Bigga
Well-Known Member
Quite a lot of this is true.
However, poor people pay for stuff the rich need and don't have a say.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2020 US Elections
- Thread starter SebastianBlue
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
However, poor people pay for stuff the rich need and don't have a say.
So they use rhetoric according to socialist values. So fucking what?! It's their own opinion on the situation in their own article. No, they don't give a fuck about Republicans, but if the needs in battle are similar, so be it.
It's no fucking different to DEMOCRATS openly courting and using REPUBLICANS for their needs in the ballot.
And, yes, according to every other value across the world Biden and Harris are RIGHT WING, even if they 'left' to an EXTREME right!
You're unbelievable how you force yourself not to see the game of politics for what it is and the Dems are as culpable as ANYONE for fucking about the 'system' when they need it and when they cry foul.
But, yeah, "don't stop believing"...
You have become a bit too transparent now.
"Biden is a fraud because he accepts donations from big business!!!"
"Yeah, the Green party is funded by the GOP who have no interest in the environment and fund them purely as a way to steal votes, so what?"
Bigga
Well-Known Member
Do you think the GOP would happily accept the Dems financially supporting the KKK, Proud Boys or QAnon to get on the ballot specifically to split the Republican vote?
And why would right winged group that support the GOP be voting against the GOP?
One cannot argue from a false premise, so use a better example.
Bigga
Well-Known Member
You have become a bit too transparent now.
"Biden is a fraud because he accepts donations from big business!!!"
"Yeah, the Green party is funded by the GOP who have no interest in the environment and fund them purely as a way to steal votes, so what?"
No, there's a difference.
Being funded a place on the ballot is different than continuing to pay the candidate for policies to go their way over decades.
A means to an end for that GOP funding in a once-in-a-lifetime voting situation to give the Greens a chance to be on the ballot.
How you can equate the two is beyond me.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
The fact that this is even possible as an outcome shows how broken and ineffectual the US Constitution is.Thats exactly what Trump is banking on to bring the Supreme Court into play as its the only way he'll win now.
The perfect fumble
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 26,119
It's just the mindset.Quite a lot of this is true.
However, poor people pay for stuff the rich need and don't have a say.
I'm not agreeing with it.
A little known fact, the majority of Tommies in the trenches in the First World War had no vote, their German counterparts across no mans land could all vote.
Last edited:
M
M
mat
Guest
Neither of the parties seem arsed about changing it sadly. There's a minority of Dems that want rid of the electoral colleges, not enough to do anything with it mind.The fact that this is even possible as an outcome shows how broken and ineffectual the US Constitution is.
The better question is why a supposed Bernie supporter has spent the last ten months spouting off the dumbest right wing talking points on almost any topic to anyone who would listen? For someone that apparently cares about left leaning policy it seems as if you would prefer Democrats losing to anything resembling Bernie's ideas actually getting passed.And why would right winged group that support the GOP be voting against the GOP?
One cannot argue from a false premise, so use a better example.
A majority of Dems absolutely want to get rid of it, it's a near-mainstream position at this point. Senators Brian Schatz, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, and Kirsten Gillibrand even introduced a constitutional amendment that would abolish it. The issue is that you can't do without Republicans, and good luck with that.Neither of the parties seem arsed about changing it sadly. There's a minority of Dems that want rid of the electoral colleges, not enough to do anything with it mind.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
I wouldn’t call it a near mainstream position. Wasn’t even on the radar until 2000 when one especially backwards state fucked up an entire Presidential election. The EC also has its benefits. It forces presidential candidates to care about, create policy for and campaign in places and to people that might not matter a whit if the election were purely popular vote. There are useful arguments to be made on both sides. Abolishing it isn’t going to reunify the nation and we shouldn’t abolish it because Hillary Clinton ran a bad campaign and just assumed swing states would fall into line, which is why it didn’t work last election.A majority of Dems absolutely want to get rid of it, it's a near-mainstream position at this point. Senators Brian Schatz, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, and Kirsten Gillibrand even introduced a constitutional amendment that would abolish it. The issue is that you can't do without Republicans, and good luck with that.
Last edited:
We're pretty rapidly moving there. This tracker is from the primary but these aren't exactly fringe figures in the "pro" category, and like you said, it's coming from a place where no one was talking about it not that long ago.I wouldn’t call it a near mainstream position. Wasn’t even on the radar until 2000 when one especially backwards state fucked up an entire Presidential election. The EC also has its benefits. It forces presidential candidates to care about, creat policy for and campaign in/to places and people that might not matter a whit if the election were purely popular vote. There are useful arguments to be made on both sides. Abolishing it isn’t going to reunify the nation and we shouldn’t abolish it because Hillary Clinton ran a bad campaign and just assumed swing states would fall into line, which is why it didn’t work last election.
Also, I know you and I disagree on the severity of the issue but this problem isn't going anywhere. Some historical context: In the 44 elections held from 1824 (the first where they even bothered to count the popular vote) to 1996 only one had a result where the loser of the popular vote won the presidency. Since 1996 we've had 2 of 5, and if Trump wins this year very probably 3 of 6. And going forward it's only getting worse. Population trends project that by 2040 70% of Americans will live in 15 states, and 50% will live in 8 states. It needs addressing sooner than later.
Last edited:
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
Then I think you have to look at the vote weighting by state. Why can't we do that? Why abolish the idea entirely?We're pretty rapidly moving there. This tracker is from the primary but these aren't exactly fringe figures in the "pro" category, and like you said, it's coming from a place where no one was talking about it not that long ago.
Also, I know you and I disagree on the severity of the issue but this problem isn't going anywhere. Some historical context: In the 44 elections held from 1824 (the first where they even bothered to count the popular vote) to 1996 only one had a result where the loser of the popular vote won the presidency. Since 1996 we've had 2 of 5, and if Trump wins this year very probably 3 of 6. And going forward it's only getting worse. Population trends project that by 2040 70% of Americans will live in 15 states, and 50% will live in 8 states. It needs addressing sooner than later.
The 2000 election was so close (about half a million popular votes separated Bush and Gore) I don't know how we can consider the EC determining the outcome to be wrong or some kind of travesty. And just because the population is shifting to certain states doesn't mean those states will always be a certain color. In fact I'd argue higher concentration in fewer states is even more of a reason for the EC to exist. The President is the President (or is supposed to be ) for ALL the people in an exceedingly large and diverse nation topographically, economically and socially, made up of effectively all immigrants or children of relatively recent immigrants from all corners of the globe.
But I see the other side too, and it isn't any kind of a hill to die on -- either system has issues and benefits.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,606
Yeah but think of poor Dax. I believe (maybe wrongly I admit) he lives in NY, his vote doesn’t matter at all. It’s why he votes for the third party in protest, he knows Trump won’t win in his state.I wouldn’t call it a near mainstream position. Wasn’t even on the radar until 2000 when one especially backwards state fucked up an entire Presidential election. The EC also has its benefits. It forces presidential candidates to care about, create policy for and campaign in places and to people that might not matter a whit if the election were purely popular vote. There are useful arguments to be made on both sides. Abolishing it isn’t going to reunify the nation and we shouldn’t abolish it because Hillary Clinton ran a bad campaign and just assumed swing states would fall into line, which is why it didn’t work last election.
Do away with the EC and he can vote Trump in full glory of all of his achievements.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
I assure you I have not thought of Dax in months, nor do I intend to start now. The people I have on ignore are all pretty much the same person tangled in a faceless mass.Yeah but think of poor Dax. I believe (maybe wrongly I admit) he lives in NY, his vote doesn’t matter at all. It’s why he votes for the third party in protest, he knows Trump won’t win in his state.
Do away with the EC and he can vote Trump in full glory of all of his achievements.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Gibber...
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,606
Was faceless a typo of faecal?I assure you I have not thought of Dax in months, nor do I intend to start now. The people I have on ignore are all pretty much the same person tangled in a faceless mass.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
Was faceless a typo of faecal?
No, especially as we spell it "fecal" over here :)
The mass is a combination of rank idiots and insufferable dickheads, with a few who are both.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Well at least we can say Fox 'News' presenters are a fair reflection of the demographic they represent.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Hmm....
This whole not conceding thing encapsulates the Republican/Democrat debate in 2020.
On the one hand you have the Republicans, who have shut down half the post office, had their governors illegally block mail in ballots and shut down thousands of polling stations in blue areas, run a disinformation campaign against absentee ballots lying about them being insecure, have illegally disenfranchised thousands of people in swing states, have encouraged right wing militias to intimidate people at the ballot box and "Stand By" for election night. You also have the president repeatedly refusing to say he'll hand over power peacefully or accept the results of the election.
Lol. At least now you are somewhat funny and not just annoying. Yes I live in NY. And yes my State is a forgone conclusion.Yeah but think of poor Dax. I believe (maybe wrongly I admit) he lives in NY, his vote doesn’t matter at all. It’s why he votes for the third party in protest, he knows Trump won’t win in his state.
Do away with the EC and he can vote Trump in full glory of all of his achievements.
But the EC has value. Only partisans can't see that.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.