T1B

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Just curious , screwey, who did you vote for last November?

Your mother.

So, you did vote for him.

Has he changed any of his tactics since November?

No, he hasn't. So STFU and do as you're told, boy.

smackaholic wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Just curious , screwey, who did you vote for last November?

Your mother.

So, you did vote for him.

Has he changed any of his tactics since November?

No, he hasn't. So STFU and do as you're told, boy.

So how exactly would have any of those tactics been any different under a Mittens administration? I know you're a few cards short of a full deck, but please, try to think.

Screw_Michigan wrote:So how exactly would have any of those tactics been any different under a Mittens administration? I know you're a few cards short of a full deck, but please, try to think.

We both know that the republicrats aren't as different as they pretend, but, there are a few differences. Mitt actually does have some sort of business experience. 6 months as a paper boy when I was 12 gives me more business experience then the jug earred dolt you voted for twice. Also, as much as you can claim to know exactly what mitt would do, barry has already did it to you and you just gargled "thank you sir, may I have another" between jizz shots down your gullet.

The really frustrating thing is that you and I are prolly not that far apart politically and we have a shit ton of company. Some of us lean lib, some conservative and we pull the lever accordingly even though we'd both likely vote for a viable libertarian. And
as long as our fukked up presidential election system remains in place, little is likely to change. If we went to a system, not unlike many around the world where there is a runoff election in the event of no outright majority winner, that could change. Unfortunately the fox running the hen house will let that happen when hell freezes over.

smackaholic wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:So how exactly would have any of those tactics been any different under a Mittens administration? I know you're a few cards short of a full deck, but please, try to think.

The really frustrating thing is that you and I are prolly not that far apart politically and we have a shit ton of company. Some of us lean lib, some conservative and we pull the lever accordingly even though we'd both likely vote for a viable libertarian. And
as long as our fukked up presidential election system remains in place, little is likely to change. If we went to a system, not unlike many around the world where there is a runoff election in the event of no outright majority winner, that could change. Unfortunately the fox running the hen house will let that happen when hell freezes over.

That's worthy of a rack.

88 wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't BHO win a clear majority of the popular and electoral college vote, twice? Where are you going with this, smackaholic?

Yes, he did win a majority, but, change the rules as I stated and one hell of a lot of us will change our vote. Until then, many of us, on the left and right will toe the party line thinking that it is the lesser of two evils.

I would settle for the system we technically have in place, but, don't follow. You know that piece of toilet paper some old dead slave ownin' white folks wrote a few years back. Lobbying is only a problem if the lobbyist can get laws passed in his favor. If his lobbying was met by "sorry, I don't have the power to pass that law" those fukks would pack up and go home.

A good start at fixing the way things are done would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states. I don't have the details to show, but I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected. As it stands now, the Dems start off right out of the gate with all the electoral votes of both California and New York. Puts the GOP playing catch up every election.

Wolfman wrote:A good start at fixing the way things are done would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states. I don't have the details to show, but I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected. As it stands now, the Dems start off right out of the gate with all the electoral votes of both California and New York. Puts the GOP playing catch up every election.

That's just sour grapes over your party losing.

The problem is that the voters are continually having to choose between two candidates that most voters didn't feel like they had any say in. We're stuck with the lesser of two evils ever year instead of ever getting a quality candidate from either party. I think if the extreme wings of both parties had less influence in who the candidates are the quality of the candidates would increase while voter apathy would decrease.

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Wolfman wrote:A good start at fixing the way things are done would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states. I don't have the details to show, but I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected. As it stands now, the Dems start off right out of the gate with all the electoral votes of both California and New York. Puts the GOP playing catch up every election.

That's just sour grapes over your party losing.

I can see how you might think that way. But a proportional system would really be quite appropriate for a state like California that's really two states. Other than LA, virtually all of Southern CA votes GOP and other than a few podunk blue-collar towns, all of Northern CA votes Democrat. Yet because our state awards all electoral votes to the winner, it goes "D" every year that Walter Mondale isn't running.

That not only discourages a significant percentage of the populace from voting, but means that Presidential candidates don't give two shits about the state, resulting in us receiving minimal federal dollars for things like roads and infrastructure.

OCmike wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:

Wolfman wrote:A good start at fixing the way things are done would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states. I don't have the details to show, but I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected. As it stands now, the Dems start off right out of the gate with all the electoral votes of both California and New York. Puts the GOP playing catch up every election.

That's just sour grapes over your party losing.

I can see how you might think that way. But a proportional system would really be quite appropriate for a state like California that's really two states. Other than LA, virtually all of Southern CA votes GOP and other than a few podunk blue-collar towns, all of Northern CA votes Democrat. Yet because our state awards all electoral votes to the winner, it goes "D" every year that Walter Mondale isn't running.

That not only discourages a significant percentage of the populace from voting, but means that Presidential candidates don't give two shits about the state, resulting in us receiving minimal federal dollars for things like roads and infrastructure.

And yet by the time California's polls close the Presidential election is usually already decided.

Obama DID win the popular vote by a pretty wide margin. Allocating electoral college votes by Congressional district would just give the state legislatures even more incentive to gerrymander their districts.

Wolfman wrote:A good start at fixing the way things are done would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states. I don't have the details to show, but I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected. As it stands now, the Dems start off right out of the gate with all the electoral votes of both California and New York. Puts the GOP playing catch up every election.

And the Republicans start off right out of the gate with Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana and Arizona.

So what's your point?

You could add to the dem ledger Or, Wa, Pa, Md, Ma and a handful of others. The big difference is that these are all big states with a shit ton of votes, the only ones of any account on the rep side are Tx, Ga and Tn.

Wolfman wrote:I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected.

Since Obama won the popular vote by 6%, you're also admitting that the GOP has gerrymandered the House of Representatives.

smackaholic wrote:You could add to the dem ledger Or, Wa, Pa, Md, Ma and a handful of others. The big difference is that these are all big states with a shit ton of votes, the only ones of any account on the rep side are Tx, Ga and Tn.

Why does it matter how big they are? The Democrats get two big states that predictably vote 55%-45% Democrat. The Republicans get 20 states that predictably vote 55%-45% Republican. Same fucking thing. I'd like to see a proportional vote for the EC in all the states so that the candidates can't limit their campaigning to just the swing states (most of the swing state folks would prolly be in favor of that too, I would think). It wouldn't be fair to change it in CA but not change it in all the 55-45 Republican states. But then, in 2012, Obama still would have won so I guess that wouldn't satisfy you and/or wolfie.

BSmack wrote:

Wolfman wrote:I read that if states allotted their electoral college votes by congressional districts like a couple states do and not a winner take all, Romney would have been elected.

Since Obama won the popular vote by 6%, you're also admitting that the GOP has gerrymandered the House of Representatives.

Not saying there isn't gerrymandering as it is done by both sides, but, this can be explained by the fact that there are a number of urban areas where dems get huge majorities. areas that lean republican are nowhere near as lopsided.

Screw_Michigan wrote:I'm not DoD, idiot. Stick to being shit-stomped by your wife.

If you could read, I never said you were. I was merely reacting to BSmack's assertion that you were.

Nice rant, btw.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Screw_Michigan wrote:I'm not DoD, idiot. Stick to being shit-stomped by your wife.

If you could read, I never said you were. I was merely reacting to BSmack's assertion that you were.

Nice rant, btw.

Can't you fucking read? He never said I was DoD.

Die already.

Wolfman wrote:A good start at fixing the way things are done would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Senate to the states.

Absofuckinglutely. The 17th amendment is the single most hideous mangling of our Federal Republic since its inception. As far as the Electoral College is concerned, states are (and should be) free to apportion their votes however they see fit.

My bad, Screwy. I left off one word: beat.

Strange, though, that DoD got under your skin more than jizz-mopping does.

Transparency varies when you're jizz mopping. Translucent is probably the average.