It's especially infuriating when you look at all the major Supreme Court cases about gerrymandering or redistricting -- nearly all of the parties doing the redistricting are Republican.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least. I was looking into gerrymandering and it's pretty infuriating how much of the electoral process has been messed up from such a simple concept.Brian OA wrote:
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,186
There is definitely flaws in the US election system, but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college. It's not fair that California and New York dominate the elections. Voter fraud is also something that needs to be looked into.
Yes there isB1rd wrote:
but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college
If one person's vote is worth more than another's, that is profoundly undemocratic
well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeahBrian OA wrote:
Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering
I agree that the idea behind the electoral college is fine, honestly, it's just been turned into something grossly non-representative of America.B1rd wrote:
There is definitely flaws in the US election system, but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college. It's not fair that California and New York dominate the elections. Voter fraud is also something that needs to be looked into.
As for voter fraud: I mean, sure. From what I've heard, it isn't a big deal- and Trump quoting numbers like "If 3 million illegals hadn't voted, I would've won the majority" is full fucking retard, but yeah there should definitely always be research to see if it's a problem or not in the US.
Decent voter ID laws would also be fine. It's just a shame the ones that they've tried have disproportionately affected minorities so much (because the lawmaking itself was doing that on purpose, which is ridiculous)
Also: Both republicans and democrats partake in gerrymandering and it's despicable on both sides.
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
I've already had this debate here
I've heard that the "if 3 million illegals voted" claim has some substance. Don't just write something off without evidence.
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.
Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.Raspberriel wrote:
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
I mean I don't really know jack shit about this so I'm just assuming everyone does it when they get the chance, and even then, my issue would be that this is a thing you can do at all, regardless of political affiliation.Raspberriel wrote:
well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeahBrian OA wrote:
Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering
No, we had this debate before. And at that same debate, I said I didn't worship the Democrats as infallible, so nice try.B1rd wrote:
I've heard that the "if 3 million illegals voted" claim has some substance. Don't just write something off without evidence.
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.Raspberriel wrote:
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
Massively misrepresenting my argument. I'm completely fine with proper voter ID laws. The ones they tried to push disproportionately *targeted*, not affected, black voters (and minorities in general I assume). It got shot down in a federal court for racial discrimination. They essentially wanted to make it illegal to use the kinds of IDs that black people generally use, while doing nothing about the IDs that white people use.B1rd wrote:
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/f ... -news&_r=0
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
1 for horsesKisses wrote:
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
2 for unicorns
so at 3 for ponies
Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders
thisZain Sugieres wrote:
Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders
2 Years ago I think was the first time so I'd have been 16, but it only really became a regular thing in the past 12 months.Kisses wrote:
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
Says the person who's decided to permanently sit out from conversing with me when I present my evidence why he's always wrong.B1rd wrote:
Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.
friendly reminder that you don't have to identify your gender in a binary mannerZain Sugieres wrote:
Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders
We aren't amoebas, we don't fucking commit binary fission.Mahogany wrote:
friendly reminder that you don't have to identify your gender in a binary manner
I don't understand this at all. Last time I checked I had a swinging dong down there which makes it kinda hard to identify myself a woman or agender or a fox. Gender is a social construct idea isn't solid aswell, as you're a solid homo if you aren't content with the gender your sex has given to you, and should go out of the closet like the faggot you are. Not talking about you, but anyone in general.
When has identifying as a nonbinary gender ever hurt anyone
Biologically you're a dude, but you might not feel 100% a dude and want to identify in a nonbinary manner. And that's totally cool.Erlkonig wrote:
I checked I had a swinging dong down there which makes it kinda hard to identify myself a woman or agender or a fox.
But who is to say what makes one a dude or not, or even what 100% dude/dudette entails?
I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not
thats fucking gayKisses wrote:
I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not
also biologically im a frail man but mentally im a beautiful butterfly
That's up to that specific personBrian OA wrote:
But who is to say what makes one a dude or not, or even what 100% dude/dudette entails?
If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.
Yeah last time you didn't check you got pretty butthurt lolKisses wrote:
I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not
Pedophiles need mental help.Blitzfrog wrote:
If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.
Blitzfrog wrote:
If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.
lol wrote:
fuck off blitzfrog
But pedophiles are a sexual orientation too. Tell me you guys don't like lolis
If pedophiles need mental help, gays do too.
what kinda logic ^
He's trying to say that everyone needs mental helpHika wrote:
what kinda logic ^
obviously
Why pedophiles can't be free 
That's not cool, what is worse about pedophiles than gays? How is gay worse than straight?
That's not cool, what is worse about pedophiles than gays? How is gay worse than straight?
Blitz you should probably work on your bait game if you want the same amount of attention as before
You got me broFoxtrot wrote:
Blitz you should probably work on your bait game if you want the same amount of attention as before
Blitzfrog has bait game?
I didnt even have a sensible chuckle, it was more of an internal giggle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8FhG44-J80
I had problems adding the video itself in this post so here you go kids.
I had problems adding the video itself in this post so here you go kids.