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

[Gen4Glock21]

No, the republicans will never win again, that is why this is a liberal PIPE DREAM!! You need a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college and the smaller states will never give up their right to have a say in the general elections. States like PA, Ohio, Wisconsin, would never see another presidential candidate in their states again. You can keep beating this dead horse it will not change a thing. The electoral college is here to stay!

[Renathras]

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.

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.

It's actually a combination, not one or the other.

Let's look at your examples:

Iraq:

The Iraqi government wasn't "installed" by the US, it was voted in by the people. The former people who had power under Saddam's baathists basically boycotted the elections. Instead of the elections being illegitimate, this simply robbed them of power, resulting in the FORMER second-class-citizen's political party treating them (the baathists) like they were treated. The mistreatment of the majority by the minority under Saddam was so bad that US troops, when they first arrived in Iraqi cities early in the war, were given gifts and food by the local people, and children would have their pictures taken with the soldiers, seeing them as liberators.

Even so, this didn't result in the now-oppressed running into the arms of ISIS so much as them not wanting to fight ISIS...initially. They abandoned military equipment and ran away, not out of fear exactly (though probably true in some cases), but rather not wanting to fight for their government in Baghdad, which they largely think doesn't represent them. Then they saw how bad ISIS was, and have largely abandoned them.

The large majority of the people there didn't - and haven't - joined ISIS.

It should also be noted this is still an abject oversimplification since you have a lot of tribal affiliations and such that were at play, too. The nation has never seen itself as a nation, largely because Sykes-Piccot (British/French agreement dating back to WWI) gave them the national boundary, many argue largely to keep them from becoming a powerhouse nation. It should really be separated in to at least three, if not more, nations, since the people there don't see themselves as "Iraqis". They don't hold any particular esteem for the nation as a whole, but rather their part of it. It'd be like if people in the US saw themselves as Christian or Democrat, rather than American. Again, oversimplification, but there's not really a good direct parallel to make.

.

Afghanistan:

The people there weren't in love with the Taliban before, nor are they now. They did like that the Taliban opposed pedophilia (well, most of them), but Afghanistan (much like Iraq) has never had a strong NATIONAL identity. Rather, people's identity is with their tribal groupings and local leaderships, many of whom didn't and still don't like the Taliban, they just were iffy on throwing in with the US, thinking the US, just like the USSR in the 1970s/1980s ended up giving up on its war there.

The large majority of the people there didn't - and haven't - joined the Taliban.

Even before the war, when the Taliban was the government, many of the tribal leaders and elders didn't join the Taliban so much as tolerate them, and this was also true with the vast majority of the people. After all, the same Taliban that outlawed pedophilia was also the same Taliban that said women can't be doctors. They aren't exactly "the good guys".

.

The US operates in these ways which I largely find negative (I'm a libertarian and believe largely that the US should have little involvement in local or regional conflicts, most of which aren't our business - let the locals sort things out), but that isn't what we were talking about.

We were talking about people saying that fundamentalist evangelical Christians - IN THE US - were as bad as ISIS.

You people keep moving the goal poasts because I keep showing you how inane the original comparison was and you don't want to accept it, because "fundamental evangelical Christians" (as a "specific evil proxy" that you think you can convince everyone they're evil so you can THEN draw the guilt by association to say that all Christians are bad) are a favorite whipping boy of the left.

But you go too far when you say that they're equivalent to ISIS. The most extreme of Christian groups in the US doesn't hold a candle to ISIS.

Now you're arguing government policy. So let's see a quick timeline of how this discussion went:

-Christians in US are bad.
-Fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the US are as bad as ISIS.
-Well, ISIS is really bad, but have you looked at US history. (Government history, not specific groups.)
-Okay, I mean modern US history. And by that, I mean not what the US is doing, but what other people are doing that the US government doesn't stop them from.
-...and then I'm going to say that people don't like the US government when it DOES go into countries to stop bad people.

Honestly, it's more I've been successfully trolled by someone who can't stick to a single argument anyway.

At the end of the day, my initial point stands:

NO group in the US can be reasonably compared to ISIS. No equivalency exists. ISIS is a unique entity, like the Nazis/Hitler, and aren't really equivalent to anything else.

.

Oh, and for the record:

There are some places in the US that hate us because of our prosperity, some hate us because of our freedom, and some hate us because of our meddling. No one of these is the reason in all cases, and it would be true of any nation. If the USSR had won the Cold War and the US had been the one that collapsed, people would hate the USSR today, largely for the same reasons - prosperity and meddling. Those traits aren't unique to the US, they're just unique to being the biggest economic and political power in the world - people will resent you for it, no matter how well or poorly you use such power. Any nation the world - USSR/Russia, China, UK, Iran - if they were the world's only superpower, would be resented for largely that same reason.

[Deleted]

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

There was a long thread on this subject on this forum recently. Several US soldiers were thrown out of the army for taking a stand on the issue with the Afghans.

[ezgeze]

We do not live in a democracy, we live in a Republic. Democrats want to remove the electoral college to entrench power and dictate to the vast majority of states their will from a handful of coastal states.

Left=party of hatred and oppression.

[Daerio]

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.

No, this is wrong. Government should not be regulating morality, and people of a free country do in fact have the right to self-determination, and that includes things like running their own business without government interference. The only time government should interfere in such cases is in the interest of public safety. In some sectors they've expanded this to include protecting consumers from predatory financial practices which I'm inclined to agree with; but in the case of discrimination, I don't think it's right for the government to step in and say businesses must cater to X population. A lot of businesses require shirts and shoes to get service, are we sure that isn't discriminatory against people who like looking like trash? Additionally, isn't it a much more powerful and effective incentive for those populations to simply spend their money elsewhere?

For instance, maybe black people should buy Fubu instead of idolizing Tommy Hilfiger, rather than crying for government interference in someone's morality? (this isn't a great analogy, especially since TH isn't really that popular any more)

[Shefu]

Bio-metric voter ID, US Citizens only. with a paper trail?

In Landslides.

It is citizens only as it is dumbass. U can not register to vote if u are not a US citizen.

[Annoying]

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.

If that artist runs a company classified as a public accommodation, yes, that's exactly what I'd expect. Like I said, they weren't forced to run a company. They agreed to follow the laws when they signed the paperwork for their business license. Don't want to do something against your religion? Don't sign the paperwork or run a private club, which isn't bound by the CRA.

[Tijuana]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

There was a long thread on this subject on this forum recently. Several US soldiers were thrown out of the army for taking a stand on the issue with the Afghans.

Right so, this incident means that literally the global opinion of the Taliban, and what will be written in the history books about their historical relevance, is that "they fought against pedos". I don't even know what to say to something spinning that hard.

You DO KNOW they cut women's noses off and stone people and the like, right? Right???

[Annoying]

No, this is wrong. Government should not be regulating morality, and people of a free country do in fact have the right to self-determination, and that includes things like running their own business without government interference. The only time government should interfere in such cases is in the interest of public safety. In some sectors they've expanded this to include protecting consumers from predatory financial practices which I'm inclined to agree with; but in the case of discrimination, I don't think it's right for the government to step in and say businesses must cater to X population. A lot of businesses require shirts and shoes to get service, are we sure that isn't discriminatory against people who like looking like trash? Additionally, isn't it a much more powerful and effective incentive for those populations to simply spend their money elsewhere?

For instance, maybe black people should buy Fubu instead of idolizing Tommy Hilfiger, rather than crying for government interference in someone's morality? (this isn't a great analogy, especially since TH isn't really that popular any more)

That's a fine opinion, but it's just an opinion. Nothing I said was wrong, you just disagree with it. Also note that "looking like trash" isn't a protected class. If you want to change who public accommodations are allowed to refuse service to, tell your lawmakers to repeal the CRA.

[Deleted]

-Fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the US are as bad as ISIS.

Without them there would be no ISIS. They were crucial in securing Bush's electoral victory. There would have been no Iraq invasion, no persecution of the Sunni community and no rising for ISIS.
The religous right seems to be utterly obsessed with using its influence to persecute Muslims wherever. When that influence can wield the military-industrial complex, yeah its fucking dangerous.

[Citizen T]

If that artist runs a company classified as a public accommodation, yes, that's exactly what I'd expect. Like I said, they weren't forced to run a company. They agreed to follow the laws when they signed the paperwork for their business license. Don't want to do something against your religion? Don't sign the paperwork or run a private club, which isn't bound by the CRA.

The rules we are talking about did not exist when they "signed the paperwork" as you put it.

In any case local government rules/regulation cannot override the US Constitution. The First Amendment clearly protects both religion and speech. I'm not even particularly pushing the religion aspect - I'm stressing the free speech aspect. Rules and regulations cannot censor speech nor force it.

[Deleted]

Right so, this incident means that literally the global opinion of the Taliban, and what will be written in the history books about their historical relevance, is that "they fought against pedos". I don't even know what to say to something spinning that hard.

So, you are OK with the US government supporting a regime where tens of thousands of children are being raped on a daily basis? That is happening as we speak.

[Daerio]

If you marry in city A, the marriage should also be acknowledged in city B.

Doing an end-run around state law instead of convincing the majority of people in the state to "change their minds."

First, I don't have a problem with gay marriage, but I think marriage in general should not be a "federal" or governmentally endorsed venture. Government should be neutral on this subject, especially with consideration to taxation, with exception to how children are handled by the court. There should be no reason or need for the government to acknowledge a marriage between two men with no children, because it holds no relevance to the law. It should hold no financial benefit, (though I know it does currently) and it should hold no moral relevance.

But since that isn't the reality we live in, the alternative is simple: pass gay marriage laws state by state by doing the "ground work" and convincing the people in those states that it's morally right. Don't pass transgender bathroom laws by executive order. You can't institute social change through executive order; Obama is a fucking idiot in this regard.

If you're so convinced yours is the morally superior position, convince the majority. Don't attempt to rule by minority and claim sole ownership of morality.

[Daerio]

That's a fine opinion, but it's just an opinion. Nothing I said was wrong, you just disagree with it. Also note that "looking like trash" isn't a protected class. If you want to change who public accommodations are allowed to refuse service to, tell your lawmakers to repeal the CRA.

Well, if someone can be denied service for looking like trash, why not for a gay man dressed in drag? Why not for a woman who's dressed like a hooker? Who's to say where the line is for someone deciding who their business is going to service, and why the fuck is government involved in this equation?

Why isn't it a better alternative for those customers to simply go somewhere else where they ARE supported, and use that as a platform to support their position and that person's business? The "free market" alternative to discrimination?

[Tijuana]

So, you are OK with the US government supporting a regime where tens of thousands of children are being raped on a daily basis? That is happening as we speak.

I'm completely ok with how the US is performing in all fake news stories.

[Vargur]

Because that unequal form of voting gives more voice to the peripherical, small population, poorer economy states. With pure democracy, the country would polarize even faster.

"Leaders" of democracy have undemocratic votes. In every other country that I know of, the only vote is the democratic one, the entity elected by the majority of voters wins.
The people elected Clinton.

[Deleted]

I'm completely ok with how the US is performing in all fake news stories.

Seriously? Are you too lazy to google this or do a forum search? No one seriously contests what is going on there other than you.

[Daerio]

Or we could just force businesses not to discriminate against their customers and the business with the better products and services could win instead of winning just because they don't hate gays.

That sounds like an actual free market to me.

Forcing businesses to do anything doesn't sound like free market to me. Why not force consumers to shop at places that support gay people more? How about forcing customers or businesses to buy products from Israel because they're our ally and they need our financial help? Does the moral imperative for one exist, but not the others?

How about a government quota that at least 10% of government spending has to be spent on businesses owned by gays? I just love arbitrarily enforced morality!

[Tijuana]

Seriously? Are you too lazy to google this or do a forum search? No one seriously contests what is going on there other than you.

I was questioning the tone and the framing, that lead to the Taliban being saviors of children, instead of murderous villains that subjugated a nation like tyrants.

[Annoying]

Well, if someone can be denied service for looking like trash, why not for a gay man dressed in drag? Why not for a woman who's dressed like a hooker? Who's to say where the line is for someone deciding who their business is going to service, and why the fuck is government involved in this equation?

Why isn't it a better alternative for those customers to simply go somewhere else where they ARE supported, and use that as a platform to support their position and that person's business? The "free market" alternative to discrimination?

Again, you're free to start a campaign to repeal the CRA so that a "free market" alternative can be tried. Contact your senators and congressmen.

Note: A lot of you replying to me seem to be replying as if I'm expressing an opinion in some way. I'm literally just telling you what the law is, why it complies with the constitution, and what the federal laws are supposed to apply to. The only opinion I've expressed is: "there certainly are issues that the federal government should be dealing with".