2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)

[Hayduke1]

11 minutes ago, MafiaMan said:

Wait, so the party that wants to scrap the Constitution as we know it and start over is PRO-USA?

Really? 

Scrap it?  

LMFAO. 

Too much vodka, da? 

[The Sicatoka]

1 minute ago, Hayduke1 said:

The outdated Electoral College doesn't help either. 

This is an attempt to shove the will of the minority down the majorities' throat. 

You've heard the story of democracy where two wolves and a lamb vote on what's for lunch, yes? 

That's why the Electoral College.

 

Without the EC, well, a national candidate would only have to go here.

[Bison Dan]

3 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Wel, bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzon.  Let me tell you something. 

True conservatives are also good for our country.  Liberals are early adapters, which at times isn't a good thing mainly due to the unintended consequences of that change.  True and reasonable conservatives can hold back change a bit so more of the consequences can be considered.  

Yes, liberals want more government oversight mainly because they see it as a tool for change.  Conservatives prefer the government leaves it alone due to the nature of oversight and chsnge. 

Right now, it is totally dysfunctional.  Mainly because the GOP trying to rig the system with voter suppression and gerrymandering.  The outdated Electoral College doesn't help either. 

This is an attempt to shove the will of the minority down the majorities' throat.  In 7 out of the last Presidential elections the vote went to the Democrats.  It did not reflect that in governance.  

If it contonues without a correction, it will spiral even further out of control.  That correction will hopefully occur in November. 

Change what?  What is it that the libs want besides POWER.

[Bison06]

32 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Pretty typical statement coming from a cultist.

Also, don't assume that I don't like being called a liberal.  I'm fine with it.  No stigma to it.  What have conservatives ever done to make progress in this country?  Nada. 

Liberals/progressives are the change agents.  

Comservatives are the laggards.

 

6 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Wel, bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzon.  Let me tell you something. 

True conservatives are also good for our country.  Liberals are early adapters, which at times isn't a good thing mainly due to the unintended consequences of that change.  True and reasonable conservatives can hold back change a bit so more of the consequences can be considered.  

Yes, liberals want more government oversight mainly because they see it as a tool for change.  Conservatives prefer the government leaves it alone due to the nature of oversight and chsnge. 

Right now, it is totally dysfunctional.  Mainly because the GOP trying to rig the system with voter suppression and gerrymandering.  The outdated Electoral College doesn't help either. 

This is an attempt to shove the will of the minority down the majorities' throat.  In 7 out of the last Presidential elections the vote went to the Democrats.  It did not reflect that in governance.  

If it contonues without a correction, it will spiral even further out of control.  That correction will hopefully occur in November. 

You don't ever make a lick of sense. You make a completely asinine statement and then when confronted with the obvious folly of your statement you completely go on a tangent that has nothing to do with your original statement.

[Hayduke1]

5 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

You've heard the story of democracy where two wolves and a lamb vote on what's for lunch, yes? 

That's why the Electoral College.

 

Without the EC, well, a national candidate would only have to go here.

The electoral college only exists because of slavery.

Period. 

[Hayduke1]

3 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

 

You don't ever make a lick of sense. You make a completely asinine statement and then when confronted with the obvious folly of your statement you completely go on a tangent that has nothing to do with your original statement.

From the mind of a cultist.  Color me surprised. 

[Bison06]

1 minute ago, Hayduke1 said:

The electoral college only exists because of slavery.

Period. 

This one again huh? Beyond ridiculous.

[Bison06]

Just now, Hayduke1 said:

From the mind of a cultist.  Color me surprised. 

Cowardly as usual.

[JohnboyND7]

5 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

As the resident libertar-conservative at USCHO (haven't haunted there in months) I said that and was heckled that only Rs do that.  

Lol its definitely true of both sides. I'm perfectly fine admitting it because at this point, when I see where it looks like the Democrat Party is going, it is not a United States but a European socialist state. 

I imagine that more moderate Democrats are less afraid of that, because they either A.) Believe that doesn't sound so bad, or B.) Believe they will adequately extinguish that wing of the party and maybe they are right.

Meanwhile, many Dems probably look at the GOP and see some nonsense from the Handmaid's Tale or something and think "well I'd rather take just about anything else" even if it means voting for some absolute loons. Meanwhile the typical Republican laughs at that thought because its absurd.

[Hayduke1]

8 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

This one again huh? Beyond ridiculous.

Actually, as a cultist you are beyond ridiculous.  You also do not seem to possess any critical thinking skills.  Which helps make you the perfect tool for Trump.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/

Behind Madison’s statement were the stark facts: The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they’d already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. 

[Bison06]

Just now, Hayduke1 said:

Actually, as a cultist you are beyond ridiculous.  You also do not seem to possess any critical thinking skills.  Which helps make you the perfect tool for Trump.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/

You are misinterpreting facts. To state something is “because” of slavery implies that the slavery is the cause of it. This is simply not the case.

[Hayduke1]

19 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

You are misinterpreting facts. To state something is “because” of slavery implies that the slavery is the cause of it. This is simply not the case.

But it is.  Slavery determined the 3/5 compromise.  This in turn determined that a direct election of the president would not be acceptable by the southern slave states because those in bondage could not vote.  The electoral college solved that problem. 

Interesting how property per the later Dred Scott decision counted toward representation. 

These are facts. Not opinion.  

But, you've been processed by years of BS to disbelieve the truth.  Even the UND history department used to tell us the BS about the Civil War was not really about slavery.  What a load of crap.

Believe whatever you want, not my problem.

[MrEdway]

19 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Actually, as a cultist you are beyond ridiculous.  You also do not seem to possess any critical thinking skills.  Which helps make you the perfect tool for Trump.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/

Behind Madison’s statement were the stark facts: The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they’d already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Poor little butthut Soyboy. Gonna be a 6-3 majority and there aint a damn thing you can do about it. lol

[JohnboyND7]

3 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

The electoral college only exists because of slavery.

Period. 

let's play a game where we assume the electoral college exists because of slavery. In this world we agree that it was formed in order to get slave states to agree to enter the union.

Now tell me why we shouldn't have it. Slavery is gone, so its not like it is upholding America's original sin anymore. As far as I can tell, all it does now is requires politicians to craft a message that can appeal to voters throughout nearly every part of the country. Most of the swing states have substantial urban and rural populations so you get a nice cross section of the country in those places too of you afe into that sorta thing.

Complaining about the E.C though isn't going to get you anywhere. Learn to play the game. It has some basic rules and they aren't hard to learn. You are probably the same type or dude who changed the rules to board games when you were younger because you didn't like losing...many kids do that...most grow out of it eventually though. 

[NDSU grad]

35 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Wel, bizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzon.  Let me tell you something. 

True conservatives are also good for our country.  Liberals are early adapters, which at times isn't a good thing mainly due to the unintended consequences of that change.  True and reasonable conservatives can hold back change a bit so more of the consequences can be considered.  

Yes, liberals want more government oversight mainly because they see it as a tool for change.  Conservatives prefer the government leaves it alone due to the nature of oversight and chsnge. 

Right now, it is totally dysfunctional.  Mainly because the GOP trying to rig the system with voter suppression and gerrymandering.  The outdated Electoral College doesn't help either. 

This is an attempt to shove the will of the minority down the majorities' throat.  In 7 out of the last Presidential elections the vote went to the Democrats.  It did not reflect that in governance.  

If it contonues without a correction, it will spiral even further out of control.  That correction will hopefully occur in November. 

Jefferson characterized people as falling into two group, liberal and servile.  Modern conservatives fall into the liberal category, while people who currently characterize themselves as liberal/progressive fall into the servile category.  Jefferson's direct quote on classic liberalism is "those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them cherish and consider them as the most honest & safe,...".  His direct quote on serviles is "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes".  Even though he wrote that 196 years ago I think it still rings true today.

[Bison06]

13 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

But it is.  Slavery determined the 3/5 compromise.  This in turn determined that a direct election of the president would not be acceptable by the southern slave states because those in bondage could not vote.  The electoral college solved that problem. 

Interesting how property per the later Dred Scott decision counted toward representation. 

These are facts. Not opinion.  

But, you've been processed by years of BS to disbelieve the truth. 

Not my problem.

What do you mean by slavery “determined the 3/5 compromise”. By your logic, the north are the racist ones since the south would have been better off leaving it a direct election and letting the freed slaves count as a full votes.

The electoral college isn’t oppressive or rooted in slavery. You are conflating how votes were negotiated to be counted for the slaves by both sides with the very idea of the electoral college being because of slavery. It’s not.

[Hayduke1]

1 minute ago, JohnboyND7 said:

let's play a game where we assume the electoral college exists because of slavery. In this world we agree that it was formed in order to get slave states to agree to enter the union.

Now tell me why we shouldn't have it. 

Because it gives disproportionate representation to smaller states over larger states.  It is unbalanced.  Wyoming voters have 1 elector per 150,000 citizens vs. California with 1 elector per 500,000 citizens. 

Now, if asked will it change?  Probably not.  It will be defended by smaller states that outnumber larger states wishing for a direct vote.  Hard to chsnge the US Constitution under those conditions. 

[Hayduke1]

4 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

What do you mean by slavery “determined the 3/5 compromise”. By your logic, the north are the racist ones since the south would have been better off leaving it a direct election and letting the freed slaves count as a full votes.

The electoral college isn’t oppressive or rooted in slavery. You are conflating how votes were negotiated to be counted for the slaves by both sides with the very idea of the electoral college being because of slavery. It’s not.

Wow. 

I thought UND's history department was bad.  They must have been geniuses compared to Moo U.

LMFAO. 

[JohnboyND7]

4 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Because it gives disproportionate representation to smaller states over larger states.  It is unbalanced.  Wyoming voters have 1 elector per 150,000 citizens vs. California with 1 elector per 500,000 citizens. 

Now, if asked will it change?  Probably not.  It will be defended by smaller states that outnumber larger states wishing for a direct vote.  Hard to chsnge the US Constitution under those conditions. 

It's not supposed to be balanced lol. You are listing features, not bugs.

[Hayduke1]

2 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said:

It's not supposed to be balanced lol. You are listing features, not bugs.

No, that IS the bug. 

Disproportionate representation is the problem.  It is broken because of that reason. 

How long will the masses accept that the one with fewer votes becomes president?  You may say they have accepted this since the beginning of our nation, but it rarely happened.  Now, twice early in this century it has happened.  The last time by nearly 3 million votes. 

You cannot govern a functioning democracy ( don't give us that bs about being a republic) from a minority position for an extended period of time.  Something will give. 

[SIOUXFAN97]

1 hour ago, Hayduke1 said:

Pretty typical statement coming from a cultist.

Also, don't assume that I don't like being called a liberal.  I'm fine with it.  No stigma to it.  What have conservatives ever done to make progress in this country?  Nada. 

Liberals/progressives are the the party of the KKK

Comservatives are the laggards.

fixed

[Bison06]

1 minute ago, Hayduke1 said:

No, that IS the bug. 

Disproportionate representation is the problem.  It is broken because of that reason. 

How long will the masses accept that the one with fewer votes becomes president?  You may say they have accepted this since the beginning of our nation, but it rarely happened.  Now, twice early in this century it has happened.  The last time by nearly 3 million votes. 

You cannot govern a functioning democracy ( don't give us that bs about being a republic) from a minority position for an extended period of time.  Something will give. 

Mob rule is what a direct vote would create.

How long do you think it would take smaller states to rebel if they had zero voice in the national elections. Every election would be determined out of their control.

[JohnboyND7]

1 minute ago, Hayduke1 said:

No, that IS the bug. 

Disproportionate representation is the problem.  It is broken because of that reason. 

How long will the masses accept that the one with fewer votes becomes president?  You may say they have accepted this since the beginning of our nation, but it rarely happened.  Now, twice early in this century it has happened.  The last time by nearly 3 million votes. 

You cannot govern a functioning democracy ( don't give us that bs about being a republic) from a minority position for an extended period of time.  Something will give. 

 

You haven't given the small states any reason to accept your demands and I dont think there really is anything you could offer. All you have is some threat that essentially states "let us win or we'll make you let us win."

[Redneksioux]

2 hours ago, Oxbow6 said:

Just renewed my conceal carry permit...……...

Do you regularly put it out for the public that you conceal?

[MafiaMan]

59 minutes ago, JohnboyND7 said:

...more moderate Democrats..

Isn’t it moderate Democrat singular at this point?