Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


About Sunnymentoaddict

  • Rank
    Political Guru
  • Birthday 09/25/1992

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    South Carolina, USA
  • Interests
    Politics (obviously), The Simpsons, American History, baseball. Sonic Youth,

Recent Profile Visitors

1,258 profile views
  1. Sunnymentoaddict

    2020 Conventions

    Honestly, what major city appeals/resembles the Trump base(rural and blue collar)? Largest city that went for him I think was Fort Worth, Texas. But that's not exactly a trump city.
  2. Sunnymentoaddict

    2020 Conventions

    Honestly, if i were the dnc i would have the 2020 convention in Atlanta.
  3. And to be honest,it is just opinion. Because, would granting youtube this weird privilege insure that there will be no other competition? Or we have to nationalize it/own a certain amount of stock in Alphabet? Because simply granting it to a private corporation, seems unfair, only because of their size; because it will discourage growth of smaller companies. I rarely agree with @jvikings1, so I am unsure how to feel right now lol, but he is right that the SCOTUS says that freedom of speech does not extend towards private corporations. I mean sure, if you are so inclined, you can try to create a lawsuit with the hopes of going to the high court- but that's unlikely it'll reach there. Plus, like I've said: A) Having the freedom to speak does not insure freedom of an audience, nor freedom from consequences of your speech. When Bill Maher made his post-9/11 controversial comments, ABC quickly cut ties from him. ABC exercised their freedom of association, much like Maher used his freedom of speech. This isn't my way of absolving youtube of all of its sins, but claiming it should be a government protected monopoly is absurd.
  4. I have to agree. There is no law saying one has to use youtube or facebook- let alone I feel uncomfortable making one that'll benefit a private corporation. Plus there are plenty of developers making forums/sites that cater to niche communities that will always try to compete with facebook/google. @NYrepublican, if it is a monopoly, we should try to figure how to break it(a la Microsoft), and not support its growth.
  5. But is it? Does youtube offer a service that no other can provide? I'm not saying youtube is perfect, but freedom of speech doesn't guarantee freedom for an audience.
  6. I see what you're saying. But I feel that it already does apply in the US. For the most part, I can say whatever I want on my old google+ account, or on youtube in the comments. But if I were to advocate for something they don't stand for, they can choose to not associate with me.
  7. I think people focus too narrowly on one aspect of the 1A, and not the others. Let's use this forum for a reference. While back there was an infamous user that made posts that were blatantly racist. In the US, as long as he isn't using the rhetoric to cause immediate violent harm, it is legal. However, on the otherhand Anthony has the freedom of association. If Anthony feels that having that user on his forum will cause his site to become less desirable, he can ban the person(refusing to associate with the person). We have seen this in the past with Bill Maher and ABC in the early 2000's, and now with Roseanne and ABC today. Saying Google must protect one aspect of the law, says that it is equal to the US government in that you cannot be punished for your rhetoric. And while I am deeply troubled by how large google is; forcing them "adopt" one aspect of the First Amendment is troubling so to speak. Because what if, in the near future, another nation demands that google must govern worldwide to their image of freedom of speech- a much harsher, totalitarian vision of, as oppose to our general western liberal vision. Would you still be ok? I feel no. Google, twitter, facebook, this forum, and ABC all used their First Amendment freedom without government involvement- exactly how it should be.
  8. Sunnymentoaddict

    I am Sorry,Hillary

    With all do respect, I'd argue the Electoral College is an outdated mechanic. Nations such as France gave up their electoral college nearly 70 years ago, and replaced it with the two-round system;which is arguably more democratic. Going back to my statement on how the electoral college fails to provide a majority supported president. Here is a list of presidential elections since 1948 in which the EC winner failed to break 50%(regardless if they won the plurality or not). 1948. Truman won with only 49.5% of the popular vote, but received 57%(303) of the Electoral votes. 1960: Kennedy won with only 49.7% of the vote, but received 56%(303)of the Electoral Votes. 1968: Nixon won with only 43.4%, but received 55.9%(301) of the electoral votes. 1992: Clinton won with only 43%, but received 68.7%(370) of the electoral votes. 1996: Clinton won 49.2%, but received 70%(379) of the electoral votes. 2000: Bush won-though came in second in popular vote- with 47.9%, but received 50%(271) of the electoral votes. 2016: Trump won- though came in second in popular vote- with 45.6%, but received 56.5%(304) of the electoral votes. Regardless if you love any of those men, or hate them all, this is an extremely inefficient method of electing the most powerful person in the world.
  9. Sunnymentoaddict

    I am Sorry,Hillary

    Wait, am I reading this correctly? That instead of popular votes being the determinant on who advances to the runoff, it would be electoral votes? I guess that could work. Seems a bit too messy for my take, but better than the current system.
  10. Sunnymentoaddict

    I am Sorry,Hillary

    I am not surprised since for nearly a century over a majority of voters in the state were members of the Democratic Party. Hell the Democratic Party had a majority till 2013(am I correct?)! After doing some googling, according to the Secretary of State nearly 50% of registered voters are Democrats; yet Democrats haven't broke 50% in that state(in the Presidential election) since 1976. Which is an obvious sign of the national party failing to serve the needs of the state. I'd argue that if the US were to go to a two round system(a la France), that you could possibly see a new major party that resurrects the old blue dog image that is no longer associated with the Democratic Party. In democracies that only have a pop vote system, over time develop multiple parties. @Patine could spend a day of how many parties there are in Canada . As with our friends in the UK. As much as I disagree with UKIP's platform, it would be hard to replicate their electoral results in the US.
  11. Sunnymentoaddict

    I am Sorry,Hillary

    I know at this point we are going off topic, possibly, but this is why I am looking forward to the potential favorability update and the potential two round system update for Presidential Infinity! But yes, if you look at the state and local level, where the electoral college doesn't exist, 3rd parties see some relative victories. Bernie Sanders and Angus King are two independents that have made it to the US Senate. Alaska and Minnesota are states that have elected third party governors. Seattle has a socialist in their city council. And in my neck of the woods, I have an independent mayor, and two blocks over is a Progressive member in the local government. Now back to the main topic: neither Clinton nor Trump received 50% of the vote. Regardless if you loved one, or were indifferent towards them both, the idea you can win with below 50% of the vote is a bit undemocratic. I know people point to 2000, or 2016 as a flaw of the Electoral College. But we should also look at 1968, 1992, 1996 as flaws within the system, and see how a man could win the highest office without majority consent.
  12. Sunnymentoaddict

    I am Sorry,Hillary

    Not to be a defender for her- I was a Bernie backer in the SC primary- but there was a lack of polling from the state of Wisconsin leading up to the election. For many, Wisconsin would go blue much like South Carolina will go red; so why even bother when you can expand the party by going to Arizona, or Georgia leading up to the election. And I would even argue that had even Clinton campaigned in Wisconsin she might have lost the state. Not because she is a terrible candidate, but we have 3 other similar campaign rallies across the Midwest in the closing days of the election. [1] [2] [3] And she lost those states by relative narrow margins, despite having rallies with high profile figures. Hell, even the Senate candidates Feingold(Wisconsin), Strickland (Ohio), and McGinty (Pennsylvania) also lost those races- and I am willing to make a wager that Feingold campaigned in his home state of Wisconsin. That said, she did make some serious misteps in her campaign, but not campaigning in Wisconsin is not one of them.
  13. Sunnymentoaddict

    Trump Approval by State (May 2018)

    I have to agree with this. Ron Johnson performed far better than Trump in 2016(winning by 4%, as opposed to Trump winning by a few thousand votes), and quite possibly that Trump rode Johnson's coattails to victory.
  14. Sunnymentoaddict

    Trump Approval by State (May 2018)

    Here is my map based off of Obama's approval rating roughly the same time into the presidency. Solid colors are "Party >50%. light shade is " 50%>Party>Opposing party". Grey is "Both parties are within two points of each other".
  15. Sunnymentoaddict

    Truly dangerous territory

    In the US-atleast in my neck of the woods- "keep us in the fields" is a direct reference to slavery, and keeping an entire underclass. I doubt Trump knows how to govern a farm. He might look at the field of green and go, "Where do I place my golf balls?". Bad joke aside, but I agree with @Wiw, with the sentiment of the Trump administration working hard to undermine the rights granted to many Americans.