President for life

[billsfan89]

24 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I missed part of your earlier post, soooo...

 

JW Lies and smears!? They have been about the only entity that was able to take the Obama administration to court for paperwork and win. They do fight for FOIAs, against voter fraud, and have been pretty vigilant in getting the word out on both. Transparency and fairness seem to be their aim.

 

They also lost a lot of lawsuits and seem to have a strategy to carpet bomb courts. Trump's own investigation into the matter turned up Nothing, let alone 3 million illegal votes all going to one political party 

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Nobody from the Trump family is getting paid. Trump obviously has great faith in Ivanka and Jered Kushner and the items they've worked on have either been successes or show promise. Any other family members have stuck to the political side. 

 

And Hunter Biden did nothing illegal. Letter of the law vs intent of the law. 

[Bray Wyatt]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Right now it isn' like the smaller states get better represented than the larger ones in the electoral college. North Carolina, Ohio, Penn, Michigan and Florida (all key swing states) are states in the top 10 in terms of population. Other swing states like Virginia (12th), Minnesota (22nd) Wisconsin (20th) are well within the top half. The only smaller states that are in the swing states are Iowa (31st), Nevada (32nd) and New Hampshire (42nd.) 

 

So it isn't restoring power to the smaller states. You would see the national priorities shift in a major way if each state was given a say in the election. It would be completely different for our politics to get rid of preferring 12 states many of whom aren't small under represented states. 

 

I wasnt making that argument, and perhaps should have had a modifier on my second statement. Its not about making it equal or getting them better represented, but to make it more difficult on the larger states to force their will upon the smaller ones.

 

Changing it to the popular vote just changes which states are the focus, and doesnt make it more inclusive as you suggest

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

They also lost a lot of lawsuits and seem to have a strategy to carpet bomb courts. Trump's own investigation into the matter turned up Nothing, let alone 3 million illegal votes all going to one political party 

 

And Hunter Biden did nothing illegal. Letter of the law vs intent of the law. 

It's certainly possible that Hunter Biden did nothing illegal but in that case there's a good chance that Joe Biden did something illegal and conspired with his son. 

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

I wasnt making that argument, and perhaps should have had a modifier on my second statement. Its not about making it equal or getting them better represented, but to make it more difficult on the larger states to force their will upon the smaller ones.

 

Changing it to the popular vote just changes which states are the focus, and doesnt make it more inclusive as you suggest

 

It makes it much more inclusive. My vote as a voter in Nebraska counts just as much as a vote in California. They are literally given equal weights. Whereas if my state goes to the opposition party I give 0 support to my candidate. Yes smaller states would see less attention than larger states but that is a better method of which states candidates should be campaigning in than 12 seemingly random states many of whom are bigger in population anyway. I think you would see much greater voter turnout because conservatives in heavy liberal states would feel the need to support a general candidate as opposed to thinking well my vote doesn't matter my state will go to the Dem anyway and vice versa. 

[Bob in Mich]

21 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Per V.I.P.S. it was determined that the speed of the supposed "hack" could not have been done over the internet and had to be done by a direct transfer of information. In other words someone downloaded that information directly from a computer onto an external drive. 

I have heard you claim this several times.  Why do you think the investigators have discounted this point?

[billsfan89]

2 minutes ago, Jaraxxus said:

Translation:

 

I wish to blindly believe what my progressive media masters tell me, despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

 

So I shouldn't be skeptical that a board that is insanely conservative might not give a clear representation of the accuracy and fairness of a heavily right wing organization that the sample size from a  conservative board might not be the most accurate way to judge it? 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

I have heard you claim this several times.  Why do you think the investigators have discounted ignored this point?

FIFY

[Bray Wyatt]

38 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

It makes it much more inclusive. My vote as a voter in Nebraska counts just as much as a vote in California. They are literally given equal weights. Whereas if my state goes to the opposition party I give 0 support to my candidate. Yes smaller states would see less attention than larger states but that is a better method of which states candidates should be campaigning in than 12 seemingly random states many of whom are bigger in population anyway. I think you would see much greater voter turnout because conservatives in heavy liberal states would feel the need to support a general candidate as opposed to thinking well my vote doesn't matter my state will go to the Dem anyway and vice versa. 

You would still have disenfranchisement among voters in smaller states, this may sound like a good idea in theory but in practice it wouldn’t work the same way. Their voice wouldn’t matter to candidates as they wouldn’t be campaigning there (like what happens now with swing states) the candidates would focus their policies on the bigger states (like what happens now, but toward swing states), and the election would come down to 12 states or so just like now. 
 

there was a reason they designed the system this way, they decided to err on the other side of the equation and I believe for good reason. States are supposed to have power and say in the elections. They also can choose how their electoral votes are delegated. If states want to divvy up their votes proportional to the popular vote they can do so, but not many states are doing that (I think one does? but by doing so they are forfeiting some power). 

 

this isn’t a party thing either, debates about this go back to Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams when it first happened. They haven’t changed it since, so why would they now? You say republicans don’t want to bc it helps their side (paraphrasing) but the opposite side of the coin can be true as well and that the dems only want it changed bc it helps theirs

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

I have heard you claim this several times.  Why do you think the investigators have discounted this point?

 

They haven't. In fact, they have gone out of their way to avoid definitively answering that exact question. The only report which did confirm it was the ICA in January of '17 -- which has since been proven to bunk, a political document rather than an honest intelligence assessment. 

 

 

Edited February 7, 2020 by Deranged Rhino

[billsfan89]

4 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

You would still have disenfranchisement among voters in smaller states, this may sound like a good idea in theory but in practice it wouldn’t work the same way. Their voice wouldn’t matter to candidates as they wouldn’t be campaigning there (like what happens now with swing states) the candidates would focus their policies on the bigger states (like what happens now, but toward swing states), and the election would come down to 12 states or so just like now. 
 

there was a reason they designed the system this way, they decided to err on the other side of the equation and I believe for good reason. States are supposed to have power and say in the elections. They also can choose how their electoral votes are delegated. If states want to divvy up their votes proportional to the popular vote they can do so, but not many states are doing that (I think one does? but by doing so they are forfeiting some power). 

 

this isn’t a party thing either, debates about this go back to Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams when it first happened. They haven’t changed it since, so why would they now? You say republicans don’t want to bc it helps their side (paraphrasing) but the opposite side of the coin can be true as well and that the dems only want it changed bc it helps theirs

 

 

 

I agree that it isn't going to happen because it has now become a partisan issue (I think had Kerry won in 2004 without the popular vote then it would have a chance of changing since it would mean both parties got screwed by it.) I think the electoral college is stupid on principle of it locking out 38 states from the process, I honestly wouldn't care if it helped liberals or not. 

 

However I don't think you are disenfranchising a voter in Nebraska in a popular vote contest. Their vote counts the same each vote goes to the national total for their candidate. It engages more people in the process to know that their vote goes toward the total of their candidate as opposed to being locked into a state that (with the exception of Maine) is a winner take all affair. It engages turnout because you don't have the mentality of 38 states feeling like they have a 95% chance of their vote not mattering. 

[/dev/null]

57 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

So I shouldn't be skeptical that a board that is insanely conservative might not give a clear representation of the accuracy and fairness of a heavily right wing organization that the sample size from a  conservative board might not be the most accurate way to judge it? 

 

I love how you characterize PPP as a "conservative board".  It's the political sub forum of a football message board, meant to keep political arguments off the main board and general conversation boards

 

anyone is welcome to contribute to PPP.  we've had folks of all political persuasions come thru here full of piss and vinegar only to leave with their tail between their legs or in a huff declaring victory.

[Bray Wyatt]

8 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

I agree that it isn't going to happen because it has now become a partisan issue (I think had Kerry won in 2004 without the popular vote then it would have a chance of changing since it would mean both parties got screwed by it.) I think the electoral college is stupid on principle of it locking out 38 states from the process, I honestly wouldn't care if it helped liberals or not. 

 

However I don't think you are disenfranchising a voter in Nebraska in a popular vote contest. Their vote counts the same each vote goes to the national total for their candidate. It engages more people in the process to know that their vote goes toward the total of their candidate as opposed to being locked into a state that (with the exception of Maine) is a winner take all affair. It engages turnout because you don't have the mentality of 38 states feeling like they have a 95% chance of their vote not mattering. 

The system is working how our fore fathers intended, if states want to change how their electoral votes are assigned they can. 
 

why do you think the states haven’t made this change?

[BillsFanNC]

Let's see..

 

The Donald 2020

 

Don Jr. 2024, 2028

 

Ivanka 2032, 2036

 

Eric 2040, 2044

 

Tiffany 2048, 2052

 

Baron 2056, 2060.

 

Maybe not forever, but how about we do the next 44 years?

 

Of course this is tongue in cheek, but even if it wasnt it's still infinitely less ridiculous than the premise of this thread.

[/dev/null]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

Let's see..

 

The Donald 2020

 

Don Jr. 2024, 2028

 

Ivanka 2032, 2036

 

Eric 2040, 2044

 

Tiffany 2048, 2052

 

Baron 2056, 2060.

 

Maybe not forever, but how about we do the next 44 years?

 

Of course this is tongue in cheek, but even if it wasnt it's still infinitely less ridiculous than the premise of this thread.

 

As long as I have a face, Ivanka and Tiffany Trump will have somewhere to sit

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

As long as I have a face, Ivanka and Tiffany Trump will have somewhere to sit

If only you were two-faced. 

[reddogblitz]

I have heard this idea that if Trump loses he won't leave.  Bill Maher is big on this one.

 

My feeling is that if the election is certified and the electoral college thing done and Donald says he ain't leaving, immediately after the swearing in ceremony, there will be a cop knock on the Oval Office door followed by a door break in and a concussion grenade and he will be physically removed.

[/dev/null]

15 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

I have heard this idea that if Trump loses he won't leave.  Bill Maher is big on this one.

 

My feeling is that if the election is certified and the electoral college thing done and Donald says he ain't leaving, immediately after the swearing in ceremony, there will be a cop knock on the Oval Office door followed by a door break in and a concussion grenade and he will be physically removed.

 

There was a similar hysteria in 2008 that the last super mecha literal hitler was going to either cancel the 2008 elections or use the military to prevent the obamassiah from healing the earth

[4merper4mer]

3 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

There was a similar hysteria in 2008 that the last super mecha literal hitler was going to either cancel the 2008 elections or use the military to prevent the obamassiah from healing the earth

And people also claimed Clinton and Obama wouldn't leave.  It's a joke.

[Wacka]

Remember everything the Dems say is projection. Everything they claim a Repub is doing, they do it first and twice as much.

[billsfan89]

52 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

The system is working how our fore fathers intended, if states want to change how their electoral votes are assigned they can. 
 

why do you think the states haven’t made this change?

 

Sates aren't going to make the change to how their electoral votes are changed because once again it has become a partisan issue. I really don't think our forefathers really intended for 12 states to dominate 50. that would be the equivalent of 2 colonies deciding the elections of 13. I don't think anyone would want that type of system by design. 

 

Just because it is a partisan issue that is gridlocked doesn't justify the existence of the system as being the best system for elections. Once again do you think it is right that our nations policies are heavily tilted towards 12 states. that candidates don't campaign in 38 states and that you can lose the popular vote by 5% and lose an election?