Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I'm glad that the Trumpers are getting the treatment they deserve, and even more glad that they're so fucking triggered by it.
Someone did tell me life was going to be this way.I kinda feel bad for Spicer, he tried to be a normal Press Sec, but that job is impossible when your boss openly lies on an hourly basis and create a new scandal weekly at least. Under a more conventional Republican; he could have done a decent job.
Sanders just openly lies.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.The President is elected for the whole population. It seems logical to me, then, for that office, alone, to be determined by simple (direct) majority. No Electoral College need apply. This idea keeps nagging at me. Am I overlooking a big flaw?
edited 23rd Jun '18 11:04:03 AM by eyebones
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. — H.L. MenckenMost of us have been saying this for a while now too, but unfortunately it's not that simple. A big issue is that the Republicans know that the EC gives them the advantage, so they'll heavily oppose any measure that invalidates it.
edited 23rd Jun '18 11:17:02 AM by Draghinazzo
@eyebones: The Electoral College is designed to make sure that the Federal Government has to give some degree of regard to all the states, not just the most populous ones.
For example, here in Oregon we don't have an electoral college equivalent for the state government. As such, Portland runs everything.
Leviticus 19:34![]()
![]()
And Greater Boston controls most politics in Massachusetts because people live there. The same with any place that has a city.
The greatest sin of the Electoral College is valuing empty land over people.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."That is kind of the entire point of the Senate.
I think that the electoral college is one of those things that might have had a legitimate point, once upon a time, but has since outlived its usefulness or otherwise become part of the problem.
Very least it's worth noting the last two Republican presidents got elected by winning the college but losing the popular
edited 23rd Jun '18 11:57:10 AM by sgamer82
Honestly, I find the Democrats attitude to the Electoral College more indicative of the fact they have had poor campaigning strategies in Red States than a flaw in the Electoral College. Also, Obama and Bill Clinton won handily in those.
So, just do what they did.
Would the same people be complaining if the positions were reversed?
edited 23rd Jun '18 11:57:15 AM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters."Keep in mind it has to do with communities, not just people."
No it doesn't. A state's electoral votes is supposed to be based on its congressional representation. Senators aside, the rest of the votes are based on the number of representatives. A state is supposed to get a representative for every 30000 people, regardless of where in the state they live.
If a Democrat won entirely because of the Electoral College, it wouldn't exactly make me feel great no.
If a Republican wins by a direct majority vote, then it at least means that the US as a whole decided their own fate and the Republicans have an actual mandate. Them winning because of an arcane system is much worse.
I disagree because the fact it was a few million deciding the vote either way still means the difference is barely present.
Assholes are assholes even if there's slightly more than them.
I think most of the problems of the Electoral College could also be fixed by fixing voter suppression and Gerrymandering.
George W. Bush won his first election via fraud, not the electoral college.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.You've failed to make an argument for keeping an outdated part of our electoral process, Charles. And yes, if the Republicans lost the EC and won the popular, you can damn well bet that the Republicans would be complaining up a fucking storm. Because it's fucking lopsided.
And I counter the idea that the EC is supposed to keep the states balanced with the fact that most red states are ignored now because they're safe Republican states with only three EC votes a piece. Folks don't spend much time in say, Montana, do they? The second thing I counter with: Voting is not a state's right. It's the individual's right, and it should fucking matter where they live their vote should be accurately counted instead of filtered through a fucking outdated system.

Regarding Sarah Sanders and her plight.
edited 23rd Jun '18 10:05:27 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."