Originally posted by Starlight
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Russian interference with the 2016 election
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe USA isn't about 1 person 1 vote.
It is about each state having an equal say in the governing of the country. The states get 2 senators each, the house is the only part that is proportional to the population.
Every election the losing side always whines about the electoral college.
But the founding fathers were pretty wise.
A country that is dominated by the people in one state is not a egalitarian state, it is a tyranny.
Oh, those democratic 'tyranny's, how terrible they are!"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postthat bizarre "twist" was built into the system to stop populous states like California from dominating the elections.
It might have also had the effect of stopping populous states from dominating presidential elections (it is debatable how well it accomplishes that), but the actual reason for it, at least in regards to why they chose that rather than a popular vote, was slavery.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Postget real rogue. Those numbers are meaningless in terms of establishing the relative strength of DT's election. The electoral college based win with a minority vote is a technicality. A sleight of hand trick that hinged on pulling a small majority in strategic 'winner take all' states. And if you dont think the russian misinformation campaign didnt also leverage that same trick you should take a closer look.
And if there ever was a case for abolishing the electoral college system, Donald Trump is it. We are talking over a million votes down here and he still 'won' because of that bizarre little twist in our system.
Trump does not and hopefully never will represent the majority in this country. Trump reminds me of that star trek where there is this being that feeds on hatred and violence. Trump won by feeding all the various seeda of hatred in this country. Your hatred of hillar and the dems. Hatred of immigrants. Hatred of muslims. Hatred between whites and blacks. Every divisive thing, every major fear these are what fed and continues to feed trump.
Jim
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Postwrong. Trump is the worst possible choice for president out of the entire primary field - Democrat and Republican. ANYONE else that presented themselves as a legitimate potential candidate for the 2016 race would have been a better choice*.
And the fact he was elected, especially by the evangelical base, puts a cap on the fact the in the US, conservative evangelical Christianity has all but capitulated to the god of mammon.
Jim
*I am talking about those that received support from the two major parties during their primaries. I'm not talking about fringe elements, or David Duke, or whatever ancillary person you might pull out of a hat to say "ANYONE?" as a brain dead challenge to the fact I'm clearly using hyperbole here.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostI nearly agree with you. Trump was the second worst possible choice, behind Hillary - who was undemocratically nominated in a rigged primary.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostNot really. They genocided the natives, had slaves,
As for the slaves, some of them did, and some didn't. Certainly, a good number of them wanted to get rid of slavery (and in truth, slavery might have faded away on its own accord if not for the cotton gin being made).
But let's suppose they wiped out all the natives and they were all slaveholders who wanted slavery to be around forever. What does this have to do with how "wise" they were in regards to making a government? Genghis Khan probably killed more people than Hitler, but that doesn't mean he wasn't clearly a brilliant military commander.
and set up a pretty stupid constitution which had to be amended dozens of times
Maybe it's supposed to be that more amendments were necessary than was typical, but what is typical? The Constitution of Ireland has 36 Amendments. The Constitution of India has a whopping 101. The Constitution of Germany had been amended 50 times. All of these were also adopted significantly later than the US Constitution (Germany's was made in 1949, India's was in 1950, and Ireland's in 1937), meaning they've had more amendments in less time.
Granted, I only looked at a few countries' constitutions, so perhaps the US has done more amendments. Do you have data on this to indicate that the United States had to amend things more frequently than is typical for a country with a constitution?
and is failing badly in the present day.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostWhen did they "genocide" the natives?
Remember, "genocide" refers to an attempt at utter eradication"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostContinuing to call it a "technicality" merely serves to exhibit a woeful misunderstanding on your part of how our electoral process works. Plain and simple.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNo rogue. I understand exactly how it works. He won through a technicality, not by winning approval from the majority of the population. To win with a majority and through the ec vote is to win, period. But some states have the winner take all clause. Not all, some. And it was the winner take all states that gave him the numbers you cited. It is allll technicality. A trick that let's allll person win that has only convinced the barest majority in that specific set of states. It really is not a good system. If you want to help balance the populous states against the less populous, you can give them more deligates. But the percent contribution of the deligates should match the vote in those areas. Winner take all creates a ridiculous skew of the vote.
Jim"I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostNot really. They genocided the natives,had slaves,
and set up a pretty stupid constitution which had to be amended dozens of times and is failing badly in the present day. Not good."The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostNo rogue. I understand exactly how it works. He won through a technicality, not by winning approval from the majority of the population. To win with a majority and through the ec vote is to win, period. But some states have the winner take all clause. Not all, some. And it was the winner take all states that gave him the numbers you cited. It is allll technicality. A trick that let's allll person win that has only convinced the barest majority in that specific set of states. It really is not a good system. If you want to help balance the populous states against the less populous, you can give them more deligates. But the percent contribution of the deligates should match the vote in those areas. Winner take all creates a ridiculous skew of the vote.
Jim"The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View Post~facepalm~
No, it doesn't.
That sounds like utter eradication to me. Even if we want to define it more strictly in the deliberate killing on a large scale (outside of a battle), again, when did that happen during the "Founding Father generation"? Heck, forget their generation, you attacked the "Founding Fathers" in particular, which can be linked directly to such a thing?
There are a good number of things to criticize in the US government's treatment of the natives (although I believe the worst of it occurred after the "Founding Father generation"). But labeling it genocide seems to be nothing more than picking an extreme term to try to elicit an emotional reaction. In fact, if anything it seems like it's soft pedaling actual events of genocide like the Holocaust or the Armenian Genocide.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View PostAgain, sour grapes. Trump won by playing by the same rules that have been in place since George Washington ran. There is no technicality about it.
Further, a candidate I supported (Bush) served as president under such a win, but had the grace to be conscious of what it meant (and his popular vote percentage was much closer as well). He did not have a popular vote mandate, and neither does trump.
In the case of DT, the electoral college as put the nation in a grave and dangerous place. And against the will of the majority of its people.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostI think it's a valid question.
Genocide: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group""I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 06:29 AM
|
32 responses
160 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 07:40 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 08:13 PM
|
13 responses
79 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 10:31 PM
|
||
Started by eider, Yesterday, 12:12 AM
|
27 responses
148 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 08:54 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-15-2024, 12:53 PM
|
52 responses
273 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 11:27 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 06-14-2024, 08:57 PM
|
105 responses
480 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 10:56 PM
|
Comment