This needs to happen a lot more
- Thread starter l_Pete_l
- Start date
Bill Maher is NOT a liberal. Shapiro does not speak for the average conservative. Two arse clowns.
The Phony Liberalism of Bill Maher
Bill Maher rose from being an “edgy,” opinionated comedian to becoming one of the most influential and recognizable faces in our media. His political talk show, Real Time With Bill Maher, has been on HBO since 2003, spanning 17 seasons with over 500 episodes to date. Real Time continues to be...
fair.org
lol. When a liberal actually agrees with truth and common sense but it's not what the liberals want said, they kick them out of the club and say you're not really a liberal. Just like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner. He disagrees with transgender athletes competing in sports and he's kicked out of the LGBCTMCQWPHM club. The liberal narrative being pushed today is so fragilely based on idiocy that, because of the failed results, people are finally opening their eyes and realizing that CNN and MSNBC has not been a reliable source.The Phony Liberalism of Bill Maher
Bill Maher rose from being an “edgy,” opinionated comedian to becoming one of the most influential and recognizable faces in our media. His political talk show, Real Time With Bill Maher, has been on HBO since 2003, spanning 17 seasons with over 500 episodes to date. Real Time continues to be...
OH so he is a Liberal...not a Leftwing nut job radical. I totally agree with that. HE is way to moderate for the Democratic party of today.The Phony Liberalism of Bill Maher
Bill Maher rose from being an “edgy,” opinionated comedian to becoming one of the most influential and recognizable faces in our media. His political talk show, Real Time With Bill Maher, has been on HBO since 2003, spanning 17 seasons with over 500 episodes to date. Real Time continues to be...
Oh come on. I watched the guys show for years. In the past two years, I have weaned myself off of the idiot. He has evolved into constantly criticizing the left. Just because someone is an atheist pot head, that doesn’t make them “liberal”. He says ish for shock value and to try to garner a bigger audience. That’s all. He delivers his stand up routine in southern cities because a significant percentage of liberals are disgusted with his nonsense. He is a vile POS like Shapiro.
Pot meet kettle!!
In another thread you suggest in the event of a foreign invasion of the US only Reps would fight and Dems would run.
Stop me if you've heard this, but isn't this exactly what Trump, etc. have been doing in the GOP when there is a point of contention with Trump's positions? Calling long-time party members RINOs when they say anything contrary?
I didn't suggest that out of thin air as a judgement opinion....Democrats that where asked that question literally said that was the case, they would flee...And I actually if I recall complimented them for at least being honest in their answers.
I can't help that you lack the rational to see the difference in the two scenario's.
I commented on the Stated Beliefs and actions of a Group of people. Toots just is making a character judgement based on the fact he personally doesn't like the Opinions of two professional opinion givers.
So nope not pot calling kettle black by any stretch.
Bill is not all bad, just extremely opinionated. More often than not, his guests are sharp, well informed, and interesting. He bothers me at times because he constantly talks over his guests. It's always the world according to Bill. He is what I would term an "old school democrat." By today's standards, he is an independent who abhors extremists both conservative and liberal.
A lot like you except this is not your board.
You won't get me to defend anything Trump said. He would have had a chance in the election if he'd have just shut his mouth. I will defend many of his policies, especially in light of this current fiasco. What I said was right though and is don't by more than one mouthy person. You disagree and speak up about liberal views and you are no longer a part of their club. You then get bashed by them....and again, it's not by just one person.
How do I talk over people on a open Forum that it the typed word? I get it you don't agree with what I say.
That can happen in some older conservative circles as well....I'm for Gay marriage and don't give a darn about abortion and those goes over like a Ho in church among Older Conservatives.
This is what happens when only 2 parties are allowed to hold sway. This is exactly why the electoral college wasn't intended to be winner-take-all in each state. It's an astonishing lack of foresight by the founding fathers that they thought political parties wouldn't be a thing.
If you got rid of the electoral college there would be no need of a vote. The Democrat candidate would win. Our founding fathers did not want a few populated states deciding everything so they put in the electoral college. If the number of Republicans and Democrats were switched absolutely zero Democrats would want the electoral college abolished.
Well having diversity within a party should be a good thing on both sides and lead to a workable middle ground....the issue is that the moderates in both parties have been shouted down. And really the EC only pertains to the President. And a lot of the issues we face come from the Members of Congress and the entrenched Bureaucrats who are appointed and wield power for decades and never have any oversite.
The President isn't a dictator and has Veto Power and nominates Judges. He can drive policy and budget but still the Members of congress don't have to follow or get on board. I think your EC complaint is a over simplification of the issues by a large degree.
The EC stands in direct contrast to mob rule direct democracy which a lot of the founding fathers hated.. Others reasons for it's ratification the Fact you don't have to worry about having recounts after every election that could go on and on for months. It helped mitigate corruption.
Some of the Founding Fathers Jefferson and Mason thought the average American wasn't up to snuff in Voting for a President. They felt there was to much public ignorance....the EC mitigated that. They believed Electors would assure only a qualified person became Commander and Chief.
Population also had a effect in the EC coming about. The South was 100% worried the Populace North would dominate electing a President over the more rural South. If we didn't have a EC there would be no United States. The Constitution would not of been ratified. Not unlike today if the EC goes away I could see the Fly over states rightfully so wanting to break away from the Few over populated Blue area's.
Some of the Founding Fathers Jefferson and Mason thought the average American wasn't up to snuff in Voting for a President. They felt there was to much public ignorance....the EC mitigated that. They believed Electors would assure only a qualified person became Commander and Chief.
Population also had a effect in the EC coming about. The South was 100% worried the Populace North would dominate electing a President over the more rural South. If we didn't have a EC there would be no United States. The Constitution would not of been ratified. Not unlike today if the EC goes away I could see the Fly over states rightfully so wanting to break away from the Few over populated Blue area's.
This is not at all why the electoral college was created. They didn't anticipate the electors being beholden to any voters. They wanted them to be independent of the people and vote their conscience. It was a compromise between Congress electing the president and direct election. The founders never believed they had created a perfect system.
This is a modern argument employed by a shrinking demographic in a two-party system that was never intended.
I also find funny that "mob rule" is perfectly fine for literally every single other level of government...except for the President.
The problem isn't necessarily the electoral college per se, the problem is the winner-take-all allocation of electors that was never intended and, in fact, actively opposed with a potential amendment by Madison, the "Father of the Constitution." Of course, he originally wanted direct election, so there's that too.
GOP loves the EC because they know they can't win a popular vote election with their current platform. There just aren't enough old uneducated white dudes left.
The EC clearly was a compromise for among the founding fathers. It wasn't a unanimous group think. A group didn't want congress picking the President as it would make the two branches to close. A group was dead set against mob rule or the average voter picking the president. Then you had the slave states worried about being unrepresented by the Populace North and controlling the President....A 11 man committee was appointed by the delegates aka the Grand committee and yes 6 of those delegates wanted a popular vote to rule the day but it was clear this wasn't going to happen because the others would never ratify it and if I recall on the 3rd try they came up with using electors.
With this system Hamilton and other Founders where assured that public ignorance nor influence would pick the President.
I also know that the winner as president and the runner up as vice president quickly fell apart which led to the 12th amendment.
I never said the Founding fathers thought it was a perfect system....but it's near that way if you want to hold a Country as big as ours with Vast differences in culture and ideology together in a Democratic Republic.
Do away with the EC and the consequences would be a disaster....
Wait a second. At every single other level of government we have direct election of officials. But if we do it for the largely symbolic office of the president, it's going to be a disaster and invite mob rule? Do you hear yourself?
Give him time. He's busy searching the googles for a copy/pasted answer from pro-Russia media.
It wasn't my idea that the Populace wasn't sophisticated enough to have a Popular vote for the Leader of the Republic and would lead to mob rule...that was the idea's of many of the founding fathers, although clearly others where on the other side of the isle as well.
Local Elections tend to be a Animal of a different color..in general most people live in Regions that vote the same as they do.....Birds of a feather flock together. But the President is a nation wide election and if you look at Voting Maps it's pretty clear that the 80 million who voted for Biden are located in Urban regions and the 74 million who voted for Trump are spread across the nation. The idea of small regions with Large Populations controlling other regions is distasteful to Conservatives, just as distasteful as the idea of a EC is for the Dem's.
And because the President is Symbolic of the Leader of this Republic it could quickly become a disaster and flash point. Why would it be a disaster well if one Party and a couple of small regions in the country dominated that Office for a long stretch of times...then you end up with anger, hostility and ultimately violence and rebellion.
https://brilliantmaps.com/2020-county-election-map/
The EC issue could become a huge divide and lead to even more distrust and more hate. It's not like the cultural divide between the Red and Blue isn't Massive enough as it is. Move to a Popular vote and you are inviting a disaster.
According to some polls over 50% of Conservatives want to leave the Blue area's behind and even 40% of leftist are in favor of this..
Opinion | A Surprising Share of Americans Wants to Break Up the Country. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.
The deleterious effects of a breakup would be enormous. A disaggregated United States would be instantly less powerful.
www.politico.com
I'd say that the Conservative polling data is a underestimation to some degree...and this is just a personal observation and theory, but many Conservatives would answer a poll like this as we don't want to secede...but I bet if you worded that Poll that you are taking away the EC for President and moving to a Popular Vote then you'd get a almost 100% succession by any means necessary response.
It wasn't my idea that the Populace wasn't sophisticated enough to have a Popular vote for the Leader of the Republic and would lead to mob rule...that was the idea's of many of the founding fathers, although clearly others where on the other side of the isle as well.
Local Elections tend to be a Animal of a different color..in general most people live in Regions that vote the same as they do.....Birds of a feather flock together. But the President is a nation wide election and if you look at Voting Maps it's pretty clear that the 80 million who voted for Biden are located in Urban regions and the 74 million who voted for Trump are spread across the nation. The idea of small regions with Large Populations controlling other regions is distasteful to Conservatives, just as distasteful as the idea of a EC is for the Dem's.
And because the President is Symbolic of the Leader of this Republic it could quickly become a disaster and flash point. Why would it be a disaster well if one Party and a couple of small regions in the country dominated that Office for a long stretch of times...then you end up with anger, hostility and ultimately violence and rebellion.
https://brilliantmaps.com/2020-county-election-map/
The EC issue could become a huge divide and lead to even more distrust and more hate. It's not like the cultural divide between the Red and Blue isn't Massive enough as it is. Move to a Popular vote and you are inviting a disaster.
According to some polls over 50% of Conservatives want to leave the Blue area's behind and even 40% of leftist are in favor of this..
Opinion | A Surprising Share of Americans Wants to Break Up the Country. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.
The deleterious effects of a breakup would be enormous. A disaggregated United States would be instantly less powerful.
I'd say that the Conservative polling data is a underestimation to some degree...and this is just a personal observation and theory, but many Conservatives would answer a poll like this as we don't want to secede...but I bet if you worded that Poll that you are taking away the EC for President and moving to a Popular Vote then you'd get a almost 100% succession by any means necessary response.
And the conservatives are the ones who fancy themselves “patriots.” There’s nothing more patriotic than breaking up the country your “patriotism” supports.
You do realize the big populations states also have the most EC votes so why don't they win EVERY presidential election?It wasn't my idea that the Populace wasn't sophisticated enough to have a Popular vote for the Leader of the Republic and would lead to mob rule...that was the idea's of many of the founding fathers, although clearly others where on the other side of the isle as well.
Local Elections tend to be a Animal of a different color..in general most people live in Regions that vote the same as they do.....Birds of a feather flock together. But the President is a nation wide election and if you look at Voting Maps it's pretty clear that the 80 million who voted for Biden are located in Urban regions and the 74 million who voted for Trump are spread across the nation. The idea of small regions with Large Populations controlling other regions is distasteful to Conservatives, just as distasteful as the idea of a EC is for the Dem's.
And because the President is Symbolic of the Leader of this Republic it could quickly become a disaster and flash point. Why would it be a disaster well if one Party and a couple of small regions in the country dominated that Office for a long stretch of times...then you end up with anger, hostility and ultimately violence and rebellion.
https://brilliantmaps.com/2020-county-election-map/
The EC issue could become a huge divide and lead to even more distrust and more hate. It's not like the cultural divide between the Red and Blue isn't Massive enough as it is. Move to a Popular vote and you are inviting a disaster.
According to some polls over 50% of Conservatives want to leave the Blue area's behind and even 40% of leftist are in favor of this..
Opinion | A Surprising Share of Americans Wants to Break Up the Country. Here’s Why They’re Wrong.
The deleterious effects of a breakup would be enormous. A disaggregated United States would be instantly less powerful.
I'd say that the Conservative polling data is a underestimation to some degree...and this is just a personal observation and theory, but many Conservatives would answer a poll like this as we don't want to secede...but I bet if you worded that Poll that you are taking away the EC for President and moving to a Popular Vote then you'd get a almost 100% succession by any means necessary response.
I would say that being patriotic and a patriot is dependent on the system holding strong and true to the core values and mores of the American principles of old.
Any straying from that hardline and you will get a push back, from a large segment of the populace.
I don’t have time to explain basic civics or how the EC works to you. It’s laughable that you don’t understand how that happens.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Ukraine war: Still going. Gas and food prices: Still high
- Latest: Kurt_Warners_Blind_Son
-
Trump signs order to declassify and release JFK records
- Latest: Kurt_Warners_Blind_Son
-
Mr. Tough Guy can't handle the cold.
- Latest: Kurt_Warners_Blind_Son
