|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States44108 Posts
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise.
|
On April 19 2026 18:12 KwarK wrote:
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise.
Or at least the plurality, but yes I agree.
|
It’s so weird to witness the he complete confusion and chaos over the Iran negotiation. Trump says absolutely whatever and the whole thing is a clusterfuck of nonsense with no one having any idea what’s going on.
|
On April 19 2026 19:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 18:12 KwarK wrote:
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise. Or at least the plurality, but yes I agree.
You can have a runoff election.
|
On April 19 2026 20:59 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 19:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 19 2026 18:12 KwarK wrote:
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise. Or at least the plurality, but yes I agree. You can have a runoff election.
Sure!
|
United States44108 Posts
On April 19 2026 20:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It’s so weird to witness the he complete confusion and chaos over the Iran negotiation. Trump says absolutely whatever and the whole thing is a clusterfuck of nonsense with no one having any idea what’s going on.
They had a deliberate policy of destroying the old regime. Not policy changes, not pressure, not ceasing enrichment, killing these guys so there could be a revolution. They didn’t want them to do anything but die.
And now they can’t seem to find anyone with power and authority in the regime. Strange. They’re searching for the people responsible for all this confusion.
|
On April 19 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 20:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It’s so weird to witness the he complete confusion and chaos over the Iran negotiation. Trump says absolutely whatever and the whole thing is a clusterfuck of nonsense with no one having any idea what’s going on. They had a deliberate policy of destroying the old regime. Not policy changes, not pressure, not ceasing enrichment, killing these guys so there could be a revolution. They didn’t want them to do anything but die. And now they can’t seem to find anyone with power and authority in the regime. Strange. They’re searching for the people responsible for all this confusion.
Listen to Trump tell the press what is supposedly going on and the Iranians having to say, we actually never said that, he is just making shit up is kind of entertaining.
What a shit show.
|
On April 19 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 20:02 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It’s so weird to witness the he complete confusion and chaos over the Iran negotiation. Trump says absolutely whatever and the whole thing is a clusterfuck of nonsense with no one having any idea what’s going on. They had a deliberate policy of destroying the old regime. Not policy changes, not pressure, not ceasing enrichment, killing these guys so there could be a revolution. They didn’t want them to do anything but die. And now they can’t seem to find anyone with power and authority in the regime. Strange. They’re searching for the people responsible for all this confusion.
Funny stuff. Almost like a pattern.
Destroy Taliban, donate weapons to Taliban, reinstate Taliban.
All Europe had to do was adopt the second amendment, gee golly.
|
Northern Ireland27013 Posts
On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling  . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters.
Which wasn’t your initial point.
Your initial point was to compare two completely different things to try and make an own the libs gotcha.
Don’t bullshit me, you’ve got more earnest responses than merited based on that initial gambit as it was.
Do better. Or don’t, no skin off my back either way
|
Schrödinger's straight.
It's open until somebody fires on cruise ships :D
|
Also Schrödingers ships on Schrödingers strait. They are alive and dead simultaneously, until you look at them to see which is true.
|
Populist Liquified Reality is quantum physics. Everything is true at the same time.
There are deals being made, with no iranian delegation present. The cease fire is firing only some bullets. The end of US blockade of iranian ports is open shipping.
Trump is such a piece of shit.
He needed to be excluded from meetings discussing the retrieval of the MIA pilot, because he is too dumb and loud and would blow the whole thing.
Before he tore up the Obama Deal, the straight was open, and threat of an iranian nuke to israel was mitigated.
Before he decided to have Iran attacked, the straight was at least open and iran severly hindered in producing enough weapon's grade uranium.
Now he made the Mullahs look like the adults in the room. And frankly, if Teheran had a 30% chance to land a nuke in Tel Aviv in Retaliation for being attacked, there won't be war.
|
More the golden grieser is stuck in this situation, more probable that Cuba won't see any invasion. So sorry I have to cheer for this moron to be involved, even if the rest of the world pay economicaly. For me saving lives of potentialy tousands of Cubans have more value than well being of milions customers (as long as hunger or mass power outage is avoided ofc.).
|
On April 20 2026 03:45 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters. Which wasn’t your initial point. Your initial point was to compare two completely different things to try and make an own the libs gotcha. Don’t bullshit me, you’ve got more earnest responses than merited based on that initial gambit as it was. Do better. Or don’t, no skin off my back either way
They are both about potentially disenfranchising voters?
On April 19 2026 16:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters. 1. How do you think a popular vote disenfranchises voters? (I hope you don't think your "point is as follows" is your explanation of this, because a national popular vote necessarily wouldn't have the problem you're describing for an individual state, since there wouldn't be state electoral votes to allocate. The millions of individual votes would all count equally, regardless of what state they're from. Even conservatives in California and liberals in Texas would have votes that matter; national elections wouldn't only be decided by swing states. Red states are the ones preventing this equality, by not wanting to lose their unfair advantage from the electoral college, which is why they don't want a popular vote.) 2. Do you think both the electoral college and the popular vote are approximately equal in their levels of disenfranchisement of voters, or do you think one method is significantly worse/better in terms of how votes are assessed?
On April 19 2026 18:12 KwarK wrote:
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise.
Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation.
As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact.
|
On April 20 2026 17:04 KT_Elwood wrote:
Populist Liquified Reality is quantum physics. Everything is true at the same time.
There are deals being made, with no iranian delegation present. The cease fire is firing only some bullets. The end of US blockade of iranian ports is open shipping.
Trump is such a piece of shit.
He needed to be excluded from meetings discussing the retrieval of the MIA pilot, because he is too dumb and loud and would blow the whole thing.
Before he tore up the Obama Deal, the straight was open, and threat of an iranian nuke to israel was mitigated.
Before he decided to have Iran attacked, the straight was at least open and iran severly hindered in producing enough weapon's grade uranium.
Now he made the Mullahs look like the adults in the room. And frankly, if Teheran had a 30% chance to land a nuke in Tel Aviv in Retaliation for being attacked, there won't be war.
You know Israel has a chance to land a nuke in Tehran for being attacked and yet somehow Iran still bombs Israel.
|
On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2026 03:45 WombaT wrote:On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters. Which wasn’t your initial point. Your initial point was to compare two completely different things to try and make an own the libs gotcha. Don’t bullshit me, you’ve got more earnest responses than merited based on that initial gambit as it was. Do better. Or don’t, no skin off my back either way They are both about potentially disenfranchising voters? Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 16:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters. 1. How do you think a popular vote disenfranchises voters? (I hope you don't think your "point is as follows" is your explanation of this, because a national popular vote necessarily wouldn't have the problem you're describing for an individual state, since there wouldn't be state electoral votes to allocate. The millions of individual votes would all count equally, regardless of what state they're from. Even conservatives in California and liberals in Texas would have votes that matter; national elections wouldn't only be decided by swing states. Red states are the ones preventing this equality, by not wanting to lose their unfair advantage from the electoral college, which is why they don't want a popular vote.) 2. Do you think both the electoral college and the popular vote are approximately equal in their levels of disenfranchisement of voters, or do you think one method is significantly worse/better in terms of how votes are assessed? Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 18:12 KwarK wrote:
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise. Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation. As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact. entire states are already being disenfranchised.
There are what, 7? states that actually decide the election. 49 states are winner takes all. up to 49.5% x 49 voters get disenfranchised.
More people voted for Hillary then Trump, yet Trump won. "Well that is because its the EC that matters, not votes" and your right. But if your so concerned about disenfranchising with the NPVIC then boy, you should look at the EC itself.
|
You have to understand that Dems need the occasional war mongering social contract destroying republican in charge.
They should have long made people worth more than land.. but then they get to a personal age where owning land is really nice.
|
On April 20 2026 17:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2026 03:45 WombaT wrote:On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters. Which wasn’t your initial point. Your initial point was to compare two completely different things to try and make an own the libs gotcha. Don’t bullshit me, you’ve got more earnest responses than merited based on that initial gambit as it was. Do better. Or don’t, no skin off my back either way They are both about potentially disenfranchising voters? Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 16:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 19 2026 11:21 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 12:00 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 11:49 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Holy backwards comprehension, Batman. The electoral college already disenfranchises most voters from most (red and blue) states. The electoral college is far less fair and far less democratic than a popular vote. The whole point of the NPVIC is that it's fairer, and the fact that Republicans are resistant to it is a testament to the fact that they know they have an unfair advantage with the electoral college that they don't want to give up. Oh please, you are smart enough to understand that whole point is to maintain perpetual Democrat president Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol. On April 18 2026 11:09 Razyda wrote:On April 18 2026 10:37 WombaT wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." States notably aren’t people last I checked I’ve heard cogent arguments for adopting the popular vote from both sides of that, although generally I favour it myself. But it’s a giant stretch to connect completely different issues, it feels you’re really reaching for a ‘gotcha’ that simply isn’t there. What do you think states are then?? I mean if they arent people in regards to elections, shouldnt then governor be just appointed by president?? See this why you are lucky that Trump is president You really jumped back into this thread just to be a troll? You don't have anything better to do? You literally didnt adress single point I made, it must be some sort of achievement? you underlined 1.5 sentence and accused me for trolling . On April 18 2026 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Trump literally won the popular vote in 2024 lol.
First one since 2004, and lets face it unless R send someone right of Hitler they not wining popular vote again. On April 18 2026 10:56 KwarK wrote:On April 18 2026 10:18 Razyda wrote:This is kinda funny. Democrats are against voter ID because it may disenfranchise "some" voters, while at the same time going on a spree of disenfranchising entire states: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/14/majority-vote-for-president-us-constitution"Under the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, states would assign their presidential electors to the winner of the popular vote, regardless of the results within the state." Is there something wrong with you? No, but I appreciate concern. ‘I think x should change for some moral or other principle’ can co-exist perfectly happily with ‘this helps my cause or personal station’ Just because the latter may also be true doesn’t allow one to skip shooting down the first part. I mean women benefitted from getting the vote, to vote in their pesky womanly ways, but to argue against doing that with recourse to ‘but women will benefit’ would be rather daft no? Similarly here, the Dems benefitting potentially is basically irrelevant if one doesn’t make the case against the actual proposed change in the first place. You’re welcome to make such a case by all means. I’m actually a great admirer of the US’ political structures as conceived, they’re just very dysfunctional in today’s context in a variety of ways. Crudely speaking a modern President is too powerful in some domains nationally for them to not be elected by a national popular vote, IMO Northern Ireland’s Assembly has built-in power sharing across its two main national communities and isn’t a straight democratic shootout as I generally favour. But I think there’s a contextual case there for it existing as it does If you reread my post you will realise that this is not point I am making against actual proposed change. Contrary to what you may think I dont care about "owning the libs" (quite frankly I think they do splendid job themselves and are unbeatable in this) My point is as follows: it creates non zero chance that even if entire state unanimously votes for candidate "A" to be president, state electoral college votes may be assigned to candidate "B". This is disenfranchising entire state. What I am saying is, that regardless of whether you support EC or popular vote, under current circumstances this directly disenfranchise voters. 1. How do you think a popular vote disenfranchises voters? (I hope you don't think your "point is as follows" is your explanation of this, because a national popular vote necessarily wouldn't have the problem you're describing for an individual state, since there wouldn't be state electoral votes to allocate. The millions of individual votes would all count equally, regardless of what state they're from. Even conservatives in California and liberals in Texas would have votes that matter; national elections wouldn't only be decided by swing states. Red states are the ones preventing this equality, by not wanting to lose their unfair advantage from the electoral college, which is why they don't want a popular vote.) 2. Do you think both the electoral college and the popular vote are approximately equal in their levels of disenfranchisement of voters, or do you think one method is significantly worse/better in terms of how votes are assessed? Show nested quote +On April 19 2026 18:12 KwarK wrote:
In a winner takes all contest there is no system that results in fewer wasted votes than nationwide popular vote, almost by definition. The majority voted for the winner and their votes counted. You can’t get more than that. I don’t know why you’re entertaining this. He opened with an assertion that up is down and tried to turn it into a weird gotcha. Either ignore him or laugh at him but certainly don’t accept his premise. Again this is not a discussion which is better majority vote, or EC. This discussion can be held if US try to change constitution, or if you trying to come up with best election system for new nation. As it happens US already have election system, and for better or worse it is EC. In this system NPVIC has potential to disenfranchise population of entire states. Thats just a fact.
In other words, you're unable to justify your assertion that a national popular vote disenfranchises voters (#1), let alone to the same extent that the electoral college does (#2). Got it.
|
On April 18 2026 06:22 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2026 05:03 LightSpectra wrote:Biden was focused on appearances, on avoiding the perception that the DoJ is used as a political instrument. And of course he was still vehemently accused of doing exactly that despite getting 0 accountability done. He initially thought Trumpism is dead after Jan 6 and that his role is merely to heal the image of the US and its institutions from a freak accident. He was wrong not just in hindsight because it resulted in Trump 2, he was wrong in principle. You can't shove this under the carpet and cross your fingers it doesn't happen again, you encourage it to happen again if there are no consequences for any of it and the holes that were exploited aren't plugged. Do you have any sources for this being Biden's and/or Garland's mentality, or are you just assuming because of popular opinion? Because I recall Biden referring to Trump as an extreme danger to democracy on several occasions. Brother, the republic had just survived by the skin of its teeth. The entire interview process for attorney general should have been about how to prevent this from ever happening again.
He did vow to do that at his confirmation hearing.
"“If confirmed,” Garland said, ‘I will supervise the prosecution of white supremacists and others who stormed the Capitol on 6 January – a heinous attack that sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.”" Source
Here's one source citing "wariness about appearing partisan" as a reason for why it took so long to even look into Trump's direction:
Just saying it was "slow pace" doesn't mean anything without more details. That could mean anything between "they didn't cut corners" and "they were willfully slow-walking it".
Here's another source about the effect of public testimonies in front of Jan 6 committe basically forcing the DoJ to stop hiding from the T-word:
But you don't need any of this because we know what happened. We know they went after the redneck grunts and shamans while Trump was chilling.
Ignoring quite a few high profile figures that were charged. Also, starting from the bottom and having them roll the higher figures is standard procedure.
They did run out of time, Trump himself said that if he wouldn't have won the election his life would have been screwed due to the prosecutions (paraphrasing).
That doesn't mean he would face prison time for all 91 felony indictments. He was already guilty of fraud in NY, but the federal cases were dead in the water.
Jack Smith released a report saying they had enough evidence for a conviction even in the updated indictments after the SCOTUS rule for the election case.
IF it made it to the jury, but SCOTUS already made it clear they were going to quash that if given the opportunity.
I want to remind you how shit the six conservatives majority are. The 14th Amendment says: "No person shall be [...] President [...] or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, [...] as an officer of the United States, [...] to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
SCOTUS interpreted that as "Congress can vote to remove someone from the ballot under 14th Amendment grounds," which would sound like a borderline illiterate interpretation if not for the fact that it was so obviously partisan. They already rescued Trump by saying the POTUS is immune to prosecution for virtually everything imaginable, you don't think they'd also sink other federal indictments?
I guess it's comforting to think "we have fascist rulers because the liberal elite fumbled the ball once and it can be easily avoided in the future if we just don't make the exact same mistake" instead of "half the world genuinely wants fascism and thinks it's a great idea," but real life is the latter.
|
It looks like Trump's negotiation skills have gotten even worse, as now Iran isn't even interested in negotiating anymore (for now?), and the United States continues to attack Iran and look like the bad guy:
The Iran regime said Monday that it has no plans to attend peace talks in Pakistan with President Trump's top three negotiators, including Vice President JD Vance, as Tehran balks at what it considers "unreasonable and unrealistic demands" by the White House.
The standoff over the Strait of Hormuz intensified over the weekend as U.S. forces fired on and then seized an Iranian vessel, and with Tehran refusing to accept diplomacy amid the ongoing blockade of its ports and exports.
With no clear path to a diplomatic resolution of the seven-week war and the U.S.-Iran ceasefire set to expire on Tuesday evening in the U.S., uncertainty over when the strait might reopen is pushing global oil prices back up and weighing on U.S. stock futures. https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-war-trump-strait-of-hormuz-touska-ship-seized-peace-talks-uncertainty/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
