Arizona going to Biden? (Bad news for Trump in latest polls)

[rightwinger]

Just like in 2016, trump is going to lose at least 45 states, according to early polls.

I'm gong to wait til the end of the first week in November for the polls.

They have more of a chance to be correct.

We will get a better view come November.

But most presidential polls over the last 50 years have been very accurate. They blew it in 2016.

Can Trump count on polls always being wrong?

with the absolute hatred a vitriol Trump voters receive yep ! add 10 points to any poll for Trump.

Kind of like the hatred and vitriol directed at the schoolyard bully. Ironically, nobody feels sorry for him

Who is spilling the vitriol on these Threads?!
You Libs are so mentally ill you don't even realize you're the ones spitting and cursing.

Bullies deserve what happens to them

So does Trump

It's funny how when GW was President, you posted he was a bully.
Apparently, anyone in office who disagrees with you politically is a bully.

I never said Bush was a bully. I thought he was a nice guy. Totally inept, but a nice guy.

Bullshit...You hated his guts.
Your problem is I actually read your posts.

Now you are just plain lying

Bush left office in Jan 2009......I didn’t make my first USMB post till Aug 2009

I remember you always bitching about him.
I also hated GW and he left Obama a shit sandwich to deal with.

I have always said I thought Bush was a worse president than Trump. Even though I hate Trump. Bush just did more damage.

I never said I hated Bush. I thought he was a good husband and father. Something I could never say about Trump. I thought Bush was a like able guy who could laugh and make fun of himself. A characteristic that Trump lacks.

I thought Bush was a horrible President, but a decent guy.
Trump is a horrible guy and is rapidly becoming a horrible President during this crisis

View attachment 325303

You have yet to show any evidence Trump is a disaster in anyway whatsoever; just because you can't stand someone who isn't ultra polite.
It's a good thing you weren't born in the Old West.

Up till now, Trump has muddled along with a strong economy and no major screw ups.

But this crisis calls for strong leadership. Not the misinformation, waffling, petty infighting and divisiveness we are getting out of Trump.

The economy is on the verge of collapse as unemployment will approach 20 percent and GDP will plummet.

I don’t think Trump has the skills to handle it.

Tell us what you would do about a global virus that only kills people on Life Saving Medication.
And I only know this because of my physical and on-line community.

What I would like to do is have a vaccine for the whole population
In the absence of a vaccine, I would like to see the country flooded with test kits.
Till that time, isolation is all we have.

What we need out of our President is leadership. Stop bragging about the TV ratings of your briefings, stop the petty infighting, stop blaming everyone but yourself.

Stop acting like the mayor in Jaws who can’t wait to get the beaches open.

 

[bripat9643]

Just like in 2016, trump is going to lose at least 45 states, according to early polls.

I'm gong to wait til the end of the first week in November for the polls.

They have more of a chance to be correct.

We will get a better view come November.

But most presidential polls over the last 50 years have been very accurate. They blew it in 2016.

Can Trump count on polls always being wrong?

with the absolute hatred a vitriol Trump voters receive yep ! add 10 points to any poll for Trump.

Kind of like the hatred and vitriol directed at the schoolyard bully. Ironically, nobody feels sorry for him

Who is spilling the vitriol on these Threads?!
You Libs are so mentally ill you don't even realize you're the ones spitting and cursing.

Bullies deserve what happens to them

So does Trump

It's funny how when GW was President, you posted he was a bully.
Apparently, anyone in office who disagrees with you politically is a bully.

I never said Bush was a bully. I thought he was a nice guy. Totally inept, but a nice guy.

Bullshit...You hated his guts.
Your problem is I actually read your posts.

Now you are just plain lying

Bush left office in Jan 2009......I didn’t make my first USMB post till Aug 2009

I remember you always bitching about him.
I also hated GW and he left Obama a shit sandwich to deal with.

I have always said I thought Bush was a worse president than Trump. Even though I hate Trump. Bush just did more damage.

I never said I hated Bush. I thought he was a good husband and father. Something I could never say about Trump. I thought Bush was a like able guy who could laugh and make fun of himself. A characteristic that Trump lacks.

I thought Bush was a horrible President, but a decent guy.
Trump is a horrible guy and is rapidly becoming a horrible President during this crisis

View attachment 325303

You have yet to show any evidence Trump is a disaster in anyway whatsoever; just because you can't stand someone who isn't ultra polite.
It's a good thing you weren't born in the Old West.

Up till now, Trump has muddled along with a strong economy and no major screw ups.

But this crisis calls for strong leadership. Not the misinformation, waffling, petty infighting and divisiveness we are getting out of Trump.

The economy is on the verge of collapse as unemployment will approach 20 percent and GDP will plummet.

I don’t think Trump has the skills to handle it.

So you believe Biden will provide "strong leadership?"

 

[DBA]

The world disagrees,, nations leaders are calling him wondering how he’s doing to well..

The world considers Trump a buffoon.

Our economy prior to this virus was tops in the world. Who are the bafoons? LOL..not Trump and not us. We will also recover at a much faster rate than the rest of the world, some of those who evidently consider Trump a bafoon. Maybe they should start listening to the "bafoon". They won't, because, just like Democrats here, they are too self-absorbed to think they could be wrong.

 

[Pogo]

lol.... there's no anger dude. guess you need to think that? anyhoo - you show a map that showed a mostly 'red' amerika. it's deceiving, unless you understand the graphic. sure, donny won. because of the EC.

only by 75,000 votes. but you keep thinking it was really a landslide by population.

because of the EC.

EVERY elected president has won because of the EC.

well duh. which shows how antiquated it really is. it's painfully obvious & sad that he won by 75K votes in a country that actually overwhelmingly voted for his opponent. he really didn't win by the majority will of the people. but he's the potus, duly elected & the buck stops with him.

& btw - the same outdated method in having election day on only one day - a tuesday should be overhauled too. it literally has to do with farming & horse drawn buggies.

View attachment 324807

already proved that map is deceiving. most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

How many of those trees, cows and cornfields vote?

oh please. that's nonsense....cause even though the population of bumfuck, iowa is less than any east or west coast cosmopolitan area - the entire hayseed state will throw its EC vote to the red conservative.

Of course it's nonsense.


but it's fools like you that keep bringing up 'cows, cornfields, and trees' when discussing red states.

why do you think states with those cornfields etc etc have less virus??? BECAUSE there are LESS people there and more cows

and you dont' believe those people have a voice?


When y'all get your way, do we put the throne in NYC, or Los Angeles?

Won't be any need for the Oval Office, if Ca or NY decides who the president is.

Y'all apologists keep on falling back on this fallacious absurdity of "CA or NY deciding who the POTUS is" as if suddenly nobody else had a vote, desperately hoping somebody will buy it. And yet in the next moment it'll be "take away California and Rump wins the pop vote". BOTH are equally uselessly absurd.

What's really absurd is anybody looking at the popular vote as nothing more than a fluke. How can anybody say a person won something they weren't even trying for, and claim that as some sort of victory?

I don't recall seeing anyone say that. What I did note in this thread was that Rump could not win even 50% of the vote of the state in question. Nor several others including my own. Yet he got 100% of those states' electoral votes. And I noted that that system is fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with the system. Been using it for a couple of hundred years. Now you people are upset because you can no longer win by the system. Instead of changing your policies or views, you want to change the system to win. How about trying to win by not going more and more left with every election?

"You people"?

I posted nothing about any "left". I posted the same thing I've been posting for decades about how fucked up the system is, and why. Go ahead and explain to us how a system where a candy who can't even muster HALF of a state's vote, yet gets ALL its electors, is a system there's "nothing wrong with". And btw it hasn't been that way for two hundred years at all. In fact Madison advocated a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice, when it was just getting started.

It actually works that way in every election, winner takes all. If we divided all the electoral votes based on who voted where, then it defeats the purpose of the electoral collage as it would actually be a popular vote contest.

--- AND?

WTA has *NOT* been the system for two hundred years *NOR* is it mandated or even suggested by the Constitution, and as illustrated it leads to the malarkey of getting 100% of a state's vote while being unable to even attain 45% of its citizens' wishes. Or even much less in other years.

Now, the Constitution also doesn't require that EV to reflect the state election results. It doesn't require a Presidential election to be held at all. But if you're going to use that system and claim that the state's EVs will be based on its election, and then you pull this shit, you're a liar. The people of Utah didn't vote for Rump. The people of AridZona didn't vote for Rump. The people of my state didn't vote for Rump. Nor did those of Florida. Neither did the people of Michigan, NOR the people of Pennsylvania, NOR the people of Wisconsin. Yet ALL of those states threw ALL their EVs to a candie who could not win the preference of their state. For that matter the people of Virginia, and Minnesota, and Nevada, didn't vote for Clinton either.

The entire electorate of all those states had their choices tossed into the dumpster, along with all the Californians and New Yorkers who voted for Rump, all the Texans and Ohioans who voted for Clinton, etc etc ad infinitum.

THAT's a fucked up system. If we're going to claim to hold an election, then hold an election. If we're not, let's not be liars and claim what we're doing is an election because IT ISN'T.

 

[rightwinger]

Just like in 2016, trump is going to lose at least 45 states, according to early polls.

I'm gong to wait til the end of the first week in November for the polls.

They have more of a chance to be correct.

We will get a better view come November.

But most presidential polls over the last 50 years have been very accurate. They blew it in 2016.

Can Trump count on polls always being wrong?

with the absolute hatred a vitriol Trump voters receive yep ! add 10 points to any poll for Trump.

Kind of like the hatred and vitriol directed at the schoolyard bully. Ironically, nobody feels sorry for him

Who is spilling the vitriol on these Threads?!
You Libs are so mentally ill you don't even realize you're the ones spitting and cursing.

Bullies deserve what happens to them

So does Trump

It's funny how when GW was President, you posted he was a bully.
Apparently, anyone in office who disagrees with you politically is a bully.

I never said Bush was a bully. I thought he was a nice guy. Totally inept, but a nice guy.

Bullshit...You hated his guts.
Your problem is I actually read your posts.

Now you are just plain lying

Bush left office in Jan 2009......I didn’t make my first USMB post till Aug 2009

I remember you always bitching about him.
I also hated GW and he left Obama a shit sandwich to deal with.

I have always said I thought Bush was a worse president than Trump. Even though I hate Trump. Bush just did more damage.

I never said I hated Bush. I thought he was a good husband and father. Something I could never say about Trump. I thought Bush was a like able guy who could laugh and make fun of himself. A characteristic that Trump lacks.

I thought Bush was a horrible President, but a decent guy.
Trump is a horrible guy and is rapidly becoming a horrible President during this crisis

View attachment 325303

You have yet to show any evidence Trump is a disaster in anyway whatsoever; just because you can't stand someone who isn't ultra polite.
It's a good thing you weren't born in the Old West.

Up till now, Trump has muddled along with a strong economy and no major screw ups.

But this crisis calls for strong leadership. Not the misinformation, waffling, petty infighting and divisiveness we are getting out of Trump.

The economy is on the verge of collapse as unemployment will approach 20 percent and GDP will plummet.

I don’t think Trump has the skills to handle it.

So you believe Biden will provide "strong leadership?"

He has done it in the past and has a lengthy record of bipartisan cooperation and pragmatic decision making

And no, I am not going to go tit for tat on embarrassing pictures of Biden and Trump

 

[rightwinger]

The world disagrees,, nations leaders are calling him wondering how he’s doing to well..

The world considers Trump a buffoon.

Our economy prior to this virus was tops in the world. Who are the bafoons? LOL..not Trump and not us. We will also recover at a much faster rate than the rest of the world, some of those who evidently consider Trump a bafoon. Maybe they should start listening to the "bafoon". They won't, because, just like Democrats here, they are too self-absorbed to think they could be wrong.

So was Herbert Hoover’s economy

 

[Jitss617]

lol.... there's no anger dude. guess you need to think that? anyhoo - you show a map that showed a mostly 'red' amerika. it's deceiving, unless you understand the graphic. sure, donny won. because of the EC.

only by 75,000 votes. but you keep thinking it was really a landslide by population.

because of the EC.

EVERY elected president has won because of the EC.

well duh. which shows how antiquated it really is. it's painfully obvious & sad that he won by 75K votes in a country that actually overwhelmingly voted for his opponent. he really didn't win by the majority will of the people. but he's the potus, duly elected & the buck stops with him.

& btw - the same outdated method in having election day on only one day - a tuesday should be overhauled too. it literally has to do with farming & horse drawn buggies.

View attachment 324807

already proved that map is deceiving. most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

How many of those trees, cows and cornfields vote?

oh please. that's nonsense....cause even though the population of bumfuck, iowa is less than any east or west coast cosmopolitan area - the entire hayseed state will throw its EC vote to the red conservative.

Of course it's nonsense.


but it's fools like you that keep bringing up 'cows, cornfields, and trees' when discussing red states.

why do you think states with those cornfields etc etc have less virus??? BECAUSE there are LESS people there and more cows

and you dont' believe those people have a voice?


When y'all get your way, do we put the throne in NYC, or Los Angeles?

Won't be any need for the Oval Office, if Ca or NY decides who the president is.

Y'all apologists keep on falling back on this fallacious absurdity of "CA or NY deciding who the POTUS is" as if suddenly nobody else had a vote, desperately hoping somebody will buy it. And yet in the next moment it'll be "take away California and Rump wins the pop vote". BOTH are equally uselessly absurd.

What's really absurd is anybody looking at the popular vote as nothing more than a fluke. How can anybody say a person won something they weren't even trying for, and claim that as some sort of victory?

I don't recall seeing anyone say that. What I did note in this thread was that Rump could not win even 50% of the vote of the state in question. Nor several others including my own. Yet he got 100% of those states' electoral votes. And I noted that that system is fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with the system. Been using it for a couple of hundred years. Now you people are upset because you can no longer win by the system. Instead of changing your policies or views, you want to change the system to win. How about trying to win by not going more and more left with every election?

"You people"?

I posted nothing about any "left". I posted the same thing I've been posting for decades about how fucked up the system is, and why. Go ahead and explain to us how a system where a candy who can't even muster HALF of a state's vote, yet gets ALL its electors, is a system there's "nothing wrong with". And btw it hasn't been that way for two hundred years at all. In fact Madison advocated a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice, when it was just getting started.

It actually works that way in every election, winner takes all. If we divided all the electoral votes based on who voted where, then it defeats the purpose of the electoral collage as it would actually be a popular vote contest.

--- AND?

WTA has *NOT* been the system for two hundred years *NOR* is it mandated or even suggested by the Constitution, and as illustrated it leads to the malarkey of getting 100% of a state's vote while being unable to even attain 45% of its citizens' wishes. Or even much less in other years.

Now, the Constitution also doesn't require that EV to reflect the state election results. It doesn't require a Presidential election to be held at all. But if you're going to use that system and claim that the state's EVs will be based on its election, and then you pull this shit, you're a liar. The people of Utah didn't vote for Rump. The people of AridZona didn't vote for Rump. The people of my state didn't vote for Rump. Nor did those of Florida. Neither did the people of Michigan, NOR the people of Pennsylvania, NOR the people of Wisconsin. Yet ALL of those states threw ALL their EVs to a candie who could not win the preference of their state. For that matter the people of Virginia, and Minnesota, and Nevada, didn't vote for Clinton either.

The entire electorate of all those states had their choices tossed into the dumpster, along with all the Californians and New Yorkers who voted for Rump, all the Texans and Ohioans who voted for Clinton, etc etc ad infinitum.

THAT's a fucked up system. If we're going to claim to hold an election, then hold an election. If we're not, let's not be liars and claim what we're doing is an election because IT ISN'T.

i saw this map! It might help you to show you who voted for Trump you see the red are trump voters and that little bit of blue in there some
Democrats lol hahaha hahaha

 

[bigrebnc1775]

in other words, you don't have a link and that was your worthless opinion
Check game and match

Most of what you guys say is so ass-poundingly stupid that just mocking it is enough.

But do go on... it's fun to watch you all flail as Trump engages in EPIC FAIL.

Irony queen of the Conspiracy theories calling what others say stupid lol
Russia Russia Russia, Collusion collusion collusion, Steele Dossier, Mueller hearing, The Shicff Sham, The phone call Conspiracy, oh and Trump fails lol queenie the ass pounding happens that's why you leftists are still having a chapped ass since 2016

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

lol.... there's no anger dude. guess you need to think that? anyhoo - you show a map that showed a mostly 'red' amerika. it's deceiving, unless you understand the graphic. sure, donny won. because of the EC.

only by 75,000 votes. but you keep thinking it was really a landslide by population.

because of the EC.

EVERY elected president has won because of the EC.

well duh. which shows how antiquated it really is. it's painfully obvious & sad that he won by 75K votes in a country that actually overwhelmingly voted for his opponent. he really didn't win by the majority will of the people. but he's the potus, duly elected & the buck stops with him.

& btw - the same outdated method in having election day on only one day - a tuesday should be overhauled too. it literally has to do with farming & horse drawn buggies.

View attachment 324807

already proved that map is deceiving. most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

How many of those trees, cows and cornfields vote?

oh please. that's nonsense....cause even though the population of bumfuck, iowa is less than any east or west coast cosmopolitan area - the entire hayseed state will throw its EC vote to the red conservative.

Of course it's nonsense.


but it's fools like you that keep bringing up 'cows, cornfields, and trees' when discussing red states.

why do you think states with those cornfields etc etc have less virus??? BECAUSE there are LESS people there and more cows

and you dont' believe those people have a voice?


When y'all get your way, do we put the throne in NYC, or Los Angeles?

Won't be any need for the Oval Office, if Ca or NY decides who the president is.

Y'all apologists keep on falling back on this fallacious absurdity of "CA or NY deciding who the POTUS is" as if suddenly nobody else had a vote, desperately hoping somebody will buy it. And yet in the next moment it'll be "take away California and Rump wins the pop vote". BOTH are equally uselessly absurd.

What's really absurd is anybody looking at the popular vote as nothing more than a fluke. How can anybody say a person won something they weren't even trying for, and claim that as some sort of victory?

I don't recall seeing anyone say that. What I did note in this thread was that Rump could not win even 50% of the vote of the state in question. Nor several others including my own. Yet he got 100% of those states' electoral votes. And I noted that that system is fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with the system. Been using it for a couple of hundred years. Now you people are upset because you can no longer win by the system. Instead of changing your policies or views, you want to change the system to win. How about trying to win by not going more and more left with every election?

"You people"?

I posted nothing about any "left". I posted the same thing I've been posting for decades about how fucked up the system is, and why. Go ahead and explain to us how a system where a candy who can't even muster HALF of a state's vote, yet gets ALL its electors, is a system there's "nothing wrong with". And btw it hasn't been that way for two hundred years at all. In fact Madison advocated a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice, when it was just getting started.

It actually works that way in every election, winner takes all. If we divided all the electoral votes based on who voted where, then it defeats the purpose of the electoral collage as it would actually be a popular vote contest.

--- AND?

WTA has *NOT* been the system for two hundred years *NOR* is it mandated or even suggested by the Constitution, and as illustrated it leads to the malarkey of getting 100% of a state's vote while being unable to even attain 45% of its citizens' wishes. Or even much less in other years.

Now, the Constitution also doesn't require that EV to reflect the state election results. It doesn't require a Presidential election to be held at all. But if you're going to use that system and claim that the state's EVs will be based on its election, and then you pull this shit, you're a liar. The people of Utah didn't vote for Rump. The people of AridZona didn't vote for Rump. The people of my state didn't vote for Rump. Nor did those of Florida. Neither did the people of Michigan, NOR the people of Pennsylvania, NOR the people of Wisconsin. Yet ALL of those states threw ALL their EVs to a candie who could not win the preference of their state. For that matter the people of Virginia, and Minnesota, and Nevada, didn't vote for Clinton either.

The entire electorate of all those states had their choices tossed into the dumpster, along with all the Californians and New Yorkers who voted for Rump, all the Texans and Ohioans who voted for Clinton, etc etc ad infinitum.

THAT's a fucked up system. If we're going to claim to hold an election, then hold an election. If we're not, let's not be liars and claim what we're doing is an election because IT ISN'T.

Again, we are not a democracy which is what you are suggesting. You either win your state or you don't. That's the way we do it, and that's the way it's been done. What you are suggesting here is a round about way to turn our elections into a popular vote contest. We don't want that with our presidential elections........well, the Democrats do now that they can't win doing it this way.

 

[eddiew]

lol.... there's no anger dude. guess you need to think that? anyhoo - you show a map that showed a mostly 'red' amerika. it's deceiving, unless you understand the graphic. sure, donny won. because of the EC.

only by 75,000 votes. but you keep thinking it was really a landslide by population.

because of the EC.

EVERY elected president has won because of the EC.

well duh. which shows how antiquated it really is. it's painfully obvious & sad that he won by 75K votes in a country that actually overwhelmingly voted for his opponent. he really didn't win by the majority will of the people. but he's the potus, duly elected & the buck stops with him.

& btw - the same outdated method in having election day on only one day - a tuesday should be overhauled too. it literally has to do with farming & horse drawn buggies.

View attachment 324807

already proved that map is deceiving. most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

How many of those trees, cows and cornfields vote?

oh please. that's nonsense....cause even though the population of bumfuck, iowa is less than any east or west coast cosmopolitan area - the entire hayseed state will throw its EC vote to the red conservative.

Of course it's nonsense.


but it's fools like you that keep bringing up 'cows, cornfields, and trees' when discussing red states.

why do you think states with those cornfields etc etc have less virus??? BECAUSE there are LESS people there and more cows

and you dont' believe those people have a voice?


When y'all get your way, do we put the throne in NYC, or Los Angeles?

Won't be any need for the Oval Office, if Ca or NY decides who the president is.

Y'all apologists keep on falling back on this fallacious absurdity of "CA or NY deciding who the POTUS is" as if suddenly nobody else had a vote, desperately hoping somebody will buy it. And yet in the next moment it'll be "take away California and Rump wins the pop vote". BOTH are equally uselessly absurd.

What's really absurd is anybody looking at the popular vote as nothing more than a fluke. How can anybody say a person won something they weren't even trying for, and claim that as some sort of victory?

I don't recall seeing anyone say that. What I did note in this thread was that Rump could not win even 50% of the vote of the state in question. Nor several others including my own. Yet he got 100% of those states' electoral votes. And I noted that that system is fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with the system. Been using it for a couple of hundred years. Now you people are upset because you can no longer win by the system. Instead of changing your policies or views, you want to change the system to win. How about trying to win by not going more and more left with every election?

"You people"?

I posted nothing about any "left". I posted the same thing I've been posting for decades about how fucked up the system is, and why. Go ahead and explain to us how a system where a candy who can't even muster HALF of a state's vote, yet gets ALL its electors, is a system there's "nothing wrong with". And btw it hasn't been that way for two hundred years at all. In fact Madison advocated a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice, when it was just getting started.

It actually works that way in every election, winner takes all. If we divided all the electoral votes based on who voted where, then it defeats the purpose of the electoral collage as it would actually be a popular vote contest.

--- AND?

WTA has *NOT* been the system for two hundred years *NOR* is it mandated or even suggested by the Constitution, and as illustrated it leads to the malarkey of getting 100% of a state's vote while being unable to even attain 45% of its citizens' wishes. Or even much less in other years.

Now, the Constitution also doesn't require that EV to reflect the state election results. It doesn't require a Presidential election to be held at all. But if you're going to use that system and claim that the state's EVs will be based on its election, and then you pull this shit, you're a liar. The people of Utah didn't vote for Rump. The people of AridZona didn't vote for Rump. The people of my state didn't vote for Rump. Nor did those of Florida. Neither did the people of Michigan, NOR the people of Pennsylvania, NOR the people of Wisconsin. Yet ALL of those states threw ALL their EVs to a candie who could not win the preference of their state. For that matter the people of Virginia, and Minnesota, and Nevada, didn't vote for Clinton either.

The entire electorate of all those states had their choices tossed into the dumpster, along with all the Californians and New Yorkers who voted for Rump, all the Texans and Ohioans who voted for Clinton, etc etc ad infinitum.

THAT's a fucked up system. If we're going to claim to hold an election, then hold an election. If we're not, let's not be liars and claim what we're doing is an election because IT ISN'T.

View attachment 325376i saw this map! It might help you to show you who voted for Trump you see the red are trump voters and that little bit of blue in there some
Democrats lol hahaha hahaha

COWS don't vote Either do meadows and trees

 

[Jitss617]

lol.... there's no anger dude. guess you need to think that? anyhoo - you show a map that showed a mostly 'red' amerika. it's deceiving, unless you understand the graphic. sure, donny won. because of the EC.

only by 75,000 votes. but you keep thinking it was really a landslide by population.

because of the EC.

EVERY elected president has won because of the EC.

well duh. which shows how antiquated it really is. it's painfully obvious & sad that he won by 75K votes in a country that actually overwhelmingly voted for his opponent. he really didn't win by the majority will of the people. but he's the potus, duly elected & the buck stops with him.

& btw - the same outdated method in having election day on only one day - a tuesday should be overhauled too. it literally has to do with farming & horse drawn buggies.

View attachment 324807

already proved that map is deceiving. most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

How many of those trees, cows and cornfields vote?

oh please. that's nonsense....cause even though the population of bumfuck, iowa is less than any east or west coast cosmopolitan area - the entire hayseed state will throw its EC vote to the red conservative.

Of course it's nonsense.


but it's fools like you that keep bringing up 'cows, cornfields, and trees' when discussing red states.

why do you think states with those cornfields etc etc have less virus??? BECAUSE there are LESS people there and more cows

and you dont' believe those people have a voice?


When y'all get your way, do we put the throne in NYC, or Los Angeles?

Won't be any need for the Oval Office, if Ca or NY decides who the president is.

Y'all apologists keep on falling back on this fallacious absurdity of "CA or NY deciding who the POTUS is" as if suddenly nobody else had a vote, desperately hoping somebody will buy it. And yet in the next moment it'll be "take away California and Rump wins the pop vote". BOTH are equally uselessly absurd.

What's really absurd is anybody looking at the popular vote as nothing more than a fluke. How can anybody say a person won something they weren't even trying for, and claim that as some sort of victory?

I don't recall seeing anyone say that. What I did note in this thread was that Rump could not win even 50% of the vote of the state in question. Nor several others including my own. Yet he got 100% of those states' electoral votes. And I noted that that system is fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with the system. Been using it for a couple of hundred years. Now you people are upset because you can no longer win by the system. Instead of changing your policies or views, you want to change the system to win. How about trying to win by not going more and more left with every election?

"You people"?

I posted nothing about any "left". I posted the same thing I've been posting for decades about how fucked up the system is, and why. Go ahead and explain to us how a system where a candy who can't even muster HALF of a state's vote, yet gets ALL its electors, is a system there's "nothing wrong with". And btw it hasn't been that way for two hundred years at all. In fact Madison advocated a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice, when it was just getting started.

It actually works that way in every election, winner takes all. If we divided all the electoral votes based on who voted where, then it defeats the purpose of the electoral collage as it would actually be a popular vote contest.

--- AND?

WTA has *NOT* been the system for two hundred years *NOR* is it mandated or even suggested by the Constitution, and as illustrated it leads to the malarkey of getting 100% of a state's vote while being unable to even attain 45% of its citizens' wishes. Or even much less in other years.

Now, the Constitution also doesn't require that EV to reflect the state election results. It doesn't require a Presidential election to be held at all. But if you're going to use that system and claim that the state's EVs will be based on its election, and then you pull this shit, you're a liar. The people of Utah didn't vote for Rump. The people of AridZona didn't vote for Rump. The people of my state didn't vote for Rump. Nor did those of Florida. Neither did the people of Michigan, NOR the people of Pennsylvania, NOR the people of Wisconsin. Yet ALL of those states threw ALL their EVs to a candie who could not win the preference of their state. For that matter the people of Virginia, and Minnesota, and Nevada, didn't vote for Clinton either.

The entire electorate of all those states had their choices tossed into the dumpster, along with all the Californians and New Yorkers who voted for Rump, all the Texans and Ohioans who voted for Clinton, etc etc ad infinitum.

THAT's a fucked up system. If we're going to claim to hold an election, then hold an election. If we're not, let's not be liars and claim what we're doing is an election because IT ISN'T.

View attachment 325376i saw this map! It might help you to show you who voted for Trump you see the red are trump voters and that little bit of blue in there some
Democrats lol hahaha hahaha

COWS don't vote Either do meadows and trees

Smartest thing you’ve said all day Lol

 

[bigrebnc1775]

View attachment 324363

take that moldy old MAGA hat off incel, & put yer critical thinking cap on.
including [district of columbia] 2019

View attachment 324454

No need to be angry you lost! You always have 2032, to mount a come back

lol.... there's no anger dude. guess you need to think that? anyhoo - you show a map that showed a mostly 'red' amerika. it's deceiving, unless you understand the graphic. sure, donny won. because of the EC.

only by 75,000 votes. but you keep thinking it was really a landslide by population.

because of the EC.

EVERY elected president has won because of the EC.

well duh. which shows how antiquated it really is. it's painfully obvious & sad that he won by 75K votes in a country that actually overwhelmingly voted for his opponent. he really didn't win by the majority will of the people. but he's the potus, duly elected & the buck stops with him.

& btw - the same outdated method in having election day on only one day - a tuesday should be overhauled too. it literally has to do with farming & horse drawn buggies.

View attachment 324807

already proved that map is deceiving. most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

How many of those trees, cows and cornfields vote?

oh please. that's nonsense....cause even though the population of bumfuck, iowa is less than any east or west coast cosmopolitan area - the entire hayseed state will throw its EC vote to the red conservative.

Of course it's nonsense.


but it's fools like you that keep bringing up 'cows, cornfields, and trees' when discussing red states.

yet it's fact. middle america is less populated & are traditionally red, but carry weight when it comes to the EC.

as they should.

No different than 80% of NY voting red, only to be overruled by NYC, is it?

which is why the popular vote should be the deciding factor. if NY, by sheer numbers of people alone went for a (R), then that is the way it should be. same for cali, FLA, or montana.

which is why the popular vote should be the deciding factor.

For a state, sure.

for a presidential election?

The states elect, not the people.

states aren't made up of trees & cows.

no, they're made up of people, some large, some small.

What makes you believe the voters in NYC know what's better for Iowa than the people in Iowa?

San Francisco knows what's better for Idaho than Idaho?

that's what state senators & reps are for.... they are on the ground & listen to their constituents. even congress critters who are voted in, are there thru majority votes by individuals.

donny is treating the red states more favorably than blue states because of his electability in those states. how sick is that?

donny is treating the red states more favorably than blue states because of his electability in those states.

and how is that any different than any other president in history?

You keep putting your foot in your mouth.

I'm surprised you don't have Athletes tongue.

Trump isn't treating red states any different than blue states. Blue states are just lying about the help they get. Red states say thank you. Blue states never miss an opportunity to make up lies about Trump. Blue states made this dempanic into something much worse than it ever was JUST to lie.

^^^ fake news ^^^.

Well then explain why some of those Governors in those Blues States are praising Trump in how he's dealing with them?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

lol.... there's no anger dude. guess you need to think that? anyhoo - you show a map that showed a mostly 'red' amerika. it's deceiving, unless you understand the graphic. sure, donny won. because of the EC.

only by 75,000 votes. but you keep thinking it was really a landslide by population.

because of the EC.

EVERY elected president has won because of the EC.

well duh. which shows how antiquated it really is. it's painfully obvious & sad that he won by 75K votes in a country that actually overwhelmingly voted for his opponent. he really didn't win by the majority will of the people. but he's the potus, duly elected & the buck stops with him.

& btw - the same outdated method in having election day on only one day - a tuesday should be overhauled too. it literally has to do with farming & horse drawn buggies.

View attachment 324807

already proved that map is deceiving. most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

How many of those trees, cows and cornfields vote?

oh please. that's nonsense....cause even though the population of bumfuck, iowa is less than any east or west coast cosmopolitan area - the entire hayseed state will throw its EC vote to the red conservative.

Of course it's nonsense.


but it's fools like you that keep bringing up 'cows, cornfields, and trees' when discussing red states.

why do you think states with those cornfields etc etc have less virus??? BECAUSE there are LESS people there and more cows

and you dont' believe those people have a voice?


When y'all get your way, do we put the throne in NYC, or Los Angeles?

Won't be any need for the Oval Office, if Ca or NY decides who the president is.

Y'all apologists keep on falling back on this fallacious absurdity of "CA or NY deciding who the POTUS is" as if suddenly nobody else had a vote, desperately hoping somebody will buy it. And yet in the next moment it'll be "take away California and Rump wins the pop vote". BOTH are equally uselessly absurd.

What's really absurd is anybody looking at the popular vote as nothing more than a fluke. How can anybody say a person won something they weren't even trying for, and claim that as some sort of victory?

I don't recall seeing anyone say that. What I did note in this thread was that Rump could not win even 50% of the vote of the state in question. Nor several others including my own. Yet he got 100% of those states' electoral votes. And I noted that that system is fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with the system. Been using it for a couple of hundred years. Now you people are upset because you can no longer win by the system. Instead of changing your policies or views, you want to change the system to win. How about trying to win by not going more and more left with every election?

"You people"?

I posted nothing about any "left". I posted the same thing I've been posting for decades about how fucked up the system is, and why. Go ahead and explain to us how a system where a candy who can't even muster HALF of a state's vote, yet gets ALL its electors, is a system there's "nothing wrong with". And btw it hasn't been that way for two hundred years at all. In fact Madison advocated a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice, when it was just getting started.

It actually works that way in every election, winner takes all. If we divided all the electoral votes based on who voted where, then it defeats the purpose of the electoral collage as it would actually be a popular vote contest.

--- AND?

WTA has *NOT* been the system for two hundred years *NOR* is it mandated or even suggested by the Constitution, and as illustrated it leads to the malarkey of getting 100% of a state's vote while being unable to even attain 45% of its citizens' wishes. Or even much less in other years.

Now, the Constitution also doesn't require that EV to reflect the state election results. It doesn't require a Presidential election to be held at all. But if you're going to use that system and claim that the state's EVs will be based on its election, and then you pull this shit, you're a liar. The people of Utah didn't vote for Rump. The people of AridZona didn't vote for Rump. The people of my state didn't vote for Rump. Nor did those of Florida. Neither did the people of Michigan, NOR the people of Pennsylvania, NOR the people of Wisconsin. Yet ALL of those states threw ALL their EVs to a candie who could not win the preference of their state. For that matter the people of Virginia, and Minnesota, and Nevada, didn't vote for Clinton either.

The entire electorate of all those states had their choices tossed into the dumpster, along with all the Californians and New Yorkers who voted for Rump, all the Texans and Ohioans who voted for Clinton, etc etc ad infinitum.

THAT's a fucked up system. If we're going to claim to hold an election, then hold an election. If we're not, let's not be liars and claim what we're doing is an election because IT ISN'T.

View attachment 325376i saw this map! It might help you to show you who voted for Trump you see the red are trump voters and that little bit of blue in there some
Democrats lol hahaha hahaha

COWS don't vote Either do meadows and trees

So what you are saying is that you want to void the vote of those less populated red areas?

 

[bripat9643]

Up till now, Trump has muddled along with a strong economy and no major screw ups.

But this crisis calls for strong leadership. Not the misinformation, waffling, petty infighting and divisiveness we are getting out of Trump.

The economy is on the verge of collapse as unemployment will approach 20 percent and GDP will plummet.

I don’t think Trump has the skills to handle it.

So you believe Biden will provide "strong leadership?"

He has done it in the past and has a lengthy record of bipartisan cooperation and pragmatic decision making

And no, I am not going to go tit for tat on embarrassing pictures of Biden and Trump

Biden's primary skill is pandering. That isn't "strong leadership." Furthermore, now he is senile. He can hardly complete a coherent sentence.

 

[playtime]

I’m not sure the Democratic Party exists in Arizona if it wasn’t for illegals

Home | Senator Kyrsten Sinema

now get yer ass in gear & find a credible link showing that she was elected by illegals.

GO!

& the (R) bitch that replaced mccain after he passed away is having some real stiff competition by mark kelly, her (D) opponent whose ratings are leaving her in an arizona dust devil.

We are trying to prove she was elected by illegals but democrats want to keep that information in the basement

bullshit.


& check mate, loser.

Umm ok lol

so prove me wrong & provide some links. but there are none? none you say?

loooooooooooooooooooser......................

You won’t give us the voter rolls! How plain and simple do I have to say it?

i can't give you voter rolls dummy. but i gave you links to why the secs of states who have that power, didn't want to give them. you can educate yerself or stay the lazy poorly educated deplorable that trump loves long time.

We know why they won’t. It will prove dead people are voting democrat.. millions of them

& the (R) states would have jumped at the chance to out them. lol.... you really didn't think that reply thru b4 you posted it.

tsk tsk tsk - you are just SO lazy!

Massachusetts attorney general is a democrat

ummm... so? it's the secretary of state that is in charge of each states' electoral process. are you now going to tell me that every red state has a (D) sec of state?

I would say some are yes , or the gov is a democrat, or the attorney general is a democrat. Either way democrats are hiding

list the red (R) states that have (D) secretaries of state.

& how come all voter/election fraud have been (R)s? <snicker>

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What I would like to do is have a vaccine for the whole population
In the absence of a vaccine, I would like to see the country flooded with test kits.
Till that time, isolation is all we have.

We have 330 million people in this country. You're not going to get that amount of test kits anytime soon. Improvements and discoveries will be made, just like when we discovered AIDS. It takes time.

New N-95 masks are being made 24/7. New treatments are being used. Vaccine testing is happening as we write. We are increasing our production with those test kits you speak of.

Dogs might join the good fight to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in humans–especially for those who are symptom free, according to a team of researchers.

Due to the urgent need of coronavirus testing, preparations to intensively train dogs to detect asymptomatic carries of the virus have started and could be ready in six weeks, according to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“It’s very early stages,” says James Logan, head of LSHTM’s Department of Disease Control.

“We know diseases have odors — including respiratory diseases such as influenza — and that those odors are in fact quite distinct. There is a very, very good chance that Covid-19 has a specific odor, and if it does I am really confident that the dogs would be able to learn that smell and detect it.”

Dogs might be able to sniff out the coronavirus

Dogs might join the good fight to prevent the spread of the coronavirus in humans–especially for those who are symptom free, according to a team of researchers. Due to the urgent need of coro…

nypost.com

 

[eddiew]

lol.... there's no anger dude. guess you need to think that? anyhoo - you show a map that showed a mostly 'red' amerika. it's deceiving, unless you understand the graphic. sure, donny won. because of the EC.

only by 75,000 votes. but you keep thinking it was really a landslide by population.

because of the EC.

EVERY elected president has won because of the EC.

well duh. which shows how antiquated it really is. it's painfully obvious & sad that he won by 75K votes in a country that actually overwhelmingly voted for his opponent. he really didn't win by the majority will of the people. but he's the potus, duly elected & the buck stops with him.

& btw - the same outdated method in having election day on only one day - a tuesday should be overhauled too. it literally has to do with farming & horse drawn buggies.

View attachment 324807

already proved that map is deceiving. most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

How many of those trees, cows and cornfields vote?

oh please. that's nonsense....cause even though the population of bumfuck, iowa is less than any east or west coast cosmopolitan area - the entire hayseed state will throw its EC vote to the red conservative.

Of course it's nonsense.


but it's fools like you that keep bringing up 'cows, cornfields, and trees' when discussing red states.

why do you think states with those cornfields etc etc have less virus??? BECAUSE there are LESS people there and more cows

and you dont' believe those people have a voice?


When y'all get your way, do we put the throne in NYC, or Los Angeles?

Won't be any need for the Oval Office, if Ca or NY decides who the president is.

Y'all apologists keep on falling back on this fallacious absurdity of "CA or NY deciding who the POTUS is" as if suddenly nobody else had a vote, desperately hoping somebody will buy it. And yet in the next moment it'll be "take away California and Rump wins the pop vote". BOTH are equally uselessly absurd.

What's really absurd is anybody looking at the popular vote as nothing more than a fluke. How can anybody say a person won something they weren't even trying for, and claim that as some sort of victory?

I don't recall seeing anyone say that. What I did note in this thread was that Rump could not win even 50% of the vote of the state in question. Nor several others including my own. Yet he got 100% of those states' electoral votes. And I noted that that system is fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with the system. Been using it for a couple of hundred years. Now you people are upset because you can no longer win by the system. Instead of changing your policies or views, you want to change the system to win. How about trying to win by not going more and more left with every election?

"You people"?

I posted nothing about any "left". I posted the same thing I've been posting for decades about how fucked up the system is, and why. Go ahead and explain to us how a system where a candy who can't even muster HALF of a state's vote, yet gets ALL its electors, is a system there's "nothing wrong with". And btw it hasn't been that way for two hundred years at all. In fact Madison advocated a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice, when it was just getting started.

It actually works that way in every election, winner takes all. If we divided all the electoral votes based on who voted where, then it defeats the purpose of the electoral collage as it would actually be a popular vote contest.

--- AND?

WTA has *NOT* been the system for two hundred years *NOR* is it mandated or even suggested by the Constitution, and as illustrated it leads to the malarkey of getting 100% of a state's vote while being unable to even attain 45% of its citizens' wishes. Or even much less in other years.

Now, the Constitution also doesn't require that EV to reflect the state election results. It doesn't require a Presidential election to be held at all. But if you're going to use that system and claim that the state's EVs will be based on its election, and then you pull this shit, you're a liar. The people of Utah didn't vote for Rump. The people of AridZona didn't vote for Rump. The people of my state didn't vote for Rump. Nor did those of Florida. Neither did the people of Michigan, NOR the people of Pennsylvania, NOR the people of Wisconsin. Yet ALL of those states threw ALL their EVs to a candie who could not win the preference of their state. For that matter the people of Virginia, and Minnesota, and Nevada, didn't vote for Clinton either.

The entire electorate of all those states had their choices tossed into the dumpster, along with all the Californians and New Yorkers who voted for Rump, all the Texans and Ohioans who voted for Clinton, etc etc ad infinitum.

THAT's a fucked up system. If we're going to claim to hold an election, then hold an election. If we're not, let's not be liars and claim what we're doing is an election because IT ISN'T.

View attachment 325376i saw this map! It might help you to show you who voted for Trump you see the red are trump voters and that little bit of blue in there some
Democrats lol hahaha hahaha

COWS don't vote Either do meadows and trees

So what you are saying is that you want to void the vote of those less populated red areas?

Certainly not They're as American as the more populated ones How about the more populated ones just get more senators than the smaller ones?

 

[Pogo]

lol.... there's no anger dude. guess you need to think that? anyhoo - you show a map that showed a mostly 'red' amerika. it's deceiving, unless you understand the graphic. sure, donny won. because of the EC.

only by 75,000 votes. but you keep thinking it was really a landslide by population.

because of the EC.

EVERY elected president has won because of the EC.

well duh. which shows how antiquated it really is. it's painfully obvious & sad that he won by 75K votes in a country that actually overwhelmingly voted for his opponent. he really didn't win by the majority will of the people. but he's the potus, duly elected & the buck stops with him.

& btw - the same outdated method in having election day on only one day - a tuesday should be overhauled too. it literally has to do with farming & horse drawn buggies.

View attachment 324807

already proved that map is deceiving. most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

How many of those trees, cows and cornfields vote?

oh please. that's nonsense....cause even though the population of bumfuck, iowa is less than any east or west coast cosmopolitan area - the entire hayseed state will throw its EC vote to the red conservative.

Of course it's nonsense.


but it's fools like you that keep bringing up 'cows, cornfields, and trees' when discussing red states.

why do you think states with those cornfields etc etc have less virus??? BECAUSE there are LESS people there and more cows

and you dont' believe those people have a voice?


When y'all get your way, do we put the throne in NYC, or Los Angeles?

Won't be any need for the Oval Office, if Ca or NY decides who the president is.

Y'all apologists keep on falling back on this fallacious absurdity of "CA or NY deciding who the POTUS is" as if suddenly nobody else had a vote, desperately hoping somebody will buy it. And yet in the next moment it'll be "take away California and Rump wins the pop vote". BOTH are equally uselessly absurd.

What's really absurd is anybody looking at the popular vote as nothing more than a fluke. How can anybody say a person won something they weren't even trying for, and claim that as some sort of victory?

I don't recall seeing anyone say that. What I did note in this thread was that Rump could not win even 50% of the vote of the state in question. Nor several others including my own. Yet he got 100% of those states' electoral votes. And I noted that that system is fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with the system. Been using it for a couple of hundred years. Now you people are upset because you can no longer win by the system. Instead of changing your policies or views, you want to change the system to win. How about trying to win by not going more and more left with every election?

"You people"?

I posted nothing about any "left". I posted the same thing I've been posting for decades about how fucked up the system is, and why. Go ahead and explain to us how a system where a candy who can't even muster HALF of a state's vote, yet gets ALL its electors, is a system there's "nothing wrong with". And btw it hasn't been that way for two hundred years at all. In fact Madison advocated a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice, when it was just getting started.

It actually works that way in every election, winner takes all. If we divided all the electoral votes based on who voted where, then it defeats the purpose of the electoral collage as it would actually be a popular vote contest.

--- AND?

WTA has *NOT* been the system for two hundred years *NOR* is it mandated or even suggested by the Constitution, and as illustrated it leads to the malarkey of getting 100% of a state's vote while being unable to even attain 45% of its citizens' wishes. Or even much less in other years.

Now, the Constitution also doesn't require that EV to reflect the state election results. It doesn't require a Presidential election to be held at all. But if you're going to use that system and claim that the state's EVs will be based on its election, and then you pull this shit, you're a liar. The people of Utah didn't vote for Rump. The people of AridZona didn't vote for Rump. The people of my state didn't vote for Rump. Nor did those of Florida. Neither did the people of Michigan, NOR the people of Pennsylvania, NOR the people of Wisconsin. Yet ALL of those states threw ALL their EVs to a candie who could not win the preference of their state. For that matter the people of Virginia, and Minnesota, and Nevada, didn't vote for Clinton either.

The entire electorate of all those states had their choices tossed into the dumpster, along with all the Californians and New Yorkers who voted for Rump, all the Texans and Ohioans who voted for Clinton, etc etc ad infinitum.

THAT's a fucked up system. If we're going to claim to hold an election, then hold an election. If we're not, let's not be liars and claim what we're doing is an election because IT ISN'T.

Again, we are not a democracy which is what you are suggesting.

I offered no descriptor, though others have. What I'm saying is we're not honest about how we do it. Which we're not.

You either win your state or you don't. That's the way we do it, and that's the way it's been done.

And again ----------------- as already pointed out from the beginning of this thread --------------- Rump DID NOT win the state that is the subject here, NOR did he win Utah, NOR did he win Wisconsin, NOR did he win Michigan, NOR did he win Pennsylvania, NOR did he win Florida, NOR did he win North Cackalackee, while Clinton did not win Virginia NOR did she win Minnesota NOR did she win Nevada. You can look any of those up. There may be more I don't remember. And NOWHERE, in any state, in any election in any year, did the entire state vote unanimously for ANYBODY, EVER.

Therefore, why do we even bother holding an election at all, if we're just going to ignore the results thereof?

 

[rightwinger]

lol.... there's no anger dude. guess you need to think that? anyhoo - you show a map that showed a mostly 'red' amerika. it's deceiving, unless you understand the graphic. sure, donny won. because of the EC.

only by 75,000 votes. but you keep thinking it was really a landslide by population.

because of the EC.

EVERY elected president has won because of the EC.

well duh. which shows how antiquated it really is. it's painfully obvious & sad that he won by 75K votes in a country that actually overwhelmingly voted for his opponent. he really didn't win by the majority will of the people. but he's the potus, duly elected & the buck stops with him.

& btw - the same outdated method in having election day on only one day - a tuesday should be overhauled too. it literally has to do with farming & horse drawn buggies.

View attachment 324807

already proved that map is deceiving. most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

most of those little squares have more trees, corn fields, & cows than people.

How many of those trees, cows and cornfields vote?

oh please. that's nonsense....cause even though the population of bumfuck, iowa is less than any east or west coast cosmopolitan area - the entire hayseed state will throw its EC vote to the red conservative.

Of course it's nonsense.


but it's fools like you that keep bringing up 'cows, cornfields, and trees' when discussing red states.

why do you think states with those cornfields etc etc have less virus??? BECAUSE there are LESS people there and more cows

and you dont' believe those people have a voice?


When y'all get your way, do we put the throne in NYC, or Los Angeles?

Won't be any need for the Oval Office, if Ca or NY decides who the president is.

Y'all apologists keep on falling back on this fallacious absurdity of "CA or NY deciding who the POTUS is" as if suddenly nobody else had a vote, desperately hoping somebody will buy it. And yet in the next moment it'll be "take away California and Rump wins the pop vote". BOTH are equally uselessly absurd.

What's really absurd is anybody looking at the popular vote as nothing more than a fluke. How can anybody say a person won something they weren't even trying for, and claim that as some sort of victory?

I don't recall seeing anyone say that. What I did note in this thread was that Rump could not win even 50% of the vote of the state in question. Nor several others including my own. Yet he got 100% of those states' electoral votes. And I noted that that system is fucked up.

There's nothing wrong with the system. Been using it for a couple of hundred years. Now you people are upset because you can no longer win by the system. Instead of changing your policies or views, you want to change the system to win. How about trying to win by not going more and more left with every election?

"You people"?

I posted nothing about any "left". I posted the same thing I've been posting for decades about how fucked up the system is, and why. Go ahead and explain to us how a system where a candy who can't even muster HALF of a state's vote, yet gets ALL its electors, is a system there's "nothing wrong with". And btw it hasn't been that way for two hundred years at all. In fact Madison advocated a Constitutional Amendment to ban the practice, when it was just getting started.

It actually works that way in every election, winner takes all. If we divided all the electoral votes based on who voted where, then it defeats the purpose of the electoral collage as it would actually be a popular vote contest.

--- AND?

WTA has *NOT* been the system for two hundred years *NOR* is it mandated or even suggested by the Constitution, and as illustrated it leads to the malarkey of getting 100% of a state's vote while being unable to even attain 45% of its citizens' wishes. Or even much less in other years.

Now, the Constitution also doesn't require that EV to reflect the state election results. It doesn't require a Presidential election to be held at all. But if you're going to use that system and claim that the state's EVs will be based on its election, and then you pull this shit, you're a liar. The people of Utah didn't vote for Rump. The people of AridZona didn't vote for Rump. The people of my state didn't vote for Rump. Nor did those of Florida. Neither did the people of Michigan, NOR the people of Pennsylvania, NOR the people of Wisconsin. Yet ALL of those states threw ALL their EVs to a candie who could not win the preference of their state. For that matter the people of Virginia, and Minnesota, and Nevada, didn't vote for Clinton either.

The entire electorate of all those states had their choices tossed into the dumpster, along with all the Californians and New Yorkers who voted for Rump, all the Texans and Ohioans who voted for Clinton, etc etc ad infinitum.

THAT's a fucked up system. If we're going to claim to hold an election, then hold an election. If we're not, let's not be liars and claim what we're doing is an election because IT ISN'T.

View attachment 325376i saw this map! It might help you to show you who voted for Trump you see the red are trump voters and that little bit of blue in there some
Democrats lol hahaha hahaha

COWS don't vote Either do meadows and trees

So what you are saying is that you want to void the vote of those less populated red areas?

Let them count as one vote
Just like everyone else

 

[playtime]

lol have some Integrity

I have. Your own board admitted that there was very little vote fraud.

All This Talk of Voter Fraud? Across U.S., Officials Found Next to None (Published 2016)

Despite Republican claims of widespread violations, it seems that credible allegations of illegal voting were exceedingly rare.

www.nytimes.com

Democrat refused to give Kobach voter rolls.. why hide?

(R)s did too. 44 states refused - so no way you can say they were all (D).

know why? because kobach et al weren't trusted.

Link?

i gave a link way early in the thread, & i believe it was to YOU - & of course you left it alone.... no response. 'cause you don't have one.

but here - take yer fucking pick.

kobach voter fraud 44 states refused to comply - Google Search

where are your links disputing it? lol....lol....LOL!!!!!

That’s a Google search you stupid hack lol give me the data!

i'm sure you can find it yerself within the vast array of articles to choose from if you gave a damn. kobach et al wanted SS numbers & other info as well. go find it, it's in there lazy ass.

So no link. Gotcha

i did already & you ignored it. besides - you're lazy.

got it.

I got a google search. Is that what you sent?

& i replied:

i'm sure you can find it yerself within the vast array of articles to choose from if you gave a damn. kobach et al wanted SS numbers & other info as well. go find it, it's in there lazy ass.

get crackin'!

Well that’s how you find out who’s alive lol why do you democrats have to hide?

ask the (R)s what are THEY hiding.

Give me a link .. are you hiding to?

done did already, lazy ass. where are your links disproving it?

I don’t need a link we don’t have the data because of democrats

republicans didn't want to give that info up either - so basically you are copping out.