>>MOD WARNING<< Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by straight ahead, Sep 18, 2020.

  1. PJO34

    PJO34 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,963
    Likes Received:
    1,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow. A lot of nonsense here. First, NY was the first area to get hit by the virus and it was the federal response, and not the response by the state and local governments that was primarily responsible for the loss of lives. Even Fauci said that NY handled the virus correctly (although there were clearly mistakes made). The rest of the country had more time and the continuing death tolls in states like Florida, South Dakota now that we know more about the virus says far more about the incompetence in those states than what happened before we had the information we do now. Second, the Republican party is the home of the KKK, the white supremecists, and the militias so referring to the Democratic party as racists is absurd. The Democratic party is incompetent at elections, but they do far better at running government. When's the last time a democratic president left the country in a "great recession" or presided over 200,000 (and counting) Americans being killed by a blundered pandemic response?
     
  2. PJO34

    PJO34 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,963
    Likes Received:
    1,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good attempt at revisionist history. It is irrelevant how long the attack was in the planning stage, it matters when a competent president would have made it a priority to protect the American people against the attack, and the fact that Bush did nothing significant after his briefing included information that Bin Laden determined to attack the United States puts the responsibility on him.

    Look at all the Benghazi hearings and imagine if a Democratic president had been in office on 9/11 or during Covid-19.
     
  3. PJO34

    PJO34 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,963
    Likes Received:
    1,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It does not give small states more of an equal say, it dilutes the voting power of people who live in cities who tend to vote Democratic. The reality that it doesn't matter whether a candidate receives ten more votes than his or her opponent or 2 million more votes than his or her opponent is anti-democratic and absurd.
     
    fiddlerdave likes this.
  4. PJO34

    PJO34 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,963
    Likes Received:
    1,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The definition of Democracy is, "control of an organization or group by the majority of its members." The electoral college is anti-democratic because the outcome of the election is not determined by the majority of its members.
     
  5. PJO34

    PJO34 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,963
    Likes Received:
    1,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They wouldn't be ignored. Their votes would count like everyone else's. If a candidate receives more votes than his or her opponent, he or she should win. The convoluted system we have dilutes the votes of people who live in cities and that system has resulted in two disastrous outcomes in the last twenty years.
     
    fiddlerdave likes this.
  6. zelmo73

    zelmo73 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2020
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see absolutely nothing wrong with being anti-Democrat.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
    Moolk likes this.
  7. Moolk

    Moolk Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2020
    Messages:
    19,283
    Likes Received:
    14,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Incorrect, their votes would be ignored as rural votes very different more often than not.

    Different states vote very differently.

    The states with the majority of people would have larger voices.

    Electoral College fixes that.
     
    zelmo73 likes this.
  8. Moolk

    Moolk Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2020
    Messages:
    19,283
    Likes Received:
    14,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The majority of the college.

    Again, its not anti democracy at all.
     
    zelmo73 likes this.
  9. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Okay. Let's look.
    All happened, are happening now, and will happen in the future.
    Progressive tax? Still here. Won't go away.
    Poor people, too? Doesn't sound like Trump.
    Don't know what Democrats would do with business or personal taxes.

    Someone will have to do something about this:

    98717986-4277-4E1A-AA7C-137359B491D4.jpeg

    Yes, and...?
    669D21F8-AE93-4566-A422-084ABD034020.jpeg

    The Fed can pursue constructive policies (see above).
    We're not likely headed to a time when government will be running businesses.
    Yes, and...?
    Tax rates are too low.
    We need housing, not housing projects.
    Propaganda.
    Propaganda.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
  10. LangleyMan

    LangleyMan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2017
    Messages:
    44,677
    Likes Received:
    12,448
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Uh huh. You're "nobody" (see above)?

    [​IMG]
     
  11. PJO34

    PJO34 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,963
    Likes Received:
    1,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you realize "demo" from "democracy" comes from the Greek "demos" for people, you will understand why you are wrong. The electoral college is anti-democratic because the majority of Americans do not elect the president. Instead, electors are chosen and they aren't even required (in most states) to cast their votes for the candidate who received the most votes. It really should not be controversial to want the candidate who receives the most votes to actually win the election. In such a reality, every vote would count. There would not be such a thing as "swing states" and presidential candidates would actually visit all the states because a Democrat receiving an extra 1,000 votes in California and a Republican receiving 1,000 from Mississippi would make a difference. I live in NY. Regardless of how I vote, my vote is meaningless. So is the vote of anyone who lives in most other states.
     
  12. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, because Chuck Shumer or ANY other Democrat would've honored the dying wish of Antonin Scalia! :roflol:
     
    Bravo Duck and glitch like this.
  13. PJO34

    PJO34 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,963
    Likes Received:
    1,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. Every voter would have exactly the same voice as every other. Without the electoral college, my vote would matter. As it stands now, unless a person votes in a swing state, his or her vote is essentially meaningless. I guess I am weird that I want my vote to matter.

    The problem with your view is that rural voters would no longer have the outsized voice they currently enjoy.
     
  14. PJO34

    PJO34 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,963
    Likes Received:
    1,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's your right, but being anti-democratic is a bad thing and the electoral college is anti-democratic.
     
  15. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, McConnell is a politician - which is to say that he doesn't HAVE any standards.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
  16. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, and I'm SURE that you'd be saying that if Clinton won the electoral college but lost the popular vote! :roflol:
     
  17. PJO34

    PJO34 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,963
    Likes Received:
    1,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I probably would not be complaining about the electoral college in that instance since it returned my preferred choice, but I would not contest the fact that it is anti-democratic.
     
  18. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And do the Democrats in Congress agree with you?
     
  19. zelmo73

    zelmo73 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2020
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn’t say that I was anti-democratic. I said that I was anti-Democrat. The Electoral College was created by the Founding Fathers, so of course Democrats hate it when it works against them, yet say nothing at all when it gets one of theirs elected. The Electoral College does not favor Republicans over Democrats, though you’d be hard-pressed to find a Democrat that agrees so long as a Republican is in the Oval Office.
     
    chris155au likes this.
  20. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In your opinion.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
  21. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,033
    Likes Received:
    9,491
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Here is mine on the Electoral College. Sure, the Senate should be made up of elected State Reps on a quota basis. The House on popular vore. POTUS, on popular vote. He is not there to protect the States. That is the role of the Senate. POTUS is every American's electee.
     
  22. chris155au

    chris155au Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2017
    Messages:
    41,176
    Likes Received:
    4,365
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Seem to me that your suggestion would just increase the likelihood of rarely or never having the Senate and the House controlled by the party of the President - AKA, a pretty useless government. A question that I have for an American political commentator would be: when is the last time anything meaningful got done with this scenario?
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
  23. zelmo73

    zelmo73 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2020
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Senate could not have done this in a timely manner though.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/presiden...d-19-providing-assistance-renters-homeowners/


    They couldn’t even pass a second COVID-19 relief package.
     
  24. Bush Lawyer

    Bush Lawyer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    Messages:
    15,033
    Likes Received:
    9,491
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Great. Why should there be (and there is not) some weighting which ensures either the House or the Senate is 'controlled by the party of the President.'
     
  25. zelmo73

    zelmo73 Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2020
    Messages:
    1,166
    Likes Received:
    757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So the President should not have any executive power supported by at least part of Congress at all? The Democrats’ precious ObamaCare would have never been passed into law under that scenario.
     
    ButterBalls and chris155au like this.

Share This Page