[quote]“How does a bad student go to Columbia and then to Harvard?” he asked the Associated Press. “I’m thinking about it, I’m certainly looking into it. Let him show his records.”[/quote]
oh wow great logic
we don't know his grades, he's black, he got into ivy league, therefore he did badly at school :downs:
the burden of proof should be on trump to prove he was a bad student, not obama to prove he was good
trump should be arrested for stalking
[QUOTE=RBM11;29468250]I'll give you Branson but Gates dropped out not because he couldn't handle it or wasn't smart, but because it was a waste of time because he wanted to start a company.
He got a 1590 on the SAT (out of 1600 back then)[/QUOTE]
It still goes to show that doing well in education isn't completely necessary to do well in life.
[QUOTE=Coffee;29468394]It still goes to show that doing well in education isn't completely necessary to do well in life.[/QUOTE]
not completely necessary, but your chances of making a decent living are greatly improved if you have an education
those people are rare exceptions
bhhahhhh what
shut the fuck up nasty ass fucked up wig wearing bitch
[QUOTE=thisispain;29468556]bhhahhhh what
shut the fuck up nasty ass fucked up wig wearing bitch[/QUOTE]
you're fired
[QUOTE=Habsburg;29468273]Jesus never did well at school and he was pretty successful.[/QUOTE]
He obviously had no regard for workplace safety either
Carpentry in sandals?
What a jackass
so i didnt pay much attention in my us history class
why the fuck do we vote if there's an electoral college :v:
[QUOTE=c0nk3r;29469393]so i didnt pay much attention in my us history class
why the fuck do we vote if there's an electoral college :v:[/QUOTE]
because your vote determines how the electoral college votes
trump is a dumbass but whoever wrote this article needs to be replaced
Thought the (R) stood for reserved since Trump likes using his name on everything :v:
[QUOTE=c0nk3r;29469393]so i didnt pay much attention in my us history class
why the fuck do we vote if there's an electoral college :v:[/QUOTE]
The founding fathers didn't intend for the American people to vote for a president. They also didn't intend for the president to be considered a figurehead or celebrity. What they wanted was for people to vote for representatives in Congress, who, among other duties, would appoint electors who would vote for a president to carry out Congress's laws. So the electoral college was something that was laid out in the US Constitution.
Unfortunately for them the president became a celebrity figure anyway. As it is now, each state gets a certain number of electors in the electoral college which is (I think) the same as the number people that state has in the House of Representatives plus the Senate. Whoever wins the popular vote in a given state gets all of the state's electoral votes. Technically electors can legally vote for whoever they want, but in practice they nearly always vote with their state's preferred candidate.
This setup is A) why it's possible to win the national popular vote yet lose the election (like Al Gore), and B) why it's impossible for third-party candidates to be viable--even if they get 20% of the vote in every state, they'll still lose and get zero electoral votes.
Great system guys :v:
[editline]28th April 2011[/editline]
Poor founding fathers. Nothing worked out the way they had hoped.
Oh yeah, the reason we STILL have an electoral college is because the Democrats and Republicans have had decades of practice planning campaign strategies based on the electoral system, and aren't particularly interested in throwing the whole system out and replacing it with one that they'll have to learn all over again (and might give an advantage to third parties)
[QUOTE=TH89;29471325]Oh yeah, the reason we STILL have an electoral college is because the Democrats and Republicans have had decades of practice planning campaign strategies based on the electoral system, and aren't particularly interested in throwing the whole system out and replacing it with one that they'll have to learn all over again (and might give an advantage to third parties)[/QUOTE]
I know, god forbid we give any chance for 3rd parties like Greens, Libertarians, or Socialists to get votes.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;29468310]oh wow great logic
we don't know his grades, he's black, he got into ivy league, therefore he did badly at school :downs:
the burden of proof should be on trump to prove he was a bad student, not obama to prove he was good[/QUOTE]
Nah, I like this approach. We've got just as much proof that Obama is a webfooted transexual martian planted here to destroy the AMERICAN SPIRIT through socialized medicine and high taxes too, so he must be.
[QUOTE=TH89;29471325]Oh yeah, the reason we STILL have an electoral college is because the Democrats and Republicans have had decades of practice planning campaign strategies based on the electoral system, and aren't particularly interested in throwing the whole system out and replacing it with one that they'll have to learn all over again (and might give an advantage to third parties)[/QUOTE]
in britain we just do a referendum about it
the stupidity quota is made up for in the party political broadcasts, from both sides
[editline]27th April 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;29472374]I know, god forbid we give any chance for 3rd parties like Greens, Libertarians, or Socialists to get votes.[/QUOTE]
double edged sword
for every green, libertarian, or socialist party you have a tea party, BNP or UKIP
[QUOTE=TH89;29471210]The founding fathers didn't intend for the American people to vote for a president. They also didn't intend for the president to be considered a figurehead or celebrity. What they wanted was for people to vote for representatives in Congress, who, among other duties, would appoint electors who would vote for a president to carry out Congress's laws. So the electoral college was something that was laid out in the US Constitution.
Unfortunately for them the president became a celebrity figure anyway. As it is now, each state gets a certain number of electors in the electoral college which is (I think) the same as the number people that state has in the House of Representatives plus the Senate. Whoever wins the popular vote in a given state gets all of the state's electoral votes. Technically electors can legally vote for whoever they want, but in practice they nearly always vote with their state's preferred candidate.
This setup is A) why it's possible to win the national popular vote yet lose the election (like Al Gore), and B) why it's impossible for third-party candidates to be viable--even if they get 20% of the vote in every state, they'll still lose and get zero electoral votes.[/QUOTE]
In addition to that, elections are based on geography rather than political affiliation. If you're a Republican living in Chicago, your vote does count for shit because everyone else in Chicago is going to vote Democrat and your vote can't be applied to an election where Republicans actually have a shot at winning. Kind of like how Ted Kennedy was elected to the Senate for like 60 years, if you lived in Massachusetts and voted Republican you didn't get jack shit.
In other countries that use a Parliamentary system, you vote for a party and that party gets seats in the legislature based on how many votes they get. So if a 3rd party gets 20% of the vote nationwide, they get 20% of the seats in the Parliament. As you said, if a 3rd party gets 20% of the vote in any given election based on geography they get zero representation and it alienates a lot of people who vote 3rd party.
[editline]27th April 2011[/editline]
Also, in the US we have the idea that we should vote for candidates based on what the candidate personally believes which is bullshit. Once elected, candidates will vote with their party at least 95% of the time, and usually more. So people voting against the candidate for their party just because they molest kids or some shit is stupid because they're giving power to someone who's not going to do what they want instead of the guy who is going to give them what they want. Just read the fucking party platform every 4 years and you'll know what every Democrat or Republican is going to vote for if elected.
Wow, he's playing the Republican role pretty well.
[QUOTE=Mon;29470714]trump is a dumbass but whoever wrote this article needs to be replaced[/QUOTE]
No actually he should write more of them. This level of stupidity deserves nothing but rich, full mocking.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;29473108]In addition to that, elections are based on geography rather than political affiliation. If you're a Republican living in Chicago, your vote does count for shit because everyone else in Chicago is going to vote Democrat and your vote can't be applied to an election where Republicans actually have a shot at winning. Kind of like how Ted Kennedy was elected to the Senate for like 60 years, if you lived in Massachusetts and voted Republican you didn't get jack shit.
In other countries that use a Parliamentary system, you vote for a party and that party gets seats in the legislature based on how many votes they get. So if a 3rd party gets 20% of the vote nationwide, they get 20% of the seats in the Parliament. As you said, if a 3rd party gets 20% of the vote in any given election based on geography they get zero representation and it alienates a lot of people who vote 3rd party.
[editline]27th April 2011[/editline]
Also, in the US we have the idea that we should vote for candidates based on what the candidate personally believes which is bullshit. Once elected, candidates will vote with their party at least 95% of the time, and usually more. So people voting against the candidate for their party just because they molest kids or some shit is stupid because they're giving power to someone who's not going to do what they want instead of the guy who is going to give them what they want. Just read the fucking party platform every 4 years and you'll know what every Democrat or Republican is going to vote for if elected.[/QUOTE]
I agree with the first part, but not so much the second. Most candidates will just end up being a puppet of the party, but there is a significant minority that votes based on individual views. Unfortunately, they usually stay local and those that move for national positions are bashed as "moderate" because they stray on only one or two issues. Also, there's the odd independent, like [url=http://sanders.senate.gov/]Senator Nobody-Knows-His-Name-Because-He's-Actually-Sane Sanders of Vermont[/url], and the way-off-base people like Rand Paul who the mainstream Republicans are "secretly" ashamed of.
The Electoral College served its purpose back before Andrew Jackson when nobody trusted poor people, but it makes no sense today. I want to see it gone. I also like the idea of proportional representation, but how do we resolve that with the fact that people are sometimes really voting for the individual and not the party?
[quote]Obama, in this view, is both sinister and stupid, canny enough to perpetrate one of the biggest frauds in American history but still the ultimate affirmative action baby.[/quote]
How can anyone read this and not see that this is exactly what is going on and why it's entirely impossible for it to be true?
[QUOTE=GhostSonic;29467850]"I don't think Obama is actually a man. Show us your penis, Obama!"[/QUOTE]
[quote] "Questions are being raised" said Mr.Trump on MSNBC earlier tonight, "about our president's manhood." He continued, "How can we be certain that our president is the gender he says he is when he has refused to release records of his penis? The least he could do would be show to it on national T.V. I've got investigators looking into this, and you would not believe the things that they are finding about our president's gender identity. These are troubling times for the american people, and if you can't be sure of your presiden't gender, what can you be sure of?"
[/quote]
[QUOTE=breakyourfac;29467602]If this is seriously who the republican party wants then, I.....just don't know. He has no political background what so ever, at least Obama knows what he's doing somewhat. All Trump is, is a rich old asshole siding with all of the other rich old assholes.
Oh and that (R) next to his name stands for retard not republican.[/QUOTE]
How old are you again?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;29473526]How can anyone write this and not see that this is exactly what is going on and why it's entirely impossible for it to be true?[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure how you can read that article and think the author agrees with Trump (unless I'm misreading your post)
[QUOTE=ASmellyOgre;29473515]
I want to see it gone. I also like the idea of proportional representation, but how do we resolve that with the fact that people are sometimes really voting for the individual and not the party?[/QUOTE]
Just put the party name on the ballet and not the name of a person. Don't even have candidates. When the party gets their seats just pick some people to fill them and have them vote based on the party's platform.
I think [url=http://www.theonion.com/articles/trump-unable-to-produce-certificate-proving-hes-no,20250/]the onion[/url] pretty much sums up my conspiracy theory on Trump.
[QUOTE=TH89;29473585]I'm not sure how you can read that article and think the author agrees with Trump (unless I'm misreading your post)[/QUOTE]
you misread it because I wrote it badly the first time, I meant it should be a pretty obvious thing for anyone to read and see that, including the people supporting these ridiculous ideas.
[quote]And how did this half-educated mediocrity get into Harvard Law School, and then become editor of the Harvard Law Review? Why, Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, of course! According to right-wing lore, a militant Black Muslim named Khalid Al-Mansour introduced his protégé to the prince, who presumably saw a chance to advance his Muslim world-domination agenda by grooming the young man for politics. The prince thus pulled strings on Obama’s behalf and even paid his way.[/quote]
Sounds legit to me.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;29473426]No actually he should write more of them. This level of stupidity deserves nothing but rich, full mocking.[/QUOTE]
it's supposed to be NEWS not an opinion piece
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
