"If you google Midget Gay Porn or Dwarf Gay Porn, you will get millions of results. And remember my previous post about Tall Top Fucks Short Bottom? So definitely, there’s a market for it.
Millions of results ?! most of the links are to normal porn. I only see maybe 3 actual gay dwarfs, a handful of scenes, mostly solo. If there was really a demand, there would be a LOT more scenes online.
Not sure if that is a good or a bad thing.
The total number of votes cast in Alabama is lower than the number of votes assigned to candidates. That is a fact. Even if we ignore who benefitted from it, the fact remains that more votes were assigned to candidates then votes were cast.
are you saying there is something nefarious because (324,050 + 318,303 + 237,981) is bigger than 564,478?
I think you are misreading the article, intentionally or not I do not know. You cannot add the numbers like that, because voters could legally vote multiple times!
You (and the article) are trying to get some sort of meaningful information about a popular vote from an election that does not really allow us to think in those terms. JFK and Nixon were not on the ballot. 22 electors (11 D, 11 R) were on the ballot, some of whom were pledged to a candidate and some were not. Every voter in Alabama could vote UP TO 11 times, and split those votes among electors in whatever way they wanted to, as long as they only cast one vote per elector. So it is impossible to tell how many actual people voted in the election, as some could have voted 11 times, and some could have voted only once. Wikipedia does not tell us the numbers for each and every elector, only the highest total for each. It assumes that those numbers are exclusive, that no one would have voted for both a Nixon elector and a Kennedy elector. But that is an assumption only, not a fact. In principle, every single voter could have split their votes among the D and the R almost evenly. Unlikely, but possible. The fact is that we DO NOT KNOW THE TOTAL. The only thing we can say as a FACT about the total number of voters is that at least 324,050 voted in the election, the highest vote for an individual elector. Everything else is supposition and conjecture.
as to the 324,050 + 318,303, it is also an assumption that the 318,303 (highest Kennedy elector) also contributed to the 324,050 (highest unpledged elector). Again, NOONE KNOW FOR SURE. Maybe some did and some did not. Wikipedia is not adding them together that way because they are assuming the redundancy.
All we know for sure (meaning the only useful fact for determining electors) is that the highest vote total for a Republican elector was still lower than the lowest vote total for a Democrat elector. In other words, in a contest among the 22 people actually on the ballot, under the up to 11 votes rule in play, the top 11 elector vote totals were all Democrat. So those people won the right to be AL electors that year. That is the electoral college. that is the end of it. We can use the number of various votes and make all sorts of assumptions to try and tell some story about the mythical "popular vote" in AL, but that is all they are; stories, not facts.
I will say this; the Wikipedia article does a very bad job of explaining their numbers, totals, and assumptions. They should not have a column called "popular vote" at all, and certainly not put the numbers in like they did, because it is confusing, making it look like more votes to candidates than votes cast. the whole thing is bubkis, Raphjd. But it is not anything like the Florida shenanigans.
Is there a contradiction?
Here is the contradiction.
You do not want the government to intervene in your business.
But you don't mind if the same government creates a mess at some other place.
Using your money by the way :).Neocons are damaging in different ways.
Yes, I acknowledged that it depends on what aspects of Libertarianism are most important to someone, foreign policy or domestic policy.
Politics is always about trade-offs. You said there was a contradiction with Rubio that wouldn't be there for Trump. I say there would just be a different contradiction, as the government would interfere in my business more and less at some other place. Or with Hillary, government would interfere in my business a lot more, and also be messing with people in other places. The perfect candidate is rarely out there, and so you pick amongst your options. When it comes down to it, given the options, I am happy with the contradiction you describe.
Without the animosity and conspiracy theorizing of Raphjd,
You still didn't respond to this part of my comment.
The animosity comes come liberals always screaming "racism" when saying we need to get rid of the Electoral College.
The so-called "conspiracy theory" has it's own page on leftist Wikipedia. Even Wikipedia treats it as fact. I learned about this back when I was in college.
While I understand the origin of your animosity, I still think it is counter-productive to the goal of debate, and that you go on the attack before it is warranted. Note that you immediately started assuming things about me that were incorrect, and writing in a hostile manner. Maybe it is a question of style? Also, you described the comment as a "personal attack," which is not true. I would say that "animosity" is an accurate/impartial description of the tone in your posts, which you implicitly acknowledge when explaining its origin above. And my calling it a conspiracy theory is not an attack; at best a mis-characterization (see below).
I would note, that my comment was directed towards the people who were saying get rid of the EC. It was my way of saying 'here is me making an argument in a reasoned tone, so you cannot ignore it simply because of meaness.' I was trying to play good-cop to your bad-cop.
As to the other part; maybe I should not have have called it a conspiracy theory, but I think you are overdrawing a conclusion from the data. That same article says "the highest vote for a Republican elector was 237,981 for Cecil Durham, which was lower than the vote for any Democratic elector." It lists three methods of thinking about the numbers, only the third of which supports your contention that Nixon won. To me, the second method sound by far the most logical, which would mean Kennedy beat Nixon by some 80,000 votes. The EC votes were split appropriately between Kennedy and Byrd under the rules in force at the time.
Regardless…
Given the weird rules in play at the time, with voting up to 11 times to fill a slate, it is wrong, I think, to try and determine a "popular vote" with any certainty. The whole point of my defense of the EC (and I think you agree?) is that you use the rules in play, not try and figure out a way to spin the numbers so your side wins, like Democrats are doing now with the "senate popular vote," which is a completely made-up bullshit thing.
If you want to argue that democrats stole the election from Nixon, you are better off going with voter fraud in Texas and Chicago, which does not reflect on the EC as much as it just shows that Democrats are fine with cheating to get the win.
some offtop:
I thought Rubio is a neoconservative.
How can a libertarian-leaning person prefer some neoconservative to Trump?
I think there should be a contradiction.
Well, the thread is about the electoral college, so I don't want to get too far off on a tangent, but I will give your questions a quick reply.
Neo-conservative essentially began as a term referring to former liberals who moved rightward due to foreign policy disagreements with the left/democrats. Over time they embraced or overlapped with other aspects as well, and as the left muddied "liberalism" and "progressivism" together, the term "classical liberalism" was often applied.
Libertarianism is an offshoot of classical liberalism = "a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom." (Wikipedia) Libertarians favor maximizing political freedom and individual autonomy, and share a skepticism of authority and state power.
Trump is a populous demagogue with no intellectually coherent philosophy or ideology beyond his own celebration of self. If I had to, the closest label I would apply to Trump is "paleoconservative." which has a strong nationalist and religious cast.
So, is Rubio a Neo-con? probably.
How can a Libertarian prefer Rubio to Trump? It depends on what aspects of Libertarianism are dominant in one's personal politics. Some Libertarians care most about reducing American intervention abroad. They would likely prefer Trump to Rubio. Others, like me, care most about individual rights and personal autonomy. So the bullying authoritarianism of Trump (and Hillary, and Progressivism in general) is a major turn-off.
Is there a contradiction? Not if you understand the terms being used in the first place.
Btw any rhetoric about rights/equality is liberal.
I agree, if you mean classically liberal. Unfortunately, the muddling of "liberal" and "left" makes the term less useful. You cannot use the history to justify the now though. Rights/equality may have started in liberal rhetoric, but the bossypants who tend to claim the term today don't care as much about individual rights; they prefer to tell you what to do, what to eat, and who is allowed to talk (or not). that is not liberal from my pov.
Without the animosity and conspiracy theorizing of Raphjd,
Gotta love the personal attack right off the bat. Let guess, you're a liberal.
Actually Raphjd, I am not: I am a libertarian-leaning republican. I did not vote for Trump or Hillary, but would have gladly voted for Rubio or Fiorina. in the end, I voted for Gary Johnson, even though I knew he would not win.
I have posted on several threads where I tend to take your side/agree with you, as I did on this thread. (I think I have posted so anyway. I know I often agree with you when I read your posts).
Yes, Hillary won the popular vote over the orange turd by 2mil.
Ah YES, you're a lefty.
Talk about missing the forest for the trees! That quote is a fact, it does not indicate any sort of political affiliation. But all the facts and argument after it, which you leave out, clearly show that I do not value the popular vote as a useful indicator, hardly a leftie position. I explained why the popular vote is not an accurate indicator, as there are structural reasons that disadvantaged the republican side. I just don't see the need to be all sneering and mean to the people you are trying to convince of their wrongness. Polite explanation I think works better, allows the rational facts to be seen true.
On the other hand, if you accuse me of being a leftie simply on the basis of my dig at Trump, then you are not a serious person capable of rational arguement. Dislike of Trump does not make one a lefty.
Without the animosity and conspiracy theorizing of Raphjd, I would still agree that the electoral college is not outdated but a vital part of how the United States works. We are a collection of states, with many and varied cultural, geographic, industrial, and population differences. the EC (and the senate which has similar non-population set-up) is specifically designed to force the president to get a large number of and variety of states, so they must learn about, speak to, and answer to the diversity that is the differing states. It also helps to balance out the power of the big against the small states, without which many of the small states would not have joined the USA in the first place. Big states can tip things too easily.
Yes, Hillary won the popular vote over the orange turd by 2mil. It is also true that she won California by 4mil, so the other 49 states together actually preferred him. If you were a Republican in Calf. in 2016, maybe you did not go to vote, as it was a lock that Hillary would win the state, and the only other statewide election was senator, between two democrats, no R to to be seen. We will never know if they would have been more motivated to vote if the overall popular vote actually mattered, but given the facts, it is wrong to assume the popular vote is an accurate tally of american's desires at the time. You play by the rules in operation at the time.
And if there are any Europeans who want to make fun, note that the EU has similar rules to help out the smaller countries. Representation in the EU parliament is not strictly by population. Smaller countries get more representation than their population percentage warrants, to offset the power of big countries like France and Germany somewhat. the electoral college is just a version of balancing out for the little guy, and you often find some variation of it whenever there is need to balance power of weak and strong.
I would say that there is correlation, but not always causality. Going to college happens also to be the time of becoming an adult, starting to fend more and be responsible for yourself, and not living under the power of a controlling force (parents). So college students have the chance to actually question and think, not just have religion ordered onto them. They have control over and can choose to read about and debate new ideas, without the parents shutting them down. It is easier to believe in the big sky-daddy when you are young and see the actual example of your parents providing the things you need. When YOU have to do the providing, the work, the cooking, etc., you begin to question where is the sky-provider then.
Wrapped up in the question "is it a choice?" is always the reply –> Why does the answer matter?
I don't think it is usually a choice, but even it it is, so what? In free countries, people have the right to live their personal lives without intrusion by other people. If two men choose to get married, live their lives and pool their resources for mutual support and benefit, why should it matter if they are driven by rational or emotional 'choice' or innate biological urge? There often seems to be the belief that if it is biologically determined, found in animals, etc. then it is "natural" and therefore "good." But we humans make all sorts of non-natural choices all the time, making full use of our minds and rights in a free society.
If someone chooses to be gay because they have been fucked over too many times by women, fine, they get just as many rights as I do as a gay-since-birth queer. Asking the question "is it a choice" is playing into the oppressors framing, making us justify our existence and our freedoms, instead of just saying; by birth or by choice, I am who I am and you have no right to tell me not to be this way.
Can a gay guy like straight porn? I would say yes.
Not really the same. A gay guy looking at straight porn still has a naked guy to look at. A straight guy looking at gay porn is missing the woman he is supposedly attracted to.