You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
Guess I'm not the only one who knows why the Democrats are suddenly against the electoral college:
Oh gimme a fucking break. Bill Luffa O'Reilly. Yeah... Suddenly, as in 17 years they've been screaming against the electorate from the last time the election was stolen from the winner. There's always a conspiracy. Some hidden agenda in the murky depths of the left... Who have no influence whatsoever. How about Republican state officials shutting down Democratic districts early on election day? Or the unfair redistricting? Old Luffa man ever talk about that?
Now Trump is literally doing pay to play. Give his sons charity a million bucks to talk to the president privately… what was he, and you guys railing about with The Clinton Foundation?
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote: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.
If you want to pass a bill that removes humans from the EC and requires EVs to be proportional to the candidates in each state, sign me up.
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.
It would have no influence on how people in Wyoming live. Jesus Christ, that's a weak ass, scared as shit way of thinking. I have a way better argument that the people in Wyoming shouldn't be dictating the way California and everyone else lives. Yes, she should have campaigned better, as I voiced, but she still won by three million votes. *President Trump is still acting like a moron, putting together one of the worst cabinets in history. Linda McMahon is getting a cabinet position. The woman who couldn't buy a legit political seat.... TWICE. But because her husband is one of his best friends... Cronyism at its best.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
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:
Of gimme abfucking break. Bill Luffa O'Reilly. Yeah... Suddenly, as in 17 years they've been screaming against the electorate from the laser time the election was stolen from the winner. There's always a conspiracy. Some hidden agenda in the murky depths of the left... Who have no influence whatsoever. How about Republican state officials shutting down Democratic districts early on election day? Or the unfair redistricting? Old Luffa man ever talk about that?
Now Trump is literally doing pay to play. Give his sons charity a million bucks to talk to the president privately… what was he, and you guys railing about with The Clinton Foundation?
If this is true it should be immediately stopped and if any laws were broken they should be investigated. But where were you when Clinton received donations from half the people she met with as SoS? Is this a new concern or something you chose to remain silent on in the past? Or was it just you were completely unaware of it because the media wasn't interested in tarnishing the queen bee?
Re: US Politics Thread
mitchejw wrote:Randall Flagg wrote: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.
If you want to pass a bill that removes humans from the EC and requires EVs to be proportional to the candidates in each state, sign me up.
I'd rather just do away with the electorate. Or get the dozen or so more states to basically neuter the whole electorate with a popular vote mandate, which will probably end up happening. Especially when this finally happens to a Republican.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote: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.
It would have no influence on how people in Wyoming live. Jesus Christ, that's a weak ass, scared as shit way of thinking. I have a way better argument that the people in Wyoming shouldn't be dictating the way California and everyone else lives. Yes, she should have campaigned better, as I voiced, but she still won by three million votes. *President Trump is still acting like a moron, putting together one of the worst cabinets in history. Linda McMahon is getting a cabinet position. The woman who couldn't buy a legit political seat.... TWICE. But because her husband is one of his best friends... Cronyism at its best.
Right, cause people in San Francisco aren't opining and trying to legislate laws that only effect Wyoming. Pelosi is really pushing for wolves to be introduced into downtown SF and not just by ranchers in the Rocky Mountain region.
Obama didn't just try to permanently prevent anyone from ever drilling off the Alaskan coast. (His edict won't hold up in court).
States are a thing. Wyoming's 3 EVs have no influence on Californians.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Randall Flagg wrote:Guess I'm not the only one who knows why the Democrats are suddenly against the electoral college:
Of gimme abfucking break. Bill Luffa O'Reilly. Yeah... Suddenly, as in 17 years they've been screaming against the electorate from the laser time the election was stolen from the winner. There's always a conspiracy. Some hidden agenda in the murky depths of the left... Who have no influence whatsoever. How about Republican state officials shutting down Democratic districts early on election day? Or the unfair redistricting? Old Luffa man ever talk about that?
Now Trump is literally doing pay to play. Give his sons charity a million bucks to talk to the president privately… what was he, and you guys railing about with The Clinton Foundation?
If this is true it should be immediately stopped and if any laws were broken they should be investigated. But where were you when Clinton received donations from half the people she met with as SoS? Is this a new concern or something you chose to remain silent on in the past? Or was it just you were completely unaware of it because the media wasn't interested in tarnishing the queen bee?
Totally untrue and more rightwing media paranoia, I remember clearly the media went on and on and on about it. I'll admit, I have no clue the real story with what all went on with the ClintonFoundation, other than it was a REAL charity that actually helped people, unlike Trump's fake charity (remember that shadyness?). And I definitely remember Trump railing against it every day. Every. Single. Day. And now he's involved with it. After all of that.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:mitchejw wrote: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.
If you want to pass a bill that removes humans from the EC and requires EVs to be proportional to the candidates in each state, sign me up.
I'd rather just do away with the electorate. Or get the dozen or so more states to basically neuter the whole electorate with a popular vote mandate, which will probably end up happening. Especially when this finally happens to a Republican.
Only heavily blue states have passed it and you assume it wouldn't be struck down in state or federal supreme courts. Denying the will of people in state x because states A,B and C voted a certain way isn't Democratic and certainly isn't in line with the intent behind the EC. But if states want to go that route, let them do so and we'll see what happens.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Randall Flagg wrote: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.
It would have no influence on how people in Wyoming live. Jesus Christ, that's a weak ass, scared as shit way of thinking. I have a way better argument that the people in Wyoming shouldn't be dictating the way California and everyone else lives. Yes, she should have campaigned better, as I voiced, but she still won by three million votes. *President Trump is still acting like a moron, putting together one of the worst cabinets in history. Linda McMahon is getting a cabinet position. The woman who couldn't buy a legit political seat.... TWICE. But because her husband is one of his best friends... Cronyism at its best.
Right, cause people in San Francisco aren't opining and trying to legislate laws that only effect Wyoming. Pelosi is really pushing for wolves to be introduced into downtown SF and not just by ranchers in the Rocky Mountain region.
Obama didn't just try to permanently prevent anyone from ever drilling off the Alaskan coast. (His edict won't hold up in court).
States are a thing. Wyoming's 3 EVs have no influence on Californians.
Nonsense. States operate how they wish, within the law. You're making up another fake argument
I agree with the oil drilling ban.
So wolves in San Francisco is the reason Wyoming should be able to set the direction of the country???? Somehow???
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:Randall Flagg wrote: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.
It would have no influence on how people in Wyoming live. Jesus Christ, that's a weak ass, scared as shit way of thinking. I have a way better argument that the people in Wyoming shouldn't be dictating the way California and everyone else lives. Yes, she should have campaigned better, as I voiced, but she still won by three million votes. *President Trump is still acting like a moron, putting together one of the worst cabinets in history. Linda McMahon is getting a cabinet position. The woman who couldn't buy a legit political seat.... TWICE. But because her husband is one of his best friends... Cronyism at its best.
Right, cause people in San Francisco aren't opining and trying to legislate laws that only effect Wyoming. Pelosi is really pushing for wolves to be introduced into downtown SF and not just by ranchers in the Rocky Mountain region.
Obama didn't just try to permanently prevent anyone from ever drilling off the Alaskan coast. (His edict won't hold up in court).
States are a thing. Wyoming's 3 EVs have no influence on Californians.
If we were consistently following the EC formula...Wyoming wouldn't even have 3 EVs.
