(01-15-2019, 10:20 PM)Last42min Wrote:

(01-14-2019, 11:52 PM)mikesez Wrote: 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.

When you say "state sovereignty means a lot to me," while arguing for a direct election, it's hard to take you seriously. I can hear your rebuttal already: "A person can be both for state sovereignty and a national popular vote." No. State's rights and central government, while not being diametrically opposed, operate on a sliding scale at the very least. You are literally arguing, in this thread, that states should cede power to the nation. Why would you make that argument if state sovereignty means a lot to you?  

If there were such a power discrepancy that the voices of NY and Cali (again, not literal) were being ignored to the degree they were oppressed, I could see one making a distinction that "state sovereignty means a lot to me, but it's been 30 years since Democrats have been able to elect a President... maybe we should at least look at changing the system." That would at least be reasonable. But you want to change it after one bad election cycle. As it stands, there is no justifiable reason to change the system unless you want to slant the balance of power towards progressives. Based on all of your posts on this board, I could believe that would desire that, but you won't acknowledge that. You either don't understand the framework of this nation, which means you parrot other people's ideas without considering the consequences, or you do understand it and you are trying to be persuasive by placating the person you are debating. It's disingenuous, and one of the reasons I say you don't argue in good faith.

So, yes. This is about you.

I've opposed the electoral college and plurality winner elections ever since I turned 18 years old.  Which party wins never changed my opinion that our system is nuts.  
You assume I've just started feeling this way, then form your opinion of me from there.
No state has any meaningful authority about who will be President since any of us have been alive.  The closest any state came was Florida in 2000, but that had a lot of moving parts.  Our state didn't behave as a single "sovereign" in that instance.

I will grant you the point that if the electoral college gave states a sort of sovereignty, that it'd be dupliticious of me to claim to care about that while also wanting to get rid of the EC.  But I don't see it that way.

---