Presidential Election 2016

2016-02-05 20:34:39

#626

pirana6: Go Cougs!; +691|6509|Washington St.

And then to top it all off the result is decided by a fucking coin toss.
Man... people are really jerking themselves about this coin toss. Get ready to take off your foil hat!
First of all, it's a primary NOT THE ACTUAL ELECTION. Secondly, in SOME precincts there's an odd number of delegates, lets say 7, if the vote is tied, they each get 3 and the coin flip decides the last delegate. Read more about it (or likely don't, just keep bitching) here: http://www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206 … ry-clinton
Please keep defending a factually flawed system, show that stupidity and blind nationalism. It's the same reason your the only developed country without universal health care, the only developed country with bizarre out of control gun laws/crime, the only developed (and 99% of underdeveloped) countries to not use the metric system.

"Show that blind nationalism"
Then proceed to list generic reasons you hate the US? I hope you see the irony here.
We have national health care. It's in it's early stages and not liked but many, but we have it.

We have psycho people who own guns, not gun-control issues. Wanna talk about a mental health problem in the US? I'm all ears. But it sounds like you wanna talk about what you see other people on the internet talk about. Wanna know who has crazy gun laws? Switzerland. Wanna know why they don't have daily mass shootings? They don't have a mental health situation. (also, theyre tiny so everyone there thinks the same thing).

The motherland invented the imperial system. They changed 180 years ago. We brought it over before that and didn't. Why is that 9th graders here learn the metric system and just whip out their calculator every time they see it and need to do a conversion and don't say a word, but every time somebody from another country sees an Imperial unit they bitch and moan?

DrunkFace wrote:
pirana6 wrote:
DrunkFace wrote:
That's bullshit. Your demographics requires small city votes to count, If you just campaigned in major cities you would be ignoring 90% of the country. You can't win with only 10% of the votes, except.... when you have a system set up how it currently is.
You can't win with only 10% of the votes. Not sure where you got the facts there.

If we completely remove the 'states' we'd have one big country - fine. Then candidates only campaign in the biggest cities and ignore any place in the country that doesn't have a large population. Is that better?
Of course you can. Just need a more extreme example of the republican primary. As long as you have FTP voting winner takes all, you can theoretically win the presidency with 2 votes in California. In fact you could do it with 1 vote.

What the hell do you classify as "biggest cities". Because to get anywhere near 50% of the population you could need to visit over 250 cities, over half with less then 200k people. And even then you would need everyone to vote for you.

If you had demographics like Australia where 4 cities make near on 60% of the total population then you would have a point, not so much in the US.

By my quick math (imperial math mind you, so it took me a while), I count the 38 biggest cities will need to be visited in order to visit 50% of the population. That came to about 26 states.

2016-02-06 01:07:08

#627

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6324|eXtreme to the maX

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
This just in! Political elites set up system largely controlled by monied interests! The constitution was set up to self-govern the colonies in order to detach from British rule. Was the system set up skewed in favor of powerful people? Yes, it was. Just like in virtually every other nation-state in existence. Yes, there is no American Exceptionalism. Darn.

Unlike many countries? OK. Our congress is made up of both rich white men from privileged families and the "common man" you speak of. We have a bicameral legislature - something you should be familiar with, what with being raised in England. Ours largely mimics it - the Senate as the House of Lords and the House of Reps as the House of Commons. Except we don't go as far as limiting and appointing members to the Senate - it's actually more democratic and egalitarian than the House of Lords in the UK, even with the historical racism and sexism in the US. We currently have a black president who was raised by a single mom, which is more in line with the demographic of the US population at large than the "top 1%" you speak of. So you're actually wrong again - the current sitting president is evidence that a common man has a chance of achieving "anything" in US politics, albeit a statistical outlier when looking at the overall picture of American presidents. If you have the time, take a look at the people who make up our Congress - it's a pretty demographically eclectic bunch, even if it is dominated by old rich white men. The major problem I see with our Congress isn't the barrier to entry - it's that once elected, most members focus primarily on getting reelected instead of working for their constituents. Maybe that's an American-only problem - I honestly don't know because I haven't really studied modern governments since college.

The constitution has nothing to do with stopping 3rd parties or minor candidates - I suggest familiarizing yourself with the actual history and political process in the US instead of seemingly basing your knowledge on news releases and internet commentary. The cutting off of third party or minor candidates is a direct result of the machinations of the two party system we currently have (itself not a result of any doctrine or mandate in the constitution). The two party system as we know it happened organically during the early years of the United States. However, you could make the argument that the Citizens United case (among other rulings) and the creeping belief that corporations and other non-human entities fall under the definition of "citizen" under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution is a bottleneck to the future of 3rd parties in the U.S., but only because of the current grip on power those two political parties already have.

The Constitution cements the electoral college, the electoral college system absolutely cements the two party system, the two party system in turn prevents realistic progress of a third party - both of the two parties are dominated by business/rich white men.

You're a dummy dude.

You're an ignoramous.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-02-06 01:08:41)

Fuck Israel

2016-02-06 01:15:24

#628

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6324|eXtreme to the maX

pirana6 wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
pirana6 wrote:

You ARE angry. You complain more than the entire us population of this site. How many times have you even been to this country you can't stop bitching about?
I've been to the great Satan 4-5 times.
In that period America has 'intervened' militarily in 11 different countries, each time for no reason other than its money-making/power agenda.
Which 11 countries?

Cambodia
Vietnam
Grenada
Lebanon
Panama
Iraq 1
Somalia
Afghanistan
Iraq 2
Libya
Syria

Fuck Israel

2016-02-06 01:18:34

#629

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6934

thats 10 m8.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2016-02-06 01:32:42

#630

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6324|eXtreme to the maX

I counted Iraq twice, so what.

Fuck Israel

2016-02-06 05:50:42

#631

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3938

You guys are acting personally offended when Dilbert and DickFace pointed out the problems with our constitution and political system. The way our government is designed is inherently stupid and it goes beyond our current political culture.

The house of representatives which most of the stupid crap from congress comes from shouldn't be elected based off first past the post. And congressional districts shouldn't be allowed to be redrawn by state governments. The house should be elected like a parliament and it would fix many of the issues there and probably rein in the political parties to a point.

And it doesn't make sense that in the Senate a state with 400,000 people has the same amount of senators as a state with 40,000,000. The Midwest's senators should probably be condensed down and the states should be allowed only a handful of senators due to their small population. And I don't care if small states lose their representation because currently a small irrelevant handful of senators representing 10,000,000 people can stop disaster aid from reaching 100,000,000 people and ruin lives.

And people do treat our constitution like a holy document. I blame evangelical Protestantism but that's for another time. The last time our constitution was amended was 25 years ago and it was an amendment that had been pending since 1789. Before that it was an amendment in the 1960's.

2016-02-06 06:05:40

#632

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5576|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:
You guys are acting personally offended when Dilbert and DickFace pointed out the problems with our constitution and political system. The way our government is designed is inherently stupid and it goes beyond our current political culture.

The house of representatives which most of the stupid crap from congress comes from shouldn't be elected based off first past the post. And congressional districts shouldn't be allowed to be redrawn by state governments. The house should be elected like a parliament and it would fix many of the issues there and probably rein in the political parties to a point.

And it doesn't make sense that in the Senate a state with 400,000 people has the same amount of senators as a state with 40,000,000. The Midwest's senators should probably be condensed down and the states should be allowed only a handful of senators due to their small population. And I don't care if small states lose their representation because currently a small irrelevant handful of senators representing 10,000,000 people can stop disaster aid from reaching 100,000,000 people and ruin lives.

And people do treat our constitution like a holy document. I blame evangelical Protestantism but that's for another time. The last time our constitution was amended was 25 years ago and it was an amendment that had been pending since 1789. Before that it was an amendment in the 1960's.

Your opinion is irrelevant because you have no respect for anyone. You're the guy that lives at home with his parents and thinks traveling is a waste of time. Of course you feel Midwestern people should be disenfranchised. You're a snob who has no basis for his snobbery.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-02-06 06:10:20

#633

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3938

I don't live with my parents. And there is nothing in the Midwest worth seeing.

2016-02-06 06:14:45

#634

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3938

Oh and do you have a response to my points or are you going to complain about me as a person?

2016-02-06 06:31:42

#635

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5576|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:
Oh and do you have a response to my points or are you going to complain about me as a person?

Your points are completely inspired by your personality. There's no point in arguing with you.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-02-06 07:02:50

#636

SuperJail Warden: Gone Forever; +640|3938

Lol okay. You probably don't even know how government works beyond 12 grade social studies and U.S. History 101 in naval college.

I will wait for someone better informed like Ken or even Cyborg to talk this over. Thanks anyway.

2016-02-06 07:24:09

#637

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5576|London, England

None of them like you either.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-02-06 12:25:20

#638

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|6990|PNW

I don't understand how people can take the government seriously when it still hosts opening prayers before sessions because of, you know, tradition. Oh wait, because it dominates so many aspects of our lives. Anyone remember the 2007 controversy when a Hindu did it?

2016-02-06 12:39:10

#639

mtb0minime: minimember; +2,418|6873

I'll admit I'm a simpleton partisan for anyone-not-Democrat-or-Republican, so I'm going Bernie all the way.

2016-02-06 15:02:32

#640

DesertFox-: The very model of a modern major general; +796|6903|United States of America

I still can't really fathom how her supporters are calling Hillary a pragmatic one who will actually accomplish the things she says. If there's one thing the Republicans like more than calling Obama a Muslim, it's chasing Hillary over Benghazi. I only foresee the current intractable gridlock getting worse if she's back in the White House.

2016-02-06 16:02:47

#641

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5576|London, England

DesertFox- wrote:
I still can't really fathom how her supporters are calling Hillary a pragmatic one who will actually accomplish the things she says. If there's one thing the Republicans like more than calling Obama a Muslim, it's chasing Hillary over Benghazi. I only foresee the current intractable gridlock getting worse if she's back in the White House.

With a republican house she will accomplish zilch. Obama is more respected than her, and that's saying a lot.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-02-06 16:51:55

#642

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6934

DesertFox- wrote:
I still can't really fathom how her supporters are calling Hillary a pragmatic one who will actually accomplish the things she says. If there's one thing the Republicans like more than calling Obama a Muslim, it's chasing Hillary over Benghazi. I only foresee the current intractable gridlock getting worse if she's back in the White House.

Clinton really should be formally investigated over her email debacles though. They booted Petraeus' ass for chasing tail and letting her know his 'calendar' because omg so top secret she could have been a taliban sleeper!

2016-02-07 00:41:48

#643

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6324|eXtreme to the maX

No, he gave her confidential documents to read at home.

Jay wrote:
With a republican house she will accomplish zilch.

GG America

Honestly, blocking stuff just so they can say 'oh look, Democrats can't do anything because we're retarded' is what is making Americans angry, see my previous link.

In the meantime China has 5 year, 10 year, 50 year and 100 year plans.

Fuck Israel

2016-02-07 05:29:13

#644

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5576|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
No, he gave her confidential documents to read at home.
Jay wrote:
With a republican house she will accomplish zilch.
GG America

Honestly, blocking stuff just so they can say 'oh look, Democrats can't do anything because we're retarded' is what is making Americans angry, see my previous link.

In the meantime China has 5 year, 10 year, 50 year and 100 year plans.

Is it better to give them the ability to pass legislation at will so they can enrich themselves and their cronies at the public's expense? Because that's the alternative to gridlock, even in your own perfect little country. Politicians are crooks and power hungry by default. That's why they have low as dirt approval ratings, not because they fail to pass trillion dollar legislation on the regular.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-02-08 00:18:23

#645

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6324|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
Is it better to give them the ability to pass legislation at will so they can enrich themselves and their cronies at the public's expense? Because that's the alternative to gridlock, even in your own perfect little country. Politicians are crooks and power hungry by default. That's why they have low as dirt approval ratings, not because they fail to pass trillion dollar legislation on the regular.

Yes Jay, there is only ever one single alternative and that's the reductio ad absurdam polar opposite.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in your house "honey, we've run out of milk" "then we must buy up all the milk in the world".

Fuck Israel

2016-02-08 00:29:07

#646

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6324|eXtreme to the maX

Who says Americans don't have a sense of humour

Fuck Israel

2016-02-08 02:21:49

#647

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6934

Jay wrote:
Is it better to give them the ability to pass legislation at will so they can enrich themselves and their cronies at the public's expense? Because that's the alternative to gridlock, even in your own perfect little country.

Naw we just fire the PM when he can't get shit done ala Gough Whitlam.

Even in a parliamentary system you can't just pass legislation because you have the majority. It's a bicameral house and we got a Senate as well that's set up similar to yours (each state getting same amount of reps). The senate essentially keeps the govt in check from passing stupid bills.

Queensland state liberals got rekt since they kept passing stupid laws without a senate keeping them in check. Went from having 89 seats and labor having 7 (lel) and now labor is majority QLD.

You guys do need to have your reps being seated longer than 2 years though, they just spend half the time campaigning.

2016-02-08 04:56:23

#648

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5576|London, England

I'm sure it's no different in other countries, but the people who live in Washington DC actively despise the rest of us. They ran away from some podunk part of the country where they were undoubtedly one of the brightest and most ambitious among their small pool of contacts, and thus they have an overly large sense of self-importance. They detest "provincials" and look at campaigning as an evil full of people demanding the impossible or the stupid, and getting mad when promises are broken. They hate people with money because they know they need them, and vow to rack up as much as they can in turn because of it. These are the people we elect to national office, who work on staffs, who work at think tanks and lobby groups, and their attitude is why our government has such shit approval ratings. They despise us and we loathe them.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2016-02-10 00:24:31

#649

DrunkFace: Germans did 911; +427|6899|Disaster Free Zone

pirana6 wrote:
By my quick math (imperial math mind you, so it took me a while), I count the 38 biggest cities will need to be visited in order to visit 50% of the population. That came to about 26 states.

Well according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U … population the biggest 38 cities account for 44,010,751 people, and you don't have to be a genius to work out that ain't 50% of 318.9 million (2014 US population).

In fact taking all 297 cities on that list you still only get a population of 90,492,150 less then a third of the countries population.

So there's another reason to stop using imperial maths. It's useless as fuck.

2016-02-10 01:30:21

#650

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,813|6324|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:
They ran away from some podunk part of the country where they were undoubtedly one of the brightest and most ambitious among their small pool of contacts, and thus they have an overly large sense of self-importance.

Projecting much?

I'm sure you're right, and most countries aren't much different.

But some are different and have properly functioning representative democracies which aren't stuffed with psychopaths solely there to enrich themselves at the expense of the nation and its citizens.

Educated citizens and a properly founded democratic system seem to be the keys - neither of which America has bothered with which is why its so tiresome to hear the claptrap about the 'greatest democracy in the world'.

Who was the last altruistic US President - FDR? Eisenhower? Kennedy and Clinton I weren't actually bad for all their faults.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2016-02-10 01:50:44)

Fuck Israel

BF2S Forums Presidential Election 2016

DrunkFace wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

pirana6 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Board footer