• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Scandals begin

bilby said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
And oddly enough, the Executive Branch really doesn't have much force behind it, other than the military and setting some policies.
Click to expand...

Not much force, other than the most powerful armed forces in the history of the world, with the power to destroy the 4,500 largest cities on the planet at a few hours notice; the ability to project power into every ocean in the world simultaneously without being out gunned by any of the other forces in any of those oceans; and with 1.3 million active duty personnel in the US alone (plus a further 130,000 deployed overseas, and 800,000 reservists).

Well, that's a relief. I would be quite concerned if I thought he had much more force behind him than that piddling amount.
Click to expand...
Well trained and fairly disciplined. And Trump is wasting no time ramping up the rhetoric with China. This is what scares the shit out of me. The rest of this stuff pales in comparison.
 
bilby said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
And oddly enough, the Executive Branch really doesn't have much force behind it, other than the military and setting some policies.
Click to expand...
Not much force, other than the most powerful armed forces in the history of the world,...
Click to expand...
It'll be hard for him to start a war unilaterally with China. The US couldn't withstand such a thing on several fronts, but mostly at home due to the massive hike in prices because so much of our stuff is made in China!

Congress would not support such an event and the cost of it would pretty much make it very hard for Trump to accomplish anything with the military without Congressional approval.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
whichphilosophy said:
Oh you spoil sport; just when the fun began.
More than one million voted.
Anyway they are free to protest against the democratic election procedure even though it is a bit of a farce.
Click to expand...
Wah... people don't like the Kandidate that won the Electoral College. Wah!!!
Click to expand...

Would the sheeple be bleating they had a b-a-a-a-a-a-h-d deal from the electoral college if Hilary had won?
 
I see nothing undemocratic about protesting against an elected official who owes his victory to a technicality (as the electoral college win can be called) who adopts a radical agenda. A decent person who won as narrowly as Trump would acknowledge that they don't exactly have a mandate for sweeping change, and work for consensus. To take a narrow, technical victory and claim that it is a mandate for sweeping changes is undemocratic.
 
blastula said:
whichphilosophy said:
Would the sheeple be bleating they had a b-a-a-a-a-a-h-d deal from the electoral college if Hilary had won?
Click to expand...


They shouldn't if she also won the popular vote. DUH!
Click to expand...

This is your system. If this is a concern then clearly one bothered to change how elections are run. Since you vote by number of States then the person who won the most states wins.
Has anyone presented a bill to change the law
 
whichphilosophy said:
blastula said:
They shouldn't if she also won the popular vote. DUH!
Click to expand...

This is your system. If this is a concern then clearly one bothered to change how elections are run. Since you vote by number of States then the person who won the most states wins.
Click to expand...

That doesn't explain your stupid question.

Has anyone presented a bill to change the law
Click to expand...

Why do you keep posting about shit you know nothing about?
 
blastula said:
Why do you keep posting about shit you know nothing about?
Click to expand...

Because like Don the Con, WP has the most tenuous relationship with the truth. And doesn't care, because his intent here is to disrupt meaningful conversation and sow further division. No truth needed.
 
whichphilosophy said:
Has anyone presented a bill to change the law
Click to expand...
You have asked this question a number of times but you do not seem to have actually paid attention to the answer. So here goes again.

To elect the President through the popular vote, the US Constitution would have to be amended. The process for amending the US Constitution is meant to be difficult and time consuming. It is explained in detail here http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm or here https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution. Basically, a successful amendment must first pass the House of Representatives and the Senate by a 2/3 vote and then be ratified by 3/4 of the states or be the result of constitutional convention. None of the amendments have come though the constitutional convention process.
 
laughing dog said:
whichphilosophy said:
Has anyone presented a bill to change the law
Click to expand...
You have asked this question a number of times but you do not seem to have actually paid attention to the answer. So here goes again.

To elect the President through the popular vote, the US Constitution would have to be amended. The process for amending the US Constitution is meant to be difficult and time consuming. It is explained in detail here http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm or here https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution. Basically, a successful amendment must first pass the House of Representatives and the Senate by a 2/3 vote and then be ratified by 3/4 of the states or be the result of constitutional convention. None of the amendments have come though the constitutional convention process.
Click to expand...

In the UK the Tories won the majority of the 650 seats with just 36.9% of the vote as it is based on the candidates competing on a seat by seat basis.
The UKIP which achieved 12.7% of the votes and lost one seat, ending up with just 1.
Not much has been done to change this to proportional representation but no one is complaining. though many consider this system unfair.

BREXIT will take at least 5 years in my opinion, though we are told 2 years. This is a long time.

So go lobby write to your congressmen and women and go for a system that you think is more fair and expect to wait a few years. Isn't that better than holding mass demonstrations because you don't like the new president.

If the constitution contains unfairness then you can campaign to change it. I mean its been around since 1787 so that's around 230 years ago.
Instead attempts were made to recount (showing nothing much) pressure the Electoral college to re vote, blame the Russians with no evidence, and now take to the streets which also attracted Anarchist groups who caused some damage.

So how will you change your system taking into account this is not the first time this happened.
 
Last edited:
whichphilosophy said:
blastula said:
They shouldn't if she also won the popular vote. DUH!
Click to expand...

This is your system. If this is a concern then clearly one bothered to change how elections are run. Since you vote by number of States then the person who won the most states wins.
Has anyone presented a bill to change the law
Click to expand...

Don't worry, you'll figure out how the EC works eventually.
 
whichphilosophy said:
So go lobby write to your congressmen and women and go for a system that you think is more fair and expect to wait a few years. Isn't that better than holding mass demonstrations because you don't like the new president.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist they can't do both? The idea of women marching and protesting really puts you out for some reason. Methinks someone badly needs an introspection rundown.
 
whichphilosophy said:
So go lobby write to your congressmen and women and go for a system that you think is more fair and expect to wait a few years. Isn't that better than holding mass demonstrations because you don't like the new president.
Click to expand...
Why would any rational person think the two, lobbying Congress and demonstrating, are mutually exclusive? In fact, it is possible that the latter would make the former more effective.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
whichphilosophy said:
This is your system. If this is a concern then clearly one bothered to change how elections are run. Since you vote by number of States then the person who won the most states wins.
Has anyone presented a bill to change the law
Click to expand...

Don't worry, you'll figure out how the EC works eventually.
Click to expand...

The relevance is how you change it.

- - - Updated - - -

blastula said:
whichphilosophy said:
So go lobby write to your congressmen and women and go for a system that you think is more fair and expect to wait a few years. Isn't that better than holding mass demonstrations because you don't like the new president.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist they can't do both? The idea of women marching and protesting really puts you out for some reason. Methinks someone badly needs an introspection rundown.
Click to expand...

You've had this system for a couple of hundred years so it's odd that suddenly you only wish to demonstrate. Is anyone doing anything about changing the laws.
 
whichphilosophy said:
You've had this system for a couple of hundred years so it's odd that suddenly you only wish to demonstrate. Is anyone doing anything about changing the laws.
Click to expand...
Who has been alive for a couple of hundred years that now what to change the US Constitution?
 
whichphilosophy said:
You've had this system for a couple of hundred years so it's odd that suddenly you only wish to demonstrate. Is anyone doing anything about changing the laws.
Click to expand...

Google not working for you? But even if nobody has ever tried or is trying, what makes you think there was no other possible purpose for the marches? Because?????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom