By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sethnintendo 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.

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.

I still think it is a good system when you have a very large country with huge differencies in population density, but only in this specific case. What I do not know if how they calculate the number of delegates per state. Need to look into it. Also I albsolutely hate when politicians want to change rules because they are losing and unfortunately its always the left or fascist leaders doing it.

One bad thing that NOBODY talks about though is how bullshit the popular vote result is. Since in a lot of states your vote may nome matter (being red in california and ny, being bkue in texas) a lot of people just dont go voting and prefer to stay home. So saying that you won college vote but lost popular vote may not be true if 100% of people knew theur vote would matter



Around the Network

this scares me:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/doj-suspend-constitutional-rights-coronavirus-970935/

"The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally protected rights during the coronavirus and other emergencies"

"The DOJ has requested that Congress allow any chief judge of a district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation,” according to draft language obtained by Politico. This would be applicable to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil processes and proceedings.” They justify this by saying currently judges can pause judicial proceedings in an emergency, but that new legislation would allow them to apply it “in a consistent manner.”"

"But the Constitution grants citizens habeas corpus, which gives arrestees the right to appear in front of a judge and ask to be released before trial. Enacting legislation like the DOJ wants would essentially suspend habeas corpus indefinitely until the emergency ended. Further, DOJ asked Congress to suspend the statute of limitations on criminal investigations and civil proceedings during the emergency until a year after it ended.

Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told Politico the measure was “terrifying,” saying, “Not only would it be a violation of [habeas corpus], but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest.’ So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.”

“That is something that should not happen in a democracy,” he added."

Who is ready for Trump to declair Martial law, and round up all protesters.... maybe put them in camps?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rudb7Buhw8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr31WOapGc0

Last edited by JRPGfan - on 18 July 2020

sethnintendo said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

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.

Believe me, taking a piss into a bottle of Kölsch would actually be an improvement for that beer

JRPGfan said:
this scares me:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/doj-suspend-constitutional-rights-coronavirus-970935/

"The Trump Department of Justice has asked Congress to craft legislation allowing chief judges to indefinitely hold people without trial and suspend other constitutionally protected rights during the coronavirus and other emergencies"

"The DOJ has requested that Congress allow any chief judge of a district court to pause court proceedings “whenever the district court is fully or partially closed by virtue of any natural disaster, civil disobedience, or other emergency situation,” according to draft language obtained by Politico. This would be applicable to “any statutes or rules of procedure otherwise affecting pre-arrest, post-arrest, pre-trial, trial, and post-trial procedures in criminal and juvenile proceedings and all civil processes and proceedings.” They justify this by saying currently judges can pause judicial proceedings in an emergency, but that new legislation would allow them to apply it “in a consistent manner.”"

"But the Constitution grants citizens habeas corpus, which gives arrestees the right to appear in front of a judge and ask to be released before trial. Enacting legislation like the DOJ wants would essentially suspend habeas corpus indefinitely until the emergency ended. Further, DOJ asked Congress to suspend the statute of limitations on criminal investigations and civil proceedings during the emergency until a year after it ended.

Norman L. Reimer, executive director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told Politico the measure was “terrifying,” saying, “Not only would it be a violation of [habeas corpus], but it says ‘affecting pre-arrest.’ So that means you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency or the civil disobedience is over. I find it absolutely terrifying. Especially in a time of emergency, we should be very careful about granting new powers to the government.”

“That is something that should not happen in a democracy,” he added."

So the Trump administration, and with it the Republicans at large, are really pushing more and more in direction of a dictatorship. Abe Lincoln would spin around in his grave if he heard what his party has become.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 18 July 2020

EnricoPallazzo said:
sethnintendo said:

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.

I still think it is a good system when you have a very large country with huge differencies in population density, but only in this specific case. What I do not know if how they calculate the number of delegates per state. Need to look into it. Also I albsolutely hate when politicians want to change rules because they are losing and unfortunately its always the left or fascist leaders doing it.

One bad thing that NOBODY talks about though is how bullshit the popular vote result is. Since in a lot of states your vote may nome matter (being red in california and ny, being bkue in texas) a lot of people just dont go voting and prefer to stay home. So saying that you won college vote but lost popular vote may not be true if 100% of people knew theur vote would matter

Your last paragraph is a good reason why not to have winner takes all in the electoral college.  Some people simply don't vote because they know their vote won't count if their state is heavily for a party that they are not.

Like I said earlier my vote has never counted in the state of Texas.  You could keep the electoral college but hand out the states electoral votes for the state based on percentage of votes each candidate receives.  This would make republican vote count in California and democrat vote count in Alabama in the presidential election. 

Sure the biased of votes being more weighted for smaller states would still be there due to the electoral college but at least all the votes would actually matter instead of people who went against the majority of what their state voted for being automatically thrown out.



Tag



Around the Network
EnricoPallazzo said:
sethnintendo said:

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.

I still think it is a good system when you have a very large country with huge differencies in population density, but only in this specific case. What I do not know if how they calculate the number of delegates per state. Need to look into it. Also I albsolutely hate when politicians want to change rules because they are losing and unfortunately its always the left or fascist leaders doing it.

One bad thing that NOBODY talks about though is how bullshit the popular vote result is. Since in a lot of states your vote may nome matter (being red in california and ny, being bkue in texas) a lot of people just dont go voting and prefer to stay home. So saying that you won college vote but lost popular vote may not be true if 100% of people knew theur vote would matter

In America, the left fights for voting equality and a high voter turnout, which is good for them.

On the other hand, the right fights for voting inequality and voter suppression, which is good for them.

Why do you consider the former to be a larger issue?



Most people are divided by definitions.



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 always thought this was a curious argument. In a country where 95% of politics of any given state are done at the state level what benefit is there actually for the smaller states "to be noticed" by federal politics? What do they actually gain from having a presidential candidate calling them out by name and pretending they're worth something?



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster 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.

I always thought this was a curious argument. In a country where 95% of politics of any given state are done at the state level what benefit is there actually for the smaller states "to be noticed" by federal politics? What do they actually gain from having a presidential candidate calling them out by name and pretending they're worth something?

Because in reality it's not actually 95%, the federal government through funding and other initiatives (and institutions) has a large role in the running of the individual states.



 

vivster said:
It's gonna be a sad election either way. Biden is way worse than Hillary. He's gonna do absolutely nothing about any of the issues that people face today. The country needs nothing less than full on Bernie.

Biden is just another establishment shitbag. Bernie is too good a person to win. It's astounding he made it as far as he did.

Ideally, Trump and Biden have stage lights fall on them during a debate.



- "If you have the heart of a true winner, you can always get more pissed off than some other asshole."