PDA

View Full Version : tPF GOOD TIMES: Wouldn't it be cool if we eliminated the electoral college?



Pages : [1] 2

Bethere
08-24-2016, 02:49 AM
It could happen! Finally states would have proportional power rather than power stilted in favor of the tiny red states.

We just need 105 electoral votes to pull it off. It is pretty easy to see where those might come from.

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

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) and the District of Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia) to award all their respective electoral votes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)) to whichever presidential candidate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election) wins the overall popular vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-CtEC-3) As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_force).

Law professors (and brothers) Akhil Reed Amar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Reed_Amar) and Vikram Amar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Amar) defended the constitutionality of such a plan.[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-50) They proposed that a group of states, through legislation, form a compact wherein they agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own state. These state laws would only be triggered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_law) once the compact included enough states to control a majority of the electoral college (270 votes), thus guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the electoral college.
The academic plan uses two constitutional features:

Presidential Electors Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors) in Article 2, section 1, clause 2 which gives each state the power to determine the manner in which its electors are selected.
Compact Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Clause), Article I, section 10, clause 3 under which it creates an enforceable compact.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg/300px-Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg.png


YOUR THOUGHTS?

FindersKeepers
08-24-2016, 04:31 AM
That's a poor idea, and very likely unconstitutional.

And, it won't happen so you needn't get all excited about it.

Peter1469
08-24-2016, 04:42 AM
It would give undue power to the North East and the West Coast. It would take away power from the rest of the nation.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 05:51 AM
That's a poor idea, and very likely unconstitutional.

And, it won't happen so you needn't get all excited about it.

In what way would it be unconstitutional? Be specific.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 05:51 AM
It would give undue power to the North East and the West Coast. It would take away power from the rest of the nation.

Good times!

FindersKeepers
08-24-2016, 06:50 AM
In what way would it be unconstitutional? Be specific.

In short, the Framers opposed the idea of a direct election and, despite numerous attempts, no one has yet been able to pass a congressional amendment that bans the electoral college. In essence, states that join the pact agree to award electors based on voting results that occur outside that particular state. Short of an amendment - it's unlikely those states will be able to legally circumvent the electoral college. I don't think it will hold up under SCOTUS scrutiny.

In case you're really interested in why it's probably unconstitutional -- you can find a detailed answer to your question here:



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiA9v_C-9nOAhUC6CYKHUnGCB8QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.byu.edu%2Fcgi% 2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2686%26context%3Dlaw review&usg=AFQjCNGieGzDh-xmZK6sHoCAXkN_2AiEQQ&sig2=ckLeEilGfWEHmh-oC1Qi_g (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiA9v_C-9nOAhUC6CYKHUnGCB8QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.byu.edu%2Fcgi% 2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2686%26context%3Dlaw review&usg=AFQjCNGieGzDh-xmZK6sHoCAXkN_2AiEQQ&sig2=ckLeEilGfWEHmh-oC1Qi_g)

FindersKeepers
08-24-2016, 06:51 AM
Good times!


"Mob rule" is "good times?"

You sure have an odd way of looking at things.

Fascinating.

Green Arrow
08-24-2016, 06:51 AM
That's a poor idea, and very likely unconstitutional.

And, it won't happen so you needn't get all excited about it.

It's not unconstitutional to alter the constitution.

Green Arrow
08-24-2016, 06:52 AM
It would give undue power to the North East and the West Coast. It would take away power from the rest of the nation.

If we did away with the electoral college, it would empower the people.

Safety
08-24-2016, 06:55 AM
If the west coast and north east were conservative instead of liberal, the house would already be voting on the bill.

FindersKeepers
08-24-2016, 06:55 AM
It's not unconstitutional to alter the constitution.

Who said it was?

FindersKeepers
08-24-2016, 06:56 AM
If the west coast and north east were conservative instead of liberal, the house would already be voting on the bill.

Overturning the electoral safeguards put in place by the Framers, no matter who seeks to do it, doesn't make it right.

Truth Detector
08-24-2016, 06:59 AM
It could happen! Finally states would have proportional power rather than power stilted in favor of the tiny red states.

We just need 105 electoral votes to pull it off. It is pretty easy to see where those might come from.

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

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) and the District of Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia) to award all their respective electoral votes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)) to whichever presidential candidate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election) wins the overall popular vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-CtEC-3) As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_force).

Law professors (and brothers) Akhil Reed Amar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Reed_Amar) and Vikram Amar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Amar) defended the constitutionality of such a plan.[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-50) They proposed that a group of states, through legislation, form a compact wherein they agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own state. These state laws would only be triggered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_law) once the compact included enough states to control a majority of the electoral college (270 votes), thus guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the electoral college.
The academic plan uses two constitutional features:

Presidential Electors Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors) in Article 2, section 1, clause 2 which gives each state the power to determine the manner in which its electors are selected.
Compact Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Clause), Article I, section 10, clause 3 under which it creates an enforceable compact.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg/300px-Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg.png


YOUR THOUGHTS?

The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent large population states from having undue influence and power in elections over lesser populated states. It was a brilliant idea and consistent with the idea that we are not a straight democracy, but rather, a Republic of states.

Eliminating it would be moronic. What should be done in order to give better State representation is proportioning electoral votes based on vote counts. California is the best example of this. If you are a Republican in that state, your vote is basically meaningless in Presidential elections these days as they tend to call the state for the Democrat and winner takes all 55 electoral votes. That is poor representation. If the electoral votes were proportional, California would play a larger and more important role in elections because then the 55 electoral votes would be allocated based on vote count....in other words, Democrats would receive 33 while republicans would still get 22.

This would engage the politicians and make the state more relevant in the campaigns.

FindersKeepers
08-24-2016, 07:00 AM
If we did away with the electoral college, it would empower the people.

The Framers understood the danger and folly of a direct popular vote. They warned against it and they made provisions to protect against it.

Those who seek to undo those protections (through the pact in the OP) are laboring over dunghills.

Truth Detector
08-24-2016, 07:01 AM
If we did away with the electoral college, it would empower the people.

Wrong; it would empower states with large cities and very large populations at the expense of smaller states and cities. But I do understand how low information fascist leftists would want mob rule over states rights.

Green Arrow
08-24-2016, 07:02 AM
The Framers understood the danger and folly of a direct popular vote. They warned against it and they made provisions to protect against it.

Those who seek to undo those protections (through the pact in the OP) are laboring over dunghills.

They also warned against the creation of political parties, but we did that anyway.

Truth Detector
08-24-2016, 07:02 AM
If the west coast and north east were conservative instead of liberal, the house would already be voting on the bill.

Baloney; but then, baloney is your specialty. :rofl:

Green Arrow
08-24-2016, 07:04 AM
Wrong; it would empower states with large cities and very large populations at the expense of smaller states and cities. But I do understand how low information fascist leftists would want mob rule over states rights.

No, it wouldn't, because the vote wouldn't be counted as "Los Angeles" or "California." The system as it is now does that. The states with the largest populations have the most electoral votes and the result can be easily swayed because of it.

Safety
08-24-2016, 07:04 AM
Baloney; but then, baloney is your specialty. :rofl:

Amazing and thought provoking response. All it accomplished was to entice me to make a sandwich.

Truth Detector
08-24-2016, 07:06 AM
The Framers understood the danger and folly of a direct popular vote. They warned against it and they made provisions to protect against it.

Those who seek to undo those protections (through the pact in the OP) are laboring over dunghills.

^Spot on. They feared the idea of dishonest professional politicians pandering to low information voters by promising them free stuff. The DNC embodies the very thing our founders feared could happen.

Truth Detector
08-24-2016, 07:08 AM
Amazing and thought provoking response. All it accomplished was to entice me to make a sandwich.

It was in concert with the thoughtless speculative bullschit you tend to erupt with. TY :biglaugh:

Truth Detector
08-24-2016, 07:08 AM
They also warned against the creation of political parties, but we did that anyway.

Link?

Truth Detector
08-24-2016, 07:11 AM
No, it wouldn't, because the vote wouldn't be counted as "Los Angeles" or "California." The system as it is now does that. The states with the largest populations have the most electoral votes and the result can be easily swayed because of it.

I see that geography and demographics are not your specialty. In California, the bluest part of the State are the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. They also happen to have the largest populations. Therefore, regardless of the FACT that most of the state leans RED, the high population areas also dictate the politics for everyone else. The same holds true for the electoral college.

I see that you are also a product of the public school system. :biglaugh:

Jets
08-24-2016, 08:09 AM
Here's the problem, more often than not this falls along what one supports. How often do we have the argument about giving people what they want on one hand and than stating how stupid they are on the other. Too often it happens to match ones stance on the issue.

jmo

Cletus
08-24-2016, 10:36 AM
It's not unconstitutional to alter the constitution.

They aren't suggesting changing the Constitution. They want to circumvent it.

maineman
08-24-2016, 10:52 AM
I think it would be cool to amend the constitution in such a way as to take two electoral votes away from each state. That'd be pretty simple.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 11:25 AM
8
Baloney; but then, baloney is your specialty. :rofl:

Watch it.

Last warning.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 11:27 AM
It was in concert with the thoughtless speculative bullschit you tend to erupt with. TY :biglaugh:

You are no longer welcome on this thread.

DGUtley
08-24-2016, 11:27 AM
It would not be cool if we eliminated the electoral college.

Safety
08-24-2016, 11:33 AM
It was in concert with the thoughtless speculative bullschit you tend to erupt with. TY :biglaugh:

@truth detector has been banished from the thread by Bethere, please do not respond to the member's posts

Bethere
08-24-2016, 11:33 AM
It would not be cool if we eliminated the electoral college.Thank you, counselor! 1. Noted. But in your view, and taking into consideration the constitutional argument in the header of this thread, do you view it as unconstitutional? Why or why not?2. Should we resign jr smith?

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 11:37 AM
It could happen! Finally states would have proportional power rather than power stilted in favor of the tiny red states.

We just need 105 electoral votes to pull it off. It is pretty easy to see where those might come from.

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

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) and the District of Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia) to award all their respective electoral votes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)) to whichever presidential candidate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election) wins the overall popular vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-CtEC-3) As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_force).

Law professors (and brothers) Akhil Reed Amar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Reed_Amar) and Vikram Amar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Amar) defended the constitutionality of such a plan.[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-50) They proposed that a group of states, through legislation, form a compact wherein they agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own state. These state laws would only be triggered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_law) once the compact included enough states to control a majority of the electoral college (270 votes), thus guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the electoral college.
The academic plan uses two constitutional features:

Presidential Electors Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors) in Article 2, section 1, clause 2 which gives each state the power to determine the manner in which its electors are selected.
Compact Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Clause), Article I, section 10, clause 3 under which it creates an enforceable compact.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg/300px-Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg.png


YOUR THOUGHTS?

Mob rule! We need to do away with the popular vote for senators and the president. The VP also needs to be chosen as originally designed.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 11:41 AM
Mob rule! We need to do away with the popular vote for senators and the president. The VP also needs to be chosen as originally designed.

Let's take away women's suffrage and reinstate slavery, too. That was our genius patriot founding father/heroes' vision, too right?

maineman
08-24-2016, 11:43 AM
It would give undue power to the North East and the West Coast. It would take away power from the rest of the nation.

it would give power to states populated with people and take it away from states populated by prairie dogs. Seems fair.

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 11:46 AM
Let's take away women's suffrage and reinstate slavery, too. That was our genius patriot founding father/heroes' vision, too right?

Your response is rather lacking. Try to bring everything into the areas where you can call names and have nothing to support your arguments.

DGUtley
08-24-2016, 11:56 AM
Thank you, counselor! 1. Noted. But in your view, and taking into consideration the constitutional argument in the header of this thread, do you view it as unconstitutional? Why or why not?2. Should we resign jr smith?

1. I haven't delved deep into it, but based on the surface of the arguments set forth herein, I think it's likely unconstitutional: http://townhall.com/columnists/hankadler/2014/05/03/breaking-the-constitution--national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-n1832757

I don't have any degree of confidence that the Court maintains the judicial integrity necessary to actually follow the constitution -- one way or the other mind you. I know that you and I disagree on Citizens United (I maintain it's a simple Day One law school exercise answer and you maintain it's a dramatic change in law, if I recall correctly), but the Court has become way too politicized. Giving speeches, making comments on elections etc. It's ability to toil in obscurity is non-existent.

2. Yes, we should. I'm baffled why he hasn't been re-signed yet. Your thoughts?

3. OSU -- long night in Norman? 11-1? 10-2? Why the love fest for Khaki pants up in TSUN? Urban isn't chipped beef. To me, our beloved Buckeyes will be fine once the line matures, much like in 14. The question is will it be before or after Norman. A tight loss in Oklahoma to the Stoops boy from Y-town and we still could be in the mix for a national.

4. Browns -- 3-13. 4-12, maybe. I can probably get you 5 tix to a December game, any game, row 5 behind visitors bench 40 yard line. They'll be a tough giveaway.

DGUtley
08-24-2016, 11:58 AM
Mob rule! We need to do away with the popular vote for senators and the president. The VP also needs to be chosen as originally designed.

Senators were not originally chosen by popular vote (See 17th Amendment). They were chosen by the state legislators and we should return to that method. IMHO.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:00 PM
In short, the Framers opposed the idea of a direct election and, despite numerous attempts, no one has yet been able to pass a congressional amendment that bans the electoral college. In essence, states that join the pact agree to award electors based on voting results that occur outside that particular state. Short of an amendment - it's unlikely those states will be able to legally circumvent the electoral college. I don't think it will hold up under SCOTUS scrutiny.

In case you're really interested in why it's probably unconstitutional -- you can find a detailed answer to your question here:



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiA9v_C-9nOAhUC6CYKHUnGCB8QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.byu.edu%2Fcgi% 2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2686%26context%3Dlaw review&usg=AFQjCNGieGzDh-xmZK6sHoCAXkN_2AiEQQ&sig2=ckLeEilGfWEHmh-oC1Qi_g (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiA9v_C-9nOAhUC6CYKHUnGCB8QFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigitalcommons.law.byu.edu%2Fcgi% 2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D2686%26context%3Dlaw review&usg=AFQjCNGieGzDh-xmZK6sHoCAXkN_2AiEQQ&sig2=ckLeEilGfWEHmh-oC1Qi_g)

This poster wasn't actually interested in reading why abandoning the electoral college is unConstitutional. This poster was far more interested in establishing the assertion and hoping it wouldn't be challenged.

And offers hard leftist "constitutional scholars" (:biglaugh:) as though they possess gravitas on the topic. Obama is - supposedly - a Constitutional scholar.

Of course, his studies have not been engaged to learn about which he intends to support and defend. Obama studied the Constitution for the purpose of understanding how to best undermine it.

That's what makes posters like the OP - and Obama - enemies to Originalists.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:02 PM
It's not unconstitutional to alter the constitution.

A lobotomy isn't murder, either.

But it certainly changes the person.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:02 PM
it would give power to states populated with people and take it away from states populated by prairie dogs. Seems fair.

It does!

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:12 PM
If we did away with the electoral college, it would empower the people.

Red Herring. It would shift the balance of power amongst the people.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:13 PM
If the west coast and north east were conservative instead of liberal, the house would already be voting on the bill.

...and you would - suddenly - be against this idea.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:13 PM
1. I haven't delved deep into it, but based on the surface of the arguments set forth herein, I think it's likely unconstitutional: http://townhall.com/columnists/hankadler/2014/05/03/breaking-the-constitution--national-popular-vote-interstate-compact-n1832757

I don't have any degree of confidence that the Court maintains the judicial integrity necessary to actually follow the constitution -- one way or the other mind you. I know that you and I disagree on Citizens United (I maintain it's a simple Day One law school exercise answer and you maintain it's a dramatic change in law, if I recall correctly), but the Court has become way too politicized. Giving speeches, making comments on elections etc. It's ability to toil in obscurity is non-existent.

2. Yes, we should. I'm baffled why he hasn't been re-signed yet. Your thoughts?

3. OSU -- long night in Norman? 11-1? 10-2? Why the love fest for Khaki pants up in TSUN? Urban isn't chipped beef. To me, our beloved Buckeyes will be fine once the line matures, much like in 14. The question is will it be before or after Norman. A tight loss in Oklahoma to the Stoops boy from Y-town and we still could be in the mix for a national.

4. Browns -- 3-13. 4-12, maybe. I can probably get you 5 tix to a December game, any game, row 5 behind visitors bench 40 yard line. They'll be a tough giveaway.

1. The Constitution, as the article notes, gives the states the power to determine electors as they see fit. There is no mention in the document of presidential elections of any kind. The Constitution also gives states the power to enter into binding compacts with one another. It sounds to me like this idea is on solid ground--jmho.

2. The cavs are way over the salary cap, just like with Tristan Thompson last summer. For every dollar we spend on jr we will owe the league 2 in luxury tax. So this is a very expensive proposition. But the bird rule gives us the right to do it and, thankfully, it will get done eventually.

3. We win that game. Oklahoma has issues deep and wide on defense. We'll score a ton of points in this game. No college player will have a bigger impact than jt barrett.

4. I am a Bengal fan, so thanks anyway. But you get your deviant pothead reciever on one side and pryor on the other and that would scare the tar of bethere.

I cherish the fact that we can have these discussions. Our new friends should be advised that wasn't always the case.

We worked at it, and I'm glad that we did, sir.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:16 PM
They also warned against the creation of political parties, but we did that anyway.

That is 100% true.

But offering that as a retort doesn't seem to help your earlier argument. In fact, it offers a great example of why we should listen to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, instead of ignoring it. The Founders couldn't have been more clear: they established the Electoral College expressly to stop the power grab which leftists are now attempting.

Or do you think that because ignoring them once turned out to be a disaster that this wouldn't be?

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:17 PM
No, it wouldn't, because the vote wouldn't be counted as "Los Angeles" or "California." The system as it is now does that. The states with the largest populations have the most electoral votes and the result can be easily swayed because of it.

Again: terrible argument. The States you cite do not have electoral votes in direct proportion to the populations of the rest of the country, or they would be no purpose in an electoral college.

Safety
08-24-2016, 12:18 PM
...and you would - suddenly - be against this idea.
Oh, in order to make that fallacy fruitful, you must establish where I supported it in the first place.

Let me know when you are able to do that, until then I will just sit back and mock your existence.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:18 PM
A lobotomy isn't murder, either.

But it certainly changes the person.

Did it hurt?

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:19 PM
Here's the problem, more often than not this falls along what one supports. How often do we have the argument about giving people what they want on one hand and than stating how stupid they are on the other. Too often it happens to match ones stance on the issue.

jmo

Correct. Leftists want more power because Leftists are concentrated in big city populations.

'Cuz they've created Shangrila in these areas, and wish to infect the rest of the country with their wisdom.

Of course, that also requires taking the money of the rest of the country, but let's just sweep that part under the rug.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:20 PM
Oh, in order to make that fallacy fruitful, you must establish where I supported it in the first place.

Let me know when you are able to do that, until then I will just sit back and mock your existence.

If you believe he manufactured quotes on your behalf? Remove him.

Your call.

"8. You must provide a link when quoting an article and follow fair use guidelines (you are permitted to copy and paste two to three paragraphs). In addition, do not alter another user's words when quoting them."

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 12:21 PM
Senators were not originally chosen by popular vote (See 17th Amendment). They were chosen by the state legislators and we should return to that method. IMHO.

I did not state otherwise! It is a matter of not wanting to repeat things I have said in the past! There are a few amendments that have past their expiration daye.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:23 PM
They aren't suggesting changing the Constitution. They want to circumvent it.

Exactly. According to @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), it would be 'constitutional' to pass an amendment that does away with the Constitution.

Of course, that ignores that the meaning of the word 'constitution' is not the only thing which must be defended. The intent must be defended; that's why our public officials are required to take an oath which includes the words "protect and defend the Constitution".

They're not charged with defending the definition of the word 'Constitution'; they're saddled with the responsibility to defend the INTENT of it.

That means defending against the intent to circumvent it - which is exactly what an amendment of the type I offered would be.

Constitutional Intent cannot be defended with words; words are written by majority rule. It must be defended with blood. That's why the Founders cited an occasional need to refresh the Tree of Liberty with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.

Tyrants, of course, being those guilty of attempting to circumvent intent.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:26 PM
I think it would be cool to amend the constitution in such a way as to take two electoral votes away from each state. That'd be pretty simple.

How about add two instead?

No. You will not get your way peaceably.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:27 PM
Exactly. According to @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), it would be 'constitutional' to pass an amendment that does away with the Constitution.

Green arrow said no such thing.

Watch yourself.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:29 PM
How about add two instead?No. You will not get your way peaceably.Of course he will.You are suffering from a bad case of future shock.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:32 PM
I did not state otherwise! It is a matter of not wanting to repeat things I have said in the past! There are a few amendments that have past their expiration daye.

The cool thing about this proposal is that it doesn't change the constitution in any way.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:33 PM
Oh, in order to make that fallacy fruitful, you must establish where I supported it in the first place.

Let me know when you are able to do that, until then I will just sit back and mock your existence.

Oh, my goal wasn't to prove it, Safety. It was to force you to address your own. You know...this one:


If the west coast and north east were conservative instead of liberal, the house would already be voting on the bill.

So tell me, Safety: why do you not hold yourself to the standard you attempt to foist on others? My response to you was legitimate: if you can make an unprovable assertion, why can't I?

Shall I "mock your existence" as well, or should I lean on the reliably and uniformly enforced standard that Bethere enforces in his threads, where he takes an extremely dim view of posts in bad faith offered by people of all persuasions?

Hm?

You could do the right thing and never force Bethere's hand, naturally. You could thread ban yourself.

maineman
08-24-2016, 12:34 PM
How about add two instead?

No. You will not get your way peaceably.

adding electoral votes that are not proportional to population only serves to further enhance the power or prairie dogs and diminish the power of people.

I'm not surprised you'd advocate such a thing.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:34 PM
Did it hurt?

I wouldn't know, Bethere; I don't feel your pain.

Careful though: your double standard is showing. I thought you abhorred bad faith posting?

maineman
08-24-2016, 12:36 PM
"do not alter another user's words when quoting them."

Pedro does that all the time!

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:36 PM
If you believe he manufactured quotes on your behalf? Remove him.

Your call.

"8. You must provide a link when quoting an article and follow fair use guidelines (you are permitted to copy and paste two to three paragraphs). In addition, do not alter another user's words when quoting them."

What did I do? You are claiming a violated a rule of this forum in my post?

You have to be kidding me. Learn the rules. My post was no quote of his. I was asserting what his belief would be, and I did it flawlessly.

While illustrating brightly both his and your hypocrisy on this matter.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:37 PM
Oh, my goal wasn't to prove it, @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226). It was to force you to address your own. You know...this one:



So tell me, Safety: why do you not hold yourself to the standard you attempt to foist on others? My response to you was legitimate: if you can make an unprovable assertion, why can't I?

Shall I "mock your existence" as well, or should I lean on the reliably and uniformly enforced standard that @Bethere (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1988) enforces in his threads, where he takes an extremely dim view of posts in bad faith offered by people of all persuasions?

Hm?

You could do the right thing and never force Bethere's hand, naturally. You could thread ban yourself.

I think in you'll find my tPF threads have fewer bans per post than any others and they stay on topic with much fewer examples of ad hominem.

I would be an awesome mod.

And thanks for noticing my even handedness. I find that people don't mind rules if they are applied fairly.

That's what I try to do.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:38 PM
Green arrow said no such thing.

Watch yourself.

:facepalm:

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 12:38 PM
The cool thing about this proposal is that it doesn't change the constitution in any way.

And the rural people would have no voice! Rural America is already pretty silent but their voices are heard in the House! Yup!

If we went back to the constitution we would not have the mess we do today.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:39 PM
Pedro does that all the time!

That Trump fan is a special snowflake.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:40 PM
adding electoral votes that are not proportional to population only serves to further enhance the power or prairie dogs and diminish the power of people.

I'm not surprised you'd advocate such a thing.

Since the Founders have already done that - and for a very specific reason that you clearly rail against - my allies are not yours. I am gratified to consider the intent of the Founders is on my side.

Not yours.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:41 PM
And the rural people would have no voice! Rural America is already pretty silent but their voices are heard in the House! Yup!

If we went back to the constitution we would not have the mess we do today.

The rural vote would be WEIGHTED EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE URBAN VOTE.

Sorry about that.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:43 PM
That Trump fan is a special snowflake.

Do you not consider this post a violation of TOS? Do you wish to enforce order in this thread?

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:43 PM
Oh, my goal wasn't to prove it, @Safety (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1226). It was to force you to address your own. You know...this one:



So tell me, Safety: why do you not hold yourself to the standard you attempt to foist on others? My response to you was legitimate: if you can make an unprovable assertion, why can't I?

Shall I "mock your existence" as well, or should I lean on the reliably and uniformly enforced standard that @Bethere (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1988) enforces in his threads, where he takes an extremely dim view of posts in bad faith offered by people of all persuasions?

Hm?

You could do the right thing and never force Bethere's hand, naturally. You could thread ban yourself.

Get a room.

Join the conversation or be cast out.

Safety
08-24-2016, 12:43 PM
Oh, my goal wasn't to prove it, Safety. It was to force you to address your own. You know...this one:



So tell me, Safety: why do you not hold yourself to the standard you attempt to foist on others? My response to you was legitimate: if you can make an unprovable assertion, why can't I?

Shall I "mock your existence" as well, or should I lean on the reliably and uniformly enforced standard that Bethere enforces in his threads, where he takes an extremely dim view of posts in bad faith offered by people of all persuasions?

Hm?

You could do the right thing and never force Bethere's hand, naturally. You could thread ban yourself.

Nothing that you wrote above establishes the burden of proof needed to substantiate your claim that I supported what you claim I did. In fact, the only thing you have established is how angry it made you when I spoke about the hypothetical bill already passing in the House if it was based upon conservative votes in highly dense conservative areas. You then decided to take that anger and make it personal, as if you were able to "get back" at me.

Save your energy.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:44 PM
I think in you'll find my tPF threads have fewer bans per post than any others and they stay on topic with much fewer examples of ad hominem.

I would be an awesome mod.

And thanks for noticing my even handedness. I find that people don't mind rules if they are applied fairly.

That's what I try to do.

You've thrown an ad hominem twice, and I have not returned fire. A couple of leftist posters have done likewise.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:46 PM
Nothing that you wrote above establishes the burden of proof needed to substantiate your claim that I supported what you claim I did. In fact, the only thing you have established is how angry it made you when I spoke about the hypothetical bill already passing in the House if it was based upon conservative votes in highly dense conservative areas. You then decided to take that anger and make it personal, as if you were able to "get back" at me.

Save your energy.

:biglaugh:

My purpose was clear: it was to get you to complain about an unsubstantiated assertion as an opportunity for me to point out yours. I do believe, however, that your support of this idea would disappear like a inner city liberal at a jobs fair, though.

You asked me if I could prove it. Can you prove yours? Why do you think you have a valid right to demand a standard of others that you demand of your own posts?

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:48 PM
You've thrown an ad hominem twice, and I have not returned fire. A couple of leftist posters have done likewise.

Last chance.

The topic of this tread is the electoral college and the interstate compact.

We would enjoy your thoughtful input.

Or not.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:49 PM
Get a room.

Join the conversation or be cast out.

I am engaging in this conversation; you and others have attempted to redirect it at me personally. I cannot help if you do that.

The Electoral College was created for the same reason that a Representative Republic was created: it was intended to prevent mobs from ruling large tracts of lands - and influencing rules of law in those lands - without also occupying those lands.

Our country was not meant to be a fiefdom. It was meant to be a Representative Republic.

Why do you believe that a Representative Republic was arranged with which to begin? Why do you think that an Electoral College was?

Safety
08-24-2016, 12:49 PM
:biglaugh:

My purpose was clear: it was to get you to complain about an unsubstantiated assertion as an opportunity for me to point out yours. I do believe, however, that your support of this idea would disappear like a inner city liberal at a jobs fair, though.

You asked me if I could prove it. Can you prove yours? Why do you think you have a valid right to demand a standard of others that you demand of your own posts?

What standard did I place on you? In fact, what standard did I place on any member on the forum?

You know the old adage, the only dog to yelp is the one that got hit, so you are upset that I made a hypothetical and it hurt your sensitivities? Stop being a beta.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:51 PM
I am engaging in this conversation; you and others have attempted to redirect it at me personally. I cannot help if you do that.

The Electoral College was created for the same reason that a Representative Republic was created: it was intended to prevent mobs from ruling large tracts of lands - and influencing rules of law in those lands - without also occupying those lands.

Our country was not meant to be a fiefdom. It was meant to be a Representative Republic.

Why do you believe that a Representative Republic was arranged with which to begin? Why do you think that an Electoral College was?

In what way would this compact alter the constitution?

I don't believe it does.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:52 PM
In what way would this compact alter the constitution?

I don't believe it does.

Why do you believe it would require an Amendment to enforce?

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 12:55 PM
The rural vote would be WEIGHTED EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE URBAN VOTE.

Sorry about that.
So it is fine for a leftist to rule over the will of a rural right resident forcing immigrants on them, putting men in women's bathrooms, safe spaces...

This is why we need the electoral college and we need to kill the popular vote. Simply put, the courts and the president legislate these days talking about rights and this other bullshit! The states can pass laws that are constitutional in every way and the courts overturn the laws.

Lemme ask you, if a person is uncomfortable in the rest room of their birth gender and wants to use the restroom of the gender they identify with, why does that trump the discomfort of those who identify as their birth gender when a male of female walks into the restroom of the opposite sex?

It is a joke!

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:55 PM
Why do you believe it would require an Amendment to enforce?

1. I didn't say it did. I grow tired of having to say it but: show me where I said that.

2. The compact wouldn't change the constitution in any way.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:55 PM
The parallel conversations in this thread are interesting. On the one hand, the thread was created to discuss fundamentally altering the balance of power between States, using as a basis for this attempt the notion of 'fairness'.

On the other hand, several leftists - including the OP himself posting in bad faith on several occasions now - have attempted to attack antagonists to the idea of altering the Electoral College by goading and insulting.

I think this gives us a perfect opportunity to point something out: altering the Electoral College in the manner that these very same leftists wish would result in them lording over everyone in the country in exactly the same manner as they are attempting it in this thread.

Those who are with eyes, allow them sight.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:56 PM
1. I didn't say it did. I grow tired of having to say it but: show me where I said that.

2. The compact wouldn't change the constitution in any way.

:facepalm:

You said it would not change the Constitution in any way, and - in the next breath - admit that it would require an Amendment. Or did you avoid that admission by not addressing it?

It cannot get more plain than that.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:56 PM
So it is fine for a leftist to rule over the will of a rural right resident forcing immigrants on them, putting men in women's bathrooms, safe spaces...

This is why we need the electoral college and we need to kill the popular vote. Simply put, the courts and the president legislate these days talking about rights and this other bull$#@!! The states can pass laws that are constitutional in every way and the courts overturn the laws.

Lemme ask you, if a person is uncomfortable in the rest room of their birth gender and wants to use the restroom of the gender they identify with, why does that trump the discomfort of those who identify as their birth gender when a male of female walks into the restroom of the opposite sex?

It is a joke!

Feel free to start a compelling thread about bathroom privileges.

This thread is about the electoral college.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 12:58 PM
What standard did I place on you? In fact, what standard did I place on any member on the forum?

You asked for proof of an assertion. I responded: you first.


You know the old adage, the only dog to yelp is the one that got hit, so you are upset that I made a hypothetical and it hurt your sensitivities? Stop being a beta.

Calling me a beta as well? Really.

:biglaugh:

Bethere
08-24-2016, 12:58 PM
:facepalm:

You said it would not change the Constitution in any way, and - in the next breath - admit that it would require an Amendment.

It cannot get more plain than that.

In no way and at no time did I say anything about constitutional amendments being needed.

I gave you several chances.

You are in violation of rules 1 and 8.

Be gone.

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 12:59 PM
Feel free to start a compelling thread about bathroom privileges.

This thread is about the electoral college.

Actually that was related to this thread and perhaps you need to understand what it is to kill the electoral college. Mob rule! You want the power over those who do not agree with you. You would have then locked up in re-education camps!

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:01 PM
Actually that was related to this thread and perhaps you need to understand what it is to kill the electoral college. Mob rule! You want the power over those who do not agree with you. You would have then locked up in re-education camps!

Actually all we want is a level playing field.

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 01:02 PM
In no way and at no time did I say anything about constitutional amendments being needed.

I gave you several chances.

You are in violation of rules 1 and 8.

Be gone.

That is not a violation of those terms.

You are on notice. This problem will be fixed; posters will not be allowed to continue to violate tPF privileges.

Thanks for going one step farther than other leftists have gone. I'm sure you consider this Progressive.

Safety
08-24-2016, 01:04 PM
You asked for proof of an assertion. I responded: you first.



Calling me a beta as well? Really.

:biglaugh:

I asked you for proof of your accusation to me, I never made an accusation to you, so I don't understand where your disconnect is.

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 01:06 PM
Actually all we want is a level playing field.

We? Who is we? A state passes a law and it is overturned by a court! You really need to study history here! It seems that the voices that are not being heard are those of the individual states!

You got Obama! You will probably get Clinton! It seems you want everything and you want to silence all opposition.

Boris The Animal
08-24-2016, 01:06 PM
Actually all we want is a level playing field.
And what exactly is that "level playing field" to the Left? Answer: Everyone exactly equal in every way. Same income, same status etc. Sickening!

Subdermal
08-24-2016, 01:08 PM
I asked you for proof of your accusation to me, I never made an accusation to you, so I don't understand where your disconnect is.

Accusation? I made an assertion. I asserted that your support for the OP's notion would dissolve if Conservatives comprised the majority of high populated areas.

Are you ready to go on record claiming that I am wrong? You asked for proof, so I am willing to have you go on record.

Are you saying that you would SUPPORT removing the Electoral College in that event?

Safety
08-24-2016, 01:08 PM
:facepalm:

You said it would not change the Constitution in any way, and - in the next breath - admit that it would require an Amendment. Or did you avoid that admission by not addressing it?

It cannot get more plain than that.

@subdermal has been fired from the thread at the request of Bethere, please do not respond to this member any further

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:08 PM
We? Who is we? A state passes a law and it is overturned by a court! You really need to study history here! It seems that the voices that are not being heard are those of the individual states!

You got Obama! You will probably get Clinton! It seems you want everything and you want to silence all opposition.

This is not a law in the typical sense. Rather, it is more like a treaty between states.

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 01:10 PM
This is not a law in the typical sense. Rather, it is more like a treaty between states.

Explain please. I do not want to try and reply without clarification.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:11 PM
And what exactly is that "level playing field" to the Left? Answer: Everyone exactly equal in every way. Same income, same status etc. Sickening!

After almost 250 years the red states need the crutch of essentially an extra 2 electoral votes apiece?

Cletus
08-24-2016, 01:12 PM
This is not a law in the typical sense. Rather, it is more like a treaty between states.

States cannot enter into treaties.

Cletus
08-24-2016, 01:13 PM
Bethere,


@subdermal has been fired from the thread at the request of @Bethere (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1988), please do not respond to this member any further

What forum rule did Subdermal violate?

Please be specific.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:14 PM
Explain please. I do not want to try and reply without clarification.

Nothing in the constitution would change.

It's an ageement among states using existing law.

The compact clause of the Constitution allows such deals.

There is no mention of popular presidential elections anywhere in the constitution.

The Constitution allows the several states to determine how their electors perform and are selected as they see fit.

It looks pretty air tight to me.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:15 PM
Bethere,



What forum rule did Subdermal violate?

Please be specific.

1 and 8.

Stay on topic please. If you have issues pm me.

DGUtley
08-24-2016, 01:15 PM
I cherish the fact that we can have these discussions. Our new friends should be advised that wasn't always the case. We worked at it, and I'm glad that we did, sir.

Ditto. Kind of gives you hope for the future...

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 01:17 PM
Nothing in the constitution would change.

It's an ageement among states using existing law.

The compact clause of the Constitution allows such deals.

There is no mention of popular presidential elections anywhere in the constitution.

The Constitution allows the several states to determine how their electors perform and are selected as they see fit.

It looks pretty air tight to me.

Now you see I inderstand what you are saying there but it would not be a treaty, it would just be. My issue is going to a popular vote will destroy this nation, still I really think may on the left (and right) are nothing more than puppets for the globalist agenda.

nic34
08-24-2016, 01:17 PM
Feel free to start a compelling thread about bathroom privileges.

This thread is about the electoral college.

Ain't it interesting how they complain about this idea being tilted for the left, but whenever they lose their presidential elections to the dems, what is the first thing they want to abolish?

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:19 PM
States cannot enter into treaties.

The Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v Tennessee that states can enter into such compacts without congressional approval.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:19 PM
Ain't it interesting how they complain about this idea being tilted for the left, but whenever they lose their presidential elections to the dems, what is the first thing they want to abolish?

Fascinating!

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:21 PM
Ditto. Kind of gives you hope for the future...

I appreciate you more because we had to fight for it.

Thanks for our mutual friend! What a guy!

Cletus
08-24-2016, 01:23 PM
The Supreme Court ruled in Virginia v Tennessee that states can enter into such compacts without congressional approval.

You said "treaties".

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 01:25 PM
You said "treaties".

Well there is no need to mince words here, we know what he means, I think.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:25 PM
Now you see I inderstand what you are saying there but it would not be a treaty, it would just be. My issue is going to a popular vote will destroy this nation, still I really think may on the left (and right) are nothing more than puppets for the globalist agenda.


Good.

We understand each other.

That wasn't hard, was it?

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 01:27 PM
Ain't it interesting how they complain about this idea being tilted for the left, but whenever they lose their presidential elections to the dems, what is the first thing they want to abolish?


Fascinating!

Ever since the 9th grade I have wanted to do away with the popular vote. I realized back then how stupid people were and they did not need to vote! I think the founding fathers knew this as well.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:27 PM
You said "treaties".

I said it was a compact. I also said it was "like a treaty, " to help you understand what a compact is, but I never said anything about it actually being a treaty.

Cletus
08-24-2016, 01:28 PM
Well there is no need to mince words here, we know what he means, I think.

What I know is what he said. That is one of the shortcomings of this medium. You have to kind of assume that everyone has at least a basic command of the language.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:29 PM
Ever since the 9th grade I have wanted to do away with the popular vote. I realized back then how stupid people were and they did not need to vote! I think the founding fathers knew this as well.

I, on the other hand, am a fan of democracy.

Our founding fathers, as you correctly imply, were not.

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 01:29 PM
Good.

We understand each other.

That wasn't hard, was it?

If we went to a popular vote would you want to have some sort of poll test to protect us from some populist moron. Imagine a mix of Trump and Hillary! This person comes in and destroys the country because the people are ignorant and vote because whatever.

Cletus
08-24-2016, 01:29 PM
Ever since the 9th grade I have wanted to do away with the popular vote. I realized back then how stupid people were and they did not need to vote! I think the founding fathers knew this as well.

I can understand that sentiment.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:32 PM
If we went to a popular vote would you want to have some sort of poll test to protect us from some populist moron. Imagine a mix of Trump and Hillary! This person comes in and destroys the country because the people are ignorant and vote because whatever.

Poll tests and poll taxes are banned by the US Constitution.

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 01:32 PM
I, on the other hand, am a fan of democracy.

Our founding fathers, as you correctly imply, were not.

A democratic representative republic!

In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 01:40 PM
Poll tests and poll taxes are banned by the US Constitution.

By the 24th!

I honestly believe that only tax payers and property owners should be allowed to cast a vote!

People should also pass a test showing a basic understanding of the constitution and basic knowledge of government function at the time of registration.

DGUtley
08-24-2016, 01:41 PM
I appreciate you more because we had to fight for it. Thanks for our mutual friend! What a guy!

Wait a minute -- I thought that you and I and he were the same person?

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:41 PM
A democratic representative republic!

In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic


It's impossible to be both a democracy and a republic.

We are a republic that some of us want to be much more democratic in nature.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:43 PM
Wait a minute -- I thought that you and I and he were the same person?

Lol.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:44 PM
By the 24th!

I honestly believe that only tax payers and property owners should be allowed to cast a vote!

People should also pass a test showing a basic understanding of the constitution and basic knowledge of government function at the time of registration.

Golly! We managed to disagree without slinging poo.

I like you.

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 01:46 PM
It's impossible to be both a democracy and a republic.

We are a republic that some of us want to be much more democratic in nature.

Were you trying to change my post to what you think of did the damn system screw up and mix it?

But you are incorrect! We have democracy at the local level and our representatives are elected democratically. This is a stop gap to prevent (again from the beginning of the nation it was designed this way) mob rule!

Green Arrow
08-24-2016, 01:47 PM
Link?

George Washington's farewell address is a good start.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:47 PM
Were you trying to change my post to what you think of did the damn system screw up and mix it?

But you are incorrect! We have democracy at the local level and our representatives are elected democratically. This is a stop gap to prevent (again from the beginning of the nation it was designed this way) mob rule!

No, when I posted my response was inside your post instead of below it. That's no one's fault but mine.

Sorry about the confusion.

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 01:48 PM
Golly! We managed to disagree without slinging poo.

I like you.

It can happen when rabble rousers STFU and just lurk.

If we did away with political parties and political party agendas I think we would agree more often than not.

Green Arrow
08-24-2016, 01:49 PM
I see that geography and demographics are not your specialty. In California, the bluest part of the State are the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. They also happen to have the largest populations. Therefore, regardless of the FACT that most of the state leans RED, the high population areas also dictate the politics for everyone else. The same holds true for the electoral college.

Yes, Truth Detector, which means under the electoral college, the highest population areas dictates how everyone else's votes are counted, meaning Republicans in California have no real say. In a popular vote system, the Republican votes in California count just as much as the Democrat ones.

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:50 PM
It can happen when rabble rousers STFU and just lurk.

If we did away with political parties and political party agendas I think we would agree more often than not.

I agree with you on that. Don't you find it interesting that the 2 posters who followed me over here to tPF are both Republicans?

Bethere
08-24-2016, 01:50 PM
George Washington's farewell address is a good start.

Indeed!

Green Arrow
08-24-2016, 01:51 PM
A lobotomy isn't murder, either.

But it certainly changes the person.

Apples to oranges. We were never meant to keep the constitution unchanged for all eternity.

Tahuyaman
08-24-2016, 01:52 PM
It's not unconstitutional to alter the constitution.


It can't be altered on a whim. There's a specific, quite difficult process one must adhere to in order to accomplish that.

Newpublius
08-24-2016, 01:52 PM
It could happen! Finally states would have proportional power rather than power stilted in favor of the tiny red states.

We just need 105 electoral votes to pull it off. It is pretty easy to see where those might come from.

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

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) and the District of Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia) to award all their respective electoral votes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)) to whichever presidential candidate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election) wins the overall popular vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-CtEC-3) As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_force).

Law professors (and brothers) Akhil Reed Amar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Reed_Amar) and Vikram Amar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Amar) defended the constitutionality of such a plan.[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-50) They proposed that a group of states, through legislation, form a compact wherein they agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own state. These state laws would only be triggered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_law) once the compact included enough states to control a majority of the electoral college (270 votes), thus guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the electoral college.
The academic plan uses two constitutional features:

Presidential Electors Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors) in Article 2, section 1, clause 2 which gives each state the power to determine the manner in which its electors are selected.
Compact Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Clause), Article I, section 10, clause 3 under which it creates an enforceable compact.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg/300px-Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg.png


YOUR THOUGHTS?

Well, it favors tiny red states, so no. But in any event, why not eliminate the Senate then? That too favors smaller states?

Boris The Animal
08-24-2016, 01:53 PM
Well, it favora tiny red states, so no. But in any event, why not eliminate the Senate then? That too favors smaller states?Better yet, pull the Senate away from the popular vote and return selection to the state legislatures where it belongs?

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 01:56 PM
No, when I posted my response was inside your post instead of below it. That's no one's fault but mine.

Sorry about the confusion.

This is why I wanted clarification. Though we disagree we can understand each other instead of just yelling. We can agree to disagree and understand why the other feels as they do, this leads to less hate.

Archer0915
08-24-2016, 02:00 PM
I agree with you on that. Don't you find it interesting that the 2 posters who followed me over here to tPF are both Republicans?

I was registered Dem because local and national are different monsters. Somehow I ended up a registered republican! Going to registered unaffiliated/independent.

After what the Dems did to sanders and what the right is trying to do to Trump it is clear that neither PARTY has our interests at heart. Globalist agenda! They want to equalize all of us.

silvereyes
08-24-2016, 02:02 PM
Amazing and thought provoking response. All it accomplished was to entice me to make a sandwich.

You're such a ham and the big cheese. You really do think you're all that AND a bag of chips. You really do take the cake.

Does any of that inspire you to do anything?;)

Safety
08-24-2016, 02:03 PM
You're such a ham and the big cheese. You really do think you're all that AND a bag of chips. You really do take the cake.

Does any of that inspire you to do anything?;)

Tell you to get over here and get me a beer?

FindersKeepers
08-24-2016, 02:45 PM
It's impossible to be both a democracy and a republic.

We are a republic that some of us want to be much more democratic in nature.


At least you have the decency to state the obvious -- you're trying to change our form of government.

Earlier, you asked me why I said the pact in the OP might be unconstitutional, and I answered -- that was a post you ignored -- but that's neither here nor there, since the pact you speak of is unlikely to come about.

Nate Silver addressed the reasons why it would likely fail a few months ago, so you might want to dig that up if this is truly a topic that interests you.

But, that too, is neither here nor there.

What I really want to know is why you feel the entire midsection of our nation would be okay with subjecting it to the will of those who dwell on our highly populated coasts? Geographically, we have a large nation with very diverse needs from one region to another. Our republic government gives more weight to highly populated states, but it offers a semblance of equality to the states with lower populations. It seems you'd like that assurance of equality to be removed?

What you want is specifically what the Framers wanted to avoid. You have not given us any reasons why it's okay to subordinate the midsection of the US.

I would suggest that you read up on the failure of pure democracies in history, because when we don't understand the historic ramifications, we tend to repeat the errors.

silvereyes
08-24-2016, 05:59 PM
That Trump fan is a special snowflake.

Honestly, b, if this were MY thread I'd threadban you for this.

Tit for tat, n'est ce-pas?

silvereyes
08-24-2016, 06:09 PM
Tell you to get over here and get me a beer?

Pffffft. You can howl all you want but you aint da boss of me!

Bethere
08-24-2016, 07:59 PM
What you want is specifically what the Framers wanted to avoid. You have not given us any reasons why it's okay to subordinate the midsection of the US.

I would suggest that you read up on the failure of pure democracies in history, because when we don't understand the historic ramifications, we tend to repeat the errors.

let's start with the graphic i have supplied.

the states that get the extra representation also get trillions of dollars as part of the deal. The big states that republicans complain about for wanting free stuff actually pay more taxes than they get back in services. and yet a state full of god fearing christian hard working american patriot heroes like south carolina get $8 back for every $1 they send in taxes.

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact/photos/Red_State_Socialism_graphic.jpg

Bethere
08-24-2016, 08:03 PM
Honestly, b, if this were MY thread I'd threadban you for this.

Tit for tat, n'est ce-pas?

That does it! i am going to start a fifty page thread to expose to the whole world the sheer magnitude of my butthurt.

del
08-24-2016, 08:04 PM
That does it! i am going to start a fifty page thread to expose to the whole world the sheer magnitude of my butthurt.

good times

Bethere
08-24-2016, 08:09 PM
good times

From a troll's perspective this would be the bestest thread EVER, except his just blows it away.

Jets
08-24-2016, 08:14 PM
Better yet, pull the Senate away from the popular vote and return selection to the state legislatures where it belongs?

Agreed in principle

FindersKeepers
08-25-2016, 04:07 AM
let's start with the graphic i have supplied.

the states that get the extra representation also get trillions of dollars as part of the deal. The big states that republicans complain about for wanting free stuff actually pay more taxes than they get back in services. and yet a state full of god fearing christian hard working american patriot heroes like south carolina get $8 back for every $1 they send in taxes.



Where do you suppose that funding goes? I ask because some call it "welfare," or, like you, insinuate that it's "free stuff."

So, I'm interested in where you think it goes.

Do you think that S Carolinian sees that return on his/her personal tax assessment?

maineman
08-25-2016, 05:14 AM
Where do you suppose that funding goes? I ask because some call it "welfare," or, like you, insinuate that it's "free stuff."

So, I'm interested in where you think it goes.

Do you think that S Carolinian sees that return on his/her personal tax assessment?

of course not.... but that money goes to make the shithole of a state he lives in a little less of a shithole. Or do you think that the black people get it all cuz that's what the democrats promised them?

Safety
08-25-2016, 05:28 AM
of course not.... but that money goes to make the shithole of a state he lives in a little less of a shithole. Or do you think that the black people get it all cuz that's what the democrats promised them?

That is usually the direction several here try to turn it to, but I think finderskeepers isn't trying to say that. But for the others who do, the only answer anyone needs to give them is to tell them to explain Kentucky, when they want to turn to placing the blame on minorities.

Bethere
08-25-2016, 05:30 AM
Where do you suppose that funding goes? I ask because some call it "welfare," or, like you, insinuate that it's "free stuff."

So, I'm interested in where you think it goes.

Do you think that S Carolinian sees that return on his/her personal tax assessment?

That's a boatload of fed money being pumped into their economy.

Gdp = investment + consumption+ trade balance + Government spending.

Because of all of that government spending those red states have a much better domestic product, higher employment, higher state tax revenue, and better infrastructure--all on the dime of the big states who actually get less than they pay.

Red states love free stuff. The gop is a bunch of hypocrites.

Now you know.

FindersKeepers
08-25-2016, 05:38 AM
That is usually the direction several here try to turn it to, but I think finderskeepers isn't trying to say that. But for the others who do, the only answer anyone needs to give them is to tell them to explain Kentucky, when they want to turn to placing the blame on minorities.

Thank you. You're right, I wasn't going down that road. That state "welfare," as some call it, doesn't go to help individuals purchase food or pay rent. It subsidizes federal projects/initiaves in addition to funding military installations, and yes, some goes toward state projects. But, the average Joe doesn't see it reflected in what he pays the IRS or what he takes home.

FindersKeepers
08-25-2016, 05:39 AM
That's a boatload of fed money being pumped into their economy.

Gdp = investment + consumption+ trade balance + Government spending.

Because of all of that government spending those red states have a much better domestic product, higher employment, higher state tax revenue, and better infrastructure--all on the dime of the big states who actually get less than they pay.

Red states love free stuff. The gop is a bunch of hypocrites.

Now you know.

LOL

Try again.

Safety
08-25-2016, 05:46 AM
Thank you. You're right, I wasn't going down that road. That state "welfare," as some call it, doesn't go to help individuals purchase food or pay rent. It subsidizes federal projects/initiaves in addition to funding military installations, and yes, some goes toward state projects. But, the average Joe doesn't see it reflected in what he pays the IRS or what he takes home.

I agree with that, because there are a lot of military bases and national parks located in the red states. Just some like to grab the low hanging fruit whenever the topic is explaining the red states welfare problem.

Bethere
08-25-2016, 05:57 AM
I agree with that, because there are a lot of military bases and national parks located in the red states. Just some like to grab the low hanging fruit whenever the topic is explaining the red states welfare problem.

Of course I didn't say it was a welfare problem. I used it as an example of what happens when states get more than proportional representation.

It isn't how they spent it. The critical thing us it got spent in those states economies. Once it is the multiplier effect kicks in.

Meanwhile the opposite works in states like mine. We pay more than we get and then we have to listen to the takers call us takers.

As I said before, South Carolina gets $8 for every $1 they pay in fed taxes.

The state compact will be a fairly easy process, Certainly it s an easy sales pitch. It has passed at least one house in the majority of the states that haven't passed it yet.

It is just a matter of time, and I am a very patient man.

Safety
08-25-2016, 06:49 AM
Of course I didn't say it was a welfare problem. I used it as an example of what happens when states get more than proportional representation.

It isn't how they spent it. The critical thing us it got spent in those states economies. Once it is the multiplier effect kicks in.

Meanwhile the opposite works in states like mine. We pay more than we get and then we have to listen to the takers call us takers.

As I said before, South Carolina gets $8 for every $1 they pay in fed taxes.

The state compact will be a fairly easy process, Certainly it s an easy sales pitch. It has passed at least one house in the majority of the states that haven't passed it yet.

It is just a matter of time, and I am a very patient man.

I know, I was not referring to this thread or conversation. I've been down this road before and the first thing mentioned when that chart is posted is how many minorities live in the red states...

FindersKeepers
08-25-2016, 06:54 AM
The state compact will be a fairly easy process, Certainly it s an easy sales pitch. It has passed at least one house in the majority of the states that haven't passed it yet.

It is just a matter of time, and I am a very patient man.

You really ought to check out Nate Silver's blog post on why it's unlikely.

It might be an eye-opener for you.

Archer0915
08-25-2016, 09:49 AM
let's start with the graphic i have supplied.

the states that get the extra representation also get trillions of dollars as part of the deal. The big states that republicans complain about for wanting free stuff actually pay more taxes than they get back in services. and yet a state full of god fearing christian hard working american patriot heroes like south carolina get $8 back for every $1 they send in taxes.

http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact/photos/Red_State_Socialism_graphic.jpg

Can I please see some demographics for those numbers. I will take being called a racist here!

Minorities that are being destroyed by the (D) party are the issue. Many of the white northern democrats have no clue about what their party has done to minority populations.

So lets break it down! Really I am up fpr some research here. Hell may convert some of you to conservative! Not republican mind you.

Bethere
08-25-2016, 10:30 AM
You really ought to check out Nate Silver's blog post on why it's unlikely.

It might be an eye-opener for you.

What would be an eye opener for nate is that I guessed the correct electoral vote count for 2012 two years before he did.

I can produce witnesses.

FindersKeepers
08-25-2016, 02:58 PM
What would be an eye opener for nate is that I guessed the correct electoral vote count for 2012 two years before he did.

I can produce witnesses.


Sock witnesses?

Bethere
08-25-2016, 03:25 PM
Sock witnesses?

Thanks, subdermal. Your sock puppet fools no one.

AZ Jim
08-25-2016, 03:36 PM
What is not fair is South Dakota with less than one million population (870k) hat two votes in the senate, California with a population of 39 million gets two votes in the senate. Where is the justice in that?

FindersKeepers
08-25-2016, 04:15 PM
Thanks, subdermal. Your sock puppet fools no one.


LOL

You are a funny one -- I'll give you that.

Archer0915
08-25-2016, 05:18 PM
What is not fair is South Dakota with less than one million population (870k) hat two votes in the senate, California with a population of 39 million gets two votes in the senate. Where is the justice in that?

You do understand how it was designed, do you not?

http://www.laits.utexas.edu/gov310/CO/keydif/




House
Senate


Constitutional Powers


Initiates all revenue bills (Art. I, sec. 7)
Initiates (and passes or defeats) articles of impeachment (Art. I, sec. 2)



Gives "advice and consent" to treaties (Art. II, sec. 2) and to major presidential appointments (Art. II, sec. 2)
Tries impeached officials (Art. I, sec. 3)



Structure


435 members with two-year terms
More hierarchically organized (more centralized, more formal, stronger leadership)
Power distributed less evenly
Members are highly specialized
Emphasizes tax and revenue policy
More committees and subcommittees



100 members with six-year terms
Less hierarchically organized (less centralized, less formal, weaker leadership)
Power distributed more evenly
Members are generalists
Emphasizes foreign policy
Fewer committees and subcommittees



Legislative/Committee Procedures


Bills introduced into "the hopper" and referred to committee by the Speaker
Speaker may create ad hoc committees
Committee action more influential than floor action for final decision
Scheduling generally controlled by majority party leadership and Rules Committee
Rigid floor debate rules favor majority (debate limits set by Rules Committee)



Bills introduced (may be introduced directly on the floor) and normally referred to committee by majority leader
No ad hoc committees may be created
Floor action as important as committee action for final decision
Scheduling generally mutually agreed by majority and minority leaders
Flexible floor debate rules protect minority (debate limits rare, set by full Senate via unanimous consent or cloture)



Changes in the Institution (1990s-2000s)


Power centralized in the Speaker's inner circle of advisors
House procedures are becoming more efficient
Those seeking reelection almost always win



Senate workload increasing and informally breaking down, threat of filibusters more frequent than in the past
Becoming more difficult to pass legislation
Turnover is moderate





House
Senate


Constitutional Powers


Initiates all revenue bills (Art. I, sec. 7)
Initiates (and passes or defeats) articles of impeachment (Art. I, sec. 2)



Gives "advice and consent" to treaties (Art. II, sec. 2) and to major presidential appointments (Art. II, sec. 2)
Tries impeached officials (Art. I, sec. 3)



Structure


435 members with two-year terms
More hierarchically organized (more centralized, more formal, stronger leadership)
Power distributed less evenly
Members are highly specialized
Emphasizes tax and revenue policy
More committees and subcommittees



100 members with six-year terms
Less hierarchically organized (less centralized, less formal, weaker leadership)
Power distributed more evenly
Members are generalists
Emphasizes foreign policy
Fewer committees and subcommittees



Legislative/Committee Procedures


Bills introduced into "the hopper" and referred to committee by the Speaker
Speaker may create ad hoc committees
Committee action more influential than floor action for final decision
Scheduling generally controlled by majority party leadership and Rules Committee
Rigid floor debate rules favor majority (debate limits set by Rules Committee)



Bills introduced (may be introduced directly on the floor) and normally referred to committee by majority leader
No ad hoc committees may be created
Floor action as important as committee action for final decision
Scheduling generally mutually agreed by majority and minority leaders
Flexible floor debate rules protect minority (debate limits rare, set by full Senate via unanimous consent or cloture)



Changes in the Institution (1990s-2000s)


Power centralized in the Speaker's inner circle of advisors
House procedures are becoming more efficient
Those seeking reelection almost always win



Senate workload increasing and informally breaking down, threat of filibusters more frequent than in the past
Becoming more difficult to pass legislation
Turnover is moderate

Bethere
08-25-2016, 05:31 PM
Can I please see some demographics for those numbers. I will take being called a racist here!

Minorities that are being destroyed by the (D) party are the issue. Many of the white northern democrats have no clue about what their party has done to minority populations.

So lets break it down! Really I am up fpr some research here. Hell may convert some of you to conservative! Not republican mind you.

I'll get back to you tonight, I promise.

I appreciated talking with you the other day.

Bethere
08-25-2016, 05:33 PM
I'll give you that.

Kewl! I likes me sum free stuff.

AZ Jim
08-25-2016, 05:39 PM
Bethere,



What forum rule did Subdermal violate?

Please be specific.Get lost.

Archer0915
08-25-2016, 05:41 PM
I'll get back to you tonight, I promise.

I appreciated talking with you the other day.

Not a problem.

I want to try and keep it fact based and one thing I see is many of those liberul bastions are white and union. Percentage of population in many of those red states is nothing near the same as in the north.

There is a massive immigration problem here in the south and the federal mandates make it necessary for them to pay for a bit of it. multi language schools is a big issue. Children of illegals makes the mandated free education cost to the state go up and the fed must pay.

While I have a son with autism I have to fight for just to get him up to a full day in school. That alone costs us... well let us say over the last ten years about 3/4 of a million dollars in lost income.

Bethere
08-25-2016, 05:46 PM
Not a problem.

I want to try and keep it fact based and one thing I see is many of those liberul bastions are white and union. Percentage of population in many of those red states is nothing near the same as in the north.

There is a massive immigration problem here in the south and the federal mandates make it necessary for them to pay for a bit of it. multi language schools is a big issue. Children of illegals makes the mandated free education cost to the state go up and the fed must pay.

While I have a son with autism I have to fight for just to get him up to a full day in school. That alone costs us... well let us say over the last ten years about 3/4 of a million dollars in lost income.

When I come back, if you lose the liberal bastion bit I will endeavor not to utilize phrases like, "fascist butthurt."

DGUtley and I figured that out early on. That's why years later we are still friends despite out divergent politics.

AZ Jim
08-25-2016, 05:46 PM
I see that geography and demographics are not your specialty. In California, the bluest part of the State are the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento. They also happen to have the largest populations. Therefore, regardless of the FACT that most of the state leans RED, the high population areas also dictate the politics for everyone else. The same holds true for the electoral college.

I see that you are also a product of the public school system. :biglaugh:California leans red????? Not since I was born there in 1936. Also San Francisco is third not second. San Diego is much larger than SF.
SF= 838K
Sac= 480K
SD= 1.36Million

Archer0915
08-25-2016, 05:59 PM
When I come back, if you lose the liberal bastion bit I will endeavor not to utilize phrases like, "fascist butthurt."

DGUtley and I figured that out early on. That's why years later we are still friends despite out divergent politics.

Well I just called it that, can I say blue state and we stay civil?

Bethere
08-26-2016, 09:10 PM
Well I just called it that, can I say blue state and we stay civil?

I haven't forgotten. I've been sick, but you'll get a very detailed response.

Thanks for waiting. I'll make it worth your while and entertain any arguments you might present.

Bethere
08-26-2016, 09:11 PM
Well I just called it that, can I say blue state and we stay civil?

Absolutely.

Cletus
08-26-2016, 10:22 PM
Get lost.

You are a funny old gummer.

Cletus
08-26-2016, 10:31 PM
That's a boatload of fed money being pumped into their economy.

Gdp = investment + consumption+ trade balance + Government spending.

Because of all of that government spending those red states have a much better domestic product, higher employment, higher state tax revenue, and better infrastructure--all on the dime of the big states who actually get less than they pay.

Red states love free stuff. The gop is a bunch of hypocrites.

Now you know.


Nonsense.

We can use my state as an example. We do in fact receive more in tax revenue than we submit to the Feds. However, the feds own 34.7% of my state. They are expensive to have here and most of that money is PILT, sometimes referred to as PILOT funding. If you are not familiar with what that is, you can't discuss this topic from an educated viewpoint.

The bottom line is that it costs us more to have the Feds here than we make off them and we would be better off if they just packed up and moved to your state.

Bethere
08-26-2016, 11:16 PM
Nonsense.

We can use my state as an example. We do in fact receive more in tax revenue than we submit to the Feds. However, the feds own 34.7% of my state. They are expensive to have here and most of that money is PILT, sometimes referred to as PILOT funding. If you are not familiar with what that is, you can't discuss this topic from an educated viewpoint.

The bottom line is that it costs us more to have the Feds here than we make off them and we would be better off if they just packed up and moved to your state.

I can't evaluate your situation without knowing the state to which you are referring.

Bethere
08-28-2016, 12:03 AM
That's a poor idea, and very likely unconstitutional.

And, it won't happen so you needn't get all excited about it.

Somehow, you never said how the majority popular vote thing was unconstitutional.

Bethere
08-28-2016, 12:04 AM
Nonsense.

We can use my state as an example. We do in fact receive more in tax revenue than we submit to the Feds. However, the feds own 34.7% of my state. They are expensive to have here and most of that money is PILT, sometimes referred to as PILOT funding. If you are not familiar with what that is, you can't discuss this topic from an educated viewpoint.

The bottom line is that it costs us more to have the Feds here than we make off them and we would be better off if they just packed up and moved to your state.

So, your state remains a state secret?

Common
08-28-2016, 01:23 AM
Somehow, you never said how the majority popular vote thing was unconstitutional.

The electoral college was started to level the playing field for smaller states. Just like representation in congress is skewed by state populations.

By unconstitutional I believe he means fairness in representation, is that true, I dont know im not a constitutionalist.

Bethere
08-28-2016, 01:30 AM
The electoral college was started to level the playing field for smaller states. Just like representation in congress is skewed by state populations.

By unconstitutional I believe he means fairness in representation, is that true, I dont know im not a constitutionalist.

The states are allowed by the constitution to enter into compacts amongst themselves.

The states are allowed to cast their electoral votes in a manner of their own choosing, according to the constitution.

It would be pretty hard to make a case that this compact is in any way unconstitutional.

We have at least 2 lawyers here.

What does @DGUtley (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2019) and @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) have to say?

FindersKeepers
08-28-2016, 04:48 AM
Somehow, you never said how the majority popular vote thing was unconstitutional.

I responded to that post -- you ignored it.

Peter1469
08-28-2016, 06:54 AM
The states are allowed by the constitution to enter into compacts amongst themselves.

The states are allowed to cast their electoral votes in a manner of their own choosing, according to the constitution.

It would be pretty hard to make a case that this compact is in any way unconstitutional.

We have at least 2 lawyers here.

What does @DGUtley (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=2019) and @Peter1469 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=10) have to say?

There is nothing in the text that says states couldn't work together in the electoral college system. I did not attempt to search case law.

Anyway, the electoral college was a compromise between the Founders who wanted direct election by the people for the president and the Founders who wanted Congress to do it. The smaller states preferred the EC because in a direct vote large population states would dictate who won.

OGIS
08-28-2016, 12:24 PM
The purpose of the electoral college was to prevent large population states from having undue influence and power in elections over lesser populated states. It was a brilliant idea and consistent with the idea that we are not a straight democracy, but rather, a Republic of states.

Eliminating it would be moronic. What should be done in order to give better State representation is proportioning electoral votes based on vote counts. California is the best example of this. If you are a Republican in that state, your vote is basically meaningless in Presidential elections these days as they tend to call the state for the Democrat and winner takes all 55 electoral votes. That is poor representation. If the electoral votes were proportional, California would play a larger and more important role in elections because then the 55 electoral votes would be allocated based on vote count....in other words, Democrats would receive 33 while republicans would still get 22.

This would engage the politicians and make the state more relevant in the campaigns.

This is actually a well-thought-out and well-argued post.

Though the "moronic" sentence could have been omitted.

I would go beyond your point, though, and argue for a fundamental re-do of the voting system. CGP Grey seems to have a good perspective on things. Check out these videos:

Electoral college system:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUS9mM8Xbbw&list=PL9936C719FF689E7D

And here for a discussion of systems of representation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PL7679C7ACE93A5638

OGIS
08-28-2016, 12:47 PM
8

Watch it.

Last warning.

I count four insult posts so far.

OGIS
08-28-2016, 12:52 PM
Mob rule! We need to do away with the popular vote for senators and the president. The VP also needs to be chosen as originally designed.


Let's take away women's suffrage and reinstate slavery, too. That was our genius patriot founding father/heroes' vision, too right?


Your response is rather lacking. Try to bring everything into the areas where you can call names and have nothing to support your arguments.

No. You're initial post - above - seems predicated on "original design" as being the sole criteria for consideration. Well, "original design" did, in fact, allow slavery and exclude women's sufferage, so Bethere's response seems applicable and valid. And it has nothing to do with name calling.

Archer0915
08-28-2016, 12:53 PM
I haven't forgotten. I've been sick, but you'll get a very detailed response.

Thanks for waiting. I'll make it worth your while and entertain any arguments you might present.
Got a close family member in the hospital (quad bypass) so I have not done much with this.

OGIS
08-28-2016, 01:00 PM
Mob rule! We need to do away with the popular vote for senators and the president. The VP also needs to be chosen as originally designed.


Let's take away women's suffrage and reinstate slavery, too. That was our genius patriot founding father/heroes' vision, too right?


Your response is rather lacking. Try to bring everything into the areas where you can call names and have nothing to support your arguments.


Get a room.

Join the conversation or be cast out.

It does indeed seem like he is trying to derail the thread.

Bethere
08-28-2016, 02:30 PM
It does indeed seem like he is trying to derail the thread.

He is trying to be good. I know this to be true.

Cut him some slack.

Bethere
08-28-2016, 02:32 PM
There is nothing in the text that says states couldn't work together in the electoral college system. I did not attempt to search case law.

Anyway, the electoral college was a compromise between the Founders who wanted direct election by the people for the president and the Founders who wanted Congress to do it. The smaller states preferred the EC because in a direct vote large population states would dictate who won.

Thanks.

Archer0915
08-28-2016, 03:19 PM
No. You're initial post - above - seems predicated on "original design" as being the sole criteria for consideration. Well, "original design" did, in fact, allow slavery and exclude women's sufferage, so Bethere's response seems applicable and valid. And it has nothing to do with name calling.
It is based on original design! Original design without taking away many of the rights gained for those who originally had no voice.

There is the question of voting restrictions though. I mean I got to admit, most people are dumb as rocks on all sides. Stupid is as stupid does and the fact is we have put some real sorry asses in DC and we let them keep their crap up!

Archer0915
08-28-2016, 03:21 PM
Ignore this, for some reason my browser to me to another page... Could have been my fault.

Bethere
08-28-2016, 03:23 PM
It is based on original design! Original design without taking away many of the rights gained for those who originally had no voice.

There is the question of voting restrictions though. I mean I got to admit, most people are dumb as rocks on all sides. Stupid is as stupid does and the fact is we have put some real sorry asses in DC and we let them keep their crap up!

Have you ever read the northwest ordinance?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

Archer0915
08-28-2016, 03:28 PM
Have you ever read the northwest ordinance?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Ordinance

Fill me in, some of it looks familiar but I doubt I have read it in its entirety.

Bethere
08-28-2016, 05:21 PM
Fill me in, some of it looks familiar but I doubt I have read it in its entirety.

basically, when people talk about our genius forefathers they really are refering to the guys who wrote the northwest ordinance, rather than the articles of confederation.

They can't be talking about the guys who wrote the constitution because they also wrote the failed articles.

The northwest ordinance is the first government document that guarantees major rights, later protected in the bill of rights, like free speech and freedom of religion.

It recognized habeus corpus before the constitution did. It also outlaws slavery and sets up a series of land grant colleges that remain a major factor in education and research approaching 250 years later.

Those land grant colleges,like tOSU, brought championship football to the uneducated masses and changed life forever in the free world.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Northwest-territory-usa-1787.png/300px-Northwest-territory-usa-1787.png

Archer0915
08-28-2016, 05:44 PM
Those land grant colleges,like tOSU, brought championship football to the uneducated masses and changed life forever in the free world.

Okay this made me laugh! Thanks for the rest.

It is sad that many of my ancestors got the boot. White man can not keep his word:(

Bethere
08-28-2016, 05:47 PM
Okay this made me laugh! Thanks for the rest.

It is sad that many of my ancestors got the boot. White man can not keep his word:(

May I ask you to be more specific?

OGIS
08-28-2016, 06:08 PM
It is based on original design! Original design without taking away many of the rights gained for those who originally had no voice.

There is the question of voting restrictions though. I mean I got to admit, most people are dumb as rocks on all sides. Stupid is as stupid does and the fact is we have put some real sorry asses in DC and we let them keep their crap up!

If you are talking about restricting voting to only the smart people, that sounds like a really dangerous slippery slope. Hey, if government is improved by restricting the vote (and office holding) to only the top 50%, then think how much better things will be if we restrict it to the top 5%!

Or we could simply elect a Greatest Wisdom Smartest Leader For Life - who would obviously require absolute powers - for even greater efficiency!

Archer0915
08-28-2016, 06:27 PM
If you are talking about restricting voting to only the smart people, that sounds like a really dangerous slippery slope. Hey, if government is improved by restricting the vote (and office holding) to only the top 50%, then think how much better things will be if we restrict it to the top 5%!

Or we could simply elect a Greatest Wisdom Smartest Leader For Life - who would obviously require absolute powers - for even greater efficiency!

Yes it can get screwy! Still you know as well as I that most of the voting population is utterly brainwashed and ignorant. Left and right! If they were not this way we would not be in the mess we are in.

Archer0915
08-28-2016, 06:36 PM
May I ask you to be more specific?

Article the Third.
Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights and liberty, they never shall be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorised by Congress; but laws found in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.

Yeah it is theirs until they say it is not.

Bethere
08-28-2016, 07:41 PM
Article the Third.Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians; their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property, rights and liberty, they never shall be invaded or disturbed,unless in just and lawful wars authorised by Congress; but laws found in justice and humanity shall from time to time be made, for preventing wrongs being done to them, and for preserving peace and friendship with them.Yeah it is theirs until they say it is not.nice, but I meant your background.

Archer0915
08-28-2016, 07:51 PM
nice, but I meant your background.

Mom is 1/2 and pop has a little.

Archer0915
08-28-2016, 07:54 PM
Shawnee for the most part.

Bethere
08-28-2016, 08:25 PM
Shawnee for the most part.

Tecumseh was from my area, too. So your reference to the NWO and Indians is dead on the money.

NWO--greenville, ohio--darke county

Tecumseh--xenia, ohio--greene county

Bethere--dayton, ohio--montgomery county

Docthehun--troy,ohio--miami county

DGUtley--Medina, ohio--medina county

Archer0915
08-28-2016, 08:54 PM
Penntucky regions out to the Williamsport and Montgomery Township PA region for my family.

Bethere
08-29-2016, 02:18 AM
Penntucky regions out to the Williamsport and Montgomery Township PA region for my family.

Williamsport is a very pretty place, i like river towns. i've played there. bucknell and also at lycoming, small schools resemble each other in a big way, lol. my mom grew up in portsmouth, ohio and i always admired the power of the Ohio River and the Appalachians. small mountains have bigger stories to tell than big ones because they are much older.

dayton sounds like a backwoods place but the dayton springfield smsa actually has more than 1,000,000 people and the world's largest air force base. not exactly down home, lol.

Having said that, if you're shawnee you have bigtime history here. For example, if you take rt 68 from xenia to yellow springs you'll go through this little non town called Oldtown. It was the shawnee capital. There, it's marked, is where simon kenton was forced to run the gauntlet by tecumseh's brother the prophet.

or just half an hour south the adena indians, forefathers of the shawnee left, intact two of the world's biggest and best preserved earthworks, ft. ancient and the incredible serpent mound.

boring for many, it would be a good trip for you to consider.


in an effort to post in good faith, i don't think the votes of rural people should have any more or any less weight than the votes of urban people.

Archer0915
08-29-2016, 07:22 AM
Williamsport is a very pretty place, i like river towns. i've played there. bucknell and also at lycoming, small schools resemble each other in a big way, lol. my mom grew up in portsmouth, ohio and i always admired the power of the Ohio River and the Appalachians. small mountains have bigger stories to tell than big ones because they are much older.

dayton sounds like a backwoods place but the dayton springfield smsa actually has more than 1,000,000 people and the world's largest air force base. not exactly down home, lol.

Having said that, if you're shawnee you have bigtime history here. For example, if you take rt 68 from xenia to yellow springs you'll go through this little non town called Oldtown. It was the shawnee capital. There, it's marked, is where simon kenton was forced to run the gauntlet by tecumseh's brother the prophet.

or just half an hour south the adena indians, forefathers of the shawnee left, intact two of the world's biggest and best preserved earthworks, ft. ancient and the incredible serpent mound.

boring for many, it would be a good trip for you to consider.


in an effort to post in good faith, i don't think the votes of rural people should have any more or any less weight than the votes of urban people.

Well I just found out about much of this in the last 5 years or so. I was adopted out:) I have met some of the family but not the entire family, more on my fathers side:) I simply own the ancestry because it does matter to me and now when I say I hate what has been done to the Native Americans it carries a little more weight with me. Sorry I always rooted for the Injins in the old cowboy movies, perhaps this is why.

Ransom
08-29-2016, 09:49 AM
It could happen! Finally states would have proportional power rather than power stilted in favor of the tiny red states.

We just need 105 electoral votes to pull it off. It is pretty easy to see where those might come from.

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

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among several U.S. states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) and the District of Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia) to award all their respective electoral votes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)) to whichever presidential candidate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election) wins the overall popular vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-2)[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-CtEC-3) As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_force).

Law professors (and brothers) Akhil Reed Amar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhil_Reed_Amar) and Vikram Amar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikram_Amar) defended the constitutionality of such a plan.[50] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#cite_note-50) They proposed that a group of states, through legislation, form a compact wherein they agree to give all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, regardless of the balance of votes in their own state. These state laws would only be triggered (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_law) once the compact included enough states to control a majority of the electoral college (270 votes), thus guaranteeing that the national popular vote winner would also win the electoral college.
The academic plan uses two constitutional features:

Presidential Electors Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors) in Article 2, section 1, clause 2 which gives each state the power to determine the manner in which its electors are selected.
Compact Clause (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Clause), Article I, section 10, clause 3 under which it creates an enforceable compact.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg/300px-Cartogram_NPVIC_Current_Status.svg.png


YOUR THOUGHTS?

You couldn't make this up. It's so entertaining.

Ransom
08-29-2016, 09:57 AM
Well I just found out about much of this in the last 5 years or so. I was adopted out:) I have met some of the family but not the entire family, more on my fathers side:) I simply own the ancestry because it does matter to me and now when I say I hate what has been done to the Native Americans it carries a little more weight with me. Sorry I always rooted for the Injins in the old cowboy movies, perhaps this is why.

The American Indian....had no chance. Isolationism killed them.

The American Indian couldn't survive an imperial world, like so many indigenous peoples run over throughout history.

And it wasn't cowboys. It was the French. The Spanish. The British. And finally the American who all realized the vast resources the Indians were sitting on......nearly clueless to it's potential by the way.....and took it.

I wasn't always rooting for the 'cowboy' though either. Ask me, Custer deserved what happened to him. Other events in our history don't play well for the American Indian, diseases we wrought on them they had no immunity to. Horrible stuff.

Bethere
08-29-2016, 01:24 PM
You couldn't make this up. It's so entertaining.

The bestest part is that it doesn't change the constitution in any way. The small states still get their extra electors just as described in the constitution.

The several states can still do what they wish with their electors--nothing has changed.

And they remain free to enter into their own electoral compacts as they see fit. No one is stopping thm.

It's hard to make a case that something is unconstitutional when nothing has been changed.

Tahuyaman
08-29-2016, 02:42 PM
GOOD TIMES: Wouldn't it be cool if we eliminated the electoral college?
No. I don't want Three or four major cities electing our president every four years.

Bethere
08-29-2016, 05:22 PM
GOOD TIMES: Wouldn't it be cool if we eliminated the electoral college?


No. I don't want Three or four major cities electing our president every four years.

let's pretend that you are right.

what options would you have?

Boris The Animal
08-29-2016, 08:42 PM
let's pretend that you are right.

what options would you have?
Keep everything as they are. So what the Liberal sh*tholes are powerless against the Midwest. This is how it's supposed to be, Communist.

maineman
08-29-2016, 09:55 PM
GOOD TIMES: Wouldn't it be cool if we eliminated the electoral college?
No. I don't want Three or four major cities electing our president every four years.did you flunk arithmetic? The four largest cities in the USA are New York, LA, Chicago and Houston and together they make up 5% of our population.

Bethere
08-29-2016, 09:59 PM
Keep everything as they are. So what the Liberal sh*tholes are powerless against the Midwest. This is how it's supposed to be, Communist.

Good times!

Ethereal
08-30-2016, 01:50 AM
It would only be cool if your intention is to destroy the last vestiges of federalism.

Bethere
08-30-2016, 02:20 AM
It would only be cool if your intention is to destroy the last vestiges of federalism.

The states are merely executing their constitutional rights. Your favorite states are empowered to form their own compacts as they see fit, too. Nothing has changed for them. They get just as many electoral votes as they did previously. They can cast them as they see fit without having to ask anyone's permission.

I view it as a state's rights thing.

Why don't you?

Ethereal
08-30-2016, 02:25 AM
The states are merely executing their constitutional rights. Your favorite states are empowered to form their own compacts as they see fit. Nothing has changed for them. They get just as many electoral votes as they did previously. They can cast them as they see fit without having to ask anyone's permission.

I view it as a state's rights thing.

Why don't you?

Because it's an attempt to alter national elections, which necessarily effects other states as well.

Bethere
08-30-2016, 02:27 AM
Because it's an attempt to alter national elections, which necessarily effects other states as well.

It's a very constitutional attempt to weight all votes equally. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

One man one vote.

Sound familiar?

Ethereal
08-30-2016, 02:33 AM
It's a very constitutional attempt to weight all votes equally. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

One man one vote.

Sound familiar?

It's an attempt to undermine federalism and to further empower Democrats.

Bethere
08-30-2016, 02:34 AM
It's an attempt to undermine federalism and to further empower Democrats.

That is a shocking accusation, sir.

Take it back.

15990

Ethereal
08-30-2016, 02:36 AM
That is a shocking accusation, sir.

Take it back.

I'm afraid that is not going to happen.

Bethere
08-30-2016, 02:39 AM
I'm afraid that is not going to happen.

15991

Tahuyaman
08-30-2016, 08:32 AM
did you flunk arithmetic? The four largest cities in the USA are New York, LA, Chicago and Houston and together they make up 5% of our population.


The entire population doesnt vote. The fact remains, if there was no electoral college, candidates could be elected simply by pandering to the largest urban areas in the country.

nathanbforrest45
08-30-2016, 08:45 AM
The entire population doesnt vote. The fact remains, if there was no electoral college, candidates could be elected simply by pandering to the largest urban areas in the country.

The top 10 cities in the United States total 25,593,843. This does not include the metro areas. The top 25 metro areas probably add up to 40 percent of the entire population. To end the Electoral College will spell the end of the Republic.

maineman
08-30-2016, 09:18 AM
The entire population doesnt vote. The fact remains, if there was no electoral college, candidates could be elected simply by pandering to the largest urban areas in the country.so... Your post was simply hyperbolic bullshit? The entire populations of the four biggest cities in American that make up 5% of the total population don't all vote either.

nathanbforrest45
08-30-2016, 09:24 AM
As envisioned by the Founding Fathers we were a Republic and not a Democracy. To them Democracy was mob rule. Under the original Constitution only the House of Representatives were elected by direct vote of the people. The Senate was to serve the interest of the various states and were appointed by the state legislatures, the President was to serve the interest of the country in dealing with other countries and was to be elected by the Electoral College in order to not give highly populated areas undue influence. Of course we have gone to direct election of the Senate and now we want to have direct election of the President. And so ends our Republic.

Tahuyaman
08-30-2016, 09:27 AM
maineman can't help being an ass.

Bethere
08-30-2016, 10:44 AM
As envisioned by the Founding Fathers we were a Republic and not a Democracy. To them Democracy was mob rule. Under the original Constitution only the House of Representatives were elected by direct vote of the people. The Senate was to serve the interest of the various states and were appointed by the state legislatures, the President was to serve the interest of the country in dealing with other countries and was to be elected by the Electoral College in order to not give highly populated areas undue influence. Of course we have gone to direct election of the Senate and now we want to have direct election of the President. And so ends our Republic.

Knowing it bugs you, I would do the compact just for fun.

nathanbforrest45
08-30-2016, 10:54 AM
Knowing it bugs you, I would do the compact just for fun.

It doesn't "bug" me. It saddens me to see so many people willing to sell themselves back into slavery.

To paraphrase Herman Wouk in "The Caine Mutiny" "Liberalism is a third rate system for a third rate people who gain a skimpy security in exchange for polite penal servitude."

Bethere
08-30-2016, 10:56 AM
It doesn't "bug" me. It saddens me to see so many people willing to sell themselves back into slavery.

To paraphrase Herman Wouk in "The Caine Mutiny" "Liberalism is a third rate system for a third rate people who gain a skimpy security in exchange for polite penal servitude."

Of course it bugs you.

Good times!

Cletus
08-30-2016, 01:40 PM
Of course it bugs you.

Good times!

It would not bother you to lose the republic?

NBF is spot on.

Bethere
08-30-2016, 02:11 PM
It would not bother you to lose the republic?

NBF is spot on.

No, I prefer democracy. I also laugh at whiney melodrama as the guy who is named after the kkk founder has displayed here.

Here's an example of that kind of thing:

Clinton banned banana clips. The right wing said: They have come to get our guns! They have over turned the second amendment!

Good times!

maineman
08-30-2016, 02:20 PM
maineman can't help being an ass.
You spew unsupportable hyperbolic bullshit and NEVER either stand by it or gracefully retract it.

Bethere
08-30-2016, 02:23 PM
@maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289) can't help being an ass.

Clean it up or take a hike.

This has been a warning.

Tahuyaman
08-30-2016, 02:27 PM
Clean it up or take a hike.

This has been a warning.


You warning me? Right.....

Now run along and report me for something.

Tahuyaman
08-30-2016, 02:28 PM
You spew unsupportable hyperbolic bull$#@! and NEVER either stand by it or gracefully retract it.


you're hypocricies are always on full display.

Bethere
08-30-2016, 02:30 PM
You warning me? Right.....
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with tPF rules.

15999

Tahuyaman
08-30-2016, 02:32 PM
Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with tPF rules.


Perhaps you should mind your own business? Who do you think you are?
Am I supposed to be as impressed with you as you are of yourself?

Bethere
08-30-2016, 02:37 PM
Perhaps you should mind your own business? Who do you think you are?
Am I supposed to be as impressed with you as you are of yourself?

This thread is about the electoral college. You are/were way off topic.

Tahuyaman
08-30-2016, 02:43 PM
This thread is about the electoral college. You are/were way off topic.


And now you are going off topic biting at my ankles. You can go now.....

Chris
08-30-2016, 02:51 PM
Tahuyaman has been thread banned at the request of the OP, Bethere. Please do not respond to Tahuyaman any further in this thread. If you have questions contact the OP of this tPF thread in a PM.

OGIS
08-30-2016, 03:01 PM
@maineman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1289) can't help being an ass.


Clean it up or take a hike.

This has been a warning.


You warning me? Right.....

Now run along and report me for something.

LOL, these guys remind me a lot of the "problem kids" in junior high and high school.

OGIS
08-30-2016, 03:22 PM
This thread is about the electoral college. You are/were way off topic.


And now you are going off topic biting at my ankles. You can go now.....

I love how these guys all have their little personal catch phrases. "Ankle biter", "fan", "godless lib", "@#$%@", etc. Quite mafia-like.

Bethere
08-30-2016, 04:56 PM
I love how these guys all have their little personal catch phrases. "Ankle biter", "fan", "godless lib", "@#$%@", etc. Quite mafia-like.

A recent thread made it obvious that there's only a handful of Democrats on this forum.

They need to treat us with respect because we are all that keeps this forum from becoming a Republican/libertarian circle jerk.

hanger4
08-30-2016, 05:09 PM
A recent thread made it obvious that there's only a handful of Democrats on this forum.

They need to treat us with respect because we are all that keeps this forum from becoming a Republican/libertarian circle jerk.

What thread was that Bethere ??

BTW you and OGIS need to stay on topic or TB OGIS and yourself.

Bethere
08-30-2016, 05:17 PM
What thread was that @Bethere (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1988) ??BTW you and OGIS need to stay on topic or TB OGIS and yourself.Fyi: on your ban I apologize for it taking 80 posts for it to be executed. If the puppy urinates on the floor and you beat it the next day, the poor dog will have absolutely no idea why it is being beaten.So I apologize for the timing ONLY.Now. Stay on topic.Finally, don't forget. Without me, and a handful of others, you conservatives would have to take turns dressing up and pretending to be Democrats in order to have a give and take on this forum.

Ravens Fan
08-30-2016, 05:19 PM
A recent thread made it obvious that there's only a handful of Democrats on this forum.

They need to treat us with respect because we are all that keeps this forum from becoming a Republican/libertarian circle jerk.

Ever think that not all the Dems on the board voted? Or that those who did, may not have voted for Hillary? Or that there are liberals and progressives that do not identify as "Democrats"? And don't forget about libertarians and Libertarians.

Think outside the box a little.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bethere
08-30-2016, 05:22 PM
Ever think that not all the Dems on the board voted? Or that those who did, may not have voted for Hillary? Or that there are liberals and progressives that do not identify as "Democrats"? And don't forget about libertarians and Libertarians.

Think outside the box a little.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually the stats at the bottom of the page reveal perhaps 45 regular posters. The thread has 43 votes. 7 of them are voting for Hillary.

Thanks for playing our game.

hanger4
08-30-2016, 05:24 PM
Fyi: on your ban I apologize for it taking 80 posts for it to be executed. If the puppy urinates on the floor and you beat it the next day, the poor dog will have absolutely no idea why it is being beaten.So I apologize for the timing ONLY.Now. Stay on topic.Finally, do don't forget. Without me, and a handful of others, you conservatives would have to take turns dressing up and pretending to be Democrats in order to have a give and take on this forum.

And you never answered why the TB

I'm on topic by following the OP's lead

Bethere
08-30-2016, 05:27 PM
And you never answered why the TB

I'm on topic by following the OP's lead

I am not the topic of this thread. Neither are you.

They invented pm for moments such as this. Use it.

But pollute this thread no longer.

hanger4
08-30-2016, 05:34 PM
I am not the topic of this thread. Neither are you.

They invented pm for moments such as this. Use it.

But pollute this thread no longer.

I'm on topic by following the OP's lead.

You avoided the question in our PM's also. Here, you ! brought it up again so I asked again.

I'm on topic by following the OP's lead

hanger4
08-30-2016, 05:38 PM
Actually the stats at the bottom of the page reveal perhaps 45 regular posters. The thread has 43 votes. 7 of them are voting for Hillary.

Thanks for playing our game.

A number of Dem/leftists I know voted Stein or NOTA. Your assumptions are incorrect.

Bethere
08-30-2016, 05:38 PM
i'm on topic by following the op's lead.

You avoided the question in our pm's also. Here, you ! Brought it up again so i asked again.

I'm on topic by following the op's lead

stay on topic. This thread is about the electoral college.

16000

hanger4
08-30-2016, 05:41 PM
stay on topic. This thread is about the electoral college.

Of course it's ok for you the thread starter to go off topic at will ?? Correct ??