Post deleted by User.
That Impeachment Thing....
|
That impeachment thing....
Bahamut.Ravael said: » With the thread on hiatus for two days, I was hoping that a new post meant that something interesting had happened. Such a letdown.  Caitsith.Shiroi said: » In a criminal trials, sure, elsewhere good luck. And thank god I was born in the USA where we have this super strong document that spells out in plain English the Presumption of Innocence applies to all things. Maybe over there in the People's Republic of Canada the government can do whatever they damn well please, but not here.
[+]
 Detailed interaction map https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html#5.08/45.79/-62.80 Coastal urban area's supported Hillary, everyone else supported Trump. There are a lot more States in the "everyone else" category then there are in the "Coastal urban areas" category. In the USA there is no "popular vote", the FEC doesn't even track such a thing and it's 100% purely invented by the media.  The results Donald Trump: 304 Hillary Clinton: 227 And just to show how much the Democrats really are the "rich persons party" Money Spent (campaign + PAC) Hillary Clinton: $639,635,565 Campaign: $435,367,811 PAC: $204,267,754 Donald Trump: $302,488,918 Campaign: $231,546,996 PAC: $70,941,922 Yeah the ultra wealthy really did try to buy the Presidency with via Hillary Clinton. The Ultra Wealthy are the ones angriest at President Trump for not supporting them or their agendas. Myself, I'd prefer if it everyone went to the split electoral college that Maine a Nebraska use. President Trump would of still won but at least people's votes would of counted inside highly leaning states like California / New York / Oklahoma and Tennessee. And before someone tried to call for a "National Popular Vote", the answer is Never Going To Happen and you are ignorant for thinking as such. The US is not one country, it's 50 smaller countries called "States" that form a Republic with a central authority to mediate disputes between the States.
[+]
Caitsith.Shiroi said: » In a criminal trials, sure, elsewhere good luck.
[+]
DirectX said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » DirectX said: » So why would anyone be opposed to the person who gets the majority of total votes becoming the President? Unless you've been living in a cave, Hillary got the majority of the votes, by a few millions, but it's not how the US electoral system works. Reread my posts and see if you can understand them on a second try. I am asking why anyone would not want it to work that way. Clearly implying that I know it currently does not work that way. If I remember correctly, the founding father's couldn't agree on how the president should be elected. Some wanted Congress to elect the president, others wanted the people to elect him/her. The electoral college was a compromise. The states were split into districts with Congressional representatives, and the people voting in each district would result in that electoral vote. Personally, I'd rather it be by popular vote. That would eliminate the gerrymandering of the districts from both parties.
[+]
There is some defeatist nihilistic assumptions going on here that are just completely off mark from reality.
Happy MLK day! DirectX said: » kireek said: » If their vote actually mattered due to changes in the voting systems then they would vote. If voting is pointless because your vote is irrelevant so you don't bother, how is that democratic? Not saying a majority vote is perfect either, but it would at least give people a reason to vote. If you are really from the UK, do you not believe proportionate representation would be better than first past the post? The current system forces people to vote for one of two parties or have their vote wasted. Also the same issue of votes being wasted if you are in a heavily overrepresented area. It isn't much of a democracy if you can find yourself needing to vote for a party which you don't necessarily support in order to avoid your vote being wasted, or not bother voting because your vote is wasted. Ok you convinced me I'll vote int he next UK parliament thingy !
[+]
DirectX said: » kireek said: » If their vote actually mattered due to changes in the voting systems then they would vote. If voting is pointless because your vote is irrelevant so you don't bother, how is that democratic? Not saying a majority vote is perfect either, but it would at least give people a reason to vote. If you are really from the UK, do you not believe proportionate representation would be better than first past the post? The current system forces people to vote for one of two parties or have their vote wasted. Also the same issue of votes being wasted if you are in a heavily overrepresented area. It isn't much of a democracy if you can find yourself needing to vote for a party which you don't necessarily support in order to avoid your vote being wasted, or not bother voting because your vote is wasted. Why is this a meaningless argument ? Answer It's on the internet.
[+]
Ragnarok.Ozment said: » DirectX said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » DirectX said: » So why would anyone be opposed to the person who gets the majority of total votes becoming the President? Unless you've been living in a cave, Hillary got the majority of the votes, by a few millions, but it's not how the US electoral system works. Reread my posts and see if you can understand them on a second try. I am asking why anyone would not want it to work that way. Clearly implying that I know it currently does not work that way. If I remember correctly, the founding father's couldn't agree on how the president should be elected. Some wanted Congress to elect the president, others wanted the people to elect him/her. The electoral college was a compromise. The states were split into districts with Congressional representatives, and the people voting in each district would result in that electoral vote. Personally, I'd rather it be by popular vote. That would eliminate the gerrymandering of the districts from both parties. ? Gerrymandering has almost nothing to do with presidential elections, and thus eliminating the Electoral College would do nothing to stop it.
[+]
The reason we have an electoral college is so you *** in California don't dictate the rest of us. In non California states !
[+]
If the election depended solely on the popular vote, then candidates could limit campaigning to heavily-populated areas or specific regions. To win the election, presidential candidates need electoral votes from multiple regions and therefore they build campaign platforms with a national focus, meaning that the winner will actually be serving the needs of the entire country. Without the electoral college, groups such as Iowa farmers and Ohio factory workers would be ignored in favor of pandering to metropolitan areas with higher population densities, leaving rural areas and small towns marginalized.
[+]
fonewear said: » The reason we have an electoral college is so you *** in California don't dictate the rest of us. In non California states ! Bahamut.Ravael said: » Ragnarok.Ozment said: » DirectX said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » DirectX said: » So why would anyone be opposed to the person who gets the majority of total votes becoming the President? Unless you've been living in a cave, Hillary got the majority of the votes, by a few millions, but it's not how the US electoral system works. Reread my posts and see if you can understand them on a second try. I am asking why anyone would not want it to work that way. Clearly implying that I know it currently does not work that way. If I remember correctly, the founding father's couldn't agree on how the president should be elected. Some wanted Congress to elect the president, others wanted the people to elect him/her. The electoral college was a compromise. The states were split into districts with Congressional representatives, and the people voting in each district would result in that electoral vote. Personally, I'd rather it be by popular vote. That would eliminate the gerrymandering of the districts from both parties. ? Gerrymandering has almost nothing to do with presidential elections, and thus eliminating the Electoral College would do nothing to stop it. Almost nothing? Is that like an almost disagreement? You should read up a bit on how gerrymandering ultimately affects all elections, even presidential ones. fonewear said: » The reason we have an electoral college is so you *** in California don't dictate the rest of us. In non California states ! The United States of California has a nice ring to it, don't you think? Ragnarok.Ozment said: » fonewear said: » The reason we have an electoral college is so you *** in California don't dictate the rest of us. In non California states ! Bahamut.Ravael said: » Ragnarok.Ozment said: » DirectX said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » DirectX said: » So why would anyone be opposed to the person who gets the majority of total votes becoming the President? Unless you've been living in a cave, Hillary got the majority of the votes, by a few millions, but it's not how the US electoral system works. Reread my posts and see if you can understand them on a second try. I am asking why anyone would not want it to work that way. Clearly implying that I know it currently does not work that way. If I remember correctly, the founding father's couldn't agree on how the president should be elected. Some wanted Congress to elect the president, others wanted the people to elect him/her. The electoral college was a compromise. The states were split into districts with Congressional representatives, and the people voting in each district would result in that electoral vote. Personally, I'd rather it be by popular vote. That would eliminate the gerrymandering of the districts from both parties. ? Gerrymandering has almost nothing to do with presidential elections, and thus eliminating the Electoral College would do nothing to stop it. Almost nothing? Is that like an almost disagreement? You should read up a bit on how gerrymandering ultimately affects all elections, even presidential ones. No, it's a nearly complete disagreement. I used the term "almost" because resorting to an absolute would be inaccurate, as they usually are. And I have "read up a bit". That's something people should do before making an argument. Asking me to "read up a bit" is you wanting someone else to make the case for you. Since you're so educated on the topic, why don't you explain to the class how gerrymandering has a notable affect on general elections when 48 of the states are winner-takes-all, and how getting rid of the Electoral College would cause gerrymandering to magically disappear?
[+]
the US isn't a democracy or a republic or a whatever buzzword, it's a hypocrisy
[+]
fonewear said: » The reason we have an electoral college is so you *** in California don't dictate the rest of us. In non California states ! DirectX said: » Also how is the movement to break California away from America going? Asura.Eiryl said: » the US isn't a democracy or a republic or a whatever buzzword, it's a hypocrisy DirectX said: » Also how is the movement to break California away from America going? 3Trillion a year earner with 500Billion in expenses leaving the Union? Not happening anytime soon. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.