By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KLXVER said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

Actually for a huge country like US, Brazil, Russia etc the electoral college makes a lot of sense. Its a long discussion, but US is mainly populated in the coasts, which is overwhelmingly blue. But since you akso need the votes for less populated states your politics neess to also address these people. The day electoral college passes in US you can be sure those states in the middle of the country will be totally forgotten and thebrepublican party will never be elected again.

Its a long discussion, but keep in mind it only makes sese because it is a huge country and with a huge unbalance of population per state.

Well why do you think democrats want that?

Yes. Unless something really big happens trump wont be elected again and with the democrats taking both houses probably they will end electoral college, allow illegal immigrant voting and upen up the gates for mass imigration again. Republicans will never go back to power.

The good thing is thay the political feeling in the country will be much more stable at least for a few decades.



Around the Network
EnricoPallazzo said:
KLXVER said:

Well why do you think democrats want that?

Yes. Unless something really big happens trump wont be elected again and with the democrats taking both houses probably they will end electoral college, allow illegal immigrant voting and upen up the gates for mass imigration again. Republicans will never go back to power.

The good thing is thay the political feeling in the country will be much more stable at least for a few decades.

Yeah, feelings seems to be the most important thing these days.



EnricoPallazzo said:
Immersiveunreality said:

That is a system stuck in time with a need to reform and i hope it does eventually.

Actually for a huge country like US, Brazil, Russia etc the electoral college makes a lot of sense. Its a long discussion, but US is mainly populated in the coasts, which is overwhelmingly blue. But since you akso need the votes for less populated states your politics neess to also address these people. The day electoral college passes in US you can be sure those states in the middle of the country will be totally forgotten and thebrepublican party will never be elected again.

Its a long discussion, but keep in mind it only makes sese because it is a huge country and with a huge unbalance of population per state.

I'm fine with the electoral college if they actually divided up the states electoral votes by the percentage each candidate gets in that state.  Only a couple states actually do this.  The winner takes all aspect of someone getting 51% of the vote yet getting all the votes for the state needs to stop.  I'd like to see you argue for winner takes all.



Ka-pi96 said:
Machiavellian said:

Actually racism is when one race or set of people look down or believe another ethnic group is inferior to the other.  

No, it isn't. You don't need a whole group or race of people to have racism. Just one individual would do. They also don't actually have to think another race is inferior. It's entirely possible somebody could be racist out of jealousy due to thinking another race is superior to them.

Racism is just treating people worse due to their race. Just like sexism is treating people worse because of their sex.

Racism has two different definitions depending on the context. One merely refers to racial prejudice, in which anyone can indeed be racist against another. Another refers to more systematic issues, of which certain groups are affected much more negatively than others (eg. black people in the US have many barriers that white people simply don't have to worry about).



 

Machiavellian said:

Actually racism is when one race or set of people look down or believe another ethnic group is inferior to the other.  

You do not care about something but you demean the people that do with the term snowflake.  You do not have to care or even agree but your choice of words show a lack of understanding or even the basic sensitivity since it doesn't really concern you.  Its not that your kids asked the question about the statue since you missed the point, its the fact that they have to ask a question why someone is celebrated as a hero, who promoted the discrimination, prejudice, racism of black people in America being prominently displayed in public places like a park or public building instead of a museum where the person can learn the history.  Why as a black person in America you have to look upon that statue and know the person who put it there is celebrating your forefathers slavery.  That would be like putting up statues of Hitler in Jewish communities and saying, don't be a snowflake its all history.  While it means nothing for you, you still have to ignore it.  You have to say to yourself this means nothing but actually it does.  It means at one point in history and most of those statues were put in place during the 20th century, someone thought it was ok, to mass produce confederate solider as heroes and dot the south with their statues to celebrate their stance on slavery, discrimination, segregation and prejudice.  While you can say to yourself no big deal, it still sends a message and to allow that message to be a statement within the south, in public places where people of all colors go to, should not be tolerated.  Could it be that this is one of the reason you may be feeling the hate.  When you hold on to your sins but attempt to leave out the bad parts and then promote it as history.  There is a large group of people not very happy your ideal of history and the celebration of it was due to your acceptance of slavery and the celebration of it.

You call it an excuse because you will always easily follow what the media portrays.  Its how this whole concept of black people being violent murdering race has propagated in American society.  If you really care about people not getting pissed off that they riot out in the streets, being more proactive in caring about their issues they have stated for decades would be a way to prevent such incidents.  Not sure where you get your news but I get it from a bunch of different sources, and what I see is a lot of white people mixed in these violent bit of damage and not all of them are protesters.  

Sorry for late reply. You don't have to call it racism, you can call it rainbow sprinkles if you'd like, but semantics aside, it's still unacceptable behavior.

Unless placed in a way that disrupts people, such as in the middle of a street, then yes I don't care and don't believe anyone should waste their time on lifeless statues. That time could be better spent helping real people with real problems. The fact that statues can even be seen as a problem only highlights how good we have it here. Also, the statue and the history behind it are two different things, I can still care about the latter even if not the former. Destroying the statues doesn't change the history so it's pointless. Now you're saying I'm the one leaving out the bad parts of history, yet you're supporting the deletion of historic monuments. I'm against this on principle, since if we're to destroy everything with bad immoral history, we're going to be destroying a lot of shit, namely the whole entire world lolz.

Not sure why white people obviously being mixed in is relevant, but how exactly are you determining who is and isn't a protester? I'm also curious where you get your news from that isn't any form of media. I'm definitely not super informed, most of what I know is from Youtuber's covering things second hand, but there's footage and sources so I doubt it's all fake.



Around the Network
EnricoPallazzo said:
Immersiveunreality said:

That is a system stuck in time with a need to reform and i hope it does eventually.

Actually for a huge country like US, Brazil, Russia etc the electoral college makes a lot of sense. Its a long discussion, but US is mainly populated in the coasts, which is overwhelmingly blue. But since you akso need the votes for less populated states your politics neess to also address these people. The day electoral college passes in US you can be sure those states in the middle of the country will be totally forgotten and thebrepublican party will never be elected again.

Its a long discussion, but keep in mind it only makes sese because it is a huge country and with a huge unbalance of population per state.

But isn't that, like, the entire point of the Senate? The role of the Senate is to ensure that every state is represented by the federal government. It simply doesn't make sense to weigh votes for president in non-equal ways to fill this purpose when this purpose is already filled.

That said, I also don't agree with your premise. It would be far more difficult for a president to win the popular vote if they disregarded the entire middle of the country. Even for Clinton, millions of votes came from these states. On the contrary, as we are now, the interests of a select few swing states are the only ones that actually matter in a presidential general election. Why should a Republican presidential candidate try to appeal to voters in Cali? Why should a Dem candidate try to appeal to voters in Kentucky? Hell, why should anyone do anything for a state whose result is already essentially ensured? The specific interests of these states already aren't being adequately met by our current candidates as a result of the electoral college system. Switching to a popular vote system could make it more important for a president to establish a broad coalition instead of a highly specific one...



As excited as I am for the blue wave that seems to be coming our way in November I'm still worried. As others have mentioned this really could be the last time Republicans have a fighting chance at being competitive in the states just due to demographics.

Good things never come from a single party that has full control, and I would still rather keep a two competitive party system even with the awful current GOP, over a consistently dominant democrat party.



newwil7l said:
As excited as I am for the blue wave that seems to be coming our way in November I'm still worried. As others have mentioned this really could be the last time Republicans have a fighting chance at being competitive in the states just due to demographics.

Good things never come from a single party that has full control, and I would still rather keep a two competitive party system even with the awful current GOP, over a consistently dominant democrat party.

If the GOP can't win in their current iteration they'll just have to adjust their politics to the people to win a majority again. If they'd rather die as a party than change their stances they can die and another party will take their spot in the two party system. 

If a political party gets so off from the people they serve that they can't possibly win they'll just die off or change. And honestly there's no real alternative.  



...

Torillian said:
newwil7l said:
As excited as I am for the blue wave that seems to be coming our way in November I'm still worried. As others have mentioned this really could be the last time Republicans have a fighting chance at being competitive in the states just due to demographics.

Good things never come from a single party that has full control, and I would still rather keep a two competitive party system even with the awful current GOP, over a consistently dominant democrat party.

If the GOP can't win in their current iteration they'll just have to adjust their politics to the people to win a majority again. If they'd rather die as a party than change their stances they can die and another party will take their spot in the two party system. 

If a political party gets so off from the people they serve that they can't possibly win they'll just die off or change. And honestly there's no real alternative.  

I don't even know if they'd really need to change that much. All it would take is for people to get tired of the Democrats before going back to Republicans, as always seems to happen. People get tired of one party and thus just go to the other.



 

Bofferbrauer2 said:
sethnintendo said:
Obviously fake video spoken. No one in their right mind would say natty light beer (natural light) is one of best tasting beers ever. That would almost be like promoting keystone or Milwaukee's best. Anyone that says natty light is best tasting beer deserves to be shot.

Everybody has his tastes. I mean, people in Cologne still drink Kölsch, even though they could be drinking actual beer, like Alt for instance.

Imagine Kolsch with someone taking a piss inside the bottle. That is what natural light taste like.  It's piss beer made for high school and college students.  You have to drink about 20 to remotely get drunk and that is if you haven't pissed it all out before then.   I get your point though.  Everyone does have their own taste.