Is Gaybutton familiar with arithmetic?

[firecat69]

I think latin is Moses.  I also thik that Michael is beachlover.  

That is by far the most ridiculous post I have ever seen in both respects.  First of all you have no idea about Beachlover unless of course it might be you.  2nd comparing Latin from Sawatdee to Moses is so ridiculous there is no scale it would not be off the top of.

[Guest shamahan]

Ditto, Z.  And there's really no excuse for having a post on this board whose main theme is to attempt to criticize somebody about a post on another board.   

 

But, given the topic was raised, every single state (excepting Maine and Nebraska which provide for proportional representation) requires their electors to vote for the candidate who received the most votes in that state.  If what the OP is talking about is requiring the electors of each state to vote for the national vote winner, that would in effect dilute a given state's power and is not likely to ever be approved by many/most of the small states; besides, if we're only going to look at the national vote total alone (absolutely pure democracy on a national level), then the electoral college should simply be eliminated by amendment to the constitution (and, if that "pure democracy" remains the goal, then logically the 2-Senators-per-state system should also go out the door).

This is pretty shallow analysis for the former lawyer. It makes no sense to talk about Constitutional amendment, because it is totally unrealistic. I am talking about National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Currently 11 states joined the compact. It is not necessary that all states joined it. It suffices that amount of electors from the states joining the Compacr exceeds 270. That would guarantee that the candidate who obtained the majority of votes nationwide would become a President. The current system of Electorial College is undemocratic and archaic (and has not been implemented in any other country).

[Moses]

Talking about your own posts on Gaybutton message board, you posted totally false post about Russia. You claimed that under Putin the per capita income increased four times since Eltsin despite the price of oil dropped from 120 to 40. In particular, you mentioned the current income of 24000 US per year. This is a lie. According to the link to IMF data you provided the annual income in Russia was about 9000 Dollars per year in 2015 and dropped quite substantially simaltaneously with oil prices. It is even lower in 2016.

Russia is based on three "whales": lies, theft and corruption. Recently a colonel (who happened to work in anti-corruption division of Russian interior-ministry) has been arrested with half-billion (billion with b!) dollars in cash found in his appartment

and Swiss bank accounts controlled by his relatives has been found. There is no such thing as asset protection in Russia. Recently, the government mafia just took from one of the oligarh a valuable oil company "Bashneft" without any compensation.

Even oligarhs with protection in very high places cannot transfer their wealth to their decendants. The racket at every level of businesses by government bureaucrats is omnipresent (it is called "koshmarit business "in Russian). Putin is fascist dictator of the evil empire . All Russian manufacturing is based on Western (or Chinese) technology and hence vulnerable to sanctions and Putin deserves no credit for whatever little progress Russia has made. Your post is filthy lie.

 

Good try. You have links to sources of data. You should fight with World Bank data and CIA data if you don't agree. Do you need their emails to write protest letters?

 

Just to kick your ego: Russia is 6-th biggest economy in world (by GDP PPP per capita).  Russia is second military power in world (as per president Obama).

 

And last word: you are fighting with me who is living in Russia almost 20 years and you have no idea what means GDP and calling it "income". You are moron.

[vinapu]

 It makes no sense to talk about Constitutional amendment, because it is totally unrealistic. 

one year ago talk about installing Trump as US president on Jan 20-2017 was totally unrealistic

 

What an eclectic thread this one become: Gaybutton math skills, beauty of Tawan men priced by the kilogram  / I'm metric person /, Putin's Russia, only thing missing is a receipt for fruit cake with mustard

[vinapu]

 The current system of Electorial College is undemocratic and archaic (and has not been implemented in any other country).

to a  losers,

to a  winners probably is democratic and  modern

[Alexx]

The Electoral College is archaic, granted. But it isn't undemocratic as such, because democracy can mean several different things. In the case of the US, one fundamental element of its political system is that the federal government derives its legitimacy from the states the union consists of. Not directly from all the citizens/voters of all of its states combined. I think that's a legitimate system.

 

Personally, I find the "winner takes it all" concept far more problematic. It's what ultimately colors the map so rigidly and gives a few states an importance that is totally blown out of proportion.

[forky123]

A vote in California or New York is worth one third what a vote in Wyoming is worth. In addition, you already bias the Senate against the most populous states as every state has 2 senators regardless of population. Lastly, the electors who cast the vote can randomly decide to vote for who the hell they like based on personal feeling. Hardly democracy. Recent research of the subject suggests that the US is more of an Oligarchy than a Democracy or Republic.

[Alexx]

If the US were an oligarchy, Hillary had won the election. So that theory has just been debunked, I'd say.

[Guest ronnie4you]

It is looking as if Hillary will exceed Trump's vote count by 2 MILLION votes, yet she lost. That's simply not right.

[Alexx]

When Hillary was a senator, did she push any legislation to change that? Serious question; I don't remember any such effort, but that doesn't mean much.

 

It's a moot point to discuss it retroactively, the only legal standard that can be applied to last week's election is the law as it is. Based on that, Trump won, rightfully.

[firecat69]

If the US were an oligarchy, Hillary had won the election. So that theory has just been debunked, I'd say.

Possibly you should try using a dictionary. Oligarchy has nothing to do with the USA system whether or not it has an electoral system for the Presidency only.  It is pure who gets the most votes in every one of the 50 states and should probably be changed for the country as a whole.

[vinapu]

to a  losers,

to a  winners probably is democratic and  modern

 

When Hillary was a senator, did she push any legislation to change that? Serious question; I don't remember any such effort, 

I'm glad we agree in here, no effort and not even talk about the issue 

 

I also agree with firecat above, states are electing president and winner is one who carries most states. Possibly not fair but hardly undemocratic.

 

The same system in UN General Assembly where both China or India  and Tuvalu or Nauru have just 1 vote

[Alexx]

Possibly you should try using a dictionary. Oligarchy has nothing to do with the USA system whether or not it has an electoral system for the Presidency only.

Those who suggest that the US is effectively an oligarchy consider elections mere window dressing, because they allege that the real decisions are being made by "the oligarchs" behind closed doors. So indeed, that has nothing to do with the way elections are designed. But that also isn't the point. There's an element of truth in it when looking at the influence lobbyists wield, etc., but still I'd say it's over the top. Hillary was "the oligarchs'" wet dream and yet failed to get elected - case in point.

 

Oh, and if I ever need a dictionary, it's unlikely that I'll turn to someone semi-literate who notoriously mixes up "than" and "then". Thanks for your help anyway, I'm sure you mean well.

[firecat69]

You misuse the word and the only thing you've got is than and then.  At least I know where to look for the meaning of a word which you apparently do not.

 

Somehow 2 elections of Obama disprove any of your BS about oligarchy.

[Alexx]

Somehow 2 elections of Obama disprove any of your BS about oligarchy.

Back in kindergarten, I had fun putting words in someone's mouth, too. (Hint: I don't subscribe to the oligarchy theory and said as much.) I don't think it works that well with an adult audience, but hey, that hasn't stopped you from trying before.

[firecat69]

A little like you with then and than.  In case you have not joined the computer generation.  I dictate my posts and unfortunately those systems have a hard time with distinguishing the difference and I can't be bothered checking such unimportant things.