Welcome to Thunderdome

Rep Omar goes off on a supporter for asking about FGM.

She essentially plays the race card and acts offended that she gets asked questions like that.

Well dumb fuck, it's your religion that openly does stuff like FGM, who the fuck are people supposed to ask?

This is like a doctor complaining that his/her patients are always asking him/her about their health.

I think the party is going to throw her under the bus. She's the least popular of the four horsewomen. Great opportunity with the marriage fraud stuff. Shot across the bow for the other three to zip it.

[urlhttps://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/progressives-are-going-war-against-electoral-college-69352]Decent article about why the Progressives war on the Electoral College is misguided.[/url]

Leisher wrote: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... lege-69352

I would still rebalance the electoral college, and make it more proportional. I would find that an acceptable compromise to abolition and keeping it as is. States still matter, but people get more equal weight in government.

I went ahead and did the math, because I couldn't find it anywhere.

Clinton won 43.1% of electoral votes (232 of 538). Trump won 56.9% (306 of 538; though 2 peeps in Texas refused to vote for him so he really only got 304, whatevs)

Under my revised proposal (drumroll, please)
Clinton won 43.8% of electoral votes (191 of 436). Trump won 56.2% (245 of 436), cuz they both won a lot of small states.

Small states (5 or fewer electoral votes in 2016):
Hillary won - CT, DE, DC, HI, ME, NV, NH, NM, OR, RI, and VT
Trump won - AK, ID, IA, MT, NE, ND, SD, WV, and WY

TheCatt wrote: I would still rebalance the electoral college, and make it more proportional.

Seems fair.

TheCatt wrote: though 2 peeps in Texas refused to vote for him

I have a huge problem with this if their constituents told them to vote for him.

Leisher wrote:I have a huge problem with this if their constituents told them to vote for him.

In most states you're not voting for the President. You're voting for electors. They generally are the electors for their party. I think I'm okay with how they do it. It kind of makes for a safety valve. People are prone to rash decisions at times. That's why the founders wanted it to take a while to make big changes. I think they indicated that laws should kind of simmer in the Senate and let the passions cool before they move on it. Can you imagine how the public would vote immediately after a 9/11 event?

I think it's probably a smart system.

I agree with Vince. It was setup this way for a reason

How is this not incitement?

Ocasio-Cortez says marginalized communities 'have no choice but to riot'

Because she's a democrat.

I think she's a fool but I don't disagree with her quote.

"Once you have a group that is marginalized ... once someone doesn't have access to clean water, they have no choice but to riot," Ocasio-Cortez said about a half-hour into the 55-minute interview.

Her remarks came during a discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but Ocasio-Cortez clarified that she was talking about marginalized groups more generally.

"I'm not even talking about Palestinians," she said. "I'm talking about communities in poverty in the United States; I'm talking about Latin America; I'm talking about all over the world."

"Social destabilization is what happens when people do not have a plan or feel like there's no vision for their future," she said.

If you "do not have a plan or feel like there's no vision for" your future, that seems like a "you" problem. Not sure how rioting will help.

Vince wrote: If you "do not have a plan or feel like there's no vision for" your future, that seems like a "you" problem. Not sure how rioting will help.

So the water being bad in Flint Michigan is the residents problem? They brought that shit on themselves - so fuck em?

Are you suggesting that the way to get lead out of the water is to riot?

GORDON wrote: Are you suggesting that the way to get lead out of the water is to riot?

If I lived in a town that I was paying taxes in, and was not being provided basic human needs, yes. I’d probably start off with civil disobedience, but if i was still being not provided what I need to live to a bare minimum standard, escalation seems necesssary for change.

Are we going to pretend water riots are like, a new thing?

No, not at all. I'm asking if rioting gets the lead out of the water. The water system is well into the process of being replaced, now.

Don't get me wrong.... burn it all down with fire. But don't pretend that rioting wouldn't be counterproductive to addressing their grievances.

Everybody wants to go to war until you put your hand into the bowl of red goo that used to be your best friend's face.

Troy wrote:

Vince wrote: If you "do not have a plan or feel like there's no vision for" your future, that seems like a "you" problem. Not sure how rioting will help.

So the water being bad in Flint Michigan is the residents problem? They brought that shit on themselves - so fuck em?

No, but feeling like there's no plan or vision for your future because of stupid politicians' plans for a poorly planned job making scheme is the residents' problem. You find your vision and plan for your future and you move towards it. That's the individual's responsibility. If you're demanding the government do it for you, then you're results will likely suck.

Vince wrote:

Troy wrote:

Vince wrote: If you "do not have a plan or feel like there's no vision for" your future, that seems like a "you" problem. Not sure how rioting will help.

So the water being bad in Flint Michigan is the residents problem? They brought that shit on themselves - so fuck em?

No, but feeling like there's no plan or vision for your future because of stupid politicians' plans for a poorly planned job making scheme is the residents' problem. You find your vision and plan for your future and you move towards it. That's the individual's responsibility. If you're demanding the government do it for you, then you're results will likely suck.

I feel like this statement is great for, I dunno, 50% of people? But heartless and short-sighted for many.

Watching the hi and lows from the debate last night... Tulsi Gabbard just cut Kamala Harris and she's bleeding out. A LOT of the press are all in for Harris. Reminded of many FOX personalities that were praising the best 3rd place finish in the history of 3rd place finishes when Rubio lost the Iowa Caucus in 2016.

Biden was the only candidate up there defending the Obama administration. You have to wonder if Obama is going to step in and endorse Biden before the rest of them utterly destroy his legacy.

TheCatt wrote: I feel like this statement is great for, I dunno, 50% of people? But heartless and short-sighted for many.

And what percentage of the people do you suppose rioting is good for?