Comments by "" (@RedXlV) on "Caller: How Can A Progressive Palestinian American Possibly Vote For Biden?" video.

  1.  @chambermuses7802  Please. Cornel West is a clown and will be lucky to get 0.1% of the vote.
    11
  2.  @Newton-Reuther  Given that Biden and Trump are the only options, that very much is an argument for voting for Biden.
    9
  3.  @gustavoa.belfiore4701  The problem is that the US Constitution is (by design) very difficult to change. While to an extent that's a good thing, because the fundamental structure of government shouldn't be something that can be done on a whim, the bar to do so is pretty clearly set too high. A 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress followed by a 3/4 vote of the states means that a tiny minority of the country can block an amendment from happening. And since Republicans know it's very possible that they'll never win the nationwide popular vote again, any Republican-majority states are obviously never going to support an amendment to abolish the electoral college.
    6
  4.  @Dan_Tasty  The problem with Marianne Williamson isn't her platform, so much as that she's Marianne Williamson. Her history as a new-age guru makes her unelectable. Almost nobody is going to take her seriously, including Democratic primary voters.
    3
  5.  @gaeron1305  That's the preferred argument of people who can't do math.
    3
  6.  @Munch.Industries  Trump doesn't have any such experience.
    2
  7.  @ChrisRJ  Everyone should be scared of the prospect of a Trump dictatorship. And no, he absolutely was not joking about being a dictator.
    2
  8.  @chambermuses7802  Says the fool who thinks he's a wise man.
    2
  9.  @Againstallodds1398  And I'm so fucking tired of this bullshit false equivalency.
    2
  10.  @GreyOne13  No, voting for Cornel West very much is a vote for Trump.
    2
  11.  @GreyOne13  No matter how many capital letters you use, yes a vote for Cornel West is a vote for Trump.
    2
  12.  @gaeron1305  I figure that because I can do basic math. No candidate can get a majority of the popular vote by only paying attention to 10-15 states. While it's true that the 10 largest state contain a majority of the US population, electoral college apologists (deliberately) ignore the fact that no candidate is ever going to get all of the votes in those states. Even in deep-blue California and New York, about 40% of the vote went to Trump (the most hated candidate by Democrats ever). Despite him losing that state in a landslide, California still had more Trump voters than any other state. 6 million Californians voted for him, compared to 5.9 million Texans. And again, that's just about the worst outcome a Republican can get in California. Even if you assume that in a nationwide popular vote election, the Democrat would pay a lot more attention to California and thus pick up more votes there...your argument ignores the fact that the highest-population states are very different from each other. There's not going to be a candidate who can pull of landslide, super-majority wins in California and also have great appeal in Texas and Florida. If you look at the top 10-15 states that you think would be all anybody pays attention to in a popular vote election, you'll see that some of them are deep blue states, some are deep red states, and some are purple states. While the top 15 states are nearly 2/3 of the US population, it's not possible for any candidate to have broad enough appeal to get a majority of the vote out of just those states. The reality is that if the presidential election were decided by popular vote, candidates would spreading their attention to every state, because they'd need to rack up as many votes as possible. Every vote would be equally valuable, whereas under the electoral college most votes can be taken for granted because we already know which way most states will vote. We have 24 states that always vote Republican and 17+DC that always vote Democratic. So the remaining 9 states are the only ones candidates have to pay attention to. The only reason for them to visit any of the other states are to raise money.
    2
  13.  @gaeron1305  The very fact that there's a distinction of "important states" shows what's wrong with the electoral college system. Also, most states are completely ignored. The only reason a presidential candidate ever visits California and Texas is to hold fundraisers, not to try to pick up votes. Everybody knows the Democrat will win California and the Republican will win Texas, but there's a lot of rich people in those states who will give money to their preferred candidate.
    2
  14.  @ericseamons9982  No, the thinking that's caused so much problem is your false equivalency.
    2
  15.  @janmortimer1758  Yes, it's absurd that people deny that Trump has dementia.
    1
  16. Jill Stein is a Kremlin stooge.
    1
  17.  @carolinamoran999  You are endorsing dictatorship, then. There will literally never be an election again if Trump gets back into power.
    1
  18. You're deliberately downplaying how bad Trump is. It's not merely that he's "nutty", it's that he's a fascist who would end democracy forever.
    1
  19. We need false equivalence to stop existing.
    1
  20. Fuck that bullshit. Anybody who decides "Biden isn't good enough" is literlaly just as bad as Trump. You're literally just like the Germans who refused to oppose the Nazis on the grounds that the Social Democrats weren't good enough.
    1
  21. The problem is you. Just like in 2016, the problem was the morons who claimed that Hillary Clinton was just as bad as Donald Trump.
    1
  22. Cornel West is fucking awful. He's all-in for Russian imperialism.
    1
  23. Kennedy is a Republican, he just doesn't admit it.
    1
  24. Jill Stein isn't anti-genocide in general, just in Gaza. She supports Russia's genocide in Ukraine.
    1
  25.  @Sbudre  If the threat of Trump isn't reason enough, then you're not just an idiot, you're an enemy of all humanity.
    1
  26. The reason the electoral college still exists is that too many states are still dominated by Republicans, and they will always cling to it because it's the only way Republicans can win the presidency.
    1
  27.  @aheroictaxidriver3180  The problem with that idea is that the Constitution absolutely forbids having a different number of Senators per state. That's the one type of amendment that's absolutely forbidden. If we were to have the Senate be population-based, we'd have to scrap the entire Constitution in favor of a new one. And as polarized as America is today, that's impossible. There would be no way to create a new Constitution that would be widely accepted. If you wanted to make the electoral college be entirely population-based, you'd have to pass an amendment so that states only get one electoral vote per House member and not any for their Senators. That would mean that Wyoming would have 1 electoral vote and California would get 52, compared to their current 3 and 54. And the total electoral votes would be 436 instead of 538. The problem with that would be that you'd have a hard time convincing all of the smaller states to accept such a reduction in their electoral power, and you need the approval of 38 states for a constitutional amendment to pass. Another fix would be to get Congress to repeal the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 and significantly increase the size of the House of Representatives. It's been 435 seats 1913, and over that time, the US population has more than tripled. If instead of 435 House seats we had 1,305 of them, that would greatly diminish the electoral advantage given to the smallest states. It would have the added advantage of making gerrymandering much more difficult. Since House districts are required to have contiguous borders and to be of approximately equal population, the more House districts a state has, the harder gerrymandering becomes. (As an aside, if all 12 of the proposed Bill of Rights amendments had been ratified by the states instead of just 10 of them, the House would have around 6,000 seats now. 1st US Congress had wanted to set it so that each House district would contain about 50,000 people. The average as of the 2020 Census is 761,179 people per district.)
    1
  28.  @markeastlack4180  And the electoral college has failed at even that purpose. Donald Trump is exactly what it was intended to prevent, and instead it installed him into power.
    1
  29.  @shtarpark7938  No, there are not in fact more than two options. Anybody who claims there are more than two options in this election is either lying or delusional.
    1
  30. It's not merely that Trump "will be worse", it's that he's the worst possible option. He is quite literally worse than if Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot were revived, fused into a single person, and installed into power.
    1
  31.  @ericseamons9982  No, you didn't say they're the same. But you are pretending that they're equally bad.
    1