Upload
Login or register

brrigg

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:10/25/2010
Last Login:12/07/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#13461
Highest Content Rank:#1268
Highest Comment Rank:#302
Content Thumbs: 3005 total,  3337 ,  332
Comment Thumbs: 11849 total,  13180 ,  1331
Content Level Progress: 14% (14/100)
Level 127 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 128 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 72% (72/100)
Level 298 Comments: Post Master → Level 299 Comments: Post Master
Subscribers:2
Content Views:77508
Times Content Favorited:314 times
Total Comments Made:3600
FJ Points:12806
i like to party

Text Posts

  • Views: 27504
    Thumbs Up 1070 Thumbs Down 46 Total: +1024
    Comments: 209
    Favorites: 154
    Uploaded: 11/04/10
    spiderbro comp spiderbro comp
  • Views: 28647
    Thumbs Up 801 Thumbs Down 52 Total: +749
    Comments: 149
    Favorites: 50
    Uploaded: 03/22/14
    men vs. women. men vs. women.
  • Views: 27846
    Thumbs Up 743 Thumbs Down 68 Total: +675
    Comments: 69
    Favorites: 74
    Uploaded: 11/05/10
    release the climax! release the climax!
  • Views: 11472
    Thumbs Up 198 Thumbs Down 30 Total: +168
    Comments: 8
    Favorites: 4
    Uploaded: 02/11/14
    link in description link in description
  • Views: 9311
    Thumbs Up 162 Thumbs Down 17 Total: +145
    Comments: 9
    Favorites: 10
    Uploaded: 03/08/14
    (untitled) (untitled)
  • Views: 5821
    Thumbs Up 86 Thumbs Down 17 Total: +69
    Comments: 7
    Favorites: 0
    Uploaded: 03/20/14
    awful presumptuous of you... awful presumptuous of you...

latest user's comments

#396 - that metaphor misses, there is a huge difference in deciding t…  [+] (1 reply) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
#416 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
random question.

are you a communist?
#366 - you're missing the point, because it's winner take all, if you…  [+] (4 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
#382 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
There's a reason we let judges make decisions in court rather than the general public.

And yet, nobody calls the judge a superior human being, now do we?
User avatar
#399 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
We um...I don't know where you live...but...Juries?

I mean...fucking really?
User avatar
#396 - brrigg (11/26/2016) [-]
that metaphor misses, there is a huge difference in deciding the specifics of one situation, and picking the leader of a country, you are literally arguing against your right to chose your own leader.
#416 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
random question.

are you a communist?
#341 - right because no single farmer voted for hillary and no single…  [+] (7 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
#359 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
I also technically spoke a mistruth, the #1 industry in New York is agriculture, and yet the state is almost always overwhelmingly blue.

So New York is a literal mini-example of what would happen if we just handed over majority rule. The greatest irony is that liberals are supposedly fighting for minorities here, and look where we are now.
#347 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
1- it's winner take all because we can't have 2 presidents.

2- and I understand that there are farmers that voted Hillary and Bankers that voted Trump, but the point I was making is that some areas aren't treated as well as others. If people in Wisconsin know that every single year the democrats are going to win because they have majority rule, why would they vote? Then the places with majority rule will get most of the benefits from the president, so they can be elected again. Then the places with little voting power will gradually become more and more ignored, until, guess what? the people get incredibly unhappy.

3- and Trust me, I live in New York. Almost the entire state was red except for NYC.
User avatar
#366 - brrigg (11/26/2016) [-]
you're missing the point, because it's winner take all, if you voted for your states losing party, you're vote contributed to nothing, and it makes it look like the winner of that state had more support than they did. and ny was split basically 60/40 in every county, again because they show each county as one or the other instead of representing the actual votes, it makes it look much more lopsided than it actually is. your arguing that the electoral college protects you from problems that could only happen if the electoral college was already in place, it makes no sense.

#382 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
There's a reason we let judges make decisions in court rather than the general public.

And yet, nobody calls the judge a superior human being, now do we?
User avatar
#399 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
We um...I don't know where you live...but...Juries?

I mean...fucking really?
User avatar
#396 - brrigg (11/26/2016) [-]
that metaphor misses, there is a huge difference in deciding the specifics of one situation, and picking the leader of a country, you are literally arguing against your right to chose your own leader.
#416 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
random question.

are you a communist?
#311 - this map is misleading, none of those counties voted exclusive…  [+] (29 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
#378 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
Boohoo you fucking lost. Get over it you fucking child.
User avatar
#388 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
> same anon ID

It's a troll guys, false alarm.
#391 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
>guys

Like anyone here agrees with you crying and squealing like a child.

You fucking lost. You are a loser. You will never get over this. And it will be hilarious forever.
#395 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
it's so cute
#335 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
and until you can give me a valid reason why we shouldn't just hand over total control to like 5 cities in the country, I suggest you rethink your position.
User avatar
#343 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
Because that's already how it is WITH the electoral college dipfuck. Note which states those mounds of blue are in. Note the amount of electoral votes they net.
#354 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
now I can spit insults all day, but if you want to discuss respectfully, let me know
#380 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
He's an assblasted libcuck. Insults are the apex of his intelligence.
User avatar
#357 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
I'm more than willing presuming your argument doesn't just stem from a rhetorical Facebook image
#351 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
hey there shitbag, nice to see you spreading your half-assed arguments again

it clearly isn't that way because what happened this election bud? who won majority vote and who won the presidency? obviously the majority did not win you stupid motherfucking drooling retard
#356 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
You do realize that a president wins off of electoral college while losing the majority only 7% of the time, right? Just because you find your opinion to be more valuable than someone else's doesn't make it so.

And stop acting like you wouldn't be calling for just as much blood as Hillary supporters had it been the other way around. The only reason you give a shit about how ideal it is is because you're scared shit less they'll take it away from Trump at the last minute.

As it is, with the EC, 22% of states control 51% of the Electoral votes. But by all means continue to spout about how "it protects from the rule of the majority."
#385 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
Lol you are so fucking mad how do you even function in real life
Do you threaten to murder people as soon as they tell you "no"?
#386 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
Was there gonna be anything resembling an argument in any of that?
#389 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
>Get blatantly insulted
>"ARE YOU GOING TO ARGUE WITH ME OR NOT!?"

Lol the retardation of libcucks.
#367 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
"You do realize that a president wins off of electoral college while losing the majority only 7% of the time, right?" - well, obviously. The electoral college isn't meant to control us, it's supposed to correct a decision if it's a retarded one. To be fair, Trump was no prize, but the amount of scandals about Hillary this election, and even in just the past 10 years is astounding.


"And stop acting like you wouldn't be calling for just as much blood as Hillary supporters had it been the other way around. The only reason you give a shit about how ideal it is is because you're scared shit less they'll take it away from Trump at the last minute. " - Lol what? I hated Obama and never said shit when he won twice, even on here. I just accepted it because i'm a big boy. Also, when he won (twice) I don't recall the riots, the screams of insults, the crying all over facebook, and the whining all over every form of social media. People just accepted it. Republicans just accepted it.

"As it is, with the EC, 22% of states control 51% of the Electoral votes. But by all means continue to spout about how "it protects from the rule of the majority."" - but it DOES protect from the rule of majority because that's exactly what happened this election. The majority decided one thing, and the electoral college decided another. Right now, right here, is an example of the electoral college stopping an election from becoming purely majority rule.
User avatar
#374 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
And what exactly is "the rule of the majority" because it's sounding an awful lot like a bunch of salty rural fucksticks not wanting to accept the idea that there's less of them than there are urban fucksticks. If something is supposed to be advertised as "the will of the people" how is that preserved by full on ignoring what that will of the people is? And don't just say "we saw it this election". The people wanted Hillary. The majority of votes in favor of her say that. She lost because of strategic state voting and a bullshit "winner take all" philosophy. You're acting like with each election, there's an objectively right, and objectively false choice for who gets it, which isn't true just because you say it is. Elections are the most subjective thing in existence outside of "the existential nature of perception".

There's no argument of "what's right for Wyoming isn't right for Cali" because that's why we have states right. It's why "the main person in charge of the entire landmass known as the USA" is literally the one thing people choose which influences the whole country.

It's like if you're trying to run to be head of the village, but you lost because "the witch doctor hut didn't like you". You'd throw a shit. But hey..."will of the people"...somehow.
#410 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
Do you believe, objectively, that some people are purely better at making particular decisions than others?

The Jury in court cases making decisions rather than just the crowd on the street, for example. Not because they are smarter or superior, but simply because they have been presented with facts that many people on the street may not have seen.

And if I had more patience, I think we both know I could find, on your profile, a comment about the general American population being uneducated and stupid.

So, why let the stupid masses make a decision without ever correcting them? What about Hillary's scandals, some of which are 100% undeniable? Even while using a soft hand, the FBI ruled her 'incompetent'

What if this group of people, objectively presented with better information, could have made a better decision than people who only looked at memes?
User avatar
#426 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
BTW the Jury in court cases is always a random collected of chosen people, so it's pretty synonymous with your rhetoric on "random people of the street".
User avatar
#420 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
That all would be fine and good...if politics weren't a big steaming pile of subjectivity. There's a big difference between "let's all vote on whether or not the Earth is flat!" and "should people be allowed to smoke pot." It's all based on the direction the country is going politically which was designed to be based on the will of the people, given that they're the ones living in said country.

Disqualifying people from voting isn't something that's as obvious as calling someone out for getting the wrong answer on a math test. Whether or not people should smoke pot isn't a right or wrong answer. The socialistic potential for healthcare and education isn't a right or wrong answer. It's all based on what the people want, and when you have a system in place where the people can say one thing but have "the system" enact something else, you're not living in a government that's governed by the people.

So to answer your main question: yes I do feel that, but I also understand I'm not the one who gets to decide that. The people, as a whole, do. If "the peolle" vote for something super drastically bad enough...I'll move.
#331 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
anon because I'm not going to argue with your misunderstanding.


the electoral college literally exists so it doesn't just become majority rule. Mob mentality is a thing. What does New York produce? Bankers. What does the midwest produce? Farmers, and the food that literally feeds the whole rest of the country. Do you want bankers controlling what happens entirely or do you want the farmers to have somewhat of a voice, too?

and not just that, what happens when florida, new york, and california all become super liberal? they'll have the majority rule, and will they give half a shit about the pollution in the midwest? Will they care about farmer's wages? no, they won't care about anyone but themselves.

The electoral college was literally created to give the minority some power over the majority. It's about helping the working man, the poor, and the unfortunate.

Besides, you and I both know a solid 3rd of Hillary's votes were just because she is a woman. Spin it any way you want bud, but that's why a lot of people voted for her. And you can argue it all you like, but that's a shit reason. The electoral college knew this, and decided otherwise.
#365 - mysteriouscake (11/26/2016) [-]
That arguments bullshit. The regions of the US get represented more than fairly in the house of reps and the senate. No fucking way some guy in Utah should have there vote count more than twice as much as someone in NY, TX, or CA when electing our national leader.
User avatar
#341 - brrigg (11/26/2016) [-]
right because no single farmer voted for hillary and no single banker voted for trump, this argument is shit, no state, county, city or town voted exclusively one way or another, almost all areas were split pretty evenly. but because the electoral college is winner take all they make it look like it's the major cities vs the rural areas, that is a problem we simply do not have. and the electoral college isn't a solution to that problem anyways it's just the exact opposite problem. you don't want major cities to have all the say in elections, so you give all the say to the rural areas. dumb.
#359 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
I also technically spoke a mistruth, the #1 industry in New York is agriculture, and yet the state is almost always overwhelmingly blue.

So New York is a literal mini-example of what would happen if we just handed over majority rule. The greatest irony is that liberals are supposedly fighting for minorities here, and look where we are now.
#347 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
1- it's winner take all because we can't have 2 presidents.

2- and I understand that there are farmers that voted Hillary and Bankers that voted Trump, but the point I was making is that some areas aren't treated as well as others. If people in Wisconsin know that every single year the democrats are going to win because they have majority rule, why would they vote? Then the places with majority rule will get most of the benefits from the president, so they can be elected again. Then the places with little voting power will gradually become more and more ignored, until, guess what? the people get incredibly unhappy.

3- and Trust me, I live in New York. Almost the entire state was red except for NYC.
User avatar
#366 - brrigg (11/26/2016) [-]
you're missing the point, because it's winner take all, if you voted for your states losing party, you're vote contributed to nothing, and it makes it look like the winner of that state had more support than they did. and ny was split basically 60/40 in every county, again because they show each county as one or the other instead of representing the actual votes, it makes it look much more lopsided than it actually is. your arguing that the electoral college protects you from problems that could only happen if the electoral college was already in place, it makes no sense.

#382 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
There's a reason we let judges make decisions in court rather than the general public.

And yet, nobody calls the judge a superior human being, now do we?
User avatar
#399 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
We um...I don't know where you live...but...Juries?

I mean...fucking really?
User avatar
#396 - brrigg (11/26/2016) [-]
that metaphor misses, there is a huge difference in deciding the specifics of one situation, and picking the leader of a country, you are literally arguing against your right to chose your own leader.
#416 - anon (11/26/2016) [-]
random question.

are you a communist?
#50 - Comment deleted 11/23/2016 on Avocado 0