I prefer the electoral system, with its faults, over the pure vote system with its faults.  JMHO  :cheers:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's get rid of the EC and popular vote...

Every state (and DC) votes, most votes wins that state, first candidate to win 26 states wins the election...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

I have to concede this point.  I prefer the electoral system, with its faults, over the pure vote system with its faults.  JMHO  :cheers:

One thing I will day for Warren - you may disagree with her proposal but it isn’t exactly dumb. The GOP has won the popular vote once in the past 30 years I think. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MDC said:

One thing I will day for Warren - you may disagree with her proposal but it isn’t exactly dumb. The GOP has won the popular vote once in the past 30 years I think. 

No doubt. I can understand why they are doing it, and considering their other moves it makes sense.  They are doing many things to build a plurality, such as immigration and seeking to get the vote to younger people.   It makes me uncomfortable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MDC said:

One thing I will day for Warren - you may disagree with her proposal but it isn’t exactly dumb. The GOP has won the popular vote once in the past 30 years I think. 

Just think, if we went by popular vote, Al Gore would have won (cringe) and probably would have meant no Obama or Trump...

But still, going by popular vote is bad as it really makes the smaller areas and states worthless...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, posty said:

Just think, if we went by popular vote, Al Gore would have won (cringe) and probably would have meant no Obama or Trump...

If Al Gore won there’s probably no 9/11 and definitely no trillion dollar ME nation building exercise. Gotta look on the bright side. :thumbsup: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Drizzay said:

That is why they are now pushing to lower the voting age.  If they lose the minority vote, they are going to push for the uneducated white kid vote.

Yep and if they were to succeed in getting the voting age down to 16, it's guaranteed that they will execute plan B: Free stuff for everyone!!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, MDC said:

If Al Gore won there’s probably no 9/11 

I think that would have happened anyway... That wasn't something that could be setup in the eight months after Bush's election...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The planning details by those muslim focks took place while Clinton was president. Had Al Gore won the election he probably would have rolled over like a giant poosay to the bastards and we'd all have towels on our domes right now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MDC said:

If Al Gore won there’s probably no 9/11 and definitely no trillion dollar ME nation building exercise. Gotta look on the bright side. :thumbsup: 

And we would have constant blackouts as we huddled around wood fires praying for the wind to blow, but not too hard, and for the sun to shine. 

And he would have spent the trillion on the green energy and federal health insurance fallacies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MDC said:

If Al Gore won there’s probably no 9/11 and definitely no trillion dollar ME nation building exercise. Gotta look on the bright side. :thumbsup: 

Ah ... the road not taken. 

The greatest tragedy of 2001 was that sh*tball GWB getting sworn into office, 9/11 doesn't come close.

Punch in nose > Cancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

That makes sense.  the electoral college was setup to protect all voters equally.  So that the value of votes is more true, the more populace regions could not rule over the less, I think it does a good job in that way.

 

2 hours ago, MDC said:

I get the rationale for it but in reality it gives more power to individual voters in less populous states than those in more populous states, so it’s unfair in a different way. It’s not something I feel strongly about realky because I know the EC isn’t going away.

 

It wasn't set up to protect the voters equally, but more for each state to be more equal, and more to the point to give more power to southern states that had less large cities but much more slaves.   The electoral college and the 3/5's compromise both stem from the debates of how to apportion representation.   So now we have a system where a voter in Wyoming counts 3.6 times one in California, hardly equal.

Quote

 

Full Story

The Electoral College polarized Americans from its inception. Created by the framers of the Constitution during the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, the College was put forth as a way to give citizens the opportunity to vote in presidential elections, with the added safeguard of a group of knowledgeable electors with final say on who would ultimately lead the country, another limit on the burgeoning nation’s democratic ideals.

The story of the Electoral College is also one of slavery—an institution central to the founding of American democracy. The bulk of the new nation’s citizenry resided in cities like Philadelphia and Boston in the North, leaving the South sparsely populated by farmers, plantation owners, other landholders, and, of course, enslaved laborers. This disparity in the population distribution became a core element of the legislative branch, and in turn, the Electoral College.

"[Southerners] wanted slaves to count the same as anyone else, and some northerners thought slaves shouldn’t be counted at all because they were treated as property rather than as people," says author Michael Klarman, a professor at Harvard Law School. In his recently released book, The Framers’ Coup, Klarman discusses how each framer’s interests came into play while creating the document that would one day rule the country.

“One of two biggest divisions at the Philadelphia convention was over how slaves would count in purposes of apportioning the House of Representatives," he explains. The issue vexed and divided the founders, presenting what James Madison, a slave owner, called a “difficulty…of a serious nature."

At the time, a full 40 percent of the South’s population was enslaved, and the compromise famously reached by the founding fathers determined that each slave would be counted as three-fifths of a person when it came to dividing the nation into equal congressional districts. The Electoral College, in turn, provided each state with an allotment of electors equivalent to its Congressional delegation (two senators plus its number of representatives).

 

Another reason for the Electoral college was the distance & time it took to get information from one part of the country to another.   So instead of direct representation, the citizens voted for a slate of presumably more informed electors who were up on the current events and issues of the time.  In addition this was also thought to be a good protection against the voters being swayed by a snake oil salesmen promising them magic beans.  While we can debate how well informed today's voters are, we can't debate that the tools to inform one's self are out there and readily available to anyone who wants to make use of them.

The argument that rural voters in small and Midwestern states would be meaningless or that one party would be in total control is completely specious.   Our government is set up in 3 branches, and today, yes the executive branch would have been Dem more often under a direct vote system, but that would still be checked by the House/Senate.   And a true check & balance system vs the current system where the executive branch has assumed more and more power that is rubber stamped by the house is a lot closer to what the Founding Fathers had in mind. 

Finally, IMO, the current winner take all system discourages 3rd/multiple party systems which I have seen a fair number of people here support.  Reasons stated better than I can are here and here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MDC said:

If Al Gore won there’s probably no 9/11 and definitely no trillion dollar ME nation building exercise. Gotta look on the bright side. :thumbsup: 

Cucks gonna troll. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 10:41 PM, Magnificent Bastard said:

Bush was told that Al-Queda was going to fly planes into buildings and did nothing and my city paid the price. But at least we can watch a game without referencing it a decade and more later.


:lol:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MDC said:


:lol:

And? Accurate as Fock and I stand by it. What's your point cucky? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In December 1998, the CIA's Counterterrorist Center reported to President Bill Clinton that al-Qaeda was preparing for attacks in the U.S. that might include hijacking aircraft.[

"Why were terrorists emboldened to attack us on 9/11? Because, during Bill Clinton’s eight years in office, they had waged a virtually unimpeded offensive against the United States. On Clinton’s watch, terrorists launched a string of escalating attacks, each one bolder than the last: the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; the attack on Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia three years later; the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

Each of these attacks was carried out with no effective U.S. response. Clinton employed a combination of law enforcement (the arrest of Ramzi Yousef for the World Trade Center bombing) and symbolic, pinprick cruise-missile strikes — firing, in the words of President George W. Bush, “a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent [to] hit a camel in the butt.” The terrorists were allowed to maintain their haven in Afghanistan, where they planned the 9/11 attacks, which was well underway – including the deployment of some of the hijackers to the United States — before Clinton left office."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-clintons-terrorism-strategy-led-to-911-hillary-clintons-is-the-exact-same-thing/2016/09/12/5aca1ca4-78fa-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.72caa778f6bd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, 5-Points said:

Somebody should tell her that the reason we have an E.C. is so the votes of the people in places like South Dakota and Montana carry the same weight as the votes of the people in places like California and New York. 

 

Or, in other words, sit down and shut up toots, the founding fathers already took care of that problem. 

 

30 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

It wasn't set up to protect the voters equally, but more for each state to be more equal, and more to the point to give more power to southern states that had less large cities but much more slaves.   The electoral college and the 3/5's compromise both stem from the debates of how to apportion representation.   So now we have a system where a voter in Wyoming counts 3.6 times one in California, hardly equal.

 

 

Pretty much what I said. It was designed to ensure the people of smaller, less populated states had as much say as did the people of larger, more populated states when it came to choosing a president. They were designing a system for the United States of America, not the United People of America. They wanted to make sure each state was represented fairly so they wouldn't have a reason to secede. The individual was free to leave if they wanted.

 

I found this interesting. 

43 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

"[Southerners] wanted slaves to count the same as anyone else, and some northerners thought slaves shouldn’t be counted at all because they were treated as property rather than as people,"

 So those who lived with. worked with and owned slaves considered them to be people while the Northern elite considered them to be no more than property.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

 

I found this interesting. 

 So those who lived with. worked with and owned slaves considered them to be people while the Northern elite considered them to be no more than property.  

No.

The way to  read that is the same as today, some a$$holes thought non-citizens in the country who can't vote should still be included in the census for congressional representation because it served their own best interest.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

No.

The way to  read that is the same as today, some a$$holes thought non-citizens in the country who can't vote should still be included in the census for congressional representation because it served their own best interest.

Got it. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Baker Boy said:

Democrats Can’t Win Without Gaming the Constitution

They still can but the chances seem high that they are anxious to nominate somebody that triples down on freak show wedge issue identity politics. If they're lucky they cough up somebody who isn't creepy... like Creepy Joe for example. And I don't know that he'd win either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/20/elizabeth-warren-electoral-college-226044

Good read and rebuttal of the ban the  electoral college nonsense. From Politico too.

It's also an effective beatdown of the BS by honcho about it being a product of slavery:

"Another argument is that the Electoral College bears the moral stain of slavery. But the debate over how to select the president that took place at the Constitutional Convention—whether to do it by popular vote, or via Congress, or another method—was between the large and small states. Slavery wasn’t mentioned, except in an ambiguous remark by James Madison.

The Electoral College was indirectly touched by the notorious slavery compromise only because states were allocated electors based on their senators and congressional districts, and slaves were counted as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of congressional representation. The Electoral College wasn’t in any way dependent on the 3/5th clause or defined by it. The clause was abolished 150 years ago—and yet the Electoral College persisted"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/20/elizabeth-warren-electoral-college-226044

Good read and rebuttal of the ban the  electoral college nonsense. From Politico too.

"If Democrats could manage a few of these things, and win both the popular vote and an Electoral College majority—the usual outcome throughout our history—their concerns over the Electoral College will suddenly evaporate."

It's as if these dems have no pride. They act like whiny children who just want their way at all cost and simply have no shame in the public eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sderk said:

"If Democrats could manage a few of these things, and win both the popular vote and an Electoral College majority—the usual outcome throughout our history—their concerns over the Electoral College will suddenly evaporate."

It's as if these dems have no pride. They act like whiny children who just want their way at all cost and simply have no shame in the public eye.

That's a problem with those idiots. The electoral college is to give an equal voice to the states. They're not looking at states as individual actors, but they're looking at each state's population when that's not what the electoral college is for. 

Each state is a unique entity in and of itself.  It doesn't matter how many people live in the state.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people suck. Same mindset that makes them think it's ok to cut the line with their money to get their dumb offspring into a college they don't deserve to be in. Rules are for others. Fockin baby boomers. Worse than millenials. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have come to believe that the Dem's are starting to really embrace their radical elements, and allowing any conservative voice to be heard or have legitimacy is something they will not tolerate.  They believe that only their ideas are good, useful, valid and anything else is invalid....and if that sounds totalitarian that is only because it is.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

That's a problem with those idiots. The electoral college is to give an equal voice to the states. They're not looking at states as individual actors, but they're looking at each state's population when that's not what the electoral college is for. 

Each state is a unique entity in and of itself.  It doesn't matter how many people live in the state.

One thing that you never hear from the anti-EC crowd is that "those tiny states" also don't have near the same number of EC votes as their beloved CA or NY.  They act like each state has an equal number which simply isn't the case. 

Am I completely misunderstanding something? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DonS said:

One thing that you never hear from the anti-EC crowd is that "those tiny states" also don't have near the same number of EC votes as their beloved CA or NY.  They act like each state has an equal number which simply isn't the case. 

Am I completely misunderstanding something? 

Just this, anything they SAY will be irrelevant.   They are trying to bolster voter groups that secure power for them. The electoral college protects against that kind of behavior, therefore it is an impediment to their ability to steal power and must be eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the same people who complain about Donald Trump violating political norms are now advocating eliminating the Electoral College and packing the Supreme Court....political norms.....   we should start tracking the ebb and flow of liberal morality.....which seems to be an oxymoron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ray Lewis's Limo Driver said:

It seems like the same people who complain about Donald Trump violating political norms are now advocating eliminating the Electoral College and packing the Supreme Court....political norms.....   we should start tracking the ebb and flow of liberal morality.....which seems to be an oxymoron

I would like to start tracking liberal mortality but some of them just seem to never let go. 😐

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 10:47 AM, MDC said:

I get the rationale for it but in reality it gives more power to individual voters in less populous states than those in more populous states, so it’s unfair in a different way. It’s not something I feel strongly about realky because I know the EC isn’t going away.

 

I live in Central New York. My vote is completely negated by the scumbag NYC dwellers. They vote for politicians who only care for the Big Apple, and the rest of the state suffers. Take away the Electoral College, and the whole country will end up like NY state.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×