Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
#20,726
#20,726
Geaux_Vols said:
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.
Click to expand...
Still a way of saying...the average citizen is dumber than the average? I don't get it? Tell me this...matter of fact...what you think...why should I have voted for Hillary over Donald?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill, SweetasSoda, InVOLuntary and 1 other person
#20,728
#20,728
WBO said:
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.)
Click to expand...
The EC allows every state to have a voice. Popular vote would leave California and New York deciding for the other 48 states. Popular vote, IMO, goes against the principle of a union that is for the common good of all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmokinBob, Ulysees E. McGill, SweetasSoda and 3 others
#20,730
#20,730
WBO said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Yes, but you have to put it in perspective. In most European elections there are almost always more than 2 parties, and usually several more, running in the election, so it difficult to get better than 50% of the vote.

In the end, Hitler was appointed to the Chancellor position by von Hindenburg, and upon the latter's death, Hitler combined the Chancellor and President positions into one position.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ulysees E. McGill
#20,731
#20,731
Crazy Ivan said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's ludicrous to think the election is decided by those swing states alone. I mean Tennessee could easily go blue in a cycle just like it did under Clinton twice...but not with his running mate who happened to be from there. I mean Tennessee voted for freaking Jimmy Carter lol.
 
Last edited:
#20,732
#20,732
BaldBiker said:
My man Ivan...bringing the goods.
Click to expand...

It's all in the spirit of good debate. Everyone has their own opinions and firmly believe they are right and the other guy is wrong. No on is changing anyone else's mind in here; so we'll all indulge in a bit of bloviation until sports come back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VOLSONLY
#20,738
#20,738
MarcoVol said:
Actually yes I would be just fine with a President that the majority of the people in this country voted for.

What an absurd idea to have every person’s vote count equally. The horror!!!
Click to expand...
City states...everybody else are just useless serfs to serve the empire.
 
#20,740
#20,740
Geaux_Vols said:
this is the map that is important. land does not vote, people do. and they voted for Northam by a 9 point spread.

View attachment 271463
Click to expand...
You do realize that this is how civil wars and revolutions start..right? When a huge geographic swath of humanity start realizing they have no real voice...bad things happen. I tried to explain this to my younger brother, who coincidentally is also an obtuse Dem and a Nashville lawyer, and for a long time he would not listen. I finally got him to admit that disenfranchising vast swaths of the nation is a very bad idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacketVol, InVOLuntary, VOLSONLY and 2 others
#20,742
#20,742
Crazy Ivan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Such a beautiful and simple idea.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JacketVol and SweetasSoda
#20,745
#20,745
  • Like
Reactions: gainesvol82, hooter vol and MarcoVol
#20,746
#20,746
Ulysees E. McGill said:
You do realize that this is how civil wars and revolutions start..right? When a huge geographic swath of humanity start realizing they have no real voice...bad things happen. I tried to explain this to my younger brother, who coincidentally is also an obtuse Dem and a Nashville lawyer, and for a long time he would not listen. I finally got him to admit that disenfranchising vast swaths of the nation is a very bad idea.
Click to expand...
Why are Dems obtuse? I align with Democrats on many ideas. But, there are a few that im with moderate Republicans. I would be willing to vote for a Republican if necessary, Rubio, Kasich...

To your point, broke a personal promise...watched Maher interview this week. Interviewed a global economist. As we see California, Wash, and Ore., Penn, NY, and Mass form alliances to spite the President. Economist said it in a perfunctory manner.

All those liberals who scream and cry about Trump acting as a dictator - who say he's an 'absolute power' broker - need to look deeper. Trump says one thing yet all hes done is farm power to Governorships and made no decisions himself. Power is ceded to others. Interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gainesvol82
#20,747
#20,747
Ulysees E. McGill said:
You do realize that this is how civil wars and revolutions start..right? When a huge geographic swath of humanity start realizing they have no real voice...bad things happen. I tried to explain this to my younger brother, who coincidentally is also an obtuse Dem and a Nashville lawyer, and for a long time he would not listen. I finally got him to admit that disenfranchising vast swaths of the nation is a very bad idea.
Click to expand...

which revolution started because a group had fewer counted votes than their opposition, exactly? so dramatic. i vote blue in louisiana. you don't think i already feel that way? no one's on the verge of civil war lol.
 
#20,748
#20,748
jackcrevol said:
Why are Dems obtuse? I align with Democrats on many ideas. But, there are a few that im with moderate Republicans. I would be willing to vote for a Republican if necessary, Rubio, Kasich...

To your point, broke a personal promise...watched Maher interview this week. Interviewed a global economist. As we see California, Wash, and Ore., Penn, NY, and Mass form alliances to spite the President. Economist said it in a perfunctory manner.

All those liberals who scream and cry about Trump acting as a dictator - who say he's an 'absolute power' broker - need to look deeper. Trump says one thing yet all hes done is farm power to Governorships and made no decisions himself. Power is ceded to others. Interesting.
Click to expand...
Because you can not get them to see the damage of disenfranchising so much of the country...that is why. So many of them are elitists that think they are so much smarter than everybody else.

My little brother is a perfect example of this, but I have actually gotten him to think a little differently.

I would vote for the right Dem, but I will never vote for someone whose strings are pulled by the far lefties. I absolutely despise Pelosi-Schumer-Bernie etc etc etc..
 
#20,749
#20,749
Geaux_Vols said:
which revolution started because a group had fewer counted votes than their opposition, exactly? so dramatic. i vote blue in louisiana. you don't think i already feel that way? no one's on the verge of civil war lol.
Click to expand...
So you think disenfranchising vast swaths of the nation is a good idea?...Notice I said "started"...Revolutions and Civil Wars are brought about by decades or even centuries of discontent.
 
#20,750
#20,750
jackcrevol said:
Msnbc isnt as bad but yes, CNN is biased at times. It does cut both ways...and im asking you to be impartial here, @Bassmaster.

OAN, Fox, and Sinclair are pretty damn biased bru.
Click to expand...
Fox has certain figures who are biased, but Fox does not act anywhere near the way that these other networks do. It is not close. I think anyone who steps back and observes fairly would recognize this. Sure, Hannity and others are big time Trump supporters and they are biased. But I do not recall Fox purposely manipulating audio to smear the president by taking his words out of context and presenting them in a way that is fake news. I've never seen Fox reporters engage in shouting matches with the president at press conferences, and I've also never seen Fox refusing to report on negative news concerning a Republican president. Just today, for example, the headline on Fox News is how Trump is set to spend more than any Liberal president of the last 100 years. Meanwhile, from MSNBC, CNN, and others it is Trump bashing 247.

Oh, and lets not forget the way that the Liberal media treated Brett Kavanaugh, and now they are acting purely hypocritically when it comes to coverage of what has happened with Biden.


 
  • Like
Reactions: JacketVol, Rishvol, InVOLuntary and 2 others
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top