Jump to content
Tobes

General Politics Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

please show me some sort of evidence that backs up these claims. no infowars/breibart articles either

Well how else will you have any chance at getting truth?

 

 

Don't give us CNN ABC NBC nyt,. None of that will fly anymore.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

please show me some sort of evidence that backs up these claims. no infowars/breibart articles either 

I don't need evidence. The state is a giant cesspool, so that speaks for itself.

 

Share this post


Link to post

But you believe a story from any of her super PACs. After all they have big letters for the names.

If you don't have multiple legit sources for a story then it's most likely not true.

 

No one gives a fuck what brietbart has to say.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@GFH  I feel like I need to explain this because you've clearly shown in here that you have no fucking clue how the electoral college works lol.

 

we live in the...              United STATES of America.

 

The prez is elected by the states... not the people.  The general election simply allow the citizens of each state to inform their state's electors what the citizens want (based on popular vote).  Each state gets 2 electoral votes for prez simply for being a state.  In an attempt to make it more fair for the heavily populated states (commiefornia), each state is allowed additional electoral votes based on population.

 

Its fair and balanced and allows each state to stay relevant in the overall election.  If the president was simply decided by total votes across the nation the entire midwest would be irrelevant and never see a presidential campaign for the rest of time.  

 

no idea why you guys are arguing about illegals voting in commiefornia either.  that state is drenched in left wing, toxic garbage... it's not just the mexicans that swing it left.

 

i know how it works thanks. Every state gets two senators regardless of population and certain amount of representatives based on population. States already have enough representation and I think that a position that represents the nation as a whole should be voted in by popular vote. 

 

and with the way the electoral college is set up,  campaigns only focus on a handful of battle ground states anyways so it's not like it would be much different with out it. at least the places that contain the most people would get the most attention

Share this post


Link to post

States already have enough representation and I think that a position that represents the nation as a whole should be voted in by popular vote. 

 

 

'represent the nation as a whole'   but you are arguing for the United States president to basically represent CA, TX, PA, NY and FLA.

 

I don't know why I'm wasting my time with this lol.

 

and with the way the electoral college is set up,  campaigns only focus on a handful of battle ground states anyways so it's not like it would be much different with out it. at least the places that contain the most people would get the most attention

 
that strategy worked out really well for HRC!  
 
Trump was everywhere...  and won.  By the way, battleground states are constantly evolving and shifting.  California elected Reagan as governor once upon a time if I remember correctly.
 
I hope you're trolling.

Share this post


Link to post

Electoral college makes sense. It's logical. It helps prevent the election from being decided by fraud and makes sure that every state matters. States that are giant cesspools filled with descendants of illegals should not decide presidential elections. There is no reason to campaign heavily in states that have a "mob mentality" and will vote blue or red no matter what.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The electoral college is meant to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Giving every states representatives puts demographics on an equal ground. At least that's how I've seen it all these years.

 

Maybe we could have it not be winner take all in each state, but I doubt that'll happen.

Share this post


Link to post

I would be okay with winning the majority vote awarding the winner a certain number of electoral votes but the electoral system is obviously needed

Share this post


Link to post

... but you are arguing for the United States president to basically represent CA, TX, PA, NY and FLA.

 

This ^

 

 

If they still don't get it after this simple explanation, they never will.

Share this post


Link to post

Jeff Sessions as Attorney General proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump is not taking this President thing seriously. 

Share this post


Link to post

Jeff Sessions as Attorney General proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Trump is not taking this President thing seriously. 

lol so in other words, he'll have great success? I think we should check to see what the polls say... 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

'represent the nation as a whole'   but you are arguing for the United States president to basically represent CA, TX, PA, NY and FLA.

 

 

I'm arguing for the president the represent the popular vote of the entire country. just bc a lot of people live in those states doesn't mean that their votes should be counted as less. this current system it's not democratic at all.

 

I'm done arguing this. 

  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm arguing for the president the represent the popular vote of the entire country. just bc a lot of people live in those states doesn't mean that their votes should be counted as less. this current system it's not democratic at all.

 

I'm done arguing this. 

 

do you even fucking read?

 

ELECTORAL VOTES.  they are based on a states population!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

gaaaaaaa i must be taking crazy pills!!!!!!!!!

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

A "dumbfuck", I might argue, is someone who doesn't realize how long public education has been around - through huge peaks and valleys in America's economy and educational standing.

What does that have to do with the current state of government education? I'm not interested in the past. Government education is currently a failure.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

lol so in other words, he'll have great success? I think we should check to see what the polls say... 

 

Not everyone who wins the Presidency is fit for it. 

Share this post


Link to post

What does that have to do with the current state of government education? I'm not interested in the past. Government education is currently a failure.

 

Kind of an important operative word. 

Share this post


Link to post

I'm arguing for the president the represent the popular vote of the entire country. just bc a lot of people live in those states doesn't mean that their votes should be counted as less. this current system it's not democratic at all.

 

I'm done arguing this. 

$_35.JPG?set_id=880000500F

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Also, there is literally no rational argument for the electoral college in a country that has a Constitution with a shit-ton of enumerated rights. 

 

Just because the minority is a fractional bit stronger doesn't mean the majority couldn't theoretically still stomp on them...except I can't think of a single instance in which that has directly happened through Presidential voting. 

Share this post


Link to post

Also, there is literally no rational argument for the electoral college in a country that has a Constitution with a shit-ton of enumerated rights. 

 

Just because the minority is a fractional bit stronger doesn't mean the majority couldn't theoretically still stomp on them...except I can't think of a single instance in which that has directly happened through Presidential voting. 

 

yep, you officially think you are smarter than all of our founding fathers combined.  god bless you.

 

its funny how every liberal is against the electoral college now that Hillary won the popular vote and lost the election.  I can't help but wonder what they would be saying if it was vise versa.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Billy-D_Approves.gif

 

I can always count on strong rebukes here. 

 

do i need to explain my reasoning for like the 40th time?

 

 

lol

 

reading is for fags

Share this post


Link to post

Well first of all the founding fathers aren't infallible gods and even they anticipated things about their system of government would change.

 

Second I can't help but wonder what it would be like if Hillary lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.  I think everyone would be singing a different tune.

Share this post


Link to post

do i need to explain my reasoning for like the 40th time?

 

 

lol

 

reading is for fags

 

You didn't explain why it's necessary or how it's come to play out effectively through history. You just explained how the system works. 

 

People vote, not land masses. Constitutional amendments need to be ratified by two-thirds of the states. There are almost no rights-based issues that can be meddled with by a simple 51% majority. And you completely ignored my point about the voting majority, where's the acceptable fulcrum? A President can win both the popular and electoral votes by slim margins - so that suddenly gives the executive branch a free pass to fuck with the rest of the country? Your outrage is numerically arbitrary.  

Share this post


Link to post

Well first of all the founding fathers aren't infallible gods and even they anticipated things about their system of government would change.

 

Second I can't help but wonder what it would be like if Hillary lost the popular vote but won the electoral college.  I think everyone would be singing a different tune.

you're absolutely right, but she didn't win, so hypothetical situations don't excuse people from acting like a child... 

 

If Trump would have lost there would still be protests!!! okay? He won, so you can't argue in hypotheticals without sounding irrational. 

 

It is what it is though, people needed to be prepared for their candidate to lose... I know I wouldn't be happy with Clinton as president, but in a fair election, the first to 270 wins... so if she did that, she would be our president-elect, and I've have no choice but to respect the will of the American people.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy.