Ruth Bader Ginsberg died

redwine65

All-American
Jun 23, 2010
4,395
1,660
113
I'm not sure if Cruz should replace ginsburg or be President in 2024, it's a delema
I suppose Newt could be in 24
 
Nov 23, 2003
1,504
298
83
I understand the impulse, but does that mean one vote in Nebraska should be disproportionally weighted to carry greater value? In what other system could you image such an arrangement being acceptable. Let's say ten people are voting for something, and my vote counts 10 times more than yours. Would you agree that's fair? As a practical matter the largest states still have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of the elections. A candidate can just about seal the election by capturing a majority of the largest states.
So is it safe to assume that you are also an advocate to abolish the Senate?
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyLvr and bluenrg

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
561
753
93
RBG was old and in poor health when Obama was in his second term. She chose not to retire at that time.
You can be angry at President Trump and the Republicans all you want, but the truth is, RBG handed him this nomination. He should not waste it.
I suspect that she believed Hillary Clinton would win and she wanted to let her make the selection.

I'm glad she decided not to retire under Obama.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sinomatic and 54T

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
So is it safe to assume that you are also an advocate to abolish the Senate?
While the Senate does give disproportionate weight to smaller population states, it's baked into the system of checks and balances. I'm not making an argument to unravel our system of government, which is apparently the question you're asking. I'm arguing that our method for electing a president is antiquated and disenfranchises tens of millions of voters. Why shouldn't all votes be counted? Ours is a system that discourages voting on both sides of the political divide. I think that's a bad thing. Listen, this might be a terrible analogy, but to put this in football terms. I remember feeling very uncomfortable with upending the traditional bowl system. My thought was that you could never really decide the true winner with a playoff. There are just too many variables, too many good teams left out in the cold. On the other hand, the old system was antiquated. It left it up to a bunch of sports writers and coaches to decide the champion, instead of letting the kids settle it on the field. I'm saying let the voters decide.
 

rednwash

Redshirt Freshman
Gold Member
Nov 23, 2009
984
546
93
Talking about Russia is us doing the bidding of the left ... besides ... the ACTUAL problem is ...



and there is only one man on Earth strong enough to take them on
Since China is the real enemy I suppose that means that you and your friends have been boycotting Walmart for years now cuz they primarily sell all that evil, American job destroying Made in China stuff. Just doing your part I'm sure by putting your money where your mouth is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mrs.Jeans15

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
The left starts out with the biggest electoral vote state count in their back pocket, and they still find a way to step and slip on the banana peel, and they only wish to changes the rules which they deem will be beneficial to them.
It wasn't long ago that the Democrats benefited from an electoral college advantage and the Republicans wanted change. And of course the Democrats wanted to preserve the system because it benefitted them at the time. Since you clearly don't understand how this works, at some point in the future the pendulum will swing left and I have little doubt the Democrats will be singing a different tune about the electoral college. Unless what you're saying is that you prefer inefficient and skewed elections, the point is an all votes count system benefits everyone.
 

Tuco Salamanca

Offensive Coordinator
Aug 18, 2016
9,389
12,222
113
Albuquerque
There are checks and balances to the electoral college system as well. It helps prevent a the residents of a relatively few states from electing a president.

Trump won 30 states plus 1/3 of the Maine delegates and still lost the popular vote.

When Obama beat McCain he won by 10,000,000 votes, won the popular vote by 8% yet didn’t carry as many states as Trump did in 2016.

if you want to talk about disenfranchised votes
 

TampaBaySkers

Junior
Oct 30, 2010
1,691
2,193
113
Please, another false claim, stirred by extreme right media. BLM is not burning down cities. These are easily disproved falsehoods. I'm not the one regurgitating nonsense. I'm basing my information on facts. You don't like the left, so you allow your mind to be easily manipulated by whatever rightwing sources you digest. I'm not arguing that every single protest involving BLM has been peaceful. Nor am I saying that every single BLM protester is innocent of destroying property. What I am saying is that overwhelmingly BLM protesters have not broken any laws. This can and has been verified. Instead, rightwingers like you have taken the incidents where a BLM has engaged in violence, and conflated those incidents with Antifa. Suddenly, to your mind, it's all evil and the entirety of the country is on fire. Yet you make no mention of right wing militias, which have also contributed significantly to the violence. It's willful act of bias, which is made worse by your accusations that others are biased. Regarding your first question, what do we all have to share? How about we're all Americans, and presumably we all want a fairer, inclusive and prosperous nation. I am going to assume the right wants those things.
Ok.. overwhelmingly police are good people, but you want to lump them all as bad people. You are a giant hypocrite. Take a lap tool.
 

TampaBaySkers

Junior
Oct 30, 2010
1,691
2,193
113
There isn't much left for the Republicans to compromise on. This country legislatively has swung so far to the left that it's ridiculous. JFK would be considered a far right extremist if he were alive today.
The last democratic president that had the mentality of not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyLvr and bluenrg

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
There are checks and balances to the electoral college system as well. It helps prevent a the residents of a relatively few states from electing a president.

Trump won 30 states plus 1/3 of the Maine delegates and still lost the popular vote.

When Obama beat McCain he won by 10,000,000 votes, won the popular vote by 8% yet didn’t carry as many states as Trump did in 2016.

if you want to talk about disenfranchised votes
It's the difference between counting states and counting voters. They are not the same. Your assumption is that the electors represent the will of all voters in a given state. They don't. Under a popular voting system, the minority would still have their votes count. It is actually more representative.
 

Tuco Salamanca

Offensive Coordinator
Aug 18, 2016
9,389
12,222
113
Albuquerque
It's the difference between counting states and counting voters. They are not the same. Your assumption is that the electors represent the will of all voters in a given state. They don't. Under a popular voting system, the minority would still have their votes count. It is actually more representative.
It represents the will of the voters of that state. And you’re crazy if you think that the minority is going to be represented more with the popular vote. The citizens of Wyoming Montana the Dakotas, they may as well not even vote. The suburbs of LA alone would cancel out those votes.

Lastly if the Republicans wanted it abolished previously, as you say, and the Democrats want to abolish now, that tells me that the system is working just as it should. No one has an advantage
 

TampaBaySkers

Junior
Oct 30, 2010
1,691
2,193
113
The electoral college is a vestige of slavery, I assume you know that, right? People in rural states cling to the notion that it prevents states like California, NY and Texas from deciding the outcome of presidential elections, but they ignore the fact that it gives undue weight to some rural states over more populated states. In other words, one vote from a Nebraskan is the equivalent of several dozen votes of a Texan. If that still seems like a reasonable system, then consider that it wasn't always the Democrats winning the popular vote. There was a time not so long ago that the situation was reversed. The point is, you can't argue out of one side of your mouth that we live in a democracy, while celebrating the manipulation of that system to benefit a minority of voters. Why, because it won't always be as it is now. Roles reverse. Furthermore, your point that family and friends of yours have stopped voting because they're convinced that California is blue and will remain that way. For what its worth, the same is true in Texas for Democrats. I would argue this is yet another failing of the electoral college. People who live in states that reliably vote red or blue rightly understand that if they are in the minority their vote is for naught. How can you argue that this is a functioning system? And lastly, Roberts has been consistently conservative in his opinions with very few exceptions. Why are you focusing on just the handful of opinions you don't like? A court that leans too far one direction or the other will eventually lose credibility with the public. I realize you are a very conservative person, but not everyone in this country shares your views. Compromise is the genius of the American system. The one time compromise failed we had a civil war. You can scream at the top of your lungs all day long that this country has veered hard left, but the fact of the matter is power has shifted between the two parties for decades. Social issues have shifted to the left, then again what is your basis for comparison? What period of time in American history was better socially, according to you? Of course politically, conservatives have dominated the state and local landscape and largely redrawn the maps to ensure their dominance. You engage in nonstop whataboutisms. What about the dems? What about Hillary? You condone extremism on the right because you've made up your mind that liberals either have or would do the same given the chance. You claim to be a religious person, and yet in life you argue in favor of doing as much damage as possible to others just in case they might do it to you first. That's a paranoid way to live your life, man.
Try using paragraphs next time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HuskerO

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
The last democratic president that had the mentality of not what the country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.
The Republican party has gone all in on a guy who represents no one but himself.
Ok.. overwhelmingly police are good people, but you want to lump them all as bad people. You are a giant hypocrite. Take a lap tool.
Okay, buddy, settle down. I didn't say all police are bad people. Still, more than 700 people have been killed by police this year. Because I don't know the facts of every single shooting death I will assume that more often than not the police were acting appropriately. But there are plenty of incidents where that has not been the case. Moreover, the data shows a disproportionate number of those deaths involve persons of color. I'm not passing judgement. Let the facts be considered, and justice be done if that is what is called for. By contrast, you're laying out blanket statements about BLM and police. You've already made up your mind, and I guarantee you don't have all the fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VandallHuskerJulie

jrhuskerdad

Redshirt Freshman
Jan 9, 2011
871
605
93
I love it when people resort to insults. It means you've got nothing left in the tank.
Right! Clearly nothing left in the tank. I say the same thing every time Trump says "Sleepy Joe" or "Crooked Hillary" or "Mini Mike" or "Little Marco" or "Cryin' Chuck" or "Shifty Schiff."
 

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
Right! Clearly nothing left in the tank. I say the same thing every time Trump says "Sleepy Joe" or "Crooked Hillary" or "Mini Mike" or "Little Marco" or "Cryin' Chuck" or "Shifty Schiff."
Right, it's like I can't win on the merits of my arguments, so I'll just insult you instead.
 
Nov 23, 2003
1,504
298
83
While the Senate does give disproportionate weight to smaller population states, it's baked into the system of checks and balances. I'm not making an argument to unravel our system of government, which is apparently the question you're asking. I'm arguing that our method for electing a president is antiquated and disenfranchises tens of millions of voters. Why shouldn't all votes be counted? Ours is a system that discourages voting on both sides of the political divide. I think that's a bad thing. Listen, this might be a terrible analogy, but to put this in football terms. I remember feeling very uncomfortable with upending the traditional bowl system. My thought was that you could never really decide the true winner with a playoff. There are just too many variables, too many good teams left out in the cold. On the other hand, the old system was antiquated. It left it up to a bunch of sports writers and coaches to decide the champion, instead of letting the kids settle it on the field. I'm saying let the voters decide.

Ok, so I'm assuming that you also then want to get rid of the primary's that determine candidates based off of delegates?

Do you think that Bernie Sander's supporters think they are represented fairly? He had 900 delegates to Bidens 1100 when he dropped out. Those people's votes didnt count according to your logic. Why not let them vote in November for Bernie? I mean, he's not really a Democrat anyway. He should be running under the Democratic Socialist party that he actually represents.

But the Democrats dont want that, because they know they'd never win if they split off 45% (according to the primaries) into another party.

So if this is truly about letting "every vote count", then we need to really make every vote count and stop forcing the voters into a two party system.
 
Last edited:

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
Ok, so I'm assuming that you also then want to get rid of the primary's that determine candidates based off of delegates?

Do you think that Bernie Sander's supporters think they are represented fairly? He had 900 delegates to Bidens 1100 when he dropped out. Those people's votes didnt count according to your logic. Why not let them vote in December for Bernie? I mean, he's not really a Democrat anyway. He should be running under the Democratic Socialist party that he actually represents.

But the Democrats dont want that, because they know they'd never win if they split off 45% (according to the primaries) into another party.

So if this is truly about letting "every vote count", then we need to really make every vote count and stop forcing the voters into a two party system.
okay.
 

wkato

Sophomore
Dec 23, 2006
1,275
823
113
The Republican party has gone all in on a guy who represents no one but himself.
Democrat party has gone all in on a guy who doesn't even know himself and likes to sniff people! Imagine your stance if Trump was filmed doing that over and over like Biden. Crazy isn't it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GammaxuvirHusker

Capdanjou

Redshirt Freshman
Sep 14, 2020
589
383
63
Democrat party has gone all in on a guy who doesn't even know himself and likes to sniff people! Imagine your stance if Trump was filmed doing that over and over like Biden. Crazy isn't it?
First of all, you're assuming I support Biden. Secondly, it seems you're supporting a guy accused by multiple women of rape. A guy who has spent the entirety of his adult life being sued by friends and foes. But honestly, I don't want to engage in this tit for tat about the relative grotesqueries of Trump and Biden. I do not defend Biden. Why are you defending Trump?
 

TampaBaySkers

Junior
Oct 30, 2010
1,691
2,193
113
The Republican party has gone all in on a guy who represents no one but himself.

Okay, buddy, settle down. I didn't say all police are bad people. Still, more than 700 people have been killed by police this year. Because I don't know the facts of every single shooting death I will assume that more often than not the police were acting appropriately. But there are plenty of incidents where that has not been the case. Moreover, the data shows a disproportionate number of those deaths involve persons of color. I'm not passing judgement. Let the facts be considered, and justice be done if that is what is called for. By contrast, you're laying out blanket statements about BLM and police. You've already made up your mind, and I guarantee you don't have all the fact.
The facts don’t say that at all. I know you’re a truth over facts kind of guy, but c’mon man.

BLM violence has costs people their lives. Surely you condemn BLM violence and riots, correct?
 

jmliehr

First Team All-Big Ten
Nov 1, 2009
3,991
2,397
113
it’s just two groups warring for power, the Democrats will do everything to stall a vote from the house side, including another potential impeachment effort which forces the senate to try that rather than vote on a new justice.

They all act like petulant children, 2016 was the first grenade. Both sides continue to fight to erode our checks and balances and engage in winner take all politics. Democrats have moved away from worker protections and more central leanings to their current positions. Republicans have sold their souls to the wealthy to get their way.

I see little hope for the future of our country, the demographics are shifting leftward in thought and the right is so terrified that they are giving up the thin layer of integrity they had remaining. There’s blood across both sides, and while we fought over the building of a wall on a border we all ignore the wall being built between us as Americans, beyond ignoring we are helping them build it. Just the way Russia and China want, a house divided cannot stand.
 

jmliehr

First Team All-Big Ten
Nov 1, 2009
3,991
2,397
113
The facts don’t say that at all. I know you’re a truth over facts kind of guy, but c’mon man.

BLM violence has costs people their lives. Surely you condemn BLM violence and riots, correct?
Protests existed long before and will remain long after the BLM movement. There are longstanding issues in this country that flare up, just as they have in decades past. But just as it’s easy and wrong for the left to blanket blame cops and call them all bad, it’s easy and wrong of the right to attribute all violence and riots to BLM. Both sides are stoking the fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rednwash
Nov 23, 2003
1,504
298
83
Trying to explain to slow learners? Yes, I am. Live on in ignorance, it is your right. But know this, history does not remember morons kindly. When the history books are written and generations from now people look back on the present, you will be among counted among the dunces.
Assuming this means you are talking about my perceived ignorance? Please humor me and educate me.

How can you be an advocate for a popular vote in the presidential election? When those presidential candidates haven't been selected in the same manner?
 
  • Like
Reactions: OzzyLvr

PvilleHuskerTim

Walk On
Jun 21, 2001
480
397
63
Right! Clearly nothing left in the tank. I say the same thing every time Trump says "Sleepy Joe" or "Crooked Hillary" or "Mini Mike" or "Little Marco" or "Cryin' Chuck" or "Shifty Schiff."
Just so we are all clear, you have the same opinion of the Left when they call every person who disagrees with them "Hitler" or "Stalin" or "Putin's Puppet" or "Smelly Walmart Shoppers"? You just inadvertently forgot to include that in your response, I assume?
 

RedMyMind

Blackshirt
Aug 22, 2017
3,427
3,395
113
My favorite neurotic leftist faction are the vegans. Like watching Jerry Springer.
 

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,963
2,790
113
Newt would be 81 in 24...lets get away from super old white guys and get the number a little lower with people who are still with it mentally
Cruz will never be president. JMO, but 2024 for the Republicans is already down to Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Ben Sasse, and Rand Paul on the libertarian end of the party.
 

GammaxuvirHusker

Redshirt Freshman
Dec 8, 2014
561
753
93
Cruz will never be president. JMO, but 2024 for the Republicans is already down to Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Ben Sasse, and Rand Paul on the libertarian end of the party.
Ben Sasse? You must be joking? He wouldn't get my vote in the primaries. Neither would Haley.

Tim Scott - I could see myself voting for him.

Rand Paul - will never happen. Too many low info voters.

Cruz - IMO he'd be president right now if Trump hadn't run. I think he has an excellent shot at being president one day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoelBittner

Crazyhole

Junior
Jun 4, 2004
1,963
2,790
113
Ben Sasse? You must be joking? He wouldn't get my vote in the primaries. Neither would Haley.

Tim Scott - I could see myself voting for him.

Rand Paul - will never happen. Too many low info voters.

Cruz - IMO he'd be president right now if Trump hadn't run. I think he has an excellent shot at being president one day.
Not joking about Sasse at all. We would be coming out of 8 straight years of a cult-of-personality president and people will be worn out from that. Sasse is the steady likeable type that comes across as knowing his stuff and that works in his favor. Haley is in that same mold. Paul will always be popular among the libertarian wing of the party so he's a player as long as he wants to be. Probably will never win, but still influential in a smaller field.
 

Latest posts