Current Events > Conservatives don't give a shit about big government or the Constitution

(+) Yeah! (+)

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Lmfao someone who supports ANTIFA is crying about not caring about the constitution.

The Constitution should be torn to shreds. I don't claim to love it the way many conservatives do.
---

The Admiral posted...

AlternativeFAQS posted...

I love how some people are just now trying to separate Trump from conservatism in general. You can't change the fact that the vast majority of his supporters are what we would refer to as general conservatives. People who voted for John McCain in the previous election. All Trump is proving is they're more insane and extreme than some moderated want to admit.

Love these political hot takes from Mr. Lightbulb. They same level of insight I can get from staring in the toilet the morning after going on a Taco Bell bender.

You stare at your shit?

Antifar posted...

The Constitution should be torn to shreds.

Which nation's constitution do you prefer?

The one in Venezuela where it's more like a set of suggestions rather than a rule of law?
---

Libertarianism is not the same as conservatism. The two have been wedded at the hip in a governing coalition in this country for so long, that it is easy to forget that there are distinctions to be made. Vast ones.

Mal_Fet posted...

Antifar posted...

The Constitution should be torn to shreds.

Which nation's constitution do you prefer?

The one in Venezuela where it's more like a set of suggestions rather than a rule of law?

Read the constitution and then actually read a history book and explain to me how the US constitution is any different.

I'd start with a constitution that doesn't feature the grossly undemocratic institutions of the Senate or Electoral College. Most of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution are pretty good, though, I'll admit.
---

AlternativeFAQS posted...

Read the constitution and then actually read a history book and explain to me how the US constitution is any different.

Venezuela Constitution: no free speech, no right to self defense, no right to private property, rule by law instead of rule of law...Oh yeah and it allows an unchallenged dictatorship while the US Constitution does not.

I'd say they're dissimilar in every meaningful way.
---

Antifar posted...

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Lmfao someone who supports ANTIFA is crying about not caring about the constitution.

The Constitution should be torn to shreds. I don't claim to love it the way many conservatives do.

And this is why no one cares about antifa Lmfao
---

Antifar posted...

Senate or Electoral College

I agree with removing the EC for sure

I will say the Senate has its uses, and I appreciate a chamber that can review and give a second look at whatever the House passes
---

AlternativeFAQS posted...

The Admiral posted...

AlternativeFAQS posted...

I love how some people are just now trying to separate Trump from conservatism in general. You can't change the fact that the vast majority of his supporters are what we would refer to as general conservatives. People who voted for John McCain in the previous election. All Trump is proving is they're more insane and extreme than some moderated want to admit.

Love these political hot takes from Mr. Lightbulb. They same level of insight I can get from staring in the toilet the morning after going on a Taco Bell bender.

You stare at your shit?

Its equivalent to your posts
---

Doom_Art posted...

Antifar posted...

Senate or Electoral College

I agree with removing the EC for sure

Of course you are. Lmfao
---

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Its equivalent to your posts

why do you know what Admiral's shit looks like? Do you two go to Taco Bell and then shit all over the place?

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Of course you are. Lmfao

Yes, it's an undemocratic, pointless system that ultimately gives disproportionate influence to seemingly random areas of the country.
---

AlternativeFAQS posted...

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Its equivalent to your posts

why do you know what Admiral's shit looks like? Do you two go to Taco Bell and then shit all over the place?

Shit looks like shit. Which is why your post is so identical
---

Doom_Art posted...

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Of course you are. Lmfao

Yes, it's an undemocratic, pointless system that ultimately gives disproportionate influence to seemingly random areas of the country.

Translation. It works but i didnt get my way last election so im throwing a hissy fit.


We get it. Youre the kid in the supermarket who screams and cries when mommy tells you to put the candy back
---

OK. my posts remind you of you and Admiral's shit parties. got it

PoopMcgee420 posted...

Translation. It works but i didnt get my way last election so im throwing a hissy fit.

I've felt this way about the EC since well before the last election yo
---

AlternativeFAQS posted...

OK. my posts remind you of you and shit . got it

Yup
---

Some cutting political conversation from PoopMcgee ITT lol
---

Lefties are still bitching about the electoral college?


---

Imagine spending your Saturday trolling a dying internet message board.
---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/19/republicans-want-to-change-laws-on-electoral-college-votes-after-presidential.html


Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders also support it -- suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum.

AlternativeFAQS posted...

I love how some people are just now trying to separate Trump from conservatism in general. You can't change the fact that the vast majority of his supporters are what we would refer to as general conservatives. People who voted for John McCain in the previous election. All Trump is proving is they're more insane and extreme than some moderated want to admit.

Haven't people been saying this for a while though?

Like I remember during the primaries when tons of big Republicans were criticizing Trump for not having the values of the republican party, I think Paul Ryan said he wasn't a true conservative etc

They only just backed him when it was clear he was the GOP nominee. Even on Reddit you always see people go "this is what happens when you back a candidate just to spite democrats" and stuff like that.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Lefties are still bitching about the electoral college?

oh look mal still can't speak out against this pardon without deflecting or changing the subject
---

Doom_Art posted...

Some cutting political conversation from PoopMcgee ITT lol

Coming from the kid who has been crying since nov
---

Doom_Art posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Lefties are still bitching about the electoral college?

oh look mal still can't speak out against this pardon without deflecting or changing the subject

Lol you and Antifar brought up the EC, numbnuts.
---

Why exactly would people stop complaining about the electoral college? It doesn't become less awful over time. I don't care if it had made Noam Chomsky president; the process is deeply undemocratic, with a small d.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Lol you and Antifar brought up the EC, numbnuts.

Look, Mal.

You can't disagree with this pardon without deflecting for some reason

You can't disagree with nazis inciting a race riot and committing a terror attack without deflecting


this isn't a good look on you yo
---

I bet we could find posts from 2013 of Mal wanting to repeal the EC

Doom_Art posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Lol you and Antifar brought up the EC, numbnuts.

Look, Mal.

You can't disagree with this pardon without deflecting for some reason

You can't disagree with nazis inciting a race riot and committing a terror attack without deflecting


this isn't a good look on you yo

It's the only set of clothes he's willing to wear though.
---

Antifar posted...

Why exactly would people stop complaining about the electoral college?

Because none of you seemed to care about it before this election. Also, for someone who tells others to learn history, you sure are ignorant of all the reasons the founding fathers were against majority rule.

Put simply, majority rule would make the interests of anyone except those living in big urbanized states irrelevant. There would be no reason to campaign anywhere other than California, New York, Texas, and Florida. The Federal govt should take the interests of ALL Americans into account, not just the coastal people who only care about things relevant to them.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Because none of you seemed to care about it before this election.

Because it wasn't a factor in much of anything

Mal_Fet posted...

The Federal govt should take the interests of ALL Americans into account

Well instead of the candidates campaigning in cities (you know, where most of the country lives) you have them campaigning in random swing states.

Not what I'd call an improvement.

In the case of a popular vote you'd have the candidates actually trying to win everyone's votes, whereas currently you only have candidates trying to win votes from the select few people who are geographically convenient
---

Doom_Art posted...

Because it wasn't a factor in much of anything

It's hilarious how you're offering up all the excuses that are in the image I posted XD

Doom_Art posted...

Well instead of the candidates campaigning in cities (you know, where most of the country lives) you have them campaigning in random swing states.

Actually, less than half of the country lives in the states I mentioned even though they would be the only relevant states to campaign in. And an even lower percentage than that live in big cities.

And those "random swing states" represent the most pressing issues of the time. The reason Michigan and Wisconsin mattered in this election were because jobs are a big issue right now, and union workers were dissatisfied. If we move to a popular vote, the only issue that would concern politicians is which place has the biggest population.

Is that really how you want politicians to think? Just saying, think this through before getting so riled up about how "unfair" the EC is.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Also, for someone who tells others to learn history, you sure are ignorant of all the reasons the founding fathers were against majority rule.

The founding fathers were also against black people counting as full people. I don't want a bunch of guys who died in 1799 affecting elections in 2020.

Mal_Fet posted...

Put simply, majority rule would make the interests of anyone except those living in big urbanized states irrelevant. There would be no reason to campaign anywhere other than California, New York, Texas, and Florida. The Federal govt should take the interests of ALL Americans into account, not just the coastal people who only care about things relevant to them.

If you tallied up every single voter in those states, you'd get 25% of the vote. It is simply untrue that these states (even if you could somehow get the votes of Brooklyn, the suburbs of Dallas, and San Luis Obispo) would provide an easy ticket to the White House. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Hillary Clinton campaigning in Texas or Donald Trump campaigning in California would find much success among a general electorate.

If you truly want all Americans to be taken into account, give them an equal vote!
---

And, also, seven states approved the NPVIC during Obama's presidency, which suggests that they viewed the electoral college as an issue before 2016's election.
---

AlternativeFAQS posted...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/19/republicans-want-to-change-laws-on-electoral-college-votes-after-presidential.html


Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus endorsed the idea this week, and other Republican leaders also support it -- suggesting that the effort may be gaining momentum.

Antifar posted...

The founding fathers were also against black people counting as full people. I don't want a bunch of guys who died in 1799 affecting elections in 2020.

You can't dismiss everything the founding fathers did with "well they were racist". idpol has rotted your brain.

Antifar posted...

If you tallied up every single voter in those states, you'd get 25% of the vote. It is simply untrue that these states (even if you could somehow get the votes of Brooklyn, the suburbs of Dallas, and San Luis Obispo) would provide an easy ticket to the White House. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that Hillary Clinton campaigning in Texas or Donald Trump campaigning in California would find much success among a general electorate.

There are tons of republicans in California just as there are tons of democrats in Texas. And in a campaign where you have a limited amount of time to convince voters, it WOULD be most effective to only campaign in places with a lot of people. And that's all a popular vote would engender.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Actually, less than half of the country lives in the states I mentioned

Then how would one win an election by focusing solely on them?

Mal_Fet posted...

If we move to a popular vote, the only issue that would concern politicians is which place has the biggest population.

"If we move to a popular vote, the only issues that would concern the candidates for President is issues most of population cares about"

Mal_Fet posted...

Is that really how you want politicians to think?

States are given several opportunities to represent their interests.

They elect a state rep
A governor
A congressman
A senator

The President who governs all Americans should be thinking about the majority of Americans.
---

dirtycommunist posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

a liberal who likes lower taxes and law-and-order

You can't pardon a guy found to be in criminal contempt of court AND claim to be for law and order.

Mal_Fet has an A+ in mental gymnastics. his mind bends over backwards in the most contorted ways so he can believe he still thinks logically. just to remind you all, Mal is not Conservative and doesn't support Trump, according to him.
---

I would also note that both the Senate (by virtue of its construction) and the House (due to gerrymandering) already provide disproportionate power to rural and less-populated areas. In a system of checks and balances, it seems unnecessary to weight all three towards the same areas.
---

Doom_Art posted...

Then how would one win an election by focusing solely on them?

Same way they win an election by focusing on swing states, obviously.

Doom_Art posted...

"If we move to a popular vote, the only issues that would concern the candidates for President is issues most of population cares about"

This is why we have a decentralized government to begin with. The Californian government is there to address the concerns of Californians. The Tennessee government is there to address the concerns of Tennesseeaannss. The Federal government should be tackling the concerns of Americans in ALL walks of life; not just the Starbucks barista, but also the farmer.

If you don't like how the Fed may trample on the wants of certain people, then perhaps you agree with me that we should return to a situation where states have greater autonomy and the Fed is smaller and less influential?
---

Antifar posted...

Why exactly would people stop complaining about the electoral college? It doesn't become less awful over time. I don't care if it had made Noam Chomsky president; the process is deeply undemocratic, with a small d.

Its never been awful then again you support beating up nonviolent people and destruction of property
---

Doom_Art posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Lol you and Antifar brought up the EC, numbnuts.

Look, Mal.

You can't disagree with this pardon without deflecting for some reason

You can't disagree with nazis inciting a race riot and committing a terror attack without deflecting


this isn't a good look on you yo

@Doom_Art how he deflecting...IF HE DIDNT BRING IT UP?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

The Federal government should be tackling the concerns of Americans in ALL walks of life

As I said, rural and less populated areas are already given several opportunities to represent themselves federally

And as Antifar pointed out, the Senate and House already give disproportionate influence to these areas.

The federal government should be tackling the concerns of most Americans.
---

Doom_Art posted...

As I said, rural and less populated areas are already given several opportunities to represent themselves federally

And as Antifar pointed out, the Senate and House already give disproportionate influence to these areas.

The federal government should be tackling the concerns of most Americans.

Pandering to the most population-dense parts of the country also would not be tackling the concerns of most Americans.
---

If that's where most Americans live then yes it is
---

jerseyproud is Chris Christie
---

Bullet_Wing posted...

Doom_Art posted...

Some cutting political conversation from PoopMcgee ITT lol

PoopMcgee420 is JerseyProud, by the way. He's a joke poster

Dude beeen following me around for three weeks saying this.

Hilarious.
---