Imzy
  • Discover communities
  • Log In
  • Sign up
  • Home
  • Discover communities
  • Log In
  • Sign up
  • About
  • Learn More
  • Contact
  • Community Policy
  • FAQ
  • Sitemap
  • Terms
  • Privacy Policy
  • Available on the App Store
  • Available on Google Play
Copyright © 2017 Saurus, Inc. All rights reserved.

jess_than_three

Member since May 28, 2016 at 9:39 AM

0 Followers

0 Following

  • Comments
  • Posts
  • Communities
  • PoliticsPolitics[Post deleted by author]Nov 26, 2016 at 2:40 PM

    My apologies! This is what I get for not actually clicking the links. I thought you were characterizing the Dems' response to the Electoral College, over time, between "fuck this we lost" and "oh wait maybe there's still hope".

  • PoliticsPolitics[Post deleted by author]Nov 26, 2016 at 2:36 PM

    As a further point, "the results of this election" involve the entirety of the process - including potential recounts, including the outcome of the electors' vote.

  • PoliticsPolitics[Post deleted by author]Nov 26, 2016 at 2:35 PM

    This cuts both ways.

    The system that allows for a Presidential election where one candidate wins more votes but loses because of the system of electoral votes... allows for a candidate to win more electoral votes, but lose the RESULTS of that subsequent vote.

    Further, the founders of our nation set it up that way on purpose. They could have imposed punishments for faithless electors - they could even have called it treason. They could even have gone so far as to take out the electors in the electoral college entirely, retaining the "Electoral Vote" system but assigning them directly, and having the "Electoral College" merely a gathering of messengers from every state, with each bringing an affidavit certifying the results of the election there, and then verifying that everything was in order.

    They didn't do that, and they didn't do it on purpose.

    Moreover, the "faithless elector" situation actually came about, as early as 1796 - which is to say the VERY FIRST election not involving George Washington. Then again in 1800, 1808, 1812, 1820, 1828, 1832, 1836, 1872, 1892... point being, if the patriarchs of the nation didn't want this possibility, they had every opportunity to prevent it, and have had for over two centuries.

    Now, you may argue that that's not fair. That may be - and it may be more or less fair than the electoral vote system is to begin with. But it IS the system that we have, and this possibility is NOT an unintended side effect - and in fact I would argue that our current President-elect is exactly the sort of situation it was intended for.

  • MusicMusicSufjan Stevens - Should Have Known BetterMay 30, 2016 at 9:54 AM

    Oh man, I love this song.

  • PoliticsPolitics10 Things to Know About DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz's Super Progressive ChallengerMay 28, 2016 at 9:24 PM

    11. He is literally not Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

  • The CosmereThe CosmereMy Opinion About the CosmereMay 28, 2016 at 7:35 PM

    Yup, Steelheart et al and The Rithmatist are non-Cosmere books. But I agree - Sanderson's works are amazing! :)

  • TwoXChromosomesTwoXChromosomesOh Dawkins... and to think I onced admired you. Now you're just an old man yelling at ducks in the parkMay 28, 2016 at 7:21 PM

    Ugh. He's such an asshole. :(

  • GamingGamingOverwatch review - Certainly, one of the year's bestMay 28, 2016 at 9:39 AM

    Seriously. I normally play a fair bit of Heroes of the Storm, but this thing has its hooks in me good!

  • About
  • Sitemap
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Copyright © 2017 Saurus, Inc. All rights reserved.