• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

Memes Official Meme Discussion Thread

Deru said:
Well if it wasn't voters from the United States, then we should be having a different conversation.

Who are you suggesting elected them lol?
Click to expand...

a majority of voters didn't elect a Republican majority in the Senate. A majority of states did. This is my whole point.

Republican Senator John Barasso of the great State of Wyoming received just over 136,000 votes in his last general election. He represents a state with a population of 578,759 people.

PnnaV0f.jpg


Democratic Senator Kamala Harris of the great State of California received just over 7,500,000 votes in her last general election. She represents a state with a population of 39,250,017 people.

ODAHyyH.jpg



When Trump (who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes) appoints his second lifetime nominee to the US Supreme Court, Kamala Harris will vote no and John Barasso will vote yes.

And the end result will be a conservative majority on the Supreme Court for a generation. Who will do their best to take our country back to the 1950s.
 
Last edited:
mal3volent said:
a majority of voters didn't elect a Republican majority in the Senate. A majority of states did. This is my whole point.
Click to expand...

That was terrible wording on my part, I should have worded the whole thing differently, as it really wasn't the majority of absolute citizens for either Senate or President, technically. The people who voted, even though Senators are elected by voters in their respective states, each voter's vote would have a non-normalized value. It would be the majority of that non-normalized value that would be what I meant, so I should have definitely worded it differently, slightly similar for the President. It doesn't change my overall point, though. I've acknowledged there is a variation in what one's "will" counts across the country, I still am not convinced it's more imperfect than a unicameral legislature, specifically, the House.

mal3volent said:
Who will do their best to take our country back to the 1950s.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm very worried about this too.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how anyone could read my previous post and not be infuriated.
It is so blatantly unfair.

Republicans use every single advantage they possibly can. Go as low as they need to. Lie, cheat, steal.
Democrats are naively holding onto ancient systems, practices, and ideals that help facilitate their treachery.

I'll just leave it be.
 
mal3volent said:
I don't see how anyone could read my previous post and not be infuriated.
It is so blatantly unfair.
Click to expand...

Trust me, if you haven't noticed lately, I'm incredibly infuriated and extremely worried with the balance of power right now. I have to have faith that it will be enough to start to swing it back with this upcoming election. If that doesn't happen, then my faith in this system to allow that ebb and flow will be severely tested.
 
Deru said:
Trust me, if you haven't noticed lately, I'm incredibly infuriated and extremely worried with the balance of power right now. I have to have faith that it will be enough to start to swing it back with this upcoming election. If that doesn't happen, then my faith in this system to allow that ebb and flow will be severely tested.
Click to expand...

IF Dems win the Senate back (saying that almost makes me laugh at this point) they need to expand the court to balance the two seats Republicans stole. Get rid of the filibuster , then make Puerto Rico and Washington DC states.

That's what they'd do if they had an balls. But alas, they don't.
 
I've been thinking about how a unicameral legislature could reasonably work, and you would almost have to eliminate the states, or at least the state's unique powers, for it to have a chance to function without all types of uninteded chaos.

mal3volent said:
they need to expand the court to balance the two seats Republicans stole
Click to expand...
I agree with this. My concern is they wouldn't be able to get enough moderate Democrats on board. My somber view right now is we're going to be looking at a 6-3 Conservative majority Supreme Court for a long time.
 
mal3volent said:
ah, so now it's not about principle, it's about quantity
Click to expand...

No, it's still about principle. Your meme takes issue with a single athlete wearing a MAGA hat. Where is the outrage over all those supporting BLM? On principle, before anyone from the left is bothered by a single athlete wearing a MAGA hat, they ought to have had issue with all the BLM support first.
 
TheLoveBandit said:
No, it's still about principle. Your meme takes issue with a single athlete wearing a MAGA hat. Where is the outrage over all those supporting BLM? On principle, before anyone from the left is bothered by a single athlete wearing a MAGA hat, they ought to have had issue with all the BLM support first.
Click to expand...

dude you are missing the point. We don't have a problem with athletes expressing their opinions. They are human beings. It's RIGHT WINGERS who have have ALWAYS been like "shut up and dribble your ball" . "Oh they're so persecuted , making millions of dollars living in mansions" "can't we keep the politics out of sports" "when I turn on the game I don't want to think about politics!" "He's disrespecting our flag, why doesn't he protest sometime else off the field!"

but now the shoes on the other foot and it's all a ok.

if you were consistent you'd be calling for him to leave the politics out of his fighting. Shut up and do some submissions.
 
mal3volent said:
any particular reason ?

why should these regions that contribute to our economy not receive the benefits of statehood ?
Click to expand...
Almost the whole world indirectly or directly benefits the US economy. Adding states to the nation at this point would reek of imperialism, and quite frankly more senators for few citizens versus the two for California is mind boggling. Splitting California into three states makes the most sense.
 
Captain.Heroin said:
It would open the door to Trump wanting Greenland, etc.

Why aren't other US territories states? There are others, etc. If you want to expand the senate there are plenty of people that could already use better senatorial representation.
Click to expand...

there are us territories WITHOUT representation. DC and PR. Who else is in more need of representation?
 
Captain.Heroin said:
The ~ 40 million people with 2 senators
Click to expand...

so you think zero representation is better than *some* representation.

we are in agreement that California should be more represented .

just not at the expense of those who hold no power at all.
 
mal3volent said:
so you think zero representation is better than *some* representation.

we are in agreement that California should be more represented .

just not at the expense of those who hold no power at all.
Click to expand...
Puerto Rico is fiscally insolvent and has had lots of corruption issues. Washington DC has less than 1 million people. It would be like adding two senators for another Wyoming. This would incense Republicans. It's more fair to split California three ways given the sheer population.

I'm also under the impression many people of Puerto Rico didn't want to be a US state in a poll a year or so ago.

There are some benefits for Puerto Ricans not being a US state, namely not having to pay federal income tax. Certainly a huge plus when you are left-leaning, don't need a senator, but get federal bailout money anyways after a hurricane but aren't paying into it. Especially when they can't really afford to be paying into it.
 
If Wyoming can be a state, Puerto Rico can be a state.

if Rhode Island can be a state, DC can be a state.

do you not realize this is a way of Republicans seizing power?

pack the court. PR and DC statehood. End the filibuster .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top