If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Well, voter ID didn't work. Banning early and extended voting didn't work. I guess we'll just have to make those pesky urban votes worth less than Real American votes are   (slate.com) divider line 143
    More: Obvious, real Americans, GOP, voter ID, Stanley Kurtz, Appalachia  
•       •       •

6883 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Dec 2012 at 5:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-12 03:22:36 PM
According to Stanley Kurtz, the author of Radical-in-Chief and Spreading the Wealth, Obama is using the powers of the federal government to pull people and money out of the suburbs and into the cities. "Although it remains almost totally unknown to the public," writes Kurtz in the second book, "a great deal of Obama's early political career was devoted to the goal of abolishing America's suburbs, a project he undertook in close collaboration with his Alinskyite organizing mentors."


Of course it remains almost totally unknown to the public -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP.
 
2012-12-12 03:29:35 PM
It's no secret that the GOP hates democracy. It's because they suck at it so badly.
 
2012-12-12 03:29:44 PM
I don't think that's really Brack Obama in that picture.
 
2012-12-12 03:30:34 PM
If you can't win, change the rules.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-12 03:40:20 PM
The GOP seems to almost be trying to pull off a coup. A judicial coup, but same thing really.

I know people who wish some general would seize power and get rid of Obama. I am wondering how rare those people are now.
 
2012-12-12 03:41:55 PM
On Monday, as Sen. Carrico was talking up his bill, the Pew Research Center brought together a group of secretaries of state and campaign strategists. The topic: Whether the voting snafus of 2012 could be fixed. Democrats were interested. Republicans wanted to slow down and really think about this. Did urbanites have a harder time voting? Yes. Did that hurt Democrats? Well, sure.

"I don't hold out any hope that there's going to be a bipartisan agreement," said Scott Tranter, who'd consulted for the Romney campaign. "At the end of the day, we're all campaign officials, and we want to do whatever we can to help our side. Sometimes that's voter ID. Sometimes that's longer lines. Whatever it may be."


Isn't partisan control of elections great?

 
2012-12-12 03:50:33 PM
This guy may be onto something. But how much less, is the question. If I may, I propose that we make "urban" votes worth 3/5 of a "Real AmericanTM" vote. What do y'all think?
 
2012-12-12 03:51:49 PM
Obama's desire to abort every child and make every old person into a filling gruel is also almost totally unknown to the public.
 
2012-12-12 03:56:15 PM

BSABSVR: Obama's desire to abort every child and make every old person into a filling gruel is also almost totally unknown to the public.


Just like that Kenyan bastard to fill us full of stringy old people instead of fresh, sweet, tender aborted babyflesh.
 
2012-12-12 03:59:00 PM

gilgigamesh: BSABSVR: Obama's desire to abort every child and make every old person into a filling gruel is also almost totally unknown to the public.

Just like that Kenyan bastard to fill us full of stringy old people instead of fresh, sweet, tender aborted babyflesh.


The old people gruel is free, but they sell the baby flesh to give people something to strive for.
 
2012-12-12 04:00:24 PM
Why doesn't he just come out and say that he wants to count urban people as 3/5s of a person?
 
2012-12-12 04:04:11 PM

vpb: The GOP seems to almost be trying to pull off a coup. A judicial coup, but same thing really.


The GOP is 1 for 1 in judicial coup d'etats, so you can't blame them.

/Came here to make the 3/5ths joke, glad to see someone beat me to it.
 
2012-12-12 04:09:44 PM

vpb: The GOP seems to almost be trying to pull off a coup. A judicial coup, but same thing really.


DjangoStonereaver: The GOP is 1 for 1 in judicial coup d'etats, so you can't blame them.


ahem, 1 for 2. they impeached clinton but he was acquitted by the senate.
 
2012-12-12 04:11:30 PM
That's such utter bullsh*t. It's damn near traitorous.
 
2012-12-12 04:11:39 PM
Obama is using the powers of the federal government to pull people and money out of the suburbs and into the cities. "Although it remains almost totally unknown to the public,"

This is already happening. They're building a Wal-Mart not far from my house. Wake up, sheeple!
 
2012-12-12 04:13:51 PM
So Romney won the popular vote in Virginia? Is that why the rural districts feel cheated?

Why else would you need to change it? Why not just get rid of electoral votes and just go by popular vote?
 
2012-12-12 04:14:43 PM

hillbillypharmacist: That's such utter bullsh*t. It's damn near traitorous.


It's not treason if it's done to benefit Real Americans.

It's not quite as patriotic as secession, though.
 
2012-12-12 04:15:44 PM
Ah yes, the Gentry. They are better than the rest of us.

Carrico's solution: Make the rural vote matter more and make the metro vote count less. His bill, SB273, would assign 11 of Virginia's electoral votes to its 11 congressional districts. The state's two remaining votes would go to whoever received the "highest number of votes in a majority of congressional districts."

So ... tie electoral votes to Congressional Districts. That were gerrymandered. To produce a GOP majority in the House of Representatives.
 
2012-12-12 04:17:23 PM
Derptastic.
 
2012-12-12 04:18:10 PM
Here's how State Senator Charles Carrico explains it.

People in my district - they feel discouraged by coming out because their votes don't mean anything if they're outvoted in metropolitan districts. It can go either way - it doesn't necessarily mean that one political party is going to be favored over another.

Oh, you feel discouraged! Your vote doesn't mean anything if more people disagree with you than agree! Oh, let us hold this poor dear's hand and make sure that his vote means something! Which means necessarily simply asking him who he wants to be elected and the majority be damned!
 
2012-12-12 04:23:11 PM

hillbillypharmacist: Here's how State Senator Charles Carrico explains it.

People in my district - they feel discouraged by coming out because their votes don't mean anything if they're outvoted in metropolitan districts. It can go either way - it doesn't necessarily mean that one political party is going to be favored over another.

Oh, you feel discouraged! Your vote doesn't mean anything if more people disagree with you than agree! Oh, let us hold this poor dear's hand and make sure that his vote means something! Which means necessarily simply asking him who he wants to be elected and the majority be damned!


Again, I think these people in power believe themselves to be superior to their constituents. They think they know best and their voters should be happy with that. They want less participation from these people, but not so little they can't continue to win elections. Rural voters are being had, sadly.
 
2012-12-12 04:47:54 PM
What could I possibly say to piss farkers off even more?
I know what will work....ANY DAMN THING
 
2012-12-12 04:53:36 PM
The OH Sec of State is trying this bullshiat as well.

Deer season is over now. I was so sorry to hear he hadn't accidentally been shot. Several times. Over and over again.
 
2012-12-12 04:55:41 PM
The GOP is going to be so butthurt if Democrats control the majority of states come redistricting time.
 
2012-12-12 05:02:18 PM
If the GOP put half as much effort into serving the public as they do trying to screw voters we may just be able to get shiat done in this country. But I guess that's too much to ask for.
 
2012-12-12 05:04:21 PM

jehovahs witness protection: What could I possibly say to piss farkers off even more?
I know what will work....ANY DAMN THING


You sound furrious. 
 
2012-12-12 05:06:21 PM
The self proclaimed "greatest democracy that ever freedomed" is having a public discussion about the fact they can't run an election without fraud.
 
2012-12-12 05:40:57 PM
So the party of personal responsibility, the party who rails against political correctness, the party of "you don't get a trophy just for participating" is saying that they want to change the rules of the game because their team lost and some people got their feelings hurt because people disagreed with them?
 
2012-12-12 05:58:40 PM
As the founding fathers intended.
 
2012-12-12 06:01:28 PM
If you can't win on your own merits, cheat.

That's pretty much it, right, GOPers?

Oh wait..you idiots still think Obama won because of voter fraud, so there's absolutely no use trying to talk to your derp ridden pasty white asses.
 
2012-12-12 06:01:40 PM

James!: jehovahs witness protection: What could I possibly say to piss farkers off even more?
I know what will work....ANY DAMN THING

You sound furrious.


He just wants his country back
 
2012-12-12 06:04:21 PM
So it's basically the electoral college system taken a step further. Like a double electoral college.
 
2012-12-12 06:04:24 PM

DjangoStonereaver: The GOP is 1 for 1 in judicial coup d'etats, so you can't blame them.


Coincidentally, that happened 12 years ago today.
 
2012-12-12 06:04:58 PM
The GOP sucks so hard, they suck the testicle out of the sack while tea bagging themselves.
 
2012-12-12 06:05:20 PM
The people that want to make voting more difficult in a society that votes for its leaders in some manner, hates the society they are in.

People that hate the society they are in have no business representing it.

People who keep voting for people who have no business representing society are idiots.
 
2012-12-12 06:08:39 PM
This idea was championed by Democrats when Republicans were kicking their teeth in.
 
2012-12-12 06:09:08 PM

zappaisfrank: If you can't win on your own merits, cheat.

That's pretty much it, right, GOPers?

Oh wait..you idiots still think Obama won because of voter fraud, so there's absolutely no use trying to talk to your derp ridden pasty white asses.


Well most of them feel the only reason Clinton won was Perot and that economic boom of the 90's was just Reaganomics taking hold. So dealing in reality isn't there strong suit to begin with
 
2012-12-12 06:09:58 PM

phaseolus: Of course it remains almost totally unknown to the public -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP.


GOP is proposing this in several states. Oddly, only in the "swing" states from this last election.

Mrbogey: This idea was championed by Democrats when Republicans were kicking their teeth in.


Don't you ever feel bad about lying/trolling?
 
2012-12-12 06:11:04 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: The people that want to make voting more difficult in a society that votes for its leaders in some manner, hates the society they are in.

alright, maybe.

People that hate the society they are in have no business representing it.

This one definitely makes no sense,
 
2012-12-12 06:13:18 PM

El_Perro: On Monday, as Sen. Carrico was talking up his bill, the Pew Research Center brought together a group of secretaries of state and campaign strategists. The topic: Whether the voting snafus of 2012 could be fixed. Democrats were interested. Republicans wanted to slow down and really think about this. Did urbanites have a harder time voting? Yes. Did that hurt Democrats? Well, sure.

"I don't hold out any hope that there's going to be a bipartisan agreement," said Scott Tranter, who'd consulted for the Romney campaign. "At the end of the day, we're all campaign officials, and we want to do whatever we can to help our side. Sometimes that's voter ID. Sometimes that's longer lines. Whatever it may be."

Isn't partisan control of elections great?


Holy crap. I didn't think they'd come right out and admit they deliberately acted to disenfranchise voters explicitly in order to improve their side's chances.
 
2012-12-12 06:14:03 PM

Holocaust Agnostic: Sock Ruh Tease:
People that hate the society they are in have no business representing it.

This one definitely makes no sense,


No kidding. How is one supposed to change a society they hate without representing the segment that agrees with them?
 
2012-12-12 06:14:04 PM
GOP strategist 1: We keep losing elections and the population is getting more and more liberal. Should we maybe think of some new ideas to appeal to more people so that we can remain relevant?

GOP strategist 2: Nah, let's undermine Democracy and try to rig things so that we can milk a few more elections without having to adapt.

Average American: I am so farked.
 
2012-12-12 06:15:06 PM

Satanic_Hamster: phaseolus: Of course it remains almost totally unknown to the public -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP.

GOP is proposing this in several states. Oddly, only in the "swing" states from this last election.

Mrbogey: This idea was championed by Democrats when Republicans were kicking their teeth in.

Don't you ever feel bad about lying/trolling?


I dont feel bad because I haven't lied. Sorry princess if the truth hurts your butt.
 
2012-12-12 06:15:22 PM

Mrbogey: This idea was championed by Democrats when Republicans were kicking their teeth in.


When? Citation, or you're lying.
 
2012-12-12 06:15:53 PM
we'll just have to make those pesky urban votes worth less than Real American votes are

They already are.
 
2012-12-12 06:16:33 PM
Republicans work hard to show the rest of the world what they really think of the Democratic process they enforce gently persuade on others through military conquest.
 
2012-12-12 06:18:44 PM
I know what we can do! Count urban voters as 3/5ths of a person, like the Founding Fathers intended.
 
2012-12-12 06:21:20 PM

vpb: The GOP seems to almost be trying to pull off a coup. A judicial coup, but same thing really.


This is happening in state legislatures, not courts.
 
2012-12-12 06:21:23 PM

naughtyrev: Why doesn't he just come out and say that he wants to count urban people as 3/5s of a person?


We've got four years, give 'em time.
 
2012-12-12 06:21:33 PM
Oh great. Another Fascist with a megaphone. Just what this country needs
 
ecl
2012-12-12 06:21:35 PM
Missouri Republicans have been championing the rural vote is worth more than urban for awhile. We have been racing for the bottom for a longggggg time.
 
2012-12-12 06:21:38 PM
The simple solution? Contact your state legislators and urge them to pass a bill that will award your state's EC votes to the winner of the national popular vote, effective only once states representing a majority of EC votes have pledged to do so as well.

Whiz, Bang, you got a national popular vote without having to get anything through our broken federal legislature.
 
2012-12-12 06:22:53 PM
WE GET IT.

HE'S BLACK.
 
2012-12-12 06:22:55 PM

Ambivalence: If the GOP put half as much effort into serving the public as they do trying to screw voters we may just be able to get shiat done in this country. But I guess that's too much to ask for.


Fecking this!
 
2012-12-12 06:23:48 PM
If you didn't see this coming, you're an idiot.
 
2012-12-12 06:24:46 PM

badLogic: I know what we can do! Count urban voters as 3/5ths of a person, like the Founding Fathers intended.


What about folks who are 1/2 urban? I was told there would be no farking math!

/fraction, how the fark do they work?
 
2012-12-12 06:24:54 PM

ecl: Missouri Republicans have been championing the rural vote is worth more than urban for awhile. We have been racing for the bottom for a longggggg time.


And it shows.

It still continues to amaze me how much power the rural areas of MO have on a state level compared to the urban areas of St. Louis and KC.
 
2012-12-12 06:25:59 PM
You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?
 
2012-12-12 06:26:53 PM

MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?


awww
where you goin'?
 
2012-12-12 06:27:08 PM
One more thing, government 'represents' the people. More people = more say in government. You can't proportionally award a handicap based on less of a population density.
 
2012-12-12 06:27:09 PM

MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?


How can I be anti-white? I'm white.
 
2012-12-12 06:27:56 PM
has anyone worked out what a metropolitian voter's vote would be effectively worth compared to the rest of the state, based on population ratios.

Would it be approximately 3/5ths?
 
2012-12-12 06:29:33 PM

MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?


Could you please hurry up and leave? The rest of us would like to continue progressing and not become pariahs on the world stage.
 
2012-12-12 06:29:51 PM

Mrtraveler01: MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?

How can I be anti-white? I'm white.


Oh, then you're a disingenuous white liberal.
 
2012-12-12 06:30:59 PM

AliceBToklasLives: badLogic: I know what we can do! Count urban voters as 3/5ths of a person, like the Founding Fathers intended.

What about folks who are 1/2 urban? I was told there would be no farking math!

/fraction, how the fark do they work?


I think they would invoke the one-drop rule here.
 
2012-12-12 06:31:18 PM

MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?


Um, republicans are not the standard bearers of whiteness.

Also, have fun in Somalia. America will be fine without you.
 
2012-12-12 06:31:34 PM

BuckTurgidson: we'll just have to make those pesky urban votes worth less than Real American votes are

They already are.


Now that we have computers and don't have to worry about actually finding seats for everybody in the same room, can we please get on with repealing Public Law 62-5 and allow more Representatives? It's pretty insulting that a handful of people in WY end up with and order-of-magnitude more representation than all of us in CA.

/bad enough we (and similar urban states) have to pay so much welfare to the fly-over states; their votes counting more is insane
 
2012-12-12 06:32:01 PM
Republicans seeking to take the vote from blacks? I am shocked.

Second, thanks for linking to a site featuring pictures of naked girls and women sitting in a tub on the side. You could get someone fired for that.
 
2012-12-12 06:33:05 PM

MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?


Man, what is going on today? You're the third person with whom I've had to bipass "derpy green" straight to "stormfront red".
 
2012-12-12 06:36:39 PM

MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?


8/10
 
2012-12-12 06:38:10 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: This guy may be onto something. But how much less, is the question. If I may, I propose that we make "urban" votes worth 3/5 of a "Real AmericanTM" vote. What do y'all think?


Vlad_the_Inaner: has anyone worked out what a metropolitian voter's vote would be effectively worth compared to the rest of the state, based on population ratios.

Would it be approximately 3/5ths?


naughtyrev: Why doesn't he just come out and say that he wants to count urban people as 3/5s of a person?


DjangoStonereaver: /Came here to make the 3/5ths joke, glad to see someone beat me to it.


Empty Matchbook: naughtyrev: Why doesn't he just come out and say that he wants to count urban people as 3/5s of a person?

We've got four years, give 'em time.


AliceBToklasLives: What about folks who are 1/2 urban? I was told there would be no farking math!

/fraction, how the fark do they work?


Vlad_the_Inaner: has anyone worked out what a metropolitian voter's vote would be effectively worth compared to the rest of the state, based on population ratios.

Would it be approximately 3/5ths?


For future reference, try this: ⅗.
 
2012-12-12 06:41:35 PM

MJMaloney187: Mrtraveler01: MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?

How can I be anti-white? I'm white.

Oh, then you're a disingenuous white liberal.


How am I disingenuous? 

Because I don't think rural voters are entitled to special treatment?
 
2012-12-12 06:42:42 PM

Rapmaster2000: Obama is using the powers of the federal government to pull people and money out of the suburbs and into the cities. "Although it remains almost totally unknown to the public,"

This is already happening. They're building a Wal-Mart not far from my house. Wake up, sheeple!


What these GOP idiots don't even understand (always being about 30 years behind in their mental stereotypes), is that the Blahs are moving out of the cities and into the suburbs. Hell, Washington, DC is almost no longer Chocolate City, since lots of young whites and Asians and Latinos are moving into Southwest DC,and the Blahs have been moving to PG County in Maryland for the last 30 years.

/So, GOP: suburbs are now "bad", urbans are now "good".
//well, not as 'good' as those dependably old white semi-rurals, but what the hell...
 
2012-12-12 06:43:37 PM
MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?



------------------------

Excuse me Titsy, but I am white and happen to be far less frightened by the fact that minorities have a say in this democracy than I am by the rhetoric coming from the Tea Party, which just happens to be all white. They talk about seccession. The last group of white supremacists who tried to secede got their shoeless asses stomped into the ground because they were too stupid to realize that you don't go to war with and industrializing neighbor while you have only 16 linear miles of railroad track laid.

Lazy hillbillies didn't have a mass exodus when we took their farm equipment away from them, they won't leave now, unfortunately. Where would you go? Everything NOT you apparently scares the bejeesus out of you. You're already right where you belong, in the world that you built: living in shiat stained red-states that take more from the Fed than they contribute, surrounded by trailers, meth addicts and Romney stickers. I guess if you're still flying the Confederate flag of the illiterate lazy assed loser, a Romney sticker does still make sense.
 
2012-12-12 06:47:03 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: This guy may be onto something. But how much less, is the question. If I may, I propose that we make "urban" votes worth 3/5 of a "Real AmericanTM" vote. What do y'all think?


That seems sensible and culturally acceptable. Who could possibly have a problem with that?
 
2012-12-12 06:47:20 PM

El_Perro: On Monday, as Sen. Carrico was talking up his bill, the Pew Research Center brought together a group of secretaries of state and campaign strategists. The topic: Whether the voting snafus of 2012 could be fixed. Democrats were interested. Republicans wanted to slow down and really think about this. Did urbanites have a harder time voting? Yes. Did that hurt Democrats? Well, sure.

"I don't hold out any hope that there's going to be a bipartisan agreement," said Scott Tranter, who'd consulted for the Romney campaign. "At the end of the day, we're all campaign officials, and we want to do whatever we can to help our side. Sometimes that's voter ID. Sometimes that's longer lines. Whatever it may be."

Isn't partisan control of elections great?


We're the only advanced nation that does that.

We sorely need to make some changes in the way we handle elections. There should be a national standard for federal elections, for instance.

Recommended reading on the subject:

media.oregonlive.com
 
2012-12-12 06:48:00 PM
udhq: MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?

Man, what is going on today? You're the third person with whom I've had to bipass "derpy green" straight to "stormfront red".



----------------------------

I thought it was just me. I've seen four or so today that I've never seen before. Out of nowhere they are all over a bunch of different threads herping the derp. Probably some new division of NewsCorp.
 
2012-12-12 06:49:30 PM

Insatiable Jesus: udhq: MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?

Man, what is going on today? You're the third person with whom I've had to bipass "derpy green" straight to "stormfront red".



----------------------------

I thought it was just me. I've seen four or so today that I've never seen before. Out of nowhere they are all over a bunch of different threads herping the derp. Probably some new division of NewsCorp.


They were trolling the Portland Mall shooting thread yesterday with their "Fark has an anti-white bias" BS.
 
2012-12-12 06:52:17 PM

spiderpaz: Mrbogey: This idea was championed by Democrats when Republicans were kicking their teeth in.

When? Citation, or you're lying.


Still waitin' on that citation, Mrbullshiat

I do remember people trying to get a proportional thing going in CA. It was Republicans, of course and it went nowhere.

I do remember the general sentiment among voters was pro-proportional if and when it is enacted by all states simultaneously, but the Republicans aren't interested in that idea.
 
2012-12-12 06:52:37 PM

naughtyrev: Why doesn't he just come out and say that he wants to count urban people as 3/5s of a person?


Why so negative? Don't think of it as giving urban voters three fifths of a vote -- think of it as giving rural voters five thirds of one. It's like giving out extra votes! We should thank him for being so generous.
 
2012-12-12 06:53:14 PM
If I ever meet these people in person, they will not survive the day.
 
2012-12-12 07:15:03 PM
You cant expect Retatotards to compete on a level playing field, with stationary goal posts.

Really, why should they start now?
 
2012-12-12 07:19:28 PM

James!: If you can't win, change the rules.


Pretty much this. Running the elections needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians and be kept as close to 100% neutral as possible.
 
2012-12-12 07:30:15 PM
I have in the past considered this same idea he proposes as a way of bringing the Electoral College back towards its intended purpose of balancing the peoples' interests with the states' interests.

But as long as districting is done by partisan schemers playing gerrymandering games with citizen's rights, it will never ever be more fair than the current system.
 
2012-12-12 07:39:43 PM
Is it really so hard to promise something and do the opposite? The Democrats have been at it for decades.
 
2012-12-12 07:47:21 PM
Maybe the whole country can be as successful as the blue state metro areas.
 
2012-12-12 07:51:48 PM
The GOP hates cities not because cities attract liberals, but because they make people more liberal.

Something about having to face your fellow human beings on a daily and regular basis, having a shared stake in the outcome of government, and not being able to pretend you are a goddamn island.
 
2012-12-12 07:54:21 PM
California politicians were talking about a system like this. Of course, in this state it would have benefited Democrats.
 
2012-12-12 07:56:01 PM

Mrtraveler01: Insatiable Jesus: udhq: MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?

Man, what is going on today? You're the third person with whom I've had to bipass "derpy green" straight to "stormfront red".



----------------------------

I thought it was just me. I've seen four or so today that I've never seen before. Out of nowhere they are all over a bunch of different threads herping the derp. Probably some new division of NewsCorp.

They were trolling the Portland Mall shooting thread yesterday with their "Fark has an anti-white bias" BS.


Also, who cares? It's a news aggregate site. If you want something that will reinforce your opinions, go to WND.
 
2012-12-12 07:58:11 PM

jjorsett: California politicians were talking about a system like this. Of course, in this state it would have benefited Democrats.


How would going from a guaranteed 55 EVs for Dems to a proportional EV allotment benefit Dems?
 
2012-12-12 07:58:51 PM

Mrbogey: Satanic_Hamster: phaseolus: Of course it remains almost totally unknown to the public -- YOU JUST MADE IT UP.

GOP is proposing this in several states. Oddly, only in the "swing" states from this last election.

Mrbogey: This idea was championed by Democrats when Republicans were kicking their teeth in.

Don't you ever feel bad about lying/trolling?

I dont feel bad because I haven't lied. Sorry princess if the truth hurts your butt.


Yep, those pre 1892 Democrats and their crazy ideas.
 
2012-12-12 07:58:56 PM

lockers: Holocaust Agnostic: Sock Ruh Tease:
People that hate the society they are in have no business representing it.

This one definitely makes no sense,

No kidding. How is one supposed to change a society they hate without representing the segment that agrees with them?


Republicans, a group of people who seem to hate government, until they work in it.
 
2012-12-12 08:13:50 PM

poot_rootbeer: I have in the past considered this same idea he proposes as a way of bringing the Electoral College back towards its intended purpose of balancing the peoples' interests with the states' interests.

But as long as districting is done by partisan schemers playing gerrymandering games with citizen's rights, it will never ever be more fair than the current system.


The problem in that is that there will always be gerrymandering, as long as it can be justified politically or demographically. Though it's completely a valid point. There are places where rural residents just flat out will never feel represented, because they're usually 180 degrees different than their state's urban populations. It's not exactly an easy thing to fix, either.
 
2012-12-12 08:20:51 PM

AliceBToklasLives: badLogic: I know what we can do! Count urban voters as 3/5ths of a person, like the Founding Fathers intended.

What about folks who are 1/2 urban? I was told there would be no farking math!

/fraction, how the fark do they work?


According to math, you'd count as 7/10 of a person if you're 1/2 urban.

According to the Supreme Court, it only takes one drop of urban blood to make you count as fully urban. (Plessy v. Ferguson)

/sorry
 
2012-12-12 08:24:49 PM
This story is about the USA, right, not some banana republic or post-Soviet state teetering on the edge of dictatorship?

Just checking.
 
Ant
2012-12-12 08:30:36 PM

MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?


Get the fark out. Who's stopping you?
 
2012-12-12 08:40:52 PM

James!: furrious


Furrious?

I like this word. I want to use it.
 
2012-12-12 08:42:39 PM

MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?


That's nice Mr. Manson, now back to your cell.
 
2012-12-12 08:54:20 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Still waitin' on that citation, Mrbullshiat


I'm not your manservant you pompous self-important prima donna. I'm not paid to steer online opinion (not accusing anyone here.. of course) so I'll respond to you when I get around to it. I have things I'd rather do than prove an argument to people who promptly ignore it and never amend their views.

A primer- Link
Well since it's being done in 2 states already... who championed the law in Nebraska?
Well the bill was created by Dianna Schimeck... who is a democrat. It was narrowly passed by a vote of 25-23 before it was signed into law by Ben Nelson... who is a Democrat.
Don't believe that link? Have another. Link
Why, in fact, Democrats were proud of this all the way up to as recently as May of this year- Link
Nebraska Republicans tried to change it in 2010- The Democratic Guv stopped them. Link

So there you are, Democrats liked this idea until Republicans proposed it.

Now, I just spent time doing research which will no doubt be ignored. I assume, like in the past, no one will bother to apologize to me for the vicious slurs despite being correct.

Lost Thought 00: If I ever meet these people in person, they will not survive the day.


So you advocate the indiscriminate murder of people who you disagree with politically. The hacks who claim the Tea Party is violent will never call you out on it so feel free to be as unamerican as you can be.
 
2012-12-12 09:00:25 PM

Mrtraveler01: Insatiable Jesus: udhq: MJMaloney187: You anti-white types are going to be really sorry when we leave you behind to fend for yourselves. You know that right?

Man, what is going on today? You're the third person with whom I've had to bipass "derpy green" straight to "stormfront red".



----------------------------

I thought it was just me. I've seen four or so today that I've never seen before. Out of nowhere they are all over a bunch of different threads herping the derp. Probably some new division of NewsCorp.

They were trolling the Portland Mall shooting thread yesterday with their "Fark has an anti-white bias" BS.


That's a big fat negative there, Hoss. I never troll. It's gratuitously pointless.

And you will be happy to know that I've already left, and I took my mad skills with me.
 
2012-12-12 09:08:49 PM
If we're going to make hillbillies count more, what do I have to do to get myself one of these super-votes? Lose a few teeth, learn to play the banjo, and fark my sister?
 
2012-12-12 09:11:29 PM

jjorsett: California politicians were talking about a system like this. Of course, in this state it would have benefited Democrats.


How?

The Democrats already receive ALL of California's electoral votes every four years, and will for the foreseeable future.

How would dividing up those electoral votes in any way possible benefit them?
 
2012-12-12 09:15:48 PM

Mrbogey: Now, I just spent time doing research which will no doubt be ignored.


Oh, no...by singling out a couple of pissed-off Nebraskans, you've totally proved your point.

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: Still waitin' on that citation, Mrbullshiat

I'm not your manservant you pompous self-important prima donna. I'm not paid to steer online opinion (not accusing anyone here.. of course) so I'll respond to you when I get around to it. I have things I'd rather do than prove an argument to people who promptly ignore it and never amend their views.


Does this butthurt rant count as responding to me, or am I still waiting for you to get around to it
 
2012-12-12 09:18:20 PM

cchris_39: Maybe the whole country can be as successful as the blue state metro areas.


Yeah, all the places where people are and there are things to do, suck. Paradise is a chain restaurant and driving for an hour to WalMart.
 
2012-12-12 09:22:44 PM

rumpelstiltskin: If we're going to make hillbillies count more, what do I have to do to get myself one of these super-votes? Lose a few teeth, learn to play the banjo, and fark my sister?


If we're going to make blacks count more, what do I have to do to get myself one of these super-votes? Drop out of school, violently rob elderly people, and kill a baby with stray bullets?

Is turning about for fair play hate speech? Let's find out.
 
2012-12-12 09:23:01 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Oh, no...by singling out a couple of pissed-off Nebraskans, you've totally proved your point.


Yup, I nailed your response you disingenuous liar.
 
2012-12-12 09:54:31 PM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: Oh, no...by singling out a couple of pissed-off Nebraskans, you've totally proved your point.

Yup, I nailed your response you disingenuous liar.


Uh-huh...you sure showed me!
 
2012-12-12 10:06:06 PM
What the hell? Did a halfway house lose its funding or something?

/Oh, wait. Finals are over
 
2012-12-12 10:56:38 PM
Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.
Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.
 
2012-12-12 11:13:34 PM
I think we could make each of their votes a nice, even decimal. How does 0.6 sound?
 
2012-12-12 11:38:43 PM
Then there was the educated Texan from Texas who
looked like someone in Technicolor and felt,patriotically, that people of means - decent folk -
should be given more votes than drifters, whores, criminals, degenerates, atheists and indecent folk
- people without means.

Yossarian was unspringing rhythms in the letters the day they brought the Texan in. It was another
quiet, hot, untroubled day. The heat pressed heavily on the roof, stifling sound. Dunbar was lying
motionless on his back again with his eyes staring up at the ceiling like a doll's. He was working
hard at increasing his life span. He did it by cultivating boredom. Dunbar was working so hard at
increasing his life span that Yossarian thought he was dead. They put the Texan in a bed in the
middle of the ward, and it wasn't long before he donated his views.

Dunbar sat up like a shot. 'That's it,' he cried excitedly. 'There was something missing - all the time
I knew there was something missing - and now I know what it is.' He banged his fist down into his
palm. 'No patriotism,' he declared.

'You're right,' Yossarian shouted back. 'You're right, you're right, you're right. The hot dog, the
Brooklyn Dodgers. Mom's apple pie. That's what everyone's fighting for. But who's fighting for the
decent folk? Who's fighting for more votes for the decent folk? There's no patriotism, that's what it
is. And no matriotism, either.'

/they should give him two votes
 
2012-12-13 12:14:31 AM

Lionel Mandrake: spiderpaz: Mrbogey: This idea was championed by Democrats when Republicans were kicking their teeth in.

When? Citation, or you're lying.

Still waitin' on that citation, Mrbullshiat

I do remember people trying to get a proportional thing going in CA. It was Republicans, of course and it went nowhere.

I do remember the general sentiment among voters was pro-proportional if and when it is enacted by all states simultaneously, but the Republicans aren't interested in that idea.


What I remember was a plan to create essentially remove the electoral college by having 270 EV worth of states pledge them to whomever won the popular vote, thereby making the president popularly elected. I don't remember hearing of a proportional representation idea by congressional district.
 
2012-12-13 12:16:37 AM
Most Americans live in metro areas. This has been the case for the last twenty years, at least, and the numbers increase every year.
 
2012-12-13 12:25:30 AM

Mrbogey: Don't believe that link? Have another. Link


That one was about basing the presidential election on the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. (which I would be fine with). That's not at all what the Slate TFA is about.
 
2012-12-13 12:39:25 AM

fusillade762: Mrbogey: Don't believe that link? Have another. Link

That one was about basing the presidential election on the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. (which I would be fine with). That's not at all what the Slate TFA is about.


The link contained brief comments by the author of the Nebraska law:
"Realistically," said former State Sen. Dianna Schimek of Lincoln, "it would be better if we didn't have the Electoral College. But we're never going to do away with that. So I think the law we have would probably be the best system for everybody - it gives everybody a feeling that their vote counts at the grass-roots level."

Schimek authored the 1991 legislation that allowed Nebraska to divvy up electoral votes by district. Maine has had such a law since 1972.

"I thought other states would think it was a good idea, too," Schimek said. "It has been proposed in some but didn't pass. Part of that is because some of the bigger states don't want to give up their electoral strength."


I included that link because some people refuse to believe some things they're told (ie.- "Yea, Dems wrote the law but only to placate Republicans") So I made sure to grab a quote by her.
 
2012-12-13 01:28:09 AM
I mean, c'mon, there's just so many more people in the cities than in rural America-sorry, sorry I meant Real 'Murica that their votes shouldn't count as much. Maybe we could give urban voters a fraction of a vote, I don't know, say, 3/5 of a vote. That would balance it out.
 
2012-12-13 01:46:09 AM
Everyone will vote like Florida next round.
 
2012-12-13 02:13:45 AM

Mrbogey: fusillade762: Mrbogey: Don't believe that link? Have another. Link

That one was about basing the presidential election on the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. (which I would be fine with). That's not at all what the Slate TFA is about.

The link contained brief comments by the author of the Nebraska law:
"Realistically," said former State Sen. Dianna Schimek of Lincoln, "it would be better if we didn't have the Electoral College. But we're never going to do away with that. So I think the law we have would probably be the best system for everybody - it gives everybody a feeling that their vote counts at the grass-roots level."

Schimek authored the 1991 legislation that allowed Nebraska to divvy up electoral votes by district. Maine has had such a law since 1972.

"I thought other states would think it was a good idea, too," Schimek said. "It has been proposed in some but didn't pass. Part of that is because some of the bigger states don't want to give up their electoral strength."

I included that link because some people refuse to believe some things they're told (ie.- "Yea, Dems wrote the law but only to placate Republicans") So I made sure to grab a quote by her.


So the Democrats were all over this idea in exactly one state where it has done pretty much zero to help them.

How exactly is this comparable to what the GOP wants to do now?
 
2012-12-13 02:26:07 AM
Cheating to win. It's the Republican way!
 
2012-12-13 04:01:22 AM

Mrbogey: Lionel Mandrake: Still waitin' on that citation, Mrbullshiat

I'm not your manservant you pompous self-important prima donna. I'm not paid to steer online opinion (not accusing anyone here.. of course) so I'll respond to you when I get around to it. I have things I'd rather do than prove an argument to people who promptly ignore it and never amend their views.

A primer- Link
Well since it's being done in 2 states already... who championed the law in Nebraska?
Well the bill was created by Dianna Schimeck... who is a democrat. It was narrowly passed by a vote of 25-23 before it was signed into law by Ben Nelson... who is a Democrat.
Don't believe that link? Have another. Link
Why, in fact, Democrats were proud of this all the way up to as recently as May of this year- Link
Nebraska Republicans tried to change it in 2010- The Democratic Guv stopped them. Link

So there you are, Democrats liked this idea until Republicans proposed it.

Now, I just spent time doing research which will no doubt be ignored. I assume, like in the past, no one will bother to apologize to me for the vicious slurs despite being correct.

Lost Thought 00: If I ever meet these people in person, they will not survive the day.

So you advocate the indiscriminate murder of people who you disagree with politically. The hacks who claim the Tea Party is violent will never call you out on it so feel free to be as unamerican as you can be.


------------------------

It seems the proper generalization is that when a state generally votes for one party in a presidential election, and the other party gets control of all the levers of power in the state, you'll get an EV splitting bill at some point.
 
2012-12-13 04:27:04 AM

Insatiable Jesus: Excuse me Titsy,


Wasn't Titsy one of the rejected dwarf names from Disney's version of Snow White? I seem to recall that from AIOTM.
 
2012-12-13 05:19:32 AM

naughtyrev: Why doesn't he just come out and say that he wants to count urban people as 3/5s of a person?


I am AMAZED that this took 10 posts to be stated. what is wrong with you people?
 
2012-12-13 05:21:11 AM

DjangoStonereaver: WE GET IT.

HE'S BLACK.


um... are you in the right thread? what does this have to do with anything?

or are you just so used to posting this in every thread.


/ WE GET IT

// YOU DONT UNDERSTAND WHEN TO USE YOUR STOLEN CATCHPHRASE
 
2012-12-13 07:21:58 AM

I sound fat: DjangoStonereaver: WE GET IT.

HE'S BLACK.

um... are you in the right thread? what does this have to do with anything?

or are you just so used to posting this in every thread.


/ WE GET IT

// YOU DONT UNDERSTAND WHEN TO USE YOUR STOLEN CATCHPHRASE


Um...the reason why this is being proposed is to disenfrancise VA voters who voted for Obama. Hence, "we get it, he's black".
 
2012-12-13 07:46:32 AM

Mrbogey: This idea was championed by Democrats when Republicans were kicking their teeth in.


Cite? The following nonsense I have never heard before:

The state's two remaining votes would go to whoever received the "highest number of votes in a majority of congressional districts."

So two of the states electoral votes are to be assigned by electoral vote.
 
2012-12-13 07:50:54 AM

hackalope: I don't remember hearing of a proportional representation idea by congressional district.


A couple of other states have had movements to split their electoral vote as Nebraska does. But this BS about assigning the remaining two electoral votes based on who won the majority of the other electoral votes is new.
 
2012-12-13 07:56:25 AM
It's funny how, not even ten years ago, the Dems were proposing plans very like this one in response to the 2000 election (and, for that matter, the Republicans were opposing those plans at every turn). The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 
2012-12-13 08:00:07 AM

Sin_City_Superhero: This guy may be onto something. But how much less, is the question. If I may, I propose that we make "urban" votes worth 3/5 of a "Real AmericanTM" vote. What do y'all think?


Honestly surprised that took 7 posts.

/rich white southerners still have a hard on for marginallizing black people.
 
2012-12-13 08:26:31 AM
You know I try to remain objective. I have voted for Republicans in the past. I am currently registered `unaffiliated', and I like to think that both sides are bad, and to some extent they are. But when you have one party whose `strategy' is to prevent a certain demographic from voting, it's a pretty disgusting paradigm.
 
2012-12-13 09:06:32 AM
"Although it remains almost totally unknown to the public," writes Kurtz in the second book, "a great deal of Obama's early political career was devoted to the goal of turning Michael Jackson black again."
 
2012-12-13 09:59:07 AM

hillbillypharmacist: Here's how State Senator Charles Carrico explains it.

People in my district - they feel discouraged by coming out because their votes don't mean anything if they're outvoted in metropolitan districts. It can go either way - it doesn't necessarily mean that one political party is going to be favored over another.

Oh, you feel discouraged! Your vote doesn't mean anything if more people disagree with you than agree! Oh, let us hold this poor dear's hand and make sure that his vote means something! Which means necessarily simply asking him who he wants to be elected and the majority be damned!


I'm sure Democrats in the Deep South feel discouraged too when they go to vote. Got any help for them while you're at it?

Oh, right, this is only for Republicans in states with Republican dominated state legislatures, whose state just happened to vote for Obama. What's next? Gerrymandering all the Democratically majority cities into one district so the majority of electoral votes end up going to Republican Presidential candidates?
 
2012-12-13 10:12:25 AM

Bendal: What's next? Gerrymandering all the Democratically majority cities into one district so the majority of electoral votes end up going to Republican Presidential candidates?


Dude, that already happened. Haven't you been paying any attention since 2010?

The Republicans gerrymandered the shiat out of a ton of states in the 2010 re-districting. It's only because they already have done that that they are now trying this electoral-college scheme (only Obama-voting states, of course).

The Republican Party is without question the greatest current threat to American democracy and freedom. They will lie, cheat, game the system, suppress minority votes, change voting rules and hours, purge voter registration lists, throw away registration cards, install voting machines with no paper trail and then tamper with them, alter absentee ballots - these are all things that actually happened. They are completely shameless and unscrupulous and will do anything in their lust to gain and hold power. So it should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention that they are now trying to gerrymander the electoral college.

The GOP are enemies of democracy, and they must be fought tenaciously by all freedom-loving and patriotic Americans.
 
2012-12-13 12:34:40 PM

Pincy: Cheating to win. It's the Republican way!


How can I reech theez keeds?
 
2012-12-13 12:54:35 PM

eddiesocket: Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.
Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.


There is an imitative going on among the states to make the EC irrelevant. Many states have been passing laws to give all their EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. The laws kick into effect when 270 EC votes worth of states sign on.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
 
2012-12-13 01:06:10 PM

badLogic: eddiesocket: Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.
Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.

There is an imitative going on among the states to make the EC irrelevant. Many states have been passing laws to give all their EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. The laws kick into effect when 270 EC votes worth of states sign on.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/


I've been thinking about this idea for a bit. What happens in this hypothetical?

Suppose a number of states equalling 270 electoral votes sign on to this national popular vote compact, causing it to go into effect for the next presidental election or two. However, after the next Census and re-apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes, the group of states now longer controls a majority of the electoral college, but instead only 268 or something? Does the bill become void again at that point?
 
2012-12-13 01:09:53 PM
Millennium 2012-12-13 07:56:25 AM


It's funny how, not even ten years ago, the Dems were proposing plans very like this one in response to the 2000 election (and, for that matter, the Republicans were opposing those plans at every turn). The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Its funny how, a 100,000 years ago, the Saber-tooth Party was proposing plans very like this one in the 100,000 B.C. election (and for that matter, the Mastodon Party were opposing those plans at every turn). The more thing change, the more they really aren't the same.

Hmmm, I wonder what might have happened in the 2000 election that might have prompted that response. Because I'm sure it was totally the same thing . . .

/What's with the all the idiots? Did WND have some sort of purge?
 
2012-12-13 01:15:12 PM

Millennium: It's funny how, not even ten years ago, the Dems were proposing plans very like this one in response to the 2000 election (and, for that matter, the Republicans were opposing those plans at every turn). The more things change, the more they stay the same.


[citation needed]

The only plan even remotely like this I've seen come out of the Democratic party was abolishing the electoral college altogether and going with a national popular vote, which I support, as it would give the people more of a voice. This nonsense of giving entrenched politicos yet another election to gerrymander would do the exact opposite.
 
2012-12-13 02:59:41 PM

Doc Daneeka: badLogic: eddiesocket: Breaking up a state's electoral votes is actually a laudable goal, unlike shortening lines and voter ID laws, which exist only to disenfranchise. Why should a state's entire slate of EC votes go to one candidate when he or she only got slightly more than half the votes?

The problem is, all the states need to do it at once.
Or better yet, we abolish the stupid anachronistic EC altogether.

There is an imitative going on among the states to make the EC irrelevant. Many states have been passing laws to give all their EC votes to whoever wins the national popular vote. The laws kick into effect when 270 EC votes worth of states sign on.
http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

I've been thinking about this idea for a bit. What happens in this hypothetical?

Suppose a number of states equalling 270 electoral votes sign on to this national popular vote compact, causing it to go into effect for the next presidental election or two. However, after the next Census and re-apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes, the group of states now longer controls a majority of the electoral college, but instead only 268 or something? Does the bill become void again at that point?


No idea, as I have not been following it that closely. I would guess that once the tipping point hit, other states would jump on the bandwagon as to not be made irrelevant.
 
2012-12-13 03:30:43 PM
But the Obama voter fraud sure worked, huh?
 
2012-12-13 04:46:04 PM

tony41454: But the Obama voter fraud sure worked, huh?


Are you that unskewed polls guy?
 
2012-12-13 05:05:02 PM

Halli: tony41454: But the Obama voter fraud sure worked, huh?

Are you that unskewed polls guy?


Come on man, everyone know ACORN stole the election for Obama.
 
2012-12-13 06:09:54 PM

COMALite J: Vlad_the_Inaner: has anyone worked out what a metropolitian voter's vote would be effectively worth compared to the rest of the state, based on population ratios.

Would it be approximately 3/5ths?

For future reference, try this: ⅗.



UTF-8 is the devil's character encoding

/gee, I rated a double quotation
 
2012-12-14 04:16:20 PM

badLogic: No idea, as I have not been following it that closely. I would guess that once the tipping point hit, other states would jump on the bandwagon as to not be made irrelevant.


I believe there was also a proportional vote initiative, where the state's electoral votes would be divided proportionally among the candidates based on the popular vote within the state. So, California, for example, which has 55 electoral votes (IIRC) would give 34 of them to Obama, 20 to Mitt Romney, and one to Gary Johnson in the last election (if I did the math right).

The flaw in this plan, of course, is that states that don't have very many electoral votes wouldn't effectively be able to divide them among candidates - if you have less than 10 electoral votes (over half of the states) and your state's popular vote always ends up with a less than 10% margin between the candidates, the EVs will always be split evenly, with maybe one swing vote going to the winner of the state. So it would more closely mirror the popular vote, but would still have enough noise in there to defeat the will of the people. The only benefit from that proposal was that third parties would be able to qualify for more stuff since they would be able to win electoral votes.
 
Displayed 143 of 143 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report