You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Look, neither of these guys should have even been the nominees let alone pres.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
I just saw that the voter recount in Wisconsin led to MORE votes for Trump and unconvered voter fraud (in favor for Hillary) in Detroit.
Re: US Politics Thread
I just looked it up and it was three-tenths of 1% of abnormalities found of the vote in Detroit. And just over a 100 more votes found for Trump in Wisconsin. Not exactly breaking news material. It had zero impact on anything but is concerning when they said the computer system was failsafe.
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
I just looked it up and it was three-tenths of 1% of abnormalities found of the vote in Detroit. And just over a 100 more votes found for Trump in Wisconsin. Not exactly breaking news material. It had zero impact on anything but is concerning when they said the computer system was failsafe.
Mr. ID, good fair answer.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Guess I'm not the only one who knows why the Democrats are suddenly against the electoral college:
- Smoking Guns
- Rep: 330
Re: US Politics Thread
Guess I'm not the only one who knows why the Democrats are suddenly against the electoral college:
Well, he is exactly right. This is why they want amnesty. Not because they care for the Mexicans but to lock up their vote. Very shameful.
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:Guess I'm not the only one who knows why the Democrats are suddenly against the electoral college:
Well, he is exactly right. This is why they want amnesty. Not because they care for the Mexicans but to lock up their vote. Very shameful.
Is it as shameful is the gerrymandering that has gone on at the state level over the past eight years? Is it a shameful as the consolidation of the angry white vote that Trump won on? Surely other demographics voted for Trump, but he had the angry white vote in his pocket from the get go.
I'm sure none of those things bother you because they help you win. I'm sure none of those things bother you because the ends justify the means for you. But I will not be called shameful for wanting to make voting easier not more difficult. I'm sure you will always find a way to justify not allowing people to vote that will vote against your cause. That will always be OK with you in the hypocritical Republican Party.
Again, I will go on record as a registered Democrat that I am not for abolishing the electoral college. However, if your political parties going to continue to restrict voting and make it more difficult for people, then I get more inclined to abolish it.
However, it must be admitted that the electoral college is arbitrary to some degree. In addition, as I've mentioned before in this thread, twice in my lifetime now has my candidate with the popular vote lost the election. You conservative Republicans don't give a shit about that because you been the beneficiary of the slight bias in the electoral college twice now in the last five elections. Not only does that not give you pause, you're proud of it as though the electoral college was there to make sure your political party wins regardless of the popular vote.
It's stupid. It's just plain stupid that you're unwilling to admit all of those faults listed above and then call Democrats shameful for wanting to abolish the electoral college.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
No, I don't support it because it favors Republicans. I favor it because that's what the constitution says and I like the concept of states. Look at how skewed California is in their voting in this past election. Almost 62% of the state voted for her whereas the nation as a whole was split almost 50/50. States have their own culture and beliefs, so just because California has ballooned the past 50 years or so, doesn't mean its culture should dictate how folks in Wyoming live. California alone accounts for 10% of the EC, so it's getting its fair representation in a system that recognizes states.
And this wouldn't even have been an issue if Clinton ran a competent campaign and stepped foot in Wisconsin and spent any time in PA and Michigan outside of Philly and Detroit.
Re: US Politics Thread
No, I don't support it because it favors Republicans. I favor it because that's what the constitution says and I like the concept of states. Look at how skewed California is in their voting in this past election. Almost 62% of the state voted for her whereas the nation as a whole was split almost 50/50. States have their own culture and beliefs, so just because California has ballooned the past 50 years or so, doesn't mean its culture should dictate how folks in Wyoming live. California alone accounts for 10% of the EC, so it's getting its fair representation in a system that recognizes states.
And this wouldn't even have been an issue if Clinton ran a competent campaign and stepped foot in Wisconsin and spent any time in PA and Michigan outside of Philly and Detroit.
I agree with a lot of this...it's shameful that she didn't come to my home state. How dare she take it for granted. I believe this was actually her campaign managers decision. I believe I read somewhere that Bill took great exception to all of this...but wasn't influential in changing the strategy. What's more egregious is that it seems these decisions were made to obtain. Blow out.
If you believe that logic about California then I hope you remain consistent when it comes to Texas. Easier to stay to consider, while not all that seriously at times, succeeding and becoming their own country. They are big enough to be able to do that. If they are part of the union, then it shouldn't matter if they have 1000 electoral votes, if you like the electoral college you like the formula that they use to determine Vote allocation even when California participates.
