You asked how so and I told you. You always defend or endorse the left position on whatever we happen to be discussing then try to smooth it over by claiming to be something you aren't. In simpler terms, you post out of both sides of your mouth.

"I had a pretty good reputation until I started disagreeing with Mikey", and come to think of it, still have a pretty good one after that as well.

Wow, he down votes you? That is some weak stuff right there. The whole reputation thing is silly in general.

Just one more way he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Cries about it in his sig but does it just the same.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I am a republican. I mean you guys keep asking and I keep on telling you the truth.
I don't think I would say it so much if you didn't bring it up so much.
And why do you keep bringing it up as if it matters at all? I'm either making a valid point or I'm not. People can make valid points regardless of what their voter registration card says.

You asked how so and I told you. You always defend or endorse the left position on whatever we happen to be discussing then try to smooth it over by claiming to be something you aren't. In simpler terms, you post out of both sides of your mouth.

"I had a pretty good reputation until I started disagreeing with Mikey", and come to think of it, still have a pretty good one after that as well.

Yes, I am to your left.  You are on the other side of the foul line in right field, though. All of us are to your left.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Wow, he down votes you? That is some weak stuff right there. The whole reputation thing is silly in general.

Just one more way he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Cries about it in his sig but does it just the same.

That's a good point actually.  

Pirky would give negative reputation  to me for replying to his posts with an opposing opinion.  That's wrong.  Don't post your opinion unless you're okay with people clicking the reply button and saying they think you're wrong.  Instead, reply back to them saying they are wrong.  Or leave it alone.

You got negative reputation from me yestersay because you tried to change the subject from politics and politicians to me.  That's wrong too, totally different but also wrong. But then again here I am talking about you.  And honestly I wouldn't be complaining if you changed the subject to me just to tell everyone how great you think I am and how right you think I am.

So I get why it comes across as hypocritical to you but I'm not intending to apply rules to you that I wouldn't apply to myself. 

What's reputation for anyhow?
I think its to avoid derailing threads with personal conflict. If someone's joke seems out of place in a serious thread, or they start attacking other posters, that's what it's for. Give negative reputation instead of derailing the thread further. Positive feedback is for good writing or original insights. But there's no harm in simply replying with positive feedback too.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You asked how so and I told you. You always defend or endorse the left position on whatever we happen to be discussing then try to smooth it over by claiming to be something you aren't. In simpler terms, you post out of both sides of your mouth.

"I had a pretty good reputation until I started disagreeing with Mikey", and come to think of it, still have a pretty good one after that as well.

Yes, I am to your left.  You are on the other side of the foul line in right field, though. All of us are to your left.

I've  been told that position would make me a nazi or fascist, of which I'm clearly neither. You are left of Moderate which, admittedly is like the Republican Party these days in deed if not word. You seem to think that you are Republican the other way around, with your actions not your words; but we can't evaluate that here, so we judge on what you say, which makes you kin to Democratic Socialists.

---

Just one more way he talks out of both sides of his mouth. Cries about it in his sig but does it just the same.

That's a good point actually.  

Pirky would give negative reputation  to me for replying to his posts with an opposing opinion.  That's wrong.  Don't post your opinion unless you're okay with people clicking the reply button and saying they think you're wrong.  Instead, reply back to them saying they are wrong.  Or leave it alone.

You got negative reputation from me yestersay because you tried to change the subject from politics and politicians to me.  That's wrong too, totally different but also wrong. But then again here I am talking about you.  And honestly I wouldn't be complaining if you changed the subject to me just to tell everyone how great you think I am and how right you think I am.

So I get why it comes across as hypocritical to you but I'm not intending to apply rules to you that I wouldn't apply to myself. 

What's reputation for anyhow?
I think its to avoid derailing threads with personal conflict. If someone's joke seems out of place in a serious thread, or they start attacking other posters, that's what it's for. Give negative reputation instead of derailing the thread further. Positive feedback is for good writing or original insights. But there's no harm in simply replying with positive feedback too.

They're always good points, what you miss is that all of this is one big joke, there aren't any "serious" threads on an anonymous message board, and the more serious you take it the more entrenched you become IRL. That's the curse of social media and why we get Trump v Clinton or AOC in the Congress.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes, I am to your left.  You are on the other side of the foul line in right field, though. All of us are to your left.

I've  been told that position would make me a nazi or fascist, of which I'm clearly neither. You are left of Moderate which, admittedly is like the Republican Party these days in deed if not word. You seem to think that you are Republican the other way around, with your actions not your words; but we can't evaluate that here, so we judge on what you say, which makes you kin to Democratic Socialists.

---

That's a good point actually.  

Pirky would give negative reputation  to me for replying to his posts with an opposing opinion.  That's wrong.  Don't post your opinion unless you're okay with people clicking the reply button and saying they think you're wrong.  Instead, reply back to them saying they are wrong.  Or leave it alone.

You got negative reputation from me yestersay because you tried to change the subject from politics and politicians to me.  That's wrong too, totally different but also wrong. But then again here I am talking about you.  And honestly I wouldn't be complaining if you changed the subject to me just to tell everyone how great you think I am and how right you think I am.

So I get why it comes across as hypocritical to you but I'm not intending to apply rules to you that I wouldn't apply to myself. 

What's reputation for anyhow?
I think its to avoid derailing threads with personal conflict. If someone's joke seems out of place in a serious thread, or they start attacking other posters, that's what it's for. Give negative reputation instead of derailing the thread further. Positive feedback is for good writing or original insights. But there's no harm in simply replying with positive feedback too.

They're always good points, what you miss is that all of this is one big joke, there aren't any "serious" threads on an anonymous message board, and the more serious you take it the more entrenched you become IRL. That's the curse of social media and why we get Trump v Clinton or AOC in the Congress.

No, not a Nazi or Fascist.  The foul territory is large.  There are only a few ways to be right but lots and lots of ways to be wrong.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I am a republican. I mean you guys keep asking and I keep on telling you the truth.
I don't think I would say it so much if you didn't bring it up so much.
And why do you keep bringing it up as if it matters at all? I'm either making a valid point or I'm not. People can make valid points regardless of what their voter registration card says.

You asked how so and I told you. You always defend or endorse the left position on whatever we happen to be discussing then try to smooth it over by claiming to be something you aren't. In simpler terms, you post out of both sides of your mouth.

"I had a pretty good reputation until I started disagreeing with Mikey", and come to think of it, still have a pretty good one after that as well.

You care/ look at your reputation? Lol

Do you also check how many likes your posts get on Instagram?

---

You asked how so and I told you. You always defend or endorse the left position on whatever we happen to be discussing then try to smooth it over by claiming to be something you aren't. In simpler terms, you post out of both sides of your mouth.

"I had a pretty good reputation until I started disagreeing with Mikey", and come to think of it, still have a pretty good one after that as well.

You care/ look at your reputation? Lol

Do you also check how many likes your posts get on Instagram?

I look at the rep to see where there's activity around my posts. I don't "care" about what it is, just the presence of activity drives what I take the time to read. In Mikey's case it bothered him so much that he put something in his signature about it, hence my pointing out that inconsistency. I've never posted anything to IG, I just have one to keep tabs on my adult children.

---

I've  been told that position would make me a nazi or fascist, of which I'm clearly neither. You are left of Moderate which, admittedly is like the Republican Party these days in deed if not word. You seem to think that you are Republican the other way around, with your actions not your words; but we can't evaluate that here, so we judge on what you say, which makes you kin to Democratic Socialists.

---

They're always good points, what you miss is that all of this is one big joke, there aren't any "serious" threads on an anonymous message board, and the more serious you take it the more entrenched you become IRL. That's the curse of social media and why we get Trump v Clinton or AOC in the Congress.

No, not a Nazi or Fascist.  The foul territory is large.  There are only a few ways to be right but lots and lots of ways to be wrong.

That's opinion. There's only one way to be right. Only Sith deal in absolutes. Any position outside the foul line is foul, you must know this Anakin Mikey

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

They're always good points, what you miss is that all of this is one big joke, there aren't any "serious" threads on an anonymous message board, and the more serious you take it the more entrenched you become IRL. That's the curse of social media and why we get Trump v Clinton or AOC in the Congress.

I agree there is a curse of social media.
A bunch of people up in arms about whether zookeepers should have shot a gorilla is one big joke.
If you saw that, stepped back and said, "this is one big joke," you were one of the smart ones.
On the other hand, if you see a bunch of people talking about how TSA just missed a paycheck, and how they might not show up to work, and how there is no clear contingency plan to keep airports both open and secure, nothing about that is or could be funny.
Now, most issues are somewhere in between with funny aspects and not funny ones.
But few political issues are literally one big joke, and you impoverish your self and others if you you think so.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

They're always good points, what you miss is that all of this is one big joke, there aren't any "serious" threads on an anonymous message board, and the more serious you take it the more entrenched you become IRL. That's the curse of social media and why we get Trump v Clinton or AOC in the Congress.

I agree there is a curse of social media.
A bunch of people up in arms about whether zookeepers should have shot a gorilla is one big joke.
If you saw that, stepped back and said, "this is one big joke," you were one of the smart ones.
On the other hand, if you see a bunch of people talking about how TSA just missed a paycheck, and how they might not show up to work, and how there is no clear contingency plan to keep airports both open and secure, nothing about that is or could be funny.
Now, most issues are somewhere in between with funny aspects and not funny ones.
But few political issues are literally one big joke, and you impoverish your self and others if you you think so.

You fail to get my point, "there aren't any "serious" threads on an anonymous message board." This forum relinquishes it's austerity with its anonymity.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I agree there is a curse of social media.
A bunch of people up in arms about whether zookeepers should have shot a gorilla is one big joke.
If you saw that, stepped back and said, "this is one big joke," you were one of the smart ones.
On the other hand, if you see a bunch of people talking about how TSA just missed a paycheck, and how they might not show up to work, and how there is no clear contingency plan to keep airports both open and secure, nothing about that is or could be funny.
Now, most issues are somewhere in between with funny aspects and not funny ones.
But few political issues are literally one big joke, and you impoverish your self and others if you you think so.

You fail to get my point, "there aren't any "serious" threads on an anonymous message board." This forum relinquishes it's austerity with its anonymity.

The authors of the Federalist papers and the wealthy donors behind every super-PAC might be interested to discuss your idea, that "anonymous = not serious."

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You fail to get my point, "there aren't any "serious" threads on an anonymous message board." This forum relinquishes it's austerity with its anonymity.

The authors of the Federalist papers and the wealthy donors behind every super-PAC might be interested to discuss your idea, that "anonymous = not serious."

Message board for an NFL team <> political pamphleteering. Again we find an idle comment that you just have to argue to the Nth degree for your unprovable opinion.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The authors of the Federalist papers and the wealthy donors behind every super-PAC might be interested to discuss your idea, that "anonymous = not serious."

Message board for an NFL team <> political pamphleteering. Again we find an idle comment that you just have to argue to the Nth degree for your unprovable opinion.

If  nothing else, we're fleshing out your opinion.
First you said I take too many things seriously over here.
Then you said nothing here is serious because it's anonymous.
Then you said but because it's organized around being a fan of an NFL team, it can't be serious.
I guess we can't be sure if you're offering this opinion in sincerity or jest either.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Joined the discussion late, but this is purely hypothetical because nothing will change, but I think it would be a much better system to proportionally assign the electoral votes in each state instead of the all or nothing. This way everyone's voice is heard and state's don't lose their individual power. Like I said this is hypothetical, a real discussion with actual ramifications that could actually change and IMHO change the course of our politics is redistricting. If districts were drawn without partisan advantage in mind you would get a lot more centrist lawmakers and therefore more willingness to compromise and actually address issues. One last point, the tyranny of the majority concept is not about elections but about laws and the purpose of the judicial branch. The judicial branch guards against the tyranny of the majority, such that a law can't be passed unfairly targeting the minority. The judicial branch specifically protects the tyranny of the majority by ensuring the rights of the minority are upheld.

---

Joined the discussion late, but this is purely hypothetical because nothing will change, but I think it would be a much better system to proportionally assign the electoral votes in each state instead of the all or nothing.  This way everyone's voice is heard and state's don't lose their individual power.  Like I said this is hypothetical, a real discussion with actual ramifications that could actually change and IMHO change the course of our politics is redistricting.  If districts were drawn without partisan advantage in mind you would get a lot more centrist lawmakers and therefore more willingness to compromise and actually address issues.   One last point, the tyranny of the majority concept is not about elections but about laws and the purpose of the judicial branch.  The judicial branch guards against the tyranny of the majority, such that a law can't be passed unfairly targeting the minority.  The judicial branch specifically protects the tyranny of the majority by ensuring the rights of the majority.

Absolutely agree.
assigning the electoral votes of each state in proportion to the choices of the voters in that state would also require a constitutional amendment. 

Adding sanity to our redistricting process fortunately only requires a simple Act of US Congress or a single insightful decision from the US Supreme Court. This is also something states can start for themselves on an individual basis. In Florida we have amended our own Constitution to speak to this issue.  But our legislature decided to interpret the amendment in a bizarre and unforeseen fashion and it took 5 years of litigation just to get the US House districts looking more like the amendment said that they should look. and State legislative districts still haven't been fixed. apparently no wealthy donors are willing to pay the lawyers for the work that would be required to file the lawsuit. Regardless of how the ball gets rolling, maintaining sanity in redistricting is going to require people suing and judges intervening. We've been doing it the wrong way so long that old habits will die hard, if at all.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Message board for an NFL team <> political pamphleteering. Again we find an idle comment that you just have to argue to the Nth degree for your unprovable opinion.

If  nothing else, we're fleshing out your opinion.
First you said I take too many things seriously over here.
Then you said nothing here is serious because it's anonymous.
Then you said but because it's organized around being a fan of an NFL team, it can't be serious.
I guess we can't be sure if you're offering this opinion in sincerity or jest either.

You'll just have to figure it out.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You asked how so and I told you. You always defend or endorse the left position on whatever we happen to be discussing then try to smooth it over by claiming to be something you aren't. In simpler terms, you post out of both sides of your mouth.

"I had a pretty good reputation until I started disagreeing with Mikey", and come to think of it, still have a pretty good one after that as well.

Yes, I am to your left.  You are on the other side of the foul line in right field, though. All of us are to your left.

Speak for yourself.  I just might be more conservative/libertarian than a lot of folks.  I honestly can't think of an issue where I lean liberal.

Regarding the topic of this thread, the Electoral College never will and never should go away.  Liberals like you think that the democrat "popular vote" should matter.  The Constitution should never have been changed with the 17th Amendment.  That's not the way our system of government is supposed to work.  The States should have more power than the federal government.

The last thing that this country needs is a "popular vote" for any part of government with the exception of the House of Representatives.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Joined the discussion late, but this is purely hypothetical because nothing will change, but I think it would be a much better system to proportionally assign the electoral votes in each state instead of the all or nothing.  This way everyone's voice is heard and state's don't lose their individual power.  Like I said this is hypothetical, a real discussion with actual ramifications that could actually change and IMHO change the course of our politics is redistricting.  If districts were drawn without partisan advantage in mind you would get a lot more centrist lawmakers and therefore more willingness to compromise and actually address issues.   One last point, the tyranny of the majority concept is not about elections but about laws and the purpose of the judicial branch.  The judicial branch guards against the tyranny of the majority, such that a law can't be passed unfairly targeting the minority.  The judicial branch specifically protects the tyranny of the majority by ensuring the rights of the minority are upheld.

Nothing prevents any State from proportional voting, they can assign their electors by congressional district winner for instance.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes, I am to your left.  You are on the other side of the foul line in right field, though. All of us are to your left.

  The Constitution should never have been changed with the 17th Amendment.  That's not the way our system of government is supposed to work.  The States should have more power than the federal government.

Why do you think the 17th amendment happened?

---

Joined the discussion late, but this is purely hypothetical because nothing will change, but I think it would be a much better system to proportionally assign the electoral votes in each state instead of the all or nothing.  This way everyone's voice is heard and state's don't lose their individual power.  Like I said this is hypothetical, a real discussion with actual ramifications that could actually change and IMHO change the course of our politics is redistricting.  If districts were drawn without partisan advantage in mind you would get a lot more centrist lawmakers and therefore more willingness to compromise and actually address issues.   One last point, the tyranny of the majority concept is not about elections but about laws and the purpose of the judicial branch.  The judicial branch guards against the tyranny of the majority, such that a law can't be passed unfairly targeting the minority.  The judicial branch specifically protects the tyranny of the majority by ensuring the rights of the minority are upheld.

Nothing prevents any State from proportional voting, they can assign their electors by congressional district winner for instance.

Why would any swing state ever do it?  Their local TV stations would lose a lot of money and they would be sure to encourage viewers to call their state rep and prevent it.

And no one trusts congressional district boundaries when partisans are drawing them. Notice that both states that do this have exactly two congressional districts. You can't gerrymander two. You can gerrymander three or more.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

  The Constitution should never have been changed with the 17th Amendment.  That's not the way our system of government is supposed to work.  The States should have more power than the federal government.

Why do you think the 17th amendment happened?

---

I really don't know and have not really researched it that much.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Why do you think the 17th amendment happened?

---

I really don't know and have not really researched it that much.

The original way required the two houses of the state legislature to agree, but they often had standoffs. Seats went unfilled, everyone lost.
Imagine if we never changed how US senators are elected, and the Florida house and Florida Senate couldn't agree who our next Senator would be.
Suppose this happened regularly.
What would you propose to fix it?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.