(May 12, 2017 at 3:16 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 12, 2017 at 2:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Hitler was big on personal loyalty oaths, too.

And that's the disturbing part.

And that is what I was screaming since he came down the escalator and said "They're rapists" , and his entire run attacked not just Hillary, but even McCain, burned his way through the primaries scorching his own party field and attacked even intel after 17 agencies said they all agreed Russia was interfering. 

I kept screaming , Trump cant become a dictator overnight, but all the repeated bullshit of "Everyone else is the enemy, I am the only one who can help you" . Trump isn't dangerous as an individual, he is dangerous the more support he gets and others take up his tactics. His tone and behavior makes him dangerous.

The EC is an outdated relic from the days of horse and buggy. It hasn't headed off any disasters and unfairly tilts the value of a vote.

With the EC, the smaller the population of a state becomes, the more powerful it becomes.

There was a similar situation in Britain during the 18th century termed "rotten boroughs", wherein it was possible to seize disproportionate amounts of the vote using relatively few people.

Frankly, terming tyranny of the minority as "good" against the rule of the majority (democracy like we oh so claim to promote) is batshit insane.

As usual Brian, you miss the forest for the trees. The bulk of our population voted liberal in a recent national vote - were it a true plebiscite their will would've been carried out - but you throw away their views as "tyranny of the majority".


Well, I have news for you. Abraham Lincoln was elected with majority of the popular vote (split between four candidates), of which enough people in power actually believed he would do away with slavery to cause them to forment secession and ultimately the Confederacy, which purely states in its founding document to keep the Negro in perpetual enslavement.

The "tyranny of the majority" was seriously thought of as being "anti-Southern Slavery".

Want to tell me about the oh-so-threatening tyranny of the majority, as if the tyranny of the minority is any better?

(May 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: The EC is an outdated relic from the days of horse and buggy. It hasn't headed off any disasters and unfairly tilts the value of a vote.

With the EC, the smaller the population of a state becomes, the more powerful it becomes.

There was a similar situation in Britain during the 18th century termed "rotten boroughs", wherein it was possible to seize disproportionate amounts of the vote using relatively few people.

Frankly, terming tyranny of the minority as "good" against the rule of the majority (democracy like we oh so claim to promote) is batshit insane.

As usual Brian, you miss the forest for the trees. The bulk of our population voted liberal in a recent national vote - were it a true plebiscite their will would've been carried out - but you throw away their views as "tyranny of the majority".


Well, I have news for you. Abraham Lincoln was elected with majority of the popular vote (split between four candidates), of which enough people in power actually believed he would do away with slavery to cause them to forment secession and ultimately the Confederacy, which purely states in its founding document to keep the Negro in perpetual enslavement.

The "tyranny of the majority" was seriously thought of as being "anti-Southern Slavery".

Want to tell me about the oh-so-threatening tyranny of the majority, as if the tyranny of the minority is any better?

Indeed which is why I asked for a definition from brian

(May 13, 2017 at 5:10 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(May 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: The EC is an outdated relic from the days of horse and buggy. It hasn't headed off any disasters and unfairly tilts the value of a vote.

With the EC, the smaller the population of a state becomes, the more powerful it becomes.

There was a similar situation in Britain during the 18th century termed "rotten boroughs", wherein it was possible to seize disproportionate amounts of the vote using relatively few people.

Frankly, terming tyranny of the minority as "good" against the rule of the majority (democracy like we oh so claim to promote) is batshit insane.

As usual Brian, you miss the forest for the trees. The bulk of our population voted liberal in a recent national vote - were it a true plebiscite their will would've been carried out - but you throw away their views as "tyranny of the majority".


Well, I have news for you. Abraham Lincoln was elected with majority of the popular vote (split between four candidates), of which enough people in power actually believed he would do away with slavery to cause them to forment secession and ultimately the Confederacy, which purely states in its founding document to keep the Negro in perpetual enslavement.

The "tyranny of the majority" was seriously thought of as being "anti-Southern Slavery".

Want to tell me about the oh-so-threatening tyranny of the majority, as if the tyranny of the minority is any better?

Indeed which is why I asked for a definition from brian

Nope sorry, doesn't work like that.

Pony up with what you would replace it with, don't just simply bitch about it.

(May 14, 2017 at 2:11 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 13, 2017 at 5:10 pm)Orochi Wrote: Indeed which is why I asked for a definition from brian

Nope sorry, doesn't work like that.

Pony up with what you would replace it with, don't just simply bitch about it.

Yes it does work that way

Pony up a definition of minority or this conversation can't go anywhere

(May 14, 2017 at 3:44 pm)Orochi Wrote:

(May 14, 2017 at 2:11 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Nope sorry, doesn't work like that.

Pony up with what you would replace it with, don't just simply bitch about it.

Yes it does work that way

Pony up a definition of minority or this conversation can't go anywhere

Nope sorry, you don't simply scrap a system, you offer up something to replace it with that works just as well or better.

(May 14, 2017 at 4:51 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 14, 2017 at 3:44 pm)Orochi Wrote: Yes it does work that way

Pony up a definition of minority or this conversation can't go anywhere

Nope sorry, you don't simply scrap a system, you offer up something to replace it with that works just as well or better.

Popular vote would be a better system than the horrendously outdated EC. Not perfect by any means, and the US is currently nowhere near ready for a proportional-representation system (not mention several centuries and a couple dozen average IQ points away from a true direct democracy) but it would be a start.

(May 14, 2017 at 4:51 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(May 14, 2017 at 3:44 pm)Orochi Wrote: Yes it does work that way

Pony up a definition of minority or this conversation can't go anywhere

Nope sorry, you don't simply scrap a system, you offer up something to replace it with that works just as well or better.

That's not what I'm disputing

I'm asking for a definition of minority those are two different things

Trump is used to firing people.

The only way to teach that arrogant man a lesson is for someone to fire him.

(May 14, 2017 at 4:55 pm)Iroscato Wrote:

(May 14, 2017 at 4:51 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Nope sorry, you don't simply scrap a system, you offer up something to replace it with that works just as well or better.

Popular vote would be a better system than the horrendously outdated EC. Not perfect by any means, and the US is currently nowhere near ready for a proportional-representation system (not mention several centuries and a couple dozen average IQ points away from a true direct democracy) but it would be a start.

I don't think you seem to understand, if our current crop of morons in Congress had the founders in hand you'd know Trump is the type of asshole the founders had in mind when they came up with the EC.

The electors are supposed to be independent from both the congress and the voters, and if they had understood how nuts Trump was, they DID have the option of saying "NO" even though the voters spoke. The EC was supposed to prevent the rise of tyranny. Now it still is only 1 tool, we also have power of impeachment, and under no circumstance in any case can Trump do more than 8 years, he still has to run again 2020. 

I would leave it alone, but tweak federal law that after a certain amount the districts cannot get lopsided. I'd also get a Dem president in 2020 to balance the SCOTUS and get rid of Citizens United. 

If you are going to say that no system is perfect and I agree, then this changes nothing for me and you still have not offered up a thing in any case.