Super Tuesday (and the other primaries)

[sunb1ind]

When arguing with people, i find that ignoring all counter arguments in a debate and brushing them off as close minded and republican to be quite effective. Clearly the correct way to function in any debate is to rant on much like some straight out of first year of college know it all. Because anyone who doesn't agree with my reality of the world is obviously wrong and a neo-con.

Not to mention ranting about some conservative shit whilst attempting to make points that could not be any vaguer.

Thank you, once again, on your opinions and perspectives on arguments you haven't actually contributed in. I think you have already used the "first year of college" line before. On that note, I could assume the same about someone who merely spectates most of the time.

[Saga]

When arguing with people, i find that ignoring all counter arguments in a debate and brushing them off as close minded and republican to be quite effective. Clearly the correct way to function in any debate is to rant on much like some straight out of first year of college know it all. Because anyone who doesn't agree with my reality of the world is obviously wrong and a neo-con.

Not to mention ranting about some conservative shit whilst attempting to make points that could not be any vaguer.

Thank you, once again, on your opinions and perspectives on arguments you haven't actually contributed in. I think you have already used the "first year of college" line before. On that note, I could assume the same about someone who merely spectates most of the time.

uh, doesnt spectating just mean watching and not getting involved in anything? i don't see how you could assume someone's in their "first year of college" by a bunch of nonexistent posts.

unless you meant to say "speculates," in which case all argument is speculative and by your definition we'd all be in our first year of college.

[Kuya]

When arguing with people, i find that ignoring all counter arguments in a debate and brushing them off as close minded and republican to be quite effective. Clearly the correct way to function in any debate is to rant on much like some straight out of first year of college know it all. Because anyone who doesn't agree with my reality of the world is obviously wrong and a neo-con.

Not to mention ranting about some conservative shit whilst attempting to make points that could not be any vaguer.

Thank you, once again, on your opinions and perspectives on arguments you haven't actually contributed in. I think you have already used the "first year of college" line before. On that note, I could assume the same about someone who merely spectates most of the time.

I don't even know how you concluded that the cause for me stating that you act like a stereotipical first year college student is because you speculate. Though it is nice to see you ignored the part where i said you seem to think that anybody who disagrees with you must be close minded.

You: "I'm making them angry... it must mean they hate the truth!"

You're like one of our token neo-con whackjobs but instead you've somehow managed to be liberal.

[sunb1ind]

I don't give a fuck what you think about me or what you think I think

Until you can actually make a post that doesn't include stereotypes, labels, or namecalling, then I will actually start reading your posts without banging my head on the desk. Continue to keep filling up the threads I post in with useless personal attacks. God help us if you manage to share some knowledge of what you think about the actual issues at hand.

[izembo]

honestly you're making more personal attacks than he is. admit it when you're wrong and stop acting holier than thou and people might cut you some slack.

[Kuya]

Until you can actually make a post that doesn't include stereotypes, labels, or namecalling

HAHAHA

[sunb1ind]

In this thread I have used the word "close-minded", this is nothing compared to his tally of insults that he follows me around with.

[Charla]

Until you can actually make a post that doesn't include stereotypes, labels, or namecalling...

here's one: you're not helping your case by getting more and more irate. It's just making you look bad, so do yourself a favor and try to relax.

[sunb1ind]

Until you can actually make a post that doesn't include stereotypes, labels, or namecalling

HAHAHA

You're like one of our token neo-con whackjobs but instead you've somehow managed to be liberal.

Stop posting.

[Demosthenes11]

rofl @ electoral college means the people don't have the power

[Charla]

Kuya
CHRAM!!11
Posts: 2561

sunb1ind
ErinTribal
Posts: 125

stop posting

Does anyone else see a problem here?

[sunb1ind]

Does anyone else see a problem here?

Oh oh! I think this is on topic. Is this like when elected officials spend 8 years in office because they deserve to be there!?

rofl @ electoral college means the people don't have the power

Hey man you're the first person on this page to make a relevant comment. I'd much rather debate about why you think that. Please, enlighten me.

[archibaldcrane]

Let me try:

The argument for the electoral college is that it gives small states, which are valued as entities in the Union, more power than just their population belies. Sparsely populated states, your Montanas, Alaskas, North Dakotas et al. would barely be a blip on the radar screen if it was just a popular vote nationally. The electoral college however, gives them one vote per representative in congress, meaning they each get at least 3 electoral college votes. Therefore, as opposed to being .2% of the popular vote, as Vermont is, it instead has 3 of 538 votes in the electoral college, which is .55% - over double its representation in a popular vote system.

Recognizing that state politics can vary widely from state to state (look at, for instance, Wisconsin vs. Iowa), and state politics can influence the electorate on national issues, I think it's important that small states are more largely represented in the system, which is what the electoral college provides.

[sunb1ind]

My view on electoral election is simple. The winner-take-all aspect of it is archaic. It doesn't work for alot of states. A good example of this is California, or any other split states.

A national popularity vote wouldn't be perfect, no, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than watching the same presidents getting elected by the EC.

[Demosthenes11]

if it ain't broke dont fix it

[sunb1ind]

if it ain't broke dont fix it

Bush. Clinton. Bush. Clinton.

Yup, no problems there.

[Demosthenes11]

Whose fault is it, the system or the people?

[sunb1ind]

Remember, Bush won by the electoral vote even though he lost in the popular vote.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Remember, Bush won by the electoral vote even though he lost in the popular vote.

Uh, you're assuming that the popular vote is better >_>

Not that I wanted Bush as a prez, even for a moment, or even that the electoral college is the best possible system, but seriously...

[sunb1ind]

Yes, that's what I believe atleast. If the election process wasn't such a joke(see: my locked topic for examples) compared to other developed countries, then the popular vote would be the logical choice over EC imo.