Jump to content

There Will Be Hell Toupée! (The Donald Trump Thread)


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Bladewillisisdead said:

8 years of "Obama is a Kenyan Muslim!" despite actual facts and evidence disproving it. Trump himself was a birther. 

 

There's actual evidence that Russia interfered with the election to get Trump elected...but we're the crybaby conspiracy theorists. Ok.

obama is a muslim and his birth certificate is a forgery. i can play this game all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tommy said:

can we please drop the popular vote argument? Trump played the game to the rules of the game. We all know he would have won pop vote too if that was the path to victory. come on guys, it's a really lame argument

Other than the one edit, yeah.

 

 

There are pros and cons to both systems.  You guys would be all upset if an election was won entirely due to California and/or New York.  In Canada we have the popular vote system and most hate it because our population distribution is so disproportionate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, daegor said:

There are pros and cons to both systems.  You guys would be all upset if an election was won entirely due to California and/or New York.  In Canada we have the popular vote system and most hate it because our population distribution is so disproportionate.

i'd definitely hate it. i don't even think voting should be a right of all citizens. rather, qualified citizens who have done something to earn it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, daegor said:

.  You guys would be all upset if an election was won entirely due to California and/or New York.  I

I would not.  Every vote should count equally regardless of where you live.  Ones vote should not be weighted more because they live in the middle of nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, WAXXX said:

i'd definitely hate it. i don't even think voting should be a right of all citizens. rather, qualified citizens who have done something to earn it.

 

31 minutes ago, museummouth said:

You wouldn't be able to vote then

 

 

zing

how much do you pay each year in taxes? how many people do you employ? have you ever done military service for your country? how much volunteer work do you do in a year? how much is your yearly charitable giving? what's your highest post-secondary degree?

 

i'm trying to figure out which one of us would be more qualified to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read through this whole thread but it's definitely an interesting one. I think it's important to remember that many people read and digest these online threads, not just the most vocal participants, so, they are great opportunities to re-enforce the ideas and kinds of political conversations that you/we want to see. Specifically, if there isn't a respectful or productive way to respond to a particular comment, sometimes the best response is to shift things back to a more productive place.

 

That said, I've been really happy with how my friends and personal circle have responded to the outcome of the election. One electoral-college-decided election doesn't wipe away all the people who are out there who have the absurd instinct to advocate for and support those that are different or less fortunate than themselves, just how Obama winning two elections doesn't wipe away all the people who are still struggling, upset, and don't have convenient ways to express their situations. It's definitely complicated and there are challenges ahead but we will keep moving forward and providing color to a country that has been painted in very simplistic black and white frameworks recently. Take care of yourselves and don't get bogged down in the muck, if you can help it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, stl_ben said:

I would not.  Every vote should count equally regardless of where you live.  Ones vote should not be weighted more because they live in the middle of nowhere.

You wouldn't even have to live in the middle of no where.  Statistically, most elections are over before the poles even OPEN in BC because of how disproportionately large the population in Ontario and Quebec is.  Our vote literally doesn't count, even though our provincial economy is one of the largest drivers of our national economy.

 

29 minutes ago, Tommy said:

One's vote should also not be weighted more because you are a superdelegate

Definitely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, WAXXX said:

 

how much do you pay each year in taxes? how many people do you employ? have you ever done military service for your country? how much volunteer work do you do in a year? how much is your yearly charitable giving? what's your highest post-secondary degree?

 

i'm trying to figure out which one of us would be more qualified to vote.

Uhhh dude, by a lot of these metrics, a healthy percentage of the country would be more qualified to vote than Donald "Income Tax Dodger/Contractor Stiffer/Bone Spur Haver/Under $10K in the Last 10 Years Giver" Trump, so aside from the fact that the history of voting restrictions in the US is racist, sexist and anti-poor, this maaaay not be a productive tangent for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, daegor said:

You wouldn't even have to live in the middle of no where.  Statistically, most elections are over before the poles even OPEN in BC because of how disproportionately large the population in Ontario and Quebec is.  Our vote literally doesn't count, even though our provincial economy is one of the largest drivers of our national economy.

 

Definitely.

So if you moved from where you live to some where else would you vote count more or less?

In the US your vote can be worth something like 5x more if you were to move from CA to Wyoming..

I get it some areas aren't going to be as represented...but that would be because there is fewer of them to represent.  You should not get greater representation solely based on where you live.

 

edit.: wyoming votes are only 3.6X the value of a CA vote.

Edited by stl_ben
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AlexH. said:

Uhhh dude, by a lot of these metrics, a healthy percentage of the country would be more qualified to vote than Donald "Income Tax Dodger/Contractor Stiffer/Bone Spur Haver/Under $10K in the Last 10 Years Giver" Trump, so aside from the fact that the history of voting restrictions in the US is racist, sexist and anti-poor, this maaaay not be a productive tangent for you.

that's what people told trump and he won the presidency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WAXXX said:

all votes should not be equal. that's ridiculous. votes should be fair and proportionate based on population, land mass, and other factors. that's why we have states and why we have the electoral college. it adds fairness to the entire process. 

Sounds like the same excuse slave owners used for counting them as 3/5ths of a person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, WAXXX said:

that's what people told trump and he won the presidency.

Fair enough. How about the content of my post?

 

3 minutes ago, WAXXX said:

all votes should not be equal. that's ridiculous. votes should be fair and proportionate based on population, land mass, and other factors. that's why we have states and why we have the electoral college. it adds fairness to the entire process. 

I'd love to hear why land mass should have any bearing whatsoever on representation. You ever driven through North Dakota? There's nothing there! A North Dakotan's vote doesn't deserve more weight just because every single house is surrounded by 50 square miles of barren plains.

 

The electoral college system is well-intentioned but it seems to have led to exactly what it was trying to prevent, where candidates concentrate their efforts in certain states and ignore others. Ohio and Florida receive way more attention than they would if each state weren't winner take all. I read an interesting piece (that I'm now unable to find) about how Texas may someday soon become a swing state, in which case campaigns could essentially focus 90% of their efforts there and win the election. It also depresses opposition turnout in dark red and blue states, leading to results that don't truly reflect the constituency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, stl_ben said:

So if you moved from where you live to some where else would you vote count more or less?

While it's not quite as simple as 'more' or 'less', theoretically more.  Everyone's vote has an equal value.  However, if all of Ontario is in agreement with something that has a negative impact on BC, it's going to go through regardless of what BC votes.  This happens quite a bit.

 

55 minutes ago, stl_ben said:

In the US your vote can be worth something like 5x more if you were to move from CA to Wyoming..

I get it some areas aren't going to be as represented...but that would be because there is fewer of them to represent.  You should not get greater representation solely based on where you live.

 

edit.: wyoming votes are only 3.6X the value of a CA vote.

Yup, like I said, each has it's pros and cons.  (I know it's not the case, but) what if Wyoming was the second largest income earning state for the US?  Wouldn't it then deserve some additional representation in spite of it's low population?

 

There is no easy answer to that question, and my example is way too simplistic.  But I think you can understand that it's frustrating to be part of high-impact state/province, but not have your vote count because your population is lower than somewhere else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, AlexH. said:

The electoral college system is well-intentioned but it seems to have led to exactly what it was trying to prevent, where candidates concentrate their efforts in certain states and ignore others.

Here's the key bit of my point.  The truth is under either system this happens.  Unless the populace is evenly distributed then parties will try to appease the larger groups, ignoring anywhere with a lower population density.  With the current system the same thing happens, for different reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×

AdBlock Detected

spacer.png

We noticed that you're using an adBlocker

Yes, I'll whitelist