Dem introduces bills to eliminate electoral college, stop presidents from pardoning themselves

[JoeB131]

JoeB131 believes the best system is one where a race can fuck it’s way to the top through fertility. He’s a smart dude...just ask him.

Yes, they are having children in some plot, not because they actually love their children.

And that too is complete bull shit. I have relatives in Illinois so I’m VERY familiar with the state. For instance I know that Lake County in sparsely populated, since I visit my wife’s brother there. He lives in Wauconda. The rest of her family live just north of Springfield.

Lake is the third most populous county in IL, after Cook and DuPage.

Illinois Counties by Population

In fact, those three counties make up more than half the population of IL, nearly 7 million people. But dumb idiots of you will look at a county map and see mostly red uninhabited counties and say, "See how unfair the Popular Vote is?"

 

[nat4900]

If you deny small states their rights and dignity to feel they are part of this country, you will likely get what stupid leaders get when they become hard of hearing to taxpayers.

No, not really...Small states are not denied their "rights.

Two senators represent FORTY million people in CA.....and

Two senators represent less than 700,000 citizens in states like WY or ND.

 

[Flash]

 

[Dragonlady]

How about infrastructure spend? Something both parties agree on.

If voters' rights are not secured, and gerrymandering isn't ended, you won't have a country. Infrastructure will be moot.

 

[beautress]

If you deny small states their rights and dignity to feel they are part of this country, you will likely get what stupid leaders get when they become hard of hearing to taxpayers.

No, not really...Small states are not denied their "rights.

Two senators represent FORTY million people in CA.....and

Two senators represent less than 700,000 citizens in states like WY or ND.

Yeah? And Wyoming with less than 200,000 citizens furnished gas and oil for defending Europe, and protecting the rest of the world from the Commie bullies who killed millions Russian citizens who didn't march to the Commie leaders there and twice that in China, where the Commie leaders just murdered people instead of helping them to understand that Communism is so goddamn wonderful. Bamllions of Chinese people. Can you imagine? I can just barely wrap my mind about the heinous lives they had to suffer for being disenchanted with Mao In case you're wondering why America has a problem with communism, our leaving Vietnam to give the protesters here a bang in their bongs cost the South Vietnamese and Cambodians over a million lives due to the reds murderous revenge against them for wanting free enterprise so they wouldn't starve as a consequence of communism's selfish ways of militant tyrants who wind up strong-arming everyone else into their dictatorships, citing an eye on the old leaders who concentrated wealth in ways their rivals didn't care for, although nobody was starving there until the communists moved in inspired by the neighbors' bloodletting to change power structures.

Top Ten Most Evil Dictators of All Time (in order of kill count) – Popten​

1. Mao Zedong (49-78 million deaths)

His social programs the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are two of the most ill-fated, poorly named, initiatives ever. The first was an effort to rapidly industrialize China. His focus was on making China a premier exporter of steel, and to this end he asked everybody to make it. The problem was it got many citizens to make smelting shops in their backyards. Not only was the steel of little value, but it was made from everything lying around the house including their own cooking supplies! Without the tools to make food, no money coming in from the steel, and no money to survive ~ a lot of people starved to death. The estimates on this program alone are 20 million deaths! Think about that number. Really think about it. Then ask yourself… why would you EVER let someone back into power after such an insanely bad decision.Well, they took the reigns away from him for a short time.

In the interim Mao started the socialist education movement. He aimed the concept at young ones who would eventually wrest the power away from the older guard. By 1964 this movement was renamed the “four cleanups movement” whose goal was cleansing politics, economics, ideas, and organization of “reactionaries”. This led to the formation of the “Red Guards” who were organized to punish intellectuals and take out Mao’s political adversaries. The Cultural Revolution was now underway, and its overriding mission was to abolish: Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas. Something Mao fervently believed in was that destruction and chaos could bring re-birth. So he told his followers to destroy buildings, sacred objects, talk back to ones elders, punish them, turn them in, and kill those who did not agree. By 1968 things were starting to look pretty good for Mao all over again, and so he put into place the decade long “Down to the Countryside Movement” which forced young intellectuals to move out to the country to become farmers. Sadly, the people he pushed out there were the same Red Guards who had helped him get power. Estimates of the death toll are between 40,000 – 7 million depending on who you ask.

Finally, there is the 100 flowers movement which just needs an abbreviated mention here. Mao asked people to come forth and tell him how he should govern China. Intellectuals and liberals bit at the chance to tell him what they really thought, and were encouraged by the Communist party to do so. Then in a sudden change of heart, or an incredibly crafty mission to out his haters, the government persecuted 500,000 of them who were considered to be “dangerous thinkers”.


2. Jozef Stalin (23 million deaths)
Breakdown: The great purges and Ukraine’s famine.

Jozef Stalin was the first Secretary of the Communist Party from 1922 – 1953. After Lenin’s death in 1924, he became the leader of the Soviet Union. Stalin didn’t take long in launching a new economy that screwed up food production across the country so bad it caused massive famine. Between 1922-23 it reached such catastrophic proportions everything went to shit. In Ukraine this dark period is known as Holodomor. Its widely believed that Soviet policies caused the famine there and was designed as an attack on Ukrainian nationalism. Estimates on the total number of casualties within Soviet Ukraine range from 2.6 million to 10 million! During the late 1930s Stalin launched another wonderfully titled initiative called the Great Purge (also known as the “Great Terror”). It was a paranoid campaign to kill off the people who opposed him, and his targets were often executed.

In 1939 Stalin agreed to a non-aggression pact with the Nazis. Eventually Germany violated the pact, the Soviet Union joined the allies, and they racked up 23.9 million deaths (the largest death toll in the war).



3. Adolf Hitler (17 million deaths)
Breakdown: Concentration camps and civilians in WWII.

Adolf Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Party. He was the absolute dictator of Germany from 1934 to 1945. He gained support by promoting values like German nationalism and anti-semitism. Hitler was appointed chancellor in 1933 and began the Third Reich. Hitler was power hungry as all hell, hated the shit out of Jews (and others), and wanted hegemony in Europe. The militarization that was needed to complete such a lofty goal led to the outbreak of World War II. Nazi forces engaged in the systematic murder of as many as 17 million civilians, an estimated six million of whom were Jews, and 1.5 million Romanis.​

 

[Dragonlady]

So instead you have the rural dwellers running the country to THEIR benefit and to the detriment of the city dwellers.

 

[Rustic]

So instead you have the rural dwellers running the country to THEIR benefit and to the detriment of the city dwellers.

Getting rid of the electoral college makes no sense, unless you just want only urban America determine the direction of this country.

 

[beautress]

I just want to say, you'd better watch out America, when disrespectful motormouths using the F-word on the current President go all out to shove their disrespectful ways down the throats of a free people, and they smugly ignore a killing spree by their own partisan murderers who go after representatives of the opposing party with weapons of war that disabled a Congressman like Scalise less than 2 years ago. You better watch out for those precinct chairmen who scream "disenfranchisement" while losing votes, then producing more votes than the headcount of people going into and out of the polls that were allegedly "lost" and just happen to furnish enough votes when found to oust the person who won the election before the "found" votes erased the victory just a day or two after the final count was known.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If you deny small states their rights and dignity to feel they are part of this country, you will likely get what stupid leaders get when they become hard of hearing to taxpayers.

No, not really...Small states are not denied their "rights.

Two senators represent FORTY million people in CA.....and

Two senators represent less than 700,000 citizens in states like WY or ND.

Yeah? And Wyoming with less than 200,000 citizens furnished gas and oil....

Well shit, then we need to let gas and oil vote!

 

[Rustic]

If you deny small states their rights and dignity to feel they are part of this country, you will likely get what stupid leaders get when they become hard of hearing to taxpayers.

No, not really...Small states are not denied their "rights.

Two senators represent FORTY million people in CA.....and

Two senators represent less than 700,000 citizens in states like WY or ND.

Yeah? And Wyoming with less than 200,000 citizens furnished gas and oil....

Well shit, then we need to let gas and oil vote!

Lol
Well I would say let Wyoming Montana North Dakota and South Dakota continue with what they’re doing… It’s none of the federal governments business.
Without fossil fuels the northern plains would be a waste land...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Lol
Well I would say let Wyoming Montana North Dakota and South Dakota continue with what they’re doing… It’s none of the federal governments business.

I could not agree more!

 

[beautress]

Lol
Well I would say let Wyoming Montana North Dakota and South Dakota continue with what they’re doing… It’s none of the federal governments business.

I could not agree more!

Does this mean you're giving up on destroying the Electoral College that gives the citizens of these small but contributive states two senators apiece? If not, you better read up on the unique life of Benito Mussolini and his socialistic life that had to deal with Germany's partisan elimination of the Jewish race and his own feelings that the Jews of Italy were Italian citizens that did not warrant Hitler's ambitious fleecing of Jewish wealth as they were killed for carrying out his ambitious wars. Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia

But more importantly, you'd better beware of your "new wave" of elected Congressional officials who wish with their taboo labels, death and worse on Republican Congressmen, America's President Donald Trump, whose life has been dedicated to giving American men and women jobs in spite of his ambivalence in personal matters that really are nobody's business but his and his First Lady's.

DNC new wave behavior parallel's Mussolini's early life, and if it does not correct its taboo-language screamers into people who can support the Constitution and United States Laws, it will be bad for this nation because it will lead to a bitter, partisan war that will lead to worldwide despair, widespread hunger, and manufacturing and agricultural shortages, not to mention massive unemployment when the economy collapses under socialistic rule that must by its unpopularity sink into pure fascism, because its opponents would rather die than lose their freedom that was earned by having a so-called imperialistic form of free enterprise that has not only brought America to the top of the food chain, it has brought wealth to those who trade with us. Somehow the eggheads of academia regard success as bad, and somehow, destroying citizens of wealth with a tax shakedown to sate their appetite and insistence on spreading wealth around, when in fact, that will close factories, close markets, and the libraries and hospitals they kept open.

Beware of academia, America. It will continue to fog young people's minds to the realities of a successful society--you have to work hard and invest carefully to keep society prosperous. Trickle down theory bad? Not really. As I said, the money it furnishes keeps non-profit hospitals open.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is how the Dirty Democrats are disenfranchise the American Voters


Abolishing the Electoral College

Please explaine exactly how doing so would disenfranchise the American Voters. You don't seem to get any smarter as we go along here

You know as well as I do that the electoral college decided the President in 2000 and 2016.

Yes I do, and therefore it was the EC that negated to votes of the majority. Keeping the EC is what disenfranchise voters. Can you process that?

Nor is this something the founders did by accident.
It was deliberate that voters originally did not vote for candidates directly, but for electors instead.
That is because the average person can not be trusted to vote properly, and instead is easily misled by hysteria and propaganda,
For example, slavery was popular before the Civil War, and so was the invasion of Iraq, even though the people were proven 100% wrong about WMD.

It is not a question of votes being worth more or less in the electoral college, but that individuals are mob rule and not a good idea.
The electors were from the state assemblies, and were supposed to be the most informed and prevent popular disasters.

I am well aware of the fact that the founders were distrustful of the whims of the voters. So am I. But the EC is not a solution since the electors in each state are selected by the voters. The EC only distorts the outcome. Perhaps you would prefer a dictatorship or a monarchy?

 

[beautress]

If you deny small states their rights and dignity to feel they are part of this country, you will likely get what stupid leaders get when they become hard of hearing to taxpayers.

No, not really...Small states are not denied their "rights.

Two senators represent FORTY million people in CA.....and

Two senators represent less than 700,000 citizens in states like WY or ND.

So it annoys you that the 500,000+ people who live in the 7th-largest sized state, Wyoming, get 2 Senators, huh? Well, without them, you could just take the gummint oil reserve in Midwest, Wyoming, right out from under the noses of the locals. Not to mention all that additional coal and uranium energy resources. Got it.

Edit: Sentence repair, meaning left the same.

 

[BS Filter]

This is how the Dirty Democrats are disenfranchise the American Voters


Abolishing the Electoral College

Please explaine exactly how doing so would disenfranchise the American Voters. You don't seem to get any smarter as we go along here

You know as well as I do that the electoral college decided the President in 2000 and 2016.

Yes I do, and therefore it was the EC that negated to votes of the majority. Keeping the EC is what disenfranchise voters. Can you process that?

Nor is this something the founders did by accident.
It was deliberate that voters originally did not vote for candidates directly, but for electors instead.
That is because the average person can not be trusted to vote properly, and instead is easily misled by hysteria and propaganda,
For example, slavery was popular before the Civil War, and so was the invasion of Iraq, even though the people were proven 100% wrong about WMD.

It is not a question of votes being worth more or less in the electoral college, but that individuals are mob rule and not a good idea.
The electors were from the state assemblies, and were supposed to be the most informed and prevent popular disasters.

I am well aware of the fact that the founders were distrustful of the whims of the voters. So am I. But the EC is not a solution since the electors in each state are selected by the voters. The EC only distorts the outcome. Perhaps you would prefer a dictatorship or a monarchy?

I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Lol
Well I would say let Wyoming Montana North Dakota and South Dakota continue with what they’re doing… It’s none of the federal governments business.

I could not agree more!

Does this mean you're giving up on destroying the Electoral College that gives the citizens of these small but contributive states two senators apiece? .

I cannot decide if people like you are just stupid or really dishonest...or maybe both.

I say a dozen times I am not for getting rid of the EC and then you ask me if I am giving up on destroying it. I just do not understand what is wrong with people like you that do this all the time.

Oh, and the EC does not give states two Senators, that would be the Constitution.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Please explaine exactly how doing so would disenfranchise the American Voters. You don't seem to get any smarter as we go along here

You know as well as I do that the electoral college decided the President in 2000 and 2016.

Yes I do, and therefore it was the EC that negated to votes of the majority. Keeping the EC is what disenfranchise voters. Can you process that?

Nor is this something the founders did by accident.
It was deliberate that voters originally did not vote for candidates directly, but for electors instead.
That is because the average person can not be trusted to vote properly, and instead is easily misled by hysteria and propaganda,
For example, slavery was popular before the Civil War, and so was the invasion of Iraq, even though the people were proven 100% wrong about WMD.

It is not a question of votes being worth more or less in the electoral college, but that individuals are mob rule and not a good idea.
The electors were from the state assemblies, and were supposed to be the most informed and prevent popular disasters.

I am well aware of the fact that the founders were distrustful of the whims of the voters. So am I. But the EC is not a solution since the electors in each state are selected by the voters. The EC only distorts the outcome. Perhaps you would prefer a dictatorship or a monarchy?

I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.

The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.

How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.

 

[Staidhup]

The removal of the electoral college results in tyranny. The end result is the eventual break up of the United States for when a portion of the country no longer has a voice succession will naturally follow as the only means left to protect the rights of those subjected to tyrannical rule.

 

[Staidhup]

If one was to state any attempt toward succession would be squashed is delusional.

 

[BS Filter]

You know as well as I do that the electoral college decided the President in 2000 and 2016.

Yes I do, and therefore it was the EC that negated to votes of the majority. Keeping the EC is what disenfranchise voters. Can you process that?

Nor is this something the founders did by accident.
It was deliberate that voters originally did not vote for candidates directly, but for electors instead.
That is because the average person can not be trusted to vote properly, and instead is easily misled by hysteria and propaganda,
For example, slavery was popular before the Civil War, and so was the invasion of Iraq, even though the people were proven 100% wrong about WMD.

It is not a question of votes being worth more or less in the electoral college, but that individuals are mob rule and not a good idea.
The electors were from the state assemblies, and were supposed to be the most informed and prevent popular disasters.

I am well aware of the fact that the founders were distrustful of the whims of the voters. So am I. But the EC is not a solution since the electors in each state are selected by the voters. The EC only distorts the outcome. Perhaps you would prefer a dictatorship or a monarchy?

I understand you're butthurt from losing two Presidential elections to the Constitution. The Constitution always speaks truth to power. You socialist vermin want to pack metropolitan areas with your voters so you can override the will of the rural citizens and not give them a voice. You cry "fairness", while you work secretly in an unfair manner.

The majority voice of the American people lost two elections to an archaic clause of the Constitution.

How exactly do we "pack metropolitan areas" with our voters, and how does that relate to the issue of the EC? You're not making any sense at all.

We are a nation of states. How else will less populous states have a voice in the Presidential election?