• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Socialism Fails Every Time

tapeANaspirin2it

Well-known member
Contributor
Joined
Apr 21, 2014
Messages
11,930
Reaction score
15,738
Points
113
Good video from John Stosel's channel breaking it down and explaining the myth of the so called successful scandanavian socialist economies.

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HmDBTHxYZ7Q" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0"></iframe>
 
I didn't watch it. I know the deal already. The fools in our country don't. Lack of history teaching I suppose. But hey wait this is democratic socialism. Which translates to pure democracy. Mob rule baby. Who needs that electoral college. I'm just waiting on the big throw down with this whole deal. Just a matter of time.
 
There is no feasible way the Electoral College gets changes (thank God).

They need 2/3rd of the Senate to approve that. I can't imagine any situation that Senators from small states would willingly throw away the power their states have in Presidential elections. Even those few small-state democrats (Vermont, Hawaii, etc.). They would get crucified.

It's a pipe dream.
 
Small states seem irrelevant because of the electoral college.
 
Small states seem irrelevant because of the electoral college.

Jee-zus, 21, are you completely, totally and irrevocably unaware of history??

The founders faced a dilemma as to how to guarantee to small states - Delaware, Vermont - that they would not be consumed by New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. In Federalist No. 62, Madison wrote:

"The equality of representation in the senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small states, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government; and that among independent and sovereign states bound together by a simple league, the parties however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason, that in a compound republic partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation."

The theory of a state being given representation as to the election of the President that combines both population-based representation, well as the principle of equity among the states, is a founding part of the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1. The founders once again brilliantly brought about that balance: "Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Therefore, the electoral college apportions its delegates in significant part based on population ("the whole number of ... Representatives"), as well as on an equal basis ("the whole number of Senators"). Those who turn up their nose at the electoral college are imbeciles, who know nothing of this great nation's founding, and are instead preening wanna-be queens.

Including Hyphen, the sniveling socialist who thinks that the rich can pay for every freebie fantasy she has, while wearing a $3,700 ensemble that she somehow affords on a part-time bartender's salary. Ignorant ditz. Moron.

Finally, the United States is the greatest representative government in the history of the planet. The United States is the greatest economy the world has ever seen. The United States has done more good for the world than any other nation in history. And dumbshits think that taking out one of the foundational principles of this nation is a good idea??
 
Small states seem irrelevant because of the electoral college.

No, it’s the exact opposite. If there was no electoral college, candidates would just campaign in CA, NY, TX about 80% and then about 20% in PA, IL, FL,

The Dems wouldn’t want to get rid of it anyway. Right now, they pretty much have CA and NY in their pocket. That’s 84 electoral votes. They don’t even have to campaign very hard there.

CA goes Dem but there are still millions of Republicans there. Many of whom don’t bother voting because they know they won’t turn the state red. But if it was just a popular vote, Dems may only get 60% of CA votes instead of the 100% of electors.
 
If everyone's vote counted the same, candidates for the Presidency would still need to campaign all over. The process of getting nominated
would still involve accumulating delegates by state and has nothing to do with the electoral college.
 
If everyone's vote counted the same, candidates for the Presidency would still need to campaign all over. The process of getting nominated would still involve accumulating delegates by state and has nothing to do with the electoral college.

tenor.gif


Why would any candidate ever visit Iowa, or Nevada, or Vermont, or New Hampshire, or Oregon, or West Virginia?!? Did you know that the COMBINED population of those states is about 11.2 million people?!?

Or LESS than the population for metropolitan Los Angeles??

Who the hell would EVER waste time visiting states with a population of less than 2 million??? For crying out loud, the candidates would visit New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta and never visit Delaware, or Wyoming, or South Dakota, or North Dakota, or New Mexico, or New Hampshire, and on and on.
 
If everyone's vote counted the same, candidates for the Presidency would still need to campaign all over. The process of getting nominated
would still involve accumulating delegates by state and has nothing to do with the electoral college.

No they would not.

The 12 largest metro areas would overwhelm the entire rest of the country effectively making slaves of us all. But you know this and you are all for it since these metro areas are exhaustively DNC strongholds and vote plantations.
 
The electoral college can be tweeked, but abolishing it for a straight up popular vote is absurdly shortsighted

Can you imaging the last few hours in California when the two parties know the number they have to reach and they are bussing people in to vote....

The Dems just want to ignore the wntire middle of the country... thats why they keep bringing it up...
 
There is no feasible way the Electoral College gets changes (thank God).

They need 2/3rd of the Senate to approve that. I can't imagine any situation that Senators from small states would willingly throw away the power their states have in Presidential elections. Even those few small-state democrats (Vermont, Hawaii, etc.). They would get crucified.

It's a pipe dream.

Beat me to it.
 
If everyone's vote counted the same, candidates for the Presidency would still need to campaign all over. The process of getting nominated
would still involve accumulating delegates by state and has nothing to do with the electoral college.

So you're thinking that for the actual final election they'll scrap the electors and just go total vote, but for the preliminary election, they would keep the system of having to win individual state delegates?

The process of getting nominated has nothing to do with the electoral college. Unless you count the fact that it works almost exactly the same way just with delegates instead of electors.

You can't possibly like the nomination process and dislike the electoral college.

Oh, but i forgot, the Dems found a way to rig their nomination process with super delegates.

More liberal hypocrisy. Screaming that Hillary got more popular votes than Trump while ignoring how Bernie kept beating Hillary yet Hillary won the delegates.
 
Last edited:
The electoral college can be tweeked, but abolishing it for a straight up popular vote is absurdly shortsighted

Can you imaging the last few hours in California when the two parties know the number they have to reach and they are bussing people in to vote....

The Dems just want to ignore the wntire middle of the country... thats why they keep bringing it up...

The one tweak to me that makes sense is to go to a system of awarding the electors proportionality based on each congressional district like some states currently do. This would mean the ignored parts of States would get their voices heard in CA and NY as well as the few blue districts would get their voices heard. California and NY would be in play partially for a Republican and Trump would have stopped there a few times and most likely won the popular vote as Republicans and like minded voters in those States wold have a reason to vote again. Based on the typical election map I am sure Dems have no great desire for this at the current time.
 
Small states seem irrelevant because of the electoral college.

I think the balance is fair. Some electoral votes are close and small states can make a difference. Other smaller states like Maine and Nebraska offer split electoral college votes, a reason why Trump spent a good amount of time in Maine.
 
The electoral college can be tweeked, but abolishing it for a straight up popular vote is absurdly shortsighted

Can you imaging the last few hours in California when the two parties know the number they have to reach and they are bussing people in to vote....

The Dems just want to ignore the wntire middle of the country... thats why they keep bringing it up...

I took a look at the fertility rates for each state. Red states tend to be much higher in for their birth rates in general.

10 of the top ten fertility states were won by Trump. He also won 22 of the top 25 fertility states. WOW.

This suggests in 20 years " red states, big or small " will have an even higher amount of electoral votes.

A seldom talked about fact, and reason why Democrats favor illegal immigration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
 
Gotta love socialism. Venezuelan moms are whoring themselves out in Columbia so their kids don't starve.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/venezuelan-exiles-turn-prostitution-feed-families-030843061.html

And corpses are exploding because of lack of electricity / refrigeration.

https://www.breitbart.com/latin-america/2018/10/24/venezuela-corpses-exploding-morgues-power-shortages/

News reporting this morning that Venezuela is paying for the migrant caravan. Where are they getting the money?
 
The one tweak to me that makes sense is to go to a system of awarding the electors proportionality based on each congressional district like some states currently do. This would mean the ignored parts of States would get their voices heard in CA and NY as well as the few blue districts would get their voices heard. California and NY would be in play partially for a Republican and Trump would have stopped there a few times and most likely won the popular vote as Republicans and like minded voters in those States wold have a reason to vote again. Based on the typical election map I am sure Dems have no great desire for this at the current time.

Doing that is almost the same as going to a popular vote.
 
Top