|
Post by oblivionn on Oct 14, 2007 11:40:29 GMT -5
Lets take a hypothetical scenario, using this map. Let's say all the red states won by one vote. And lets say that however many elctoral "points" are the number of people who voted. For instance, In Texas, 34 people would vote. Okay, if all the red states won by one or two votes(If they have an even number of "points", For instance, Texas would win 18 to 16, New Mexico would win 3 to 2, get it?), a total of 167 people would vote for them(Correct me if I'm wrong). If, in all the blue states, EVERYONE voted Democratically, Then a Total of 370 people would have voted Democratically(Including the people who voted Democrat in the Red States). But, The Republicans can win the election because they get all of the electorcal votes in their state even though nearly half didn't vote for them. For Instance, in Texas, 16 people would not vote republican, yet their vote is as good as Republican So they actually get 286 votes, even though only 167 voted for them!(Please correct me if my math is wrong) It is therefore possible to win the election with only 29% of the vote!!!(167/573) Waddup Wit Dat??!! P.S. I'm almost positive I screwed up my math somewhere, if someone could please point that out- ;D But even if my math is wrong, you get my point.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 14, 2007 13:56:55 GMT -5
The eletorial college provides an aspect of security. It makes the politicians try to win all the states. Liberals would love to just campain in New York and LA but because of the elecotial system they have to visit the unwashed masses too. Without this system you end up with mob rule.
Each state has the option of how there votes go. In California they wanna make it to where the electorial votes are devided between the canidates by how many districts they win. Liberals are dead set against this only because it hurts there presidential canidates. Even though liberals do nothing but whine about the electorial college system, when it benifits them, they love it and fight to defend it.
This is because Liberals are emotion driven. They do not care about the future of the country. They only care if they win the next election.
|
|
|
Post by oblivionn on Oct 14, 2007 14:15:21 GMT -5
If Liberals didn't care about the future of their county, they would not run in the elections. And, honestly, even if it forces them to foucus on all districts, being able to win with 30% of the vote should not be possible.
|
|
|
Post by oblivionn on Oct 14, 2007 14:37:10 GMT -5
Another hypothetical scenario- Suppose only one person voted in California. Then whichever candidate he or she voted for would get 55 electoral votes... That seems... off. There are two resons that keep Democrats from winning elections. One is the electoral college. The other is that many Liberals vote for the Green Party and Independants, rather than the party that actually has a chance of winning. This takes away votes that would otherwise go to the Democrats. If the voting worked like this- 1st Choice- 2nd Choice- 3rd Choice- Where candidate #1 would recieve 3 points, #2 2 points, etc. or something like this, it would solve the problem of having only two major parties. Third parties would actually be a viable choice because they would be #2 on many people's list. In fact, many people would stop voting for Dems and Reps as #1 because other parties actually have a chance of winning the election. It would solve this mentality- "I don't like Democrats a whole lot, but they're better than Republicans, so I guess I'll vote for them." Other parties have much better ideas in my opinion, and this would give them a chance to make the country a better place. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 14, 2007 14:44:16 GMT -5
Liberals care about there own political careers. They will say or do anything to win. From stealing documents to leaking military plans. The liberal canidate is always the one that offers to give the most away for free. Its no prob for them to beacuse its not there money.
What u sugest is called mob rule. It leads to legal linching of black people to Jews in ovens.
|
|
|
Post by oblivionn on Oct 14, 2007 16:57:13 GMT -5
Liberals care about there own political careers. They will say or do anything to win. From stealing documents to leaking military plans. The liberal canidate is always the one that offers to give the most away for free. Its no prob for them to beacuse its not there money. What u sugest is called mob rule. It leads to legal linching of black people to Jews in ovens. LMAO... How does this type of voting lead to legal linching of black people to Jews in ovens?? That has to be the stupidest thing I've heard in my life.. but thanks for the laugh ;D
|
|
|
Post by Levi on Oct 15, 2007 7:31:03 GMT -5
Liberals care about there own political careers. They will say or do anything to win. From stealing documents to leaking military plans. The liberal canidate is always the one that offers to give the most away for free. Its no prob for them to beacuse its not there money. What u sugest is called mob rule. It leads to legal linching of black people to Jews in ovens. I believe it is the Republican party that is trying to change the way California divides up its electoral votes to steal yet another election. Isn't that "doing whatever it takes" to get elected? Stealing documents? Do you mean how the Republicans are wire tapping our private phone conversations? The liberal candidate is giving the most away for free? Ever heard of Haliburton and Blackwater's no bid contracts? Is it not the Republicans that have snubbed African Americans with the way they handled hurricane Katrina? I can't even begin to touch how politically incorrect your "jews in ovens" comment is.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Oct 15, 2007 9:55:25 GMT -5
Liberals care about there own political careers. They will say or do anything to win. From stealing documents to leaking military plans. The liberal canidate is always the one that offers to give the most away for free. Its no prob for them to beacuse its not there money. What u sugest is called mob rule. It leads to legal linching of black people to Jews in ovens. I believe it is the Republican party that is trying to change the way California divides up its electoral votes to steal yet another election. Isn't that "doing whatever it takes" to get elected? Stealing documents? Do you mean how the Republicans are wire tapping our private phone conversations? The liberal candidate is giving the most away for free? Ever heard of Haliburton and Blackwater's no bid contracts? Is it not the Republicans that have snubbed African Americans with the way they handled hurricane Katrina? I can't even begin to touch how politically incorrect your "jews in ovens" comment is. There is no way that the Republican Party can influence anything that goes on in California. The "stealing documents" (you could add "destroying" too) is a reference to Sandy Burglar. You make it seem as though the government is tapping everybody's phone. Enhanced securty always comes at the expense of some degree of personal freedom. It's a trade-off. Government service contracts have always been "no-bid". Most of them are also "no-profit". FEMA has always been a bloated, beuracratic, non-responsive, can't get out of it's own way, agency. Katrina was no different from FEMA's performance on other natural disasters, it's just bigger.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 15, 2007 17:28:17 GMT -5
I was wondering if any of my conservitive buds out there would help explain the ills of mob rule better then me.
in the 30s the Nazi's came to power by preaching hate to a depressed populas. They blamed the jews for all there probs instead of themselfs. The first law the hate filled majority passed when they came to power in germany was that jews coundn't swim in the same pools as the rest. Then they couldn't own property. This lead to jews in ovens. Even though it may not be PC, I'm still allowed to say it until some liberal decides I can't. Then its off to the camps with me.
In the 50s, it was legal to linch black people because the majority of people down there said it was ok. Strom Thurman comes to mind for some reason. The x KKK grand wizard thats now a democrat senitor. I wonder how many black people Strom linched himself? That question isn't important to libs though. I bet if it came out that he had linched black people the liberals would protect him. After all, nobody talks more crap about black people then the liberals in the recording industry. If he was a republican you would never hear the end of it from the media.
Our system is set up to serve the majority but protect the minority. It may not be perfect, but it works.
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Oct 15, 2007 18:22:47 GMT -5
Strom died in 2003
(probably about the same time you stopped learning things, lol)
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 15, 2007 19:02:22 GMT -5
Remeber when trent lot was like
If strom had become president things may have been better.
Then all the libs came out and blasted lot for being a racist because strom was a hard core segrigationist.
Its hard to learn when u know everything ;D
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Oct 15, 2007 20:47:21 GMT -5
Robert Bird is a US Senator who is a former clan member. He's perfect for West Virginia, totally senile.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Oct 15, 2007 22:42:20 GMT -5
Robert Bird is a US Senator who is a former clan member. He's perfect for West Virginia, totally senile. Classic Bill, way to go.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Oct 16, 2007 10:28:37 GMT -5
The eletorial college provides an aspect of security. It makes the politicians try to win all the states. Liberals would love to just campain in New York and LA but because of the elecotial system they have to visit the unwashed masses too. Without this system you end up with mob rule. Each state has the option of how there votes go. In California they wanna make it to where the electorial votes are devided between the canidates by how many districts they win. Liberals are dead set against this only because it hurts there presidential canidates. Even though liberals do nothing but whine about the electorial college system, when it benifits them, they love it and fight to defend it. This is because Liberals are emotion driven. They do not care about the future of the country. They only care if they win the next election. Thats some funny stuff, Satan. Liberals dont care about the future of the country? Lets see, what was GWB's first act of his presidency? Oh, yeah, he pulled out of the Kyoto protocols. Followed by renewed bombing in Iraq, with the strategy of creating a more permanent prescence in the middle east.. (He likes it there, there's oil, and thats all the oil man understands.) He then created short-term, non-sustainable tax breaks, to make us all feel good for a moment, even though these tax breaks weaken us financially for decades to come. I care about the future of my family, so I pay down my debt, I dont create more so my kids have to pay for what I couldn't, but that's exactly what GWB has done. All this is from someone who cares about the future of the country? You very funny man, Satan. You listen to too much Rush Limbaugh. The dudes a fat, bloated windbag who makes his living by feeding your desire to hate. (Mind you, I feel the same about Michael Moore, and every other political extremist, I'm a libertarian, and think all of you suck.) Bottom line is, you cant claim that leadership of the GOP cares about anything but short term profit or political gains, its just not credible.
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Oct 16, 2007 10:54:38 GMT -5
In the 50s, it was legal to linch black people because the majority of people down there said it was ok. Strom Thurman comes to mind for some reason. The x KKK grand wizard thats now a democrat senitor. I wonder how many black people Strom linched himself? That question isn't important to libs though. I bet if it came out that he had linched black people the liberals would protect him. After all, nobody talks more crap about black people then the liberals in the recording industry. If he was a republican you would never hear the end of it from the media. Our system is set up to serve the majority but protect the minority. It may not be perfect, but it works. Dude, you really are ignorant. First, lynching was never legal. During some very dark periods in our history, it was over-looked in parts of the country because racism was so rampant and accepted in those parts of the country. Second, Strom Thurmond was never a KKK grandmaster, nor has he ever had any legitimate, provable ties to the KKK. Third, Strom Thurmond was a member of the Democratic party until 1963. He then switched party affiliations because of his disagreement with the democratic party over civil rights. From 1964-2003, he was a member of the Republican party. 4rth, he's dead now. Please check your KKK facts before you pass off your kind as part of the opposition.
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Oct 16, 2007 11:30:46 GMT -5
"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigra race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."
Strom Thermond, 1948
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"
Robert Byrd, 1945
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 16, 2007 11:54:06 GMT -5
yo tbs nice to see ya here debating
Dude, you really are ignorant. First, lynching was never legal. During some very dark periods in our history, it was over-looked in parts of the country because racism was so rampant and accepted in those parts of the country.
(so we passed anti lynching laws to prevent lynching that wasn't illegal. oh, its like pot. It was ok to do, just don't get caught or u get a ticket)
Second, Strom Thurmond was never a KKK grandmaster, nor has he ever had any legitimate, provable ties to the KKK.
(Strom was just the hardcore segrigationist that looks, sounds like, but has no ties to the kkk. Thats why when you put his name into yahoo, you get tons of stuff about him, robert byrd, and the clan)
Third, Strom Thurmond was a member of the Democratic party until 1963. He then switched party affiliations because of his disagreement with the democratic party over civil rights.
(but became a senitor in 1954 where he fought hard for segrigation along side his democrat buds)
From 1964-2003, he was a member of the Republican party. (You could say he saw the light In 1964. He realized south caralina had big black vote block. So he added blacks to his staff and became a republican)
4rth, he's dead now. (good)
Please check your KKK facts before you pass off your kind as part of the opposition. (the kkk facts seem to be in the air. I saw info that said he was. And if he wasn't, he woulda fit right in.)
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 16, 2007 12:12:06 GMT -5
wow weee havent seen this much action in a while ;D
Thats some funny stuff, Satan. Liberals dont care about the future of the country?
(they don't, they want to punish America for its past)
Lets see, what was GWB's first act of his presidency? Oh, yeah, he pulled out of the Kyoto protocols.
(Kyoto would of killed America's economy while China was free to pollute all they want. This would devistate America. U wanna see every job here go to India, sign Kyoto)
Followed by renewed bombing in Iraq, with the strategy of creating a more permanent prescence in the middle east.. (He likes it there, there's oil, and thats all the oil man understands.)
(cool, so where is the oil? Saddam passing out huge lotto lookin checks on TV to the familys of suicide bombers who attack Israel had nothin to do with us goin there?)
He then created short-term, non-sustainable tax breaks, to make us all feel good for a moment, even though these tax breaks weaken us financially for decades to come.
(better then economy choaking tax increaces)
I care about the future of my family, so I pay down my debt, I dont create more so my kids have to pay for what I couldn't, but that's exactly what GWB has done. All this is from someone who cares about the future of the country?
(I bet you care about your family and there future tbs. U seem to be an outstanging person imo. But having a "family" and paying down dept are "conservitive" prinables. (as apposed to buying drugs for ur boyfriend on cc and living in the moment) GWB is not a true conservitive. He trys to be a populas that leans right. Just like Clinton was a populas that leaned left.)
You very funny man, Satan. You listen to too much Rush Limbaugh.
(how do u know? do u lisson to?)
The dudes a fat, bloated windbag who makes his living by feeding your desire to hate. (Mind you, I feel the same about Michael Moore, and every other political extremist, I'm a libertarian, and think all of you suck.)
(wow, I think they all suck too. And I like the libertarians. I'm all about local goverment over huge goverment
Bottom line is, you cant claim that leadership of the GOP cares about anything but short term profit or political gains, its just not credible.
(I know the Bush admin is far from perfect. We will have to wait 20 years or so before we really know what was all goin on. I have a feeling history will be kind to GWB)
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Oct 16, 2007 12:53:25 GMT -5
thx for the quotes whip your da man i mix my racist up from time to time and tbs, just to clarify. when i say things like liberals only care about winning blah blah blah.. I'm kinda refuring to the ones in the political scene. I know the average american working liberals, the ones that drive there hibread in the car pool lane everyday to work, do care about the future of this country. which is why u buy into hibreads n stuff. I know several liberals who I would describe as noble, good people.(not that hibreads are bad either. but car pool lanes are crap )
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Oct 16, 2007 20:29:49 GMT -5
Overall I would have to agree with Satan on most of these talking points. I bet you never thought you would hear a Catholic conservative say he agreed with Satan, eh? Whiplash knows this lore better than we do, you youngsters will understand, like he does, when your in your 80's too. Yea, as I have mentioned in our other lets bash GOP thread: one cannot say what a President or administration has done or worth for decades after the dust clears. Bush Jr is closer to the Left than the Right, that does not mean he is any better or worse for it nonetheless. Had any Dem been in office the last 4 years we would still have a Republican congress, I chit you not. If you want to speak about any on air persona you cannot with out mention of Dr Savage. -> Brilliant.
|
|