POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
I'd bet everything that I have that Joe hasn't thought about Evan for a second since the last time he was in the news cycle.
Thank you for this canned response.
The only people who should defend the electoral college are in the 5-6 swing states who decide the election. Elsewise, functionally, it merely relieves any leverage from the voter of any other state. There is zero reason for a President to care about your vote.
You're winning.
She sure did. She watched the USSR, Cuba, Eastern Europe in real time
This is comically wrong. The candidate cares about your vote and thus fixes their shitty policies or else. As is getting ready to happen to your boy.
The Founders were brilliant, as we keep being reminded.
Just wanted to leave this here for shinbone, Karl Jr., sammysdad, and all the other Critical Thinkers. Mocking them for supporting such obvious corruption never gets old.
The destruction of America not happening fast enough for KAB Cats - damn electoral college!!!!
I apologize if you do not have a rudimentary understanding of the constitution. I simply want to disabuse you of any misunderstanding you have as to popular vote meaning squat WRT the presidential election.
The allocation of house seats gives a large state all the leverage it needs in the congress. I don't see your ilk complaining of California's outsized influence in the House. Followed by NY. That is the example of what we'd see without the EC system Only NY and CA would have Presidents.
About the only thing believable in this whole mess.
Which blue state is dr Jill going to be elected senator?
More than term limit for USSC, we need an age limit like 80. Regardless, takes an amendment to do anything.
I like the Lady Ghostbusters knock but he's right. These people are utter clowns. Let someone almost get murdered (and did) and then you want to cry that someone thinks you're a joke?
News is the first draft of history. Not always accurate. NET, CNN is right on that.
If China nukes us it doesn't matter either.
Take care for your family first. Country afterwards. Family can go on w/o country.
I mean for you, is it God-Country-Family or God-Family-Country or some other order of priorities?
first of all, and I hate getting into this because it’s a fairly stupid topic in the first place, but we don’t pick based off of “a few battleground states”. Every single state has their say. It’s just that some states lean heavy one way or another, meaning they are represented in full spirit but they are much more in agreement in who they choose. It’s not that they’re not important like you’re suggesting. That’s a total lack of context on your part, and a total misunderstanding of the system results. I’d rather not continue because it’s a really stupid argument and can be shown a multitude of ways. No, you’re not smarter than the founders of the greatest country on earth simply because you want an absolute democracy and one party rule. What you want is EXACTLY why they stopped it. So stop, just say you want one party rule and wish they hadn’t stopped the avenues to allow it to happen. Don’t try and twist it to where absolute democracy is actually the correct form, don’t be disingenuous. I don’t think you understand how AD’s are able to ignore the needs of a minority either.
I assume you’ve never had any POLS?
Last edited:
Non-sequitors galore.
We aren't talking about the House, which reflects locality. We are talking about the Electoral College, which removes locality, and predicates presidential power on 5 states.
You could not be more blatant about this being an inside job especially when you see this. Imagine being a defensive coordinator and you're just like 'Let's just keep the safeties on the sideline."
A guy that I grew up with worked for the FBI. He was tasked a couple of times to the CIA and for quite a few yrs he was tasked to the Secret Service.......he says that kid shouldn't have been able to get within a mile and a half of that stage with a long gun......much less 150 yards......I ain't saying they planned it but it appears that they didn't do anything in particular to stop it......I want to see what the overseas encrypted accounts this guy had are about......porn sites or foreign banks?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA...That's rich, considering in 2015 and 2016 all you leftoids were bragging about how hard it was going to be for Trump to break the "BLUE WALL." Remember the "BLUE WALL?" Oh yeah, I'm sure you do. It was the industrial strip of Minnesota, Illinois, Maine, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan...and it was your bastion that you were soooooooo confident Trump couldn't win. But then Trump swept three of them and all of a sudden you idiots shifted to bUt WhAt AbOuT mUh PoPuLaR vOtE?!?!?! What a bunch of useless, sore loser hypocrites. You don't believe in ANYTHING unless it helps YOUR GUY get in the White House. So STFU with that lazy nonsense. Turd.
A handful of states absolutely pick our President.
If a Democrat was leading, would this Democrat care at all about winning a few votes in Kentucky? Answer that honestly.
Really, the same principle applies if a Republican is leading. There is zero reason for a Presidential candidate to understand the population, desires or people in deep red or deep blue states. It's all about leverage and the undecided carry the leverage in politics.
What in the world are you talking about my guy?CNN fact checkers are total bullshit. It’s hilarious that when they’re checked and found to be totally false, they hide behind that nonsense like the truth takes time to form.
The key word in fact check is “ fact”. So no, a “fact” of truth means that’s the end, there is no evolution. Facts of truth are truth, CNN fact check is not intended to allow truth to form. They’re stating a final fact one way or the other. News evolves, fact checks do not.
My opinion on the Electoral College has nothing to do with Donald Trump or "blue walls" or who is currently President. Makes zero difference.
My single point is this: Your vote in Kentucky is worthless to the Presidential candidate. A Democrat assumes your vote goes to a Republican. A Republican assumes the same. Same principle applies to California.
But what about Ohio or Michigan or any other state that can actually change? Would you like to compare the frequency of Presidential visits to these areas vs. the pundit states? Why should a handful of states have the deciding power?
I don’t think you understand how stupid this is. the people in those states that are lockstep MAKE THEIR CHOICE. they aren’t being skipped over the way they would in an absolute democracy. They agree more broadly but it’s counted JUST THE SAME as anywhere else including a battleground state.
Listen my guy, it’s a stupid thing to argue and it’s extreme and anti-American. Liberal politicians don’t even believe the absolute democracy bullshit, they put it out there for political posturing. It would be a terrible idea and all minority states would lose all forms of sovereignty.
I’m done arguing it because it’s a really stupid thing to believe and if you do I can’t help because it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how governments historically operate and why our constitution doesn’t allow it. You don’t know what you’re talking about and have been duped by modern leftist insinuations intended to create excuses.
I don't live in Kentucky, stupid. I live in Florida, which is considered by most to be a swing state. And when Trump wins 325 EVs you'll be whining about popular vote again. Furthermore, it's not the founders' fault that California is a shithole overrun by illegal voters. Ronald Reagan won California back in 1980 and 1984.
Then you are the exact demographic I'd expect to defend it. Same goes for Ohio.
Of course, many others do out of tradition and it's probably not going to change, but it's asinine.
Yea, I don't give a shit about being liberal or conservative here.
I can only make the same point so many times as you double down.
The majority of the country is irrelevant in deciding the most powerful position in America. The entire concept was based on ignorance of the future -- that two parties would obtain a monopoly of power and be responsible for dumbed down schism of punditry in American politics.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Basketball ***** UK Women's Basketball Season Thread 2024-25 *****- Latest: Jeff Drummond
-
-
