|
zZZz
jesus


Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 33,478
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23701796 - 10/02/16 09:54 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Part of me thinks trump was purposely coerced into running for presidency as a ploy to get Hilary into the thrown. He's like that ugly chick that makes other chicks look hotter by association.
|
Ellis Dee
Archangel



Registered: 06/29/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 4 years, 10 months
|
|
I'll just point out that sky news is not the Brits. The media, in any western country, at this point does not represent the people in any meaningful way. They represent only the interests of their corporate owners who in the case of the US media is only 6 mega corps, which all hold joint meetings and effectively function as a single entity.
Remember domestic propaganda is legal in the US. http://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5 Not that the legality matters they just do it openly instead of secretly now.
And it might actually be worse in Britain because they don't even have a constitution at all and there are imposed restrictions from Brussels they are enslaved under as well.
-------------------- "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods] 1
#23701835 - 10/02/16 10:10 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;
which means... get this, 269 votes can in fact become president if the other major candidate has fewer electoral votes due to a 3rd party being awarded one or more votes by one of the 2 states that do not play the 'winner take all' game meaning that a simple fucking majority is all that's required
once more, show us where it's mandated in the constitution where 270 votes/2 parties are the requirements for the election of a president.
|
Great Scott
Trigger Lover


Registered: 05/05/03
Posts: 19,797
Loc: Control Grid
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23701878 - 10/02/16 10:33 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
He can show you the part where a criminal who is disqualified from public office by statutory law can still run for President and hold that office, the highest public office in the land. It's in the Constitution, afterall.
--------------------
|
Seriously_trippin
Cosmic Guru Ganesh



Registered: 07/12/13
Posts: 14,473
Last seen: 4 hours, 10 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Great Scott]
#23701896 - 10/02/16 10:41 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Do you really think Clinton will ever catch charges ? You talk about how corrupt she is and ur right but that also means she's not going to catch any charges especially after he FBI dropped their investigation. It's fucked up but I doubt she'll ever get convicted
-------------------- R.I.P Zombi3, Blue Helix Modest Mouse Zappa Slothie That Kid With The face ShLong Le Canard split_by_nine & Big Worm Forever Etched in the sands of time in the shroomery and ever so beloved and deeply missed by many
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
|
Quote:
Seriously_trippin said: Do you really think Clinton will ever catch charges ?
she's too well insulated, somehow, even though hillary tried to and succeeded in destroying evidence (hammergate/emailgate) regarding her classified emails and benghazi in particular, the FBI has deemed that all wrong doing did not go above the assistant secretary of state, so somehow, even though all this evidence was deleted from her private servers, key people in this events were not required to testify before congress, and there's all kinds of evidence that she took a part, she somehow had no idea what was going on
but this 'clueless', 'stupid' bitch is somehow capable of running the country
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 2 hours, 30 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23701912 - 10/02/16 10:47 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
koods said: The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;
which means... get this, 269 votes can in fact become president if the other major candidate has fewer electoral votes due to a 3rd party being awarded one or more votes by one of the 2 states that do not play the 'winner take all' game meaning that a simple fucking majority is all that's required
once more, show us where it's mandated in the constitution where 270 votes/2 parties are the requirements for the election of a president.
I don't think you know what majority means. Are you confusing majority with plurality?
Quote:
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#wtapv
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 2 hours, 30 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Great Scott]
#23701916 - 10/02/16 10:50 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
PeyoteZen said: He can show you the part where a criminal who is disqualified from public office by statutory law can still run for President and hold that office, the highest public office in the land. It's in the Constitution, afterall. 
I can show you other things if you have questions. You guys are pretty rusty on these constitutional matters.
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Seriously_trippin
Cosmic Guru Ganesh



Registered: 07/12/13
Posts: 14,473
Last seen: 4 hours, 10 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23701927 - 10/02/16 10:54 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I think the verdict is bs too but I'm just saying she's going to be president . First woman canidate to make it to primary and I think a lot of people in America want to be politically polite . She is non offensive on paper and I feel like when we elect a president it's just a poster child embassador of the US for diplomacy with other countries. Nothing more then a figure head
-------------------- R.I.P Zombi3, Blue Helix Modest Mouse Zappa Slothie That Kid With The face ShLong Le Canard split_by_nine & Big Worm Forever Etched in the sands of time in the shroomery and ever so beloved and deeply missed by many
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23701931 - 10/02/16 10:58 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
koods said: The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;
which means... get this, 269 votes can in fact become president if the other major candidate has fewer electoral votes due to a 3rd party being awarded one or more votes by one of the 2 states that do not play the 'winner take all' game meaning that a simple fucking majority is all that's required
once more, show us where it's mandated in the constitution where 270 votes/2 parties are the requirements for the election of a president.
I don't think you know what majority means. Are you confusing majority with plurality?
Quote:
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#wtapv
I know exactly what majority means
majority means more 'than the others', are you sure you know what it means?
a simple majority could be 268/267/3 meaning the person with 3 votes has the least, the one with 267 would have fewer than the one that holds the majority at 268
let's give you a simple, concise, easy to understand definition of majority
ma·jor·i·ty məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/ noun noun: majority; plural noun: majorities
1. the greater number. "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly" synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, best/better part, most, more than half
NOW SHOW US IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE MAJORITY MEANS 270 VOTES
|
Great Scott
Trigger Lover


Registered: 05/05/03
Posts: 19,797
Loc: Control Grid
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
Seriously_trippin said: I think the verdict is bs too but I'm just saying she's going to be president . First woman canidate to make it to primary and I think a lot of people in America want to be politically polite . She is non offensive on paper and I feel like when we elect a president it's just a poster child embassador of the US for diplomacy with other countries. Nothing more then a figure head
There is no verdict...because there are no charges...because if there were charges...the verdict would undoubtedly be guilty.
Wrap your head around that.
--------------------
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 2 hours, 30 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Prisoner#1]
#23701957 - 10/02/16 11:15 PM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Prisoner#1 said:
Quote:
koods said: The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;
which means... get this, 269 votes can in fact become president if the other major candidate has fewer electoral votes due to a 3rd party being awarded one or more votes by one of the 2 states that do not play the 'winner take all' game meaning that a simple fucking majority is all that's required
once more, show us where it's mandated in the constitution where 270 votes/2 parties are the requirements for the election of a president.
I don't think you know what majority means. Are you confusing majority with plurality?
Quote:
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#wtapv
I know exactly what majority means
majority means more 'than the others', are you sure you know what it means?
a simple majority could be 268/267/3 meaning the person with 3 votes has the least, the one with 267 would have fewer than the one that holds the majority at 268
let's give you a simple, concise, easy to understand definition of majority
ma·jor·i·ty məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/ noun noun: majority; plural noun: majorities
1. the greater number. "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly" synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, best/better part, most, more than half
NOW SHOW US IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE MAJORITY MEANS 270 VOTES
Are you fucking serious? The definition you supplied is not the legal definition of majority. What you are describing is a plurality, Majority is a number more than half. A majority of votes means more than half. I just showed you the section. I showed you a FAQ written by the national archives.
Definition of majority : a number that is greater than half of a total : a number of votes that is more than half of the total number
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,342
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 14 hours, 29 minutes
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23702383 - 10/03/16 03:35 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: Fine... It PRACTICALLY mandates only two parties complete for president.
If your dream is to see a competitive third party in American politics, your number one goal should be a constitutional amendment that says whomever receives the most popular votes in the presidential election is elected president. Not only does that remove the hurdle to reach a majority of electoral votes, it makes the presidential election a true national election instead of a battle over a few states. It means that someone who receives fewer votes doesn't become president (Recount or not, George Bush got fewer votes than Al Gore).
Quote:
koods said: It's also possible to gerrymander a presidential election, since states are free to decide to how their electoral voters are apportioned.
I agree with you 99% if not more. But I no longer have any political dreams. They have been drained from my psyche, by things like the W vs. Gore election, the swiftboating of Kerry by W's political handlers who made a decorated combat officer look like shit compared to a draft dodger who fought the Viet Nam war by protecting Texas in the National Guard, and then disappeared for 2 years, and the military has no record of where he was and what he was doing. We didn't find out till it was too late that most of the soldiers who served under Kerry in combat thought he was a great officer. It was a smear campaign executed to perfection. And also the whole PR to make it look like Sarah Palin had a single operating brain cell.
So I'm done with any ideological arguments. It seems like beating my head against a concrete wall. I'm glad there are younger people who still want to fight. I'm trained in survey research, and quite a bit of history, so that is all I want to contribute on this forum.
I knew the electoral college was a screwed up system since I first became politically aware in the late 60's. Apparently it was designed for the late 17 hundreds when it would have taken 6 months to get the popular vote from across the country. Why we still have it, I don't know. I guess the entire political establishment has an interest in keeping it. I have only heard regular people rally against it; never political bigshots.
You mentioned that it would be possible to gerrymander a Presidential election. Yeah it's possible. I know the GOP is gerrymandering the House districts and getting away with it. It sucks, but I don't go crazy over it because I'm from Chicagoland, and the Dems have gotten away with quite a bit here, since JFK was first elected.
I just wanted to say one more thing. I used to hate W, but now I think he's a fine gentleman compared to Trump. There's a reason why no living President and half the Republican establishment is against Trump.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
abltsandwich
JFK = Jelly Donut




Registered: 06/16/09
Posts: 11,537
Loc: Dildoville
|
|
Fuck both, I'm voting Charlie Manson.
|
Repertoire89
Cat



Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: Brian Jones] 1
#23702462 - 10/03/16 05:12 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Brian Jones said:
I knew the electoral college was a screwed up system since I first became politically aware in the late 60's. Apparently it was designed for the late 17 hundreds when it would have taken 6 months to get the popular vote from across the country. Why we still have it, I don't know. I guess the entire political establishment has an interest in keeping it. I have only heard regular people rally against it; never political bigshots.
Yeah, its very much outdated, there's no reason to have any kind of middle man.
Its one example of how ineffective our political system is in general, that we could have ended this process decades ago and have not. Citizens should be voting as individuals directly for their candidate.
|
CookieCrumbs
Fucked off to the pub


Registered: 12/10/11
Posts: 14,146
|
|
Quote:
moonrockmushy said: It almost seems like a throw away election. Like they know something bad is going to happen, so both sides are trying to lose because they don't want to take the blame, but they don't want to give up the jig.
That is the best theory I have heard yet.
--------------------
Free time is the only time
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23702594 - 10/03/16 06:55 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
divvy up the states more, make it 53, or like 60.
|
koods
Ribbit



Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 2 hours, 30 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Repertoire89 said:
Quote:
Brian Jones said:
I knew the electoral college was a screwed up system since I first became politically aware in the late 60's. Apparently it was designed for the late 17 hundreds when it would have taken 6 months to get the popular vote from across the country. Why we still have it, I don't know. I guess the entire political establishment has an interest in keeping it. I have only heard regular people rally against it; never political bigshots.
Yeah, its very much outdated, there's no reason to have any kind of middle man.
Its one example of how ineffective our political system is in general, that we could have ended this process decades ago and have not. Citizens should be voting as individuals directly for their candidate.
This could happen
--------------------
NotSheekle said “if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”
|
CookieCrumbs
Fucked off to the pub


Registered: 12/10/11
Posts: 14,146
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods]
#23702750 - 10/03/16 08:32 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said:
Quote:
Repertoire89 said:
Quote:
Brian Jones said:
I knew the electoral college was a screwed up system since I first became politically aware in the late 60's. Apparently it was designed for the late 17 hundreds when it would have taken 6 months to get the popular vote from across the country. Why we still have it, I don't know. I guess the entire political establishment has an interest in keeping it. I have only heard regular people rally against it; never political bigshots.
Yeah, its very much outdated, there's no reason to have any kind of middle man.
Its one example of how ineffective our political system is in general, that we could have ended this process decades ago and have not. Citizens should be voting as individuals directly for their candidate.
This could happen

Have you been paying attention to what the general public thinks or says? Do you realize how incredibly uneducated the majority of america is? Id trust them about as much as Id trust a foreigner to pick our leaders.
--------------------
Free time is the only time
|
Prisoner#1
Even Dumber ThanAdvertized!


Registered: 01/22/03
Posts: 193,665
Loc: Pvt. Pubfag NutSuck
|
Re: Brits want Hillary to win [Re: koods] 1
#23702820 - 10/03/16 09:02 AM (7 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
koods said: Are you fucking serious? The definition you supplied is not the legal definition of majority. What you are describing is a plurality, Majority is a number more than half. A majority of votes means more than half. I just showed you the section. I showed you a FAQ written by the national archives.
Definition of majority : a number that is greater than half of a total : a number of votes that is more than half of the total number
are you fucking serious? you keep pushing the 2 parties and you have yet to show where the system is set up for 2 parties as you have claimed is mandated by the constitution.
|
|