Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

You know the real reason you guys lost is for things like what you are suggesting now.
That you want to disregard the US democratic process? Not a good way to get support.

Okay. Just. ... I want you to think long an hard about how you just identified the 'real reason' that a political party, in a complex multi-issue environment lost, and you did it on a video game forum. Think about that, and think about whether that statement deserves to be taken seriously.

Trump hasn't won.

Slates of Republican electors have won.  They have not yet cast their votes.  The box you checked on your ballot isn't, despite what it should be, a vote for your candidate of choice, or we'd have Clinton in office.

Republican electors are not the same thing as Trump winning.

@Everyone who's saying "It's the law":It isn't.  The provision for the Electoral College says nothing about how they are determined, nor how they should vote.  Only state laws, and they don't often say much.

TBF, think about it this way, what if it was backwards?

What if Trump had the popular, and Clinton the electoral? Would it be alright then? Or would you be clamoring against those dirty underhanded conservatives lobbying that is was rigged?

Make peace, and try to move forward from here. What's done is done, Clinton has quit the race.

Honestly?  I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'd definitely get their point.

[nenjin]

You know the real reason you guys lost is for things like what you are suggesting now.
That you want to disregard the US democratic process? Not a good way to get support.

As opposed to saying the election is rigged during the election campaign?

Yeah, I know what a dumb thing to say.
You'd have to put up a pretty shit candidate in order to lose to someone what said that!

He said, as though this election had anything to do with merit.

This entire election was based on spite, by both sides. Preternatural loathing for the opponent on either side. The difference is that Trump stoked the hatred of his opponent so Republicans would vote him for better than Hilary stoked the hatred of her opponent among her own base. The turn out data is pretty compelling. A fuck load of traditionally democratic voters just didn't vote out of disgust.

[Reelya]

Honestly, people like Trump is why I prefer parliamentary systems to presidential systems. You guys have a collective brain fart and are stuck with someone like that for at least 4 years. In Australia, we ended up with Tony Abbott, and they managed to get rid of him in less than 2 years.

[hector13]

Honestly, people like Trump is why I prefer parliamentary systems to presidential systems. You guys have a collective brain fart and are stuck with someone like that for at least 4 years. In Australia, we ended up with Tony Abbott, and they managed to get rid of him in less than 2 years. There's also the fact that ministers here are all elected officials. Our guys can't just bring in some tobacco lobbyist and put them in charge of the department of health.

Y'all forgot to say that if we did manage to get rid of Trump, we get Pence instead!

[Sergarr]

@Sergarr:The electoral college was codified in the Constitution, not by the states.

I believe prevailing opinion is because it was a compromise position between North and South.

Yes, it would be absurd, but it would in fact be legal.  At least in most states.

I'm talking about the "first-past-the-post" system which is what makes Electoral College anything more than a simple projection of the popular vote (since, as I assume, the Electoral Votes are assigned to states proportional to their population). And that one is on states' side, as evident by Maine abandoning it.

Also, for at least the third time, the electors were elected, not the Presidential candidates.

Obama has accepted Trump as next POTUS. Clinton has accepted Trump as next POTUS. If Electors elect Hillary, she'll probably just use the Sanders' DNC trick and transfer all her Electoral Votes to Trump.

I'm pretty sure that's possible. Or at least, no one relevant will complain about her doing it. Because setting a precedent of EC breaking the usual flow of the electoral system is very, very dangerous for stability. It could legitimately result in USA becoming a tyranny led by Republicans, who will construct a massive regime of oppression and kill everyone who they don't like, and with no legal way out because your vote will not matter at all.

[Reelya]

Honestly, people like Trump is why I prefer parliamentary systems to presidential systems. You guys have a collective brain fart and are stuck with someone like that for at least 4 years. In Australia, we ended up with Tony Abbott, and they managed to get rid of him in less than 2 years. There's also the fact that ministers here are all elected officials. Our guys can't just bring in some tobacco lobbyist and put them in charge of the department of health.

Y'all forgot to say that if we did manage to get rid of Trump, we get Pence instead!

That's a red herring, because it assumes you have a presidential system. I'm talking about a parliamentary system. In a parliament literally any MP can become the next leader. And there's no time-table involved. e.g. they could changed Prime Ministers every day of the year if they wanted to.

[MasterFancyPants]

You know the real reason you guys lost is for things like what you are suggesting now.
That you want to disregard the US democratic process? Not a good way to get support.

As opposed to saying the election is rigged during the election campaign?

Yeah, I know what a dumb thing to say.
You'd have to put up a pretty shit candidate in order to lose to someone what said that!

He said, as though this election had anything to do with merit.

This entire election was based on spite, by both sides. Preternatural loathing for the opponent on either side. The difference is that Trump stoked the hatred of his opponent so Republicans would vote him for better than Hilary stoked the hatred of her opponent among her own base. The turn out data is pretty compelling. A fuck load of traditionally democratic voters just didn't vote out of disgust.

And a lot of previous Obama voters going for Trump.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

-snoop-

It isn't the responsibility of the oppressed to comfort their oppressors.  Fundies can suck a dick.

Safe spaces isn't just LGBT, and even if it was, its the one thing gay bars have in common with churches so again.  Fundies can suck a dick.  It would be rude if someone walked into Sunday mass with a dildo strapped to their forehead quoting Nietzche.  Its not unreasonable for gay people to want a place they can be gay in peace.

Safe spaces are bullshit, and let me tell you why. You shouldn't be able to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of sexuality or religion or what-have-you anywhere. I fuckin' see this behavior all the time, people want to hide behind terms and words to avoid confrontation and it's fucking bullshit, if someone discriminates against you go get the cops, beat the shit out of them, or fuck off. Looking down your nose at them and boldly declaring that "this is a safe space" does nothing but aggravate one party and give the other party a trump card (no pun intended, but gladly welcomed) to abuse freely instead of standing up for themselves with logical argument and human integrity.

It's NOT unreasonable to want to have a place you can be yourself. That's a lot of what makes America great already: those places exist. What bothers me is telling me I can't criticize someone just because they're part of certain groups.

[Sprin]

-snoop-

It isn't the responsibility of the oppressed to comfort their oppressors.  Fundies can suck a dick.

Safe spaces isn't just LGBT, and even if it was, its the one thing gay bars have in common with churches so again.  Fundies can suck a dick.  It would be rude if someone walked into Sunday mass with a dildo strapped to their forehead quoting Nietzche.  Its not unreasonable for gay people to want a place they can be gay in peace.

Safe spaces are bullshit, and let me tell you why. You shouldn't be able to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of sexuality or religion or what-have-you anywhere. I fuckin' see this behavior all the time, people want to hide behind terms and words to avoid confrontation and it's fucking bullshit, if someone discriminates against you go get the cops, beat the shit out of them, or fuck off. Looking down your nose at them and boldly declaring that "this is a safe space" does nothing but aggravate one party and give the other party a trump card (no pun intended, but gladly welcomed) to abuse freely instead of standing up for themselves with logical argument and human integrity.

It's NOT unreasonable to want to have a place you can be yourself. That's a lot of what makes America great already: those places exist. What bothers me is telling me I can't criticize someone just because they're part of certain groups.

So, someone doesnt want to associate with someone and the proper response is "get a cop to beat the shit out of them."

Love and tollerance amiright

[TheBiggerFish]

@Sergarr:The electoral college was codified in the Constitution, not by the states.

I believe prevailing opinion is because it was a compromise position between North and South.

Yes, it would be absurd, but it would in fact be legal.  At least in most states.

I'm talking about the "first-past-the-post" system which is what makes Electoral College anything more than a simple projection of the popular vote (since, as I assume, the Electoral Votes are assigned to states proportional to their population). And that one is on states' side, as evident by Maine abandoning it.

Also, for at least the third time, the electors were elected, not the Presidential candidates.

Obama has accepted Trump as next POTUS. Clinton has accepted Trump as next POTUS. If Electors elect Hillary, she'll probably just use the Sanders' DNC trick and transfer all her Electoral Votes to Trump.

I'm pretty sure that's possible. Or at least, no one relevant will complain about her doing it. Because setting a precedent of EC breaking the usual flow of the electoral system is very, very dangerous for stability. It could legitimately result in USA becoming a tyranny led by Republicans, who will construct a massive regime of oppression and kill everyone who they don't like, and with no legal way out because your vote will not matter at all.

Uh.

What.

Clinton literally has nothing to do with the EC.  Can't change it.

Also, apparently the outcome of the election isn't even solid yet.

-snoop-

It isn't the responsibility of the oppressed to comfort their oppressors.  Fundies can suck a dick.

Safe spaces isn't just LGBT, and even if it was, its the one thing gay bars have in common with churches so again.  Fundies can suck a dick.  It would be rude if someone walked into Sunday mass with a dildo strapped to their forehead quoting Nietzche.  Its not unreasonable for gay people to want a place they can be gay in peace.

Safe spaces are bullshit, and let me tell you why. You shouldn't be able to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of sexuality or religion or what-have-you anywhere. I fuckin' see this behavior all the time, people want to hide behind terms and words to avoid confrontation and it's fucking bullshit, if someone discriminates against you go get the cops, beat the shit out of them, or fuck off. Looking down your nose at them and boldly declaring that "this is a safe space" does nothing but aggravate one party and give the other party a trump card (no pun intended, but gladly welcomed) to abuse freely instead of standing up for themselves with logical argument and human integrity.

It's NOT unreasonable to want to have a place you can be yourself. That's a lot of what makes America great already: those places exist. What bothers me is telling me I can't criticize someone just because they're part of certain groups.

*cough cough*

[andrea]

That's a red herring, because it assumes you have a presidential system. I'm talking about a parliamentary system. In a parliament literally any MP can become the next leader. And there's no time-table involved. e.g. they could changed Prime Ministers every day of the year if they wanted to.

Not sure how it works in other countries, but at least in italy You don't need to be a MP to become prime minister. Any citizen can do it, as long as the parliament agrees with it.



Regarding talks of overturning the election through faithless electors...  Trump may cause a lot of damage, Pence perhaps even more. But it is a setback lasting 4 years, then whatever damage can be repaired by the next president/congress. Should they be elected again, I suppose that means people approve them.
But faithless electors overturning an election? I am not an US citizen or resident, but that sounds like an AWFUL precedent to set. It gives way to the tradition of electors voting whoever they feel like. Then, why campaign in the states, when you can just campaign among great electors? You can't convince 20+ electors to switch sides and hope that it will be a thing only for this year.
Don't like the EC? sign a petition to abolish it. But not retroactively. Trying to retroactively changing things is bad, and retroactively changing elections doubly so.

[redwallzyl]

on the subject of the electoral system how exactly do you think it stops the "tyranny of the majority" because i don't see how it does. all it does is give arbitrary power to high population states! i fail to see how the electoral college does anything better than FPTP and sense that's the case FPTP is strictly better. if the majority of voters vote for someone they should become president period. if they are a terrible person who oppresses people that fine we have had that in the past and got through it through other parts of the government that is what the supreme court and our rights to protest and assembly are for to build support that leads to change. all other elected positions in the government are decided by majority vote if you haven't noticed as well. i have never seen anyone complain about that. why is the presidency different. one persons vote should not more important that another regardless if one is a Nazi and the other is a saint and regardless of where they live is arbitrarily determent state boundary. why should a person in Californians vote not matter? what makes a Floridians vote better? their all citizens of the country how are effected just as much by the outcome.

also it CAN totally be removed and is more than half way toward being already!
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide (i.e., all 50 states and the District of Columbia).  It has been enacted into law in 11 states with 165 electoral votes, and will take effect when enacted by states with 105 more electoral votes. The bill has passed one chamber in 12 additional states with 96 electoral votes.   Most recently, the bill was passed by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Republican-controlled Arizona House, 28–18 in Republican-controlled Oklahoma Senate, 57–4 in Republican-controlled New York Senate, and 37–21 in Democratic-controlled Oregon House.  Written Explanation  Status in Each State

also conveniently included in that link is why all your arguments for the college are pure bullshit.

and no I'm not saying do it retroactively obviously.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

-big snoop-

So, someone doesnt want to associate with someone and the proper response is "get a cop to beat the shit out of them."

Love and tollerance amiright

First of all, that's a misquote. Second of all, I was using hyperbole to show you that the proper response to discrimination is to either a.) hail the proper authorities to enforce your rights or b.) stand up for yourself. Finally, no. You're free to not associate with people, but you're not allowed to be above criticism just because you belong to group X, Y, or Z.

[TheBiggerFish]

The Electoral College is a tyranny of the minority...

@andrea:

But faithless electors overturning an election? I am not an US citizen or resident, but that sounds like an AWFUL precedent to set. It gives way to the tradition of electors voting whoever they feel like. Then, why campaign in the states, when you can just campaign among great electors? You can't convince 20+ electors to switch sides and hope that it will be a thing only for this year.

Well, that was quite possibly the original idea.

[Sprin]

-big snoop-

So, someone doesnt want to associate with someone and the proper response is "get a cop to beat the shit out of them."

Love and tollerance amiright

First of all, that's a misquote. Second of all, I was using hyperbole to show you that the proper response to discrimination is to either a.) hail the proper authorities to enforce your rights or b.) stand up for yourself. Finally, no. You're free to not associate with people, but you're not allowed to be above criticism just because you belong to group X, Y, or Z.

Thats trying to legislate morality. If you don't like someone you don't need to be anywere near them. If some buissness owner doesnt want to hire a black guy don't shop there, you don't want to hire a racist don't hire a racist.

Seriouslly this isn't hard.