Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 350: TIME's Topic of the Year

(+) Yeah! (+)

There shouldn't be crying about double dipping if they lowered the UE boost weeks to get the checks.

---

kevwaffles posted...

It's starting to get a very "stalker-ex" vibe to it.

---

gotta agree with tony that rock's "i blocked him over his RBG comments" claim doesn't make much sense. we're seriously to believe that months after that whole debacle happened, rock was randomly like "...hey, wait a minute, tony's comments back then were actually tasteless and horrible! blocked!"? wut?

i agree that tony can drop it now but it's fine for him to mention once how it doesn't make sense and that there's probably a more likely explanation. no need to trash him for this tbqh.

---

This is a pretty sobering thought to see it laid out so starkly: https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1338893507558301696

shit like this can't be okay

---

I thought he lost by way more in 2016. And, why is it not okay? It is literally what our country was built upon.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I thought he lost by way more in 2016. And, why is it not okay? It is literally what our country was built upon.

Maybe our country was built on a shit foundation. Remember that the reason the electoral college exists to allow Trump to override the will of the majority is because slave states wanted to have their slave population translate into proportional electoral power without having to, you know, give them freedom.

---

That's what I said. It's messed up that Trump got a greater share of the popular vote this time yet lost the Electoral College as badly as he won it the last time around. The EC is supremely messed up.

Not as messed up as people denying the election results though. I swear they must be stuck in some echo chamber and it's literally impossible to convince them otherwise.

---

a foundation established in the late 1700s isn't completely flawless? you don't say!!

---

Electoral College works as intended. Nothing wrong with it. Just get past simpleness.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Electoral College works as intended. Nothing wrong with it. Just get past simpleness.

In your opinion, whats its intent?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

In your opinion, whats its intent?

To ensure representation incorporates both public opinion and states as entities.

You could have had whoever had the majority of states. Or who had the majority of people. They mixed it to give both representation. Works as intended.

---

Corrik7 posted...

To ensure representation incorporates both public opinion and states as entities.

You could have had whoever had the majority of states. Or who had the majority of people. They mixed it to give both representation. Works as intended.

It's not giving both representation though. It's literally just giving power to land over people. It effectively ignores about 80% of the country and put the entire electoral onus on about ten swing states.

Furthermore, there are more Republican voters in California than there are in Texas, yet their votes are completely meaningless. Same with Democratic voters in Texas compared to New York. It's working as intended in that it's a system that was always intended to give more power to fewer people. And that's a problem that needs to be corrected.

---

i am now convinced LMS is a GPT bot. The question is, what data is he fed? It's too placid to just be this politics topic. Maybe he's just making the average post of the topic with all of the drama/trolls filtered out?
---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

That's what I said. It's messed up that Trump got a greater share of the popular vote this time yet lost the Electoral College as badly as he won it the last time around. The EC is supremely messed up.

Not as messed up as people denying the election results though. I swear they must be stuck in some echo chamber and it's literally impossible to convince them otherwise.

But Biden did much better than Hillary with the popular vote. The third party support collapsed.

---

Inviso posted...

It's not giving both representation though. It's literally just giving power to land over people. It effectively ignores about 80% of the country and put the entire electoral onus on about ten swing states.

Furthermore, there are more Republican voters in California than there are in Texas, yet their votes are completely meaningless. Same with Democratic voters in Texas compared to New York. It's working as intended in that it's a system that was always intended to give more power to fewer people. And that's a problem that needs to be corrected.

Yes it does. 50 states come together to form this union. We give people votes and we give power to states to determine a president together.

This election was 25-25 in states. The general went to the winner. It worked relatively as intended.

Last election Trump won like 30 states to 20 or something. And slightly lost the popular vote.

The system is set up to give power to both.

I mean, the only knock against the system that could ever exist would be if someone lost both the majority of states and popular vote and still won. Which to my knowledge could but hasn't happened.

---

Working as intended doesnt justify it if the intent is flawed
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Working as intended doesnt justify it if the intent is flawed

It isn't flawed because you want it another way that is beneficial to you.

---

I dont want it another way that is beneficial to me

If Bernie Sanders won the election but lost the popular vote it would be just as bullshit
---

The flaw here is assuming that states deserve representation as entities that can potentially override the will of the people. They dont. They arbitrarily exist.
---

Corrik's argument is sound here, if you want an election system that benefits the state political parties as a collective bloc of power at the expense of the citizens living in them, the electoral college has accomplished that.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I dont want it another way that is beneficial to me

If Bernie Sanders won the election but lost the popular vote it would be just as bullshit

For some reason I think that's easy to say when the scenario isn't what unfolded. And likely not the truth if it were actual.

Just like I don't think if Clarence Thomas died before an election and his last wish was to wait after an election a Republican President looked likely to win that you wouldn't have thought it was bullshit for government to act regarding his last wish, like many here seemed to think should have happened with RGB.

If Republicans outnumbered Democrats like Democrats do Republicans, this wouldn't be an argument by your side. Instead by Republicans. I love politics.


---

Corrik7 posted...

For some reason I think that's easy to say when the scenario isn't what unfolded. And likely not the truth if it were actual.

Just like I don't think if Clarence Thomas died before an election and his last wish was to wait after an election a Republican President looked likely to win that you wouldn't have thought it was bulls*** for government to act regarding his last wish, like many here seemed to think should have happened with RGB.

So basically you think Im full of shit and lying to you
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I dont want it another way that is beneficial to me

If Bernie Sanders won the election but lost the popular vote it would be just as bullshit

Also I will fully admit I want the elections another way that is beneficial to me

I and millions of other Americans voting both R in blue states in D in red states essentially have my vote for President discarded every 4 years and it would be really great if that didn't happen

---

Jakyl25 posted...

So basically you think Im full of shit and lying to you

Basically I think you think something that isn't likely true because you are not in the scenario and are talking backwards at it.

It is like someone who says they would absolutely have ran back to save the child in a burning building because it is not actual scenario in front of them. When in the actual scenario, they might not actually do that at all not because they wouldn't have wanted to or thought they would have, but because in the actual moment sometimes that isn't what you actually do.

---

I agree that that was the intent but i also think states have become far less independent than intended so it makes less sense than it did at its institution.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

I dont want it another way that is beneficial to me

If Bernie Sanders won the election but lost the popular vote it would be just as bullshit

What's that thing Joe McCarthy used to say? About how there were more Communists in the US in the 1950s than in Russia in 1917?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Basically I think you think something that isn't likely true because you are not in the scenario and are talking backwards at it.

So you know my own principles better than I do myself?
---

Samurai7 posted...

I agree that that was the intent but u also think states have become far less independent than intended so it makes less sense that it did at its institution.

Maybe the problem is states losing their independence more?

I mean, I find it hard to imagine that if the EU wants to formalize themselves into a United States that they can accomplish it with hey let's do general votes. Someone points out that Germany and France would dominate the thing. The smaller areas have no incentive to join. Etc. What's the incentive? Well, it won't be just popular vote but member nations matter also.

It's not hard to figure out why this system exists.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Basically I think you think something that isn't likely true because you are not in the scenario and are talking backwards at it.

It is like someone who says they would absolutely have ran back to save the child in a burning building because it is not actual scenario in front of them. When in the actual scenario, they might not actually do that at all not because they wouldn't have wanted to or thought they would have, but because in the actual moment sometimes that isn't what you actually do.

Corrik, I'm actually willing to meet you halfway here and say that most of the elected Democrat politicians who support abolishing the Electoral College wish to do so for their own personal benefit (to ensure Democrats win elections, which you seem to be caught up on), but I promise you the normal people doing so and especially the ones in this topic do not care specifically which party benefits from a popular vote.

---

I mean the example you used doesnt even apply here

I very openly said they had every right to confirm ACB no matter what RBGs wishes were, and that the only thing I had a problem with was not at least bringing Garland up for consideration in 2016.
---

And yes elected Democrats would absolutely be arguing for the EC if it was in their favor.

Im not a Democrat. I dont normally vote for Democrats.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

So you know my own principles better than I do myself?

It's not principles. It is flawed thinking.

If the scenario unfolded, you wouldn't have this hindsight speaking backwards at it. You wouldn't have the example from the other side to look at. Etc. It's a completely different frame of reference.

Your words mean nothing to the scenario I presented. You could think that it would be different because of your experience already, but it doesn't dictate what you would do without it with the scenario presented.

We have already seen many examples of people who flop back and forth based on party already even with this hindsight here. We forget the people saying Biden has an earpiece are morons then the omg loeffler has a wire if you don't think so your a moron and etc types already many times here.

It isn't much of a leap to think people who justify their side and support their side so much wouldn't support their side too on a grey topic if the roles were reversed. You wouldn't be wrong to argue against a straight popular vote. I mean, you have the constitution in your corner and the law off the bat. The states should decide versus the people should decide is about even as far as it goes in strength as well

---

Corrik wants the electoral college to remain the same only because it is beneficial to him.

---

So do you think youre smarter than that, or do you think your thinking is just as flawed?
---

VintageGin posted...

Corrik wants the electoral college to remain the same only because it is beneficial to him.

Perhaps.

---

corrik trying to pull this "you're only saying this because it benefits your side!" bullshit with jakyl is idiotic, and he'd know this if he wasn't so obsessed with "both sides"-ing literally everything politics-related. if there's any leftist in this topic who always tries to approach any issue without bias and does his absolute best to see if there's any merit to what people not on his side are saying, it's jakyl.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

corrik trying to pull this "you're only saying this because it benefits your side!" bullshit with jakyl is idiotic, and he'd know this if he wasn't so obsessed with "both sides"-ing literally everything politics-related. if there's any leftist in this topic who always tries to approach any issue without bias and does his absolute best to see if there's any merit to what people not on his side are saying, it's jakyl.

So your argument is maybe not Jakyl but the others it is probably on point for?

---

Hey let me even praise Trump for a second for actually directing people in no uncertain terms to get the vaccine

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1339584378154885124?s=21

Still dont get what he thinks quotation marks are for though
---

Corrik, let's not pretend you're some paragon of virtue, above partisanship. You're arguing in favor of the electoral college because it's designed in such a way that it disproportionately benefits your ideology.

There is zero argument in favor of the electoral college that doesn't revolve around empowering the minority party against the will of the majority party. There's zero reason for the states to have more of a say than the people, since the states are arbitrarily decided and no longer represent a collective culture. Wyoming is the reddest state in the country, right? And the smallest population. What if Wyoming decided to split into five different states? Suddenly they go from 3 votes in the electoral college to 15, despite each "state" representing fewer people than the capital city of Connecticut.

The fact is that the electoral college overwhelmingly favors the states rather than the will of the people, and to anyone unbiased and not benefiting from the current system, it's broken. It's especially bad because the original intent of the electoral college was for each state's delegation to represent the collective will of their state. But this has been twisted into everything just being in service to a national political party.

---

Inviso posted...

Corrik, let's not pretend you're some paragon of virtue, above partisanship. You're arguing in favor of the electoral college because it's designed in such a way that it disproportionately benefits your ideology.

There is zero argument in favor of the electoral college that doesn't revolve around empowering the minority party against the will of the majority party. There's zero reason for the states to have more of a say than the people, since the states are arbitrarily decided and no longer represent a collective culture. Wyoming is the reddest state in the country, right? And the smallest population. What if Wyoming decided to split into five different states? Suddenly they go from 3 votes in the electoral college to 15, despite each "state" representing fewer people than the capital city of Connecticut.

The fact is that the electoral college overwhelmingly favors the states rather than the will of the people, and to anyone unbiased and not benefiting from the current system, it's broken. It's especially bad because the original intent of the electoral college was for each state's delegation to represent the collective will of their state. But this has been twisted into everything just being in service to a national political party.

There is absolutely a reason for states to have a greater say in a nation that is built up of states that come together. They otherwise would have no incentive to do so amicably.

---

The only scenario the EC fails is if

The top 20 states all voted for a candidate by like 10 vote spreads and the other 30 states voted for the candidate at million each spreads.

Thus the person who won the least states and the least popular votes, still won.

It's basically the only argument against it tbqh.

---

Corrik7 posted...

So your argument is maybe not Jakyl but the others it is probably on point for?

it can be true for other leftists, yeah. i'm sure there's examples of leftists acting like hypocrites if you go read old politics containment topics. but personally, i don't see the point in making an accusation like that with absolutely no evidence.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

it can be true for other leftists, yeah. i'm sure there's examples of leftists acting like hypocrites if you go read old politics containment topics. but personally, i don't see the point in making an accusation like that with absolutely no evidence.

I think it's hard not to come to that realization and point with the polarization in politics today. Especially with a direct flip of actions happening from now to 4 years ago with these elections.

---

Curious, Corrik, would you also argue against uncapping the house?

---

VintageGin posted...

Curious, Corrik, would you also argue against uncapping the house?

How would that work?

---

Corrik7 posted...

There is absolutely a reason for states to have a greater say in a nation that is built up of states that come together. They otherwise would have no incentive to do so amicably.

What reason is there to come together amicably under the current system? It already seems like blue states are disproportionately harmed by the electoral college, so what benefit is there to them to maintaining this system?

---

Just declare that X amount of citizens in a state = 1 House seat without a cap
---

The Senate, the electoral college, and the cap on the House are all profoundly anti-democratic institutions that ought to be jettisoned at the earliest opportunity. I don't give a shit about the states - they're arbitrary lines drawn on a map. I care about the people and making sure those people are accurately represented in government.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Just declare that X amount of citizens in a state = 1 House seat without a cap

It's just a popular vote then with a certain number of disenfranchised voters for whatever makes you the remainder that doesn't meet 1? Sounds dumb and pointless.

---