Politics And Current Events

Postby **Morkle** » Mon May 06, 2019 2:54 pm

Peacefully protesting without intent to harm should always be accepted
"accepted" how? i don't accept "god hates nanners" protests. if i was the type to go out and buy poster board and magic markers, i might head out to one of these events and "unaccept" them. WBC is an extreme case, but counter protesting isn't illegal. and there's nothing wrong with it - provided it's peaceful of course.

i think you're saying don't chase people down the street with a camera...but even that isn't really protected.

not sure what you're saying actually, other than stay peaceful

I think it’s obvious he is saying accepted as in that it is their right to do it, not accepting their message.

One should always defend the right, even if the message isn’t something you believe in.
This is what I was saying. The message doesn't matter. You can protest abortions or something, and I can think you're an idiot, but you're well within reason to do it.
not well within reason. well within legal right.

but sure. they should all be "accepted" in that they should not have violence inflicted on them or their property. i think everyone here agrees with that...even though i imagine that we could push this more towards fringe behavior and find people with a "so and so should have their face punched in" opinion.

There are a lot of people with that behavior and opinion that "needs their face punched in," I suppose the difference to just having common sense is to not punch their face in, but just avoid them.

Postby **PFiDC** » Mon May 06, 2019 3:41 pm

So where does Troy stand on people trying to break into Tucker Carlson's house and scaring his wife and kids?

Or is the whataboutism game over?
I don't care, just like I didn't care when people yelled at Ted Cruz, SHS and Mayor Pete. Or would you prefer a different answer that would continue the whattaboutism sequence?
So you support vandalism?
TL: I don't care when people are yelled at
Grunt: So you support vandalism?
He said I don’t care in relation to Carlson. His house had its door and other things broken or vandalized.

I'm gonna go with I was testing you and not that I failed at reading comprehension....

Postby **Morkle** » Mon May 06, 2019 6:55 pm

Treasury denies House of Representatives request for Trumps taxes.

Postby **Freddy Rumsen** » Tue May 07, 2019 6:45 am

It's no wonder the electorate is so ignorant about the electoral process.

On my local news they were reporting about a new WSJ poll that said 53% of Americans want to move to a national popular vote and junk the electoral college.

To illustrate this the news lady said, "In 2016 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by over 3 million votes while Donald Trump only won the Electoral College by 74 votes."

Postby **grunthy** » Tue May 07, 2019 8:20 am

It's no wonder the electorate is so ignorant about the electoral process.

On my local news they were reporting about a new WSJ poll that said 53% of Americans want to move to a national popular vote and junk the electoral college.

To illustrate this the news lady said, "In 2016 Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by over 3 million votes while Donald Trump only won the Electoral College by 74 votes."

The moment this country goes to a popular vote is the moment our freedoms start to die.

Postby **shafnutz05** » Tue May 07, 2019 8:28 am

Yup. I'll politely say "No thanks" to mob rule.

Postby **Troy Loney** » Tue May 07, 2019 8:31 am

Let's ditch this stupid democracy, aristocracy would be way better.

Postby **grunthy** » Tue May 07, 2019 8:39 am

Let's ditch this stupid democracy, aristocracy would be way better.

Good thing we don’t have either of those.

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Tue May 07, 2019 8:50 am

Ya know, Troy is a good poster in this thread (imo) but he does create a lot of strawman's doesn't he haha

Postby **Troy Loney** » Tue May 07, 2019 8:55 am

Ya know, Troy is a good poster in this thread (imo) but he does create a lot of strawman's doesn't he haha

I think arguing that a switch from the electoral college to a popular vote is the equivalent of mob rule is also a strawman.

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Tue May 07, 2019 8:58 am

Yeah, that's all well and good...but that doesn't change the nature of my post...

Postby **Troy Loney** » Tue May 07, 2019 9:00 am

Yeah, that's all well and good...but that doesn't change the nature of my post...

Why should anyone respond seriously to hyperbolic statements?

Postby **count2infinity** » Tue May 07, 2019 9:03 am

Yeah, that's all well and good...but that doesn't change the nature of my post...
Why should anyone respond seriously to hyperbolic statements?

Oh, so you support vandalism?!?

YouTube · Postby **mikey** » Tue May 07, 2019 9:15 am

Yeah, that's all well and good...but that doesn't change the nature of my post...
Why should anyone respond seriously to hyperbolic statements?

Jesus Christ, are there no mirrors in your house or something haha...

I get it, everyone else sucks too...

Postby **AuthorTony** » Tue May 07, 2019 9:20 am

Is there any solid reasoning why awarding EC votes on a proportional basis (Like Maine and Nebraska already do) wouldn't be a better middle ground? Currently, if you're a R in CA, NY, WA, OR, etc. your vote is meaningless. If you're a D in TX, most of the south, etc. your vote is meaningless. People say the EC is a way to ensure every state matters, but in reality most states are locked up before the candidates are even picked and all the winner is chosen by the battleground states.

I agree that a straight popular vote is a bad idea, but I really don't see why awarding the votes proportionally rather than winner take all wouldn't be a valid option. That would force candidates to actually work to get out the vote in every state rather than beginning the election cycle with 10-15 states already in their pockets.

Postby **CBear3** » Tue May 07, 2019 9:41 am

Is there any solid reasoning why awarding EC votes on a proportional basis (Like Maine and Nebraska already do) wouldn't be a better middle ground? Currently, if you're a R in CA, NY, WA, OR, etc. your vote is meaningless. If you're a D in TX, most of the south, etc. your vote is meaningless. People say the EC is a way to ensure every state matters, but in reality most states are locked up before the candidates are even picked and all the winner is chosen by the battleground states.

I agree that a straight popular vote is a bad idea, but I really don't see why awarding the votes proportionally rather than winner take all wouldn't be a valid option. That would force candidates to actually work to get out the vote in every state rather than beginning the election cycle with 10-15 states already in their pockets.

Because it hurts Republican's chances...

Postby **Kane** » Tue May 07, 2019 9:46 am

Bingo.

Postby **Factorial** » Tue May 07, 2019 9:46 am

Because it hurts Republican's chances...

Postby **shmenguin** » Tue May 07, 2019 10:02 am

Currently, if you're a R in CA, NY, WA, OR, etc. your vote is meaningless. If you're a D in TX, most of the south, etc. your vote is meaningless.

i'd extend this to say that your vote is meaningless whether you're R or D in these cases. if you live in a state where the result is a foregone conclusion, then there's no value in your individual vote. the extent of voter disenfranchisement is astronomical.

Postby **grunthy** » Tue May 07, 2019 10:23 am

Is there any solid reasoning why awarding EC votes on a proportional basis (Like Maine and Nebraska already do) wouldn't be a better middle ground? Currently, if you're a R in CA, NY, WA, OR, etc. your vote is meaningless. If you're a D in TX, most of the south, etc. your vote is meaningless. People say the EC is a way to ensure every state matters, but in reality most states are locked up before the candidates are even picked and all the winner is chosen by the battleground states.

I agree that a straight popular vote is a bad idea, but I really don't see why awarding the votes proportionally rather than winner take all wouldn't be a valid option. That would force candidates to actually work to get out the vote in every state rather than beginning the election cycle with 10-15 states already in their pockets.
Because it hurts Republican's chances...

I’d argue doing it like Maine does across the USA would hurt democrats more than republicans.

Postby **dodint** » Tue May 07, 2019 10:29 am

Currently, if you're a R in CA, NY, WA, OR, etc. your vote is meaningless. If you're a D in TX, most of the south, etc. your vote is meaningless.
i'd extend this to say that your vote is meaningless whether you're R or D in these cases. if you live in a state where the result is a foregone conclusion, then there's no value in your individual vote. the extent of voter disenfranchisement is astronomical.

Could also be fixed by people not being partly line sheep. It looks like they may have the system they earned and deserve.

Postby **AuthorTony** » Tue May 07, 2019 10:32 am

i'd extend this to say that your vote is meaningless whether you're R or D in these cases. if you live in a state where the result is a foregone conclusion, then there's no value in your individual vote. the extent of voter disenfranchisement is astronomical.

Agreed.

Because it hurts Republican's chances...

I saw one article where Romney would have beat Obama under a proportional system. Not sure how accurate that was, but you have to wonder how many people stay home in states where the outcome is predetermined.

Postby **CBear3** » Tue May 07, 2019 10:32 am

Little g is correct...as long as we are gerrymandering congressional districts 1 party will stand to lose. Since Republicans were in power for the last census, the Democrats would be hurt more by using congressional districts like Maine and Nebraska. It also hasn't caused candidates to start making stops in Nebraska.

Postby **AuthorTony** » Tue May 07, 2019 10:33 am

Could also be fixed by people not being partly line sheep.

But we know that won't happen.

Postby **AuthorTony** » Tue May 07, 2019 10:36 am

Little g is correct...as long as we are gerrymandering congressional districts 1 party will stand to lose. Since Republicans were in power for the last census, the Democrats would be hurt more by using congressional districts like Maine and Nebraska. It also hasn't caused candidates to start making stops in Nebraska.

Yes, I think going with a by district form of a proportional system would be a waste of time. The point would be to do away with gaming the system, at least as much as possible. So why not do it via a direct percentage of the vote? I know it gets tricky because the math is never perfect, but it seems more representative than winner take all.

I also know that a major sticking point to this is that a 3rd party candidates could fowl things up and lead to no candidate getting to 270.