The Neverending Thread for Political Shit

[LuthierJustin]

Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.

Now I'm DEFINATELY going to sign it

[Beebs]

Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.

Now I'm DEFINATELY going to sign it

Don't let the freedom hit you in the ass

[Jonicont]

Deport Everyone That Signed A Petition To Withdraw Their State From The United States Of America.

Now I'm DEFINATELY going to sign it

Didn't you promise to move to Canada

[LuthierJustin]

No, I'd never move to Canada, If I move anywhere outside the US it's back to Europe.

[GuitarManUpstairs]

No, I'd never move to Canada, If I move anywhere outside the US it's back to Europe.

What makes their "socialism" better? My understanding is that folks of your political strain hate European style government and are afraid that is where our country is going....why would you want to move there?

[Tequila Cowboy]

Oh GMU, you went there didn't you? It's been so peaceful...

[Penny Lane]

No, I'd never move to Canada, If I move anywhere outside the US it's back to Europe.

What makes their "socialism" better? My understanding is that folks of your political strain hate European style government and are afraid that is where our country is going....why would you want to move there?

europe is headed toward the cliff a lot faster than we are.. except possibly Germany

[GuitarManUpstairs]

Sorry...I should have kept out of here....

[Smitty]

Oh GMU, you went there didn't you? It's been so peaceful...

It's been dead. Is a discussion involving LJ worse than no discussion at all?

[LuthierJustin]

If the United States is gonna be socialist as well, fuck it, I'd rather live in Europe and put up with the shit, atleast they let adults be adults.

[TDB]

15 States including Texas have filed a petition to secede from the United States

PERFECT!!!!!

"IF YOU DON'T LOVE AMERICA YOU CAN GET THE FUCK OUT!!!!!!"

[Penny Lane]

Sorry...I should have kept out of here....

damnit,...i took the bait as well..STOOPID STOOPID...!

[Slipkid42]

Can we talk about the quadrennial mindfuck that is the Electoral College? Sorry if I missed that discussion.
Why do we need it again? Seems like we could elect our President solely on popular vote & better ensure that these incompetent swing states don't taint election results. There's also something wrong about the candidates only feeling the need to campaign in those states & overlook the needs & concerns of the more consistently voting states & their citizens. Not to stir up shit (this means you, LJ); but it does seem advantageous for a sitting President to use stimulus/bailout money to revive a flagging auto industry (and lo & behold those industries are in a few swing states). Just sayin'.

Also, something seems wrong when a state's vote is split 50/50 & all 13 or 29 or 18 electoral votes go to one candidate or the other. Why do Maine & Nebraska get to split their Electoral votes? It does make more sense than all for one, but how do they decide which way to go? The whole system is cumbersome & more prone to corruption than a plain popular vote would be. If it ever had any usefulness, hasn't it outlived it? Is their any upside to the Electoral College that I'm missing?

And now that I'm on a soapbox; how the fuck do we not have uniform voting machines nationwide by now. It's always the same places (i.e. Florida/Ohio) that have these Election Day snafus. If I can stroll into a voting booth in rural Bumfuck, Maryland & touch a screen & vote, why can't every American? Instead of spending a billion dollars criss-crossing & campaigning in 5-6 swing states next election, why don't these blowhards donate that money to these ass-backward states to upgrade their polling machines? (not holdin' my breath). Jeez, was it only 12 short years ago that we were talkin' about hangin' chads? Not a long time in the greater scheme of things; but certainly long enough to get your shit together, Florida. How can we make them tighten their act up?

[wrekkr]

Can we talk about the quadrennial mindfuck that is the Electoral College? Sorry if I missed that discussion.
Why do we need it again? Seems like we could elect our President solely on popular vote & better ensure that these incompetent swing states don't taint election results. There's also something wrong about the candidates only feeling the need to campaign in those states & overlook the needs & concerns of the more consistently voting states & their citizens. Not to stir up shit (this means you, LJ); but it does seem advantageous for a sitting President to use stimulus/bailout money to revive a flagging auto industry (and lo & behold those industries are in a few swing states). Just sayin'.

Also, something seems wrong when a state's vote is split 50/50 & all 13 or 29 or 18 electoral votes go to one candidate or the other. Why do Maine & Nebraska get to split their Electoral votes? It does make more sense than all for one, but how do they decide which way to go? The whole system is cumbersome & more prone to corruption than a plain popular vote would be. If it ever had any usefulness, hasn't it outlived it? Is their any upside to the Electoral College that I'm missing?

And now that I'm on a soapbox; how the fuck do we not have uniform voting machines nationwide by now. It's always the same places (i.e. Florida/Ohio) that have these Election Day snafus. If I can stroll into a voting booth in rural Bumfuck, Maryland & touch a screen & vote, why can't every American? Instead of spending a billion dollars criss-crossing & campaigning in 5-6 swing states next election, why don't these blowhards donate that money to these ass-backward states to upgrade their polling machines? (not holdin' my breath). Jeez, was it only 12 short years ago that we were talkin' about hangin' chads? Not a long time in the greater scheme of things; but certainly long enough to get your shit together, Florida. How can we make them tighten their act up?

elections are a lot easier to rig when everything is an ambiguous clusterfukk

[Lone Wolf1]

No, I'd never move to Canada, If I move anywhere outside the US it's back to Europe.

me thinks you'd be disfuckingruntled no matter where you lived. take fuckin' zip with ya
and i'm with skipkid. FUBAR all the way

[LBRod]

More economic freedom in Canada than the USA

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/18/repor ... eedom-in-c

[Tequila Cowboy]

[LuthierJustin]

More economic freedom in Canada than the USA

http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/18/repor ... eedom-in-c

America is like 17th most economically free, and falling

[beantownbubba]

And now that I'm on a soapbox; how the fuck do we not have uniform voting machines nationwide by now. It's always the same places (i.e. Florida/Ohio) that have these Election Day snafus. If I can stroll into a voting booth in rural Bumfuck, Maryland & touch a screen & vote, why can't every American? Instead of spending a billion dollars criss-crossing & campaigning in 5-6 swing states next election, why don't these blowhards donate that money to these ass-backward states to upgrade their polling machines? (not holdin' my breath). Jeez, was it only 12 short years ago that we were talkin' about hangin' chads? Not a long time in the greater scheme of things; but certainly long enough to get your shit together, Florida. How can we make them tighten their act up?

Or put another way, why are federal elections run by states? Fuckin' absurd, embarrassing, and totally third world. Not least because, yes wrekkr, they're apparently so easy to manipulate.

[wrekkr]

Or put another way, why are federal elections run by states? Fuckin' absurd, embarrassing, and totally third world. Not least because, yes wrekkr, they're apparently so easy to manipulate.

Even looking at elections at a more local level when they can do things like gerrymandering . . . its all fukkn rigged.

[Zip City]

Or put another way, why are federal elections run by states? Fuckin' absurd, embarrassing, and totally third world. Not least because, yes wrekkr, they're apparently so easy to manipulate.

Even looking at elections at a more local level when they can do things like gerrymandering . . . its all fukkn rigged.

We had an anti-gerrymandering measure on our ballot here in Ohio and it got voted down 65-35. People are fucking idiots

[wrekkr]

Or put another way, why are federal elections run by states? Fuckin' absurd, embarrassing, and totally third world. Not least because, yes wrekkr, they're apparently so easy to manipulate.

Even looking at elections at a more local level when they can do things like gerrymandering . . . its all fukkn rigged.

We had an anti-gerrymandering measure on our ballot here in Ohio and it got voted down 65-35. People are fucking idiots

It's totally overrated being smart this day and age, being an idiot is the new smart.

[Zip City]

15 States including Texas have filed a petition to secede from the United States

PERFECT!!!!!

"IF YOU DON'T LOVE AMERICA YOU CAN GET THE FUCK OUT!!!!!!"

they should all be hanged for treason

[Flood18]

Can we talk about the quadrennial mindfuck that is the Electoral College? Sorry if I missed that discussion.
Why do we need it again? Seems like we could elect our President solely on popular vote & better ensure that these incompetent swing states don't taint election results. There's also something wrong about the candidates only feeling the need to campaign in those states & overlook the needs & concerns of the more consistently voting states & their citizens. Not to stir up shit (this means you, LJ); but it does seem advantageous for a sitting President to use stimulus/bailout money to revive a flagging auto industry (and lo & behold those industries are in a few swing states). Just sayin'.

Also, something seems wrong when a state's vote is split 50/50 & all 13 or 29 or 18 electoral votes go to one candidate or the other. Why do Maine & Nebraska get to split their Electoral votes? It does make more sense than all for one, but how do they decide which way to go? The whole system is cumbersome & more prone to corruption than a plain popular vote would be. If it ever had any usefulness, hasn't it outlived it? Is their any upside to the Electoral College that I'm missing?

And now that I'm on a soapbox; how the fuck do we not have uniform voting machines nationwide by now. It's always the same places (i.e. Florida/Ohio) that have these Election Day snafus. If I can stroll into a voting booth in rural Bumfuck, Maryland & touch a screen & vote, why can't every American? Instead of spending a billion dollars criss-crossing & campaigning in 5-6 swing states next election, why don't these blowhards donate that money to these ass-backward states to upgrade their polling machines? (not holdin' my breath). Jeez, was it only 12 short years ago that we were talkin' about hangin' chads? Not a long time in the greater scheme of things; but certainly long enough to get your shit together, Florida. How can we make them tighten their act up?

From my limited understanding....its easier to buy one person's vote than a group of people's. Slate wrote an article on it earlier this week that hits a few other points.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ege.2.html

[lotusamerica]

Can we talk about the quadrennial mindfuck that is the Electoral College? Sorry if I missed that discussion.
Why do we need it again? Seems like we could elect our President solely on popular vote & better ensure that these incompetent swing states don't taint election results. There's also something wrong about the candidates only feeling the need to campaign in those states & overlook the needs & concerns of the more consistently voting states & their citizens. Not to stir up shit (this means you, LJ); but it does seem advantageous for a sitting President to use stimulus/bailout money to revive a flagging auto industry (and lo & behold those industries are in a few swing states). Just sayin'.

Also, something seems wrong when a state's vote is split 50/50 & all 13 or 29 or 18 electoral votes go to one candidate or the other. Why do Maine & Nebraska get to split their Electoral votes? It does make more sense than all for one, but how do they decide which way to go? The whole system is cumbersome & more prone to corruption than a plain popular vote would be. If it ever had any usefulness, hasn't it outlived it? Is their any upside to the Electoral College that I'm missing?

And now that I'm on a soapbox; how the fuck do we not have uniform voting machines nationwide by now. It's always the same places (i.e. Florida/Ohio) that have these Election Day snafus. If I can stroll into a voting booth in rural Bumfuck, Maryland & touch a screen & vote, why can't every American? Instead of spending a billion dollars criss-crossing & campaigning in 5-6 swing states next election, why don't these blowhards donate that money to these ass-backward states to upgrade their polling machines? (not holdin' my breath). Jeez, was it only 12 short years ago that we were talkin' about hangin' chads? Not a long time in the greater scheme of things; but certainly long enough to get your shit together, Florida. How can we make them tighten their act up?

From my limited understanding....its easier to buy one person's vote than a group of people's. Slate wrote an article on it earlier this week that hits a few other points.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ege.2.html

That's a pretty good article on the upsides of the electoral college.

I hear ya Slip. Elections are quite the clusterfuck. The popular vote currently is pretty meaningless, because voters in non-swing states vote at a lower rate since people perceive their vote as not being very important. If the election actually was a popular vote, the vote totals would likely be quite different, and more likely would more strongly favor Democratic candidates than Republicans for various reasons.

Anyway, there are all kinds of ways the question about the challenges of changing to a popular vote could be addressed - historically, philosophically, logistically, and politically, to start. Some short answers - historically, the country was never meant to be democratic in the first place - it took Andrew Jackson's loss to John Quincy Adams to move forward the idea that the President should be elected by the people rather than selected by the political elites (allowing him to beat Adams the second time around). Philosophically, the country is a federation of states, not a single entity, and the process of each state selecting the President is part of what holds them accountable to the federal government. Logistically, while it's easy to find fault with those states that have politicized election processes to a high degree, for large-scale fraud to occur, it would require coordination of lots of people who don't know each other across states, whereas with a single popular vote, only one means of committing fraud in counting could swing the election. Politically, it would have to be changed with a constitutional amendment and there is no way that less populated states would ever agree to that since they are over-represented in electoral vote counting relative to their populations. And even if 75% of states would agree, try getting something like this through both the House and Senate with at least 2/3rds majority in this era.

About splitting electoral votes within states - that's a risky path to take. Perhaps if done by constitutional amendment (but see above) where all states would have to do it, but otherwise, in a piecemeal fashion what you'll get is states in which there is a split between the party in power in the state legislature vs. the federal representatives/President, there will be a move to split up the votes (e.g., Pennsylvania) - only in those states where it is to their advantage. So Pennsylvania, with a Republican legislature but typically a Democratic presidential vote tries to split their electoral votes, while Texas, which is Republican at both the state and federal levels, will not. So instead of the states balancing each other out in the presidential election, Pennsylvania will effectively bias the election toward the Republican presidential candidate (for example). And even within those states that split votes, it is done by precinct winners, not by overall popular vote. Given the awful state of gerrymandering in many states, that means that a presidential candidate could win a majority of the popular vote in a state, but come away with something like only 15% of the state's electoral votes since Congressional districts are drawn in such a way as to keep all of the like-minded minority voters contained as much as possible (minority relative to the majority party in that state, not racially).

The best visual representation I've seen of the current election is at http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/ele ... ple512.png

This includes country results, colored by percentage of votes per county (red=R, blue=D), and put in a cartogram so that what's represented is population, not land space. It's a pretty purple country we live in.

[headhunter]

No, I'd never move to Canada, If I move anywhere outside the US it's back to Europe.

What makes their "socialism" better? My understanding is that folks of your political strain hate European style government and are afraid that is where our country is going....why would you want to move there?

europe is headed toward the cliff a lot faster than we are.. except possibly Germany

Impossible Germany.
Unlikely Japan.

[beantownbubba]

Slate wrote an article on it earlier this week that hits a few other points.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ege.2.html

Point #3, swing state voters deserve the attention they get in part because they're more thoughtful voters. Half of me says, ok, that's a [barely] permissible stretch for somebody trying to make an academic point. The other half says you gotta be kidding me - that's the stupidest argument for the electoral college i've ever heard. I'm thinking the other half wins.

As long as we're talking about stupid political arguments, how about Romney blaming Obama's "giveaways" to the 47% for buying/stealing the election? The man's intellectual integrity can't be found w/ a microscope. And of course his campaign didn't make any mistakes that contributed to his defeat. Clueless. Completely clueless. The man would have been a horrible, horrible president.

[Kudzu Guillotine]

Interesting reading:

Renunciation of U.S. Citizenship

[Slipkid42]

Slate wrote an article on it earlier this week that hits a few other points.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... ege.2.html

Point #3, swing state voters deserve the attention they get in part because they're more thoughtful voters. Half of me says, ok, that's a [barely] permissible stretch for somebody trying to make an academic point. The other half says you gotta be kidding me - that's the stupidest argument for the electoral college i've ever heard. I'm thinking the other half wins.

As long as we're talking about stupid political arguments, how about Romney blaming Obama's "giveaways" to the 47% for buying/stealing the election? The man's intellectual integrity can't be found w/ a microscope. And of course his campaign didn't make any mistakes that contributed to his defeat. Clueless. Completely clueless. The man would have been a horrible, horrible president.

I thought points #2 & #4 were pretty weak as well. In fact, I thought lotus' rationale presented a far more compelling case for the electoral college. Still don't buy it though. It seems the only reason we are stuck with it is because, as lotus says, it would require a 2/3 majority to eliminate it. That isn't gonna happen. So, can we at least fix the voting machines? That seems within reach.

I gotta think that high up in command central, somebody in the Republican Party realizes that they fucked this whole election up. In their heart of hearts (if they even have one), they realize that their 30 year run of pandering to the White, religious nutjobs is no longer a winning formula. As one Fox talkin' head bitch said (when defeat was finally evident), "We're getting browner". They woefully miscalculated voting trends & changing demographics & turned an assumed landslide victory into a narrow defeat. They let their ultra-conservative Tea Party brethren sway them too far to the right & it cost them. They throw out nincompoop candidates who spout drivel (such as: the wind will control global warming, or vaginas have some sort of built-in demon-seed detector). Their sleazy, slick main candidate pretty much said half of us don't count. His sidekick couldn't even carry his own county let alone State. Their partisan antics are finally catchin' up with them & I think there are actual smart guys in the Party that will steer their agenda more toward the mainstream (I could be wrong). It will be a tough sell.

It will be a year or two after the Republicans tone down their rhetoric (i.e. stop pushin' their inflammatory social agenda & go back to just pushin' their greedy trickle down economics), that Fox will adjust their fair & balanced 'news'; and 5-10 more years before their kool-aid drinkin' viewers (who have been brain-washed for 20 years) come back toward the middle. That's my best case scenario & I'm not likin' the early returns (Secession? Freebies to the poor? Voter fraud?). Jeezy fuckin' peasy.

[lotusamerica]

I thought points #2 & #4 were pretty weak as well. In fact, I thought lotus' rationale presented a far more compelling case for the electoral college. Still don't buy it though. It seems the only reason we are stuck with it is because, as lotus says, it would require a 2/3 majority to eliminate it. That isn't gonna happen. So, can we at least fix the voting machines? That seems within reach.

I gotta think that high up in command central, somebody in the Republican Party realizes that they fucked this whole election up. In their heart of hearts (if they even have one), they realize that their 30 year run of pandering to the White, religious nutjobs is no longer a winning formula. As one Fox talkin' head bitch said (when defeat was finally evident), "We're getting browner". They woefully miscalculated voting trends & changing demographics & turned an assumed landslide victory into a narrow defeat. They let their ultra-conservative Tea Party brethren sway them too far to the right & it cost them. They throw out nincompoop candidates who spout drivel (such as: the wind will control global warming, or vaginas have some sort of built-in demon-seed detector). Their sleazy, slick main candidate pretty much said half of us don't count. His sidekick couldn't even carry his own county let alone State. Their partisan antics are finally catchin' up with them & I think there are actual smart guys in the Party that will steer their agenda more toward the mainstream (I could be wrong). It will be a tough sell.

It will be a year or two after the Republicans tone down their rhetoric (i.e. stop pushin' their inflammatory social agenda & go back to just pushin' their greedy trickle down economics), that Fox will adjust their fair & balanced 'news'; and 5-10 more years before their kool-aid drinkin' viewers (who have been brain-washed for 20 years) come back toward the middle. That's my best case scenario & I'm not likin' the early returns (Secession? Freebies to the poor? Voter fraud?). Jeezy fuckin' peasy.

I was just describing some issues - personally, I'd like a full out popular vote and think that things would be more the way I would like them if we had that. Just don't think it's gonna happen til the current system breaks, not just sucks.

The "free stuff for the poor" meme has been circulating at least since mid-summer as a possible reason for Romney losing and it's racist as all hell (and now expanded to sexist and ageist, way to go Rs!). How about Romney just didn't have much personal charisma or likeability (outside of his relationship to his wife and family), and didn't put forth any possible solutions to any problems (either at all, or by reversing course so many times that they were zeroed out), so people went with what they knew instead of changing horses midstream. It takes a lot of hubris to think you can run as the challenger and just win because people are frustrated with the current situation. Republican party/media leaders have long convinced themselves that Obama's policies are not well-liked based on their own misreadings or their own misleading polls. It's like they forgot they were inserting wedge politics into polling so that they could use the results to claim majorities on things they don't have majorities about (like public reaction to healthcare reform, reproductive rights, immigration, etc.).