Elizabeth Warren: 'End Electoral College'

[Lesh]

What “safeguard” would be stripped away? Explain

 

[Pogo]

The popular vote chooses every other election, Federal, State, and Local.

The FACT is that United States is just that, a COLLECTION (not collective) of STATES. The states elect the President, not "The People". That is the system of the Republic that we are. We not a Democracy as the Founders realized that Mob Rule would be destructive.

Doublethink strikes again!

Guess we'll just have to keep posting this until it sinks in....



ma·jor·i·ty
/məˈjôrədē,məˈjärədē/
noun

1. 1.
   the greater number.
   "in the majority of cases all will go smoothly"
   synonyms: larger part/number, greater part/number, major part, best/better part, main part, most, more than half

mob
/mäb/
noun

1. 1.
   a large crowd of people, especially one that is disorderly and intent on causing trouble or violence.
   "a mob of protesters"
   synonyms: crowd, horde, multitude, rabble, mass, body, throng

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think most Americans understand that children are people under the age of 18. Piglosi is one of the top leaders of the Democrat party. And given the fact Democrats will do anything to cheat an election, I'm sure most Democrats stand behind her idea.

What you're "sure of" is irrelevant. You affixed an entire group to your claim and you came up with an example of one (1) person, with your definition of "children" dependent on an "everybody knows" fallacy. And I notice you're not touching any of your other claims. Wonder why.

Because it's a lot of work and research which you wouldn't appreciate or admit to anyway. Look at how you are trying to muddy the waters just over the simple definition of children. If a human being is at the age of 17, and they are not an adult, then WTF are they????

Well then you shouldn't have spewed claims you can't back up, should you have.

I knew they were bullshit as soon as I saw them. My job --- pointing that out --- is a helluva lot easier than yours. The key is not to make shit up in the first place. Really takes the work load off.

I gave you indisputable evidence on just one claim and look at how you're trying to discount it. It's not a fox report, it's not something Limbaugh said, it's actual video footage of the person who made it a current issue.

Yeah, when I have time perhaps I'll dig though the internet to give you other cold hard evidence, but it's fruitless when people refuse to admit they are wrong.

Again, not that complex. You posted a series of preposterous claims, I picked a few to challenge for backup, and you can't do it. Because "time". Shoulda thought of that before you posted them. You picked a single claim, ignored the rest, and quoted a single person out of a group of millions in a video that makes no mention of 'children' anyway.

When I make a claim on here it means I've already done the research before I posted it. Tip for the day.

No, you want me to prove each one which takes a lot of time. People who are more well versed in politics knows it's all true. You must have just started paying attention to politics the last four or five years.

 

[Pogo]

What you're "sure of" is irrelevant. You affixed an entire group to your claim and you came up with an example of one (1) person, with your definition of "children" dependent on an "everybody knows" fallacy. And I notice you're not touching any of your other claims. Wonder why.

Because it's a lot of work and research which you wouldn't appreciate or admit to anyway. Look at how you are trying to muddy the waters just over the simple definition of children. If a human being is at the age of 17, and they are not an adult, then WTF are they????

Well then you shouldn't have spewed claims you can't back up, should you have.

I knew they were bullshit as soon as I saw them. My job --- pointing that out --- is a helluva lot easier than yours. The key is not to make shit up in the first place. Really takes the work load off.

I gave you indisputable evidence on just one claim and look at how you're trying to discount it. It's not a fox report, it's not something Limbaugh said, it's actual video footage of the person who made it a current issue.

Yeah, when I have time perhaps I'll dig though the internet to give you other cold hard evidence, but it's fruitless when people refuse to admit they are wrong.

Again, not that complex. You posted a series of preposterous claims, I picked a few to challenge for backup, and you can't do it. Because "time". Shoulda thought of that before you posted them. You picked a single claim, ignored the rest, and quoted a single person out of a group of millions in a video that makes no mention of 'children' anyway.

When I make a claim on here it means I've already done the research before I posted it. Tip for the day.

No, you want me to prove each one which takes a lot of time. People who are more well versed in politics knows it's all true. You must have just started paying attention to politics the last four or five years.

See? Now you're falling back on the "Everybody Knows" fallacy.

For a guy who doesn't have time you sure spend a lot of posts explaining how you don't have time.

 

[dblack]

What “safeguard” would be stripped away? Explain

The power distribution imbalance of the EC was intentional. It was a compromise to convince less populated, rural states to join the union. It gives them some protection against being ignored by the federal government. If, as happened in 2016, the rural areas feel dismissed by the urban "elites" - the EC gives them a little extra power to push back.

I understand why the Democrats want to end the EC. They were spanked by it. But they were spanked for good reason. They were dismissing, disrespecting and arguably attacking the lives of rural voters. Despite my disgust with Trump, the EC worked as designed. It's an important safeguard, regardless of the party in power.

 

[Pogo]

What “safeguard” would be stripped away? Explain

The power distribution imbalance of the EC was intentional. It was a compromise to convince less populated, rural states to join the union. It gives them some protection against being ignored by the federal government. If, as happened in 2016, the rural areas feel dismissed by the urban "elites" - the EC gives them a little extra power to push back.

That makes this hard to explain then:

When the EC was developed the largest electoral prize by far was Virginia, helped along by counting slaves as three-fifths of a person while granting those slaves zero-fifths of a vote.

Now take a look at the history that produced:

1, Washington (Virginia) -- two terms
2, Adams (Massachusetts) -- one term
3. Jefferson (Virginia) - two terms
4. Madison (Virginia) -- two terms
5. Monroe (Virginia) -- two terms

Sixteen years out of twenty dominated by THE largest state.

Oh and as far as "rural" --- we were ALL rural until 1920.

I understand why the Democrats want to end the EC. They were spanked by it. But they were spanked for good reason. They were dismissing, disrespecting and arguably attacking the lives of rural voters. Despite my disgust with Trump, the EC worked as designed. It's an important safeguard, regardless of the party in power.

Once AGAIN this issue has nothing to do with "Democrats" or any political party.

"Safeguard"? Safeguard against ---- what? Half a state's votes actually counting for something?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because it's a lot of work and research which you wouldn't appreciate or admit to anyway. Look at how you are trying to muddy the waters just over the simple definition of children. If a human being is at the age of 17, and they are not an adult, then WTF are they????

Well then you shouldn't have spewed claims you can't back up, should you have.

I knew they were bullshit as soon as I saw them. My job --- pointing that out --- is a helluva lot easier than yours. The key is not to make shit up in the first place. Really takes the work load off.

I gave you indisputable evidence on just one claim and look at how you're trying to discount it. It's not a fox report, it's not something Limbaugh said, it's actual video footage of the person who made it a current issue.

Yeah, when I have time perhaps I'll dig though the internet to give you other cold hard evidence, but it's fruitless when people refuse to admit they are wrong.

Again, not that complex. You posted a series of preposterous claims, I picked a few to challenge for backup, and you can't do it. Because "time". Shoulda thought of that before you posted them. You picked a single claim, ignored the rest, and quoted a single person out of a group of millions in a video that makes no mention of 'children' anyway.

When I make a claim on here it means I've already done the research before I posted it. Tip for the day.

No, you want me to prove each one which takes a lot of time. People who are more well versed in politics knows it's all true. You must have just started paying attention to politics the last four or five years.

See? Now you're falling back on the "Everybody Knows" fallacy.

For a guy who doesn't have time you sure spend a lot of posts explaining how you don't have time.

Sure, because I spend my time on multiple posts addressing multiple replies. I come here to have discussions, not make projects out of them because of the uninformed. But I'll tell you what: The weekend is coming up and if I have time, I will address those posts with links that you will ether not read or deny they are legitimate just like the video I posted. How's that? Global warming isn't here yet so I won't be spending much time outside this weekend.

 

[protectionist]

What “safeguard” would be stripped away? Explain

The safeguard that is the reason for the electoral college. The safeguard of the ability of people ALL OVER THE COUNTRY to have a say in the election of its leaders.

The electoral college provides that people in Wyoming, Vermont, the Dakotas, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, Maine, Idaho, etc. are given as much a voice as those in heavily populated states like California, Texas, Florida, New York. It prevent s their vote from being diminished, if not obliterated.

It also prevents unscrupulous politicians from flooding the country with undesirable immigrants (legal or illegal) to run up a popular vote for them.

 

[22lcidw]

View attachment 251302

Ironic Googly Image meme is ironic in bringing up "honesty" after listing a stack of lame lies.

Say's one of the biggest liars on this board.

"Say's"? What the fuck does "say is" mean? Write much?

That woman in your short video in pink passing Trump needs to go to a work farm picking vegetables and fruits. For she is privileged. I know she feels the peons pain. Let her prove it.

That's Agata Kornhauser-Duda, the First Lady of Poland. And that's a gif, not a "video". And she's not the star of that scene --- Rump's crestfallen face is.

What her experience is in picking vegetables and fruits I have no idea but it can't be any less than Rump's.

Oh and nice touch, inserting "privileged" in a comparison to Orange Boy Blunder. If irony goes to fifty bucks a barrel I want drilling rights on your posts.

She did not learn anything from her commie imprisonment unless she was one of the oppressors. For some reason Eastern Euro nations love Trump. A lot of commies lived a good life while others suffered and transitioned to the cosmopolitan life. I will never trust the likes of you for whatever years I have left.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What “safeguard” would be stripped away? Explain

The power distribution imbalance of the EC was intentional. It was a compromise to convince less populated, rural states to join the union. It gives them some protection against being ignored by the federal government. If, as happened in 2016, the rural areas feel dismissed by the urban "elites" - the EC gives them a little extra power to push back.

I understand why the Democrats want to end the EC. They were spanked by it. But they were spanked for good reason. They were dismissing, disrespecting and arguably attacking the lives of rural voters. Despite my disgust with Trump, the EC worked as designed. It's an important safeguard, regardless of the party in power.

If Hillary won the presidency and Trump won the popular vote, they wouldn't' even be having this discussion.

As far as the left is concerned, all their issues or concerns that are stopped by the Constitution is because (in their opinion) the Constitution is outdated and not applicable for modern times. Therefore it should be changed at the will of liberals and not the amendment process that our founders created for such changes.

 

[Lesh]

What “safeguard” would be stripped away? Explain

The power distribution imbalance of the EC was intentional. It was a compromise to convince less populated, rural states to join the union. It gives them some protection against being ignored by the federal government. If, as happened in 2016, the rural areas feel dismissed by the urban "elites" - the EC gives them a little extra power to push back.

I understand why the Democrats want to end the EC. They were spanked by it. But they were spanked for good reason. They were dismissing, disrespecting and arguably attacking the lives of rural voters. Despite my disgust with Trump, the EC worked as designed. It's an important safeguard, regardless of the party in power.

So how do the more populated states defend themselves against the power of the less popular states? You clearly have gained that and our vote doesn’t count?

 

[Pogo]

Ironic Googly Image meme is ironic in bringing up "honesty" after listing a stack of lame lies.

Say's one of the biggest liars on this board.

"Say's"? What the fuck does "say is" mean? Write much?

That woman in your short video in pink passing Trump needs to go to a work farm picking vegetables and fruits. For she is privileged. I know she feels the peons pain. Let her prove it.

That's Agata Kornhauser-Duda, the First Lady of Poland. And that's a gif, not a "video". And she's not the star of that scene --- Rump's crestfallen face is.

What her experience is in picking vegetables and fruits I have no idea but it can't be any less than Rump's.

Oh and nice touch, inserting "privileged" in a comparison to Orange Boy Blunder. If irony goes to fifty bucks a barrel I want drilling rights on your posts.

She did not learn anything from her commie imprisonment unless she was one of the oppressors. For some reason Eastern Euro nations love Trump. A lot of commies lived a good life while others suffered and transitioned to the cosmopolitan life. I will never trust the likes of you for whatever years I have left.

OK well I have no idea what that bit of inchoate verbal traffic circle means but come back when you're done snorting Drano.

 

[Pogo]

Well then you shouldn't have spewed claims you can't back up, should you have.

I knew they were bullshit as soon as I saw them. My job --- pointing that out --- is a helluva lot easier than yours. The key is not to make shit up in the first place. Really takes the work load off.

I gave you indisputable evidence on just one claim and look at how you're trying to discount it. It's not a fox report, it's not something Limbaugh said, it's actual video footage of the person who made it a current issue.

Yeah, when I have time perhaps I'll dig though the internet to give you other cold hard evidence, but it's fruitless when people refuse to admit they are wrong.

Again, not that complex. You posted a series of preposterous claims, I picked a few to challenge for backup, and you can't do it. Because "time". Shoulda thought of that before you posted them. You picked a single claim, ignored the rest, and quoted a single person out of a group of millions in a video that makes no mention of 'children' anyway.

When I make a claim on here it means I've already done the research before I posted it. Tip for the day.

No, you want me to prove each one which takes a lot of time. People who are more well versed in politics knows it's all true. You must have just started paying attention to politics the last four or five years.

See? Now you're falling back on the "Everybody Knows" fallacy.

For a guy who doesn't have time you sure spend a lot of posts explaining how you don't have time.

Sure, because I spend my time on multiple posts addressing multiple replies. I come here to have discussions, not make projects out of them because of the uninformed. But I'll tell you what: The weekend is coming up and if I have time, I will address those posts with links that you will ether not read or deny they are legitimate just like the video I posted. How's that? Global warming isn't here yet so I won't be spending much time outside this weekend.

Deal.

 

[22lcidw]

What “safeguard” would be stripped away? Explain

The power distribution imbalance of the EC was intentional. It was a compromise to convince less populated, rural states to join the union. It gives them some protection against being ignored by the federal government. If, as happened in 2016, the rural areas feel dismissed by the urban "elites" - the EC gives them a little extra power to push back.

I understand why the Democrats want to end the EC. They were spanked by it. But they were spanked for good reason. They were dismissing, disrespecting and arguably attacking the lives of rural voters. Despite my disgust with Trump, the EC worked as designed. It's an important safeguard, regardless of the party in power.

So how do the more populated states defend themselves against the power of the less popular states? You clearly have gained that and our vote doesn’t count?

The less populated states are putting a rope on you to slow you down. To make people think things out. Face it. A real economic depression happens and many people in this country will die.

 

[Pilot1]

There is a legal process to change (amend) the Constitution. It has been done many times before. So instead of whining, and having states illegally try to circumvent the excision law why don't people push their politicians to do that?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What “safeguard” would be stripped away? Explain

The power distribution imbalance of the EC was intentional. It was a compromise to convince less populated, rural states to join the union. It gives them some protection against being ignored by the federal government. If, as happened in 2016, the rural areas feel dismissed by the urban "elites" - the EC gives them a little extra power to push back.

I understand why the Democrats want to end the EC. They were spanked by it. But they were spanked for good reason. They were dismissing, disrespecting and arguably attacking the lives of rural voters. Despite my disgust with Trump, the EC worked as designed. It's an important safeguard, regardless of the party in power.

So how do the more populated states defend themselves against the power of the less popular states? You clearly have gained that and our vote doesn’t count?

The idea is for states to have more equal power even though the less populated states already do. But having some power is better than zero power when it comes to electing a President.

The population of New York city; one city in the entire country, has a larger population than our eight lowest populated states. Under a pure democracy, that one city would have more presidential power than eight entire states. How could that be fair?

 

[Pogo]

What “safeguard” would be stripped away? Explain

The power distribution imbalance of the EC was intentional. It was a compromise to convince less populated, rural states to join the union. It gives them some protection against being ignored by the federal government. If, as happened in 2016, the rural areas feel dismissed by the urban "elites" - the EC gives them a little extra power to push back.

I understand why the Democrats want to end the EC. They were spanked by it. But they were spanked for good reason. They were dismissing, disrespecting and arguably attacking the lives of rural voters. Despite my disgust with Trump, the EC worked as designed. It's an important safeguard, regardless of the party in power.

If Hillary won the presidency and Trump won the popular vote, they wouldn't' even be having this discussion.

BULL SHIT.

Number one that election was over two years ago and number two it LOOOOOOOOONG predates that election anyway. Two hundred years.

Why is it y'all keep leaning on this crutch of trying to make it about political parties and a specific election?

What you have there is a speculation fallacy, and an easily debunked one.

As far as the left is concerned, all their issues or concerns that are stopped by the Constitution is because (in their opinion) the Constitution is outdated and not applicable for modern times. Therefore it should be changed at the will of liberals and not the amendment process that our founders created for such changes.

The Founders *WERE* Liberals. Liberalism is the whole POINT of the Constitution.

Moreover you just conflated "Liberals" with "the left". PICK one.

 

[Pilot1]

The "Majority" can easily become the "Mob". If the majority wanted to make slavery legal again would you go along with it Libs?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The Founders *WERE* Liberals. Liberalism is the whole POINT of the Constitution.

Moreover you just conflated "Liberals" with "the left". PICK one.

No, our founders were not liberals by today's definition; nowhere near. Today, the left are the liberals.

BULL SHIT.

Number one that election was over two years ago and number two it LOOOOOOOOONG predates that election anyway. Two hundred years.

Why is it y'all keep leaning on this crutch of trying to make it about political parties and a specific election?

What you have there is a speculation fallacy, and an easily debunked one.

Nobody on the left complained about the EC after DumBama won two terms. Not even a mention of it after Clinton's two terms. Now it's a problem, just like it was when GW became President.

 

[dblack]

What “safeguard” would be stripped away? Explain

The power distribution imbalance of the EC was intentional. It was a compromise to convince less populated, rural states to join the union. It gives them some protection against being ignored by the federal government. If, as happened in 2016, the rural areas feel dismissed by the urban "elites" - the EC gives them a little extra power to push back.

I understand why the Democrats want to end the EC. They were spanked by it. But they were spanked for good reason. They were dismissing, disrespecting and arguably attacking the lives of rural voters. Despite my disgust with Trump, the EC worked as designed. It's an important safeguard, regardless of the party in power.

So how do the more populated states defend themselves against the power of the less popular states?

By not dismissing their interests in the first place.

You clearly have gained that and our vote doesn’t count?

I haven't gained anything. We've all lost, and we're due to lose again if the Democrats don't get a clue.