Trump supporters?

[holefucker]

21 minutes ago, takingdeepanal said:

You mean instead of allowing 5-6 million to slowly starve to death as they were totally blockaded, plus another 1 million of your own people and perhaps another 2 million Allied personnel and another 250,000+ POWs if there was an invasion of the Japanese mainland?

Also, bear in mind that firebombing killed 250,000+ in one night when Tokyo was partially flattened.

So he was a good man because he killed 200,000 innocent civilians instead of killing millions. Got it. 

 

Did you know that killing a single innocent civilian is a war crime under the Geneva conventions? 

Edited October 6, 2020 by holefucker

[drscorpio]

12 minutes ago, takingdeepanal said:

The 12th Amendment is also seriously screwed. It needs to be revised to allow two members of each Party to run for POTUS - and for the VPOTUS election to be scrapped. That way, each Party ends up with either the POTUS or VPOTUS position - and they'd be forced to work with one another.

Abolishing the Electoral College entirely would allow smaller parties to flourish in the USA. The EC practically guarantees that all a 3rd party ever can do is be a spoiler for the party they are more closely aligned with. 
Although I agree about your point that increasing the number of Representative and thereby the number of votes in the EC would be valuable as well. 

[steve-tmq]

On 9/30/2020 at 10:33 PM, PiginCalif said:

After last nights debacle any gay man supporting Dotard has to be a fucking moron

My reply to you is not about supporting or not supporting anyone, but about respect.  How can any one treat people that call others moron's with any respect?

[Starwood]

5 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

 

Tell you what, TeenTwit: I'll refrain from criticizing the archaic English parliamentary system, which I barely understand in rudimentary form, and in return please stop opining about US political systems you clearly don't know jack shit about.

That point , is why I kept my mouth shut over the Electorial College.

The EC does seem like an idea that has had its day.

However we are both in a country that has an Hereditary Monarchy, which I can live with, but would like to be asked about ever so often. An unelected Second Chamber, now THAT is definitely an idea that needs to change. Oh and a formal written Constitution, rather than our hotchpotch system of hall written, half not.

But that is definitely another topic.

[Guest TeenCumDump]

11 hours ago, drscorpio said:

Hillary DID win the popular vote by a little over 3 million votes. 

Trump won because of the Electoral College. The Electoral College is a vestige of the compromises that were necessary to forge a nation out of the industrial North and the agrarian, slave-holding South in the 1780s. It gives undue influence to a bunch of states in the mountain west that are mostly empty space. Most states award their electoral votes winner-take-all which means that a handful of voters in swing states decide the election whenever it is close. 

Right now, this system favors the Republican party. Every election cycle, Texas gets a little more competitive between the two parties as Latinx voters become the majority ethnicity there. Once Texas starts to vote reliably Democratic the advantage of the electoral college will shift. I expect we will see it abolished soon after. (I acknowledge this paragraph is speculative)

No, she didn't. There's a difference between the popular vote and getting more votes. Neither candidate had enough votes to win the 'popular vote'. So saying Hillary won anything is just objectively false. The electoral college will never be abolished, it'll simply never happen. They've been talking about for decades and it never gains any traction.

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, TeenCumDump said:

No, she didn't. There's a difference between the popular vote and getting more votes. Neither candidate had enough votes to win the 'popular vote'. So saying Hillary won anything is just objectively false. The electoral college will never be abolished, it'll simply never happen. They've been talking about for decades and it never gains any traction.

In this country, at least, "popular vote" is not synonymous with "majority of the votes cast". It *is* synonymous with "plurality of the votes cast."

It's very clear that's what it means in this country, because states award their electoral votes to the "winner of the popular vote" in the state, even if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote.

I have no idea how you use the term in England, or in the UK as a whole (and frankly I don't care). When we're talking about events in America, we use the words as they are understood here.

For instance, if we refer to a "cottage" in the United States, nowhere does it ever mean a public bathroom where men have sex. It means a small house, typically single-family and completely detached. 

[BootmanLA]

15 hours ago, takingdeepanal said:

If the Mueller Report was based on the Steele Report, it was a case of GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out).

Trump is odious - but if you're going to hang someone, make sure the charges stick.

The Mueller report was not based on the Steele Report, so that pretty much invalidates this entire comment.

[BootmanLA]

15 hours ago, takingdeepanal said:

Nobody on either side has seriously pushed for the 11th Article of the Bill of Right -, which affords true proportional representation (1 Representative for every 500,000 citizens) - to be ratified. If this was to happen, then the numbers would increase overnight from 435 to almost 6,600. If the Democratic Party fully and irrevocably cut all recognition of Cuba (barring the processing of visas), it would start to win more of the Latinx vote in Florida.

The 12th Amendment is also seriously screwed. It needs to be revised to allow two members of each Party to run for POTUS - and for the VPOTUS election to be scrapped. That way, each Party ends up with either the POTUS or VPOTUS position - and they'd be forced to work with one another.

We had a system like that originally. It worked so crappily that it was happily chucked via the 12th Amendment.

Again, since you're halfway around the world I don't expect you to understand anything about American politics, but just so you know, the VP has virtually no responsibilities or duties under the US system of government. His sole prescribed duty is to preside over the Senate, but he cannot vote except to break a tie there. Otherwise, ANYTHING he does is at the request of the president. As John Nance Garner, FDR's VP for his first 8 years in office, famously put it, the Vice-Presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm piss. (For decades this was rendered as "spit", but "piss" was what he actually said.)

Why you think we should have a powerless VP who's from the opposing party I can't imagine. Since his or her primary role is to be ready to take over as president, presumably you'd want someone who was prepared to carry out the agenda of the president who was elected most recently, should health concerns or death require the VP to take over for the president.

[evilalex]

On 10/5/2020 at 10:26 AM, TeenCumDump said:

None of that makes him a fascist. I'm sure people who have lived (and died) under fascists' rule would agree. You seem to just hate Trump and jump on the bandwagon of 'oRaNge maN bAd' without really giving any objective reasons to why you dislike him. You can talk about his failed ventures into gambling, but he's still a multi-billionaire on his own making. He still won the election. Nobody had an issue with the electoral college prior to Trump's win and I think the answer is pretty obvious - democrats can't stand losing.

I was raised in a conservative household and I'm a conservative, all of my family is, I know moderates and liberals, socialists, all of which got their ideals from their parents/family - not to say this is *always* the case, but it mostly is, and that's why the electoral college is the best way of deciding an election. 

 

Are you out to your family?

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, TeenCumDump said:

The electoral college will never be abolished, it'll simply never happen. They've been talking about for decades and it never gains any traction.

For what it's worth, it's probably the case that it won't be abolished. That said, there are workarounds available, specifically the National Popular Vote Compact. It's an agreement that only goes into effect if states representing a majority of electoral votes sign on (compacts are binding agreements between states here, in case you don't know what that word means either).

Under the NPVC, the states that have signed on agree that all of their electors will cast their electoral college votes for the winner of the popular vote - and yes, as noted prior, that means whoever gets the plurality, not necessarily a majority. That ensures that even with the electoral college, at least a majority of electors will actually vote for who the people want to win.

[nospokenword]

9 hours ago, TeenCumDump said:

No, she didn't. There's a difference between the popular vote and getting more votes. Neither candidate had enough votes to win the 'popular vote'. So saying Hillary won anything is just objectively false. The electoral college will never be abolished, it'll simply never happen. They've been talking about for decades and it never gains any traction.

The person who gets the most votes wins the popular vote. That's literally what that means. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it any less true.

[Guest TeenCumDump]

1 hour ago, nospokenword said:

The person who gets the most votes wins the popular vote. That's literally what that means. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it any less true.

You should practice what you preach with the whole, "Just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it any less true." given how you've claimed he isn't really president when he is. 

Anyway, I'd really love to stay and argue but the whole limited replies per-day thing is quite annoying as by the time I can reply I already have more people to address than the limit will allow. 

[Guest TeenCumDump]

4 hours ago, evilalex said:

Are you out to your family?

Yeah, of course. They're conservatives, not religious, and not homophobes. I assumed that's where you were going to go with that.

[evilalex]

1 minute ago, TeenCumDump said:

Yeah, of course. They're conservatives, not religious, and not homophobes. I assumed that's where you were going to go with that.

No, I was genuinely curious.

[Guest TeenCumDump]

Just now, evilalex said:

No, I was genuinely curious.

All good then!