Ready The Clown Car: The First Batch of Democrats Are Ready To Announce Their 2020 Bids

I did not dismiss your stance. I did quite the opposite. What I stated was the Constitution did not fail this country. We can discuss other alternatives.

Yes, I dont think 'winner takes all' is the best solution in our modern times. It gives current swing states a massive advantage, albeit for the Presidency only.
I believe we have more significant issues with our political system than the EC. The entrenched power by a few congressional leaders for decades at a time bother me. The massive amounts of money from corporations flowing through the political system is a huge issue.

Splitting the EC by state and majority are largely one and the same. None of that fixes the corruption outlined above. This is why the EC is never a serious debate outside the rare occasion majority doesnt win. Further, if states wish, they can elect to split it.

The Constitution is not impossible to change. Believe it or not, bipartisanship still widely exists. We never hear about it because nobody gets excited when the super majority agree to a resolution.

 

The EC has Zero effect on the two party system.

The reason the two parties have such control is very simple - the two parties themselves make the rules by which they play ... add to that the fact that the majority of people have chosen a side based upon one or two issues that have been long decided by the courts - like abortion and gun control - while candidates play them up come election time like somethings gonna change ...

The parties control literally everything in the election process - accept your actual vote and then there's the super delegates who aren't really bound by a damn thing.

 

They should apologize - right after the 1000's of apologies for the lies spread by the GOP in ads

 

Zero?

 

Zero. Just accept it. No evidence required.

 

Do meandering long-winded generic platitudes really require evidence?

 

@Corrosion is the most boomer poster I've encountered. He unironically called me a "buttercup" because I was discussing about student loan debt and the burden it has on the economy.

And just like some boomers, he has nothing but platitudes.

 

I didn't call you buttecup - it was meant as a metaphor …. if you think life is so hard , you aint seen nothing yet.

I apologize anyway .

 

So now Boomers are considered a negative like millionaires and establishment types?

What's with all of the labels?

Why do you have to pigeonhole everyone as a type?

So what if he is a boomer poster, he still makes some salient points but I guess its much easier just to vilify someone with a label.

That's not a good look.

 

Eh , not a big deal - Its at least partially my fault for not realizing the difference in cost of living between the two cities. It is substantial.

And as @Nook pointed out , a graduate degree 20-30 years ago meant a lot more than it does today …. 8 years of college for an average of $66k …. Not so sure I'd make that commitment and would definitely have greater expectations than that average pay for such a commitment.

 

None of that is reason for trying to dismiss you as a boomer, I had somebody try and do the same to me and I am definitely not a boomer.

My real issue is dismissing anybody with a label it's pulling right from the Republican playbook, people should do better.

FC is a great poster I think its beneath him to go that route.

 

View me calling him a boomer similar to him calling me a buttercup before. It was light hearted. But both were used in similar context to dismiss my arguments.

That's why I try not to butt in an lecture people about personal attacks because no one is not guilty. People are just going to lecture about how bad personal attacks are to people they disagree with in a argument and let it go with people they agree with.

 

From what I have read corrosion never dismissed any of your arguments.

And buttercup is personal it's not calling out an entire demographic as not being worthy of an opinion.

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php...president-thread.295379/page-63#post-12770784

I thought that was somewhat dismissive of my comments that had a patronizing tone. I thought his "insult" was light hearted and wasn't severe so I made a boomer comment in return that I thought was light-hearted. But I understand that it's a term that can disparage an entire generation thus it insults all of them.


I'm sorry. I won't use the term boomer in that context anymore though. Lesson learned.

 

No biggie maybe I overreacted I just really don't like dismissing anyone with a label.

 

My use of buttercup wasn't personal at all - it was metaphorical tho vague. I explained that in another post.

Basically if you think its hard now , you got another thing comin cause its only gonna get harder from single with no dependents.


As for Boomer , I just let it go like water off a ducks back. I really don't know if its suppose to be an offensive term or just a distinction. Either way its pretty inconsequential to me.

 

At least we can both agree that the system is structurally flawed and needs improved. Clearly, I want to take it one step further and get rid of it entirely, as I feel the argument to do away with it is much stronger than the argument for keeping it.

And, sure, the Constitution is not impossible to change, but on this particular issue it essentially is. The amendment to remove it requires 2/3 majority of Congress and 3/4 state approval. In today’s political climate there is absolutely no chance of that happening UNLESS something crazy happens like the GOP winning the popular vote and losing the White House. That’s only way I could ever see a consensus on this topic. It’s helped the GOP “win” 2/5 of the last presidential elections. They have no incentive to act.

The popular vote compact a number of states are attempting to come up with as a work-around is something I agree with in principle, but recognize it would never hold up in court.

And, not directed at you, as for those comments about the EC having “zero effect” on the two-party system, that’s a fantasy statement with no evidence to back it up. The EC makes it nearly impossible for another party to accumulate the necessary votes to seriously have a shot at the White House. The best hope they have is to play spoiler.