Poll
Question:
Who has your vote?(last updated 5:30 PM 28/16
Option 1: I'm not voting(includes those who cannot vote for whatever reason)
Option 2: Trump (republican)
Option 3: Hillary (democrats)
Option 4: Jill Stein (Green)
Option 5: Gary Johnson (Libertarian)
Option 6: Other(please post below if you take this one and tell us what it is!)
Welp, here we are again. This election really feels like picking the least poisonous drink.
Feel free to discuss the conventions below, BUT remember the forums rules and be good little demented colony overlords.
EDIT ONE: there is now a part 2 poll going! for those outside of the U.S., there is a new poll exclusively for you. https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=24921.0;viewresults (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=24921.0;viewresults)
Option D - none of the above
Why? See this:
A Vote's Consequence and a Voter's Conscience
"Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever - except the shape of your wn character."
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17420/
I refuse to vote for Trump. I refuse to vote for Hillary. I refuse to abstain from voting.
Quote from: milon on July 28, 2016, 03:55:27 PM
Option D - none of the above
Why? See this:
A Vote's Consequence and a Voter's Conscience
"Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever - except the shape of your wn character."
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2016/07/17420/
I refuse to vote for Trump. I refuse to vote for Hillary. I refuse to abstain from voting.
Ok, Is there another poll option you would like me to add?(may take a while as i'll be reading that link you put up)
From what I understand, the two biggest third parties are Green and Libertarian so Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.
I'd be happy with "Other". But I'm undecided on exactly who at this point. I may exercise the write-in option.
UPDATED POLL
please check if you would rather take a different option if you have already voted.
Sit back in my own country and laugh, and laugh, and laugh. ;)
@ Milon : that was a great article every person from a democratic country should consider
I am not from the U.S. but I feel with you guys and I have no Idea what I would do if I where in your shoes.
The only reason I am interested in this discussion is, that whoever wins will still effect my country :(
I can only hope that the ex-colonists don't screw up as hard as the former empire did. :)
Buy some popcorn and watch the shitshow unfold.
The annoying thing about it, its still 3 month to go till it ends ...
it may be because I am tired .. but this is now the third time I accidently misread elections with an R instead of an L ..
Gary Johnson for me, though between Trump and Hillary I'd take Hillary any day. She will cause less lasting damage.
Depends on your perspective. There's lots of people who think Trump would cause less damage than Hillary. I think they're both terrible presidential candidates, as I said above.
Did she waste all the good karma left over from her husband ?
I still see him as the guy before G.W. hit the fan.
I'm with Milon on this one. they are both terrible candidates, but at least trump isn't a known criminal and traitor. if it were not for her political status, Hillary would be in jail, and maybe even on death row.
seems I missed out on a lot of stuff ..
Well, I can't vote since I'm a Brit. But if I had to choose... I'd Emigrate to Australia.
I wish the american people luck, regardless of who wins.
Me personally, I'm glad that I don't live there and have to vote. Both primary candidates are shitty and I'd probably be inclined to vote independent as a protest.
All I know is that whoever it is, Trump would never be a candidate I'd vote for.
Yeah... That US elections feel like Brazil. Everyone is a crook.
I would probably go for Trump, besides the radical vision, this projects may be stopped by other parties. And a country is a gigantic company, Trump know how to run one.
Trump 2016 and 2024.
Ok, you're Canadian so I'm going to assume you're not making a joke about Supreme Leader Trump and will go ahead and correct you: President of United States can only have two, four year terms.
Quote from: Juan el Demgrafo on August 02, 2016, 11:52:15 PM
Ok, you're Canadian so I'm going to assume you're not making a joke about Supreme Leader Trump and will go ahead and correct you: President of United States can only have two, four year terms.
Where did I imply it was Donald Sr. running in 2024? :P
This is (nearly) the first time in my life that I'm going to post hastags, but here goes:
#NeverHillary #NeverTrump
... Maybe I should move back to Canada?
Hey, even I that live in South America am thinking of moving into Canada. Vancuver just looks AMAZING.
As for the Elections, Obama said that he wanted the opposing side to take Trump out. I didn't know that this was allowed.
Last time it was father-son we spaced it out with another guy, but if he wants, he can.
Here is my take:
Trump is a Republican. Most American's who consider themselves Republican are going to vote for Trump. They would rather have a lobotomy than vote for ANY Democrat. On the other side, I'm afraid there are a lot of Democrats who don't like Hillary (the Bernie Sanders fans). If they don't like Hillary they CERTAINLY don't like Trump. So instead, they vote for someone else because, well, Trump and Hillary both suck.
So, my fear is that the vote will be split on the Democrat side, and no one will get enough votes to beat Trump. Hillary is the only one who CAN beat Trump, so we HAVE to vote for her if we don't want Trump to win.
It's awful that I have to vote for someone I don't like just because I dislike the other one more and It's more important to me that they LOSE than my candidate actually win.
I forgot exactly what was said but it comes down to this: If you live in a swing state where your vote actually matters, then you should take one for the team and vote Hillary. If you live in another state, then you should vote for a third party and try to get attention away from the two bigs.
Quote from: MisterVertigo on August 03, 2016, 05:36:28 PM
Here is my take:
Trump is a Republican. Most American's who consider themselves Republican are going to vote for Trump. They would rather have a lobotomy than vote for ANY Democrat. On the other side, I'm afraid there are a lot of Democrats who don't like Hillary (the Bernie Sanders fans). If they don't like Hillary they CERTAINLY don't like Trump. So instead, they vote for someone else because, well, Trump and Hillary both suck.
So, my fear is that the vote will be split on the Democrat side, and no one will get enough votes to beat Trump. Hillary is the only one who CAN beat Trump, so we HAVE to vote for her if we don't want Trump to win.
It's awful that I have to vote for someone I don't like just because I dislike the other one more and It's more important to me that they LOSE than my candidate actually win.
So you would rather see her in office? what makes her a better candidate than him?
The only thing I know is that the whole Europe is laughing a lot.
In the US you are already not leaving in a real democracy, you vote for puppets that are not real leaders and have no real power.
On the top of this.... you may even have Trump as president. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
In the poll I voted for Trump..... just because on this side we want to laugh a lot :D :D
Quote from: Juan el Demgrafo on August 03, 2016, 06:34:15 PM
I forgot exactly what was said but it comes down to this: If you live in a swing state where your vote actually matters, then you should take one for the team and vote Hillary. If you live in another state, then you should vote for a third party and try to get attention away from the two bigs.
A political handling of politics. I kind of like that.
Quote from: wbonxx on August 03, 2016, 07:37:10 PM
The only thing I know is that the whole Europe is laughing a lot.
In the US you are already not leaving in a real democracy, you vote for puppets that are not real leaders and have no real power.
Europe is laughing after Brexit? I certainly hope not. And the USA isn't a democracy and never was - it's a democratic republic (hence the name of the two major political parties). And our "puppets" are far more powerful than your "puppets", so I'm really not sure what you're getting at...
Sorry if it is not helpful for the topic.
I had to share this
https://g.redditmedia.com/ui0cXEZO9B942C0C9zdV0mZbrfnJkR8jgEiVo_neMrk.gif?w=576&fm=mp4&mp4-fragmented=false&s=6c8cf1cbda3faf027e3604674b20955c (https://g.redditmedia.com/ui0cXEZO9B942C0C9zdV0mZbrfnJkR8jgEiVo_neMrk.gif?w=576&fm=mp4&mp4-fragmented=false&s=6c8cf1cbda3faf027e3604674b20955c)
Quote from: Flying Rockbass on August 04, 2016, 10:38:49 AM
Sorry if it is not helpful for the topic.
I had to share this
https://g.redditmedia.com/ui0cXEZO9B942C0C9zdV0mZbrfnJkR8jgEiVo_neMrk.gif?w=576&fm=mp4&mp4-fragmented=false&s=6c8cf1cbda3faf027e3604674b20955c (https://g.redditmedia.com/ui0cXEZO9B942C0C9zdV0mZbrfnJkR8jgEiVo_neMrk.gif?w=576&fm=mp4&mp4-fragmented=false&s=6c8cf1cbda3faf027e3604674b20955c)
*wipes away tears*(Was I laughing or crying? I'll let you decide.)
The entire prospect of the us ELECTIONS is fubared, and the 2 party system, messed up media (on both sides) lobbyism, electoral college, ect all makes the election an entire joke.
But given the options, trump would cause less damage than Hilary I think. I don't like the idea of frankenfoods, SJW bs getting more power, BLM support, and even more open migration, potentially with isis members (because it worked so well in the EU) nor do I think it would be worth any positives Hilary supposedly brings.
I love seeing the arguments
"but if you vote for <insert 3rd party candidate here> than the person i dont like might win because <ill-concieved logic here>."
Or
"Your wasting your vote because they arent going to win, so you should vote for <insert D or R candidate here> so the person i dont like wins."
Its not wadting your vote if you pick a candidate you would actually want in the office as compared to just voting for someone you think is the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is how we got into this shit show in the first place. Every 4 years, ive heard these same arguments pop in and out of existence like hawking radiation. No one bats an eye at the hypocracy of these spoken statements. This years electing was a little different in that 2 had to candidates that didnt mesh well with the status quo. Bernie and Trump. Bernie eventually came to lick the boot on hillary and pretended he didnt spend the last 9+ months highlight why she is the worse person for office. Party unity means nothing if you are backing a person that isnt representing you or your best interests. Trump is very against the grain with his wild speeches and proposals. He has no substantive platform and only got to where he is by being a showman. Hillary is beyond fake and should have been indicted like anyone else if they did what she did. She holds no opinion or stance, she changes with the polls and she uses the fact that she has a vagina as a proping up point on why you should vote for her. Gill Stein has 0 experience outside of her very narrow field of expertise and i dont have a clue about gary beyond the fact he is a libritarian.
As it stands, I wouldnt vote for any of the remaining candidates. Id have to look into Gary and see what his platform is before i could make an informed decision. As a side note though, those that abstain from voting are part of the democratic process as well. If they arent informed enough or have enough of a care to participate than i wouldnt want them voting. Obviously i would love for everyone to be active in their govt both local and federal but that isnt tbe case in real life. So people abstaining, in my mind isnt a undemocratic.
Actually, first thing is kinda true. If i vote for someone who has no chance of winning, my vote is equal to if i didn't vote, wiped my butt with my vote, or set my vote on fire. The electoral college doesn't help either, if say, ron paul got a consistent 40 % vote in EVERY State, and all states then hade landslides of 50% for R / D, ron paul would still end up with 0 electoral votes, even if the ballot count per person was almost double any other candidate.
Ron paul is just an example, but it shows how completely wrong our "democracy" is.
Its been a while since I've researched this, so feel free to correct me if I'm off. But this is how i remember it, and really it screws stuff HARD if there is a 3rd party.
People talk about 1st woman, or gay president (Obama is the first gay) how about the first 3rd party president?
User was warned for this and following posts. Reason: violation of Forum Rule #5: Stay On Topic
Forum Rules: https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=122.0
5. Stay on topic: Please try to stay on topic.
Ask yourself: Am I answering the author of the topic? Does this relate to the title of the topic? If you want to discuss something else, make a thread!
Original Post:
Quote from: billycop32 on July 28, 2016, 03:49:14 PM
Welp, here we are again. This election really feels like picking the least poisonous drink.
Feel free to discuss the conventions below, BUT remember the forums rules and be good little demented colony overlords.
Voting for who you want in office is very a waste regardless of what their chances of winning are. This isnt a highschool poll. We arent voting for most likely to succeed.
I have a couple questions for you.
Do you think a candidate must be willing to do an unpopular act if its to the benifit of those that voted them in?
What do you mean by obama being gay?
What do you propose as an alternative form of govt as opposed to what we currently have?
If a candidate is honest, hopefully. popularity shouldn't be a factor, but todays media is retarded, everyone uses fallacies and omits truths.
Obama is gay because michelle obama is actually micheal. Michelle is a man, you can tell by the bone structure, shoulders, big hands, and a particular segment on ellen degeneris where you could see the penis bouncing around in his pants when they were doing a dance. Some may say this is still straight, but I beg to differ. Theres no such thing as a feminine penis.
An alternative form would be 100% IMPARTIAL MEDIA first off, which reports FACTS on it, and ONLY FACTS. 2 party system, eliminated, and dissolving the democratic and republican party entirely (the promises one needs to make to be backed up by either party). removal of ALL personal stuff from politics unless it can be argued to have an effect on politics. Removal of electoral college, make the vote PERSON BASED. Strict, id verification for voters to ensure no fake votes. IQ test for voting required (nothing nuts, but nothing sub 75) to ensure no voters are pants on head retarded. Revision, and case by case basis for felonies in voting prevention (allow it, and perhaps dissolve felonies if behavior stays consistent for 3+ years, depending on what crime entails)
Quote from: mumblemumble on August 20, 2016, 10:24:56 PM
If a candidate is honest, hopefully. popularity shouldn't be a factor, but todays media is retarded, everyone uses fallacies and omits truths
Humans arent honest by nature so that isnt really something id bank on. I also think you misunderstood my question. I was asking if you agree that the person you are voting into office may need to do things you dont think are best/right/ect but you trust that they are doing it because they have knowledge that you dont.
QuoteObama is gay because michelle obama is actually micheal. Michelle is a man, you can tell by the bone structure, shoulders, big hands, and a particular segment on ellen degeneris where you could see the penis bouncing around in his pants when they were doing a dance. Some may say this is still straight, but I beg to differ. Theres no such thing as a feminine penis.
uhhh... So explain their kids? Im not really going to entertain a rumor. Seems rather childish to attack a person as such using pseudo-science and half baked conspiracy. There are plenty of pictures of Beyonce looking pretty manly but that doesnt make the assertion correct.
QuoteAn alternative form would be 100% IMPARTIAL MEDIA first off, which reports FACTS on it, and ONLY FACTS. 2 party system, eliminated, and dissolving the democratic and republican party entirely (the promises one needs to make to be backed up by either party). removal of ALL personal stuff from politics unless it can be argued to have an effect on politics. Removal of electoral college, make the vote PERSON BASED. Strict, id verification for voters to ensure no fake votes. IQ test for voting required (nothing nuts, but nothing sub 75) to ensure no voters are pants on head retarded. Revision, and case by case basis for felonies in voting prevention (allow it, and perhaps dissolve felonies if behavior stays consistent for 3+ years, depending on what crime entails)
The media has nothing to do with a form of gov't. There are impartial media outlets out there that actually have journalistic integrity. They just arent popular because they're boring. However, again this isnt something sanctioned through the government thus isnt apart of it. Eliminate the two party system and then what? The democratic and republican parties are made up by the electorate. Dissolving that means nothing. These people will still have the same ideals. Anything can be argued to have an effect on something. Especially if that person is a representative of that something. Thats the meaning of semantics and politicians and lawyers are very good on drawing on that skill.
The electoral college is a means to prevent the tyranny of the majority. Its the last safeguard if the American people try to bring into power a person that can become a dictator or undo the government as a whole. Its meant to be a means to ignore the will of the people if the will of the people falls within the bounds of insanity. Any representative democracy will inherently be less democratic than its direct cousin. When you ask for NPV (National Popular Vote) You are asking for a whole different sent of problems. If you want to know what I am talking about then you need to look no further than Mexico. They run on a NPV system and not too long ago the winner had 35.89% of the vote while the loser had 35.31%. The loser practically started a civil war with his millions of followers because of the loss of less than 1%. If the loser wanted a recount, you would have to recount every single hundreds of millions of ballots. Which takes time and money and this could literally cripple the economy and legislation. "People who pretend that the Electoral College system is undemocratic are not only ignorant of the history and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, but they probably don't even understand baseball. Basing the election on a plurality of the popular vote while ignoring the states would be like the New York Yankees claiming they won the 1960 World Series because they outscored the Pirates in runs 55-27 and in hits 91-60. Yet, the Pirates fairly won that World Series, 4 games to 3, and no one challenges their victory." -Phyllis Schlafly
Voter fraud happens in such low frequency is a waste of public tax dollars to try and prevent a crime that is less popular than J-walking. You would prevent Americans from being able to participate in the democratic method? I thought thats why you wanted to abolish the electoral college? Also high IQ doesnt mean a person will make smart decisions about politics. I dont really have a comment for the felonies thing. Im not left or right on that issue.
Quote from: mumblemumble on August 20, 2016, 10:24:56 PM
Obama is gay because michelle obama is actually micheal. Michelle is a man, you can tell by the bone structure, shoulders, big hands, and a particular segment on ellen degeneris where you could see the penis bouncing around in his pants when they were doing a dance. Some may say this is still straight, but I beg to differ. Theres no such thing as a feminine penis.
STRIKE ONE/WARNING: Mumble, I won't allow this kind of stuff on my poll. keep this political, not body shaming or conjecture. whether or not the first lady is now the first man is none of our business, and has no place in this debate.
I don't really agree, generally speaking that public shouldn't have information. SO no, I don't agree with someone doing this, but I know it will happen.
The kids are possibly adopted? Cmon, you can give ANY 2 people kids, doesn't mean THEY had them..... Would also explain how they act. As for beyonce, I think you are speaking of one, stars are in makeup / airbrushed ect, 24/7, so looking without makeup is hideous by comparison. This an African decent people have higher testosterone on average for males and females.
Media is a HUGE part, they control what people think about, guide attetion onto certain things, and mark what is "socially acceptable". This wont control everyone, but it controls a mass majority.
Disolving the parties, I mean basically wipe the slate clean. Currently republicans, and democrats, if they want support from either party must sign something basically guaranteeing a decision on certain things. I'm essentially saying take THAT group, forcing that, destroy them, and then start over without it. This way its not ultra polarized.
>tyranny of the majority
You fucking what? Sorry, this is the stupidest stuff I've heard in a LONG time, when a govornment fears the people that is liberty. And a dictator getting in power isn't THAT less unlikely due to the college, not in the slightest. All this means is a big way to manipulate votes, and control power. Your comparison to baseball is also shit : its not which party has the most money, which has the most guns, which is the loudest, but who the most of exist. College was made for back in the days before electronics, and was never gotten rid of. Besides that, tyranny of majority is already protected by CONGRESS being different.
Fraud is hard to tell how often it happens. How often do people get murdered and never get caught? Well, depends.... How many cold case disapearings would you count? We don't know how much voter fraud happens, because the counted cases are CAUGHT cases. Shitty argument.
IQ is important because if someone is completely devoid of intelligence, they fall for the media thing listed above. Also your defense is similar to saying a blind person should be allowed to drive, because seeing people crash too. Shitty argument. If people are that low in intelligence, I don't trust them to be smart enough to pick someone to run the nation.
Felonies aren't even left or right : Theres a huge difference between say, a guy who rode a bus without paying, got charged (this is theft of government resources, a FELONY) compared to rape, murder, human trafficking, ect.
Quote from: mumblemumble on August 20, 2016, 10:24:56 PM
Obama is gay because michelle obama is actually micheal. Michelle is a man, you can tell by the bone structure, shoulders, big hands, and a particular segment on ellen degeneris where you could see the penis bouncing around in his pants when they were doing a dance. Some may say this is still straight, but I beg to differ. Theres no such thing as a feminine penis.
(http://i.giphy.com/jSxK33dwEMbkY.gif)
I've now officially decided that you're simply a troll on this forum.
Oh my Pastafarian god ! Mumble you really give us quite a laugh here.
It's just a shame you make some relatively valid opinion look utter nonsense by association.
Anyway, to answer someone who is certain to have a IQ above 75 :
Quote from: KillTyrant on August 21, 2016, 01:10:45 AM
"People who pretend that the Electoral College system is undemocratic are not only ignorant of the history and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, but they probably don't even understand baseball.
Careful, I know you are answering Mumblemuble but don't put everybody else at his level...
The Electoral College system was never
meant as a safeguard, it is a old relic of history, born when it was more an Union of distinct state than the super-polity it is trying to be nowadays, It was
revised several time but mostly continue as it is out of
Bureaucratic Inertia,
Fear of change and
legit difficulty to do so.
I'd dare you to change it now with Trump around and very emotional people (yet given huge power) looking for anything that would support their interest.
I shudder to think that I'm backing that guy but "The Tyranny of the majority" don't apply with a correctly made Democracy (I say that from a country which use a Two-round system but I'm not taking it as the basis for it).
The point of Democracy isn't to "confront the populace" to a set of ideas that have been pre-approved by neo-dictators giving no alternative. While you can of course generate approval (by more or less ethic way), Democracy is
mainly about candidate reading
what the population want for change, and trying to build it along what you* (as a president) want to do with the country.
As a result there's nothing bad or illogical in (say) Sander deciding to join with Clinton, the objective was not to brainwash more populace to your cause, it was to get your (and your supporters) ideas becoming a reality. And you can't do that if the one elected don't care the slightest bit about those.
*I don't think we can't remove the Ego from the equation, even if we were to leave computer & mathematic principle in charge, the Ego would simply shift to whoever build the computer or round-up the
details.
On the opposite, the American Electoral College do in fact facilitate madman/tyrant to get the power (proof right now, Trump is "an insane candidate" by your standard), as they have less people to convince (from less social class) or bribe and then by giving them more legitimacy than they actually have.
There's nothing bad in a 51% election win (if the count is considered reliable), but it is absurd to pretend a 51% support translate into 70% because you asked less peoples.
[/personal opinions]
After reading through your retort I think im going to take you alot less seriously. Ill still respond but you seem to have your head firmly placed up your seventh planet.
Quote from: mumblemumble on August 21, 2016, 04:54:16 AM
I don't really agree, generally speaking that public shouldn't have information. SO no, I don't agree with someone doing this, but I know it will happen. Quote
You are failing to comprehend my point. So ill give you an example. You think you dont have cancer. However, the oncologist you willingly went to, does.
QuoteThe kids are possibly adopted? Cmon, you can give ANY 2 people kids, doesn't mean THEY had them..... Would also explain how they act. As for beyonce, I think you are speaking of one, stars are in makeup / airbrushed ect, 24/7, so looking without makeup is hideous by comparison. This an African decent people have higher testosterone on average for males and females.
This is quite frankly the stupidest thing I have read so far on this forum. As for the African bit, Please present your source for that claim.
QuoteMedia is a HUGE part, they control what people think about, guide attetion onto certain things, and mark what is "socially acceptable". This wont control everyone, but it controls a mass majority.Quote
The media is protected by freedom of the press and freedom of speech. If someone wants to say in the news that michelle obama is a man, than they have the freedom to do so (although you are potentially at risk for libel slander). Its up to the people themselves to decide to what they listen to. As I stated, there are alot of impartial media outlets out there that say what the facts are without opinion spin. By trying to forcefully negate this part of society, you will only drive it underground all while convincing the tinfoil wearing morons that because these news outlets are being dissolved, because they are speaking the truth thus they have to be silenced.
QuoteDisolving the parties, I mean basically wipe the slate clean. Currently republicans, and democrats, if they want support from either party must sign something basically guaranteeing a decision on certain things. I'm essentially saying take THAT group, forcing that, destroy them, and then start over without it. This way its not ultra polarized.
You do understand that you need division in peoples mentalities. Even though I dont not agree with most of what youre saying, I fully appreciate the fact that you are here saying it because it forces the issues at hand and gives a different perspective. When you have an echo chamber where people just yes each other, you are liable to make stupidity decisions at the behest of the group you represent. Having that polarization prevents a potentially harmful bill/law/amendment from passing through without it being impeded. Obviously there are pros and cons because this impediment happens to "good" bills/laws/amendments but if its has enough bipartisan support than it will pass regardless.
Quote>tyranny of the majority
You fucking what? Sorry, this is the stupidest stuff I've heard in a LONG time, when a govornment fears the people that is liberty. And a dictator getting in power isn't THAT less unlikely due to the college, not in the slightest. All this means is a big way to manipulate votes, and control power. Your comparison to baseball is also shit : its not which party has the most money, which has the most guns, which is the loudest, but who the most of exist. College was made for back in the days before electronics, and was never gotten rid of. Besides that, tyranny of majority is already protected by CONGRESS being different.
"Contrary to modern perceptions, the founding generation did not intend to create a direct democracy. To the contrary, the Founders deliberately created a republic -- or, arguably, a republican democracy -- that would incorporate a spirit of compromise and deliberation into decision-making. Such a form of government, the Founders believed, would allow them to achieve two potentially conflicting objectives: avoiding the "tyranny of the majority" inherent in pure democratic systems, while allowing the "sense of the people" to be reflected in the new American government" -
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/11/the-electoral-college-enlightened-democracy
Other related links should you actually educate yourself
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/detoc/1_ch15.htm - Read "TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY"
Your presuppositions are astounding. Liberal or republican at the end of the day means nothing. they are both ideologies are are subject to blind fanaticism. The electoral college is meant to be a safeguard against such emotional banter from the masses and have "educated" people cast the final votes.
BTW- The baseball analogy was a quote hence why I put it in quotations and gave it credit to who said it.
QuoteFraud is hard to tell how often it happens. How often do people get murdered and never get caught? Well, depends.... How many cold case disapearings would you count? We don't know how much voter fraud happens, because the counted cases are CAUGHT cases. Shitty argument.
You cant be really making this kind of comparison... Murder and other violent crimes are much more common than voter fraud. Can you present a valid case for this kind of layer of security being added to warrant the economic burden? I mean, can you present hard numbers that actually so that voter fraud is a big deal. Because right now it seems like you are saying "we dont know" and I think something that is a rampant issue would most definitely be "known"
QuoteIQ is important because if someone is completely devoid of intelligence, they fall for the media thing listed above. Also your defense is similar to saying a blind person should be allowed to drive, because seeing people crash too. Shitty argument. If people are that low in intelligence, I don't trust them to be smart enough to pick someone to run the nation.
<insert Morpheus meme here>
What if I told you that the electoral college was comprised of people with higher than 100 IQ.
By the way, comparing my logical argument to something else that is completely outlandish is rather dishonest of you especially when I was pointing out the clear hypocrisy within your own template.
QuoteFelonies aren't even left or right : Theres a huge difference between say, a guy who rode a bus without paying, got charged (this is theft of government resources, a FELONY) compared to rape, murder, human trafficking, ect.
I wasnt refering to the political spectrum. I meant I didnt care enough to actually place an argument for or against. However, if I had to pick a stance. I would agree that non-violent felonies shouldnt be stripped of their constitutional rights.
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 21, 2016, 09:56:23 AM
Oh my Pastafarian god ! Mumble you really give us quite a laugh here.
It's just a shame you make some relatively valid opinion look utter nonsense by association.
Anyway, to answer someone who is certain to have a IQ above 75 :
Quote from: KillTyrant on August 21, 2016, 01:10:45 AM
"People who pretend that the Electoral College system is undemocratic are not only ignorant of the history and purposes of the U.S. Constitution, but they probably don't even understand baseball.
Careful, I know you are answering Mumblemuble but don't put everybody else at his level...
The Electoral College system was never meant as a safeguard, it is a old relic of history, born when it was more an Union of distinct state than the super-polity it is trying to be nowadays, It was revised several time but mostly continue as it is out of Bureaucratic Inertia, Fear of change and legit difficulty to do so.
I'd dare you to change it now with Trump around and very emotional people (yet given huge power) looking for anything that would support their interest.
I shudder to think that I'm backing that guy but "The Tyranny of the majority" don't apply with a correctly made Democracy (I say that from a country which use a Two-round system but I'm not taking it as the basis for it).
The point of Democracy isn't to "confront the populace" to a set of ideas that have been pre-approved by neo-dictators giving no alternative. While you can of course generate approval (by more or less ethic way), Democracy is mainly about candidate reading what the population want for change, and trying to build it along what you* (as a president) want to do with the country.
As a result there's nothing bad or illogical in (say) Sander deciding to join with Clinton, the objective was not to brainwash more populace to your cause, it was to get your (and your supporters) ideas becoming a reality. And you can't do that if the one elected don't care the slightest bit about those.
*I don't think we can't remove the Ego from the equation, even if we were to leave computer & mathematic principle in charge, the Ego would simply shift to whoever build the computer or round-up the details.
On the opposite, the American Electoral College do in fact facilitate madman/tyrant to get the power (proof right now, Trump is "an insane candidate" by your standard), as they have less people to convince (from less social class) or bribe and then by giving them more legitimacy than they actually have.
There's nothing bad in a 51% election win (if the count is considered reliable), but it is absurd to pretend a 51% support translate into 70% because you asked less peoples.
[/personal opinions]
When i get a free moment, i shall respond. Im just putting this reply here as a place holder. Please check back within a day or so for this being edited into a proper response
think what you want, but review pictures of michelle.
Hands are huge, bigger than mine. Shoulders are very broad. Face is highly masculine, and ellen degeneris clearly shows SOMETHING bouncing.
No full on proof, but I'm doubtful, plus that one lady in hollywood said he was, and ended up dead not long after.
The difference with an oncologist (if they are worth their salt) is that they will SHOW the information they have. you guys specifically brought up a decision made for us on information we don't have. Transparency is important, lack of it leaves room for deception. A doctor once told me my hand was just fractured after an incident, but then refused to show xrays. I told them to fuck off.
African genetics and testosterone : http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/89/3/188.full https://chancellorfiles.wordpress.com/2006/02/24/black-women-and-sexual-genetics/ Keep in mind, second one is opinionated with a lot of unfounded opinions AFTER (that black women are thus stronger and more sexy to all races.... because you know, opinions have no meaning.) also video of her on ellen https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvAxiHEezeM not hard proof, but extremely indicative, also pictures of her bone structure indicate its male. http://anthropogeny.com/Testosterone%20and%20Socioeconomic%20Differences%20in%20Mortality.htm Video on male / female proportions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpD5EdXvluw
The excuses on the college are just that : excuses. No matter how you slice it, you say that the majority DOESN'T matter, and random lies, and districts matter more than the people "because reasons". I think if more people vote for someone, they should get in. Even if elections are expensive counting more votes, I think its well worth it for a more "true" democracy.
Problem with media is most media is paid for by companies who don't have our interests, ignore REAL issue, and focus on BS like bruce jenner and stuff rather than things which effect us. Mass shootings are also glorified, encouraging more of them, arguments are misrepresented, facts are omitted, and facts are ignored, while arguments are constantly fallacious. I don't care for most media, ESPECIALLY not hollywood : To be honest, if hollywood got bombed to dust TODAY, I would shrug and smile, and go on with my life, content that negative things have been removed.
Again, with fraud, if you have huge openings, and no way to DETECT (like just walk in and vote, no ID needed) then how are you going to TELL if someone is cheating? Its like having a big room full of money people walk in and out of, and 0 logs of how much is there, how much is taken out or put in.... how the hell will you even TELL if people are grabbing money if theres no way to TRACK it? Same issue with voting, having no way to ID people means theres 0 way to track if someone votes 20 times in different areas. This is why I suggest ID laws, so its at very least always trackable, a bit more than now.
Electoral colleges having high IQ is irrelevant, serial killers also have high IQ, so stating group is trustworthy based on IQ is dumb. Maybe they do things right (according to their rules, at least) but I wouldn't trust someone based on IQ alone, ever.
Well, Hillary Clinton is the devil, Gary Johnson supports Black Lives Matter, Jill Stein wants female quotas, so if I lived in the US, I'd vote Trump.
@mumblemumble, you're on thin ice. You've received an official warning for off-topic posting and thread hijacking (yet again). This thread is NOT about President Obama or his sexual preferences or his spouse's gender. You will abide by the forum rules which are pre-requisite for membership here, or you will lose your forum membership.
@Everyone else: thank you all for staying basically on topic. Political discussions can be extremely emotionally charged and opinionated. Continue the good discussion if you can/desire. If anyone feels they can't post constructively, refrain from posting.
I apologize for the interruption, and now return you all to the original discussion at hand.
Quote from: KillTyrant on August 21, 2016, 12:28:39 PM
When i get a free moment, i shall respond. Im just putting this reply here as a place holder. Please check back within a day or so for this being edited into a proper response
Actually... I think the links you have provided to Mumble now tell me enough about your reasons to think that.
Maybe the breaking point is that the "founding father", despite their stated
intents, may not have
in fact achieved something that was a democracy or a system that actually/also protected from Tyranny. (reminder : Slavery was legal at the time)
It's clear that I don't iconize the founding father or consider them at the source of everything, but at least we have analyze what the E-C actually do in practice.
I'll be waiting for your edit or future answer.
UPDATE: I've modified the initial post, please take a look!
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 22, 2016, 07:08:28 PM
Quote from: KillTyrant on August 21, 2016, 12:28:39 PM
When i get a free moment, i shall respond. Im just putting this reply here as a place holder. Please check back within a day or so for this being edited into a proper response
Actually... I think the links you have provided to Mumble now tell me enough about your reasons to think that.
Maybe the breaking point is that the "founding father", despite their stated intents, may not have in fact achieved something that was a democracy or a system that actually/also protected from Tyranny. (reminder : Slavery was legal at the time)
It's clear that I don't iconize the founding father or consider them at the source of everything, but at least we have analyze what the E-C actually do in practice.
I'll be waiting for your edit or future answer.
I dont idolize the founders of the USA. I actively seek to avoid falling for the whole "cult of personality" bit. However, as a sort of aside from my answer I will say this. A person can accomplish great things despite their future failings. (ie I can celebrate Thomas Jefferson accomplished despite him owning people as that doesnt tarnish what his accomplishments were). With that aside done, I brought up the founding fathers as they were the reason the EC was implemented initially. The principal was to put a limiter on the will of the people because a large group of people that actively seek the same thing regardless of the validity of of said thing can be a very dangerous weapon in the hands of a cunning and crafty would-be tyrant (put not intended). Any system of power has room for corruption and/or misuse as humans are liable for being corrupt and misusing power for personal gain. There isnt a thing that can be done about that aside from giving power to unfeeling and unambitious automatons. While I dont agree with the plutocracy-lite the EC potentially brings to The Republic, I can at least understand why it exists. Whether its still needed or even accomplishes its set out goal is definitely up for debate. Im just curious what a viable alternative at this stage of the game would be.
I find that the way you phrased "why it exist" assume the reasoning* was correct in the first place. It's illogical to be wary of EC increased risk of Plutocracy, yet, not make the parallel that it mean it fail at protecting against Tyrant**.
* : a large and diverse population isn't more likely to vote for a would-be-TrumTyrant, quite the contrary.
** : Unless one confuse it with the reasons that led to the "separation of power" (Legislative, Executive & Judicial) which is what actually prevent that whoever get president don't get to bypass everybody.
It's clear that it would be irresponsible to change the system "at this point of the (electoral campaign)" any change would have to be done after and accomplished well before the next election.
Quote from: Kegereneku on August 25, 2016, 03:20:38 PM
I find that the way you phrased "why it exist" assume the reasoning* was correct in the first place. It's illogical to be wary of EC increased risk of Plutocracy, yet, not make the parallel that it mean it fail at protecting against Tyrant**.
* : a large and diverse population isn't more likely to vote for a would-be-TrumTyrant, quite the contrary.
** : Unless one confuse it with the reasons that led to the "separation of power" (Legislative, Executive & Judicial) which is what actually prevent that whoever get president don't get to bypass everybody.
It's clear that it would be irresponsible to change the system "at this point of the (electoral campaign)" any change would have to be done after and accomplished well before the next election.
You first point of conjecture can be easily side stepped by pointing to the many different ideologies that exist. From religious to political. These ideologies unite people from vastly different backgrounds to agree on a common goal even if they dont have a stance or agree with every action said group does.
The separation of power only works if the electorate enforce it via voting. You also have to take into consideration that these powers arent static. For instance, the judicial branch increases in power over time as more laws pass that later require supreme court interpretation.
Its not illogical to know the risks of something and still accept it. Its rather dishonest to suggest such a thing. Every system has inherent risks to it. I dont trust my peers to be properly informed to make choices that affect everyone. Social media and other instant platforms gives you a nice vantage point to look through the looking glass. Id be more than open to potentially better alternative but most alternatives presented are more akin to a direct democracy which can fall prey to mob rule. So you would need a system that allows everyones voice (through the vote) but at the same time can counter act the inherent risks of such a system.
Basically, I'm looking for a candidate that can transform gyms into club casinos with the loser of the bet, of whatever club dues are charged, having to deliver mail for the day, help out at elderly homes or help collect trash. I mean, I'm not looking for the current system to be reformed into something more constructive.
As such, I hope this nation doesn't become a complete welfare state with companies entirely dependent on government subsidies. Then we would be no better off than North Korea. If more people could pitch in and stop whining about it I think we could put a man on the moon again. That would be something.
Quote from: buttflexspireling on August 26, 2016, 12:47:11 AM
Basically, I'm looking for a candidate that can transform gyms into club casinos with the loser of the bet, of whatever club dues are charged, having to deliver mail for the day, help out at elderly homes or help collect trash. I mean, I'm not looking for the current system to be reformed into something more constructive.
Ill be honest. This kinda looks like word salad.
QuoteAs such, I hope this nation doesn't become a complete welfare state with companies entirely dependent on government subsidies. Then we would be no better off than North Korea. If more people could pitch in and stop whining about it I think we could put a man on the moon again. That would be something.
I agree that corporate welfare needs to be reigned in. That companies like walmart that not only uses corporate welfare as a means of helping itself but by using the government to help pay for its employees via food stamps and other social programs. Im not really 100% sure where I fall on the spectrum of minimum wage as I havent done enough of my own reading and research but obviously you dont want people being stuck at a job because they cant save enough. That said, the interest in space has waned since the 70's and NASA's budget has been slashed considerable over the last couple decades. If people petition their local gov't officials to vote for increased funding for NASA I think that will satisfy your "man on the moon" point. However, I think a more pressing issue (as much as i love astronomy) is the crumbling infrastructure of the USA. From water pipes that are still lined with lead as well a very large percentage of older homes having lead based paint. To the aging rail and highway/bridges. The USA is falling behind in alot of these important sectors that dont directly make money and cost ALOT to fix and maintain but it allows commerce and industry to flourish. As well as easier movement of the populous.
Whining and griping are usually the first steps towards dealing with a problem. There is a balance requires between action and conciseness.
Quote from: Flying Rockbass on August 02, 2016, 07:50:38 AM
Yeah... That US elections feel like Brazil. Everyone is a crook.
I would probably go for Trump, besides the radical vision, this projects may be stopped by other parties. And a country is a gigantic company, Trump know how to run one.
I would disagree on two counts; first a country is definitely not a gigantic company - a country, or it's government, has responsibility for the quality of life of all it's citizens. A company's first and foremost responsibility is feduciary, that is, make money for it's shareholders.
Second, that Trump knows how to run a country. Trump's business acumen isn't spotless, and he's not nearly as rich as he'd like you to believe. But more importantly, do you really want your country to be run as a business venture? Think that one through,
please.
Well said, Fluffly!
And I would add one more thing to a country's list of responsibilities - playing well with the other countries in the sandbox. (Maybe this is just my opinion or wish or naivety, but it's important to me.) I have no faith that Trump would do anything good for international relations.
Quote from: milon on August 26, 2016, 01:31:01 PM
I have no faith that Trump would do anything good for international relations.
do we know if gary or jill would play nice? hilirary's policy in the past is appeasement, and that policy scares me more than trump's. (germany, pre WW2 anyone?)
To shed some light regarding the Electoral College from my full two weeks of experience in AP Gov:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vQYGXiDVeZpdiWHFp4OhqwmhgOd2iwOGlLKeP165DUI/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vQYGXiDVeZpdiWHFp4OhqwmhgOd2iwOGlLKeP165DUI/edit?usp=sharing)
tl;dr: The Constitution was a practical political document meant to hurry up and get rid of the Articles of Confederation and replace them with a functional government.
i just dropped in to say, these statements are awesome.
Quote from: milon on July 28, 2016, 03:55:27 PM
A Vote's Consequence and a Voter's Conscience
"Vote as if your ballot determines nothing whatsoever - except the shape of your own character."
Quote from: KillTyrant on August 20, 2016, 07:33:23 PM
"but if you vote for <insert 3rd party candidate here> then the person i don't like might win because <ill-concieved logic here>."
Or
"You're wasting your vote because they aren't going to win, so you should vote for <insert D or R candidate here> so the person i don't like wins."
Its not wasting your vote if you pick a candidate you would actually want in the office as compared to just voting for someone you think is the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils is how we got into this shit show in the first place.
Quote from: KillTyrant on August 25, 2016, 09:19:10 PM
You first point of conjecture can be easily side stepped by pointing to the many different ideologies that exist. From religious to political. These ideologies unite people from vastly different backgrounds to agree on a common goal even if they dont have a stance or agree with every action said group does.
The separation of power only works if the electorate enforce it via voting. You also have to take into consideration that these powers arent static. For instance, the judicial branch increases in power over time as more laws pass that later require supreme court interpretation.
Its not illogical to know the risks of something and still accept it. Its rather dishonest to suggest such a thing. Every system has inherent risks to it. I dont trust my peers to be properly informed to make choices that affect everyone. Social media and other instant platforms gives you a nice vantage point to look through the looking glass. Id be more than open to potentially better alternative but most alternatives presented are more akin to a direct democracy which can fall prey to mob rule. So you would need a system that allows everyones voice (through the vote) but at the same time can counter act the inherent risks of such a system.
It's true that long existing ideological group (from party-wide to country-wide) do easily suffer from "mob mentality" but that's still more secure than one individual given the same voting power as the mobs but with not necessarily wiser, less susceptible to bias, corruption ...or willing to defend your quality of life rather than his own.
It's nice to believe in "wise & competent
elitepeers who chose other wise people to lead dumb populace to greater place", but unless you built/enforce a system that you know will make sure they are wise and force them to defend the quality of life of their "peers", you are only letting a bunch of person rules you.
Of course, that's up to anybody to believe it's best for them or mankind, "The people want a king !"
Hell, I don't count the number of Science-fiction where a single-man made himself GOD through technology and rules over all of humanity in a way "portrayed as good".
However you are wrong about how "separation of power" work, the damn things work precisely because is not dependent on the number of voters (only the finesse of the decision suffer).
The concept also never existed as a 33% vs 33% vs 33 % balance of power like you phrased it. The Legislative branch don't get to enforce the laws it create, The Judicial branch don't get to make the law it enforce and the Executive don't get to (easily) rewrite the rules and make himself Emperor-God.
Thus the number of laws don't change any "balance of power", it only make change slower, which can actually be what you want to prevent a accidentally-elected dictator from destroying any recourse you have against him.
At least, it work as long as you don't defend how it's meant to work. This isn't because the system isn't perfect and corruption-proof that you should burn it all and let the "1%" write & apply (distinct power) their own laws.
Quote from: Juan el Demgrafo on August 26, 2016, 09:32:02 PM
To shed some light regarding the Electoral College from my full two weeks of experience in AP Gov:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vQYGXiDVeZpdiWHFp4OhqwmhgOd2iwOGlLKeP165DUI/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vQYGXiDVeZpdiWHFp4OhqwmhgOd2iwOGlLKeP165DUI/edit?usp=sharing)
tl;dr: The Constitution was a practical political document meant to hurry up and get rid of the Articles of Confederation and replace them with a functional government.
Look interesting, will be skimming through it.
I won't lie - I'm feeling some anxiety right now.
It's interesting to me that roughly half of all Trump & Clinton voters feel unhappy about voting for that candidate. If people took a step back and looked at ALL candidates, I think we might have actually been looking at a president who wasn't Democratic or Republican. Too bad we're letting our votes be dictated by fear instead. :(
cant say im 100% happy with everything, but I'm happier than I've been in a while.
Hope theres minimal bloodshed in backlash, people are already saying the election was result of "white-lash"... I really don't want fighting based on race, but sadly I think its still coming.. Heres hoping nobody gets hurt.
sjws better understand it's time to go home now. They totally pushed this one over the edge and people are really tired of their shit.
This, I think it wont...there will be riots I think. I already got threatened tonight by some random guy for being white and out after dark.... oh well.
Quote from: mumblemumble on November 09, 2016, 07:28:34 AM
...there will be riots I think...
Seems you were right. Well, not quite a riot, but protest did happen:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/trump-election-protest-berkeley-oakland.html
America. is. Doomed.
At least Trump won't gain enough support in 2020 to run for a second term (Unless someone worse than him comes along *cough* Hillary *cough*)
Quote from: milon on November 09, 2016, 11:47:19 AM
Quote from: mumblemumble on November 09, 2016, 07:28:34 AM
...there will be riots I think...
Seems you were right. Well, not quite a riot, but protest did happen:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/us/trump-election-protest-berkeley-oakland.html
why do idiots protest on freeways and whine about getting run over?
Quote from: Louisthebadassrimworlder on November 09, 2016, 12:02:13 PM
America. is. Doomed.
At least Trump won't gain enough support in 2020 to run for a second term (Unless someone worse than him comes along *cough* Hillary *cough*)
give him 4 years first...
Most presidential first terms are fairly tame. In any event, I'm just giggling myself to death at how upset Tumblr is.
Also Trump played "You can't always get what you want" when he walked off stage after his speech and it was hilarious.
Quote from: DirectorBright on November 09, 2016, 02:56:04 PM
Most presidential first terms are fairly tame. In any event, I'm just giggling myself to death at how upset Tumblr is.
Also Trump played "You can't always get what you want" when he walked off stage after his speech and it was hilarious.
Link, link, oh mother of GOD link to this. I'm BEGGING you...
Also, seems there are indeed a few riots...
....Glad I'm at least partially armed haha.
Also, obligatory, and feels a bit on topic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNtYmdZ-4c
Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on August 26, 2016, 08:37:12 AM
Quote from: Flying Rockbass on August 02, 2016, 07:50:38 AM
Yeah... That US elections feel like Brazil. Everyone is a crook.
I would probably go for Trump, besides the radical vision, this projects may be stopped by other parties. And a country is a gigantic company, Trump know how to run one.
I would disagree on two counts; first a country is definitely not a gigantic company - a country, or it's government, has responsibility for the quality of life of all it's citizens. A company's first and foremost responsibility is feduciary, that is, make money for it's shareholders.
Second, that Trump knows how to run a country. Trump's business acumen isn't spotless, and he's not nearly as rich as he'd like you to believe. But more importantly, do you really want your country to be run as a business venture? Think that one through, please.
I wasnt going to say anything because politics is a minefield patrolled by rabid megaspiders and sythers while your armed with a loincloth and pointy stick but.....
While i agree the u.s shouldnt be run as a business i do think financally we are in trouble, during the obama years we almost doubled our debt, we have more people on welfare in a lot of areas then working and less people are paying taxes then are getting aid of some kind.
The u.s infrastructure is falling apart, Roads are in poor shape, Rails are deterorating, water power sewage are all rotting and falling apart, there are massive EPA and tax roadblocks to updating many factorys and powerplants mines ect that would modernize them reduce polution overall but massivly expand said operations, Which is preventing it from being economical to have low skill jobs in the u.s.
Our cost to go to school to get a better job is insanse with no assurance you can even get a job in your field, we are falling behind in education, skill, tech, and knowhow while demanding premiums in many cases for medocer workers when you can get the same worker for a 10th the price from say india or china, the fact housing in many areas due to rabid taxes regulatuons epa permits historical city crap and other thing combined with lowering wages making houseing nearly unafordable in some areas, added on to the massive inflation and fact a very large percentage of our government has never held a non government job well....
This country is sick and gnawing at its own entrails, a business man to get our finances on track to make our education on par and to find ways to reduce overhead while updating infrastructure to support the new generations of equipment and tech and somehow getting a handle on inflation is needed.
Im not saying i like trump, But i do think as of THIS time and place he has the skills to unfuck (sorry thats the mildest work i can find) this country and is again at this time and place what is needed, there are infact other reasons i voted for him, same as i voted for obama the first time and same as i will keep voting for who i think can do the most good or least harm.
US voting is so screwy. I mean Hiliary got more votes, they both only got 25% of the population and half the people didn't even vote. I don't know how you guys can call anything from that.
Come back when ya have 95% voter turn out.
Quote from: mumblemumble on November 09, 2016, 04:14:14 PM
Quote from: DirectorBright on November 09, 2016, 02:56:04 PM
Most presidential first terms are fairly tame. In any event, I'm just giggling myself to death at how upset Tumblr is.
Also Trump played "You can't always get what you want" when he walked off stage after his speech and it was hilarious.
Link, link, oh mother of GOD link to this. I'm BEGGING you...
Also, seems there are indeed a few riots...
....Glad I'm at least partially armed haha.
Also, obligatory, and feels a bit on topic...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZNtYmdZ-4c
http://fortune.com/video/2016/11/09/trump-you-cant-always-get-what-you-want/
Here, have many keks.
The popular vote argument is kinda stupid, not entirely wrong per say, but people didn't complain about the electoral system when it votes in their party.
Sure the US needs to fix their system but unless you always complain about the system, regardless of who gets elected, then can the crap.
Quote from: JimmyAgnt007 on November 10, 2016, 11:05:25 AM
The popular vote argument is kinda stupid, not entirely wrong per say, but people didn't complain about the electoral system when it votes in their party.
Sure the US needs to fix their system but unless you always complain about the system, regardless of who gets elected, then can the crap.
The thing people seem to forget is the US isn't a democracy. Its a republic.
To be honest, i wish voting required more than "citizenship" and a pulse. Requiring an Iq above 80, or some other measurement of contributions to society would be nice.
Maybe not owning property, but something.
Quote from: mumblemumble on November 10, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
To be honest, i wish voting required more than "citizenship" and a pulse. Requiring an Iq above 80, or some other measurement of contributions to society would be nice.
Maybe not owning property, but something.
Agreed to a point, But the problem with that at the risk of going off topic is too many people will cry one thing or another, be it white privlage, racisim, curruption whatever, and whos to say who sets whats considered a contribution?
You have blacks and other minoritys who are rioting in the streets spraying die whites die and beating the shit out of people at random any time they feel even the smallest slight, They demand and equal showing for say oscars when there arent enough to have deserved equal showing much less equal skill, they accuse all whites of being slave owners among other things.
On the other side you have whites and the like who are constantly accused of being racist any time we dare object to ANYTHING a alaphabet or color or sex group say or do and are told to shut up and of being unwilling to be disarmed because we not only dont trust our government to not go full nazi and gastapo on us among other things and that because of that we are nothing but gun loving racist monsters.
Both sides are fucked in the head and even if you were 100% equal to both groups they would shit them selves either way.
Quote from: mumblemumble on November 10, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
To be honest, i wish voting required more than "citizenship" and a pulse. Requiring an Iq above 80, or some other measurement of contributions to society would be nice.
Maybe not owning property, but something.
If voting was limited to taxpayers, the entire map would've gone for Trump (you can find those maps and statistics out there if you're curious). If you aren't paying into the system, it's really easy to want to be generous
with other people's money. There's a word for that that we don't mind using when discussing communist regimes: expropriation.
Actually I can support that idea... Say, net over 0 in terms of money in / out. Or even leway for slightly less, for say, a bad year, to be fair. Just so long as either 1: they try to work, or 2: are not relying on assistance via public funds.
What happens to you tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free, the land of the free, home of the brave?
Gotta say tho - Trump getting elected might work out alright. The general opinion of American, from outside, has been pretty negative for a while now. I don't remember 'American' having positive connotations since MJ played for the Bulls. Since the beginning of this 'election' process, opinion has been falling even more rapidly. Our government was already strengthening ties with China and moving away from USA before - this whole process has really lit a fire under our ass to get it done faster.
Trump might be the nail in the coffin we as a global community needed to tell the yanks to get stuffed.
I picked Trump since he seemed to favor corporate religion over whatever cult-like worship sufficed for the masses; deal with it at your peril.
Quote from: mumblemumble on November 10, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
To be honest, i wish voting required more than "citizenship" and a pulse. Requiring an Iq above 80, or some other measurement of contributions to society would be nice.
Maybe not owning property, but something.
I like (not endorse, but like
in a theoretical way) the idea of a Military Republic. In a militaristic democracy, full citizenship is only available through military service (including non-combat service). The voting franchise is limited to full citizens, AND they are the only ones who can hold public office.
Using the US as an example, if we had such a government, the structure of government would not change. People such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump would not have been eligible to run for president, or for any public office. They couldn't vote either, and neither could I. Some 80% of Congress would be ineligible for their posts. I think it would be fair to say government would be more conservative (the current US military tilts right), but if liberals were to pursue government careers anyway the makeup of the military would probably more closely resemble the demographics of the country as a whole.
Essentially, if you don't have any skin in the game, you don't get to play. I think this would lead to smarter governance overall, and in the long term. The danger is that, in this country at least, both the Democrats and the Republicans love to grow the various powers of the state and embark on overseas adventures; their arguing about exactly how to grow (or who to bomb) slows that process, to the benefit of everyone. A pro-military government would probably be able to expand the power of the state faster, and have a greater zeal for conflict, than even our current hawkish government.
For the record, I'm a libertarian and I didn't vote, but if I did vote, I would have voted for Gary Johnson.
EDIT: typo
Quote from: mumblemumble on November 10, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
To be honest, i wish voting required more than "citizenship" and a pulse. Requiring an Iq above 80, or some other measurement of contributions to society would be nice.
Maybe not owning property, but something.
I wish there was an education system too, where the requirements for voting weren't simply being human. Many respected philosophers have had this idea before us, too.
If this was in place, though, society would be divided into those who cannot afford an education in any shape or form, and those with education. This was effectively what kickstarted the Russian Revolution. Although in theory it is a valid principle, when applied to such a diverse culture such as the UK or USA, it would start riots. It is also extremely unfair to those whose parents could not give them an education, because the majority of uneducated people are like they are due to their parents.
What I am saying is:
Theoretically - Great Idea
In Practice - Riots, revolutions and racism...
Quote from: sadpickle on November 12, 2016, 03:27:54 AM
I like (not endorse, but like in a theoretical way) the idea of a Military Republic. In a militaristic democracy, full citizenship is only available through military service (including non-combat service). The voting franchise is limited to full citizens, AND they are the only ones who can hold public office.
Using the US as an example, if we had such a government, the structure of government would not change. People such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump would not have been eligible to run for president, or for any public office. They couldn't vote either, and neither could I. Some 80% of Congress would be ineligible for their posts. I think it would be fair to say government would be more conservative (the current US military tilts right), but if liberals were to pursue government careers anyway the makeup of the military would probably more closely resemble the demographics of the country as a whole.
Starship Troopers is a cool movie sign me up.
Quote from: sadpickle on November 12, 2016, 03:27:54 AM
I like (not endorse, but like in a theoretical way) the idea of a Military Republic. In a militaristic democracy, full citizenship is only available through military service (including non-combat service). The voting franchise is limited to full citizens, AND they are the only ones who can hold public office.
Using the US as an example, if we had such a government, the structure of government would not change. People such as Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump would not have been eligible to run for president, or for any public office. They couldn't vote either, and neither could I. Some 80% of Congress would be ineligible for their posts. I think it would be fair to say government would be more conservative (the current US military tilts right), but if liberals were to pursue government careers anyway the makeup of the military would probably more closely resemble the demographics of the country as a whole.
If the majority of Americans wanted to vote (Which obviously they do) then this would mean a giant influx of people in the armed forces. Since only military can vote, the public sector, law enforcement, finance, business, food chains, etc. would all be gone! There would be anarchy, as anyone who wanted a vote would join a military career. This would mean a HUGE spike in crime rates, no food/drink services such as Starbucks and Mcdonalds and no Target/Walmart-type shops either...
Quote from: Louisthebadassrimworlder on November 12, 2016, 07:06:24 AM
Quote from: mumblemumble on November 10, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
To be honest, i wish voting required more than "citizenship" and a pulse. Requiring an Iq above 80, or some other measurement of contributions to society would be nice.
Maybe not owning property, but something.
I wish there was an education system too, where the requirements for voting weren't simply being human. Many respected philosophers have had this idea before us, too.
If this was in place, though, society would be divided into those who cannot afford an education in any shape or form, and those with education. This was effectively what kickstarted the Russian Revolution. Although in theory it is a valid principle, when applied to such a diverse culture such as the UK or USA, it would start riots. It is also extremely unfair to those whose parents could not give them an education, because the majority of uneducated people are like they are due to their parents.
What I am saying is:
Theoretically - Great Idea
In Practice - Riots, revolutions and racism...
To be completely honest, education SHOULD be free (for practical shit like math, English, engineering, ect, women studies and white privilege classes can go die in a fire) Because for anything USEFUL, it immediately pays off in society...its one of THE safest investments to make in society.
As for requirments, joining the us military....mmn, no...I do not support and here is why.
inherently, anytime we put a requirement for voting, theres a HUGE risk to control the government through this.
For instance, what if say, something was passed so only XYZ can enter military, so only XYZ can vote?... thats bad.
no, the requirement should be as objective as humanly possible, a literacy test, maybe IQ test....anything else, even INCOME can be warped by society to control a vote.
Quote from: Noobshock on November 12, 2016, 07:30:11 AM
Starship Troopers is a cool movie sign me up.
The book goes into this in more detail than the movie, which glosses over the story in favor of bug violence. Really fantastic novel for fans of sci-fi.
Quote from: Louisthebadassrimworlder on November 12, 2016, 08:20:03 AM
If the majority of Americans wanted to vote (Which obviously they do) then this would mean a giant influx of people in the armed forces. Since only military can vote, the public sector, law enforcement, finance, business, food chains, etc. would all be gone! There would be anarchy, as anyone who wanted a vote would join a military career. This would mean a HUGE spike in crime rates, no food/drink services such as Starbucks and Mcdonalds and no Target/Walmart-type shops either...
Let me address a couple of things here. First, voter turnout is the lowest in years, and is hovering just north of 50%. While this is a technical majority, it's a small one. Furthermore, for most people the vote is just a form of virtue-signaling. Hey, look at me, I voted. Did you vote? Did you vote for my guy/girl? Great, let's get a beer. Pretending the electorate is informed in this country is a joke, most people are voting on political (tribal) identity or who has the best hair, not specific policies. I doubt most of the people who voted for Trump can articulate his policies.
You might have misunderstood me on the citizenship thing. If you're not a citizen you're a civilian,
and you have all the same rights as a citizen except the right to vote (or run for office). You're still free to pursue a job, raise a family, start a business, etc. You just can't vote in electoral politics (or be a politician).
All those things you're listing will still remain. Walmart and Starbucks are not going anywhere. Nothing I described would lead to anarchy. Military would probably experience an uptick in enlistment. There's still a government, there's still laws and police and everything. Nothing changes, except who can vote for elected officials. That's it.
I mean, consider it. Who runs for politics right now? Megalomaniacs. Egomaniacs. People who seek power. There was a study that found several presidential hopefuls fit the definition of a sociopath (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/of-psychopaths-and-presidential-candidates/). For every Rand Paul (no military service!), there's a hundred Mitch McConnells (5 weeks at Fort Knox before an honorable discharge for medical reasons). I mean, in this fictional system McConnell can run for politics and Paul can't, which is nightmarish to me. I am not advocating switching to a Military Republic.
If the government actually tried to implement this TODAY, there would probably be rioting and large numbers of the armed forces defecting to uphold the Constitution, etc. Total chaos.
EDIT: injected a paragraph, clarification.
Yeeeeh - except then ya country is run only by the type who would join the military. What about all the intelligent humans that don't choose that one specific career? The guy who cured cancer wouldn't be able to vote because he spent his formative years in college and not boot camp?
Secondly - why would you need a military that big? We aren't going to be fighting any full scale ground wars anytime soon - if we start a war that big now, we'd just nuke each other.
Thirdly - where do you draw the line? You going to militarise the police force, or cops not worthy of a vote? Firemen? Doctors? Offshore oil driller?
Quote from: Mikhail Reign on November 14, 2016, 12:26:35 PM
Yeeeeh - except then ya country is run only by the type who would join the military. What about all the intelligent humans that don't choose that one specific career? The guy who cured cancer wouldn't be able to vote because he spent his formative years in college and not boot camp?
Secondly - why would you need a military that big? We aren't going to be fighting any full scale ground wars anytime soon - if we start a war that big now, we'd just nuke each other.
Thirdly - where do you draw the line? You going to militarise the police force, or cops not worthy of a vote? Firemen? Doctors? Offshore oil driller?
You realize he said JOINED not STAY IN FOR ETERNITY right?
Your cancer cure doctor could do boot camp, training, a few years, then be out..
The best thing to come out of this election is the meme magic.
Look at this stuff, its gold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGfOWZ9IHj4
locking this thread up. see ya in part 3 if you wanna continue the chat!!!