EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1005
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:54 jdseemoreglass wrote: Is Swazi actually a troll account made to make Republicans look retarded? I'm getting very suspicious of all the free ammunition he's giving here. It's me. Is it working? | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:54 Leporello wrote: Do you know how many people live in Montana compared to Texas or California? Horrible idea. America is a federation, not a unitary state. The president should represent all of the states equally. How would you feel if the leaders of the EU only cared about Germany? | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:50 Swazi Spring wrote: We need to replace the electoral college with a 1 state = 1 vote system. Sadly the liberals would probably ragequit and not allow such an amendment to pass. as retarded as this is, it is basically correct. the president is not the president of the people, hes the leader of the states. IF the power of the president over the states was reduced, i could see the argument for making it more clear that states do the electing. the problem is the world has moved on in 200 years, the size and power of the US government is such that all this talk of states rights and whatever is irrelevent. the fact is the states need less power these days, in no other country do states act all independent all the time when they clearly arent. | ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
What was your compelling argument for it in the first place? | ||
|
Survivor61316
United States470 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:50 Swazi Spring wrote: We need to replace the electoral college with a 1 state = 1 vote system. Sadly the liberals would probably ragequit and not allow such an amendment to pass. Actually if you watched the debate between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly, its the republican party who generally shies away from the popular vote. When it came up to the two of them, Stewart (an obvious liberal) lauded the idea, and O'Reilly (clearly an elephant) said it would be a horrible decision to remove the electoral college. Its really no surprise, as more than two percent more of registered voter are registered as democrats over republicans, which would obviously give a benefit to the Democratic party in an election. | ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
| ||
|
nevermindthebollocks
United States116 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:40 turdburgler wrote: the m7/9 bayonets/knifes are only used in attachment with m16s and m4s which represent only a fraction of what is standard issue to the US army. if you do not attach it to a gun it is not a bayonet. all rifles had bayonets in 1916. if you can find numbers to prove there are more m16s and m4s in the current army than total soldiers of 1916 then go ahead. spend 2/3 hours missing the point. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M9_bayonet the m9 alone, while in service for 28 years, only accounts for ~400,000 knives. assume 50% have been broken or lost in battle and it doesnt really add up to very many. i found the link http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-wrong-about-bayonets.html but as you say they are missing the point. so what if obama was wrong? the point is valid and romney got burned in front of 60 million or people the same people talk about how obama called subs ships but they are "boats" and that long ago he didn't pronounce corpseman correctly and that he sends robosigned letters of condolences to soldiers killed like they expect him to handwrite personal letters to every single person. what about the lives he saves by withdrawing from iraq and afghanistan and not sending soldiers to libya? repeat with me. they are desperate! | ||
|
Josealtron
United States219 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:49 sam!zdat wrote: according to your logic josealtron, you should vote for stein. does way more good than a texas vote for obama edit: that is, you would not be in fact be making it more likely for romney to win I guess you're right. Still, I can't stand the electoral college system. October 24 2012 10:50 Swazi Spring wrote: We need to replace the electoral college with a 1 state = 1 vote system. Sadly the liberals would probably ragequit and not allow such an amendment to pass. This is an even more stupid idea than the electoral college, for a wide variety of reasons(the most obvious one being that if you're in a state with a large population, your vote counts for much less). This is one of the reasons the electoral college was created-because this is a ridiculous way to handle voting. | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
I don't think she understands how economics work. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:57 Survivor61316 wrote: Actually if you watched the debate between Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly, its the republican party who generally shies away from the popular vote. When it came up to the two of them, Stewart (an obvious liberal) lauded the idea, and O'Reilly (clearly an elephant) said it would be a horrible decision to remove the electoral college. Its really no surprise, as more than two percent more of registered voter are registered as democrats over republicans, which would obviously give a benefit to the Democratic party in an election. 1 state 1 vote is not a popular vote at all, it would be very very far from it | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Gov. Johnson: Government-guaranteed student loans are to blame for high tuition costs. Are you watching something? Link? | ||
|
Survivor61316
United States470 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:55 Swazi Spring wrote: America is a federation, not a unitary state. The president should represent all of the states equally. How would you feel if the leaders of the EU only cared about Germany? Wrong. If this were true, Federal law would not supersede state law..it would be the reverse. America has not been a confederation since the decade after the Revolutionary war ended. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:57 Josealtron wrote: I guess you're right. Still, I can't stand the electoral college system. Well, I would really encourage you to vote 3rd party, because that way your vote actually does make a difference, I feel. Don't get guilted into voting for lesser evil when you're not actually even having an effect on bringing about lesser evil... I think the whole bit with the electoral college is something of a red herring, tbh | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
On October 24 2012 10:55 turdburgler wrote: as retarded as this is, it is basically correct. the president is not the president of the people, hes the leader of the states. IF the power of the president over the states was reduced, i could see the argument for making it more clear that states do the electing. the problem is the world has moved on in 200 years, the size and power of the US government is such that all this talk of states rights and whatever is irrelevent. the fact is the states need less power these days, in no other country do states act all independent all the time when they clearly arent. The argument that "America's government is too big, we should just allow it to remain big" has never stood well with me. The government is only as large as it is because we continue to just say "it's big, just accept it" but we need to seriously reduce the size and scope of this government and return rights to the states and to the people. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
| ||
