Who Do You Think Will Win the 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?

[Seaweed]

And why?

[dfish]

The wicked witch,because the GOP can't field a suitable candidate unfortunately

[Seaweed]

The wicked witch,because the GOP can't field a suitable candidate unfortunately

What about Santorum or Jeb Bush?

[Seaweed]

Donald Trump should be president.

[dfish]

Donald Trump should be president.

What about Rudy ?

[brooks85]

The wicked witch,because the GOP can't field a suitable candidate unfortunately

I was going to same the same person but for a different, more accurate albeit sad, reason.

People like rkelly,thor,scumbag,muldoon and their kin who have been brainwashed by their parents will vote left no matter what their stance is. The only thing hilary has to imply is republicans are greedy or evil, wave the same moral flag that usually works and they will eat it right up; again. Voters on the right are the same way except they made up for it with the drug war and Iraq War. Basically the democrats do tiny things that add up to ruining this nation(mainly revoking your rights), while the republicans drive a nail once a decade with tyrannical consequences.


The problem is there is just more of the dem sheep going out to vote. I used to think the electoral college was a scam... lol thank god for that or holy hell, couldn't even imagine bad this country would be with Californians and their genius ideas governing the nation.

[Seaweed]

liberalism is a mental disorder

[sourtwist]

liberalism is a mental disorder

who hijacked seaweeds account?

he's actually made a statement that I agree with

[Andy117]

What about Santorum or Jeb Bush?

Santorum

[Triple_D_Bet]

I was going to same the same person but for a different, more accurate albeit sad, reason.

People like rkelly,thor,scumbag,muldoon and their kin who have been brainwashed by their parents will vote left no matter what their stance is. The only thing hilary has to imply is republicans are greedy or evil, wave the same moral flag that usually works and they will eat it right up; again. Voters on the right are the same way except they made up for it with the drug war and Iraq War. Basically the democrats do tiny things that add up to ruining this nation(mainly revoking your rights), while the republicans drive a nail once a decade with tyrannical consequences.


The problem is there is just more of the dem sheep going out to vote. I used to think the electoral college was a scam... lol thank god for that or holy hell, couldn't even imagine bad this country would be with Californians and their genius ideas governing the nation.

Probably right about too many sheep heading to the polls...I think last time, it was about 98% sheep, 2% informed/rational voters.

Interestingly, there's a proposed shortcut around electoral college, and California is on board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...rstate_Compact Looks like a pretty good idea to me, and would be nice to see a problem solved while adhering to the Constitution

[Fidel_CashFlow]

kept quiet on this matter for the most part
but now is a good time to say LOL at the people who voted in Obama twice

[brooks85]

Probably right about too many sheep heading to the polls...I think last time, it was about 98% sheep, 2% informed/rational voters.

Interestingly, there's a proposed shortcut around electoral college, and California is on board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...rstate_Compact Looks like a pretty good idea to me, and would be nice to see a problem solved while adhering to the Constitution

hmm, I don't find it interesting at all considering the obvious supporters. That should speak volumes to you, hopefully as to whether you should think it is a good idea or not.

[Triple_D_Bet]

hmm, I don't find it interesting at all considering the obvious supporters. That should speak volumes to you, hopefully as to whether you should think it is a good idea or not.

The balance of states' influence and citizens' influence is achieved fairly well with two houses of congress I think, although it would be far more effective if we held congressmen to their duties instead of letting the executive take the power/credit/blame.

Getting rid of the electoral college is a good thing regardless of the fact that most people make uninformed votes for President, and which states support it has nothing to do with anything. The states are pledging all of their votes to the winner of the national popular vote, not their own individual votes. So if enough agree, every vote counts, less gamesmanship ensues and people might actually have a reason to vote if they're in a deeply red/blue state...how is that not the better answer?

[VeggieDog]

Could we please elect someone that will uphold the constitution - you know, like they promise to do while taking the oath of office?

[Triple_D_Bet]

Could we please elect someone that will uphold the constitution - you know, like they promise to do while taking the oath of office?

[innovation]

until we limit terms it doesn't matter what puppet gets elected

must be nice to become a lifer and get executive hot towel service

they have us trained well

[Triple_D_Bet]

until we limit terms it doesn't matter what puppet gets elected

must be nice to become a lifer and get executive hot towel service

they have us trained well

What would that accomplish, except possibly force them to act more corruptly? There's no shortage of people just as bad ready to take their place

[scumbag]

liberalism is a mental disorder

you're certifiable.

conservatives are dumber than liberals, fact. for anecdotal evidence i present to the audience, SEAWEED!!!

[innovation]

no way

until they work for us the people, nothing will change

if the voice of the people chooses corruption over good then they will reap what they sow

right now they don't give a red cent, what happens to us, or what burdens, injustices, debt they throw on us.

i believe the way to get the best performance it based off accountability

with short terms they get the hook or perform, we would get the cream of the crop

[brooks85]

The balance of states' influence and citizens' influence is achieved fairly well with two houses of congress I think, although it would be far more effective if we held congressmen to their duties instead of letting the executive take the power/credit/blame.

Getting rid of the electoral college is a good thing regardless of the fact that most people make uninformed votes for President, and which states support it has nothing to do with anything. The states are pledging all of their votes to the winner of the national popular vote, not their own individual votes. So if enough agree, every vote counts, less gamesmanship ensues and people might actually have a reason to vote if they're in a deeply red/blue state...how is that not the better answer?

right there is the problem, those words combined with the picture I posted. Thank the lord for the electoral college! Couldn't emphasize this enough. And, again, I used to think it was the biggest scam until someone quickly struck me down with the logic I posted. Imagine the country without the electoral college... wow. I'd be dead, that is for sure.

[Triple_D_Bet]

right there is the problem, those words combined with the picture I posted. Thank the lord for the electoral college! Couldn't emphasize this enough.

Can you name a single presidential election where the electoral college gave us a good President instead of a bad one?

[brooks85]

Can you name a single presidential election where the electoral college gave us a good President instead of a bad one?

no but you're missing the point, you know that saying about the devil you know?

Can you imagine you the utter shit storm you'd been in if California and New York decided your president every cycle? Personally, I get a chuckle thinking about it. Laws like 10 rounds maximum magazines? Thank god those people are leashed by the electoral college. lol did you see they just passed a law for bullets to be microstamped by a technology that doesn't even exist?

score one for the criminals again.

[brooks85]

lol

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-652651-law-microstamping.html

these people seriously hate freedom. Anyone who thinks Obama isn't a terrorist is a complete moron; anyone who thinks California is full of coherent Americans is a moron.

[Triple_D_Bet]

no but you're missing the point, you know that saying about the devil you know?

Can you imagine you the utter shit storm you'd been in if California and New York decided your president every cycle? Personally, I get a chuckle thinking about it. Laws like 10 rounds maximum magazines? Thank god those people are leashed by the electoral college. lol did you see they just passed a law for bullets to be microstamped by a technology that doesn't even exist?

score one for the criminals again.

The entire point is that statewide majorities of voters would have less power, not more. Under the current system, these big states pick winners more than they would under the proposed system...read it again.

[Triple_D_Bet]

lol

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/california-652651-law-microstamping.html

these people seriously hate freedom. Anyone who thinks Obama isn't a terrorist is a complete moron; anyone who thinks California is full of coherent Americans is a moron.

Can't argue with the first, Obama is a terrorist the same as most Presidents in recent history for sure. As for the last, making such broad assumptions isn't exactly a sign of coherency

[brooks85]

The entire point is that statewide majorities of voters would have less power, not more. Under the current system, these big states pick winners more than they would under the proposed system...read it again.

I get what you're saying.

Again, history has taught me that is not what it will achieve. Why? Because that is exactly what they told you it will achieve.

You asked me to name a president?


Well, I'll make it easy for you. Name me a law.



It isn't a broad assumption. Either you support what California does or get out. The most guilty is the guy who sits there and does nothing.

[Triple_D_Bet]

I get what you're saying.

Again, history has taught me that is not what it will achieve. Why? Because that is exactly what they told you it will achieve.

You asked me to name a president?


Well, I'll make it easy for you. Name me a law.



It isn't a broad assumption. Either you support what California does or get out. The most guilty is the guy who sits there and does nothing.

So if someone else tells you something, it can't be true? The compact would ensure popular vote is most accurately represented, nothing more, nothing less.

Name you a law for what?

I don't support what California usually does; I vote against it, I'm still here and I'm not the only one...so it appears you're broadly assuming

[brooks85]

here is a couple more reasons why you shouldn't support it

1	Maryland	10	April 10, 2007
2	New Jersey	14	January 13, 2008
3	Illinois	20	April 7, 2008
4	Hawaii	4	May 1, 2008
5	Washington	12	April 28, 2009
6	Massachusetts	11	August 4, 2010
7	District of Columbia	3	December 7, 2010
8	Vermont	3	April 22, 2011
9	California	55	August 8, 2011
10	Rhode Island	4	July 12, 2013
11	New York	29	April 15, 2014
Total		165 (61.1% of the 270 EV needed)

1. that should alarm you. Check out my "future usa" thread if you want to see how to easily deduce why you should be very hesitant of this idea.


2. Change; it should happen slowly, very slowly. Look at those dates, all within 7 years, that is not slow, that is a calculated effort and it sure as hell is not for your benefit.


also that is why I said coherent Americans for California, it is very accurate to their logical inconsistency when it comes to voting. Doesn't mean everyone there is guilty, just majority who vote. They keep becoming less and less like America, even businesses are leaving. I know you couldn't pay me enough to live there purely on principle.

[brooks85]

So if someone else tells you something, it can't be true? The compact would ensure popular vote is most accurately represented, nothing more, nothing less.

Name you a law for what?

I don't support what California usually does; I vote against it, I'm still here and I'm not the only one...so it appears you're broadly assuming

give me a recent law or amendment that actually did what it was sold to do like how you asked to give me a president elected by electoral college that actually was good. And I'm not talking about some petty crap, you're talking about changing the electoral college. Give me an amendment, law, even a bill that benefits you to that level of change you're supporting.

Once you don't find one then ask yourself why would they start now?

Hey, and don't get me wrong, I hope I'm wrong. But, I'm probably not. I'd certainly love for the idea of what you're saying to be true coupled with a nation of competent voters. That seems to be asking way too much, barely half the country votes to begin with then you need count in the ever growing numbers of liberals. This idea to change the electoral college could actually make them stronger in 20 years, which is probably exactly what they are thinking. Remember country is going to be 40% hispanic by 2050 and they by large do not and will not vote republicans regardless of their stances.

[Triple_D_Bet]

here is a couple more reasons why you shouldn't support it

1	Maryland	10	April 10, 2007
2	New Jersey	14	January 13, 2008
3	Illinois	20	April 7, 2008
4	Hawaii	4	May 1, 2008
5	Washington	12	April 28, 2009
6	Massachusetts	11	August 4, 2010
7	District of Columbia	3	December 7, 2010
8	Vermont	3	April 22, 2011
9	California	55	August 8, 2011
10	Rhode Island	4	July 12, 2013
11	New York	29	April 15, 2014
Total		165 (61.1% of the 270 EV needed)

1. that should alarm you. Check out my "future usa" thread if you want to see how to easily deduce why you should be very hesitant of this idea.


2. Change; it should happen slowly, very slowly. Look at those dates, all within 7 years, that is not slow, that is a calculated effort and it sure as hell is not for your benefit.


also that is why I said coherent Americans for California, it is very accurate to their logical inconsistency when it comes to voting. Doesn't mean everyone there is guilty, just majority who vote. They keep becoming less and less like America, even businesses are leaving. I know you couldn't pay me enough to live there purely on principle.

Once again, which states support this has no impact on what it accomplishes...unless you can come up with some specific unintended consequence of the agreement, there's no reason to care.

Can you give any reason to support why all change should happen very slowly? Or any logical reason that things happening quickly are always bad?

Californians aren't appreciably less logically inconsistent than anyone else believe it or not...same pattern around the country unfortunately. California is one of the more visible failures of the all-too-common way of thinking, but even a place like Texas is dominated by people who don't value rights and freedoms (or at least not the ones they don't think people should have).

give me a recent law or amendment that actually did what it was sold to do like how you asked to give me a president elected by electoral college that actually was good. And I'm not talking about some petty crap, you're talking about changing the electoral college. Give me an amendment, law, even a bill that benefits you to that level of change you're supporting.

Once you don't find one then ask yourself why would they start now?

We haven't had a law like that in a long time, mainly because laws these days are overly complicated to try to mesh with an overly complicated legal system when they're not just politicians shoveling pork. However, none of that changes the facts: this is an extremely simple law, and it can't really do anything except accomplish its extremely narrow purpose.

The electoral college was created out of pettiness, and is used by petty people to try to game the system one way or another. Just because you can't give an explanation to justify your fear of the agreement doesn't make it something worth fearing.

[pronk]

And why?

Why not✏

[GUMMO77]

Who's going to win the GOP nomination?

[brooks85]

Once again, which states support this has no impact on what it accomplishes...unless you can come up with some specific unintended consequence of the agreement, there's no reason to care.

Can you give any reason to support why all change should happen very slowly? Or any logical reason that things happening quickly are always bad?

Californians aren't appreciably less logically inconsistent than anyone else believe it or not...same pattern around the country unfortunately. California is one of the more visible failures of the all-too-common way of thinking, but even a place like Texas is dominated by people who don't value rights and freedoms (or at least not the ones they don't think people should have).



We haven't had a law like that in a long time, mainly because laws these days are overly complicated to try to mesh with an overly complicated legal system when they're not just politicians shoveling pork. However, none of that changes the facts: this is an extremely simple law, and it can't really do anything except accomplish its extremely narrow purpose.

The electoral college was created out of pettiness, and is used by petty people to try to game the system one way or another. Just because you can't give an explanation to justify your fear of the agreement doesn't make it something worth fearing.

Evolution, there is a good one I'd say?

Rapid expansion of entitlements, war on drugs, the NSA, DHS, net neutrality, Obama(mr change himself so that is about 10+ things obamacare the shining example), NAFTA, GFC regulations, could go on all night.

To put a cherry on it, have you ever heard of the cobra effect in India? Seems odd how it feels strikingly similar.

[brooks85]

Once again, which states support this has no impact on what it accomplishes...unless you can come up with some specific unintended consequence of the agreement, there's no reason to care.

Can you give any reason to support why all change should happen very slowly? Or any logical reason that things happening quickly are always bad?

Californians aren't appreciably less logically inconsistent than anyone else believe it or not...same pattern around the country unfortunately. California is one of the more visible failures of the all-too-common way of thinking, but even a place like Texas is dominated by people who don't value rights and freedoms (or at least not the ones they don't think people should have).



We haven't had a law like that in a long time, mainly because laws these days are overly complicated to try to mesh with an overly complicated legal system when they're not just politicians shoveling pork. However, none of that changes the facts: this is an extremely simple law, and it can't really do anything except accomplish its extremely narrow purpose.

The electoral college was created out of pettiness, and is used by petty people to try to game the system one way or another. Just because you can't give an explanation to justify your fear of the agreement doesn't make it something worth fearing.

lol no, it was created when people in government actually looked out for your interest, what it has become, of course, is corrupt. But, again that goes back to the devil you know. I'll take him gladly since he hasn't let us down yet. You may enjoy losing freedoms over and over, I do not and without the electoral college democrats would never lose. If you're arguing if we could have your compact 50 years ago then sure, you win. As it stands, history worked out the way it did and the electoral college has allowed me to retain some of my rights that I will never give up.

you really don't realize how thankful you should be for it huh? Well, I know why, you live in California enjoy that lol

[Triple_D_Bet]

Evolution, there is a good one I'd say?

Rapid expansion of entitlements, war on drugs, the NSA, DHS, net neutrality, Obama(mr change himself so that is about 10+ things obamacare the shining example), NAFTA, GFC regulations, could go on all night.

To put a cherry on it, have you ever heard of the cobra effect in India? Seems odd how it feels strikingly similar.

Some changes work better slowly; I wouldn't say evolution is one of them, but regardless, some changes working better slowly doesn't mean all things must change slowly to be good

Poor decisions are poor decisions based on their lack of merit, not because of the speed with which they're enacted.

Hadn't heard of it called the cobra effect, but yes, I'm aware of unintended consequences, as I mentioned them above...I also asked you to identify what possible unintended consequences you thought this could bring about to justify your fear of it, and haven't heard anything yet. looks like you added some stuff.

Hey, and don't get me wrong, I hope I'm wrong. But, I'm probably not. I'd certainly love for the idea of what you're saying to be true coupled with a nation of competent voters. That seems to be asking way too much, barely half the country votes to begin with then you need count in the ever growing numbers of liberals. This idea to change the electoral college could actually make them stronger in 20 years, which is probably exactly what they are thinking. Remember country is going to be 40% hispanic by 2050 and they by large do not and will not vote republicans regardless of their stances.

Perhaps that's why democratic politicians support it (don't like using the term liberal, as that used to mean someone who embraced freedom and these guys are anything but that)...but as you point out here, it doesn't really matter if most of the country is voting democrat anyways does it? You correctly identify that the only chance for true change is an informed electorate; the current electoral system discourages this, as informed voters have little incentive to vote in many states, with their minimal votes and impact leading uninformed voters to see their views as meaningless and unworthy of investigation.

Keeping the electoral college does nothing but keep the current system in power; working around it makes it much easier for an informed minority to make its presence felt and grow.