28 Jan 21
1 edit
@dood111 said“According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), irregardless was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana,[7] though the word was in use in South Carolina before Indiana became a territory.[1] The usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?" The OED goes on to explain the word is primarily a North American colloquialism.[7]”
In a way you're right, irregardless was just put in the dictionary in 2020 when Merriam-Webster decided to include it because so many idiots were using it No other dictionary has done so yet.
https://www.wral.com/merriam-webster-has-officially-recognized-irregardless-as-a-word/19356617/
I guess the answer you get depends on who you ask but it’s definitely a word.
28 Jan 21
@suzianne saidIn your case, the populous of about 8 states can elect a president, while the others stand with their hands in thei pockets. Then when Federal funds are available, it is spent on new subways in NYC and support for wine growers in California. No attention will be given to the need for barbed wire in Wyoming, or bridges over the Mississippi.
And each Representative in the House represents their district.
Every American has 2 Senators and ONE representative who is their voice in Congress. No one gets more than their share of representation.
If you wanna bitch about CA having 58 electoral votes, then why don't you do the logical thing and move to abolish the Electoral College? As I see it, the MAJOR fault ...[text shortened]... ystem. Their vote (whether they live in CA or WY) means nothing. Why aren't you crying about THAT?
28 Jan 21
@averagejoe1 saidI don't think you understand our system of government. Congress is the branch that allocates spending and abolition of the Electoral College would have no effect on them.
In your case, the populous of about 8 states can elect a president, while the others stand with their hands in thei pockets. Then when Federal funds are available, it is spent on new subways in NYC and support for wine growers in California. No attention will be given to the need for barbed wire in Wyoming, or bridges over the Mississippi.
28 Jan 21
@no1marauder saidyou fellers make it all appear to be so simple. Fact is, 8 states would decide presidency., the candidates campaign only in those states. So, what do you think about candidates campaigning only in those states?
I don't think you understand our system of government. Congress is the branch that allocates spending and abolition of the Electoral College would have no effect on them.
28 Jan 21
@averagejoe1 saidThat doesn't make sense; in a popular vote election every vote would count the same incentizing campaigning directed at a wide spectrum of voters.
you fellers make it all appear to be so simple. Fact is, 8 states would decide presidency., the candidates campaign only in those states. So, what do you think about candidates campaigning only in those states?
In the present system, candidates concentrate their campaigning in a few "swing" states.
@averagejoe1 saidI don't need to catch COVID-19 at a rally to help me decide whom to vote for. I'm perfectly capable of weighing the pros and cons of candidates based on their own words. One day maybe all candidates will decide that campaigning in person is dangerous and useless. But then again, we have fully half the nation who needs to be told whom to vote for, usually by that candidate themself.
you fellers make it all appear to be so simple. Fact is, 8 states would decide presidency., the candidates campaign only in those states. So, what do you think about candidates campaigning only in those states?
29 Jan 21
@averagejoe1 saidAs opposed to FOUR swings states these days?
you fellers make it all appear to be so simple. Fact is, 8 states would decide presidency., the candidates campaign only in those states. So, what do you think about candidates campaigning only in those states?
29 Jan 21
@suzianne saidHa. Suzy, if you live in Montana, they would not campaign there. You gonna hop a train to California? Ha. You know, there are some smart people who know the College to be a good idea. Like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. You might enjoy reading pros and cons, then you would get it.
I don't need to catch COVID-19 at a rally to help me decide whom to vote for. I'm perfectly capable of weighing the pros and cons of candidates based on their own words. One day maybe all candidates will decide that campaigning in person is dangerous and useless. But then again, we have fully half the nation who needs to be told whom to vote for, usually by that candidate themself.
29 Jan 21
@ponderable saidSee how imbalanced it can be. ?
As opposed to FOUR swings states these days?
@averagejoe1 saidI have a dream that one day, candidates won't have to travel all over the country to campaign. What an archaic system. Dangerous and unnecessary. How many people have died because they were exposed to coronavirus at a Trump rally? I hope it was worth it to Herman Cain.
Ha. Suzy, if you live in Montana, they would not campaign there. You gonna hop a train to California? Ha. You know, there are some smart people who know the College to be a good idea. Like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. You might enjoy reading pros and cons, then you would get it.
The purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent demagogues from ruining the country because they tell the people what they want to hear and then once they get in office they do nothing about pandemics and sit around watching Fox News all day eating Big Macs and the only exercise they get is riding a golf cart around their own golf courses. But we now see that the Electoral College fails their mandate, so instead of eliminating it, you re-purpose it? That is not what Jefferson and Madison envisioned.
And they certainly didn't envision up to 49% of a state's citizens getting disenfranchised so that their vote means nothing.
29 Jan 21
@dood111 saidI once created a thread about the safety of vaccines and I was banned for one month and I think it was because of that. It did not violate any of the stated posting guidelines at all, but that did not prevent the moderator from violating his own policy. He makes it up as he goes along and censors things a democrat would dislike.
I didn't say NUTHIN wrong. Just got off 30 days and I want to know WHY!
Did you create a thread that a democrat might dislike? That seems to be the common reason on here.
29 Jan 21
@AverageJoe1
So the fact Biden won by some 7 MILLION votes means NOTHING to you.
Since TRUMP said there was voter fraud, and every word from your god king is GOLD, JUST BECAUSE TRUMP SAID IT, it must be true.
THAT is your bottom line.
And that would be because you no longer have the ability to think rationally any more.
Till you shuck the sham of the Trumpite cult.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
29 Jan 21
@suzianne saidOh, I rather think they did. The Electoral College is a direct descendant of England's Rotten Boroughs. That was used to keep the plebs in its place, and so is the Electoral College. And that was intentional from the start. The Founding Fathers weren't such champions of the common people as Washington's log cabin myth would have you believe. They were firmly of the well-heeled gentry, qua class even if not in title; their kind of people held the power, and they made very sure indeed that this would stay so, just as the baronage in England did with Magna Carta.
But we now see that the Electoral College fails their mandate, so instead of eliminating it, you re-purpose it? That is not what Jefferson and Madison envisioned.
And they certainly didn't envision up to 49% of a state's citizens getting disenfranchised so that their vote means nothing.
Of course, the USA "improved" on its mommy dearest by adding gerrymandering, filibusters and omnibus bills. But that doesn't mean the Founding Fathers didn't yet know what they were doing. They knew precisely that they were ensuring greased palms and velvet seats for their own. Their successors have made the process of class-based corruption more efficient, that's all.