frostbitmic Posted March 24, 2017 Share Posted March 24, 2017 What you expect smart people to work for $400,000 a year? The perks of the position far outweigh the paltry salary. But yes, I expect a higher intelligence than Trump, Hilldog, Bush, Gore etc ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 After an extensive halftime... 2nd Half Kickoff begins. Quarter 3 The Constitution describes our representative form of government. The US is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic. The three branches are each put in power through different means. Congressional Representatives by direct vote of the people. Senator initially were appointed by their various state legislatures to the position as representatives of their state and accountable to their legislatures. Senators are now elected to office by direct vote. The Supremes are appointed by the POTUS and allowed to assume office once the Senate confirms them. Potus is not elected directly by the people. In fact, it wasn't until 1824 when eighteen states allowed their electoral votes to be chosen by popular election. John Q. Adams lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson, but Jackson had fewer EC votes. Jackson was pizzed because he lost by one vote to Adams, so pizzed in fact that he started, yep - The Democrat Party. R. B. Hayes defeated Tilden, and Ben Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland but both of them lost the popular vote to their rival. So Bush and Trump are not the only US Presidents to lose the popular vote yet win the Presidency. Lincoln won less than 40% of the popular vote in 1860. "So why is it, you might ask, that I'm not up by 50 points" that we don't elect the President directly by the popular vote. The answer in this matter is that the Constitution is designed to buffer the effects of regionalism. Various issues can emotionally sway the populations of the country in any given election cycle. We see that the gross violation of our immigration laws and Trump's response to it gave rise to a huge popular vote by Mexican Americans and liberals in California. He lost the popular vote by 3,mm in California and overall. To use the popular vote to directly elect the POTUS would in effect be giving the state of California undue influence in the outcome - based on the nation's overall population. It would be effectively ballot box stuffing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 After an extensive halftime... 2nd Half Kickoff begins. Quarter 3 The Constitution describes our representative form of government. The US is not a democracy. It is a democratic republic. The three branches are each put in power through different means. Congressional Representatives by direct vote of the people. Senator initially were appointed by their various state legislatures to the position as representatives of their state and accountable to their legislatures. Senators are now elected to office by direct vote. The Supremes are appointed by the POTUS and allowed to assume office once the Senate confirms them. Potus is not elected directly by the people. In fact, it wasn't until 1824 when eighteen states allowed their electoral votes to be chosen by popular election. John Q. Adams lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson, but Jackson had fewer EC votes. Jackson was pizzed because he lost by one vote to Adams, so pizzed in fact that he started, yep - The Democrat Party. R. B. Hayes defeated Tilden, and Ben Harrison defeated Grover Cleveland but both of them lost the popular vote to their rival. So Bush and Trump are not the only US Presidents to lose the popular vote yet win the Presidency. Lincoln won less than 40% of the popular vote in 1860. "So why is it, you might ask, that I'm not up by 50 points" that we don't elect the President directly by the popular vote. The answer in this matter is that the Constitution is designed to buffer the effects of regionalism. Various issues can emotionally sway the populations of the country in any given election cycle. We see that the gross violation of our immigration laws and Trump's response to it gave rise to a huge popular vote by Mexican Americans and liberals in California. He lost the popular vote by 3,mm in California and overall. To use the popular vote to directly elect the POTUS would in effect be giving the state of California undue influence in the outcome - based on the nation's overall population. It would be effectively ballot box stuffing. Welcome back! I'm going to need a little time for my Q3. I've got some things to attend to. Won't be long. What's the score anyhow? If it's tied, want to make it a 3Q match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 Not sure where it stands. I know. It's a bit taxing to keep things going. I'm no Boyst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 Well, if it's a 3 Quarter game, then I want to use my material prepared for Q4. Yes, I do. It's like approaching a beehive with a stick. well, i'm important. i promise. wait, can i be the stick? Somehow that reminded me of this: Nanker gets my vote because he deposited 20k into my bank account. Sweet Jeepers meazza, you were sworn to secrecy about that. Friggin' leaker! i am leaning toward snafu because nanker hasn't told me i'm pretty today. Oh, sweetcakes you sure are purdy and every day you get purdier. My vote, unless the electoral college strips it away goes to Snafu. Waking up to a clip from Monty Python made this decision easy. Of course if it wasn't for the electoral college we wouldn't have George Bush or Cheez-it Trump as President, on the other hand we would've had Al Gore and Hillary. It's depressing that in this great country we get total morons running for the highest office in the land. That was part of Q1, not Q2. Foul! Illegal use of the Instant Replay. In summary, be careful of what you wish for. You just might not like the slippery slope of unintended consequences! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Well, if it's a 3 Quarter game, then I want to use my material prepared for Q4. Somehow that reminded me of this: Sweet Jeepers meazza, you were sworn to secrecy about that. Friggin' leaker! Oh, sweetcakes you sure are purdy and every day you get purdier. That was part of Q1, not Q2. Foul! Illegal use of the Instant Replay. In summary, be careful of what you wish for. You just might not like the slippery slope of unintended consequences! is that real? That's pornographic. I like it. I'm showing that to all the girls I date so they know what I like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 Just remember to vote for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Tricky sonofabitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 25, 2017 Author Share Posted March 25, 2017 I vote for Snafu! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Q3 rebuttal (I reserve my right to post a follow-up Q4): Nanker's Q3 argument shoots his case in the foot. The Constitution was ratified in 1788. The 12th Amendment was Ratified in 1804. In 1824, as Nanker points out, the 12th Amendment was altered without any further due process. Things change. The way that the EC tallied and reported votes for the President changed because it was obsolete at that time. Since 1824, human progress has changed the circumstances again. Better education, more voters (women, former slaves, etc), better methods of transportation, etc. It's so obvious, there's no need to belabor it. The point is, the Electoral College hasn't kept up with the times. That makes it obsolete. I never did and I never would propose for one person, one vote for president. However, the way that the EC has been run since 1824 is absolutely wrong in light of the makeup of our nation. There is a better way, it retains a representative democratic method, and doesn't call for a direct democracy. According to my way, there a an still be one candidate who gains the national popular vote, but loses the electoral vote. According to my way, the deplorables still have a voice, as much as the blue elites. Here is what I propose -- based on the provisions of the Constitution: Constitution, Article 2, Section 1: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. 12th Amendment, first Paragraph: The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate Look at NYS as my example. When I went to the polls on Election Day, I know that my vote didn't matter at all. I knew that HRC was taking all of the electoral votes of my state. That's the method of today that Nanker has chosen to defend. If each elector, on the other hand, tallied the popular vote of each of the State's Congressional District and pledged its EC voice to the winner of the popular vote in that CD, then the representation gets down to the people and give the Catskills and Adirondacks and the souther tier of WNY the same voice as Kings County and the Bronx, etc. Nobody reports the Presidential Votes cast per CD (unfortunately), but if you look at NYS during the 2016 general election, you get a sense that the state would absolutely be in play between both major party candidates. Instead of 29 votes to HRC, she might likely have gotten 20 to DJT's 9. If you say that the president would then be likely to have a House Majority, then I think you'd be wrong. People don't always vote the same for president as they do for their congressperson. My way actually adheres to the spirit of the Constitution and prevents candidates from ignoring ANY part of the country. [...takes bow, steps off the dais] Well, if it's a 3 Quarter game, then I want to use my material prepared for Q4. Somehow that reminded me of this: Sweet Jeepers meazza, you were sworn to secrecy about that. Friggin' leaker! Oh, sweetcakes you sure are purdy and every day you get purdier. That was part of Q1, not Q2. Foul! Illegal use of the Instant Replay. In summary, be careful of what you wish for. You just might not like the slippery slope of unintended consequences! Q4: All I can say is that I didn't realize you were into furry porn. Gutterminded loon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 admittedly i havent read all the posts yet but my swami instincts are telling me i will be in the serious minority saying i think the electoral college works exactly like they intended first, the EC is supposed to ensure that the candidates be responsible to the whole country, otherwise they would just campaign at the high-population areas and mainly represent only those voices in this case, we got a bad result. the pissed off white ppl across the heartland seethed in just enough states to deliver the victory - just as the EC was designed we can make legitimate points about the various things that stacked up in dons favor to bring us this disaster, some of them very unsavory. but he represented more cumulative EC votes than those in the urban areas dominated by clinton. im sure shes kicking herself for a lot of things, including not campaigning harder in some of those states. but the EC worked as designed it gave us what we asked for: a ѕhit president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 admittedly i havent read all the posts yet but my swami instincts are telling me i will be in the serious minority saying i think the electoral college works exactly like they intended first, the EC is supposed to ensure that the candidates be responsible to the whole country, otherwise they would just campaign at the high-population areas and mainly represent only those voices in this case, we got a bad result. the pissed off white ppl across the heartland seethed in just enough states to deliver the victory - just as the EC was designed we can make legitimate points about the various things that stacked up in dons favor to bring us this disaster, some of them very unsavory. but he represented more cumulative EC votes than those in the urban areas dominated by clinton. im sure shes kicking herself for a lot of things, including not campaigning harder in some of those states. but the EC worked as designed it gave us what we asked for: a ѕhit president Good grief - your swami instincts should have told you that this thread is a debate between two contestants, and anyone's else's input is supposed to be who won each quarter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Good grief - your swami instincts should have told you that this thread is a debate between two contestants, and anyone's else's input is supposed to be who won each quarter. Hang on. He might have slept with one of the contestants so he can relate to them more than the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Good grief - your swami instincts should have told you that this thread is a debate between two contestants, and anyone's else's input is supposed to be who won each quarter. Au contraire. While it isn't fair to join the debate we bystanders have every right to make smarmy and/or snarky comments and ridicule the contestants. This is still PPP, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 Au contraire. While it isn't fair to join the debate we bystanders have every right to make smarmy and/or snarky comments and ridicule the contestants. This is still PPP, you know. We do that through the mechanism of voting, not of looking stupid while attempting to make a substantive contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 We do that through the mechanism of voting, not of looking stupid while attempting to make a substantive contribution. Yes I agree. No joining the argument like Meathead, but Joe Miner's comment was entirely appropriate and probably true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 idk whats going on with your special debate rules but im pretty sure i won Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 idk whats going on with your special debate rules but im pretty sure i won [This is an automated response.] You're an idiot. Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted March 25, 2017 Share Posted March 25, 2017 idk whats going on with your special debate rules but im pretty sure i won Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts