Ellectoral College MUST be defended.
Offline Now while from an evolutionary scale boarders will change and life was arround before it.
But, now that this race is close I am getting as pissed about BOTH sides scoffing at it without understanding the founders intent. If they knew, BOTH republicans and democrates they would want to keep it.
I hated that Bush won based on this rule, but that does NOT mean it should be scrapped. The psychological reason both sides, and maybe some republicans back then would have said "yea, it worked for us, and we'll take it this time, but it still doesn't make sense"
POPULAR VOTE does not constitute an open society that protects dissent. China and Iran have ellections too, sometimes the west forgets that. The ellectoral college is a metaphorical coin toss in a tie. It serves as a long term reminder that there should not be any absolute rule. Every aspect of our goverment is BOTH protection of rights AND dissent.
The reaction to that kind of loss is short term. The founders were wise enough to know that once a monopoly is established it becomes hard to overcome if not impossible.
Even right now I am watching the commie news station MSMBC with my fellow Salinists who usually get things right. But this "popular vote" motif on their part would be a domino that would lead to the monopoly they say they don't want. With big money and big business peddiling influence, how do they think long term that the popular vote with the utopia they peddle would value the interest of the minority?
I would say to my well intended comrads not to do that. You get tons right on social and economic issues. But popular vote can be mob rule by vote. It is understanible why we react to when this happen, but the founders WERE NOT STUPID.
When someone says it is not fair, it is only when they lose, but they call it fair when they win. Leave it alone. We already have a Supreme Court that should have corporate patches on their backs. Lets not let popular vote end up in the hands of people who don't have our best interest in mind.
If we are a nation of protection of dissent, then the Electoral College is the example of a ban on absolute power, why should the voter have anymore absolute power than the president, or the Supreme Court or the congress?
Neither the left or the right have to like it, but IT IS THERE FOR A REASON!
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
MSNBC still exists? That is surprising, I wonder how they turn a profit with all six of their viewers. No surprise that they are still spouting the same tripe.
If they are bringing up the electoral college already they must be worried that Romney is going to win, or they bought into that recent story about how the electoral college could end in a tie which would lead to a vote in congress which will probably favor Romney. I imagine if that happened liberals would lose their minds, it would be more entertaining than the hanging chad fiasco.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
You are such an idiot. EVEN the Repbulican benifits of Bush's win went "I am glad we won, but I don't get it"
You cannot tell me that if this time Obama wins on that same rule Rethuglicans wont say they were cheated, but the same thing credulous liberals did, THEY WILL, they will say Obama stole the ellection,
I am for the electoral college, not because it benifits any party, but it is a long term reminder that absolute power cannot nor should not exist, not even by the voter.
You however with your support of Citizens U fucked it decision usurpt this concept in your attitude that competition means that money wins all the time.
MSNBC have more veiwers that are not classist than fucked news btw and even Stewart and Cobert are better than the "Money equals power" crap you suck balls for.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
No doubt the R's would complain as much as the D's if it was turned around. Unlikely to happen though since the dems are always more popular in urban areas which gives them the advantage with the popular vote. This particular election I don't expect is going to be close at all, but I could be wrong.
Stewart and Cobert have more viewers than all of MSNBC combined, probably because what they report is more closely related to actual news.
And btw, you are the most classist person I know- you view every single issue through the prism of class, and you watch MSNBC. In fact, I am willing to bet that your response to me is going to include some reference to class as if class has anything to do with anything let alone the electoral college or the viewership (lack thereof) of MSNBC.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
DAMN IT BEYOND DONT DO THAT, I hate it when I agree with you. Yes if the roles were reversed the republicans would bitch as much as dems did. But I dissagree, it might be the reverse this time where Romney gets the popular vote but Obama wins the college.
Dont give urban areas the advantage knowing Bush won while not winning the popular vote, that makes no sense.
But viewing it through class? No I don't you do. You have always talked looking down on others not seeing that class should not matter. We did not start this class war, it was waged on us, not by us. Cheaper labor and bigger profets and cutting labor are killing us.
However, I am getting a taste of what you go through here being the minority on economics here. I am getting bitch slapped trying to defend the college. I don't think the founders were stupid when they set that up.
For me I view it as a coin toss in a tie. The point of it isn't to side with the majority or minority but to serve as a long term reminder that there is no absolute power, not even by the voter. This has only happened a hand full of times, and I think it is fair because it can work both ways.
The only thing about 2000 that bothered me wasn't that Bush benefeted from it(well yea it did), but not the system. The recount wouldn't have changed a thing and stopping it was wrong.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hey, you are the one who suddenly came over to my side. I have always been pretty consistent in saying the Constitution is a pretty good idea that we should follow more strictly.
It is math, the democrat candidate is going to carry the high population states like California, New York, Illinois etc. and carry them by a lot. If a democrat were to somehow lose one of those states they don't have a prayer of winning the electoral college. The only way it is possible to win electorally but lose the popular vote is to win a lot of the rural states but only win many of them by a little bit. There simply are not any population centers large enough to give a republican candidate enough of a popular vote to win the popular without winning the electoral college. They have a chance at Ohio and Florida but if they win those states they almost certainly win the electoral college, and in recent history they are certainly not going to have the commanding lead like democrats get in California and New York to pad their popular vote. There simply is no realistic scenario right now where a republican is going to win the popular vote but somehow lose the electoral college.
If we eliminated the electoral college urban areas would certainly have more power, which is why our founders created the system the way it is, the rural states were afraid that all the shots would be called from Boston and New York. Of course, it could switch, there was once a time when the democrats held sway in rural areas and republicans were known for their control of urban areas.
You say as you talk about a class war. Where have I ever talked down on anyone? Other than in your imagination? I have routinely suggested that people can change their class at will, something you have called me crazy for. What "class" a person is in is something that is as irrelevant to me as whether they prefer hamburgers or chicken. Honestly, I don't even know what class I am in. How do you calculate it? Income? Net worth? How much stuff you have? Does it change from year to year? My income is very different this year than last year, and way off from what it was the year before (which was my personal best year ever). Why, according to the IRS I might be considered poor this year, perhaps I ought to go see if I can apply for some of my benefits.
I have always thought such things give you very little information about a person. Probably a slightly more useful distinction is entrepreneur-employee-corporate type, with that information I can make a few more assumptions about a persons personality and attitudes. Not perfectly, but with some confidence. Where a person chooses to live is a better indication. You might be surprised to learn that there are some rather wealthy people who choose to live in trailer parks. I've seen wealthy people living in rundown places because they simply don't care and I've seen poorer people mortgaged to the hilt living in nice suburbs (one of the causes of the housing bubble). I remember the other year I mentioned purchasing my house and finally having a home that I would no longer be "the richest homeless man in America" and Blake dug up some story on a bum who had inherited a multi-million dollar fortune and continued to live on the street. The point is that how a person lives their life is not an indication of their income.
You apparently operate under the assumption that most rich people fit your stereotype of the slick haired, smooth talking, foreign car driving, dishonest and immoral conman who would sell their own mother for profit. It is an image that is reinforced often in popular culture and apparently by your current boss (although I can't be certain if your boss is really that way or if you project it on to him, because you certainly project a lot on to me that isn't accurate). The reality is that most business owners are not like that. Just like our recent conversation about Darden, you automatically assume the worst possible motives even though you were completely incapable of offering even a single suggestion of what they should do differently. That is bigoted and that is classism.
If you think that cheaper labor is killing someone I would suggest that you stop selling your labor so cheaply. I fail to see how it is my fault (or anyone else's) that you sell out so cheaply.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
You don't care about my wages, right? Or did I just imagine that?
Knock it off, you think I am a loser. You also think that I breed a culture of poverty. Then you act like a condesending proffessor despite the fact that I can counter your poney loaf with rich people AND economists that would not treat me that way.
The king cannot see that he has no clothes. You are increasingly transparent with every post.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
To quote Ron Sr, "There you go again" a guy who raised taxes 17 times.
I don't think Nick Hanour is a con artist but he did say I, not you, create the demand and it would be wise to put some money in our pockets. So there goes your false stereotype that I lump all rich people in the same catigory.
Now, having said that THE CLIMATE created the storm. Not a conspiracy, but a mindset.
Making something legal on paper does not make it moral, which is why the crooks who started the climate were not prosicuted. They lead otherwise decent businessmen to follow them. The storm grew and BOOM blew up in everyone's face and we got stuck with the bill.
Then you, who may pay your workers well and they may have decent benefits, cling to that menality by association based on the two words "business owner". You are making this about you. You are making this about class. You have this narscisstic view that you and you alone do everything all by yourself and are TOO BLIND to see that that is physically impossible. So you have no problem, feeding into the climate that have shipped jobs overseas, created more part time jobs instead of more full time jobs, made competition about lower wages which is a race to the bottom.
Please stop playing your broken record. NICK HANOUR A BILLIONAIRE who probibly knows better than you do how to make money, does not agree with you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
No, I have always thought the constitution was a great idea, long before I even joined this website. "Follow it more strictly" is simply code "trust me, do it my way and everything will work out".
The Constitution is a prisim, only in that sense do I recognize that it isn't perfect and will always be open to interpretation. I think you are the one who failes to realize that. If it is my Constitution too, then I can compete with that same Constitution, through free speech, voting and appeal to congress and courts, just like you do.
The way it works is that we both appeal to each other with voice, we both sellect our laws and our leaders and NEITHER of us are entitled to a monopoly. You simply cry foul when someone competes with your ideas.
I simply think you don't like people competing with you but you like competition when you win. Perfect signs of a narscissist and a sociopath. Which even then are not bad things, with a different attitude and the fact that you can and do make money, that does play into a competitive attitude when you own a business. But where you are wrong is that what we have now can only be fixed by caring about yourself and throwing more gass on the fire by simply allowing monopolies to be less fettered by regulation.
Think of the entire economy as an elevator. When it remains in tact and healthy, everything moves up at the same time. There is still the top, the middle and the bottom. But remove the walls and breaks, the top goes up, and the bottom and middle go down. That is what China and India have. It works well for those who control the monopoly, but it is worse for more people than it benefits.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Now let me give you a little credit when I say I don't trust you(your mindset). I'd say don't trust me either. Why? Now while I think we cant use your idea in our current climate, it isn't a bad idea by itself.
I don't trust my own class, not because they don't have good ideas, I do think they do, otherewise I wouldn't argue for them, that but because you and they we are all human, the potential of a pulutocratic monopoly of power can arise and so could a poor class monopoly on power. THAT is the beauty of the Constitution, it is an anti trust law. Where you fail to accept it is that it applies to all sectors of society, from the seperations of powers, to the seperation of church and state, but foolishly want to ignore that it also needs to apply to the private sector as well.
But the middle class worker and working poor merely winning isn't a threat to you. Any lack of counterballance to anything would be the problem. Right now there is an imbalance and it is not being checked by self introspection so the counter balance is my voice and my vote.
Trust no one means you shouldnt blindly accept what even your own say. There will aways be good and bad in every class. But the climate itself is imballanced and you dont see that.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
you guys ever hear of pm's?
Um, I think you miss the bigger picture by making this dispute public. I might even guess that Beyond doesn't mind, and we both dont have glass jaws. But more importantly it shows atheists that we do not have to be monochromatic, and more importantly the theist can see that we are not anymore monochromatic than they are.
Read "The New Atheism" by Victor Stenger if you have not already. In one of his later chapeters he goes through a litney of labels to demonstrate that our behavior and our so called "morals" are not inventions of labels but a common expression in a range of evolution.
Why should atheists be any different? Being an atheist does not automatically make one good or bad. It does not, nor should not be a litmus test to a political party or economic views anymore than we like it when theists do it.
This is extremely important, not JUST to solve economic problems, but to demonstrate that ultimately we can only be individuals.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Exactly my point. I don't care whether you make $1,000,000 a year (which is significantly more than me) or whether you make $1 a year (which is significantly less). What you make does not affect me in any significant way and I don't care.
I think your choice of life is strange. It is not a life I would choose for myself. But I also think it is odd that people choose to use cocaine and I think it is odd that people enjoy watching American Idol, whatever floats your boat is cool with me. If you like your job, more power to you. I don't get it, but I don't get what most people do. However, I think it is ridiculous for you to be upset when your chosen lifestyle provides a low income when it is perfectly predictable that it will lead to a low income.
You buy wine? You have your house appraised recently? You buy a couch last week? Didn't think so. So no, you do not create demand for my products, other people are doing that and they are doing so just fine thank you. Oh, you love rich people that you believe they are on your political side. Just like racists love Uncle Toms. However, your analysis of the rich people who are supposedly on your side is exceedingly shallow, as I pointed out in the other thread where I described how Nick makes his money. You simply started your love affair with him over one speech taken out of context. Just like you love Buffett and Soros who do things you would criticize anyone with an R in front of their name for. You are so partisan you are completely blind. They tell you that you are going to get yours and that is all you care about. Guess what, they are not going to give you shit any more than Obama has given you shit. If you want something, you are going to have to get it yourself.
So why do you completely ignore Article 1 Section 8? Or do you believe that congress has followed that section?
On the contrary, I love nothing more than a good competition. I exist for the purpose of destroying my competitors and I really enjoy doing so. Without competitors life would be boring. If no one was competing with me I would get bored and quit. Name one monopoly that exists today. You speak of all these monopolies, can you name even a single example?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I don't think of people like you as losers so much as thieves.
You keep telling us how hard working the poor in this country are. So if that is the case you and all of them should be clamoring for job training. Clamoring for a system where wealth is distributed based upon the value of one's labor. But they are not. Only higher taxes on the rich and more entitlements for themselves. So the only rational conclusion is you view government as a tool to steal from others.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Am I missing something? It seems equally arbitrary to me. It would seem that any argument about a powerful monopoly catching traction could hold equally true in a single state (or I'm not getting what Brian37 was saying in his first post).
the job training that people can't afford to get? Or the cheaper version that doesn't actually train for a job? Or how about the training that you have to have a job before you can get it?
And I think the rich people complaining about entitlements would be taken more seriously if they stopped taking theirs.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin