Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

mainejeff wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
The Electoral College is a key to decentralization of power and a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. It serves the same purpose as the Senate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you SURE you want to make that comparison right now with the current Senate?

I think that the Electoral College screwed us all. The "tyrannical majority" had it right this time.

∞∞∞ wrote:Rural Americans are serfs to the current system, especially with "winner-take-all" states (which is most).

The EC should be thrown away, but if we're insistent on keeping it, it needs reform There should be a proportional amount of electors to the population consistent throughout the US (1 rep per X amount of people), and states shouldn't be "winner-take-all." If a state has 6 electoral votes, 3 which went to Dems, 2 which went to Cons, and 1 which went to Green...all 6 should not go to the Dems. It should be divided as the population voted.

Additionally, if you want to keep true to the original intention of the EC, we should be voting for the electors during the Presidential elections, who then in turn choose the President with no penalty for their choice.

Or you know, just abolish the system and do what free societies do: one person, one vote.

mainejeff wrote:In a way I hope that Trump does win a second term. He will drive the economy into the ground which will inflict much more damage on the Republican Party than anything he could ever do or say.

Yup.....my main concern now is too destroy the Republican Party. I'm just gonna play your game now.

∞∞∞ wrote:Rural Americans are serfs to the current system, especially with "winner-take-all" states (which is most).

The EC should be thrown away, but if we're insistent on keeping it, it needs reform There should be a proportional amount of electors to the population consistent throughout the US (1 rep per X amount of people), and states shouldn't be "winner-take-all." If a state has 6 electoral votes, 3 which went to Dems, 2 which went to Cons, and 1 which went to Green...all 6 should not go to the Dems. It should be divided as the population voted.

Additionally, if you want to keep true to the original intention of the EC, we should be voting for the electors during the Presidential elections, who then in turn choose the President with no penalty for their choice.

Or you know, just abolish the system and do what free societies do: one person, one vote.

mainejeff wrote:In a way I hope that Trump does win a second term. He will drive the economy into the ground which will inflict much more damage on the Republican Party than anything he could ever do or say.

Yup.....my main concern now is too destroy the Republican Party. I'm just gonna play your game now.

mainejeff wrote:In a way I hope that Trump does win a second term. He will drive the economy into the ground which will inflict much more damage on the Republican Party than anything he could ever do or say.

Yup.....my main concern now is too destroy the Republican Party. I'm just gonna play your game now.

mainejeff wrote:

Baldy wrote: ...and the Left is so full of hate right now. It's a shame, really.

Conks are full of hate 24/7.....365 days/year......always. We've got a lot of catching up to do after 8 years of Clinton hate and 8 years of Obama hate.

css75 wrote:

mainejeff wrote:In a way I hope that Trump does win a second term. He will drive the economy into the ground which will inflict much more damage on the Republican Party than anything he could ever do or say.

Yup.....my main concern now is too destroy the Republican Party. I'm just gonna play your game now.

Yeah, Trump is driving the economy into the ground. How has Trump affected you personally? Just curious.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ibanez wrote:

css75 wrote:

Yeah, Trump is driving the economy into the ground. How has Trump affected you personally? Just curious.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

One could argue that the economy is an extension of Obama's policies. What has Trump done, actually done, for the economy? Trade wars? Tax cut for the wealthy?

Ibanez wrote:

css75 wrote:

Yeah, Trump is driving the economy into the ground. How has Trump affected you personally? Just curious.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

One could argue that the economy is an extension of Obama's policies. What has Trump done, actually done, for the economy? Trade wars? Tax cut for the wealthy?

CID1990 wrote:

mainejeff wrote:


Are you SURE you want to make that comparison right now with the current Senate?

I think that the Electoral College screwed us all. The "tyrannical majority" had it right this time.

Yes. The Senate is operating exactly as designed

Clitz said it before and he is right... there are more red states than blue states and the Senate is reflective of that

There are more blue Congressional districts than there are red and the House is reflective of that

Things are as they should be. Don’t go blaming the system when it is the juveniles at the switch

css75 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
One could argue that the economy is an extension of Obama's policies. What has Trump done, actually done, for the economy? Trade wars? Tax cut for the wealthy?

Though I usually disagree with your posts, they are usually well thought out. This one is an exception.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

css75 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
One could argue that the economy is an extension of Obama's policies. What has Trump done, actually done, for the economy? Trade wars? Tax cut for the wealthy?

Though I usually disagree with your posts, they are usually well thought out. This one is an exception.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
One could argue that the economy is an extension of Obama's policies. What has Trump done, actually done, for the economy? Trade wars? Tax cut for the wealthy?

Now you sound like JSO.

Ibanez wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Now you sound like JSO.

That hurt me deep, Tom.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: That hurt me deep, Tom.

Well don't say stupid shit then, bro.

Ibanez wrote:

css75 wrote:
Though I usually disagree with your posts, they are usually well thought out. This one is an exception.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why can't someone argue that the reason the economy is doing well is because of something a previous administration has done. Isn't that what is said about the 1990s? That Clinton was enjoying the benefits of Reagan policies? It often takes years for the effects of policies, legislation, initiatives, etc... to be felt and measured. I'm not saying that business don't like a Trump administration, but i'm not sure as to how much credit belongs to Obama/Biden vs Trump?pence.

Ibanez wrote:

css75 wrote:
Though I usually disagree with your posts, they are usually well thought out. This one is an exception.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why can't someone argue that the reason the economy is doing well is because of something a previous administration has done. Isn't that what is said about the 1990s? That Clinton was enjoying the benefits of Reagan policies? It often takes years for the effects of policies, legislation, initiatives, etc... to be felt and measured. I'm not saying that business don't like a Trump administration, but i'm not sure as to how much credit belongs to Obama/Biden vs Trump?pence.

kalm wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Why can't someone argue that the reason the economy is doing well is because of something a previous administration has done. Isn't that what is said about the 1990s? That Clinton was enjoying the benefits of Reagan policies? It often takes years for the effects of policies, legislation, initiatives, etc... to be felt and measured. I'm not saying that business don't like a Trump administration, but i'm not sure as to how much credit belongs to Obama/Biden vs Trump?pence.

Because we all know tax cuts on the rich, military expansion and increased spending, coupled with deregulation always lead to perpetual growth.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Because we all know tax cuts on the rich, military expansion and increased spending, coupled with deregulation always lead to perpetual growth.

So much hate for Reagan.

Ibanez wrote:

mainejeff wrote:
Conks are full of hate 24/7.....365 days/year......always. We've got a lot of catching up to do after 8 years of Clinton hate and 8 years of Obama hate.

Yeah, there wasn't any Bush Hate.

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Why can't someone argue that the reason the economy is doing well is because of something a previous administration has done. Isn't that what is said about the 1990s? That Clinton was enjoying the benefits of Reagan policies? It often takes years for the effects of policies, legislation, initiatives, etc... to be felt and measured. I'm not saying that business don't like a Trump administration, but i'm not sure as to how much credit belongs to Obama/Biden vs Trump?pence.

Well, who's to say then that the current boom we're in isn't really due ultimately to George W and his TARP response to the '08 recession? Where are his kudos?

GannonFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Yeah, there wasn't any Bush Hate.

Indeed. W was, as far as I remember, the first President to be habitually compared with Hitler and the Nazis. It's something we can all chuckle about now in the Trump era, but protestors really thought W was right up there with the most evil of dictators.