Upload
Login or register

frenzysalem

Last status update:
-
Date Signed Up:1/23/2011
Last Login:12/09/2016
Stats
Comment Ranking:#7380
Highest Content Rank:#5531
Highest Comment Rank:#2025
Content Thumbs: 30 total,  47 ,  17
Comment Thumbs: 4259 total,  5501 ,  1242
Content Level Progress: 50.84% (30/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 56.99% (57/100)
Level 238 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 239 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:1
Content Views:3730
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:1334
FJ Points:4055

latest user's comments

#308 - But don't you think it's kind of unfair for one person's vote …  [+] (18 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... 0
User avatar
#316 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
Also, I should mention, the twitter employees taxes still matter less than the farmer's taxes. The farmer is bringing in money from outside the US, and then that money gets taxed, thus adding to the total amount of money in the country, while the twitter employee is just getting paid with money that was already here, generating a net zero gain for the country. By all mathematical accounts, that twitter employee is literally worthless to the country.
User avatar
#314 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
It's not exactly like their votes are worth less, it's more that a certain region of the country can only have so much sway over the national politics.The only reason the election was even close was because of the huge concentrations in LA and NYC, two places that produce literally nothing. If you let those two cities dictate politics unilaterally, the rest of the country will fall apart, and then those two cities will fall apart with nothing to support them. All areas of the nation must have some say in the elections. It's not like they're getting short changed either, those two cities hand the democrats 1/3rd of their necessary electorates every election. They've forced republicans into the position where they have to win the swing states or there's mathematically no chance to win whatsoever.
Furthermore, once you get into the whole "every vote should count" nonsense, then you have to consider all the votes that don't count cause they're in a colored state, and all the votes that aren't cast because there's no point for them to bother. Like it or not, the electoral college is the best developed system in history that represents America's interests.
#332 - noschool (11/26/2016) [-]
"It's not exactly like their votes are worth less"
it is actually exactly like that, that's why people why like the electoral college support it. states like cali, texas and florida, are underrepresented in the house and the electoral college in order to over present smaller states.

Cali has ~39 million and gets 55 votes or about 709,000 voters are represented by one electoral vote while Wyoming ~580,000 get 3 or about 200,000 voters are represented by one electoral vote. a cali vote is worth 1/ 709,000 electoral votes and a wyoming vote is worth 1/200,000 electoral votes.

also " Like it or not, the electoral college is the best developed system in history that represents America's interests." don't make me laugh, there are objective problems with the system, like there is no reason stats electoral votes shouldn't be divided up proportionally so candidates don't just care about the 10 swing states and voting in a safe state actually matters.
User avatar
#338 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
Right, because Wyoming is worthless and their opinions, needs, and philosophies should be ignored. The Electoral college guarantees them a voice which they have a right to.
I specifically said it's not perfect, there are problems, but why don't you come up with a better one instead of bitching on the internet.
User avatar
#368 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
You're confusing an argument of "our votes should be the same" with an argument of "you should just never vote."

Which is weird, because they don't even sound similar.
#362 - noschool (11/26/2016) [-]
but why do they deserve more of a voice just because less people live there? they aren't being ignored, would be equally as represented as the same number of people in any other state under a pop vote. you've brought up the idea of agriculture, but California and Texas are like the top agricultural producing states, so if you are pulling that argument just say you're vote should be based on your job.

my version of a good election system would basically be an instant run off election based on a popular vote because i don't see why 600k people in wyoming deserve more power than 600k people in texas or cali in deciding the president of the country, we already have the senate to protect small states.
#432 - kmichel (11/26/2016) [-]
The census is supposed to balance this though. States gain and lose electoral votes as they gain and lose population. That's one reason why the popular vote and EC vote give the same result in all but a very small number of cases.
#443 - noschool (11/26/2016) [-]
but the EC creates a baseline, saying a state, no matter how sparse, will receive this much representation and because we have a cap on the number of representatives populous states lose reps to these smaller states. the reshuffling of EC votes doesn't address why 600k people in wyoming deserve more power than 600k people in texas or cali.
User avatar
#322 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
But if we got rid of the electoral college then it wouldn't dissuade people from voting anymore. If someone lives in a primarily blue state and wants to vote red, they can and their vote will actually mean something instead of like it does in the electoral college now, where normally, that one red vote would mean nothing because 51% or more wanted it blue.
User avatar
#329 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
...But then highly concentrated areas where people all have the same interests would be catered to, while the rest of America would be ignored. You're exacerbating the problem, not fixing it.
User avatar
#334 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
Not necessarily. Look at the popular vote polls in the last several elections. They're generally pretty close, because, sure, even though there are densely packed blue areas, every other area in the country that isn't as densely packed, is red, and they still make up a massive portion of the population.
User avatar
#344 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
You're failing to take into consideration politics. Why would a presidential candidate go to Ohio and bother caring about their opinions for maybe a million or so votes after a handful of speeches in various parts of the state with travel and all that, when they could just cater to New York and guarantee a million votes in a single speech? If you go by popular vote, the politicians will not WASTE their time catering to all the various parts of middle America, they'll just go to the coasts.
User avatar
#394 - yusay (11/26/2016) [-]
We already have that problem though, politicians only care about the swing states with the electoral college. You might want to watch this video. The Trouble with the Electoral College
User avatar
#375 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
Either way, you've helped me understand some of the thinking behind it and in a rational, level-headed way which is something I don't get often on FJ. I really want to feel like the electoral college is what's best for our country and the fact that we've been using it for so long and I trust the system will do what's best for us (to a certain degree) that tells me there's just some aspect of it that I either haven't thought of or been told about yet that proves it. It's just that everything about it that I know makes it seem otherwise. Guess I should've payed more attention in govt. class. Thanks for the help m8
User avatar
#360 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
Is it really any different the way things are now? We have a shit ton of states that are either obviously going to be blue or obviously going to be red and then there are swing states. Elects generally spend most of their time campaigning in those swing states because those are the only ones that matter because the electoral college works like that. It says, hey, instead of focusing on what a SHIT TON of people want, we'll give more value to the votes of far less people. And to be fair, if it was popular vote and candidates only focus on high population areas, they could actually spend time trying to get other people's votes from elsewhere since that would actually make a difference. Because, like I said, right now it's just fighting over swing states and pretty much nothing else.
User avatar
#595 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
It's only different in that it makes politicians appeal to a broader audience. Dems appeal to Cali/NY and Reps appeal to Texas, and then they both try to appeal to middle America (the swing states) in their own way. The alternative(popular vote) would just be both of them appealing to NY, Cali, Florida, and Texas and ignoring the rest.
#310 - noschool (11/26/2016) [-]
it doesn't explicitly say it, but the mere presence of the electoral college says it should. no matter how many people live in a region it gets 3 votes according to the constitution.
User avatar
#313 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
That's fucking stupid. Hence the allegory I made in my original comment.
#283 - So lets say we have a 10x10 grid like the one shown here. Let'…  [+] (33 replies) 11/26/2016 on This is Why We use... +2
#453 - therealkakashi (11/26/2016) [-]
Alright, I'm out of my league talking about politics here but let me give it a shot

Let's get hypothetical. California has 100 million people. Every other one of the 50 states has 1 million people.

Together, all states minus California have 49 million votes.

So California decides who wins for the entire country.

Now that aint fair to the other 49 states is it? But it's "the majority" right? But then it becomes unfair because the problems people have in California won't be the same as maybe other states have.

Let's say in at least 10 or so states there's an issue with X. But California is voting for someone who won't address X because the people of California don't have a problem at all with X - it's not a big deal.

You see how this sort of argument is flawed or isn't the best idea? You understand that just having a "majority" doesn't count if its in a very centralized cluster? Because it's not an accurate representation of the entire country, but is just a very dense and very small part of a very big piece of land with people strewn all across it?

That's my take on it at least. I know fuck-all about politics it just sounds logical to me.
User avatar
#548 - HonkIfIDriveWell (11/26/2016) [-]
You're thinking of at as California having a vote that's worth 100 and every other state as having a vote that's worth 1. That's the wrong way to think about it. Every single person in the country makes a decision individually. You can't think of a state as a singular voting entity. Under a true democracy, state lines wouldn't matter. On a smaller scale, you could argue that it's not fair that Los Angeles always decides the outcome in Californian votes. But of course its fair. Every vote being equal is the ultimate fairness.
#551 - therealkakashi (11/26/2016) [-]
I feel like there's a difference between "every vote is worth 1 vote" and "every vote is equal"

The former meaning your vote almost doesn't matter in low population areas and matters a lot in high population areas, and the latter meaning your vote counts the same no matter where in the country you are
User avatar
#562 - HonkIfIDriveWell (11/26/2016) [-]
Under a true democracy, living in California and voting blue would not make your vote worth more just because everyone else is voting blue in your state. The state lines wouldn't matter. It would be worth just as much as the guy living in Texas voting blue. The votes would be counted as a national whole.
#422 - kmichel (11/26/2016) [-]
That's why we have a census every 10 or so years. So you would never have a situation where a town of one farmer is worth as much as a city of 10 million. The electoral college is not based on land area. That's why states lose and gain electoral votes every census.
User avatar
#441 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
That's interesting. I didn't know the census helped in that way.
User avatar
#371 - brrigg (11/26/2016) [-]
actually, there aren't really any red or blue states, it's just the winner take all nature of the electoral college that makes them look that way, the country is pretty much purple all over.
#309 - shadowbndg (11/26/2016) [-]
A lot more people live in California than Ohio right? By popular vote between the two, Ohio would lose every time, and of course, what's good for California might not be good for Ohio. Ohio gets sick of being stepped on...and Viva La Revolución!

Electoral College makes sure everyone can participate in a fair(ish) way.
User avatar
#349 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
If it's a matter of federal law, Ohio can suck it up. It's what the people of the country want, not what they as a state want. If you don't like it, go ahead and secede.
User avatar
#312 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
But that's missing the point. If we went by popular vote, the votes wouldn't be divided by state anyway. The only reason it's done like that now is because of the electoral college. If it was strictly by popular vote, it wouldn't matter what state you're in or where you live, just whichever has the most votes, regardless of where they're from, wins.
#315 - shadowbndg (11/26/2016) [-]
10 states hold the majority of the USA population. I promise the people in those 10 states preferable treatment over the people in the other 40. I win the election based on the population in these 10. I keep doing this. My successor does this, so does theirs and so forth.

The people in the other 40 states have no votes that matter. Why would the continue to want to be part of the country?
User avatar
#350 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
And that's different from how it is now...how?
User avatar
#318 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
You misunderstand me. Individual states' population would have nothing to do with the election. It would have to do with simply how many people vote for what. Think about the analogy I made in the original comment. If two corners vote dem. and two corners vote repub. the other 1-person squares would have to break the tie. It has nothing to do with where those people are, but what each individual person votes on. Like, if a few thousand people in one of the squares chooses to vote against what the other thousand want, their vote is heard and it's not muffled by "fuck you, the majority of people in this square wanted it the other way" which is what it's like now.
User avatar
#305 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
You're assuming all of these people have the same value to the country. The backbone of any country is agriculture, energy gathering, and manufacturing. Believe it or not, silicon valley businesses like Twitter and Facebook don't actually profit this country in any substantial way. So, sure you can cater to the people in big cities who mainly do banking, media, productionless jobs in general, or just rely on welfare, but you'll be shit out of luck when you run out of food, machines, fuel, and all the money flows out of the country since we have no exports. All because you ignored the needs of the people who really keep this country running, and they went out of business as a result.
User avatar
#308 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
But don't you think it's kind of unfair for one person's vote to have more value than anothers? Nowhere in the constitution does it say someone's vote should/is worth more than that of someone else's based on job, or anything else. And it's not like those people, however much they help the country or not, aren't citizens. Some employee at Twitter pays their taxes just as much as any farmer.
User avatar
#316 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
Also, I should mention, the twitter employees taxes still matter less than the farmer's taxes. The farmer is bringing in money from outside the US, and then that money gets taxed, thus adding to the total amount of money in the country, while the twitter employee is just getting paid with money that was already here, generating a net zero gain for the country. By all mathematical accounts, that twitter employee is literally worthless to the country.
User avatar
#314 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
It's not exactly like their votes are worth less, it's more that a certain region of the country can only have so much sway over the national politics.The only reason the election was even close was because of the huge concentrations in LA and NYC, two places that produce literally nothing. If you let those two cities dictate politics unilaterally, the rest of the country will fall apart, and then those two cities will fall apart with nothing to support them. All areas of the nation must have some say in the elections. It's not like they're getting short changed either, those two cities hand the democrats 1/3rd of their necessary electorates every election. They've forced republicans into the position where they have to win the swing states or there's mathematically no chance to win whatsoever.
Furthermore, once you get into the whole "every vote should count" nonsense, then you have to consider all the votes that don't count cause they're in a colored state, and all the votes that aren't cast because there's no point for them to bother. Like it or not, the electoral college is the best developed system in history that represents America's interests.
#332 - noschool (11/26/2016) [-]
"It's not exactly like their votes are worth less"
it is actually exactly like that, that's why people why like the electoral college support it. states like cali, texas and florida, are underrepresented in the house and the electoral college in order to over present smaller states.

Cali has ~39 million and gets 55 votes or about 709,000 voters are represented by one electoral vote while Wyoming ~580,000 get 3 or about 200,000 voters are represented by one electoral vote. a cali vote is worth 1/ 709,000 electoral votes and a wyoming vote is worth 1/200,000 electoral votes.

also " Like it or not, the electoral college is the best developed system in history that represents America's interests." don't make me laugh, there are objective problems with the system, like there is no reason stats electoral votes shouldn't be divided up proportionally so candidates don't just care about the 10 swing states and voting in a safe state actually matters.
User avatar
#338 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
Right, because Wyoming is worthless and their opinions, needs, and philosophies should be ignored. The Electoral college guarantees them a voice which they have a right to.
I specifically said it's not perfect, there are problems, but why don't you come up with a better one instead of bitching on the internet.
User avatar
#368 - lolollo (11/26/2016) [-]
You're confusing an argument of "our votes should be the same" with an argument of "you should just never vote."

Which is weird, because they don't even sound similar.
#362 - noschool (11/26/2016) [-]
but why do they deserve more of a voice just because less people live there? they aren't being ignored, would be equally as represented as the same number of people in any other state under a pop vote. you've brought up the idea of agriculture, but California and Texas are like the top agricultural producing states, so if you are pulling that argument just say you're vote should be based on your job.

my version of a good election system would basically be an instant run off election based on a popular vote because i don't see why 600k people in wyoming deserve more power than 600k people in texas or cali in deciding the president of the country, we already have the senate to protect small states.
#432 - kmichel (11/26/2016) [-]
The census is supposed to balance this though. States gain and lose electoral votes as they gain and lose population. That's one reason why the popular vote and EC vote give the same result in all but a very small number of cases.
#443 - noschool (11/26/2016) [-]
but the EC creates a baseline, saying a state, no matter how sparse, will receive this much representation and because we have a cap on the number of representatives populous states lose reps to these smaller states. the reshuffling of EC votes doesn't address why 600k people in wyoming deserve more power than 600k people in texas or cali.
User avatar
#322 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
But if we got rid of the electoral college then it wouldn't dissuade people from voting anymore. If someone lives in a primarily blue state and wants to vote red, they can and their vote will actually mean something instead of like it does in the electoral college now, where normally, that one red vote would mean nothing because 51% or more wanted it blue.
User avatar
#329 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
...But then highly concentrated areas where people all have the same interests would be catered to, while the rest of America would be ignored. You're exacerbating the problem, not fixing it.
User avatar
#334 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
Not necessarily. Look at the popular vote polls in the last several elections. They're generally pretty close, because, sure, even though there are densely packed blue areas, every other area in the country that isn't as densely packed, is red, and they still make up a massive portion of the population.
User avatar
#344 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
You're failing to take into consideration politics. Why would a presidential candidate go to Ohio and bother caring about their opinions for maybe a million or so votes after a handful of speeches in various parts of the state with travel and all that, when they could just cater to New York and guarantee a million votes in a single speech? If you go by popular vote, the politicians will not WASTE their time catering to all the various parts of middle America, they'll just go to the coasts.
User avatar
#394 - yusay (11/26/2016) [-]
We already have that problem though, politicians only care about the swing states with the electoral college. You might want to watch this video. The Trouble with the Electoral College
User avatar
#375 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
Either way, you've helped me understand some of the thinking behind it and in a rational, level-headed way which is something I don't get often on FJ. I really want to feel like the electoral college is what's best for our country and the fact that we've been using it for so long and I trust the system will do what's best for us (to a certain degree) that tells me there's just some aspect of it that I either haven't thought of or been told about yet that proves it. It's just that everything about it that I know makes it seem otherwise. Guess I should've payed more attention in govt. class. Thanks for the help m8
User avatar
#360 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
Is it really any different the way things are now? We have a shit ton of states that are either obviously going to be blue or obviously going to be red and then there are swing states. Elects generally spend most of their time campaigning in those swing states because those are the only ones that matter because the electoral college works like that. It says, hey, instead of focusing on what a SHIT TON of people want, we'll give more value to the votes of far less people. And to be fair, if it was popular vote and candidates only focus on high population areas, they could actually spend time trying to get other people's votes from elsewhere since that would actually make a difference. Because, like I said, right now it's just fighting over swing states and pretty much nothing else.
User avatar
#595 - truebluesky (11/26/2016) [-]
It's only different in that it makes politicians appeal to a broader audience. Dems appeal to Cali/NY and Reps appeal to Texas, and then they both try to appeal to middle America (the swing states) in their own way. The alternative(popular vote) would just be both of them appealing to NY, Cali, Florida, and Texas and ignoring the rest.
#310 - noschool (11/26/2016) [-]
it doesn't explicitly say it, but the mere presence of the electoral college says it should. no matter how many people live in a region it gets 3 votes according to the constitution.
User avatar
#313 - frenzysalem (11/26/2016) [-]
That's fucking stupid. Hence the allegory I made in my original comment.
#14 - I'd add on to it with my bass but I have no video editing soft…  [+] (1 reply) 11/19/2016 on Guitar Playing 0
User avatar
#16 - ledd (11/19/2016) [-]
There's already response to that one, so make response to that one: www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuA0n8ODrA&feature=youtu.be
#17 - Really guys? Really? The one time it'd actually make sense to …  [+] (5 replies) 11/17/2016 on We all know this feel guys +3
#23 - anon (11/17/2016) [-]
I would have considered him a cuck if he said something like " I don't mind that she cheats, I love her and think she deserves to enjoy her sexuality"
But he said " I don't love her" and he only keeps her around because she's hot, that's basically saying she's only useful for fucking, she's convenient because she's right there, and he's too lazy to find a clean one.
#19 - anon (11/17/2016) [-]
he's only a cuck if he likes to watch her cheat.
User avatar
#21 - frenzysalem (11/17/2016) [-]
Close enough. He doesn't care so either way that makes him a bitch imo.
User avatar
#18 - ayumu (11/17/2016) [-]
Wouldn't that be less cuck, more swinger?
User avatar
#20 - frenzysalem (11/17/2016) [-]
Tough to say. His lack of sleeping with other girls suggest no to him being a swinger but his lack of love for her suggests no to him being a cuck.
#80 - #Tinkered 11/15/2016 on Tink +8
#20 - I've seen this point made a lot and it almost feels like it's …  [+] (2 replies) 11/10/2016 on Why hillary lost -4
User avatar
#173 - doctahhobo (11/10/2016) [-]
No. No no no no. Not that. Not that at all. When you poke a caged lion it will lash out. When you keep poking the massive majority of this country, call half of it deplorable, laugh in their faces at their accusations of your corruption, your supporters constantly unstoppably insulting the others, and you do nothing but egg it on and keep spreading that hatred but claim at the same time that the people you are hating are the ones spreading hate...you get the majority of the normal joe's out there getting fucking furious and doing anything and everything to stop you and make your life miserable. Entitled little shits are ruining this country and driving us into the ground in the name of progressivism all so they can feel "safe" and when the silent majority finally speaks up...what do they do? They riot. They scream. They murder. They tear down their own homes. They burn down their own cities. Like CHILDREN. So yeah say what you want, claim that we are the problem and that we're all racist, xenophobe, what the fuck ever....at the end of the day we'll come home from work and kick off our work boots, crack open a bear and watch some youtube or a sports game and relax while those fucking entitled shits cry and panic and write blogs about why the world is so fucked up. Go ahead. Write your blog.
User avatar
#177 - frenzysalem (11/10/2016) [-]
I mean, I'm by no means a liberal, but when you elect in a guy who wants to unconstitutionally give muslims special IDs based on their religion, or openly admits to groping women, you kind of throw out any logic behind saying he ISN'T a sexist xenophobe. But I get it. People are so sick of PC culture and the extreme left (and trust me, I am to) that everyone throws out any logic and makes stupid decisions based on their emotions. So they vote in the most EXTREME die hard conservative-type just so they can get as far away from the libruhls and pee cee culture as possible. Now we're stuck with it and for the next 4 years people are going to complain about how shitty it was and how a democrat would've done it better. Then in retaliation to Trump, they'll elect in an EXTREME leftist and that'll be shitty too. It's the same thing that's happened the past 16 years. But hey, people like the retarded back and forth bullshit of the two party system so that's what they get. Try to justify it if you want. Say "Trump will be different this time!" but deep down inside you know it's true. It's literally just history repeating itself.