Republicans, do you really want Trump to win the ‘popular vote’?

[BrokeLoser]

Sorry but we've ALWAYS been different. In fact I'd say the opposite is true, we're more alike today than any time in our history.

That's just plain retarded silly talk..ignorance and denial. Stop pretending and pay attention please.

You claimed this nation continues to grow further apart and now we are just too different. If that is not retarded silly talk you should be able to back it up. Can you?

Not even the most ignorant, most foolish among us would need proof that we are divided like never before in our history. Save it, you're simply making an ass of yourself in public.

I accept your admission that you're just pulling your opinions out of your butt. Thanks for playing.

Well, he usually is, but I don't think he's completely incorrect either. He just talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded.

I think what you meant is that I scare the piss out of faggots and retards with my transparent, no bullshit, Fuck PC sort of style...am I right?

 

[San Souci]

Please let go of that tired played out “POPULAR VOTE” shit.
NOBODY I know who will vote for Trump would encourage him to tailor his form of governance to appeal to the populous of Mexifornia and Loon York.
We are a nation divided and we want it to stay that way.....Welcome to the Democrat designed, LefTist built Divided States Of America.

Most voters in CommieFornia are unpersons.

 

[Ken Mac]

Please let go of that tired played out “POPULAR VOTE” shit.
NOBODY I know who will vote for Trump would encourage him to tailor his form of governance to appeal to the populous of Mexifornia and Loon York.
We are a nation divided and we want it to stay that way.....Welcome to the Democrat designed, LefTist built Divided States Of America.

Why would he need to appeal to California? If there was a popular vote instead of the Electoral College last election then the outcome of the California vote would have benefited Trump more than it did with the current system.

And this is where the argument for popular vote falls apart. The liberals think they don't have a voice in California, but since the state is so liberal, they benefit from winner take all. Their argument lies in the states in which the popular vote is close. The purple states.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

That's just plain retarded silly talk..ignorance and denial. Stop pretending and pay attention please.

You claimed this nation continues to grow further apart and now we are just too different. If that is not retarded silly talk you should be able to back it up. Can you?

Not even the most ignorant, most foolish among us would need proof that we are divided like never before in our history. Save it, you're simply making an ass of yourself in public.

I accept your admission that you're just pulling your opinions out of your butt. Thanks for playing.

Well, he usually is, but I don't think he's completely incorrect either. He just talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded.

I think what you meant is that I scare the piss out of faggots and retards with my transparent, no bullshit, Fuck PC sort of style...am I right?

Nope.

 

[Flash]

[QBut I do know what's in the Constitution.

No you don't. You are an idiot when it comes to understanding the Constitution. You are just like all the other uneducated low information Moon Bats. Very confused. You have also significantly demonstrated ignorance on other topics. You are kind of a joke on this forum.

 

[Slade3200]

[QBut I do know what's in the Constitution.

No you don't. You are an idiot when it comes to understanding the Constitution. You are just like all the other uneducated low information Moon Bats. Very confused. You have also significantly demonstrated ignorance on other topics. You are kind of a joke on this forum.

I'd love to see you pick a specific statement or position that Pogo has taken that you challenge. My money is on you getting ruined

 

[toobfreak]

Please let go of that tired played out “POPULAR VOTE” shit.
NOBODY I know who will vote for Trump would encourage him to tailor his form of governance to appeal to the populous of Mexifornia and Loon York.
We are a nation divided and we want it to stay that way.....Welcome to the Democrat designed, LefTist built Divided States Of America.

Won't that be the ultimate slap, if Trump not only wins reelection but gets the popular vote too?

What will be the new mantra of the Idiot Left? That this time somehow the Ruskies corrupted the counting of the vote? I can't wait to find out.

 

[Slade3200]

Please let go of that tired played out “POPULAR VOTE” shit.
NOBODY I know who will vote for Trump would encourage him to tailor his form of governance to appeal to the populous of Mexifornia and Loon York.
We are a nation divided and we want it to stay that way.....Welcome to the Democrat designed, LefTist built Divided States Of America.

Why would he need to appeal to California? If there was a popular vote instead of the Electoral College last election then the outcome of the California vote would have benefited Trump more than it did with the current system.

And this is where the argument for popular vote falls apart. The liberals think they don't have a voice in California, but since the state is so liberal, they benefit from winner take all. Their argument lies in the states in which the popular vote is close. The purple states.

Agreed, yet there are still a bunch of brick heads like BrokeLoser the OP who can't do simple math quacking about how California will determine the election if there is a popular vote... Nope sorry, that doesn't add up... Cali helps Trump in a popular vote scenario.

 

[Flash]

[QBut I do know what's in the Constitution.

No you don't. You are an idiot when it comes to understanding the Constitution. You are just like all the other uneducated low information Moon Bats. Very confused. You have also significantly demonstrated ignorance on other topics. You are kind of a joke on this forum.

I'd love to see you pick a specific statement or position that Pogo has taken that you challenge. My money is on you getting ruined

I point out the uneducated low information Moon Bat idiot's confusion almost everyday. Just like many other posters on this forum.

 

[Slade3200]

[QBut I do know what's in the Constitution.

No you don't. You are an idiot when it comes to understanding the Constitution. You are just like all the other uneducated low information Moon Bats. Very confused. You have also significantly demonstrated ignorance on other topics. You are kind of a joke on this forum.

I'd love to see you pick a specific statement or position that Pogo has taken that you challenge. My money is on you getting ruined

I point out the uneducated low information Moon Bat idiot's confusion almost everyday. Just like many other posters on this forum.

Pick your best issue and do it now... Let's see you school him.

 

[justoffal]

Ummmm NO IT WON'T, Sparkles. Virginia, or any other state, can EV any way it wants to. Doesn't even have to be related to the popular vote. They don't need to hold an election at all. And if they do they can ignore the results and send whoever they want.

Go look it up.

Yes, but there is a thing called precedent. There has never been a time in which the electorates voted against the will of the people of the state they represent. The SCOTUS would shoo this shit down in a heartbeat.

The SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it. If the Legislature of State X directs that its electors are awarded to Peewee Herman,. then that's it. All Constitutional.

As for "never been a time in which the electorates [sic] [you mean Electors] voted against the will of the people of the state they represent", I already cited nine states that did just that in 2016 alone, and I didn't even name all of them.

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

 

[Pogo]

Note: The pact only goes into effect when enough states that represent the 270 E
I already know that and pointed it out. There are already lawsuits in the courts about this shit. If it goes to the Scotus - I think they will scuttle it.

There are a lot more issues than what you're pointing out:

The Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State".[41] In a report released in October 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) cited the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee (1893), reaffirmed in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission (1978) and Cuyler v. Adams (1981),[42] as stating that the words "agreement" and "compact" are synonyms, that explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is not required for agreements "which the United States can have no possible objection or have any interest in interfering with", while explicit congressional consent of interstate compacts is required when the underlying compact is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States" — meaning where the vertical balance of power between the federal government and state governments is altered in favor of state governments.[43]

The Federal election commission will never consider it unless it is a change made legally by two-thirds of the elected officials as an amendment. The states can do whatever they want if the electoral votes are improperly cast they will be corrected.

Jo

The Federal Election Commission has nothing to do with it.

The Constitution doesn't even REQUIRE an election. On the contrary it specifically prescribes that the several states shall pick their electors any way they want to pick them. That means if they want to put pictures on a wall and have the Governor put on a blindfold and throw darts, that's the system. They can pick random names out of a phone book. Whatever they want.

Good luck with that. The FEC is well established and will be upheld by SCOTUS.
Remember what happened the last time your side change some rules? We are now 195 conservative justices in to that calamitous mistake. Begging for more are you?

Jo

Once AGAIN --- the FEC is irrelevant to this. There's no Constitutional requirement to have an election AT ALL.

PERIOD.

That means whatever the FEC "considers' has no bearing on anything. The state legislatures have the authority to make it happen, not the FEC.

You're just flat-out wrong. Just because the FEC isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean you can sweep them aside.

Correct, that's not the reason I can sweep them aside. The reason I can sweep them aside is because that same Constitution doesn't provide any structure --- or right --- for individual voting for President AT ALL. There *IS NO* right guaranteed to any citizen in the Constitution to vote directly for a President. There never has been. There is in other countries --- but not this one. The Constitution doesn't require ANY vote on any "election day", which it also does not set.

Not only are they relevant they will eat your theory alive and spit it right back out at you.

Trust me it will be the FEC that will disappoint you in this matter completely supported by scotus. Electoral votes will be assigned correctly by scotus should they be rouged by the states.

Once AGAIN ---- SCOTUS doesn't "assign" electoral votes, correctly or incorrectly THE STATES do that. It's been that way since the beginning.

The other point of hilarity here is your assumption that Trump will not win the popular vote. It is that assumption alone that causes you to wave pom-poms for this ridiculous motion. Imagine California having to assign all 55 electoral votes to Trump? you can be damn sure they would call an emergency legislative session and reverse their decision to suit the moment.

Do try to grow up and stop being a creature of the moment. Ask Harry Reid about its results.


Jo

Once AGAIN -- the NPVC cannot kick in until there are enough state EVs in it to sway the Electoral College. That point has not yet been reached. If it is reached, and if Rump wins the PV, then yes he gets the EVs of every state that's involved. The idea being that was the country's choice Ain't rocket surgery.

Of course if you think that's gonna happen you should prolly get a brain scan because what's in there is prolly just offal.

 

[Pogo]

Ummmm NO IT WON'T, Sparkles. Virginia, or any other state, can EV any way it wants to. Doesn't even have to be related to the popular vote. They don't need to hold an election at all. And if they do they can ignore the results and send whoever they want.

Go look it up.

Yes, but there is a thing called precedent. There has never been a time in which the electorates voted against the will of the people of the state they represent. The SCOTUS would shoo this shit down in a heartbeat.

The SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it. If the Legislature of State X directs that its electors are awarded to Peewee Herman,. then that's it. All Constitutional.

As for "never been a time in which the electorates [sic] [you mean Electors] voted against the will of the people of the state they represent", I already cited nine states that did just that in 2016 alone, and I didn't even name all of them.

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

That's already the case and has been since way before any of us were alive. It's why our election turnout rate is an abysmally low international embarrassment -- 45% of those eligible to vote in the last POTUS election stayed home and said, "fuck it, what's the point". And that figure is typical. Every voter who lives in a "red" state or a "blue" state has their vote immediately run into the shredder. That voter can vote with their state, against their state, vote third party, or stay home and bake a pizza, and all four acts deliver the same result except in act four you get pizza. Even in the nine-plus states I mentioned, including my own, none of which were "red" or "blue" states*, MOST of the votes were tossed into the crapper never to be seen again.

That's the system, you're welcome to it.

(*okay one was a red state, which was Utah. Rump, even with an R after his name, could not win half the vote in FRICKIN' UTAH. That doesn't exactly put fop in the pipe dream of winning a pop vote)

 

[22lcidw]

The Federal election commission will never consider it unless it is a change made legally by two-thirds of the elected officials as an amendment. The states can do whatever they want if the electoral votes are improperly cast they will be corrected.

Jo

The Federal Election Commission has nothing to do with it.

The Constitution doesn't even REQUIRE an election. On the contrary it specifically prescribes that the several states shall pick their electors any way they want to pick them. That means if they want to put pictures on a wall and have the Governor put on a blindfold and throw darts, that's the system. They can pick random names out of a phone book. Whatever they want.

Good luck with that. The FEC is well established and will be upheld by SCOTUS.
Remember what happened the last time your side change some rules? We are now 195 conservative justices in to that calamitous mistake. Begging for more are you?

Jo

Once AGAIN --- the FEC is irrelevant to this. There's no Constitutional requirement to have an election AT ALL.

PERIOD.

That means whatever the FEC "considers' has no bearing on anything. The state legislatures have the authority to make it happen, not the FEC.

You're just flat-out wrong. Just because the FEC isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean you can sweep them aside.

Correct, that's not the reason I can sweep them aside. The reason I can sweep them aside is because that same Constitution doesn't provide any structure --- or right --- for individual voting for President AT ALL. There *IS NO* right guaranteed to any citizen in the Constitution to vote directly for a President. There never has been. There is in other countries --- but not this one. The Constitution doesn't require ANY vote on any "election day", which it also does not set.

Not only are they relevant they will eat your theory alive and spit it right back out at you.

Trust me it will be the FEC that will disappoint you in this matter completely supported by scotus. Electoral votes will be assigned correctly by scotus should they be rouged by the states.

Once AGAIN ---- SCOTUS doesn't "assign" electoral votes, correctly or incorrectly THE STATES do that. It's been that way since the beginning.

The other point of hilarity here is your assumption that Trump will not win the popular vote. It is that assumption alone that causes you to wave pom-poms for this ridiculous motion. Imagine California having to assign all 55 electoral votes to Trump? you can be damn sure they would call an emergency legislative session and reverse their decision to suit the moment.

Do try to grow up and stop being a creature of the moment. Ask Harry Reid about its results.


Jo

Once AGAIN -- the NPVC cannot kick in until there are enough state EVs in it to sway the Electoral College. That point has not yet been reached. If it is reached, and if Rump wins the PV, then yes he gets the EVs of every state that's involved. The idea being that was the country's choice Ain't rocket surgery.

Of course if you think that's gonna happen you should prolly get a brain scan because what's in there is prolly just offal.

The Constitution tells you about freedom and taxes. Both that we have abused.

 

[Shawnee_b]

He doesn't need it, like last time.

 

[Pogo]

[QBut I do know what's in the Constitution.

No you don't. You are an idiot when it comes to understanding the Constitution. You are just like all the other uneducated low information Moon Bats. Very confused. You have also significantly demonstrated ignorance on other topics. You are kind of a joke on this forum.

Then show me where we the people get a vote for President in there, Jocko.

Start with Article II Section 1.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, but there is a thing called precedent. There has never been a time in which the electorates voted against the will of the people of the state they represent. The SCOTUS would shoo this shit down in a heartbeat.

The SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it. If the Legislature of State X directs that its electors are awarded to Peewee Herman,. then that's it. All Constitutional.

As for "never been a time in which the electorates [sic] [you mean Electors] voted against the will of the people of the state they represent", I already cited nine states that did just that in 2016 alone, and I didn't even name all of them.

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Once AGAIN ----- Article II, Section 1. Find it in there, bring it here, win a prize.

 

[justoffal]

Don't

The SCOTUS doesn't even enter into it. If the Legislature of State X directs that its electors are awarded to Peewee Herman,. then that's it. All Constitutional.

As for "never been a time in which the electorates [sic] [you mean Electors] voted against the will of the people of the state they represent", I already cited nine states that did just that in 2016 alone, and I didn't even name all of them.

States cannot institute laws that overrun and individual's federal constitutional rights. You're out of your mind.

Once AGAIN there is no "federal Constitutional right" to vpte for a President. Never has been. And I already explained this to you and invited you to prove me wrong, which you can't do because I already know what's in the Constitution.

If there was, those nine states I mentioned, and a lot of others in other years, would have had their electoral votes tossed.

Once again, for those who must be new to this country, CITIZENS don't vote for President.
ELECTORS do.

You're playing games with semantics and trying to whittle the argument down to the system in which we vote caries out that task. But, you are conflating that technicality.
If you truly believe this then why vote at all. Just let the electors take care of it. That's essentially the case you are making.

He's basically telling the population of each state that they have no right to choose a President....yeah let's see how that works.

Jo

Once AGAIN ----- Article II, Section 1. Find it in there, bring it here, win a prize.

Don't need to find it.

Jo

 

[Ame®icano]

The error was corrected - Illegals can't vote nor would they risk it - STOP LYING Rumpbot!!

The DMV says the error did not allow anyone living in the country without authorization to register to vote

California DMV may have botched 23,000 voter registrations

No risk, no reward.

"mistakenly accepted"

LOL

Her and couple more millions.

 

[alang1216]

That's just plain retarded silly talk..ignorance and denial. Stop pretending and pay attention please.

You claimed this nation continues to grow further apart and now we are just too different. If that is not retarded silly talk you should be able to back it up. Can you?

Not even the most ignorant, most foolish among us would need proof that we are divided like never before in our history. Save it, you're simply making an ass of yourself in public.

I accept your admission that you're just pulling your opinions out of your butt. Thanks for playing.

Well, he usually is, but I don't think he's completely incorrect either. He just talks like a fag and his shit's all retarded.

I think what you meant is that I scare the piss out of faggots and retards with my transparent, no bullshit, Fuck PC sort of style...am I right?

You scare me with your fact-free ranting.