Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

[Crazy Ivan]

Should urban votes count for less or something?

If I thought that I would have said it.

 

[Geaux_Vols]

If I thought that I would have said it.

“This is why the electoral college is so necessary” seems to imply that. Why is it so important, then?

 

[Crazy Ivan]

While the numbers were close, I do think that the majority would have gone with secession, had it not been for a few key things. Pillow being o e of them. A large number of battles being fought I. Their state another. A handful of lesser, but still important to Kentuckians things. The river would have been a big buffer for the South though.

KY not seceding doomed TN, or I suppose more correctly, TN's leadership expecting KY to secede, and therefore not building up TN's defenses, doomed TN.

 

[BaldBiker]

KY not seceding doomed TN, or I suppose more correctly, TN's leadership expecting KY to secede, and therefore not building up TN's defenses, doomed TN.

Great point. While I think most, if not all, southern states thought Kentucky would secede...Tennessee should have at least prepared for the fact that they may not. They didn't.

Still blaming Kentucky for it though...lol

 

[OrangenSC]

You seem like the kind of guy who would crap all over Fauci for anything he did that was to the detriment of God Emperor Trump.

Because I now acknowledge that he's in the same boat as everyone else? Ok. And I reread my post. Nothing in there even hints at anything about the God Emperor Trump. In fact, God Emperor Trump is mostly listening to Dr Fauci, so...

I'm a little slow, but after reading your post again I now realize you have a supreme, shall we say, dislike for our President. And it's clearly clouding your judgement and causing your imagination to run wild.

Dr Fauci, like everyone else, seems to be clueless about what to do here = he did something to the detriment of the Pres and I'm crapping all over him for it? Politics leads people to do and say strange things.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

“This is why the electoral college is so necessary” seems to imply that. Why is it so important, then?

You asked if I thought urban votes should count less, which I never implied. I live in an urban area. Me preferring the electoral college in a presidential election in no way implied that.

But since you ask, I think the electoral college is necessary because 4-5 heavily populated states should not decide presidential elections; if we did choose presidents by the popular vote there would be no reason for presidents, or presidential candidates, to worry about any states other than the large states.

The founders understood that the electoral college was not a perfect system, but was preferable to either letting Congress elect a president, or allowing a president to be elected through democratic 'mob' rule.

 

[BaldBiker]

You asked if I thought urban votes should count less, which I never implied. I live in an urban area. Me preferring the electoral college in a presidential election in no way implied that.

But since you ask, I think the electoral college is necessary because 4-5 heavily populated states should not decide presidential elections; if we did choose presidents by the popular vote there would be no reason for presidents, or presidential candidates, to worry about any states other than the large states.

The founders understood that the electoral college was not a perfect system, but was preferable to either letting Congress elect a president, or allowing a president to be elected through democratic 'mob' rule.

My man Ivan...bringing the goods.

 

[Wadetime]

Because I now acknowledge that he's in the same boat as everyone else? Ok. And I reread my post. Nothing in there even hints at anything about the God Emperor Trump. In fact, God Emperor Trump is mostly listening to Dr Fauci, so...

I'm a little slow, but after reading your post again I now realize you have a supreme, shall we say, dislike for our President. And it's clearly clouding your judgement and causing your imagination to run wild.

Dr Fauci, like everyone else, seems to be clueless about what to do here = he did something to the detriment of the Pres and I'm crapping all over him for it? Politics leads people to do and say strange things.

Same boat as everyone else? Let's compare some quotes. I wonder who said these...

Jan. 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.” — in a CNBC interview.

Jan. 30: “We think we have it very well under control. We have very little problem in this country at this moment — five — and those people are all recuperating successfully. But we’re working very closely with China and other countries, and we think it’s going to have a very good ending for us … that I can assure you.” — in a speech in Michigan.

Feb. 10: “Now, the virus that we’re talking about having to do — you know, a lot of people think that goes away in April with the heat — as the heat comes in. Typically, that will go away in April. We’re in great shape though. We have 12 cases — 11 cases, and many of them are in good shape now.” — at the White House.

Feb. 14: “There’s a theory that, in April, when it gets warm — historically, that has been able to kill the virus. So we don’t know yet; we’re not sure yet. But that’s around the corner.” — in speaking to National Border Patrol Council members.

Feb. 23: “We have it very much under control in this country.” — in speaking to reporters.

Feb. 24: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA. We are in contact with everyone and all relevant countries. CDC & World Health have been working hard and very smart. Stock Market starting to look very good to me!” — in a tweet.

Feb. 26: “So we’re at the low level. As they get better, we take them off the list, so that we’re going to be pretty soon at only five people. And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time. So we’ve had very good luck.” — at a White House briefing.

Feb. 26: “And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done.” — at a press conference.

Feb. 26: “I think every aspect of our society should be prepared. I don’t think it’s going to come to that, especially with the fact that we’re going down, not up. We’re going very substantially down, not up.” — at a press conference, when asked if “U.S. schools should be preparing for a coronavirus spreading.”

Feb. 27: “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.” — at a White House meeting with African American leaders.

Feb. 29: “And I’ve gotten to know these professionals. They’re incredible. And everything is under control. I mean, they’re very, very cool. They’ve done it, and they’ve done it well. Everything is really under control.” — in a speech at the CPAC conference outside Washington, D.C.

March 4: “[W]e have a very small number of people in this country [infected]. We have a big country. The biggest impact we had was when we took the 40-plus people [from a cruise ship]. … We brought them back. We immediately quarantined them. But you add that to the numbers. But if you don’t add that to the numbers, we’re talking about very small numbers in the United States.” — at a White House meeting with airline CEOs

 

[Rishvol]

KY not seceding doomed TN, or I suppose more correctly, TN's leadership expecting KY to secede, and therefore not building up TN's defenses, doomed TN.

Harris was the worst governor Tennessee has ever seen

 

[JacketVol]

ill take his opinion over 98% of Americas, esp Don.

Watch your man who wrote on 2-28 it was just a bad flu. That is where the President got it from. Dr False e

 

[JacketVol]

And his opinion would lead us into destroying our country. There has to be a balance. Fauci was wrong in January and February. And if he wants to shut us down until next year, we won't have a country to come back to. Your hatred of your president notwithstanding, there has to be a balance, which is why we will be opening up again soon. And anyone, even if it were Obama in office, would be having to make the same difficult decision.

Obama just like h1n1 would’ve not shut it down. Several more would’ve died and the press would’ve ignored it and so would the American people. 150k would’ve died and not an eye batted.

 

[Geaux_Vols]

You asked if I thought urban votes should count less, which I never implied. I live in an urban area. Me preferring the electoral college in a presidential election in no way implied that.

But since you ask, I think the electoral college is necessary because 4-5 heavily populated states should not decide presidential elections; if we did choose presidents by the popular vote there would be no reason for presidents, or presidential candidates, to worry about any states other than the large states.

The founders understood that the electoral college was not a perfect system, but was preferable to either letting Congress elect a president, or allowing a president to be elected through democratic 'mob' rule.

it is already decided by 4 or 5 states. instead of ca and ny, its wi, pa, mi, etc. 2016 was decided by 100k votes in three states. instead, i think the opposite could be argued; instead of 5m registered republicans being effectively thrown away and neglected every presidential election year, those 5m votes could mean a lot if states weren't winner-take-all. the gravitas behind the idea that heavily populated states would monolithically select a president went out the window with the advent of mass communications. everyone gets the same messaging now, we're not reliant on politicians visiting our states to know their platforms. the argument for the electoral college grows weaker and weaker with every passing year, especially with the prevalence of illegal gerrymandering in nc, la, and others. one person, one vote. there's no reason not to anymore.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

why tho? More people that live in the state voted for him to represent them. He literally represents what the majority of the citizens in his state wanted. I know this bc again, more citizens in his state voted for him

City states..nobody else matters.

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

That would be the US if the electoral college was abolished. California, NY and Texas would determine presidents.

And marco would be just fine with that.

 

[BaldBiker]

it is already decided by 4 or 5 states. instead of ca and ny, its wi, pa, mi, etc. 2016 was decided by 100k votes in three states. instead, i think the opposite could be argued; instead of 5m registered republicans being effectively thrown away and neglected every presidential election year, those 5m votes could mean a lot if states weren't winner-take-all. the gravitas behind the idea that heavily populated states would monolithically select a president went out the window with the advent of mass communications. everyone gets the same messaging now, we're not reliant on politicians visiting our states to know their platforms. the argument for the electoral college grows weaker and weaker with every passing year, especially with the prevalence of illegal gerrymandering in nc, la, and others. one person, one vote. there's no reason not to anymore.

Uuhhhm, uhhuumm, cough, cough...everyone does NOT get the same mass communications coverage. Don't act like the rest of us are that stupid. Left wings greatest accomplishment is communications coverage, not politics.

 

[Geaux_Vols]

Uuhhhm, uhhuumm, cough, cough...everyone does NOT get the same mass communications coverage. Don't act like the rest of us are that stupid. Left wings greatest accomplishment is communications coverage, not politics.

what? think you're conflating messaging with access to media. more people than ever have access to the internet / tv / radio than ever. access to information. because of that, we are less reliant on having to see a candidate in person to know their platform.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Yes! This is the major change that needs to come out of this

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

Obama just like h1n1 would’ve not shut it down. Several more would’ve died and the press would’ve ignored it and so would the American people. 150k would’ve died and not an eye batted.

This, sadly, is most likely true.

 

[BaldBiker]

what? think you're conflating messaging with access to media. more people than ever have access to the internet / tv / radio than ever. access to information. because of that, we are less reliant on having to see a candidate in person to know their platform.

Then why was the leftist answer to Trump winning the election..."It was because of the uneducated vote". What is the apparent "vote winner" supposed to take from that. They were, in your opinion (supposedly by your teply) just as educated as anyone else. They chose to vote for the great unknown over a murdering bi**h. How exactly, in your words, ...does that translate.

More.black voters voted Republican than have I. Decades....more Hispanic voters voted for Republican than in dwcades...my own neighbor...a Mexican imigrant...Told me he.voted for Trump. He didn't like illegal immigrants either.

 

[Jackcrevol]

Watch your man who wrote on 2-28 it was just a bad flu. That is where the President got it from. Dr False e

Still gone take my chances.

 

[Jackcrevol]

Yes! This is the major change that needs to come out of this

Rubio is one of few Republicans that gets it.

Was always a John McCain fan. Surprisingly Kasich is sharp guy.

I tend to agree with the Nationalism with shifting dependence away from China. A lot in part is holdover of bad blood to Communism. Still dont trust DPKR, USSR, or China.

 

[WBO]

Please explain to me why it is not a good thing that the President be the person who got the most votes, not some regional conglomeration. I just don't see how you can support the idea that someone who loses the popular vote should be the President. (It should be noted that Hitler never got more that 35% of the popular vote in a German election.) It would eliminate the motivation that candidates only campaign in this states where they can cobble the winning number of electoral votes. It would mean less extremism as a candidate couldn't win with narrow victories in NY while getting killed in Texas.

The electoral college is just a compromise created so they could get the smaller states to adopt the Constitution. Another reason was to put a buffer between the direct vote of the people and the choice of the President. In fact, it was anti-democratic from the beginning in that in most cases the popular vote did not originally decide how the electors voted, in the majority of the states that was determined by the individual states' legislatures. Trivia question: What two states did not even choose electors in the first Presidential election and why? (Try answering that before you look it up.)

 

[Geaux_Vols]

Then why was the leftist answer to Trump winning the election..."It was because of the uneducated vote". What is the apparent "vote winner" supposed to take from that. They were, in your opinion (supposedly by your teply) just as educated as anyone else. They chose to vote for the great unknown over a murdering bi**h. How exactly, in your words, ...does that translate.

More.black voters voted Republican than have I. Decades....more Hispanic voters voted for Republican than in dwcades...my own neighbor...a Mexican imigrant...Told me he.voted for Trump. He didn't like illegal immigrants either.

its not the leftest answer. its a fact that more people without college degrees voted for trump. college-eductated vs non-college educated isn't a value judgement of how smart someone is, its a simple measurable demographic skew, same way that men vs. women, black vs white, blue collar vs white collar, and different income levels, etc. its just a data point. you seem to be misunderstanding what i'm saying.

what i am saying is that it is easier today for a random american to get access to the platforms of political candidates than it was in the days of the founding fathers. we don't have to depend on a candidate visiting our town to know what they're about. so the idea that a candidate could simply camp out in the biggest population centers to win an election isn't necessarily true. i believe that shifting to the popular would create a greater need for a wider net. democrats in louisiana come back into play, republicans in california, etc.

 

[JacketVol]

Please explain to me why it is not a good thing that the President be the person who got the most votes, not some regional conglomeration. I just don't see how you can support the idea that someone who loses the popular vote should be the President. (It should be noted that Hitler never got more that 35% of the popular vote in a German election.) It would eliminate the motivation that candidates only campaign in this states where they can cobble the winning number of electoral votes. It would mean less extremism as a candidate couldn't win with narrow victories in NY while getting killed in Texas.

The electoral college is just a compromise created so they could get the smaller states to adopt the Constitution. Another reason was to put a buffer between the direct vote of the people and the choice of the President. In fact, it was anti-democratic from the beginning in that in most cases the popular vote did not originally decide how the electors voted, in the majority of the states that was determined by the individual states' legislatures. Trivia question: What two states did not even choose electors in the first Presidential election and why? (Try answering that before you look it up.)

Dumb asses unite.

 

[Crazy Ivan]

it is already decided by 4 or 5 states. instead of ca and ny, its wi, pa, mi, etc. 2016 was decided by 100k votes in three states. instead, i think the opposite could be argued; instead of 5m registered republicans being effectively thrown away and neglected every presidential election year, those 5m votes could mean a lot if states weren't winner-take-all. the gravitas behind the idea that heavily populated states would monolithically select a president went out the window with the advent of mass communications. everyone gets the same messaging now, we're not reliant on politicians visiting our states to know their platforms. the argument for the electoral college grows weaker and weaker with every passing year, especially with the prevalence of illegal gerrymandering in nc, la, and others. one person, one vote. there's no reason not to anymore.

A presidential election may be decided by 4-5 'swing states' (and those swing states aren't always constant), but the elections aren't simply decided by those 4-5 states, it's just that there are always that handful that can 'swing' it one way or the other. And presidential hopefuls certainly campaign in more than 4-5 states during their campaigns.

There already is one person, one vote. All 50 states have a popular (one person, one vote) election. And how everyone votes in their respective states decides their delegates. Tell the less populated states that the densely populated cities are going to be selecting the president from now on and there is not a lot of incentive for some states to stay a part of the Union.