Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
OkI think the last poll I saw was a slim majority in favor of expansion, but very slim.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OkI think the last poll I saw was a slim majority in favor of expansion, but very slim.
One of the few presidential duties enumerated in the constitution is to fill judicial vacancies.McConnell had no power to not fill that seat.
He did.
His constitutional duty is to hold a vote on the president’s nominations.
Prove it.
One of the few presidential duties enumerated in the constitution is to fill judicial vacancies.
It is the constitutional duty of the Senate to confirm those nominees.
Link us up the Republicans adding seats to the court, liar.Damn son, you sure are thin skinned. Toughen up a bit.
Do you understand that saying the Republicans might stack the court is not compelling, because that already happened and will happen again, when Trump is elected?
Do you get that? Yes or no?
The popular vote is a window into where the nation is
And it ain’t Republican
Because those kinds of changes are never going to happen here. We are a two party nation, and the system is never going to go away from that, we are never going to have the proportional representation you are suggesting because the people who make up the two party system like having a two party system. Neither side is about to let any of that power go.Because I'm showing you how it works in other countries.
I'm literally talking about CHANGING THE US SYSTEM and you're complaining I'm talking about other systems?
What?
You keep acting like there can't be any change. And then if there is change, there wouldn't be change.
You're uninterested in learning about other systems... so you have no idea what change would do.
If you're not willing to try and understand, I'm not going to bother.
So, it's not Proportional Representation then?
When a person in one state has a vote that is many times stronger than a vote in another state, it's not even democracy, let alone Proportional Representation.
Hmm, I think the national popular vote still has some meaning. Doing something that most people don't want can be fraught.
Inconsequential?Sure, it has inconsequential meaning,
This now leaves the votes to the insurrectionists in the government. It is bizarre.
Inconsequential?
Have you not seen how congress people who you KNOW despise trump... Kiss his ring to get those votes? This has big consequences.
Let Trump lose by 20 million, see who kisses his ring, then.
But we are talking about two different things.
Because those kinds of changes are never going to happen here. We are a two party nation, and the system is never going to go away from that, we are never going to have the proportional representation you are suggesting because the people who make up the two party system like having a two party system. Neither side is about to let any of that power go.
No, it is. California has 39 million people, they have 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 584,000 people, they have 3 electoral votes.
Now, if you want to argue that California should have more representatives because of their population, that’s an argument to be had because as far as I’m aware, cotus simply says that there will be no less than 30,000 people for every 1 representative, if I read that correctly.
So, why California has only 55 electoral votes, I don’t know, you’ll have to ask them. Probably has something to do with caps being put on the number of representatives.
Really? Because I have seen their own words out of their own mouths. Have you?I’ve seen the left wing stories that CLAIM they are kissing his ring, but I’ve not seen any actual evidence that that is the case.
No, it is. California has 39 million people, they have 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 584,000 people, they have 3 electoral votes.
Now, if you want to argue that California should have more representatives because of their population, that’s an argument to be had because as far as I’m aware, cotus simply says that there will be no less than 30,000 people for every 1 representative, if I read that correctly.
So, why California has only 55 electoral votes, I don’t know, you’ll have to ask them. Probably has something to do with caps being put on the number of representatives.
No! Should Democrats be burned at the stake?
The Constitution “turned it over to Congress” in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, you raving lunatic.
Sigh...
They won't happen because people don't push for it, don't educate themselves.
You're not the first person to use the sort of excuses of "This isn't Europe" and "This isn't going to happen here"
You can either have the conversation about Proportional Representation, learn about it, see why it's far, far superior, then you can maybe, just maybe, have some control over your country.
The fact that so many people are resigned to their dictatorship and seem to like being in a dictatorship is kind of worrying.