Are Snowflakes Stupid Enough To Pay $1200 A Ticket?

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's okay that a right guy has more rights?

Via his own personal endeavour? Depends. Via the political system? No.

Via his own personal endeavor?

You're free to move to Alaska to get overweighted rights.

 

[easyt65]

I am eager to see how many STUPID snowflakes are willing to pay $1,200 a ticket to see this corrupt, criminal blame anyone and everyone else but herself for her losing the 2016 Presidential Election!

Bwuhahahaha.......

Hillary – the live show: Clinton launching book tour | Daily Mail Online

Hillary – the live show: Clinton to tell audiences her 'personal, raw, detailed and surprisingly funny story' in unprecedented nationwide tour with tickets selling for up to $1,200

whiny little trump shill is the snowflake little boy....

send our love to Vlad

So I take it you bought front row seats...

 

[jillian]

I am eager to see how many STUPID snowflakes are willing to pay $1,200 a ticket to see this corrupt, criminal blame anyone and everyone else but herself for her losing the 2016 Presidential Election!

Bwuhahahaha.......

Hillary – the live show: Clinton launching book tour | Daily Mail Online

Hillary – the live show: Clinton to tell audiences her 'personal, raw, detailed and surprisingly funny story' in unprecedented nationwide tour with tickets selling for up to $1,200

whiny little trump shill is the snowflake little boy....

send our love to Vlad

So I take it you bought front row seats...

no.

say hi to Vlad for us.... trumptroll

 

[Dr Grump]

It's okay that a right guy has more rights?

Via his own personal endeavour? Depends. Via the political system? No.

Via his own personal endeavor?

You're free to move to Alaska to get overweighted rights.

Oh right. So you don't believe in changing the political system so it is in favour of all citizens. Nice to know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's okay that a right guy has more rights?

Via his own personal endeavour? Depends. Via the political system? No.

Via his own personal endeavor?

You're free to move to Alaska to get overweighted rights.

Oh right. So you don't believe in changing the political system so it is in favour of all citizens. Nice to know.

You get to vote.
You're not disenfranchised.
You're welcome.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

You get to vote.
You're not disenfranchised.
You're welcome.

Depends on the state.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

You get to vote.
You're not disenfranchised.
You're welcome.

Depends on the state.

Which state(s) will not allow you to vote?

 

[Dr Grump]

[

You get to vote.
You're not disenfranchised.
You're welcome.

Depends on the state.

Which state(s) will not allow you to vote?

Not my point. And am not going through it all over again. You are either dumb or belligerent. Make your choice...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[

You get to vote.
You're not disenfranchised.
You're welcome.

Depends on the state.

Which state(s) will not allow you to vote?

Not my point. And am not going through it all over again. You are either dumb or belligerent. Make your choice...

You should whine some more about your supposed underrepresentation.

 

[Dr Grump]

You should whine some more about your supposed underrepresentation.

So you're dumb. Okay, you made your choice.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should whine some more about your supposed underrepresentation.

So you're dumb. Okay, you made your choice.

Waaaaa.....disenfranchised.....unfair. DERP!

 

[Dr Grump]

You should whine some more about your supposed underrepresentation.

So you're dumb. Okay, you made your choice.

Waaaaa.....disenfranchised.....unfair. DERP!

Yeah, if you had a brain you'd be dangerous...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should whine some more about your supposed underrepresentation.

So you're dumb. Okay, you made your choice.

Waaaaa.....disenfranchised.....unfair. DERP!

Yeah, if you had a brain you'd be dangerous...

Your whiney brain has done wonders for you.

 

[Dr Grump]

Your whiney brain has done wonders for you.

Thanks Scarecrow...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your whiney brain has done wonders for you.

Thanks Scarecrow...

Disenfranchised. DISENFRANCHISED! Squawk!

 

[iceberg]

Amateurs? Trump has been selling manue his entire adult life; lousy casinos and a 'university' that was found to be a fraud, he had to pay out millions. You bought cr*p, the majority of voters did not. As for 'stealing' votes, look at the guy that lined up wife 2 to fight his first wife, IN PUBLIC, and made many off of tabloid photos.

Amateurs?

Yes. 2 amateur politicians kicked her ass.

Um...no they didn't. More people voted for her than him. Fact.

and?

 

[Conservative65]

It makes me chuckle.

I'm glad you like disenfranchising certain parts of your society. Allows people to see what type of person you are.

You're not disenfranchised. No matter how much you whine.

Deprive (someone) of the right to vote.

disenfranchise - definition of disenfranchise in English | Oxford Dictionaries

From your own link:

Deprive (someone) of a right or privilege.

You are depriving Californians of the same rights as Alaskans...

No it's not. The electoral votes tied to a State's population represent, as much as can be done, the same amount of people whether it's the 33rd district in California or the 1st District in Texas. Try reading Wesbury v. Sanders (1962). The electoral votes that represent a State's EXISTENCE are equal to all states.

 

[Conservative65]

[

Every state is allocated a number of EC votes equal to the number of senators and representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation—two votes for its senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its members in the U. S. House of Representatives.

Senate - Each state is equally represented by two senators, regardless of their population.

House of Representatives - The House is composed of representatives who sit in congressional districts allocated to each of the 50 states on a basis of population as measured by the census (each district is entitled one representative and districts are set by the states.) Since the Reappointment Act of 1929 the number has been set at 435. This was done because folks in America like to move around (be it because of job opportunities or military need) and they needed a consistent number to "avoid disenfranchising individual states." (Fun fact - the need for that act was spurred on by the 14th amendment when southern states suddenly had a major increase in population on the census - aka freed slaves counted as a full person instead of the old 2/3 person. I bet you lefties wouldn't have been happy had the southern confederate states taken an advantage in the EC right after the civil war... Hell that might have changed the entire history of the US.)

Anyway, so that's been the rules from the beginning, and the way it [the HOR] works since 1929. Crying isn't going to do you any good, you want to change it, write up an amendment to the constitution, or get someone to sponsor another reappointment act. Good luck.

Who's talking about the rules? I'm talking about proportional representation. The fact you don't increase the number of Congress Critters as the population increases is pathetic.

The electoral votes for Senators are not done on a proportional basis. They're done on a State existing. The members of Congress, specifically the House, do increase as a State's population increases. The number of electoral votes for a State based on it's Senators do not because those EVs are not tied to population. Never were.

 

[Dr Grump]

It makes me chuckle.

I'm glad you like disenfranchising certain parts of your society. Allows people to see what type of person you are.

You're not disenfranchised. No matter how much you whine.

Deprive (someone) of the right to vote.

disenfranchise - definition of disenfranchise in English | Oxford Dictionaries

From your own link:

Deprive (someone) of a right or privilege.

You are depriving Californians of the same rights as Alaskans...

No it's not. The electoral votes tied to a State's population represent, as much as can be done, the same amount of people whether it's the 33rd district in California or the 1st District in Texas. Try reading Wesbury v. Sanders (1962). The electoral votes that represent a State's EXISTENCE are equal to all states.

Totally untrue and easily disproved. Take out the two senatorial EC votes in each state and you'll find that (approx) 600,000 Alaskans get 1 EC vote 724,000 Californians get 1 EC. Don't know if you know too much about maths, but the way I figure it that leaves Californians at a clear disadvantage. Giving Californians an extra 14 EC votes would even it out for all parties having equal representation.

 

[Dr Grump]

The electoral votes for Senators are not done on a proportional basis. They're done on a State existing. The members of Congress, specifically the House, do increase as a State's population increases. The number of electoral votes for a State based on it's Senators do not because those EVs are not tied to population. Never were.

I think we might be arguing different things. No, Congress has had 435 members since 1963 when it was reduced. Your population was approx 190 million. It is now about 325 million and you still have the same number of Congress critters. I don't know why you guys keep on mentioning the 2 Senatorial EVs. They are but a minuscule number of overall EVs during elections and isn't even my point.