11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[JoeB131]

Because only twits would think that a candidate other than a D or R might be a good one, right? Because Clinton and Trump were such outstanding presidential candidates, right?

actually, one just needs to look at the last 100 years of Third Party candidates. Johnson, Perot, Nader, Anderson... people who tickle the fancy of some faction or another, but are really just clowns.

The two parties usually nominate people who can actually do the job. You might not like their policies, but they have the experience to do the job.

I hated Mitt Romney with a passion, but could he have gotten the job done if elected in 2012? Probably. Same with McCain or Kerry or Gore.

The problem in 2016 was that one party nominated a person who was unlikable but could get the job done, and the other party elected a mentally ill game show host because the people who run the party couldn't get their shit together to stop him.

And even though THE PEOPLE got it right on a day where it was very difficult to get it right, our fucked up system created by slave raping assholes who didn't trust Democracy, stuck us with the mentally ill game show host.

 

[hadit]

Because only twits would think that a candidate other than a D or R might be a good one, right? Because Clinton and Trump were such outstanding presidential candidates, right?

actually, one just needs to look at the last 100 years of Third Party candidates. Johnson, Perot, Nader, Anderson... people who tickle the fancy of some faction or another, but are really just clowns.

The two parties usually nominate people who can actually do the job. You might not like their policies, but they have the experience to do the job.

I hated Mitt Romney with a passion, but could he have gotten the job done if elected in 2012? Probably. Same with McCain or Kerry or Gore.

The problem in 2016 was that one party nominated a person who was unlikable but could get the job done, and the other party elected a mentally ill game show host because the people who run the party couldn't get their shit together to stop him.

And even though THE PEOPLE got it right on a day where it was very difficult to get it right, our fucked up system created by slave raping assholes who didn't trust Democracy, stuck us with the mentally ill game show host.

The rules applied to everyone equally, and Hillary could not even beat Trump. She really lost big time.

 

[JoeB131]

The rules applied to everyone equally, and Hillary could not even beat Trump. She really lost big time.

Again, she got three million more votes.

The people got it right. The system failed on multiple levels.

 

[dblack]

The rules applied to everyone equally, and Hillary could not even beat Trump. She really lost big time.

Again, she got three million more votes.

The people got it right. The system failed on multiple levels.

If we want majority rule to be the law of the land, we'll need to change the Constitution. Maybe we should. But the system didn't fail. It worked as intended.

 

[hadit]

The rules applied to everyone equally, and Hillary could not even beat Trump. She really lost big time.

Again, she got three million more votes.

The people got it right. The system failed on multiple levels.

The system worked as it has since it was put in place. The same system that put Bubba in office and Obama. The only time you complain about it is when the outcome isn't what you want.

You might as well try to make yourself feel better by declaring your team is the real winner in the Super Bowl because they had control of the ball for more time. IOW, a meaningless metric.

She knew the rules as did Trump. The fact is, she should have cruised to the win, but just like Bush Sr, was undone by overconfidence. Face it, she wasn't cheated, she simply lost.

 

[Pogo]

The rules applied to everyone equally, and Hillary could not even beat Trump. She really lost big time.

Again, she got three million more votes.

The people got it right. The system failed on multiple levels.

If we want majority rule to be the law of the land, we'll need to change the Constitution. Maybe we should. But the system didn't fail. It worked as intended.

Once AGAIN the Constitution does not need changing to effect this plan. It's deliberately set up to work WITHIN the Constitution. AS IS.

Maybe you should actually read it some day.

 

[Pogo]

[

I wasn't commenting on my opinion of the purpose of states or the federal government, I was questioning the statement Pilot1 made, which seemed to imply that the Electoral College is the purpose of states.

Please show me where I said the EC was the sole purpose of the states. There are many purposes of a State. Our country is based on the POWER of the States, and is a collection of States, not a "Collective" which abolishing the EC would turn it into.

You said "If the Electoral College is abolished, or changed like this we might as well abolish states." If the states have other purposes than the EC (which they certainly do) why would getting rid of the EC mean states should be abolished? Those other purposes still exist regardless of the method of electing the president.

I stand by that statement, but that isn't saying the EC is the state's sole purpose. If the EC is abolished we will have one party rule in the Presidency, as the large metro areas will control that. If the Dems were to gain control of Congress too, they could pass laws that would supersede the laws in the more conservative states. So yes, just abolish states.

Reading comprehension is a good thing. Try it sometime.

You dug yourself into a deep hole here. The first thing to do is acknowledge you're IN a hole. To deny the hole is there is just dishonest.

 

[dblack]

Once AGAIN the Constitution does not need changing to effect this plan. It's deliberately set up to work WITHIN the Constitution. AS IS.

Maybe you should actually read it some day.

Why? I don't give shit. I don't worship at the alter of 'democracy'. I want government that's sane and protects individual rights.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN the Constitution does not need changing to effect this plan. It's deliberately set up to work WITHIN the Constitution. AS IS.

Maybe you should actually read it some day.

Why? I don't give shit. I don't worship at the alter of 'democracy'. I want government that's sane and protects individual rights.

"Why"? Because you made a comment that reveals you as completely uninformed about what's in the Constitution, that's "why". I corrected you. On a point that's already been laid down in this thread about 478 times.

You know --- the one you cut out from the quote so you could pretend it never happened. That one.

 

[dblack]

Once AGAIN the Constitution does not need changing to effect this plan. It's deliberately set up to work WITHIN the Constitution. AS IS.

Maybe you should actually read it some day.

Why? I don't give shit. I don't worship at the alter of 'democracy'. I want government that's sane and protects individual rights.

"Why"? Because you made a comment that reveals you as completely uninformed about what's in the Constitution, that's "why". I corrected you. On a point that's already been laid down in this thread about 478 times.

You know --- the one you cut out from the quote so you could pretend it never happened. That one.

Oh fuck off. I'm informed enough to know that I don't give a rat's ass about ensuring majority rule, and that's what this is all about. It doesn't matter to me whether Hillary got more votes then Trump. Get it? Probably not. Why don't you strut around in a circle and claim 'victory' instead?

 

[Montrovant]

Because only twits would think that a candidate other than a D or R might be a good one, right? Because Clinton and Trump were such outstanding presidential candidates, right?

actually, one just needs to look at the last 100 years of Third Party candidates. Johnson, Perot, Nader, Anderson... people who tickle the fancy of some faction or another, but are really just clowns.

The two parties usually nominate people who can actually do the job. You might not like their policies, but they have the experience to do the job.

I hated Mitt Romney with a passion, but could he have gotten the job done if elected in 2012? Probably. Same with McCain or Kerry or Gore.

The problem in 2016 was that one party nominated a person who was unlikable but could get the job done, and the other party elected a mentally ill game show host because the people who run the party couldn't get their shit together to stop him.

And even though THE PEOPLE got it right on a day where it was very difficult to get it right, our fucked up system created by slave raping assholes who didn't trust Democracy, stuck us with the mentally ill game show host.

What experience do you think a presidential candidate needs? Gary Johnson created a successful business and was a 2 term governor. John Anderson was a state attorney, part of the Foreign Service, and served in Congress for 20 years.

That you are seemingly wedded to the two party system does not mean all third party candidates lack the experience to be president, or are all clowns.

 

[Montrovant]

Once AGAIN the Constitution does not need changing to effect this plan. It's deliberately set up to work WITHIN the Constitution. AS IS.

Maybe you should actually read it some day.

Why? I don't give shit. I don't worship at the alter of 'democracy'. I want government that's sane and protects individual rights.

"Why"? Because you made a comment that reveals you as completely uninformed about what's in the Constitution, that's "why". I corrected you. On a point that's already been laid down in this thread about 478 times.

You know --- the one you cut out from the quote so you could pretend it never happened. That one.

Oh fuck off. I'm informed enough to know that I don't give a rat's ass about ensuring majority rule, and that's what this is all about. It doesn't matter to me whether Hillary got more votes then Trump. Get it? Probably not. Why don't you strut around in a circle and claim 'victory' instead?

You might want to be more clear in your posts. You said something about the Constitution needing to be changed, and Pogo responded by saying that the compact doesn't require any Constitutional changes. You then responded by saying you don't give a shit.

It may not be what you meant, but it certainly gave the impression that you were saying you don't give a shit what's in the Constitution the way the posts were written.

 

[xyz]

I think the voting methods should be standardized for federal election. Thus no voting machines in one county, No.2 pencil forms in another and something else somewhere else.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN the Constitution does not need changing to effect this plan. It's deliberately set up to work WITHIN the Constitution. AS IS.

Maybe you should actually read it some day.

Why? I don't give shit. I don't worship at the alter of 'democracy'. I want government that's sane and protects individual rights.

"Why"? Because you made a comment that reveals you as completely uninformed about what's in the Constitution, that's "why". I corrected you. On a point that's already been laid down in this thread about 478 times.

You know --- the one you cut out from the quote so you could pretend it never happened. That one.

Oh fuck off. I'm informed enough to know that I don't give a rat's ass about ensuring majority rule, and that's what this is all about. It doesn't matter to me whether Hillary got more votes then Trump. Get it? Probably not. Why don't you strut around in a circle and claim 'victory' instead?

You might want to be more clear in your posts. You said something about the Constitution needing to be changed, and Pogo responded by saying that the compact doesn't require any Constitutional changes. You then responded by saying you don't give a shit.

It may not be what you meant, but it certainly gave the impression that you were saying you don't give a shit what's in the Constitution the way the posts were written.

Apparently he saw the point and changed his mind but can't bring himself to admit it.

Lot of that going around, isn't there.

 

[JoeB131]

If we want majority rule to be the law of the land, we'll need to change the Constitution. Maybe we should. But the system didn't fail. It worked as intended.

Um, no, it failed miserably. The problem is, most people didn't even realize that this awful system even existed until Bush stole the election in 2000.

The system worked as it has since it was put in place. The same system that put Bubba in office and Obama. The only time you complain about it is when the outcome isn't what you want.

Except Bubba and Obama won the popular vote. The people got what they wanted.

The people didn't want Bush. They knew he was an idiot.
The people didn't want Trump. They know he's an idiot.

 

[JoeB131]

What experience do you think a presidential candidate needs? Gary Johnson created a successful business and was a 2 term governor. John Anderson was a state attorney, part of the Foreign Service, and served in Congress for 20 years.

I think anything Gary did before then was invalidated by the fact he had to promise us he wouldn't smoke dope in the White House.

That's not even a discussion that should be coming up in a sane world.

 

[Montrovant]

What experience do you think a presidential candidate needs? Gary Johnson created a successful business and was a 2 term governor. John Anderson was a state attorney, part of the Foreign Service, and served in Congress for 20 years.

I think anything Gary did before then was invalidated by the fact he had to promise us he wouldn't smoke dope in the White House.

That's not even a discussion that should be coming up in a sane world.

Oh, so now you're changing it from having experience to the experience only matters for certain candidates?

I'll agree that Johnson was not a great candidate. Weld would have been better as the top of that ticket from the little I saw and heard from him. That said, neither Trump nor Clinton were great candidates, either.

 

[hadit]

If we want majority rule to be the law of the land, we'll need to change the Constitution. Maybe we should. But the system didn't fail. It worked as intended.

Um, no, it failed miserably. The problem is, most people didn't even realize that this awful system even existed until Bush stole the election in 2000.

The system worked as it has since it was put in place. The same system that put Bubba in office and Obama. The only time you complain about it is when the outcome isn't what you want.

Except Bubba and Obama won the popular vote. The people got what they wanted.

The people didn't want Bush. They knew he was an idiot.
The people didn't want Trump. They know he's an idiot.

The national popular vote has never been a significant metric when it comes to electing the president. To focus on it is merely a distraction. The reality remains, and always will, that Hillary lost by the rules in place at the time, and she lost to Trump.

 

[Montrovant]

If we want majority rule to be the law of the land, we'll need to change the Constitution. Maybe we should. But the system didn't fail. It worked as intended.

Um, no, it failed miserably. The problem is, most people didn't even realize that this awful system even existed until Bush stole the election in 2000.

The system worked as it has since it was put in place. The same system that put Bubba in office and Obama. The only time you complain about it is when the outcome isn't what you want.

Except Bubba and Obama won the popular vote. The people got what they wanted.

The people didn't want Bush. They knew he was an idiot.
The people didn't want Trump. They know he's an idiot.

The system did not fail miserably. It was not created to have the presidency be determined by popular vote, or even by the will of the voters. States did not always even have voting for president.

The EC system may have failed to do what you think it should, but it functioned as designed in the 2016 election and in previous elections.

About 63 million votes were cast for Trump in 2016 compared to a bit under 66 million for Clinton. All of the people didn't want Trump (or Clinton), but enough did in the right places for Trump to gain the presidency.

Similarly, over 50 million votes were cast for Bush in 2000 compared to 51 million for Gore. All of the people didn't want Bush (or Gore), but enough did in the right places for Bush to gain the presidency.

Declarations about what "the people" want based on who wins a relatively close election are, and always have been, ridiculous.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, so now you're changing it from having experience to the experience only matters for certain candidates?

I'll agree that Johnson was not a great candidate. Weld would have been better as the top of that ticket from the little I saw and heard from him. That said, neither Trump nor Clinton were great candidates, either.

Clinton was a fine candidate.

8 years as a senator, 8 years as first lady, 4 years as secretary of state. She was more qualified than Trump, Bush, Romney, or a lot of other people, if you just looked at her resume and not her name.

Of course, what made her a bad candidate was people didn't like her on a personal level and never did.