Walz Accidentally Let's the Cat Out of the Bag

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

It levels the playing field. I'm sorry that doesn't fit into your desires but...

Tough.

You said it, yet you can't explain how giving a person in one state 3x more voting power than a person in another state is "leveling." You can't make the rational argument. 

Because it's not leveling. Literally, it's doing the opposite.

[Fluffypants]

23 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You said it, yet you can't explain how giving a person in one state 3x more voting power than a person in another state is "leveling." You can't make the rational argument. 

Because it's not leveling. Literally, it's doing the opposite.

You keep crying about it but truth is it isn't changing anytime soon. The only reason you all hate it is because you lost a couple of elections because of it, if it was the opposite would be defending the crap out of it.

 

[Deluge]

On 10/9/2024 at 12:33 PM, gatomontes99 said:

 

 

 

The harris camp wants to get rid of the EC. They didn't deny that position. What they said was, they wouldn't say that publicly.

He's just saying what all the woketards are thinking. Kudos to him for being honest. 

[Deluge]

20 hours ago, Black Dog said:

It tilts the playing field, but it tilts it to your side so you don't care.

It tilts to the right side, which is a good thing. The founding fathers must've seen you brainwashing democrat/communists in a vision.  

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

You keep crying about it but truth is it isn't changing anytime soon. The only reason you all hate it is because you lost a couple of elections because of it, if it was the opposite would be defending the crap out of it.

 

Whether it's changing or not is irrelevant. Whether the elections fell one way or another is irrelevant. 

It's an unjust arrangement, very far from what the founders intended. The constitution says that there should be one representative (and one house EC vote) for every 30K people. The number of house reps used to grow with the population, but since it's been capped for almost a hundred years we have districts with nearly a million people. 

It reasonable to uses increments larger than 30K--congress has to be able to function (as much as congress can be said to function) but it's not reasonable to keep it tied to the electoral college in that case. They changed one rule without changing the other and the unintended consequence is a broken, unjust system.

 

Edited October 11, 2024 by Hodad

[Matthew]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Each region has it's own unique culture and cirucmstance, and they should make a decision

See? Treating territories as having more importance in deciding than actual people.

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You Libbies...always trying to stack the deck. Try playing by the rules for a change. 

You've got it backwards. I'm for one person one vote and everyone's vote for president being equal. You're for stacking the deck by making some people's vote count way more than other peoples.

[Deluge]

14 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Whether it's changing or not is irrelevant. Whether the elections fell one way or another is irrelevant. 

It's an unjust arrangement, very far from what the founders intended. The constitution says that there should be one representative (and one house EC vote) for every 30K people. The number of house reps used to grow with the population, but since it's been capped for almost a hundred years we have districts with nearly a million people. 

It reasonable to uses increments larger than 30K--congress has to be able to function (as much as congress can be said to function--but it's not reasonable to keep it tied to the electoral college in that case. They changed one rule without changing the other and the unintended consequence is a broken, unjust system.

It does say 1 in 30k, so you're right about that needing to be changed, but that still doesn't change the fact that you a$$holes hate the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments, among other things about this country. 

In light of all the Constitution hating bullshit that you stand for, you have no business stamping your feet about the Electoral College. 

Edited October 11, 2024 by Deluge

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

See? Treating territories as having more importance in deciding than actual people.

Not more importance at all.  but not pretending they're irrelevant. 

You may not have noticed but people LIVE in those territories  .  They're a factor. 

3 hours ago, Matthew said:

You've got it backwards. I'm for one person one vote and everyone's vote for president being equal. You're for stacking the deck by making some people's vote count way more than other peoples.

But it's not equal and that's the point. 

ANd you don't give a flying fig about what's equal or not - you see the college as being an impediment to forcing your views down the throats of others and so you want it gone. 

Every country in the world that's a modern democracy has some verson of this and for a good reason. 

[Nationalist]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

You said it, yet you can't explain how giving a person in one state 3x more voting power than a person in another state is "leveling." You can't make the rational argument. 

Because it's not leveling. Literally, it's doing the opposite.

I don't have to explain jack to you...Jack.

If you don't like it...tell the Dumbocrats to pay netter attention to the rural states.

4 hours ago, Matthew said:

You've got it backwards. I'm for one person one vote and everyone's vote for president being equal. You're for stacking the deck by making some people's vote count way more than other peoples.

I'm for following the rules.

You're not.

Simple as that.

[Hodad]

31 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I don't have to explain jack to you...Jack.

If you don't like it...tell the Dumbocrats to pay netter attention to the rural states.

 

True, you don't have to. Also, you can't. It's not a defensible position. Hence why you cannot defend it. 

The only reason to radically skew the power of an individual citizen to select the POTUS is for cynical partisan expedience. 

Right now any candidate--of any party--only has to pay attention to 7 or so states. Which is bullshit. How about the person who wants to lead the whole nation should be required to earn the vote of most of the people in the nation? Should have to pay attention to the whole country, and every voter in it? 

[Nationalist]

46 minutes ago, Hodad said:

True, you don't have to. Also, you can't. It's not a defensible position. Hence why you cannot defend it. 

The only reason to radically skew the power of an individual citizen to select the POTUS is for cynical partisan expedience. 

Right now any candidate--of any party--only has to pay attention to 7 or so states. Which is bullshit. How about the person who wants to lead the whole nation should be required to earn the vote of most of the people in the nation? Should have to pay attention to the whole country, and every voter in it? 

Lol...it's been explained to you over and over. You don't like it and that's tough.

[gatomontes99]

I mean, this is gold! Well, for me it is gold. For Tampon Timmy this is an utter disaster.

"The campaign's position is clear that that is not their position." So, their position is not their position. It is his position that is their position that they have spoken about and the campaign's position is my position which is her position that I was told to say that I said that is my position of the campaign.

Holly f|_|cking hell. That is a word salad for the record books. Like, seriously, wtf did he just say?

Edited October 11, 2024 by gatomontes99

[Matthew]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not more importance at all. 

Yes, the territory gets to vote for president and the citizens do not.

[Matthew]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I'm for following the rules.

I'm for one person one vote and everyone's vote for president being equal. There is no reasonable position against this.

[Hodad]

37 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

Holly f|_|cking hell. That is a word salad for the record books. Like, seriously, wtf did he just say?

Yet not even close to Trump's salad bar. Maybe just give up on that line of attack while you're backing the all-time nonsense king.

 

[gatomontes99]

17 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Yet not even close to Trump's salad bar. Maybe just give up on that line of attack while you're backing the all-time nonsense king.

 

Lol..oh, ok.

It is funny how you guys are so desperate you mimic everything we do. We point out Biden took bribes for policy, you try to claim the Trump's took bribes for policy. We point out Biden is senile, you try to call Trump senile. We call for no tax on tips, you try to steal it. We call for a border wall, you guys are trying to say you support it now. Now this. You guys are such a joke.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Matthew said:

I'm for one person one vote and everyone's vote for president being equal. There is no reasonable position against this.

Sure there is. Hence the electoral collage.

[Matthew]

26 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Sure there is. Hence the electoral collage.

The electoral college and the entire idea of federalism were emergency tactics used in the immediate post- colonial setting where political unity was not possible. They are objectively terrible systems for  governing a modern society.

[gatomontes99]

43 minutes ago, Matthew said:

The electoral college and the entire idea of federalism were emergency tactics used in the immediate post- colonial setting where political unity was not possible. They are objectively terrible systems for  governing a modern society.

They are only terrible systems to people that need to dominate rather than negotiate.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

Yes, the territory gets to vote for president and the citizens do not.

Well that's not true and I think you know it. Please don't make me get out of whiteboard and explain this to you.

The territory votes as the people want. If the majority of the people select trump, then trump wins that state if the majority of the people select Kamala, she will win that state. The people absolutely still get to say and the stage is not important at all other than it has reached a consensus as to who they are going to have as president.

Honestly, how is it that I as a Canadian no more about how your system works and why it works then you do?

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

I'm for one person one vote and everyone's vote for president being equal. There is no reasonable position against this.

Everybody's vote counts now. And everybody gets one vote.

You're very quickly turning into an example of why people should have to take some sort of licensing test in order to vote. How do you not know this basic fact?

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

They are only terrible systems to people that need to dominate rather than negotiate.

I'll be honest, I can make a pretty strong argument as to why a Westminster style system is better than the American Republic Style. But in general A constitutional or representative democracy is going to beat everything else by a mile

[gatomontes99]

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I'll be honest, I can make a pretty strong argument as to why a Westminster style system is better than the American Republic Style. But in general A constitutional or representative democracy is going to beat everything else by a mile

Look, I'm not going to trust anything made by the same culture that made scones once and decided to make them again. Just sayin.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

Look, I'm not going to trust anything made by the same culture that made scones once and decided to make them again. Just sayin.

I mean that's a fair point. Also the teeth.

But if you think about it, the nature of government is to present the appearance of reasoned debate hiding an incompetence and corruption so deep and wide it may be confused for the Mariana trench, all wrapped in a level of pomp and ceremony that leaves people with  the false impression that something really important is happening and somehow everything's under control despite the fact that everything is in actuality going off the rails at the speed of a japanese bullet train in a Simpsons episode. 
 

And nobody does that better than the British  

 

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Lol..oh, ok.

It is funny how you guys are so desperate you mimic everything we do. We point out Biden took bribes for policy, you try to claim the Trump's took bribes for policy. We point out Biden is senile, you try to call Trump senile. We call for no tax on tips, you try to steal it. We call for a border wall, you guys are trying to say you support it now. Now this. You guys are such a joke.

Yes, you suddenly invented the concept of "word salad" and and this is the first time ever that anyone mentioned that Trump is an incoherently rambling ldiot. You're an innovator and an inspiration! 🙄