Current Events Thread

[steverocks35]

:ez-laugh:

THis isn't hard man. It isn't about land mass.

I would not mind sending you a copy of middle school material.
Oh wait, nothing from 2 decades ago is history anymore

It's funny that you don't think I understand the electoral college. I understand it perfectly. I just think it's stupid and undemocratic and should be scrapped. The senate already protects the views of the small states by having equal representation. We don't need an undemocratic system of choosing a leader that allows him/her to take office after getting millions fewer votes.

 

[SoonerBounce13]

It's funny that you don't think I understand the electoral college. I understand it perfectly. I just think it's stupid and undemocratic and should be scrapped. The senate already protects the views of the small states by having equal representation. We don't need an undemocratic system of choosing a leader that allows him/her to take office after getting millions fewer votes.

Well, I'm glad that you are more educated than the founders of the country.

Just remember that THE ONLY reason this is even a discussion is because the democrats lost. If they won, this would not be on anyones radar

 

[steverocks35]

Well, I'm glad that you are more educated than the founders of the country.

Just remember that THE ONLY reason this is even a discussion is because the democrats lost. If they won, this would not be on anyones radar

As previously stated, this has been on my "radar" since the 1980s. The founders were wealthy landowners protecting the government from the average person. I also doubt that they could have ever envisioned a system in which the person that got 3 million fewer votes was elected.
The founders were not infallible. In fact, the manner of electing the president has been changed before and is not original to the founders. The Constitution has been amended before and we can do it again.

 

[hoopsaustin]

Who said it abolished the EC? My point was even this SC vote shows how they made it possible to move on to a better system. The article also explains why the EC was created then (1800s) and why it's outdated.

Yes I can read, can you have a conversation without going off the rails?

Default Re: Current Events Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoopsaustin View Post
Whoa when did SCOTUS "discredit" the EC? Lolol


"9-0 vote. Derp"

"The EC has already been discredited by the Supreme Court & more closely by ABD. But facts, articles, & discussions won’t deter you."


You said that 9-0 case discredited the EC when it did not at all.. Haha what a jackass

 

[hoopsaustin]

As previously stated, this has been on my "radar" since the 1980s. The founders were wealthy landowners protecting the government from the average person. I also doubt that they could have ever envisioned a system in which the person that got 3 million fewer votes was elected.
The founders were not infallible. In fact, the manner of electing the president has been changed before and is not original to the founders. The Constitution has been amended before and we can do it again.

Those wealthy landowners also led the revolution against england which was unprecedented as they stood little to gain and could have died, so that every man/woman could be free..

 

[hoopsaustin]

It's funny that you don't think I understand the electoral college. I understand it perfectly. I just think it's stupid and undemocratic and should be scrapped. The senate already protects the views of the small states by having equal representation. We don't need an undemocratic system of choosing a leader that allows him/her to take office after getting millions fewer votes.

You think the USA is a true/direct democracy :ez-laugh:

 

[thebigabd]

Well, I'm glad that you are more educated than the founders of the country.

Just remember that THE ONLY reason this is even a discussion is because the democrats lost. If they won, this would not be on anyones radar

It was not unanimous amongst the founders.... and one of their key reasons for creating it was because they didn't trust the general public to vote. They didn't think citizens should decide it directly. They didn't think they were responsible enough or educated enough to vote. That's just the truth of it. They also feared that people with nothing would vote against all the land-owners (like themselves) in that situation.

If there is a blue wave this fall and Democrats win control of everything, it won't change the fact that people want real democracy, it won't change that the EC is inherently anti-democratic, etc. I would get rid of it under any circumstance. Blue power, red power, whatever.

 

[steverocks35]

Those wealthy landowners also led the revolution against england which was unprecedented as they stood little to gain and could have died so that every man/woman could be free..

Well not *every* man/woman.

 

[thebigabd]

You think the USA is a true/direct democracy :ez-laugh:

No he doesn't.... And I am on record all over the place criticizing our "democracy", saying its not a real one, etc. And I know that is by design.

 

[BCSooners]

Default Re: Current Events Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoopsaustin View Post
Whoa when did SCOTUS "discredit" the EC? Lolol


9-0 vote. Derp


The EC has already been discredited by the Supreme Court & more closely by ABD. But facts, articles, & discussions won’t deter you.


You said that 9-0 case discredited the EC when it did not at all.. Haha what a jackass

The reason for the vote was because people aren't getting represented by their vote. They getting represented by the majority of whatever state they live in and they don't believe it's the right way to do things (because it's not). Read the whole article and explain to me how the EC is better that a 1 person 1 vote system. Sorry I have to explain that to you *****.

 

[steverocks35]

You think the USA is a true/direct democracy :ez-laugh:

No I don't. It's a representative democracy. There is not a single country on earth that is a direct democracy.

 

[hoopsaustin]

Well not *every* man/woman.

Who doesnt have rights? Illegal aliens? Felons? Who is the boogeyman here?

 

[steverocks35]

Who doesnt have rights? Illegal aliens? Felons? Who is the boogeyman here?

You were talking about the founders, not the present. In the late 18th century I'm pretty sure the Founders didn't fight for the right for *every* person in America to be free. Of course you know that, you're just being a dick.

 

[hoopsaustin]

The reason for the vote was because people aren't getting represented by their vote. They getting represented by the majority of whatever state they live in and they don't believe it's the right way to do things (because it's not). Read the whole article and explain to me how the EC is better that a 1 person 1 vote system. Sorry I have to explain that to you *****.

Yeah, they arent getting represented when a faithless elector decides to ignore the results of the popular vote of the state. You're right on that for once by accident.. ha

You didnt actually explain anything, because you are ignorant

 

[hoopsaustin]

You were talking about the founders, not the present. In the late 18th century I'm pretty sure the Founders didn't fight for the right for *every* person in America to be free. Of course you know that, you're just being a dick.

You're right actually. Not everyone had all of the freedoms and rights. It was more than anywhere else at the time however. We can't judge those time's standards with today's contexts. We have improved since then greatly. I'm very proud about that

 

[steverocks35]

It was not unanimous amongst the founders.... and one of their key reasons for creating it was because they didn't trust the general public to vote. They didn't think citizens should decide it directly. They didn't think they were responsible enough or educated enough to vote. That's just the truth of it. They also feared that people with nothing would vote against all the land-owners (like themselves) in that situation.

If there is a blue wave this fall and Democrats win control of everything, it won't change the fact that people want real democracy, it won't change that the EC is inherently anti-democratic, etc. I would get rid of it under any circumstance. Blue power, red power, whatever.

Same here. I've been consistent on this point since I understood the concept of the electoral college and why it was designed.

 

[BCSooners]

Yeah, they arent getting represented when a faithless elector decides to ignore the results of the popular vote of the state. You're right on that for once by accident.. ha

You didnt actually explain anything, because you are ignorant

The article explained why it's an outdated system and why change is needed to keep up with the current times. You won't discuss that, you are just hung up on the 1st paragraph instead of arguing over what the article is discussing. You aren't having a discussion over my stated intent (which is the depth of the article) because you are a dip****.

 

[BCSooners]

You're right actually. Not everyone had all of the freedoms and rights. It was more than anywhere else at the time however. We can't judge those time's standards with today's contexts. We have improved since then greatly. I'm very proud about that

Bingo

 

[hoopsaustin]

Bingo

This doesnt disprove the utility of the EC. Just that the rights that were granted werent as expansive as now. There is not a single thing wrong with the electoral college

 

[thebigabd]

No I don't. It's a representative democracy. There is not a single country on earth that is a direct democracy.

Switzerland is the closest... they practice direct democracy. The have elected representation, a constitution, etc but the people are allowed to vote on issues directly like we can here at the state level.

They are such a great case study because many of my conservative/libertarian friends think that Democracy always means that people with nothing will vote for things that hurt people with more. But the results in a country that does this does not appear to show that.

Real Examples:

In February 2020, the "left parties" of Switzerland got enough signatures to get a national vote to bring in government housing, housing cooperatives, etc. 57% voted against it. The measure was defeated.

In 2016, a public vote went up to provide Universal Basic Income. Classic example where you would think the "mob" would vote in favor of getting free government money. It was massively rejected by nearly 80% of voters. They didn't vote for their free govt money.

In 2014, a public vote went up to raise the national minimum wage to 22 francs an hour.... Sounds like a socialist thing right? 76% of the voters REJECTED IT. A huge majority.

In 2015, there was a proposal to add additional taxes on any energy that was not renewable.... This sounds like a socialist thing, right? It was rejected by 92% of voters.

In 2014, the government was gridlocked on immigration reform. As middle eastern migrants were pouring into Europe... they let the citizens directly decide how to handle it. The voters in Switzerland voted to NOT ALLOW mass migration into Switzerland.

There are tons of great examples of real democracy at work in Switzerland... These are just a few examples....

We also have great examples of direct democracy at the state level. Many of the examples of real democracy in America at the state level show people REJECTING tax increases, government initiatives, etc. I have a meeting in a few minutes but I will list out some examples of that.