If electoral college was ended, could the republicans EVER win another election?

[Jotaux]

Exactly. It was actually the Democratic party in the far South that supported slavery.

But you know, people like advanta can just come on the internet and say whatever they want these days, so yeah, let's just say those dirty, racist Republicans lost the Civil War.

Isn't it common knowledge that the republican party was the left wing party at that time?

[Citizen T]

Of course in a democracy the faction that represents the interests of FEWER people and gets voted for by FEWER people should NEVER be in control.
Anything else would be a poorly designed system... Oh wait, here you are, for the 4th time in the history of your nation, with a president in office whom less than half of the people voted for (I'll reserve specific criticism of that creature since that's not what this thread's about).

There are so many systematic flaws in the structure of your government (only two parties, obvious bribery and corruption everywhere, 1st amendmend protects hatred as much as it protects protection-worthy free speech, 2nd amendmend exists, too much religion in laws, all politicians waste 1/2 of their time in office and many million dollars for election campaigning bullshit etc.), the biggest one is the complete and utter inability to EVER re-build it to be better. 2x4 years with a 2-year-long inability-to-govern-due-to-wasting-time-campaigning-for-re-election nonsense inbetween is not enough time to get anything of this scale done, on top of the multiple 2/3 majorities required in multiple governing bodies.

The shit's over 200 years old now and there's no way of peaceful reform in sight. It's frustrating to watch even from the safe distance of half a world away.

If you're going to join in a conversation and try to spout fact, then I highly suggest you educate yourself first. There have been many more elections with the winner below half. Bill Clinton never topped 50% in either of his Presidential wins.

[Annoying]

Local government is best.

The problem is that BOTH parties (though I blame the Democrats more on this one) have decided to make laws at the FEDERAL level that impact everyone, everywhere in the country. But, many of these laws just don't work everywhere. Moreover, in many places, the cause agitation - forcing gay marriage on people in rural areas is just as unpalatable to them as outlawing gay marriage would be to people in urban areas, likewise outlawing guns in rural areas is just as jarring to those people as making gun ownership mandatory by law in urban areas would be.

Having lived in both a city and now a rural area, I agree with almost everything... But you can't force gay marriage on a straight person. No one is being "oppressed" by allowing gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage isn't anywhere close to analogous to forcing people to own a gun. Federal has to have it's hands in some issues. Marriages have to be valid in every state, therefore every state has to have the same standards on marriage, which is what the federal government is for.

Moving to areas where you like the laws isn't always viable. I live in a rural area and make a decent income, and it would still be quite a task if I wanted to move somewhere else.

I still agree with a lot of it, but there certainly are issues that the federal government should be dealing with.

[Moralgy]

There is a thread for discussing the EC. This thread isn't it.

If electoral college was ended, could the republicans EVER win another election?

Fooled me, how dare I think the EC could be discussed in a thread about the EC?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Tijuana]

I honestly feel that if the electoral college were abolished the way all these liberals want it to be that the republicans would literally never win another election for the rest of all history and time.

Kinda need the electoral college so republicans can get turns with the whitehouse honestly?

Liberal democrat voters will always win the popular vote as far as I'm concerned

Maybe if Hillary had bothered to campaign in the "blue wall" states, she wouldn't have lost them. She ran a fundamentally poor campaign, and it was only close because Trump is such an odd ball.

[Varitok]

There is a thread for discussing the EC. This thread isn't it.

Thats a pretty good question dodge. This thread is absolutely discussing EC. What thread do you think you're in?

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe if Hillary had bothered to campaign in the "blue wall" states, she wouldn't have lost them. She ran a fundamentally poor campaign, and it was only close because Trump is such an odd ball.

Either side could have literally picked anyone else and the election would have been a landslide for whichever side swapped candidates.

[Deleted]

Fooled me, how dare I think the EC could be discussed in a thread about the EC?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There is a thread for discussing the merits of the EC, this is a thread discussing the hypothetical outcome of abolishing it.

Stop derailing the thread.

[Deleted]

The only real rebuttal needed is: "Nothing in the US - TODAY - is equatable to ISIS. Period."

The US bankrolls and support military regimes which are no less brutal, aside from the actual slaughter it carries out by drones and airstrikes, which is considerable.

There is a reason why many people in Iraq joined ISIS. Their government was executing, torturing and raping Sunni muslims-the one the US installed. They turned to the only force believed could protect them and made a deal with the devil. They were wrong to do so but it is easy to pontificate when it isn't your family that has been murdered.

There is a reason why the people join the Taleban. The primary reason was that the Taleban wiped out paedophilia: a practice the US-backed government current Afghan government legalized.

These are two examples in a very long history of bankrolling and supporting morally bankrupt regimes. This is generally how the US operates: it doesn't get its hands dirty. It doesn't do that much itself other than drop bombs on people wishing away any civillian casualties on "collateral damage" (an excuse flatly contradicted by human rights organizations). It just franchises out terror and tyranny to local proxies and turns a blind eye to whatever they do. however repugnant, while the CIA teaches the proxies how to torture people more effectively.

This incidentally is why the US is very unpopular abroad. It is actually the precise opposite of Bush's famous "they hate us for their freedom"-they actually hate you because you replaced popular leaders with dictators.

Some sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States Authoritarian regimes sponsored by the US.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...s-8911529.html Paedophilia in Afghanistan.

http://www.aljazeera.com/humanrights...513244683.html Persecution of Sunnis in Iraq (pre-ISIS)

[Xandrigity]

Ofc. Campaigning would be very different and the base will have to be more active and get the voters out. I don't see why not.

[Annoying]

why people call them "undocumented immigrants" is beyond me - most have lots of documentation, they're just not here legally. Illegal immigrant is at least rationally acceptable...

Because it's not actually illegal to be in the country when you're not supposed to. It's only a crime to enter the nation illegally, and some chunk of undocumented immigrants entered legally and stayed beyond their visa duration, which isn't a crime.

As for the CA voting thing: That's entirely untrue. The first time you register to vote in CA, you have to have one of: Birth certificate, SS card, or driver's license. The first two clearly show citizenship status (no SS card for immigrants, birth certificate shows out-of-nation location), and the third is verified from a database at the time the registration is processed. The "box for if you want to register to vote" does not appear on the application for an immigrant driver's license. Both the "are you eligible to vote" and "do you want to register to vote" options aren't even there.

You might have made an argument about falsified birth certificates or SS fraud, but the driver's license doesn't work the way you say it does, and the registration certainly checks if the DL number is from a citizen DL or an immigrant DL.

[Tijuana]

Thats a pretty good question dodge. This thread is absolutely discussing EC. What thread do you think you're in?

- - - Updated - - -




Either side could have literally picked anyone else and the election would have been a landslide for whichever side swapped candidates.

They both won their primary. Just sayin...

[Citizen T]

Having lived in both a city and now a rural area, I agree with almost everything... But you can't force gay marriage on a straight person. No one is being "oppressed" by allowing gay marriage. Allowing gay marriage isn't anywhere close to analogous to forcing people to own a gun. Federal has to have it's hands in some issues. Marriages have to be valid in every state, therefore every state has to have the same standards on marriage, which is what the federal government is for.

Moving to areas where you like the laws isn't always viable. I live in a rural area and make a decent income, and it would still be quite a task if I wanted to move somewhere else.

I still agree with a lot of it, but there certainly are issues that the federal government should be dealing with.

But governments have forced gay marriage on a straight person by requiring small business owners to create wedding cakes or provide catering or wedding photography to gay marriages in contradiction to that person's religious beliefs - which are protected by the very first Amendment in the Bill of Rights. You say that the federal government should protect this right evenly - even though it's NOT specifically spelled out in the Constitution - but do you believe that there should be a federal law to require all states to recognize conceal carry permits from all states - a right that IS specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

[Tijuana]

Because it's not actually illegal to be in the country when you're not supposed to. It's only a crime to enter the nation illegally, and some chunk of undocumented immigrants entered legally and stayed beyond their visa duration, which isn't a crime.

As for the CA voting thing: That's entirely untrue. The first time you register to vote in CA, you have to have one of: Birth certificate, SS card, or driver's license. The first two clearly show citizenship status (no SS card for immigrants, birth certificate shows out-of-nation location), and the third is verified from a database at the time the registration is processed. The "box for if you want to register to vote" does not appear on the application for an immigrant driver's license. Both the "are you eligible to vote" and "do you want to register to vote" options aren't even there.

You might have made an argument about falsified birth certificates or SS fraud, but the driver's license doesn't work the way you say it does, and the registration certainly checks if the DL number is from a citizen DL or an immigrant DL.

You are parsing words a bit here. Illegal alien is a law term. It's how our government defines the act. I can't speak to the actual status of criminality for violating our sovereignty but, we can and do remove individuals for doing this every day.

[Citizen T]

Because it's not actually illegal to be in the country when you're not supposed to. It's only a crime to enter the nation illegally, and some chunk of undocumented immigrants entered legally and stayed beyond their visa duration, which isn't a crime.

As for the CA voting thing: That's entirely untrue. The first time you register to vote in CA, you have to have one of: Birth certificate, SS card, or driver's license. The first two clearly show citizenship status (no SS card for immigrants, birth certificate shows out-of-nation location), and the third is verified from a database at the time the registration is processed. The "box for if you want to register to vote" does not appear on the application for an immigrant driver's license. Both the "are you eligible to vote" and "do you want to register to vote" options aren't even there.

You might have made an argument about falsified birth certificates or SS fraud, but the driver's license doesn't work the way you say it does, and the registration certainly checks if the DL number is from a citizen DL or an immigrant DL.

Speeding isn't technically a crime in most states either so by that logic should we just abolish speed limits?

[Annoying]

But governments have forced gay marriage on a straight person by requiring small business owners to create wedding cakes or provide catering or wedding photography to gay marriages in contradiction to that person's religious beliefs - which are protected by the very first Amendment in the Bill of Rights. You say that the federal government should protect this right evenly - even though it's NOT specifically spelled out in the Constitution - but do you believe that there should be a federal law to require all states to recognize conceal carry permits from all states - a right that IS specifically spelled out in the Constitution.

No one was forced to do any of those things, they had the option to close down and not have to do those things. Having a business isn't a right, so if you wish to have a business, you follow the rules set out for how businesses have to run. If running a business that complies with the rules goes against your religion, the state doesn't require you to run that business. None of that goes against the freedom to practice a religion. Not sure why you brought that up, because that was a local government that made that regulation. The CRA doesn't classify LGBTQ as protected classes.

Speeding isn't technically a crime in most states either so by that logic should we just abolish speed limits?

By what logic? I never made any statements about abolishing laws or anything. I just clarified why undocumented immigrants are called what they are versus what some call them.

You are parsing words a bit here. Illegal alien is a law term. It's how our government defines the act. I can't speak to the actual status of criminality for violating our sovereignty but, we can and do remove individuals for doing this every day.

No, illegal alien are a subset of undocumented immigrants. Illegal aliens are the ones who enter illegally.

[Xandrigity]

This election was close near the end but in the last week of the campaign Trump out played the Hillary in the ground game and just constantly was hitting the media adds as well as keeping active in the media circuit. Hillary on her sides mind had already won just seemed to be waiting for it to happen. The last week was like a well played chess match and Hillary was just out played.

A popular vote contest would be totally different.

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

The electoral college exists to protect a handful of states from overpowering 40 other states.

It's garbage, but maybe if devils like Hillary Clinton didn't get the DNC nomination we wouldn't need it.

L O L

Abolish the electoral college and give every state one vote.

See how much you'll be partying then.

[Deleted]

The only real rebuttal needed is: "Nothing in the US - TODAY - is equatable to ISIS. Period."

The US bankrolls and support military regimes which are no less brutal, aside from the actual slaughter it carries out by drones and airstrikes, which is considerable.

There is a reason why many people in Iraq joined ISIS. Their government was executing, torturing and raping Sunni muslims-the one the US installed. They turned to the only force believed could protect them and made a deal with the devil. They were wrong to do so but it is easy to pontificate when it isn't your family that has been murdered.

There is a reason why the people join the Taleban. The primary reason was that the Taleban wiped out paedophilia: a practice the US-backed government current Afghan government legalized.

These are two examples in a very long history of bankrolling and supporting morally bankrupt regimes. This is generally how the US operates: it doesn't get its hands dirty. It doesn't do that much itself other than drop bombs on people wishing away any civillian casualties on "collateral damage" (an excuse flatly contradicted by human rights organizations). It just franchises out terror and tyranny to local proxies and turns a blind eye to whatever they do. however repugnant.

This incidentally is why the US is very unpopular abroad. It is actually the precise opposite of Bush's famous "they hate us for their freedom"-they actually hate you because you replaced popular leaders with dictators who were happy for US corporations to operate.


Now, regarding those people who claim to be Christian in the US and support all this shit: no, they don't carry out atrocities personally. There is no need when you have a lot of money and a large military. Nonetheless their influence on the world is just as bad as that of ISIS.

Some sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._United_States Authoritarian regimes sponsored by the US.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...s-8911529.html Paedophilia in Afghanistan.

[Citizen T]

No one was forced to do any of those things, they had the option to close down and not have to do those things. Having a business isn't a right, so if you wish to have a business, you follow the rules set out for how businesses have to run. If running a business that complies with the rules goes against your religion, the state doesn't require you to run that business. None of that goes against the freedom to practice a religion. Not sure why you brought that up, because that was a local government that made that regulation. The CRA doesn't classify LGBTQ as protected classes.



By what logic? I never made any statements about abolishing laws or anything. I just clarified why undocumented immigrants are called what they are versus what some call them.



No, illegal alien are a subset of undocumented immigrants. Illegal aliens are the ones who enter illegally.

The CRA is immaterial as the federal apeals court has upheld the ruling so by federal standards at this point in time, it is law forced upon the straight individual. The baker for example did not object to selling a wedding cake to the couple but to DESIGNING a wedding cake for the couple. He said that he would sell any cake in his bakery to the couple. They wanted him to use his artistic talent for a custom cake. At that point you are forcing speech with is just as anti-first amendment as censoring speech. So essentially you are saying someone could approach a gay artist and demand they paint a portrait of the Westboro Baptist Church for instance.

[Tijuana]

The US bankrolls and support military regimes which are no less brutal, aside from the actual slaughter it carries out by drones and airstrikes, which is considerable.

There is a reason why many people in Iraq joined ISIS. Their government was executing, torturing and raping Sunni muslims-the one the US installed. They turned to the only force believed could protect them and made a deal with the devil. They were wrong to do so but it is easy to pontificate when it isn't your family that has been murdered.

There is a reason why the people join the Taleban. The primary reason was that the Taleban wiped out paedophilia: a practice the US-backed government current Afghan government legalized.

These are two examples in a very long history of bankrolling and supporting morally bankrupt regimes. This is generally how the US operates: it doesn't get its hands dirty. It doesn't do that much itself other than drop bombs on people wishing away any civillian casualties on "collateral damage" (an excuse flatly contradicted by human rights organizations). It just franchises out terror and tyranny to local proxies and turns a blind eye to whatever they do. however repugnant.

This incidentally is why the US is very unpopular abroad. It is actually the precise opposite of Bush's famous "they hate us for their freedom"-they actually hate you because you replaced popular leaders with dictators who were happy for US corporations to operate.


Now, regarding those people who claim to be Christian in the US and support all this shit: no, they don't carry out atrocities personally. There is no need when you have a lot of money and a large military. Nonetheless their influence on the world is just as bad as that of ISIS.

Wow. So much drivel to unpack.

The US, like every nation, has both made mistakes, and done things that harmed one nation, while benefiting another. But your moral judgment of the nation on the whole reads pretty nutty, from where I sit.

Please, link me ANY source that says the Taliban's big contribution to the world was in the pedophilia arena. I don't even know where you read something that insane. They subjugated a nation and brutally ruled them with an iron fist, against their will. Your notion they were somehow chosen or elected is just outrageously ignorant.