• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

BillBrasky Memorial Political Chat Thread

"Civilization now includes death camps and Muselmänner among its material and spiritual products"
 
 
Political Chat Thread - All Topics & Rants Welcome

Basically Trump is playing defense in GA and Biden is playing defense in NV.

Remember Republicans argue that because of the electoral college, candidates have to campaign everywhere, not just in a few places.
 
avalon said:
Click to expand...

I wonder how many more commercials we're going to see with small-business owners expressing their fear of Antifa driving to small-town USA just to burn down their shop, or white suburbanites voicing their terror of BLM coming to burn down their McMansion. And over it will be Trump's voice saying, godlike, "I told you so!" The Party of Fear and Loathing is moving into high gear.
 
PhDeac said:
Basically Trump is playing defense in GA and Biden is playing defense in NV.

Remember Republicans argue that because of the electoral college, candidates have to campaign everywhere, not just in a few places.
Click to expand...

No, it's in the fucking Constitution and was central to founding our nation. The small states - most anti-slavery - all the way back from the Connecticut Compromise, demanded the Senate and electoral vote advantage. You make this seem like a new Republican plan.

Amend the Constitution if you don't like it. The votes aren't there.
 
I don't make it sound like a new plan. I acknowlege it is a modern problem. Until 1988, it was mostly just another way of counting the votes. Since then, Republicans have only won the popular vote once yet they've had the White House for 12 years. And as I pointed out, the main Republican defense of the EC makes no sense.
 
Really, I guess they don't teach history. The end of Reconstruction was due to the electoral college in 1876. JQA also took office over Andrew Jackson in 1824 and he lost BOTH votes. See also 1888.
 
Political Chat Thread - All Topics & Rants Welcome

I wasn’t talking about history.

But since you went on a tangent, I guess they don’t teach English. You seemed to misunderstand the word “mostly.”

Here’s a hint. Don’t try to counter “mostly” with a few counterexamples especially ones from a century ago. You just end up making the point.
 
Here's another hint, know your fucking topic. The election of Hayes ended reconstruction as we know it. It had massive effects on blacks in the South, since federal troops were pulled. This surely had a large development on blacks in the South as it led to white only primaries and white dominated goverance.
 
Last edited:
I, for one, am glad circumstances, technology, and societal needs never change.
 
The only way for you two to settle this is to go ahead and pop off those shirts and have a pushup contest.
 
I'm surprised that the Electoral College's origins hasn't gotten more focus in 2020 given the come-to-Jesus moment society has seemed to start towards on a lot of racial and societal topics. The EC ended up as a compromise of sorts even for those, like James Madison, who preferred a popular vote/direct election for the presidency. This was because the South, who had 1/3 of their population as slaves, wanted to leverage this population from the 3/5 compromise for Congressional representation and the indirect means the EC provided. In other words, since slaves couldn't vote but did count as 60% of the population the South was opposed to a popular vote scenario where they had fewer eligible voters than the North.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm surprised that the Electoral College's origins hasn't gotten more focus in 2020 given the come-to-Jesus moment society has seemed to start towards on a lot of racial and societal topics. The EC ended up as a compromise of sorts even for those, like James Madison, who preferred a popular vote/direct election for the presidency. This was because the South, who had 1/3 of their population as slaves, wanted to leverage this population from the 3/5 compromise for Congressional representation and the indirect means the EC provided. In other words, since slaves couldn't vote but did count as 60% of the population the South was opposed to a popular vote scenario where they had fewer eligible voters than the North.
Click to expand...

No Wai! It is a sacred institution of any democracy that values land mass size over population size.
 
centerdeac said:
No, it's in the fucking Constitution and was central to founding our nation. The small states - most anti-slavery - all the way back from the Connecticut Compromise, demanded the Senate and electoral vote advantage. You make this seem like a new Republican plan.

Amend the Constitution if you don't like it. The votes aren't there.
Click to expand...

the same per-state instead of per-person representation that skews the electoral college toward the GOP is the same reason the numbers aren't there for a Constitutional amendment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top