What's new
By:

2020 Presidential election

Catchall said:
Sanders polled #2 in NH this month. He's not a laggard in the Dem race, and he still has a very strong base of support.

* I'm not copying and pasting right-wing non-sense. Show me where I have. The interview with The Hill's John Solomon I posted this week isn't right-wing nonsense. It would only look that way if you're used to consuming left-wing nonsense. The Justice Department reports on the origins of the FBI's Russia probe will make the Democrats and everyone crowing about Trump-Russia collusion look bad. So go ahead and brace yourself for it.
* I have never talked about climate change on this board. Show me where I have.
* Trump isn't a socialist. He's a narcissistic bully, but socialism is based on centralizing and expanding state power. Trump was elected in 2016 as the lesser of two evils, where the other evil was Hillary. That was a good decision, in my opinion. Bernie Sanders proudly calls himself a "democratic-socialist," whatever that's supposed to mean.
* I'm not worshipping Trump, but I'm telling you objectively, he's still likely to get re-elected.

You're welcome to your concerns, and clearly you like to vent them endlessly on this board. When Utah votes red again in this next election, you'll see if the majority of people on this board and elsewhere really agree with you.
Click to expand...

Lol, my favorite part was you being told all your concerns are invalid. Hahaha.

I’m not laughing at you FYI.
 
It’s not that simple. Even if we went popular vote for president congress will still be very representative of the population.

Yes, there needs to be protections for there but lots of that is built into the system over all.

It’s president. Not dictator. I’m not for just tweaking on part of the process though. I’m in favor of massive change. Lobbying, gerrymandering, EC v popular, term limits...
 
Heathme said:
Click to expand...

As opposed to the system we have now, where candidates spend all their time and attention on Ohio Michigan and the rest of the so called battleground states.

And being a "republic" doesn't mean that instead of rule by majority, we are instead ruled by a minority. It basically just means that we are ruled by electors selected by the public, and not a monarch, based on a written constitution. Its so unbearably stupid how often the term Republic gets thrown around with no regard for what the word actually means.
 
Stoked said:
It’s not that simple. Even if we went popular vote for president congress will still be very representative of the population.

Yes, there needs to be protections for there but lots of that is built into the system over all.

It’s president. Not dictator. I’m not for just tweaking on part of the process though. I’m in favor of massive change. Lobbying, gerrymandering, EC v popular, term limits...
Click to expand...
Good post. We have protections such as the bill of rights, checks and balances between the branches of government, etc.

If the electoral college defenders really believed it was the last vanguard against tyranny by the majority, they'd be pushing for that system for governorships as well, which are all directly elected, yes even in states with wide urban and rural divides. It works fine, and gubernatorial candidates don't just campaign in urban centers.
 
Saying we're not a democracy we're a republic, makes as much sense as saying I don't drive a car, I drive a Ford!

It's ****ing both, you unrelenting morons.
 
As it stands now even with the EC I have never voted based on where the candidates campaign. I have never been to a rally or whatever.
Getting rid of the EC simply means that every vote counts.
Voters living in low population locations vote would have the exact same amount of power as a voter residing in New York City.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top