- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:39 am to cahoots
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:39 am to cahoots
quote:That’s yet another observation. Not an argument of merit. Why would ignoring those populations be a good thing?
Lol I have made my case several times that flyover states get undeserved attention. See the coal industry, steel tariffs, USDA subsidies, ethanol in gas. There are so many issues that would not be issues under a different system.
quote:*yawn*
You think almost every gas station in America would have ethanol in the gas absent the existence of the electoral colllege?
1
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:40 am to ShortyRob
quote:
What the frick does this even mean?
There is evidence of it every time you fill up with gas and every time you step into a grocery store. You just don’t seem to care
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:40 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
*yawn*
Is that a yes or a no? Too pussy to answer?
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:41 am to cahoots
quote:Did I say they were 100% united? Nope. Sure. The large states would have loved to lord over everyone else back then just as you morons would like to now.
The founders were not united in that belief no matter how many times you say it.
But, they weren't going to even get a nation formed if that would have been their route. A kinda important element.
quote:There was no "debate" about whether or not there would be a US.
It was a debate and I’m continuing the debate
There was NOT going to be a US without accommodations made for smaller states. That's not even debatable.
You just think that NOW...........you can do it and then send Armies in to prevent what the founders knew would happen.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:42 am to cahoots
quote:Enjoy soda taxes, straw bans, and gender quotas.
Enjoy the fricking ethanol in your boat engine. And the subsidized grains in every grocery store. And the tariffs on steel.
Sounds like you love a totalitarian government!
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:42 am to ShortyRob
quote:
You just think that NOW...........you can do it and then send Armies in to prevent what the founders knew would happen.
Wtf you talking about? I’m debating whether the EC makes sense, just like the founders. You are going off in a different direction
There are pros and cons of every system. I think the EC is less direable than a popular vote. It’s not a radical idea. It was popular thought back then.
You are just hell bent on trying to twist every opposing view into something that you have imagined
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 11:44 am
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:44 am to cahoots
quote:
I’m debating whether the EC makes sense, just like the founders.
Based on your posts in this thread, the first thing you need to do is read the Federalist Papers (and Anti-Federalist papers) to understand why the EC was put in place in the first place.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:44 am to cahoots
quote:The founders were NOT going to get their constitution and UNION of states absent accommodating less populated states.
I’m debating whether the EC makes sense, just like the founders. You are going off in a different direction
The EXACT same reality exists now. The union wouldn't survive. Liberals figure, "no problem, we'll just FORCE them to stay.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:45 am to ShortyRob
quote:Roght. He’s arguing people votes “don’t count”...while simultaneously arguing that the voting power of flyover states should be eliminated. It’s a total logic trap.
That's the bottom line. You talk about the places you don't like as if they aren't even part of the nation..............which...........coincidentally, they wouldn't be if you had your way.
And he won’t even tell touch the merits of it.
He’s either impervious to objective thought or trolling. I won’t guess. This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 11:45 am
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:45 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Enjoy soda taxes, straw bans, and gender quotas.
Sounds like you love a totalitarian government!
So you’re admitting that the EC actually affects policy, doesn’t it? It changes the way we live because those farmers always get what they want
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:46 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Roght. He’s arguing people votes “don’t count”...while simultaneously arguing that the voting power of flyover states should be eliminated. It’s a total logic trap.
And he won’t even tell touch the merits of it. He’s either impervious to objective thought or trolling. I won’t guess.
Liberals think that because the Civil War happened, that balkanization within the U.S. is an impossibility. So, they figure NOW, they can do what the founders knew they could not do.
Pure silliness.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:46 am to cahoots
quote:
It changes the way we live because those farmers always get what they want
Wait, what? Please explain
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:47 am to cahoots
quote:
So you’re admitting that the EC actually affects policy, doesn’t it? It changes the way we live because those farmers always get what they want
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:47 am to cahoots
quote:
Too pussy to answer?
you’ve avoided my direct questions multiple times. Include the one in the post you replied to. Not sure why you even expected an answer. Your example is one of the EC working for millions of non-coastal voters.
So for like the 8th time— why is negating the citizens votes in hide states a good idea? It’s a simple question.
This post was edited on 10/9/18 at 11:50 am
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:48 am to cahoots
quote:
So you’re admitting that the EC actually affects policy, doesn’t it? It changes the way we live because those farmers always get what they want
For frick's sake. Iowa didn't suddenly get 80 electoral votes.
You're a moron.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:50 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
Roght. He’s arguing people votes “don’t count”...while simultaneously arguing that the voting power of flyover states should be eliminated. It’s a total logic trap.
And he won’t even tell touch the merits of it. He’s either impervious to objective thought or trolling. I won’t guess.
1. Under the EC, certain people get more voting power. Per capita, their vote has a larger impact on the electoral college.
2. Under a popular vote, certain people arguably get more attention. Votes count the same, but geography can play to your advantage.
I think #2 is the less brutal of the two methods.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:51 am to cahoots
quote:Yes
1. Under the EC, certain people get more voting power. Per capita, their vote has a larger impact on the electoral college.
quote:Yup
2. Under a popular vote, certain people arguably get more attention. Votes count the same, but geography can play to your advantage.
quote:Because you're stupid.
I think #2 is the less brutal of the two methods.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:52 am to cahoots
quote:
certain people arguably get more attention.
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:52 am to ShortyRob
quote:If anything it’s worse. But he’s already proven he can’t do the conceptualize the distribution.
The founders were NOT going to get their constitution and UNION of states absent accommodating less populated states.
The EXACT same reality exists now
Posted on 10/9/18 at 11:52 am to ShortyRob
I'd like to point out that EVERY state in the union also applies this same approach within their state. They don't have EC but, they do have methods to grant their rural areas disparate representation to prevent the place only being run by the major cities.
You liberals have the logic centers of 3 year olds.
You liberals have the logic centers of 3 year olds.
Page 8 of 17
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News