Let's get rid of the Electoral College

@Fountofwisdom,

Quote:

Banning alcohol is a huge task. The Americans did it

Anybody who tried that here wouldn't last five minutes after HM the Queen did an emergengy broadcast.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Spendius wrote:

Quote:

I don't know what that means Frank. I wasn't complaining about anything. What are you suggesting I was complaining about? There is no fire to add fuel to as far as I can see.

Yes, you were Spendius...and so was Fount.

But apparently you want to play a game rather than really discuss things here, so maybe it's best to just let you play.

But you and Fount right now are posting post after post berating the Americans here for "going straight to abuse" rather than having a civilized discussion.

Here I am trying to engage in a serious discussion of the fact that both of you are engaging in lots of provocative commentary...which seems to be to be aimed at getting respondents to do exactly that...

...and rather than engaging me in discussion on that, you are denying that it is occurring.

Do what you asked me to do, Spendius...read what you are writing. You will see that it is happening.

The general tone of almost everything you are posting right now is mocking and dismissive.

You agreed with Founts comments...and then wrote: "I have found that to be very true in my four years on A2K. I never really liked to mention it so bluntly because I'm very polite and tolerant.”

Or how about these two beauties:

"But A2K is not America. It's urban lower-middle chattering class America."

"But the nation is built now. More or less."

Have your fun if you want...but I was taking you two seriously...and trying to respond with some sort of decency...and now I am charged with doing more of what you accusing the others of doing.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Spendious,
is a rotter a person or a thing that rots ?

No. The problem is that they don't rot. If they did one would only need to drum one's fingers on the table and exercise
a degree of patience. Having a scented spray can handy of course.

Is a rotter like a blighter ?

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

No. A blighter is more like a critter. An asshole is nearer.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Dave--
why do you spell value, emotions, regional, nation, group, chooses, true and new as you du?

Shouldn't they be valu, eemoshuns, reegional, nayshun, grup, chuses, tru and nu?

Why are you discriminating against "you". Is it an affectation?

No: it is that I am not entirely constant in my display
of better ways to spell. It has never been my intention
to show the most perfect n definitive way to spell foneticly.

I am very willing to let those who will follow in the future
polish up the concept of ideal fonetic spelling. I am only offering
a modest effort to demonstrate flaws of reasoning
and inefficiencies that we shoud improve.

HOWEVER, I have found it necessary to modify this somewhat
under some circumstances, the better to make either complex
or very controversial points. Additionally, I feel a need to keep
what I have been doing within reason because I don 't want to
drive everyone crazy with it, worse than I already have.

Other times, I just feel tired in typing; sometimes have fallen asleep.
For most of the years of my life I have spelled conventionally.
Subsequently, I felt guilty, complicit in perpetuationg non-fonetic spelling;
i.e., I knew that I was part of the problem.

Therefore, I am a little ashamed to say that I have taken
a liberal position as to fonetic spelling; a deviation therefrom.

I agree that:
valu, eemoshuns, reegional, nayshun, grup, chuses, tru and nu
r better spelled as u have done than as I have.

Qua the word "you" it was my reasoning
that only the last letter thereof was functionally operative,
the same as that only the center letter of "are" is operative n functional.
I am trying to imply n to demonstrate that (especially for the sake of posterity)
we shoud accept a paradime of brevity.
I used to spell woud, coud n shoud "wud, cud, n shud"
inasmuch as I sought to delete the useless Ls
and also to make each word as short as possible,
but I got so many complaints of irritation, that I compromized
by restoring the O in each of those words; that may be arguable;
Ls r not arguable; not plausible; maybe in the days of Chaucer; not now.

I hope that I have made sense.
If u have any other questions about it, I 'll be glad to explain my practice.

Its nice of u to ask.

David

0 Replies

@Fountofwisdom,

Fountofwisdom wrote:

Quote:
I find your idea of credibility analysis absurd.

I see; therefore, if u find that a man has lied to u,
u disagree with me
that he has been discovered to be a man that lies to u
and your confidence in his veracity will remain unaffected.
Did i get that right ?

Quote:
You ask me a question. I answer it.

No u did not. That is a FALSE statement.
U STILL have not revealed on WHICH test
u scored the alleged "160" so that it can be understood.
When people make utterances,
those who HEAR them
must decide whether to invest their credence, or not.

Quote:
You answer none of the points I make.

I don 't remember failing to do that.
If u tell me what thay were,
then I will answer them. I don t believe that there were any.

Quote:
I told you I dont believe in IQ tests: I think they are a stupid idea.

Yet, u intentionally TOOK at least one of them.
Y did u DO so, in contemplation of your belief that thay r a stupid idea ?

Quote:
I believe the test are designed (in England)
that 140 represent the top 5%. 160 the top 2%.

Really ?
To which test are u referring ?

Quote:
My argument was that you were arguing
I was too stupid to understand the system.

Do u mean the American political system ?

or the I.Q. rating system ?
I 'd be willing to bet that u 'd be able to understand either
of them, if u study either one of them.
I did not argue that u were too stupid to understand either system.

Quote:
Therefore if someone who is objectively classed as intelligent cant understand it,
then it is too complicated to qualify as a democracy.

At no time from the Beginning of the World
until and including this moment, has America been a democracy.

Quote:
You resort to abuse.

WHICH abuse was that ?

Quote:
You do not argue logically.

U r perfectly free to point out any imperfections in my logic.
I await.

Quote:
You are incapable of making a sensible point.

1 ) "Sensible" is a subjective word, subject only to your ungoverned emotions.

2 ) How do U know of what I am capable ?

Quote:
From these I conclude you are stupid.

My clients did not think so.
Thay were exuberant with the results of my professional work
(which was not inexpensive).

Quote:
At least you stand your ground.Which is to your credit.

Y not ?
What do I have to lose ?

Quote:
Now what I suggest is this.
You stop trying to bully me: it won't work. Stop the abuse.

That 's IMPOSSIBLE.
That 's like suggesting that I stop beating my wife.
I have never been married and I never bullied u,
therefore, I cannot stop.

David

0 Replies

This goes for Frank and OmSig: You both put up lengthy posts: which do not include the words America or Electoral college.
This is why I can't discuss the point. I have posted criticisms of the system and proposed alternatives.
Satans anus mocked the idea that America could have an Election in 3 months. Countries like India do it in less.
My main propositons are these: the system is broke, so needs fixing.
Having a system that disenfranchises people (republicans in D.C.,Democrats in Oklahoma.) etc. leads to disenchantment.
Arguing history is piffle: a 200 year old system needs updating.
The system needs speeding up. No private firm would have a system that takes over a year to change CEO.
Democracy is what I'm proposing. I consider the sense of this to be self evident.

2 Replies

@Fountofwisdom,

Fount, you wrote:

Quote:

This goes for Frank and OmSig: You both put up lengthy posts: which do not include the words America or Electoral college.

You are absolutely correct in this.

I came to the thread late. When reading it, I saw post from Set, Spendius, and OmSigDavid. We go way back…and I tried to reintroduce myself in what I considered a humorous way.

Then I noticed the anti-American jabs…the frequent comments from you and Spendius pretty much excoriating Americans and doing your level best to bring out the worst in the American posters…and I mentioned it. Now we’ve bantered that matter back and forth…so you are correct…I should leave that be and comment on the thread’s reason for being.

I prefer that the Electoral College remain. I am bugged that it gives the people in smaller states greater say in the election process…but it is a price I think the country can afford in order to keep away from the excesses that I think would result from its elimination. The kinds of ballot stuffing that can influence an election with the Electoral College in place seem, in my opinion, to be less a problem than they would be with the system changed.

I have no problem understanding why some feel otherwise…and I respect their views. But my vote would be to keep the Electoral College in place.

1 Reply

@Fountofwisdom,

Fountofwisdom wrote:

Quote:
This goes for Frank and OmSig:
You both put up lengthy posts:
which do not include the words America or Electoral college.
This is why I can't discuss the point.

THIS is from the girl who bitterly complains
that we have failed to adddress her arguments.
By your quitting the intellectual battlefield and running away
u prove the absence of sincerity in the posts to which I have responded.
U prove that u r unwilling to take responsibility for your
posted positions and to either defend them, explain them,
or admit that thay have been disproven.
U will accuse me of "abuse" when I point out
that u have taken the coward 's way out, by your default.
It (negatively) affects your corespondent 's ability to take u seriously.
The alternative is to either (figuratively) pat u on the head
like a baby who is just learning to toddle,
or to Ignore u, as being unworthy of debate
because u don 't answer. U don t stand your ground (defensively)
and u don 't admit that u were rong.
If your points were OFF TOPIC, then u shoud not have raised them,
but having done so, u shoud take responsibility for them.
Each point that I addressed was YOUR brainchild.

In the post that u have refused to answer,
I only addressed YOUR POINTs; those that u raised
in YOUR post. Your refusal to answer is intellectually dishonest
and transparent, for all to see. It woud be HONEST
if u simply admitted that u were rong.

Quote:

I have posted criticisms of the system and proposed alternatives.

I addressed them dispositively. Did u forget ?
I pointed out that the small states were given this advantage
in the bargain, which served as an inducement for them to join the USA,
and that thay were and are intellingent enuf that thay will NOT
relinquish their political advantage. America has never pretended
to be a democracy; it is NOT a democracy.
U persist in arguing as if it were a democracy.

Quote:
Satans anus [this is from the girl who complains of "abuse"]
mocked the idea that America could have an Election in 3 months.

I have already informed u that I have this guy on Ignore;
that is because I desire to IGNORE him, not to discuss him.
I deem him to bes a churlish jerk and I don 't care WHAT
he thinks about anything.
Will u please stop bringing him up
in posts that u direct to ME.

Quote:
Countries like India do it in less.

I don 't give a damn.
I m not an Indian.
We r not running a race here
to see how FAST we can elect politicians.

Quote:
My main propositons are these: the system is broke, so needs fixing.

MIne are:
the system is NOT broken,
so don 't fix it, altho I expect imminent catastrophe
at the hands of the marxist that was elected 2 months ago.

Quote:

Having a system that disenfranchises people
(republicans in D.C.,Democrats in Oklahoma.) etc.
leads to disenchantment.

I am not disenfranchized.
I have no need to be enchanted.

Quote:
Arguing history is piffle:
a 200 year old system needs updating.

That is your naked, subjective opinion,
in the absence of thoughtful factual analysis.
Enduring truths of principle (such as those enshrined in the Constituion)
usually do not need "updating." When we choose to do so,
we can rely upon its Article 5.

Quote:
The system needs speeding up.

The hell, it does.
I want the electorate to have plenty of time
to get to know the candidates and their respective positions.
We r not running a race,
and we have plenty of time. We have no need for speed.

Quote:

No private firm would have a system that takes over a year to change CEO.

So WHAT ?

Quote:
Democracy is what I'm proposing.
I consider the sense of this to be self evident.

Democracy is what I am rejecting.
I consider that to be self evident.

David

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

To be fair Britian also suffers from imbalances, Scotland has a greater representation in the british parliament: partly to stop them claiming Independence. This leads to the bizarre situation of Scots voting for education to be free in Scotland but not in England. It is certainly a bone of contention.
Because Scotland has a much more left wing politics than England, this means our government is slightly more likely to go Labour than Conservative.
I would accept that there is an anti American slant to some of what I say,partly this is mischevious, partly to stimulate debate and partly to annoy the opponents.
However I do not descend to personal abuse, I poke fun at America and its president.
The only exception to this is the poisonous Satans anus, who responded to reasonable posts with vitriol over a long period.
Partly I would say that I have enough faith in people to understand that they will ignore the worst parts of any constitution, and have their own system for maintaining some kind of Democracy. For instance republicans in California are different to say those in Montana.

2 Replies

@Fountofwisdom,

Fountofwisdom wrote:

Quote:
To be fair Britian also suffers from imbalances,
Scotland has a greater representation in the british parliament:
partly to stop them claiming Independence.

I thought that the King of Scotland had inherited England.

Quote:
This leads to the bizarre situation of Scots voting for education
to be free in Scotland but not in England. It is certainly a bone of contention.
Because Scotland has a much more left wing politics than England,

I m sad to hear that.
I rather like the Scotch.

Quote:
this means our government is slightly more likely to go Labour than Conservative.
I would accept that there is an anti American slant to some of what I say,
partly this is mischevious, partly to stimulate debate and partly to annoy the opponents.
However I do not descend to personal abuse, I poke fun at America and its president.

Then I misundestood u.
I recognize some of my own traits refleted in what u represented
about yourself.

Quote:

Partly I would say that I have enough faith in people to nderstand that
they will ignore the worst parts of any constitution,
and have their own system for maintaining some kind of Democracy.

That is egregious in the extreme: ineffable anathema;
TREASON against the citizens.

I expect to see a lot of that in America, in the near future.

David

0 Replies

@Fountofwisdom,

Fount wrote:

Quote:

I would accept that there is an anti American slant to some of what I say,partly this is mischevious, partly to stimulate debate and partly to annoy the opponents.
However I do not descend to personal abuse, I poke fun at America and its president.

Respectfully as possible, Fount, I think it is a great deal more than that...although I can understand you being more comfortable characterizing it this way that dealing with the actuality. In fact, I would say there is an anti-American slant to ALMOST EVERYTHING you write.

By descending to "poking fun" (it is a great deal more than that!) at America with the stridency and frequency that you do...you are, in effect, getting into very personal abuse. America...as is England…is a collection of people. You cannot really insult America without personally insulting all of its citizens. In fact, you and Spendius both generalize about Americans when presenting your insults...speaking about “Americans” not about “America”…which accounts for my initial off topic remarks.

Normally, I would just leave this be and attribute it to a form of ignorance...but you have made a point about your intelligence...and Spendius goes out of his way to highlight his intelligence...and this kind of bullshit really is beneath intelligence of the quality you both supposedly possess.

Unless, of course, to paraphrase something Spendius said about the Americans posting here in A2K...you two don't properly represent intellectual England...and are merely representative of British “urban lower-middle chattering class.”

Is that it, Fount? Or are you an intelligent individual who can do much, much better than I’ve seen in the several threads where I’ve seen you post"and who is, for whatever reasons, trying to exhibit your basest self?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You misunderstand the British concept of understatement. It is a subtle way of emphasising things: Like describing the KKK as a less than entirely PC organisation. Or George Bush as not one of the world's greatest intellects.
In fact overstatement is normally in jest. Its so unbritish.

1 Reply

@Fountofwisdom,

Fountofwisdom wrote:

You misunderstand the British concept of understatement. It is a subtle way of emphasising things: Like describing the KKK as a less than entirely PC organisation. Or George Bush as not one of the world's greatest intellects.
In fact overstatement is normally in jest. Its so unbritish.

I observe very little of this "British concept of understatement" in your posts. On the contrary, you are merely insulting, evasive and superficial. I would be willing to grant you credit for the self-described "attempts to stimulate debate" if there was anything of real substance or that was truly intellectually stimulating in your posts. Unfortunately there is neither.

You have described yourself as unusually intelligent. While that itself is a bit unusual, I find no evidence to support this thesis in what you have given us here.

1 Reply

I see that the Fountain has had the Wisdom
to flee before my scrutiny. She did not even reply to my short easy
response to her, LET ALONE my more meticulous examination
of her failures to respond to my earlier answers to the points that she raised,
(trying to hide behind her sham off topic defense)
as I indicated in my LONGER post.

Miss Wisdom has simply turned her back, thrown up her hands,
and run away, as fast as her (figurative) feet coud carry her.

A more responsible and more HONORABLE contributor
woud have just answered both of my posts in a forthright manner.

The penalty for failing to do so,
is being assessed as a person who is (demonstratively) unworthy
of being taken seriously any more.

David

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

and Spendius goes out of his way to highlight his intelligence...

Is there something wrong with that Frank?

Are we to assume you go out of your way to delicately hide your's and that you therefore have hidden depths which you are holding in reserve like shy young ladies do. Most psychologists will tell you that that is ego and misplaced pride. Were the "hundreds of letters" you have had published written down to disguise your intelligence? You're the bullshitter.

I go out of my way to make valid points. The allegation you make is simply the inverted snob's method of pretending to have dealt with the points when you haven't. Somebody hits a home run and up you pop. "He's going out of his way to show off." What utter arseholery. Deeply un-American. Saves you hitting home runs yourself.

And I went out of my way to distinguish between Americans and the handful on here who are trying to push an anti-American agenda with atheism and evolution. You even noticed it yourself. And yet you proceed as if you haven't.

And then you go sneaky. With a flick of the wrist you try to associate me with Fountie and I have disagreed with her about the EC. And I have ribbed her too. Some might say unmercifully. But she hasn't whinged. She isn't looking for insults under every doillie and behind every bush. I've criticised her saying your system produces "dud" presidents. I thought you thought it did that as well. I don't think that it does. And I'm on the record saying so.

I have no responsibility for anything Fountie says and nor has she for anything I say. And after that gratuitous smear you accuse me of gratuitously insulting people. No wonder she takes the view she does. She mistakenly takes you for a typical American maybe but you are not. Your profile shows that.

And I am well aware that I don't represent anybody but myself despite you fantasising that I do. And I have never claimed to. Most of my ideas are derived from American authors. And I don't "supposedly possess" any quality in regard to anything.

Your post amply justifies everything Fountie has said. It is neat crap from start to finish. It is a justification for having an Electoral College.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Learn to read: IN FACT OVERSTATEMENT IS USUALLY IN JEST; ITS SO UNBRITISH.
It is too subtle for you to understand take a couple of days. figure it out.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

How do you know I don't agree with everything you said.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I see that the Fountain has had the Wisdom
to flee before my scrutiny.

Hang on Dave. She might have gone under a bus. Or be in a four-poster with a couple of steel workers. She might be taking cups of soup round to the homeless. I think you are being a bit premature.

I hardy think you've said anything to cause her to flee. She seems made of sterner stuff than that. She might be in a power cut.

2 Replies

@spendius,

Spendi: I have never claimed to agree with all you say, merely that what you say is to the point, logically argued and not riddled with idiotic abuse.
Even if it is wrong.
It is even at some points entertaining and informative, which is a bonus.

2 Replies

Let's get rid of the Electoral College

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know