The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[Goatnapper'96]

The premise that the EC is an anachronism is laughable. The creation of our Union was made possible due to the very fact that the smaller states would have some protection against the larger states pushing them around. The Union would never have happened without the guarantees provided by many constitutional provisions like the EC. Those same concerns about larger populace states dictating terms to smaller populace states haven't gone away and therefore the idea that the EC is an anachronism is just flat out false.

You can't change the terms (particularly vitally essential terms) of the agreement because you no longer like them and calling the un-liked terms an anachronism doesn't make them so.

Calling it an anachronism is meaningful to dumbasses that like words like xenophobic, mysogenistic and racist and whatnot. The EC is a solution to an issue. The issue still exists and the EC is still an acceptable solution. When the issue goes away then perhaps the EC can go away.

[Goatnapper'96]

Now that Army beat navy Goatnapper'96 seems to have his mojo back. Totally agree with him that JL, Applejack and PAC are liberal pussies. Also maybe you guys should take up your EC issues with Heavenly Father since he inspired the Constitution.

Seriously, is there a bigger group of whining pussies in the history of God's Children than liberals for the past month+? Well whining mixed with a plethora of words ending in -ist or -obites that as far as I can tell fulfills their first commandment which is to reinforce their own sense of superiority.

Always whining but never coming to an understanding of the truth...or something like that.

[imanihonjin]

Calling it an anachronism is meaningful to dumbasses that like words like xenophobic, mysogenistic and racist and whatnot. The EC is a solution to an issue. The issue still exists and the EC is still an acceptable solution. When the issue goes away then perhaps the EC can go away.

Don't forget white privilege!

[PaloAltoCougar]

Now that Army beat navy Goatnapper'96 seems to have his mojo back. Totally agree with him that JL, Applejack and PAC are liberal pussies. Also maybe you guys should take up your EC issues with Heavenly Father since he inspired the Constitution.

Hey, I said I wouldn't support a change in the EC, and you really ought to stop calling me that as I fear you and all of the other Trumpophiles are going to grab me.

[Goatnapper'96]

Don't forget white privilege!

It makes me laugh. Just the use of the word "anachronistic" helps them to emotionally feel superior and as if they are moving beyond the past that was saturated with all those bad words they like to use.

If there is one thing I hope this election accomplishes is it forces Liberals to use those insults only when it is actually applicable and not when others take the unenlightened position of not agreeing with their policies.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Seriously, is there a bigger group of whining pussies in the history of God's Children than liberals for the past month+? Well whining mixed with a plethora of words ending in -ist or -obites that as far as I can tell fulfills their first commandment which is to reinforce their own sense of superiority.

Always whining but never coming to an understanding of the truth...or something like that.

Geez, stop being such a chump. YO is being fake nice and at the next opportunity he is going to gut you like a trout. As they say in the GEICO commercials, "It's what he does!".

[YOhio]

Haha. Nobody stuck up for Applejack.

[Walter Sobchak]

Calling it an anachronism is meaningful to dumbasses that like words like xenophobic, mysogenistic and racist and whatnot. The EC is a solution to an issue. The issue still exists and the EC is still an acceptable solution. When the issue goes away then perhaps the EC can go away.

This had been an issue on many of my local friends FB feeds, some more whinier than others. It's an easy issue to defang.

Simply ask the uninformed poster what should we do to solve the issue about the Senate... replace it or remove it. Some people get the point immediately, others not so much. "What do you mean?" Well, is it "fair" that one Senator from Utah should have as much say as one Senator from California about what laws are passed in this country? I mean, clearly, the Senator from Utah represents far fewer people than the one from California. "Yeah, but..." And so why is it that you are OK with having such built-in inequity tilted toward smaller populated States in the Branch that passes the laws, but are throwing a fit when the same principle exists in the process for electing the person that heads the Branch that enforces the laws?

It's delicious to watch sometimes.

[Applejack]

This had been an issue on many of my local friends FB feeds, some more whinier than others. It's an easy issue to defang.

Simply ask the uninformed poster what should we do to solve the issue about the Senate... replace it or remove it. Some people get the point immediately, others not so much. "What do you mean?" Well, is it "fair" that one Senator from Utah should have as much say as one Senator from California about what laws are passed in this country? I mean, clearly, the Senator from Utah represents far fewer people than the one from California. "Yeah, but..." And so why is it that you are OK with having such built-in inequity tilted toward smaller populated States in the Branch that passes the laws, but are throwing a fit when the same principle exists in the process for electing the person that heads the Branch that enforces the laws?

It's delicious to watch sometimes.

IT's not that hard.

1. The Senate passes laws (with Congress' help), so we may want small population states somewhat so we have a bi-camaral legislature, one part that is population-based, and one that is not. But why should this be applied to electing a president which (as you say) enforces the laws? Shouldn't they be enforced evenly everywhere?
2. The EC does not protect small states against large states. It transfers all of the power in the election to a small handful of big states (currently Ohio and Florida--the two worst states in the union). All of you rural hicks need to get this through your heads.

[Applejack]

Haha. Nobody stuck up for Applejack.

PAC did. Thanks PAC

[Uncle Ted]

IT's not that hard.

1. The Senate passes laws (with Congress' help), so we may want small population states somewhat so we have a bi-camaral legislature, one part that is population-based, and one that is not. But why should this be applied to electing a president which (as you say) enforces the laws? Shouldn't they be enforced evenly everywhere?
2. The EC does not protect small states against large states. It transfers all of the power in the election to a small handful of big states (currently Ohio and Florida--the two worst states in the union). All of you rural hicks need to get this through your heads.

No, let's get rid of the senate and help California with their desire to get out of the union... Texas should have the power in the fed government because we have lots of people and oil.

[Walter Sobchak]

IT's not that hard.

1. The Senate passes laws (with Congress' help), so we may want small population states somewhat so we have a bi-camaral legislature, one part that is population-based, and one that is not. But why should this be applied to electing a president which (as you say) enforces the laws? Shouldn't they be enforced evenly everywhere?

Lol, of course the laws should be evenly enforced everywhere you dummy.

That has nothing to do with the process of electing the person that enforces the laws (obviously).

2. The EC does not protect small states against large states. It transfers all of the power in the election to a small handful of big states (currently Ohio and Florida--the two worst states in the union). All of you rural hicks need to get this through your heads.

Yes, it does, under the same principle/logic that the Senate was formed. You can use the same arguments to remove the EC to argue for removing/replacing the Senate. It's unfair, it's not democratic, etc, etc.

[Goatnapper'96]

Geez, stop being such a chump. YO is being fake nice and at the next opportunity he is going to gut you like a trout. As they say in the GEICO commercials, "It's what he does!".

On Saturday he was an Army fan. That makes him my brother. Perhaps you are not a student of my posting history that we have only shared for like 1/3 of my life and I am middle aged, but loyalty is kind of a big thing to me.

BEAT NAVY!

[creekster]

IT's not that hard.

1. The Senate passes laws (with Congress' help), so we may want small population states somewhat so we have a bi-camaral legislature, one part that is population-based, and one that is not. But why should this be applied to electing a president which (as you say) enforces the laws? Shouldn't they be enforced evenly everywhere?
2. The EC does not protect small states against large states. It transfers all of the power in the election to a small handful of big states (currently Ohio and Florida--the two worst states in the union). All of you rural hicks need to get this through your heads.

AJ, have you been hitting the apple martinis with SU? First, the senate doesn't pass laws with the help of congress, the senate is part of congress. It works with the House and together they comprise Congress. But I am sure you knew this. Second, no one, including you, has even argued let alone demonstrated that the EC somehow stops the president from enforcing laws evenly everywhere. In fact, I am not even sure what you're arguing for here. Third, your second point is simply poorly reasoned. While in any given election Ohio and/or Florida might be very important, the EC didn't make them so. Instead, the shifting sands of population, party affiliation and local interests elevated them to that position. The EC never was meant to make small states rule over large states. Rather it was meant to mete out influence on a more graduated basis than a popular vote would ever allow, giving voice to some small or smaller states over time where they would otherwise have none at all, and it was meant to make it easier to convene the electors following the election. The founding fathers feared unbridled mob rule. They built in some speed bumps and controls over the mob, one of which is the EC and another is the senate.

[Walter Sobchak]

No, let's get rid of the senate and help California with their desire to get out of the union... Texas should have the power in the fed government because we have lots of people and oil.

One barrel of oil, one vote!