Broken Government

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2020, 02:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, he was elected by a majority in the Electoral College.  Doesn't change the point though, the EC was around then, with all the inherent issues it has today.

My point was that he won a majority of the cutizens votes.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 02:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Hard to complain about "minority rule" when there is no "minority rule"

The Senate has always had two Senators per state.  Willful obtuseness does not advance the discussion.

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2020, 12:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, we discussed increasing the numbers of HoR reps, and I'd be fine with that.  It would actually likely result in more blue reps from red states and vice versa.  I know neither of us are in favor of 212K reps though. 

It wasn't 212k reps, but 1561, each one representing about 212k. It would be interesting to see us double the number of Representatives. The interesting thing is that even by doing that, it would alter the way the Electoral College plays out because it would increase the number of Electors.

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2020, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The Senate has always had two Senators per state.  Willful obtuseness does not advance the discussion.

What does the number of senators per state have to do with president. getting elected with fewer citizens votes than his opponent?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 02:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It wasn't 212k reps, but 1561, each one representing about 212k. It would be interesting to see us double the number of Representatives. The interesting thing is that even by doing that, it would alter the way the Electoral College plays out because it would increase the number of Electors.

My mistake.  It would alter the EC but I don't know by how much.  Since the increase is across the board I don't know that it would alter the landscape significantly in that regard.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 02:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What does the number of senators per state have to do with president. getting elected with fewer citizens votes than his opponent?

We're discussing minority rule in general.  The Senate is a prime example of this and has been discussed in detail within this thread.  An easier way to answer your questions would be to actually read the thread before commenting.

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2020, 03:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We're discussing minority rule in general.  The Senate is a prime example of this and has been discussed in detail within this thread.  An easier way to answer your questions would be to actually read the thread before commenting.

Just to be clear, are you saying that no one mentioned Trump getting elected while losing the popular vote?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 03:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just to be clear, are you saying that no one mentioned Trump getting elected while losing the popular vote?

Your shtick is boring.  Either contribute to the discussion or kindly stop wasting our time.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

[Belsnickel]

(10-07-2020, 02:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: My mistake.  It would alter the EC but I don't know by how much.  Since the increase is across the board I don't know that it would alter the landscape significantly in that regard.

I just did the math and it doesn't alter it by as much as I had initially thought. It narrows the gap, but not by a ton.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 03:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just did the math and it doesn't alter it by as much as I had initially thought. It narrows the gap, but not by a ton.

That was my guess.  I think you'd have the really alter the Rep per "X" population quite a bit to really change the landscape.  I don't think a change that radical would be very welcome either.

[Dill]

(10-06-2020, 07:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: NATI BENGALS Wrote:   So a prez who most voters did not vote for and was saved from impeach by votes from senators who represent a minority of population will stop negotiating to help our struggling country and instead focus on jamming through a scotus nominee breaking their own rule. And we will have a 3rd scotus inserted by a president who was not voted for by the majority and senators who represent a minority of the population.
Broke as f
Just flat out undemocratic stuff going on.
This is not a representative government.
Translation, the rules we've operated under for over 200 years don't work in my favor, so let's change them.  Sad. 

(10-07-2020, 02:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: fredtoast Wrote:  Hard to complain about "minority rule" when there is no "minority rule"

The Senate has always had two Senators per state.  Willful obtuseness does not advance the discussion.

(10-07-2020, 03:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: fredtoast Wrote: What does the number of senators per state have to do with president. getting elected with fewer citizens votes than his opponent?

We're discussing minority rule in general.  The Senate is a prime example of this and has been discussed in detail within this thread.  An easier way to answer your questions would be to actually read the thread before commenting.

(10-07-2020, 03:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

fredtoast Wrote: Wrote:Just to be clear, are you saying that no one mentioned Trump getting elected while losing the popular vote?

Your shtick is boring.  Either contribute to the discussion or kindly stop wasting our time.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

keepers 

(10-07-2020, 05:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote: You're speaking for some group again, and policing on their behalf, not just Fred, not just this thread.

Yes. 

I was preparing a contribution to this thread, as the topic interests me.
But I am wholly turned off by the drumbeat of negative comments you append to response after response.

You mean to Fred's attempts to derail the thread that you, again, magically don't see?  Did you notice the conversation was proceeding with no issue until Fred inserted his regressive commentary?  Alternatively, you could actually post something that contributes to the conversation instead of contributing to the actual derailment, something you claim to decry.

Stop framing this as a Fred problem. No one else habitually runs others down as is done in your posts above.

Sure, Dill.  According to your clearly unbiased opinion.

I WISH you would get back to the actual topic and end this unceasing and unnecessary assessment of other posters' motives and abilities.

I was on topic.  You and Fred caused the conversation to go off topic.  Own your behavior and be the change you ask of others.  I promise you it will help.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 03:45 PM)Dill Wrote: keepers  

Solid post.

I know you're, for some reason, completely blind to Fred's standard posting tactics, but most of us get burnt out on them.


Keep that. 

Back to the actual topic.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-06-2020, 08:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree to the former, not necessarily with the latter.  I would be very happy with changes in lobbying and the influence of money in politics.


Yeah, it is.



Yeah, change the rules because he doesn't like them.  He doesn't like them because they don't benefit who he prefers.  I don't remember him complaining about these rules during Obama's tenure, so your point comes off as rather weak.


As stated, the idea of changing these rules is recent.  It has only gained traction because of the last four years, hence the impetus for such cnage is pathetically transparent.


As Bel is abut to explain, this is by design.  We don't have a direct democracy by conscious decision, not by accident or happenstance.


You're 90% of the way there, but your final position is flawed, IMO.  Yes, the Framers absolutely did not want majority rule.  As Franklin famously stated, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner."  But the minority does not rule and everything is working as designed.  The House is Dem because more people voted for them.  The Senate is GOP because more states have more GOP senators.  The POTUS is GOP because they won the Electoral College.  All the reasons and arguments for changing this doesn't change the basic point, that people want to change the rules we've operated under for hundreds of years because they don't like the result of the 2016 election.  This is childish and short sighted.  The system has worked for over two hundred years.  It's the oldest democratic republic in the world (is it the longest tenured contiguous government as well?).  It has functioned as is for a long time.  If you don't like that then change the government via a Constitutional Amendment.  Is that too hard, well guess what, that's by design.  I have a lot of respect for the intellect and acumen of both you and Bmore, but these calls for radical change ring hollow as sour grapes to me, and millions of others.

You could have asked and saved yourself some words. I have wanted changed since the first time in my adult life an outdated system designed to appease slave owners inserted a moron from the GOP in as president instead of the person the people of this country voted for.

We ended up with massive deficits, two wars, and a collapsing economy.

Then I witnessed some weird turtle man from KY married to a commie who got millions from China seemingly have more power than anyone in our government. Once again proving how broke shit was.

Here we are again sitting here with another massive shit spray on our faces because of the turtle man from ky and a moron from the GOP as president instead of the person the people voted for.

[Dill]

(10-07-2020, 04:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Solid post.

I know you're, for some reason, completely blind to Fred's standard posting tactics, but most of us get burnt out on them.

Keep that. 

Back to the actual topic.

You're speaking for some group again, and policing on their behalf, not just Fred, not just this thread. 

I was preparing a contribution to this thread, as the topic interests me.

But I am wholly turned off by the drumbeat of negative comments you append to response after response. 

Stop framing this as a Fred problem. No one else habitually runs others down as is done in your posts above.

I WISH you would get back to the actual topic and end this unceasing and unnecessary assessment of other posters' motives and abilities.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 04:27 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: You could have asked and saved yourself some words. I have wanted changed since the first time in my adult life an outdated system designed to appease slave owners inserted a moron from the GOP in as president instead of the person the people of this country voted for.

We ended up with massive deficits, two wars, and a collapsing economy.

Then I witnessed some weird turtle man from KY married to a commie who got millions from China seemingly have more power than anyone in our government. Once again proving how broke shit was.

Here we are again sitting here with another massive shit spray on our faces because of the turtle man from ky and a moron from the GOP as president instead of the person the people voted for.

So essentially what Is aid, the side you didn't like won and you now want to change the rules.  I can understand your being upset, but your feelings don't trump (no pun intended) the Constitution.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 04:28 PM)Dill Wrote: You're speaking for some group again, and policing on their behalf, not just Fred, not just this thread.

Yes. 

Quote:I was preparing a contribution to this thread, as the topic interests me.

But I am wholly turned off by the drumbeat of negative comments you append to response after response. 

You mean to Fred's attempts to derail the thread that you, again, magically don't see?  Did you notice the conversation was proceeding with no issue until Fred inserted his regressive commentary?  Alternatively, you could actually post something that contributes to the conversation instead of contributing to the actual derailment, something you claim to decry.

Quote:Stop framing this as a Fred problem. No one else habitually runs others down as is done in your posts above.

Sure, Dill.  According to your clearly unbiased opinion.

Quote:I WISH you would get back to the actual topic and end this unceasing and unnecessary assessment of other posters' motives and abilities.

I was on topic.  You and Fred caused the conversation to go off topic.  Own your behavior and be the change you ask of others.  I promise you it will help.

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-07-2020, 05:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So essentially what Is aid, the side you didn't like won and you now want to change the rules.  I can understand your being upset, but your feelings don't trump (no pun intended) the Constitution.

You got me there. Only Mitch trump and the gop are allowed to trump the constitution.

I guess you are right. The voice of the American people lost and it upsets me. And I want to make things better for Americans.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 05:47 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: You got me there. Only Mitch trump and the gop are allowed to trump the constitution.

Except they haven't.  If you disagree please give an example or two. 

Quote:I guess you are right. The voice of the American people lost and it upsets me. And I want to make things better for Americans.

I don't know many people who disagree with that sentiment.  However, what constitutes that is clearly up for debate and neither side has a monopoly on the solution.  However, none of this detracts from my original point.  You, and others of the same thinking, want to change the rules because those rules, which we have operated under for over 200 years, didn't give you the results you preferred.  I get that, but don't expect me to agree with it or not call it out for what it is.

[fredtoast]

(10-07-2020, 05:58 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  You, and others of the same thinking, want to change the rules because those rules, which we have operated under for over 200 years, didn't give you the results you preferred.  

Again, the rules have not been in place for 200 years.

Second, please point to where anyone is saying we need to change the rules just to benefit Democrats.  They are not.  The rules would work the same for Republicans and Democrats.  There was no complaining about changing the rules during the Obama administration because Obama won the popular election.  You can't complain about the minority of voters winning an election when a minority of voters did not win the election.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-07-2020, 06:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Again, the rules have not been in place for 200 years.

Sure they have.

Quote:Second, please point to where anyone is saying we need to change the rules just to benefit Democrats.  They are not.  The rules would work the same for Republicans and Democrats.  There was no complaining about changing the rules during the Obama administration because Obama won the popular election.  You can't complain about the minority of voters winning an election when a minority of voters did not win the election.

Your argument eats itself.  They want to change the rules because they lost.  It's no different than the Bengals wanting to change the results of the '05 playoff game because Carson got Kimo'd.  You lost under the same set of rules that have been in placed for over two hundred years.  You want to change them because you lost.  No amount of Fred spin changes that simple fact.