North Carolina Republicans = Slime of the earth

[Rod1]

Suborning electors to overturn an election is an example of not caring about an election. Duly elected representatives of the people voting to pass laws that decrease executive power to the advantage of the legislature is not.

Passing those laws on an emergency sessions after you couldnt overturn an election in order to limit the powers of the executive because your party doesnt controls it, certainly is.

Both parties are anti-democratic, republicans are simply the worst when it comes to it.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Both parties are anti-democratic, republicans are simply the worst when it comes to it.

False equivalence imo. The Democrat reaction to an election outcome they don't like: "Overturn it!" seems rather more extremely and explicitly anti-democratic.

 

[TheStruggle]

False equivalence imo. The Democrat reaction to an election outcome they don't like: "Overturn it!" seems rather more extremely and explicitly anti-democratic.

Step 1: Overturn The Election

Step 2: Start War With Russia

Step 3: Call Republicans Fascists

 

[TheStruggle]

Are they doing something illegal?

This is something Democrats have done for years but they act like this is the first time anyone has ever done it when it's used against them. Same with 'Borking', now suddenly the democrats act like no one has ever tried to hold up a supreme court nominee. It's the history of now

 

[Rod1]

False equivalence imo. The Democrat reaction to an election outcome they don't like: "Overturn it!" seems rather more extremely and explicitly anti-democratic.

Maybe, but that election itself was won through undemocratic means so if its overturned by undemocratic means it would probably signal the destruction of the current system that makes parties so strong to begin with.

But im mostly talking about the state level, just look at California election system, its the only state i know that has partyless primaries and second-round system in order to give the most possible representation to the people.

Democrats and Republicans are both anti-democratic, you can make the case for both as in to which is worse, but i dont see democrats looking to limit representation and representation is i think the basis of democracy.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Maybe, but that election itself was won through undemocratic means

No, it wasn't. It was a fair and free election.

 

[Rod1]

No, it wasn't. It was a fair and free election.

Fair and free, yes.

Democratic, no.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Fair and free, yes.

Democratic, no.

Lol. Please explain. There was after all, an election, and that is after all, how we decided our next president.

 

[OverCoronavirus Pressure]

I hear that the Titanic sunk

Thanks for ruining the movie, asshole

 

[Rod1]

Lol. Please explain. There was after all, an election, and that is after all, how we decided our next president.

There was an election, where the guy with significantly less votes won.

Then you will say "well these were the rules of the game" and ill respond by saying that trying to influence electors is also part of the game.

The system itself is in dire need of political reform, you cant be having a system where people are winning with less representation on a consistent basis and still call it democratic.

I dont have my hopes high though, since both parties would need to agree to give up political power for that to happen, so only in the event of a real crisis would you see change.

So im guessing the moment that China surpasses America.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

There was an election, where the guy with significantly less votes won.

Then you will say "well these were the rules of the game" and ill respond by saying that trying to influence electors is also part of the game.

The system itself is in dire need of political reform, you cant be having a system where people are winning with less representation on a consistent basis and still call it democratic.

I dont have my hopes high though, since both parties would need to agree to give up political power for that to happen, so only in the event of a real crisis would you see change.

So im guessing the moment that China surpasses America.

Hahahaha. Pathetic. We count our votes state by state, so the right guy won. There are ways to criticize this system, but it isn't undemocratic. It's just not democratic in the way you'd prefer. And no, suborning electors has never been considered part of the game. What it is is rank hypocrisy. You complain that not using gross popular vote totals and instead awarding states electoral votes proportionate to their representation in Congress is undemocratic, and then you advocate electors completely overturning democracy. A minority of Democrats are throwing an epic tantrum because their side lost, and haven't thought hard enough yet about how bad it looks that they are advocating the negation of the election results.

 

[Rod1]

Hahahaha. Pathetic. We count our votes state by state, so the right guy won. There are ways to criticize this system, but it isn't undemocratic. It's just not democratic in the way you'd prefer. And no, suborning electors has never been considered part of the game. What it is is rank hypocrisy. You complain that not using gross popular vote totals and instead awarding states electoral votes proportionate to their representation in Congress is undemocratic, and then you advocate electors completely overturning democracy. A minority of Democrats are throwing an epic tantrum because their side lost, and haven't thought hard enough yet about how bad it looks that they are advocating the negation of the election results.

It is indeed undemocratic, just like gerrymandering and voter supression.

The fact that you can argue that a candidate winning with less votes is democratic is quite amusing.

I wont say Hillary deserves to win because as people say, these are the rules of the game and a different system would had different campaign strategy.

Im merely saying that you cant have a system where the individual with less votes keeps winning, its one of the few quirks that America gets to do due to an history of success and political stability.

In 2006 we had a candidate win with 0.5%+ of difference and our political system almost crashed down. You can keep travelling that road but eventually there will come a time where it will break down.

And you are damn right, im not happy Trump won, but its not like i was happy about Hillary either, i think the whole presidential process just felt like a loss-loss.

 

[Sir Galahad]

North Carolina Republicans took advantage of an emergency session for disaster relief to strip the incoming Democratic Governor of power. The same powers they had no problem giving to a Republican governor. No matter what side of the aisle you are on, this is a scumbag move.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...pecial-session-republicans-roy-cooper/510731/

 

[My Spot]

Illegal? Maybe not, but there's definitely some shady shit going on. When you're trying to add Supreme Court members because your party is in the minority, you should be watched with a magnifying glass.

So they're not doing anything illegal?

 

[My Spot]

Hahahaha. Pathetic. We count our votes state by state, so the right guy won. There are ways to criticize this system, but it isn't undemocratic. It's just not democratic in the way you'd prefer. And no, suborning electors has never been considered part of the game. What it is is rank hypocrisy. You complain that not using gross popular vote totals and instead awarding states electoral votes proportionate to their representation in Congress is undemocratic, and then you advocate electors completely overturning democracy. A minority of Democrats are throwing an epic tantrum because their side lost, and haven't thought hard enough yet about how bad it looks that they are advocating the negation of the election results.

He's still in the denial stage. Make note of his location too.