Jump to content
UnevenEdge

Recommended Posts

Hundreds of new laws are passed every single day in Congress and everyone is in on it.  Every political party has its fingers in the pie.

Have we already reached the point of conundrum, where government can no longer function under the weight of its own laws and policies?

 

  • D'oh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure hundreds of new laws are not passed every day by any legislature, be it congress, a statehouse, or a local council or board.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Raptorpat said:

I'm pretty sure hundreds of new laws are not passed every day by any legislature, be it congress, a statehouse, or a local council or board.

They seem be gravitating toward broadening their power.

Btw, this is what makes line item veto a good idea.  It would stop the trend in its tracks.

Edited by 1938 Packard
  • D'oh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, resurrected said:

ITT: A janitor tries to tell a lawyer about law making and politics.

The unrelated attachments that ride on bills make up the daily hundreds of new laws 

  • D'oh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, 1938 Packard said:

They seem be gravitating toward broadening their power.

Btw, this is what makes line item veto a good idea.  It would stop the trend in its tracks.

I'll trade you line item veto for the abolition of the electoral college.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scoobdog said:

I'll trade you line item veto for the abolition of the electoral college.

The Electoral College is there to prevent the populous states from consistently bullying the sparsely populated states.

  • Thanks 1
  • D'oh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 1938 Packard said:

The Electoral College is there to prevent the populous states from consistently bullying the sparsely populated states.

No, it isn't.  And why is that fair?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 1938 Packard said:

The Electoral College is there to prevent the populous states from consistently bullying the sparsely populated states.

Yes, that's called being undemocratic.

Of course you, a conservative, would be in favor of that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, scoobdog said:

No, it isn't.  And why is that fair?

Are two lions and a lamb voting on what's for lunch a fair election?

Oh, you don't understand metaphor.

 

  • D'oh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITT it makes sense to Packard that the lamb always gets the lunch it wants, but the two lions regularly go hungry. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Packard likes it when a small group gets to dictate to a large group what to do.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 1938 Packard said:

The unrelated attachments that ride on bills make up the daily hundreds of new laws 

Congress passes massive omnibus bills every day that are signed into law?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 1938 Packard said:

Are two lions and a lamb voting on what's for lunch a fair election?

Oh, you don't understand metaphor.

That a terrible analogy:  the lamb and the lions do not have a shared common goal while (in theory) two voters on opposite sides of the political do still have a shared common goal.  So why should I let you have a line item veto if you won't let me have the abolition of the electoral college?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

That a terrible analogy:  the lamb and the lions do not have a shared common goal while (in theory) two voters on opposite sides of the political do still have a shared common goal.  So why should I let you have a line item veto if you won't let me have the abolition of the electoral college?

So you don't have only four states dictating policy and law for the other forty six.

  • D'oh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 1938 Packard said:

So you don't have only four states dictating policy and law for the other forty six.

What policy and law?  Name one example, please.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, scoobdog said:

What policy and law?  Name one example, please.

You elect a president who advocates some policies and laws and opposes others.

Whatever gets vetoed or signed is going to depend on who is holding office.

 

  • D'oh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

What policy and law?  Name one example, please.

Packard is so fucking stupid he thinks the president is to person who writes all the laws and not the representatives of the states who do it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 1938 Packard said:

You elect a president who advocates some policies and laws and opposes others.

Whatever gets vetoed or signed is going to depend on who is holding office.

 

THAT IS NOT EXAMPLE.  PLEASE BE SPECIFIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, scoobdog said:

THAT IS NOT EXAMPLE.  PLEASE BE SPECIFIC.

There aren't any examples because the Electoral College has prevented them.

 

Edited by 1938 Packard
  • D'oh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITT: Packard rubs his old dick across the keyboard and what ever it hits, is what he hits enter on and posts. 

Because in theory, that makes as much sense as the dick snot he's posting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, resurrected said:

ITT: Packard rubs his old dick across the keyboard and what ever it hits, is what he hits enter on and posts. 

Because in theory, that makes as much sense as the dick snot he's posting.

Okay, so do you want to have only four states consistently deciding every election for the other forty six?

  • D'oh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 1938 Packard said:

There aren't any examples because the Electoral College has prevented them.

 

Try again, shit for brains.  Name one policy that would have been different if liberal elites voted in a socialist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you so fuckin scared of Packard. You can count on one hand the number of times the popular vote, and the electoral college didn’t match up. So you saying “four States will always decide for the other 46” really isn’t true, is it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 1938 Packard said:

Okay, so do you want to have only four states consistently deciding every election for the other forty six?

You really have no idea how politics work. 

I mean, NO IDEA. 

You're defending the electoral college and slamming what they do, all in the same statement. 

Having an electoral college just takes away the importance of individual voter's votes. 

Abolishing the EC wouldn't make only 4 states have the say so in an election. Keeping the electoral college is giving a minimum of 270 votes to some assholes that will determine who the president is. 

How it should be is, whomever has the most votes, wins. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, resurrected said:

You really have no idea how politics work. 

I mean, NO IDEA. 

You're defending the electoral college and slamming what they do, all in the same statement. 

Having an electoral college just takes away the importance of individual voter's votes. 

Abolishing the EC wouldn't make only 4 states have the say so in an election. Keeping the electoral college is giving a minimum of 270 votes to some assholes that will determine who the president is. 

How it should be is, whomever has the most votes, wins. 

And you end up with guys like Pol Pot.

  • D'oh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, 1938 Packard said:

And you end up with guys like Pol Pot.

This is funny, but not “ha ha” funny cuz the US supported Pol Pot, and the Khmer Rouge.  

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Pol Pot, we have our own version of that with the EC in place, so *womp**womp*
 

Pol Pot: Trump’s plan to remove the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States would be the world’s largest forced migration since the Cambodian genocide, a fact noted by the Washington Post, whose reporters were later banned from all Trump campaign events.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, 1938 Packard said:

And you end up with guys like Pol Pot.

And with the EC, we end up with guys like Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When texas and arizona turn blue, then they'll want to get rid of the electoral college

And if you had 3 democrat presidential terms in a row they'd want to get rid of line item veto if we had it

Theres no use in talking about it

Packard is a disgusting wrinkled skin bag of brittle bones black lungs and he probably smells like pimples if not straight up trash. Just throw him in a pit of boiling tar

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

wasn't the big reason for EC was that wealthy landowners plantation owners would be over-represented at the federal level? or am i remembering something wrong here.

Edited by wacky1980
i think this is a more accurate statement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're remembering it backwards. 

EC exists because plantation owners in the sparsely populated south were worried that the more heavily populated and industrialized northern states would use their majority of the population to vote to make slavery illegal. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the goal was more broad though. leveraging the slave population against white votes in order to add weight to the rural southern state vote totals? not specifically to maintain slavery, but to install leaders who were generally more inclined to pursue southern state interests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, 1938 Packard said:

And you end up with guys like Pol Pot.

Pol Pot didn't come into power because he won the popular vote.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can’t wait for the double down on how a popular vote will so lead to Pol Pot. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank the janitorial gods that this is his thread and we can kick his grimey ass teeth in... verbally of course.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The electoral college goes all the way back to the founding fathers. 

Of course, with their best interests at heart. 

Some of our early presidents were slave owners. Which goes ahead and eliminates them from the best president in history candidacy. 

I don't care if Jefferson has been considered one of the best presidents in history. He was a slave owner. Fuck him. That's like saying, "Yeah, Hitler killed a lot of Jews, but man did he love dogs."

I digress. The electoral college was created to benefit those who had something to benefit from it. Like a lot of the constitution was. 

Essentially, the EC takes our votes, and takes a shit on them. The popular vote means nothing. And the popular vote is just another way of saying the votes cast by the fucking registered voters in this country. You know, the fucking majority. The only votes that should matter. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, wacky1980 said:

hell i dunno. guess it's time to go back and do some more reading. 

The basic premise was that southern states with large slave populations had fewer eligible voters than northern states with more eligible voters and similar populations.  The EC was implemented almost explicitly because of and to protect the institution of slavery from a congress that would have been heavily biased toward larger citizen populations in the north, particularly since slavery was the only real national issue in a government that was at least initially fairly hands off on the economies of the individual states.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, resurrected said:

And with the EC, we end up with guys like Trump.

And if WWW Clinton had won the very same way, you'd have no complaint with EC.

  • D'oh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 1938 Packard said:

And if WWW Clinton had won the very same way, you'd have no complaint with EC.

Not true.  Even within parties, the EC stops third parties from being a larger national factor, and there were still plenty of people that didn't like Clinton, but preferred her to the alternative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny, with the exception of the Jackson Adams election (where all candidates were of the democratic Republican Party wtf that is lol) each time the EC favored the republican and the popular vote was won by democrats. 
 

no wonder the GOP wants to keep an unneeded system in place. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another fucking hot Packard thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, 1938 Packard said:

Are two lions and a lamb voting on what's for lunch a fair election?

Oh, you don't understand metaphor.

 

If you want to win an election democratically, get better beliefs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, naraku360 said:

If you want to win an election democratically, get better beliefs.

because majority rule has worked out so well for minority groups in the past, amirite?

i mean, there are some cases in which a purely democratic process is detrimental. none of which are in packard's favor, but i digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1938 Packard said:

And if WWW Clinton had won the very same way, you'd have no complaint with EC.

WWW Clinton?

The fuck is that?

And fuck Hillary too. 

I wanted Bernie, but he was fucked over. Like your mom was when she was stuck giving birth to you.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, resurrected said:

WWW Clinton?

The fuck is that?

And fuck Hillary too. 

I wanted Bernie, but he was fucked over. Like your mom was when she was stuck giving birth to you.

Wicked Witch of the West

  • D'oh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wacky1980 said:

because majority rule has worked out so well for minority groups in the past, amirite?

i mean, there are some cases in which a purely democratic process is detrimental. none of which are in packard's favor, but i digress.

There are always downsides to everything, democracy included.

That doesn't mean we should be anti-democratic and act like winning an election with 3mil+ fewer votes is more "fair".

The simple fact is that Republicans consistently win with less votes.

Because everyone hates their beliefs so they have to effectively cheat.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...