Why can't liberals comprehend this is the United States of America??

[Uncensored2008]

[
Very interesting self analysis of yourself.

Was that sentence crafted by the department of redundancy department?

Of course it has nothing to do with my post, but thanks for sharing.

 

[Redfish]

Oh crap this is going to

its what she does best. post bullshit dem/lib talking points. she has zero credibility. candidate for the ignore list.

Yup a drone.

No liberal poster is like this accept they are paid I had more fun arguing with truth matters ..NY is getting mad at me because she can't out debate me

liberals always lose when the facts are presented.

Ya know I always thought liberals are supposed to care. Have compassion.


Hell I have more than that and some more.


OK let's get back to my OP

Let's quit picking on NY because I actually like her.

I'm male fucktard.

You are a liberal.. I thought your type Is gender neutral.?

No such thing in the liberal vocabularies as males and females?

ze claims to be male--------------------

 

[Redfish]

You're just assuming I'm as intellectually lazy as you are. I read a bunch of those on the history of the electoral college and all of them said the founders wanted it to be up to the States how to allocate their electors. Your claim they wanted to dictate to the States how to do it then they forgot to say that was unsupported. That's why I asked you for a link. I always do research before asking for a link. Ironic since you make claims without researching them.

Here's how you source a link. You provide the quote for the part you're claiming that the founding fathers wanted States to allocate their electors proportionally and somehow forgot to put that in the rules. Then you provide the link to support that. You're welcome.

I don't read here's a link, read it all and figure out what I am arguing for yourself on principle. So I will pass. Provide the quote and back it up with the link, lazy ass.

Edit: I pulled up the link and already read that one before you posted it. It doesn't support your claim. You insult me and post a long link with no quote that doesn't support your claim. That article says nothing about the founders wanting proportional allocation. I know that because I already read it. You are so full of shit it's hilarious ...

They wanted electors to cast their vote for the congressional district they represented. And no, the founders said it left it up to the states on who they picked for their electors for the DISTRICT....

You seem to think electors were picked after the people chose a president with a statewide popular vote in a winner take all....

THIS WAS NOT HOW it was done for our first 4 Presidencies.....slates of electors by party was not our founders intent, but the opposite of their intent

then get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified by 38 states. Without that, nothing is going to change. Deal with that reality.

please kindly follow the thread dearest...

It doesn't take a constitutional Amendment for States to allocate their electors' votes individually by district silly, it simply takes the State to do it, like Maine and Nebraska did it.

true, but your earlier push was to eliminate the EC. So, have you started a campaign in every state to allocate EC votes? How about California? Do you really want to go there? Look at the red vs blue on the voting map in Ca. Do it by county and trump wins, do it by congressional district and trump wins.

learn how to read....I've NEVER EVER pushed for the electoral college to be removed or eliminated.... I've only pushed for the founders intent, Electors representing a voting district, have their vote individually count and represented, in the election.... not this winner take all thingy that the States initiated later on...

Ok, great. Trump still wins. Whats your point?

 

[Care4all]

They wanted electors to cast their vote for the congressional district they represented. And no, the founders said it left it up to the states on who they picked for their electors for the DISTRICT....

You seem to think electors were picked after the people chose a president with a statewide popular vote in a winner take all....

THIS WAS NOT HOW it was done for our first 4 Presidencies.....slates of electors by party was not our founders intent, but the opposite of their intent

then get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified by 38 states. Without that, nothing is going to change. Deal with that reality.

please kindly follow the thread dearest...

It doesn't take a constitutional Amendment for States to allocate their electors' votes individually by district silly, it simply takes the State to do it, like Maine and Nebraska did it.

true, but your earlier push was to eliminate the EC. So, have you started a campaign in every state to allocate EC votes? How about California? Do you really want to go there? Look at the red vs blue on the voting map in Ca. Do it by county and trump wins, do it by congressional district and trump wins.

learn how to read....I've NEVER EVER pushed for the electoral college to be removed or eliminated.... I've only pushed for the founders intent, Electors representing a voting district, have their vote individually count and represented, in the election.... not this winner take all thingy that the States initiated later on...

Ok, great. Trump still wins. Whats your point?

my point is, that the right wing partisan hacks should not be so AFRAID to have states remove the winner takes all elector system....and have the voting district electors go to the candidate that won their district.....

IT STILL gives the smaller states an advantage and Republicans can still win elections, even if they don't win the majority in the big states with big cities....because they win so many smaller states, and get 2 extra electors for each of those smaller states.

 

[AntonToo]

Are you seriously saying that liberals don't actually know what America has states?

Seriously?

Well look at all these threads bitching about the EC? Of course they don't know

The topic is FEDERAL Presidency.

Yes, people who oppose EC do know of states, to say otherwise is simply stupid.

without the EC, four states would pick our presidents---TX, FL, NY, and CA. the voters in the rest of the 46 states would have no voice. Does that sound "fair" to you as a liberal?

No true, those four states have a large population but still add up to only about 30% of total.

But IF those 4 states were indeed where most of Americans live, then no, it would not be unfair for them to decide election.

I can see "but my little-people-alot-of-land state wants to be relevant too!" argument which is why I don't have strong opinion on EC either way, but you have to understand that the "not fair" part about that is it dilutes the big state vote. Meaning a person's vote in Montana is worth more than a vote in Texas or New York.

There is not going to be an absolutely fair arrangement here from every perspective..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Oh crap this is going to

Yup a drone.

No liberal poster is like this accept they are paid I had more fun arguing with truth matters ..NY is getting mad at me because she can't out debate me

liberals always lose when the facts are presented.

Ya know I always thought liberals are supposed to care. Have compassion.


Hell I have more than that and some more.


OK let's get back to my OP

Let's quit picking on NY because I actually like her.

I'm male fucktard.

You are a liberal.. I thought your type Is gender neutral.?

No such thing in the liberal vocabularies as males and females?

ze claims to be male--------------------

I am not the only one no way NY is a male.

 

[Redfish]

then get a constitutional amendment passed and ratified by 38 states. Without that, nothing is going to change. Deal with that reality.

please kindly follow the thread dearest...

It doesn't take a constitutional Amendment for States to allocate their electors' votes individually by district silly, it simply takes the State to do it, like Maine and Nebraska did it.

true, but your earlier push was to eliminate the EC. So, have you started a campaign in every state to allocate EC votes? How about California? Do you really want to go there? Look at the red vs blue on the voting map in Ca. Do it by county and trump wins, do it by congressional district and trump wins.

learn how to read....I've NEVER EVER pushed for the electoral college to be removed or eliminated.... I've only pushed for the founders intent, Electors representing a voting district, have their vote individually count and represented, in the election.... not this winner take all thingy that the States initiated later on...

Ok, great. Trump still wins. Whats your point?

my point is, that the right wing partisan hacks should not be so AFRAID to have states remove the winner takes all elector system....and have the voting district electors go to the candidate that won their district.....

IT STILL gives the smaller states an advantage and Republicans can still win elections, even if they don't win the majority in the big states with big cities....because they win so many smaller states, and get 2 extra electors for each of those smaller states.

great, then get each state legislature to pass a law changing it. Go for it.

I have explained to you that in the current election your system would result in the same result, possibly even more one sided for Trump.

What exactly do you think would be gained by making this change?

 

[Redfish]

Are you seriously saying that liberals don't actually know what America has states?

Seriously?

Well look at all these threads bitching about the EC? Of course they don't know

The topic is FEDERAL Presidency.

Yes, people who oppose EC do know of states, to say otherwise is simply stupid.

without the EC, four states would pick our presidents---TX, FL, NY, and CA. the voters in the rest of the 46 states would have no voice. Does that sound "fair" to you as a liberal?

No true, those four states have a large population but still add up to only about 30% of total.

But IF those 4 states were indeed where most of Americans live, then no, it would not be unfair for them to decide election.

I can see "but my little-people-alot-of-land state wants to be relevant too!" argument which is why I don't have strong opinion on EC either way, but you have to understand that the "not fair" part about that is it dilutes the big state vote. Meaning a person's vote in Montana is worth more than a vote in Texas or New York.

There is not going to be an absolutely fair arrangement here from every perspective..

what we have works just fine. If the hildebeast had won you libs would never have brought this up--------------and you know it.

 

[Redfish]

Oh crap this is going to

liberals always lose when the facts are presented.

Ya know I always thought liberals are supposed to care. Have compassion.


Hell I have more than that and some more.


OK let's get back to my OP

Let's quit picking on NY because I actually like her.

I'm male fucktard.

You are a liberal.. I thought your type Is gender neutral.?

No such thing in the liberal vocabularies as males and females?

ze claims to be male--------------------

I am not the only one no way NY is a male.

possibly a girly man.

 

[AntonToo]

Are you seriously saying that liberals don't actually know what America has states?

Seriously?

Well look at all these threads bitching about the EC? Of course they don't know

The topic is FEDERAL Presidency.

Yes, people who oppose EC do know of states, to say otherwise is simply stupid.

without the EC, four states would pick our presidents---TX, FL, NY, and CA. the voters in the rest of the 46 states would have no voice. Does that sound "fair" to you as a liberal?

No true, those four states have a large population but still add up to only about 30% of total.

But IF those 4 states were indeed where most of Americans live, then no, it would not be unfair for them to decide election.

I can see "but my little-people-alot-of-land state wants to be relevant too!" argument which is why I don't have strong opinion on EC either way, but you have to understand that the "not fair" part about that is it dilutes the big state vote. Meaning a person's vote in Montana is worth more than a vote in Texas or New York.

There is not going to be an absolutely fair arrangement here from every perspective..

what we have works just fine. If the hildebeast had won you libs would never have brought this up--------------and you know it.

Umm yea because she would have won both EC and popular vote, so conversation would be moot for both sides.

 

[Redfish]

Well look at all these threads bitching about the EC? Of course they don't know

The topic is FEDERAL Presidency.

Yes, people who oppose EC do know of states, to say otherwise is simply stupid.

without the EC, four states would pick our presidents---TX, FL, NY, and CA. the voters in the rest of the 46 states would have no voice. Does that sound "fair" to you as a liberal?

No true, those four states have a large population but still add up to only about 30% of total.

But IF those 4 states were indeed where most of Americans live, then no, it would not be unfair for them to decide election.

I can see "but my little-people-alot-of-land state wants to be relevant too!" argument which is why I don't have strong opinion on EC either way, but you have to understand that the "not fair" part about that is it dilutes the big state vote. Meaning a person's vote in Montana is worth more than a vote in Texas or New York.

There is not going to be an absolutely fair arrangement here from every perspective..

what we have works just fine. If the hildebeast had won you libs would never have brought this up--------------and you know it.

Umm yea because she would have won both EC and popular vote, so conversation would be moot for both sides.

maybe, maybe not. either way it doesn't matter. The bitch lost, its over, the Clinton crime family will never be in power again and the USA is better off.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well look at all these threads bitching about the EC? Of course they don't know

The topic is FEDERAL Presidency.

Yes, people who oppose EC do know of states, to say otherwise is simply stupid.

without the EC, four states would pick our presidents---TX, FL, NY, and CA. the voters in the rest of the 46 states would have no voice. Does that sound "fair" to you as a liberal?

No true, those four states have a large population but still add up to only about 30% of total.

But IF those 4 states were indeed where most of Americans live, then no, it would not be unfair for them to decide election.

I can see "but my little-people-alot-of-land state wants to be relevant too!" argument which is why I don't have strong opinion on EC either way, but you have to understand that the "not fair" part about that is it dilutes the big state vote. Meaning a person's vote in Montana is worth more than a vote in Texas or New York.

There is not going to be an absolutely fair arrangement here from every perspective..

what we have works just fine. If the hildebeast had won you libs would never have brought this up--------------and you know it.

Umm yea because she would have won both EC and popular vote, so conversation would be moot for both sides.

Lmfao how old are you? What did you go brain dead after 16 fucking years,?

 

[Redfish]

The topic is FEDERAL Presidency.

Yes, people who oppose EC do know of states, to say otherwise is simply stupid.

without the EC, four states would pick our presidents---TX, FL, NY, and CA. the voters in the rest of the 46 states would have no voice. Does that sound "fair" to you as a liberal?

No true, those four states have a large population but still add up to only about 30% of total.

But IF those 4 states were indeed where most of Americans live, then no, it would not be unfair for them to decide election.

I can see "but my little-people-alot-of-land state wants to be relevant too!" argument which is why I don't have strong opinion on EC either way, but you have to understand that the "not fair" part about that is it dilutes the big state vote. Meaning a person's vote in Montana is worth more than a vote in Texas or New York.

There is not going to be an absolutely fair arrangement here from every perspective..

what we have works just fine. If the hildebeast had won you libs would never have brought this up--------------and you know it.

Umm yea because she would have won both EC and popular vote, so conversation would be moot for both sides.

Lmfao how old are you? What did you go brain dead after 16 fucking years,?

the liberals on this board are either very very stupid or very very indoctrinated with bullshit---------------or maybe both.

what they don't get is if the EC votes in each state were apportioned, the candidates would have campaigned in Cal, NY, and TX. There is no way to predict the result because the entire system would be different.

The poor snowflakes are just sooooooooooooo hurt that their heroine lost that they are scambling like rats in a barrel trying to create scenarios under which she might win.

 

[Pogo]

the liberals on this board are either very very stupid or very very indoctrinated with bullshit---------------or maybe both.

what they don't get is if the EC votes in each state were apportioned, the candidates would have campaigned in Cal, NY, and TX. There is no way to predict the result because the entire system would be different.

No Shit Sherlock. I said that all along.

That was never the point and nobody made it. You just can't handle what the point actually is.