forums

Another OT:SNL

TheOriginalCane said:
What an ignorant post.

The term "republic" refers to the concept that the "government" is made up of democratically-elected representatives. The term "democracy" refers to the concept that the SELECTION of these representatives is done by majority-rule. Yes but the same threats and concerns of majority mob rule apply to both how government functions and how they are selected. After all, the "government" is just made up of people.

Your (false) argument is that, somehow, a "republic" NEEDS, by necessity, a distortion of the vote of the people in order to somehow achieve some pre-meditated goal. Wrong. Never said a republic needed to have it. Only if they don't want to fall to mob rule.

There is only "sheer geographic size" of the US today. There was no such thing in the 1700s. This is a typical mistake that people make TODAY, where they use the reality of TODAY to try to explain why some guys did something 250 years ago. Wrong. Don't quite get this one. America in the 1700s was still pretty large and geographically diverse. Pretty much the entire east coast. And they obviously thought they needed it since they did it.

The concept of "large geographic areas" vs. "more rural areas" is not suddenly fixed by creating distortions in the US system. You have the SAME issues on a state level. Chicago dominates Illinois politics. Atlanta dominates Georgia politics. You don't fix those natural tensions by giving disproportionate votes to to rural areas in Illinois or Georgia. Yes, that is actually an idea some support to fix those very problems.

This isn't rocket science. It is mathematically provable that the vote of an individual in Montana counts more than the vote of an individual in California, and that is NOT based on whether it is a person who lives in a Montana city or farm or whether it is a person who lives in a California city or farm. This is just semantics. " Mathematically." "Theoretically" "Practically." In either system you can show that someone's vote "counts" more. In pure majority, that Montana vote or another disenfranchised minority's vote practically "counts" for nothing. And that's a fact, supported by scholars and historians, that minority interests get lost in majority rule, i.e. they don't count. Not to mention, California still has 55 electoral votes to Montana's 3. So I think Cali voters' election influence is still pretty good.

It doesn't matter if you "like the outcome" or not. It is undeniable that the voting system is distorted by 200 years of unintentional consequences. The Founding Fathers did not "intend" for the presidential vote of people in 1778 Rhode Island to have more power than the presidential vote of people in 1788 Virginia. That is NOT what they intended to create, and that is NOT what they intended for an outcome. You speaking on behalf of the Founding Fathers is the most ridiculous thing you tried to push in any of your comments.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
JD08 said:
You don't suppose that smaller states like Rhode Island and Delaware might have been concerned about being overruled by larger states? How would you convince a state to join your country without offering them a seat at the table?

The reason we have a bicameral legislature is so the interests of both the majority of the people AND the individual states get equal representation.

You also incorrectly assume my party. A republic is a simpler way of stating a representative democracy rather than a direct one. The idea is that the will of the people decides matters of state and that's worked just fine for a long time, not just here, but a great many other countries. The only time its an issue is when you have a divided country on the popular vote.
Click to expand...
@TheOriginalCane - He might as well be completely correct and @JD08 as at the same time you are just dumb as he literally stated just not in the same exact wording.

So given the fact that a 'democracy' is supposed to be a system that lets the citizens of this collection of different states all work and/or benefit from being a quote on quote; Technology enabled first world economic region based out of "North america's." Its more comparable to the eurpean countries than what is considered the - united states of america. Firstly; Each state has a different state tax, some states have no state tax at all - but to make it up some stores have different prices. Akin to how a burger king etc may and will have a different "Minimum Wage" depending on the state one is living and employed in.

Also if its a system for the entire population of I guess for the pulse of the year 2020 in the united states that; Then each presidential election to be just in consideration as the front runner then the one and only candidate for both - republican and democratic parties. Bot sides are always fighting each other with what each person thinks is best according their own opinion. Then the the two left standing [democratic / republican] do the exact same thing. Then if its a new label or puppet title of the leader aka president like anywhere from; John F. Kennedy all the way to Trump; The real decision makers are always destroying what the previous administration tries to implement. And its always based of being red / blue, left / right, etc etc, whatever nickname the fan likes best.

Being a collective region of different states calling it self as land of democracy, a system that is supposed to represent every officially dubbed citizen. Then literally using real common sense.. Hillary Clinton should be in the white house based off of the so called - popular vote during the modernized calendar year 2016.
 
supersaiyanshel said:
Eddie Murphy episode was great.

Otherwise, Black Jeopardy and weekend update are the only good segments they have.

I dont get the political jab since theyve always been political. I mean, they even had a white guy playing Obama. My problem is their political skits just aren't sharp anymore and rely on celebrity cameos. Low hanging fruit. Best one they did recently was the Bernie Curb Your enthusiasm parody.

Cicely Strong is quietly very **** tho.
Click to expand...
I don't watch SNL, but this is true.
 
Advertisement
afan said:
@TheOriginalCane - He might as well be completely correct and @JD08 as at the same time you are just dumb as he literally stated just not in the same exact wording.

So given the fact that a 'democracy' is supposed to be a system that lets the citizens of this collection of different states all work and/or benefit from being a quote on quote; Technology enabled first world economic region based out of "North america's." Its more comparable to the eurpean countries than what is considered the - united states of america. Firstly; Each state has a different state tax, some states have no state tax at all - but to make it up some stores have different prices. Akin to how a burger king etc may and will have a different "Minimum Wage" depending on the state one is living and employed in.

Also if its a system for the entire population of I guess for the pulse of the year 2020 in the united states that; Then each presidential election to be just in consideration as the front runner then the one and only candidate for both - republican and democratic parties. Bot sides are always fighting each other with what each person thinks is best according their own opinion. Then the the two left standing [democratic / republican] do the exact same thing. Then if its a new label or puppet title of the leader aka president like anywhere from; John F. Kennedy all the way to Trump; The real decision makers are always destroying what the previous administration tries to implement. And its always based of being red / blue, left / right, etc etc, whatever nickname the fan likes best.

Being a collective region of different states calling it self as land of democracy, a system that is supposed to represent every officially dubbed citizen. Then literally using real common sense.. Hillary Clinton should be in the white house based off of the so called - popular vote during the modernized calendar year 2016.
Click to expand...
Well, if a well spoken, smart guy such as yourself says so, then I guess it's the rest of us that are all wrong.
 
Turnoverchaincane said:
Registered Independent Voter here. Have been for my entire voting life. Nice try. I stopped reading at your typical right wing- ramblings. You're obviously a left wing wack job. Who freaks out everytime someone has a different opinion or In this case presents simple facts. You know. Like how people that vote. Live in counties that are in states. The electoral college was created to keep radicals like yourself from taking over the country. You don't like the rules? Leave the country. You're free to do so. That's ok. You're probably a lost cause by the sounds of your rants. Good luck being triggered for the next 5 years.
Step away from the TV take a deep breath and give Independent thought a chance to creep into that mind of yours that lives on the liberal political Plantation. You might learn something.

Go Canes!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Hilarious. No, the Electoral College was NOT "created to keep radicals from taking over the country". You have no idea what you are talking about. You're just spouting the current day myths.

Stick to facts. Stick to history. And try being honest.

As is the usual, you had to resort to some bizarre "if you don't like it, leave the country" argument.

How will you react when the necessary remaining few states pass the National Popular Vote law and the Electoral College is nullified? Will you leave the country then?

You never saw that one coming, did you? In all of your pathetic attempts to defend "the Electoral College" as some sort of necessary component of a "republic", you didn't realize that a law can actually be passed that eliminates the impact of the Electoral College.
 
JD08 said:
You don't suppose that smaller states like Rhode Island and Delaware might have been concerned about being overruled by larger states? How would you convince a state to join your country without offering them a seat at the table?

The reason we have a bicameral legislature is so the interests of both the majority of the people AND the individual states get equal representation.

You also incorrectly assume my party. A republic is a simpler way of stating a representative democracy rather than a direct one. The idea is that the will of the people decides matters of state and that's worked just fine for a long time, not just here, but a great many other countries. The only time its an issue is when you have a divided country on the popular vote.
Click to expand...


Look, I'm not going to belabor the point, you clearly don't get it.

49 out of 50 states (including 36 states created after the Constitution was ratified) have bicameral legislatures, which has nothing to do with "interests of the majority AND the individual states". Florida has state reps and state senators, and the only difference is that the state senators represent more people than a state rep does. There is no magic in "bicameral legislatures", no magic that defines a republic.

Here's where you miss the point. I know we have a bicameral legislature and I know why. But that is a separate issue from how to define a democracy. We could have a unicameral legislature or a tricameral legislature, and they would both constitute a republic.

Nebraska is a republic too.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Hilarious. No, the Electoral College was NOT "created to keep radicals from taking over the country". You have no idea what you are talking about. You're just spouting the current day myths.

Stick to facts. Stick to history. And try being honest.

As is the usual, you had to resort to some bizarre "if you don't like it, leave the country" argument.

How will you react when the necessary remaining few states pass the National Popular Vote law and the Electoral College is nullified? Will you leave the country then?

You never saw that one coming, did you? In all of your pathetic attempts to defend "the Electoral College" as some sort of necessary component of a "republic", you didn't realize that a law can actually be passed that eliminates the impact of the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

The Electoral College can only be nullified through Constitutional amendment, which requires 3/4 of the states. Good luck. Those state laws are likely an unconstitutional usurp of power that would not hold up to legal challenge, at least in full. Of course that would only happen after it has been put into place, so after this next election. But they are all going to have to give them to Trump anyway when he wins the popular vote. Then the laws can be struck down. Cheers
 
Advertisement
classiccane12 said:
The Electoral College can only be nullified through Constitutional amendment, which requires 3/4 of the states. Good luck. Those state laws are likely an unconstitutional usurp of power that would not hold up to legal challenge, at least in full. Of course that would only happen after it has been put into place, so after this next election. But they are all going to have to give them to Trump anyway when he wins the popular vote. Then the laws can be struck down. Cheers
Click to expand...


Wrong. It's nearly a done-deal. Do your research. Google NPVIC.
 
classiccane12 said:
Try to follow. It's a "done deal" for 2020. Because you can't legally challenge it until it is actually put into use. Which would be this election. After this election. It will be challenged.
Click to expand...


Again, I understand your ignorance, but you don't know what I am talking about.

If states that comprise 74 more electoral votes pass the NPVIC tomorrow, the Electoral College will have the same impact on the Presidential Election that the AP voters have on the football national champion selection. None.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Again, I understand your ignorance, but you don't know what I am talking about.

If states that comprise 74 more electoral votes pass the NPVIC tomorrow, the Electoral College will have the same impact on the Presidential Election that the AP voters have on the football national champion selection. None.
Click to expand...

DUDE AGAIN only for this election. Do you really think something that is guaranteed by the constitution that requires an amendment to change can just be subverted by a bunch of states making some bogus agreement easy peasy? I said, this election they are going to do it, and it will be funny when they just HAVE to give those votes to Trump. Then that pact will be challenged as unconstitutional, and likely succeed in whole or in part.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Look, I'm not going to belabor the point, you clearly don't get it.

49 out of 50 states (including 36 states created after the Constitution was ratified) have bicameral legislatures, which has nothing to do with "interests of the majority AND the individual states". Florida has state reps and state senators, and the only difference is that the state senators represent more people than a state rep does. There is no magic in "bicameral legislatures", no magic that defines a republic.

Here's where you miss the point. I know we have a bicameral legislature and I know why. But that is a separate issue from how to define a democracy. We could have a unicameral legislature or a tricameral legislature, and they would both constitute a republic.

Nebraska is a republic too.
Click to expand...
I was talking U.S., not individual states. I used our specific bicameral legislature to show that there are different ways of organization, each with good arguments, and by having both, all efforts are made to have equal representation. This way a state like Wyoming has an equal say in at least one branch despite having a fraction of the population that California does.

I just bristle when people start touting the popular vote. It's one of those ideas that sounds great when you think it will benefit you, but bites you in the *** down the road. A little gridlock usually works out for the best glacial change is better than swift change that leads to division.
 
classiccane12 said:
Try to follow. It's a "done deal" for 2020. Because you can't legally challenge it until it is actually put into use. Which would be this election. After this election. It will be challenged.
Click to expand...
Sadly the stupidity that is displayed by many is just - pathetic. Its the same as a televised interview that made it on a fox news show. I tried finding the segment, but it was done by Laura Ingraham just this month still. She was interviewing Mike Pompeo about the embassy in Iraq being literally a metaphor to how the so called - first world nations have treated the Middle East.

Mike Pompeo literally stated on national television - on the record that; According to the findings based from the worlds most technologically advanced military in the world / supposedly. That with all the reporting and intelligence gathered that it was the - "Western nations that was the imminent threat to the united states owned embassy in Iraq." Again, I tried finding it on youtube which fox news has their own material on as backup. But of course both by using google and on you-tube as well, well, I gave up trying to find the exact segment of the interview after way to many unnecessary attempts.

Apparently it was a european country that was going to destroy the united states owned building; As well as kill those united states citizens too.. Who knows though, other than the fact, "President aka Puppet" trump, pence, pompeo, and other random names that use a glorified televised label to remain in life of b.s. policies [Politics]. Last I knew or led to believe. Iraq and/or Iran, both have - guns, and tanks, explosives; That they could have used to destroy that real estate building and everyone still breathing inside.

But they just threw sticks and stones to peacefully protest the western lands governments acting like dictators; Obviously the - super smart stupid law makers never got the message of the protestors.... Desert storm [War in Iraq]; Condemned to be labeled a third world nation or a region ruled by a evil man. That the english lands of the united states led the lower class to believe in the propaganda that Iraq was on the verge of creating weapons of mass destruction;

That Franklin Roosevelt used not one, but two atomic bombs to drop over - Two separate Japanese citites.. With infants, children, elderly, hospitals, the innocent resided in. But hey the red state of what is known as communist super power russia just helped beat, Germany which almost conquered the known defeated countries. But apparently forgot to prepare for the cold that his army was not properly prepared for, supposedly. Plus I was always thought to believe that.. China, Russia, Korea, and other nations that was and still is home to billions of individuals. Apparently Japan had so such a large military aka infantry / foot soldiers; That they could not defeat the last axis country to which is the size of just - Vietnam and Korea if one was to look at a map of just that section of the world... Roosevelt was the last person who was able to be labeled president more than two separate terms.
 
Oh yea.

Texas likes to call itself the confederate state still to this day. The confederate flag to which represented the states that helped partake in the civil war, which divided the country only just a few hundred years ago. "History Repeats."

Texas even tried segregating itself away from the collection of regions so that the united states of america would have been only, forty nine separate entities enabled by bylaws; Or whatever the senators put down on the dotted line to make each state unique from a neighboring state / Both for the states own economic system, but plus the state flag, to state animals, etc etc.

One with common sense [Intellect] would just say all those "College" electoral votes for this upcoming 2020 presidential election from the state of Texas; That all of them should be treated exactly the same as every single one of those "Popular Votes" displayed after the 2016 presidential election. After all.. The democratic political "System" is supposed to benefit not just all these super rich millionaire & billionaires, that all classify as a citizen of the united states of america.

The rich get richer both financially not only with double standards that stereotype those that are known by lower class living conditions; And this and that is not taking into account the effects that a racist slur may have aka peer pressure.. Sticks and stones my break my bones, but words will never hurt, but within the same line of thinking; The truth hurts.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Hilarious. No, the Electoral College was NOT "created to keep radicals from taking over the country". You have no idea what you are talking about. You're just spouting the current day myths.

Stick to facts. Stick to history. And try being honest.

As is the usual, you had to resort to some bizarre "if you don't like it, leave the country" argument.

How will you react when the necessary remaining few states pass the National Popular Vote law and the Electoral College is nullified? Will you leave the country then?

You never saw that one coming, did you? In all of your pathetic attempts to defend "the Electoral College" as some sort of necessary component of a "republic", you didn't realize that a law can actually be passed that eliminates the impact of the Electoral College.
Click to expand...
as long as Democrats find an advantage to gain power, it’s all good, right? You never run out of poor people looking for free stuff.
 
SNL is definitely in a down phase in terms of talent and writing right now. The transition from the cast with Wiig/Samburg/Sudeikis/Armisen/Hader and the writers room without Mulaney has been rough. A lot of secondary players who seemed to have potential like Killam, Pedrad, Bayer and Moynihan never really stepped up.

Political humor is overboard biased and I say that as a liberal. I do think Moffat and Day as Eric and DTJ is pretty funny but that’s about it.
 
ben said:
SNL is definitely in a down phase in terms of talent and writing right now. The transition from the cast with Wiig/Samburg/Sudeikis/Armisen/Hader and the writers room without Mulaney has been rough. A lot of secondary players who seemed to have potential like Killam, Pedrad, Bayer and Moynihan never really stepped up.

Political humor is overboard biased and I say that as a liberal. I do think Moffat and Day as Eric and DTJ is pretty funny but that’s about it.
Click to expand...


SNL needs to hire a handful of great writers, and get rid of low-energy cast members like Pete Davidson. I like Pete, he can be a funny guy, but he seems to prefer the video stuff and is NOT a guy who elevates sketches.

Keep:

Kenan
Kate
Aidy
Cecily
Beck
Jost/Che for Weekend Update
Melissa
Heidi
Chris
Bowen

And then hire 6 more cast members from Upright Citizens Brigade or Second City or some other sketch-oriented group.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top