Tim Walz strikes a blow against democracy

[lessOHmo]

No. Not saying that. Nancy Mace is my rep. Whether I voted for her or not, I expect elected officials to do work in congress. This is just an opinion. Post 19 was my more relevant question.

Stfu colored gimp

 

[Bn2f]

Stfu colored gimp

Haha!
I thought that you’d feel the N word would be more appropriate but I guess your racism gradually works itself up to that.

 

[lessOHmo]

Stfu colored gimp

 

[Chernosoth]

Something needs to change. Washington DC voters are being taxed without representation!! Absolutely unAmerican !!

Puerto Rico at least deserves to be free of our shipping rules. Do they want to be part of America ?

Proportional Voting according to whatever happens with EC. Every vote should count! You can’t disenfranchise 49% of a state!! It’s bullshit!!

Gerrymandering???? Kill it !!

A DC solution can be simple: move the border so the remaining neighborhoods become part of Maryland, like has already been done for the Virginia side. The Dems don't push that because they don't actually want a solution for DC. They only want the temporary gain of electoral votes. Puerto Rico statehood has a better case, but hurricanes will get worse there. Keeping it a territory while its population decreases could be the smarter move. Meanwhile, there are other state border changes we could make, such as dividing California and combining North and South Dakota. California may have the most severe political divide of the nation, with far right rural areas and far left cities. Slicing off the northern third and calling it Jefferson would be the easiest change there.

Demanding abolition of the electoral college, something that won't happen, smells like an excuse for Dems who don't want to do the work of campaigning in rural areas and listening to the concerns of rural voters.

 

[deckardB26354]

C’mon lessHomo—use the N-word—you know that you want to.

 

[Pad_Foot]

I think that Puerto Rico either needs to become a state or an independent republic.

Puerto Rico should NOT be forced to use our ports (and ships?) !!!

 

[SevMax2]

Puerto Rico should NOT be forced to use our ports (and ships?) !!!

Well, one way of preventing that would be independence. Of course, then they would lose U.S. citizenship. They wouldn't be subject to Selective Service, on the other hand, and they wouldn't have that requirement that you mentioned. Would they be forced to do this as a state? They would be required to pay federal income taxes, but they also would have two Senators, at least one, maybe more member of the House, and at least three Presidential electors.

 

[Pad_Foot]

Well, one way of preventing that would be independence. Of course, then they would lose U.S. citizenship. They wouldn't be subject to Selective Service, on the other hand, and they wouldn't have that requirement that you mentioned. Would they be forced to do this as a state? They would be required to pay federal income taxes, but they also would have two Senators, at least one, maybe more member of the House, and at least three Presidential electors.

All that!! But as American Citizens why are they being governed as a banana republic!
They don’t pay any Federal taxes? Ok? At least they aren’t as bad off as those in our nation’s capital.

With no federal taxes… did they get FEMA aid?? Assuming FEMA helps….

 

[SevMax2]

All that!! But as American Citizens why are they being governed as a banana republic!
They don’t pay any Federal taxes? Ok? At least they aren’t as bad off as those in our nation’s capital.

With no federal taxes… did they get FEMA aid?? Assuming FEMA helps….

I'm not sure if they normally do, but they damn sure didn't get any help under Trump, if I recall correctly.

 

[Pad_Foot]

I'm not sure if they normally do, but they damn sure didn't get any help under Trump, if I recall correctly.

They got paper towels!!!

 

[Bn2f]

Wouldn’t republicans have a legit principled and conservative argument for D.C. not relying on Pelosi or the Maryland governor to protect the House and the Senate? Or that it’s unfair, like Cherno is concerned with, that rural Americans have to come to the hurricane ravaged aid of P.R. and that they should stop mooching and have skin in the game?

No, they don’t make that argument because they foresee the insurmountable shift of adding 4 possible democratic senators. Don’t worry, they make up for criticism towards city and country by attacking the black community in D.C. and the brown skinned Ricans that are basically the same as Mexicans that have that rapey parade there in NYC.

 

[lessOHmo]

Wouldn’t republicans have a legit principled and conservative argument for D.C. not relying on Pelosi or the Maryland governor to protect the House and the Senate? Or that it’s unfair, like Cherno is concerned with, that rural Americans have to come to the hurricane ravaged aid of P.R. and that they should stop mooching and have skin in the game?

No, they don’t make that argument because they foresee the insurmountable shift of adding 4 possible democratic senators. Don’t worry, they make up for criticism towards city and country by attacking the black community in D.C. and the brown skinned Ricans that are basically the same as Mexicans that have that rapey parade there in NYC.

Stfu colored thug

 

[deckardB26354]

C’mon lessHomo—use the N-word—you know that you want to.

 

[lessOHmo]

Stfu colored thug

 

[Bn2f]

IDK why he doesn’t say it.
There’s no loss for him at all.
Even if someone reported him he could be back here in a hot minute with a new alt.
I guess he really likes this particular homophobic name and is like same sex wedded to it.

 

[Noitall]

reported for what?

bad words?

what a fuckimg pussy you are

tranny fag colored degenerate

 

[Noitall]

IDK why he doesn’t say it.
There’s no loss for him at all.
Even if someone reported him he could be back here in a hot minute with a new alt.
I guess he really likes this particular homophobic name and is like same sex wedded to it.

words scare you fag colored fucking degenerate!

 

[Noitall]

IDK why he doesn’t say it.
There’s no loss for him at all.
Even if someone reported him he could be back here in a hot minute with a new alt.
I guess he really likes this particular homophobic name and is like same sex wedded to it.

not a homophobic name

lessOHmo​

its LESS OR MORE

only a fag degenerate colored loser sees it another way

fuck you

 

[deckardB26354]

C’mon lessHomo—use the N-word—you know that you want to.

Ruh roh…there goes the blood pressure again…

TRIGGERED!!

 

[Politruk]

The actual goal of the Electoral College is to insulate the selection of the president from undue domestic and foreign influence . . .

How can domestic influence be undue?! WTF is this dude even TALKING about?!

As for the EC's purpose, see Federalist 68 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68

Hamilton viewed the system as superior to direct popular election. First, he recognized the "sense of the people should operate in the choice" and believed it would through the election of the electors to the Electoral College. Second, the electors would be:

...men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

Such men would be "most likely to have the information and discernment" to make a good choice and to avoid the election of anyone "not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Corruption of an electoral process could most likely arise from the desire of "foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils." To minimize the risk of foreign machinations and inducements, the electoral college members would have only a "transient existence", and no elector could be a "senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States"; electors would make their choice in a "detached situation", whereas a preexisting body of federal office-holders "might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes".

Also, a successful candidate for the office of president would have to have the outstanding qualities to appeal to electors from many states, not just one or a few states:

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

In other words, it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The Framers had the idea that the College of Electors would choose a president like the College of Cardinals chooses a pope: That is, they would assemble with no commitment at all to any candidate or party; look around at the most prominent statesmen of the time; and pick one they judged suitable. The general public would be involved in the process only in the election of the electors, who presumably would campaign not in terms of "Vote for John Smith -- he'll vote for Thomas Jefferson," but in terms of, "Vote for John Smith --
he has good, sound judgment."

No American WANTS presidential elections to work that way.

And no election since the second election of Washington ever HAS worked that way.

The author of that article not only has failed to make any case for keeping the EC, he has failed to show he understands it at all.

 

[lessOHmo]

How can domestic influence be undue?! WTF is this dude even TALKING about?!

As for the EC's purpose, see Federalist 68 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68



In other words, it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. The Framers had the idea that the College of Electors would choose a president like the College of Cardinals chooses a pope: That is, they would assemble with no commitment at all to any candidate or party; look around at the most prominent statesmen of the time; and pick one they judged suitable. The general public would be involved in the process only in the election of the electors, who presumably would campaign not in terms of "Vote for John Smith -- he'll vote for Thomas Jefferson," but in terms of, "Vote for John Smith --
he has good, sound judgment."

No American WANTS presidential elections to work that way.

And no election since the second election of Washington ever HAS worked that way.

The author of that article not only has failed to make any case for keeping the EC, he has failed to show he understands it at all.

Stop whining

 

[deckardB26354]

Shhh, quiet down, lessHomo…let other people have their say.

 

[Chernosoth]

Wouldn’t republicans have a legit principled and conservative argument for D.C. not relying on Pelosi or the Maryland governor to protect the House and the Senate? Or that it’s unfair, like Cherno is concerned with, that rural Americans have to come to the hurricane ravaged aid of P.R. and that they should stop mooching and have skin in the game?

No, they don’t make that argument because they foresee the insurmountable shift of adding 4 possible democratic senators. Don’t worry, they make up for criticism towards city and country by attacking the black community in D.C. and the brown skinned Ricans that are basically the same as Mexicans that have that rapey parade there in NYC.

I hadn't thought of that angle. Rural Americans do their part by growing our food and joining the military, which is sometimes deployed to disaster areas.
As climate change makes Mexico less desert and more tropics, Puerto Ricans may be moving to Mexico more than the US.

I can also see a case for combining New Hampshire and Vermont, two tiny states that don't need all those politicians in Congress. We can reassign some to PR.