President for life

[Bray Wyatt]

5 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

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? 

you still haven’t made the case imo that popular vote changes any of the tilting, it just changes the states, that one can win the popular vote and lose the election is by design, this was never supposed to be a direct democracy 

[billsfan89]

16 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

you still haven’t made the case imo that popular vote changes any of the tilting, it just changes the states, that one can win the popular vote and lose the election is by design, this was never supposed to be a direct democracy 

 

It does completely change the tilting. Elections wouldn't be about geography but about turnout. And getting turnout in a popular vote election is a lot easier because your vote isn't locked into a state that is winner take all (38 of whom aren't viable to switch parties.) Messaging would be far less geared towards 12 states. You would see ad buys and engagement in all 50 states. Yes would some states be more heavily favored? Yes but it wouldn't be locked to just 12 states. You would see much more engagement across the whole country because each persons vote counts. 

[billsfan89]

52 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

 

That is true, there were fringe elements on the left stating that George W Bush would start a war and declare martial law. But then you also had fringes on the right that also thought Obama would do that same thing. The only thing that makes Trump different (and I think it is a fringe possibility he demands a recount or does something weird) in my opinion is that he questioned weeks ahead of time the legitimacy of an election he won. 

[/dev/null]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

That is true, there were fringe elements on the left stating that George W Bush would start a war and declare martial law. But then you also had fringes on the right that also thought Obama would do that same thing. The only thing that makes Trump different (and I think it is a fringe possibility he demands a recount or does something weird) in my opinion is that he questioned weeks ahead of time the legitimacy of an election he won. 

 

And there was a mainstream element that wanted Clinton to remain as "Caretaker" until Florida could figure out how to declare Gore the winner

[Prickly Pete]

6 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

That is true, there were fringe elements on the left stating that George W Bush would start a war and declare martial law. But then you also had fringes on the right that also thought Obama would do that same thing. The only thing that makes Trump different (and I think it is a fringe possibility he demands a recount or does something weird) in my opinion is that he questioned weeks ahead of time the legitimacy of an election he won. 

 

Are you blind to the way the Democrats have been operating in Iowa, and the last Democratic Convention? 

I question any election involving them.

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, billsfan89 said:

However I don't think you are disenfranchising a voter in Nebraska in a popular vote contest.

 

Nebraska has 2 million people.

 

CA has 40 million people.

 

In a popular vote, you're not only disenfranchising Nebraska, you're turning them into CA's election toilet paper.

 

Right now, if Nebraska wants a different president than CA, they can play a role in that decision. With a popular vote you may as well tell Nebraska to go eff itself. No one would bother to campaign in that state.

 

I have no idea how you don't see the beauty of the electoral college, except that you're just not a fan of it when it doesn't work in your favor.

[billsfan89]

15 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Nebraska has 2 million people.

 

CA has 40 million people.

 

In a popular vote, you're not only disenfranchising Nebraska, you're turning them into CA's election toilet paper.

 

Right now, if Nebraska wants a different president than CA, they can play a role in that decision. With a popular vote you may as well tell Nebraska to go eff itself. No one would bother to campaign in that state.

 

I have no idea how you don't see the beauty of the electoral college, except that you're just not a fan of it when it doesn't work in your favor.

 

So in a popular vote where one person's vote in Nebraska counts the same as one person's vote in California makes it so that the people in Nebraska don't have a say? Is Nebraska that much better represented by have 3 electoral votes as opposed to California's 55 (An 18.5 to 1 margin?) It's not beautiful it is stupid to lock 38 states out of the process. A liberal in Nebraska has little reason to turn out as does a conservative in California. There is no beauty in the electoral college a system which produces 12 states that get campaigned in. 

 

The US has ridiculously low voter turnout and I think that is in part blamed on the electoral college. 

Edited February 8, 2020 by billsfan89

[IDBillzFan]

7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

So in a popular vote where one person's vote in Nebraska counts the same as one person's vote in California makes it so that the people in Nebraska don't have a say? Is Nebraska that much better represented by have 3 electoral votes as opposed to California's 55 (An 18.5 to 1 margin?) It's not beautiful it is stupid to lock 38 states out of the process. A liberal in Nebraska has little reason to turn out as does a conservative in California. There is no beauty in the electoral college a system which produces 12 states that get campaigned in. 

 

The US has ridiculously low voter turnout and I think that is in part blamed on the electoral college. 

 

Again, you don't see the beauty because it didn't yield the results you wanted.

 

 

You're entire belief about locking states out of the process is wrecked with one word: Wisconsin. One can only imagine if Hillary spent less time collecting money in CA and more time trying to navigate stairs in Wisconsin. Did the electoral college lock Wisconsin out of the process?

 

No. Hillary did. Hillary and money.

 

Look, you're taking this from an emotional standpoint because she lost.

 

 

Don't be emotional. Think of Wisconsin. Have some cheese. Maybe Hillary will visit it this time, once she gets the nod because the Dems screwed up the primaries. 

 

[CoudyBills]

2 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Again, you don't see the beauty because it didn't yield the results you wanted.

 

 

You're entire belief about locking states out of the process is wrecked with one word: Wisconsin. One can only imagine if Hillary spent less time collecting money in CA and more time trying to navigate stairs in Wisconsin. Did the electoral college lock Wisconsin out of the process?

 

No. Hillary did. Hillary and money.

 

Look, you're taking this from an emotional standpoint because she lost.

 

 

Don't be emotional. Think of Wisconsin. Have some cheese. Maybe Hillary will visit it this time, once she gets the nod because the Dems screwed up the primaries. 

 

***** gonna B word.

[/dev/null]

16 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Again, you don't see the beauty because it didn't yield the results you wanted.

 

 

You're entire belief about locking states out of the process is wrecked with one word: Wisconsin. One can only imagine if Hillary spent less time collecting money in CA and more time trying to navigate stairs in Wisconsin. Did the electoral college lock Wisconsin out of the process?

 

No. Hillary did. Hillary and money.

 

Look, you're taking this from an emotional standpoint because she lost.

 

 

Don't be emotional. Think of Wisconsin. Have some cheese. Maybe Hillary will visit it this time, once she gets the nod because the Dems screwed up the primaries. 

 

 

It's not Hiliary's fault she went to Wisconsin instead of California.  Those pesky Russian hackers messed with her GPS

[reddogblitz]

26 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

It's not Hiliary's fault she went to Wisconsin instead of California.  Those pesky Russian hackers messed with her GPS

 

Trump built a wall around WI so Hillary could not campaign there.

[US Egg]

“President for life”

 

Only the sensitive and frail fret over such a consternation.

[CoudyBills]

4 minutes ago, I am the egg man said:

“President for life”

 

Only the sensitive and frail fret over such a consternation.

All hail the orange man

[US Egg]

3 minutes ago, CoudyBills said:

All hail the orange man

No Cheetos for you !

[RaoulDuke79]

11 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

 

He's obese, has a diet of burgers, fries, and diet cokes, can't walk straight, consistently slurs his speech,  sniffs uncontrollably, and had a health scare at the end of 2019 he's doing his best to hide

 

Other that that - seems totally healthy

Please oh please post a picture of yourself so we can see the physical specimen you are? 

[LSHMEAB]

4 hours 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. 

I think the notion that non swing states wouldn't get proportionate attention is antiquated. That may have been an issue 200 years ago, but in the modern era, what difference would it make if a candidate didn't personally attend your state? I can switch over to Twitter RIGHT now to find out what's on Trump's mind. 

 

I don't think the founder's could have envisioned that scenario.

[billsfan89]

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Again, you don't see the beauty because it didn't yield the results you wanted.

 

 

You're entire belief about locking states out of the process is wrecked with one word: Wisconsin. One can only imagine if Hillary spent less time collecting money in CA and more time trying to navigate stairs in Wisconsin. Did the electoral college lock Wisconsin out of the process?

 

No. Hillary did. Hillary and money.

 

Look, you're taking this from an emotional standpoint because she lost.

 

 

Don't be emotional. Think of Wisconsin. Have some cheese. Maybe Hillary will visit it this time, once she gets the nod because the Dems screwed up the primaries. 

 

 

***** Hillary, her being a terrible candidate has nothing to do with the merit of the electoral college. Once again how are conservatives in California and Liberals in Alabama better served by this beautiful system. How is Nebtaska's 3 electoral votes better than 2 million individual votes? 

 

Conservatives are supposed to love individual liberty but you seem to love the collective nature of the electoral college.

7 minutes ago, LSHMEAB said:

I think the notion that non swing states wouldn't get proportionate attention is antiquated. That may have been an issue 200 years ago, but in the modern era, what difference would it make if a candidate didn't personally attend your state? I can switch over to Twitter RIGHT now to find out what's on Trump's mind. 

 

I don't think the founder's could have envisioned that scenario.

 

Policy is also shifted heavily towards swing states. It completely neutralizes much of the nation.

[CoudyBills]

37 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

Please oh please post a picture of yourself so we can see the physical specimen you are? 

Hahaha.  That would never happen.  I am intrigued by this 2019 health scare?  Just like LTC Vindman, Trump is attended by a navy doc with sterling character.  Or does his doctor not have sterling character because he doesn't spew Gary's party line.  

Edited February 8, 2020 by CoudyBills

[Koko78]

8 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

 

 

Ugh, do you SEE that garish out-of-style fugly bag the hussie in black is carrying? So tacky.

1 hour ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

Please oh please post a picture of yourself so we can see the physical specimen you are? 

 

[Warren Zevon]

17 hours ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

Please oh please post a picture of yourself so we can see the physical specimen you are?