Dem debate tonight

[Trill Clinton]

You go ahead and vote for the wokest white candidate. :lmao

Ok

[Trill Clinton]

Klobuchar helped put a black kid in jail for life. Is tat true? I don’t know but that’s the talk of the town.

Idk. Wouldn't surprise me if so.

[Spurtacular]

I'm really starting to like Steyer.

He tapping into your white guilt?

[DarrinS]

Ok

"systemic racism"

Squirrel!!!!


:lmao


Lol, Dems talk about minorities like they're high functioning retards. Stay on the Dems plantation. It's worked out so well.

[Reck]

He tapping into your white guilt?

Learn to quote correctly, derp.

[Capt Bringdown]

1225958494790090753

[Trill Clinton]

"systemic racism"

Squirrel!!!!


:lmao


Lol, Dems talk about minorities like they're high functioning retards. Stay on the Dems plantation. It's worked out so well.

Get ahold of yourself

[DarrinS]

Klobuchar helped put a black kid in jail for life. Is tat true? I don’t know but that’s the talk of the town.

Oh snap. Disqualified, tbh.

Wtf is wrong with you people?

[Ball Buster]

:lol

https://twitter.com/billoreilly/status/1225956138895790080?s=21

[CosmicCowboy]

Biden is really fantasizing about that black vote in South Carolina saving him. It kind of pathetic. Maybe he will try blackface at the next debate

[Spurtacular]

Learn to quote correctly, derp.

I didn't really think so, anyhow. Relative to the other chumpettes, you put dat white guilt on simmer.

[DarrinS]

Dems still don't know why Trump won in 2016. They're doubling down on failed ideology. Facsinating.

[Reck]

Biden is really fantasizing about that black vote in South Carolina saving him. It kind of pathetic. Maybe he will try blackface at the next debate

The next debate in right before Nevada. If he makes it that far ahead than it's safe to say he'll make it to Super Tuesday. Imo, if he doesn't place at least 2nd in NH it's time to pack it in. Another 3rd of 4th is lethal.

[ChumpDumper]

Beats being unemployed single mother.Are you crediting Trump with that?:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Dems still don't know why Trump won in 2016. They're doubling down on failed ideology. Facsinating.They were 70,000 votes short in rube states.

:lol Landslide!

[CosmicCowboy]

The next debate in right before Nevada. If he makes it that far ahead than it's safe to say he'll make it to Super Tuesday. Imo, if he doesn't place at least 2nd in NH it's time to pack it in. Another 3rd of 4th is lethal.

2nd in New Hampshire? :lmao

He will be lucky to be 4th.

[Reck]

2nd in New Hampshire? :lmao

He will be lucky to be 4th.

Hence why he needs a miracle. I’m not the one talking about being on the next debate. He may not be on the next debate. I just gave you possibilities.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hence why he needs a miracle. I’m not the one talking about being on the next debate. He may not be on the next debate. I just gave you possibilities.

No way he quits before South Carolina. All his shriveled up old eggs are in that basket.

[ElNono]

Dems still don't know why Trump won in 2016. They're doubling down on failed ideology. Facsinating.

Ideology is far away from why Trump won

[ElNono]

Didn't watch, but good to hear Biden is struggling... the quicker he's out of the race, the better odds for the Dems

[Spurtacular]

Didn't watch, but good to hear Biden is struggling... the quicker he's out of the race, the better odds for the Dems

'Til then, Chumpettes got to like him. He's not creepy before then. :lmao

[DarrinS]

Ideology is far away from why Trump won

Ok.

[DarrinS]

Dems should pick the most leftist candidate. That's what most Americans are starving for.


:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

:lol clear mandate Darrin

[DarrinS]

Dems should pick the most leftist candidate. That's what most Americans are starving for.


:lmao


:lol clear mandate Darrin



Watch it happen. They're so damn stupid. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Watch it happen. They're so damn stupid. :lolMaybe. The mere fact a competitive race is possible just shows what a piece of shit Trump is. :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, gonna be a shitty choice in 2020 again.

[Trainwreck2100]

Not for you because you're not voting Dem anyway

[CosmicCowboy]

Not for you because you're not voting Dem anyway

I will just skip the prez vote like I did in 2016.

[Chris]

https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1225972619368775680?s=19

[benefactor]

I will just skip the prez vote like I did in 2016.
Doesn't matter in Texas anyway tbh

[Will Hunting]

Not for you because you're not voting Dem anyway
:lol the Republicans on this site pretending they’d ever vote Democrat even if it was Bloomberg or Biden

[spurraider21]

Yeah, gonna be a shitty choice in 2020 again.
I’m sorry joe manchin isn’t running

[spurraider21]

What happened to all the conservatives here saying Biden would be the toughest to beat :lmao

[Will Hunting]

I’m sorry joe manchin isn’t running
They should run a Joe Manchin and Doug Jones ticket that way they can appeal to the middle and win West Virginia!!!

[RandomGuy]

Everyone will be going after boody tonight. Klobuchar needs to.kick the elephant in the room. "Do you really want a president that lets men stick their dick up his ass? Hell, I'm hetero and I dont even let men stick their dicks up my ass!." LOL press would be talking about Boody taking it up the ass and how horrible it was that she said he took dicks up his ass and how taking dicks up the ass should be off limits in debates. 2 week later 200 million people couldn't look at boody without thinking about him taking dicks up the ass :lol

....and that didnt happen. They took turns blasting trump for the most part.

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, gonna be a shitty choice in 2020 again.

I am stoked. Any of the people on that stage are prettt cool and a couple are genuine profressives.

Democrats will have a chance to finally pass a few thing that will help average people instead of richers.

[DarrinS]

All these white people talking about race and barely giving Yang any time.

Here are the approximate speaking times for all seven candidates:

Former Vice President Joe Biden -- 19:35 minutes
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders -- 19:05 minutes
Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- 18:16 minutes
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- 16:21 minutes
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- 15:59 minutes
Tom Steyer -- 12:19 minutes
Andrew Yang -- 7:43 minutes

[spurraider21]

Yang and Steyer shouldn’t even be there anymore. Steyer only qualified because of early state polling numbers after dumping tens of millions into them but didn’t draw votes for shit

[Will Hunting]

Here are the approximate speaking times for all seven candidates:

Former Vice President Joe Biden -- 19:35 minutes
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders -- 19:05 minutes
Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg -- 18:16 minutes
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar -- 16:21 minutes
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren -- 15:59 minutes
Tom Steyer -- 12:19 minutes
Andrew Yang -- 7:43 minutes
DarrinS is a race expert everyone

[Will Hunting]

Yang and Steyer shouldn’t even be there anymore. Steyer only qualified because of early state polling numbers after dumping tens of millions into them but didn’t draw votes for shit
Steyer (who actually like a lot) wasn’t even trying to get votes during the debate as much as he was trying to drive the conversation and as you said yesterday compete for a cabinet spot.

Unlike Bloomberg Steyer actually has thrown hundreds of millions at other Democratic candidates at times when he wasn’t running so he’s not doing this purely for ego/selfish reasons the way Bloomberg is.

[baseline bum]

Dems should pick the most leftist candidate. That's what most Americans are starving for.


:lmao

They should pick someone who motivates the base. We already saw what a disaster picking the center-right candidate was in 2016.

[Will Hunting]

They should pick someone who motivates the base. We already saw what a disaster picking the center-right candidate was in 2016.

66% of Americans want a federal $15 / hour minimum wage
70% of Americans want either a public option for healthcare, universal healthcare with a private insurance option, or true Medicare for all
59% of America supports raising the top marginal tax rate to 70%

As much as Darrin likes to act like its some kind of well accepted fact that most Americans don’t want a leftist candidate, the polls say it’s exactly what they want

[boutons_deux]

An Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter

Rachel Bitecofer’s radical new theory predicted the midterms spot-on. So who’s going to win 2020?

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944 (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/06/rachel-bitecofer-profile-election-forecasting-new-theory-108944)

Was she a 2018 lucky flash in the pan?

or will her radical position repeat in 2020?

[Thread]

They should pick someone who motivates the base. We already saw what a disaster picking the center-right candidate was in 2016.

Back to the tired old shit bag way of doing it, eh, bum?

With the caveat that "we'll" buy in & bury the hatchet like (it) never happened. But, even if we don't buy it your MSM will bury us so deep we won't see light.

[Thread]

66% of Americans want a federal $15 / hour minimum wage
70% of Americans want either a public option for healthcare, universal healthcare with a private insurance option, or true Medicare for all
59% of America supports raising the top marginal tax rate to 70%

I got nary problem with those policies.

[spurraider21]

66% of Americans want a federal $15 / hour minimum wage
70% of Americans want either a public option for healthcare, universal healthcare with a private insurance option, or true Medicare for all
59% of America supports raising the top marginal tax rate to 70%

As much as Darrin likes to act like its some kind of well accepted fact that most Americans don’t want a leftist candidate, the polls say it’s exactly what they want
The EC has given a false impression of what most Americans actually want

[Thread]

What happened to all the conservatives here saying Biden would be the toughest to beat :lmao

Had me convinced. Still, I'll be glad when he's officially out of it.

I wouldn't mind a Sanders V. the old man. Gun to my gourd I could live with Sanders if it didn't work out the other way. Dollars to donuts though he wouldn't stick to his promises. (They'd) set him straight day 1 & he'd march.

[Will Hunting]

Had me convinced. Still, I'll be glad when he's officially out of it.

I wouldn't mind a Sanders V. the old man. Gun to my gourd I could live with Sanders if it didn't work out the other way. Dollars to donuts though he wouldn't stick to his promises. (They'd) set him straight day 1 & he'd march.
Maybe, but, there’s at least a chance he sticks to his core values. With every other Democrat in the field (even Warren) it’s a certainty they would get set straight on day 1 the same way Obama did after promising hope and change.

[Thread]

The EC has given a false impression of what most Americans actually want

& it's been there the whole time. Bush2 fell into accidentally & the D's figured "wtf, he's one of us anyway so we'll go along for 8 years and it'll never happen again."

Uh, uh.

[Thread]

Maybe, but, there’s at least a chance he sticks to his core values. With every other Democrat in the field (even Warren) it’s a certainty they would get set straight on day 1 the same way Obama did after promising hope and change.

Will, Sanders will be so jazzed he'll agree to anything just to have AT LEAST 4 years in that House.

[Will Hunting]

The EC has given a false impression of what most Americans actually want
I blame the Senate more than the EC at this point. The 2008 election gave a pretty fucking clear impression of what Americans want going by either the EC or a popular vote, and since then the senate has been the place where any meaningful post financial crisis reform went to die.

[koriwhat]

Will, Sanders will be so jazzed he'll agree to anything just to have AT LEAST 4 years in that House.

of course he wants in that house; free boarding, free everything!

[spurraider21]

I blame the Senate more than the EC at this point. The 2008 election gave a pretty fucking clear impression of what Americans want going by either the EC or a popular vote, and since then the senate has been the place where any meaningful post financial crisis reform went to die.
The senate also contributes to the EC problem

[Thread]

The senate also contributes to the EC problem

How so, 21, seriously?

[baseline bum]

Back to the tired old shit bag way of doing it, eh, bum?

With the caveat that "we'll" buy in & bury the hatchet like (it) never happened. But, even if we don't buy it your MSM will bury us so deep we won't see light.

Son you're the one who has a media empire behind him. Ain't no media in this country that has Bernie's back.

[Thread]

Son you're the one who has a media empire behind him. Ain't no media in this country that has Bernie's back.

True, bum, but, after MSM has done everything to waylay Bernie & he is left standing at the end anyway they'll embrace him. It won't be Clinton, or, Obama, but, it'll be close enough. (They'll) get in there & lay down the law to him.

[baseline bum]

True, bum, but, after MSM has done everything to waylay Bernie & he is left standing at the end anyway they'll embrace him. It won't be Clinton, or, Obama, but, it'll be close enough. (They'll) get in there & lay down the law to him.

The media will never embrace a threat to the oligarchy like Bernie. Never. Not in a million years.

[baseline bum]

True, bum, but, after MSM has done everything to waylay Bernie & he is left standing at the end anyway they'll embrace him. It won't be Clinton, or, Obama, but, it'll be close enough. (They'll) get in there & lay down the law to him.

If Bernie wins the nomination what's going to happen is Bloomberg runs a third party spoiler campaign and the non-Fox, non-ClearChannel, non-Sinclair media will fawn all over him. Which gets us four more years of our Dear Leader in charge. Grim days, cubby.

[florige]

Son you're the one who has a media empire behind him. Ain't no media in this country that has Bernie's back.


Which is crazy. Not sure why they don't want to get behind the candidate who can likely beat Trump. It sure won't be Biden.

[spurraider21]

How so, 21, seriously?
the number of Electoral College votes you get from each state is the number of Representatives + Senators a state has. for example:

Texas has 36 state reps, 2 senators = 38 electoral votes

Wyoming has 1 state rep, 2 senators = 3 electoral votes

Texas has ~25 million people per the last census, while wyoming has ~563k

so texas has roughly 44x more people than wyoming. in an ideal world, TX would therefore have 44x the electoral votes of wyoming for the math to be sound, and for every american's vote to carry the same weight.

if you just go by the representatives, you are close, but not quite there (36 to 1). when you factor in the senators, the small states disproportionately benefit. the 38 electoral votes for TX and 3 for WY amount to just under a 13:1 ratio, even though their populations are 44:1

small states disproportionately benefit from the senate, and that inequality also contributes to the math of the EC

[boutons_deux]

Which is crazy. Not sure why they don't want to get behind the candidate who can likely beat Trump. It sure won't be Biden.

the media is owned by the oligarchy, their investors, all Capitalists, none whom want to pay the taxes that Bernie and Liz want.

While Liz looks weak now, the DNC, Clintons/Obama, the $$$ corporatist Dems will block Bernie. He doesn't have chance.

... confirming that voting is a sham. If by a miracle, Bernie gets into the WH, the non-progressive Dem House will not hand him the bills he ran on,

and he will not be able to rebuild the Exec branch agencies after the years of destruction by the Repugs and Trash.

America is fucked and unfuckable.

[CosmicCowboy]

the number of Electoral College votes you get from each state is the number of Representatives + Senators a state has. for example:

Texas has 36 state reps, 2 senators = 38 electoral votes

Wyoming has 1 state rep, 2 senators = 3 electoral votes

Texas has ~25 million people per the last census, while wyoming has ~563k

so texas has roughly 44x more people than wyoming. in an ideal world, TX would therefore have 44x the electoral votes of wyoming for the math to be sound, and for every american's vote to carry the same weight.

if you just go by the representatives, you are close, but not quite there (36 to 1). when you factor in the senators, the small states disproportionately benefit. the 38 electoral votes for TX and 3 for WY amount to just under a 13:1 ratio, even though their populations are 44:1

small states disproportionately benefit from the senate, and that inequality also contributes to the math of the EC

We wouldn't have a United States without the senate and EC compromise.

[ChumpDumper]

We wouldn't have a United States without the senate and EC compromise.Yep. Thanks, slavery!

[boutons_deux]

The Game is Rigged (https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/07/the-game-is-rigged/)

Let’s not beat around the bush. The game is rigged. The fix is in.

I’m not just talking about the
neofascistic Donald Trump,
the Republican Party,
the Republican-controlled United States Senate and
the fake-impeachment trial that body just concluded.

I’m talking about their neoliberal enablers, the Democrats too.
Certain Depressing Things Explained

The deeply conservative corporate and imperialist Democratic Party politics and media complex is

determined to deny the progressive neo-New Deal Democrat Bernie Sanders the presidential nomination.

The Democratic establishment is determined to stop Sanders at all costs.

As I’ve been saying for years,

the corporate Democrats

prefer to lose to the ever more viciously right-wing Republicans and the demented fascist oligarch Trump

than to the moderately left wing of their own party.

This is why the establishment Democrats and their many media allies

(at the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, The Hill, CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and elsewhere)

have issued repeated dire warnings over the supposed “radical Leftism” and “extremism” of the mildly social-democratic Sanders.

It’s why Democratic Party-affiliated funders and media

opened the campaign season by touting the clownish center-right dementia victim Joe Biden as their “front-runner.”

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/07/the-game-is-rigged/ (https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/07/the-game-is-rigged/)

[spurraider21]

We wouldn't have a United States without the senate and EC compromise.
you could say the same for every single provision of the constitution that was later amended. we also wouldn't have a United States if the 13th amendment was up for debate in 1789

like i said in another thread talking about the EC, it made sense in the context where states dealt with the general election in different ways. in the first presidential election, only 6 states allowed for the people to vote for president. others left it to legislatures. some had a district by district popular vote, some had a statewide popular vote. so the rationale was let each state figure out on their own how to assign electoral votes, and then the EC will tally them up

now that every state uses a state-wide popular vote, there's no real reason for the EC process anymore, since we have a full national popular vote already taking place on the same day

[ChumpDumper]

The Game is Rigged (https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/07/the-game-is-rigged/)

Let’s not beat around the bush. The game is rigged. The fix is in.

I’m not just talking about the
neofascistic Donald Trump,
the Republican Party,
the Republican-controlled United States Senate and
the fake-impeachment trial that body just concluded.

I’m talking about their neoliberal enablers, the Democrats too.
Certain Depressing Things Explained

The deeply conservative corporate and imperialist Democratic Party politics and media complex is

determined to deny the progressive neo-New Deal Democrat Bernie Sanders the presidential nomination.

The Democratic establishment is determined to stop Sanders at all costs.

As I’ve been saying for years,

the corporate Democrats

prefer to lose to the ever more viciously right-wing Republicans and the demented fascist oligarch Trump

than to the moderately left wing of their own party.

This is why the establishment Democrats and their many media allies

(at the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, The Hill, CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, and elsewhere)

have issued repeated dire warnings over the supposed “radical Leftism” and “extremism” of the mildly social-democratic Sanders.

It’s why Democratic Party-affiliated funders and media

opened the campaign season by touting the clownish center-right dementia victim Joe Biden as their “front-runner.”

https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/07/the-game-is-rigged/ (https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/02/07/the-game-is-rigged/):lol they called him the frontrunner because he was ahead in the initial polls.

Why would you call anyone else the frontrunner at that time?

This is the kind of butthurt that will get Dennison reelected.

[spurraider21]

:lol they called him the frontrunner because he was ahead in the initial polls.

Why would you call anyone else the frontrunner at that time?

This is the kind of butthurt that will get Dennison reelected.
no. complaining about stuff at this point isn't getting dennison reelected. there's no reason people shouldn't be able to air grievances (even if they are misguided or you disagree with them)

its people staying home or voting the other way that would get Dennison reelected

[ChumpDumper]

no. complaining about stuff at this point isn't getting dennison reelected. there's no reason people shouldn't be able to air grievances (even if they are misguided or you disagree with them)

its people staying home or voting the other way that would get Dennison reelectedAnd this kind of butthurt will lead to just that.

[Proxy]

True, bum, but, after MSM has done everything to waylay Bernie & he is left standing at the end anyway they'll embrace him. It won't be Clinton, or, Obama, but, it'll be close enough. (They'll) get in there & lay down the law to him.

that's ignoring the entire reason he gets the money the way he does though

[SnakeBoy]

you could say the same for every single provision of the constitution that was later amended. we also wouldn't have a United States if the 13th amendment was up for debate in 1789

like i said in another thread talking about the EC, it made sense in the context where states dealt with the general election in different ways. in the first presidential election, only 6 states allowed for the people to vote for president. others left it to legislatures. some had a district by district popular vote, some had a statewide popular vote. so the rationale was let each state figure out on their own how to assign electoral votes, and then the EC will tally them up

now that every state uses a state-wide popular vote, there's no real reason for the EC process anymore, since we have a full national popular vote already taking place on the same day

I thought we must protect the constitution.

[ChumpDumper]

I thought we must protect the constitution.
We've changed the Constitution several times. Maybe you didn't know that.

[SnakeBoy]

We've changed the Constitution several times. Maybe you didn't know that.

So protect it by changing it?

Well good luck with that lol

[ChumpDumper]

So protect it by changing it?

Well good luck with that lolYou're against all the changes that were made to the Constitution?

That explains a lot tbh lol.

Don't want those women or dark folk voting, do you?

Or maybe you could recognize that protecting and amending are two different things.

Nah, you just don't like women or dark folk. Good luck with that lol.

[boutons_deux]

:lol they called him the frontrunner because he was ahead in the initial polls.

Why would you call anyone else the frontrunner at that time?

This is the kind of butthurt that will get Dennison reelected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic _Party_presidential_primaries/0/95d52887e684684d871b772ed3c10ccc480d13c9.png

true, and still is, but that's hardly the point of the article.

anyway, Paul Street's "butthurt" is fringe, will have no effect on Dem voters.

iow, America is fucked and unfuckable beyond doubt

if dementia victim Biden runs against dementia victim Trash.

Biden is still ahead nationally, but if he loses, again badly, in NH, I don't think he and his team can deliver The Comeback Kid.

Then the DNC will support Buttigieg as establishment corporate/capitalist toy who has NO financial/economic policies that would bother the oligarchy.

America won't elect a "faggot", so that means Trash wins 2020.

The only hope is that the Dems take the Senate,

or Moscow Mitch will totally destroy the Federal judiciary, including replacing Notorious RBG with another Gorsuch/Kavanaugh oligarchy whore, SCOTUS whores 6-3 for decades,

while the Repugs continue to destroy the Exec branch agencies with "acting" managers, directors.

Paul Street is naive to think that the Trash/Repug cult mob of "42%" will wake up or accept defeat.

The only solution is violent revolution that is way beyond fatass, teevee watching Americans.

More likely will be continued domestic terrorism from DHS, the police state, and dickless KKK militia men, with the Christian supremacist evangelical Reconstructionists remaining silent during the mayhem as part of End Times.

[ChumpDumper]

https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic _Party_presidential_primaries/0/95d52887e684684d871b772ed3c10ccc480d13c9.png

true, and still is, but that's hardly the point of the article.

anyway, Paul Street's "butthurt" is fringe, will have no effect on Dem voters.

iow, America is fucked and unfuckable beyond doubt

if dementia victim Biden runs against dementia victim Trash.

Biden is still ahead nationally, but if he loses, again badly, in NH, I don't think he and his team can deliver The Comeback Kid.

Then the DNC will support Buttigieg as establishment corporate/capitalist toy who has NO financial/economic policies that would bother the oligarchy.

America won't elect a "faggot", so that means Trash wins 2020.

The only hope is that the Dems take the Senate,

or Moscow Mitch will totally destroy the Federal judiciary, including replacing Notorious RBG with another Gorsuch/Kavanaugh oligarchy whore, SCOTUS whores 6-3 for decades,

while the Repugs continue to destroy the Exec branch agencies with "acting" managers, directors.

Paul Street is naive to think that the Trash/Repug cult mob of "42%" will wake up or accept defeat.

The only solution is violent revolution that is way beyond fatass, teevee watching Americans.

More likely will be continued domestic terrorism from DHS, the police state, and dickless KKK militia men, with the Christian supremacist evangelical Reconstructionists remaining silent during the mayhem as part of End Times.Eh, it doesn't take many butthurt people to turn a close election.

I'm voting for whomever the Democrats pick. I hope you do the same.

[Reck]

:lol Chump being ultra pessimistic. Too much Facebook?

I have a friend like that too. Guy thinks Trump will get re-elected via landslide because he only sees trumpers online. Oh and he lives in north Carolina. :lol

Trump basically owns Facebook. How any same person keeps using that trash is beyond me.

[Spurtacular]

I'm voting for whomever the Democrats pick. I hope you do the same.

:lmao Yup. Got to sperm shield for everyone in the meantime.
:lmao Dump confirming what I've been saying for months.

[Spurtacular]

:lol Chump being ultra pessimistic. Too much Facebook?

I have a friend like that too. Guy thinks Trump will get re-elected via landslide because he only sees trumpers online. Oh and he lives in north Carolina. :lol

Trump basically owns Facebook. How any same person keeps using that trash is beyond me.

Tell us who you're ultra optimistic about, tranny.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Chump being ultra pessimistic. Too much Facebook?

I have a friend like that too. Guy thinks Trump will get re-elected via landslide because he only sees trumpers online. Oh and he lives in north Carolina. :lol

Trump basically owns Facebook. How any same person keeps using that trash is beyond me.I don't think it will be a landslide.

[boutons_deux]

Eh, it doesn't take many butthurt people to turn a close election.

I'm voting for whomever the Democrats pick. I hope you do the same.

Trash ran on and won with the anti-Magic-knitter vote, just as the magik knitter won on "anybody but a Repug"

If Trash loses, it will be with the "anybody but Trash" vote. iow, the anti-Trash vote, rather than pro-Dem.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao Yup. Got to sperm shield for everyone in the meantime.
:lmao Dump confirming what I've been saying for months.That I'll vote for anyone running against the idiot you worship?

:lmao I've been saying that for years.

[Spurtacular]

That I'll vote for anyone running against the idiot you worship?

:lmao I've been saying that for years.

:lmao Yea, you've been "butthurt" for this whole time.
:lmao Irony.

[Reck]

Tell us who you're ultra optimistic about, tranny.

There is only 2 true choices if you really want to win. Biden and Bernie. It's always been between them.

Either of them beat Trump if you believe the polls and it's aggregates. But we know you dont cuz....derp amirite?

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao Yea, you've been "butthurt" for this whole time.
:lmao Irony.:lmao derp can't follow any conversation
:lmao takes credit for realizing what I have explicitly said for years

[Spurtacular]

:lmao derp can't follow any conversation
:lmao takes credit for realizing what I have explicitly said for years

I never said you weren't butthurt about Trump.

:lol Dump trying to fake turn tables.

[ChumpDumper]

I never said you weren't butthurt about Trump.:lmao derp spiraling into nonsense

What are you even arguing now?

[Spurtacular]

There is only 2 true choices if you really want to win. Biden and Bernie. It's always been between them.

Either of them beat Trump if you believe the polls and it's aggregates. But we know you dont cuz....derp amirite?

Bernie would've got creamed by Trump in 2016 despite all his snowflake followers adamantly saying it would not be so. In the last four years the left has clearly shifted more left, so the base would be more mobilized this time around. I don't know if it would be enough; I tend to doubt it.

Biden is likely not the best system candidate at this point because he's just too decrepit and creepy. But I have said he'll do better in a one on one scenario with full system backing rather than trying to stand out in a field. I don't know what you think is ultimately going to set him so far apart from Trump and make people want to vote against prosperity and an having an alpha in the White House.

[Spurtacular]

:lmao derp spiraling into nonsense

What are you even arguing now?

Word salad white flag.

[ChumpDumper]

Word salad white flag.What part of my post did you not understand?

[Spurtacular]

What part of my post did you not understand?

I understood your white flag.

[ChumpDumper]

I understood your white flag.No, you called it word salad.

That means you didn't understand it.

What part did you not understand?

Just answer or say you will never answer.

[CosmicCowboy]

you could say the same for every single provision of the constitution that was later amended. we also wouldn't have a United States if the 13th amendment was up for debate in 1789

like i said in another thread talking about the EC, it made sense in the context where states dealt with the general election in different ways. in the first presidential election, only 6 states allowed for the people to vote for president. others left it to legislatures. some had a district by district popular vote, some had a statewide popular vote. so the rationale was let each state figure out on their own how to assign electoral votes, and then the EC will tally them up

now that every state uses a state-wide popular vote, there's no real reason for the EC process anymore, since we have a full national popular vote already taking place on the same day

Good luck getting 2/3 to ratify the "let three states run the country" amendment.

[boutons_deux]

abolish the EC, it's a total failure, electors did not block Trash as the FFs wanted

also make Senate proportional by population, not alloted by land

yeah, nothing will change, America is constipated into shithole stasis, can't fix shit, can't solve problems because the oligarchy controls the country which the oligarchy has rigged in its insane favor.

The Confederacy, and all the Johnny Rebels who migrated out West, have won, finally.

[spurraider21]

Good luck getting 2/3 to ratify the "let three states run the country" amendment.
such a silly idea for the majority of the country to run the country. my bad.

makes much more sense for the minority of the people to govern the rest. as long as they're spread out geographically, it makes sense!

[CosmicCowboy]

abolish the EC, it's a total failure, electors did not block Trash as the FFs wanted

also make Senate proportional by population, not alloted by land

yeah, nothing will change, America is constipated into shithole stasis, can't fix shit, can't solve problems because the oligarchy controls the country which the oligarchy has rigged in its insane favor.

The Confederacy, and all the Johnny Rebels who migrated out West, have won, finally.

Idiot. How do you propose abolishing the EC and making the senate population proportionate like the house?

[CosmicCowboy]

such a silly idea for the majority of the country to run the country. my bad.

makes much more sense for the minority of the people to govern the rest. as long as they're spread out geographically, it makes sense!

You might as well move because the constitution will never let you change it.

[spurraider21]

You might as well move because the constitution will never let you change it.
a) :lol didnt address how much sense it makes for a minority to govern the majority, as long as they are spread out geographically. because you cant justify it other than "well it's helped my team recently"
b) the constitution lets you change the constitution

[CosmicCowboy]

a) :lol didnt address how much sense it makes for a minority to govern the majority, as long as they are spread out geographically. because you cant justify it other than "well it's helped my team recently"
b) the constitution lets you change the constitution

Damn you are stupid. Yes, the constitution allows for amendments which have to be approved by 2/3 in both houses of Congress and then 3/4 of the states. Joseph Heller says hi.

[monosylab1k]

Good luck getting 2/3 to ratify the "let three states run the country" amendment.

If other states object, they should work harder to be less shitty, so that people wanna live there. Pull themselves up by their bootstraps, etc

[CosmicCowboy]

Like all the people and companies moving to Texas from California?

[Thread]

https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/graph/png/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_Democratic _Party_presidential_primaries/0/95d52887e684684d871b772ed3c10ccc480d13c9.png

true, and still is, but that's hardly the point of the article.

anyway, Paul Street's "butthurt" is fringe, will have no effect on Dem voters.

iow, America is fucked and unfuckable beyond doubt

if dementia victim Biden runs against dementia victim Trash.

Biden is still ahead nationally, but if he loses, again badly, in NH, I don't think he and his team can deliver The Comeback Kid.

Then the DNC will support Buttigieg as establishment corporate/capitalist toy who has NO financial/economic policies that would bother the oligarchy.

America won't elect a "faggot", so that means Trash wins 2020.

The only hope is that the Dems take the Senate,

or Moscow Mitch will totally destroy the Federal judiciary, including replacing Notorious RBG with another Gorsuch/Kavanaugh oligarchy whore, SCOTUS whores 6-3 for decades,

while the Repugs continue to destroy the Exec branch agencies with "acting" managers, directors.

Paul Street is naive to think that the Trash/Repug cult mob of "42%" will wake up or accept defeat.

The only solution is violent revolution that is way beyond fatass, teevee watching Americans.

More likely will be continued domestic terrorism from DHS, the police state, and dickless KKK militia men, with the Christian supremacist evangelical Reconstructionists remaining silent during the mayhem as part of End Times.

You'd imagine such, but, she's liable to last the additional 4 years. Wouldn't surprise me an iota.

Hell, she's out there lifting weights.

[CosmicCowboy]

You'd imagine such, but, she's liable to last the additional 4 years. Wouldn't surprise me an iota.

Hell, she's out there lifting weights.

She will send herself to a taxidermist to be stuffed in her chair before she let's a republican president replace her.

[spurraider21]

Yes, the constitution allows for amendments which have to be approved by 2/3 in both houses of Congress and then 3/4 of the states. Joseph Heller says hi.
cool. i never said it can be done with a 50% vote. glad we agree

now, can you justify why it makes sense for the minority to govern the majority as long as they are spread out geographically?

[CosmicCowboy]

I dont have to justify it. It's the US constitution.

[spurraider21]

can you justify why it makes sense for the minority to govern the majority as long as they are spread out geographically?


I dont have to justify it. It's the US constitution.
:lol pussy

nobody here "has" to justify or support anything they say. i'm asking if you can. if you cant and it comes down to "my team has benefitted from it recently" then just say so.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol pussy

nobody here "has" to justify or support anything they say. i'm asking if you can. if you cant and it comes down to "my team has benefitted from it recently" then just say so.

Lol. Suck a dick. Move to another country if you dont like it. It was specifically written to prevent a few urban centers from being able to discriminate against the rest of the country.

[ChumpDumper]

Mainly to preserve slavery.

[spurraider21]

Lol. Suck a dick. Move to another country if you dont like it. It was specifically written to prevent a few urban centers from being able to discriminate against the rest of the country.
:lol ok, so you cant justify the concept of a minority of people governing over the majority just because they live farther apart from one another. of course, you dont have to justify it. its just nice to know you cant

got it :tu

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol ok, so you cant justify the concept of a minority of people governing over the majority just because they live farther apart from one another. of course, you dont have to justify it. its just nice to know you cant

got it :tu

You are one stupid fuck. Wa Wa Wa. Life is unfair. WA Wa Wa.

[spurraider21]

You are one stupid fuck. Wa Wa Wa. Life is unfair. WA Wa Wa.
:lol all i wanted to know is if you can justify it. i didnt think you'd be able to. you didn't disappoint. now you're upset about it. that does disappoint. i didnt take you as sensitive

[CosmicCowboy]

Will you please justify why gravity is unfair? It's clearly unfair to fat asses like you.

[spurraider21]

Will you please justify why gravity is unfair? It's clearly unfair to fat asses like you.
:lmao even derp's meltdowns are more gracious

[Spurtacular]

:lol pussy

nobody here "has" to justify or support anything they say. i'm asking if you can. if you cant and it comes down to "my team has benefitted from it recently" then just say so.


:lol ok, so you cant justify the concept of a minority of people governing over the majority just because they live farther apart from one another. of course, you dont have to justify it. its just nice to know you cant

got it :tu


:lmao even derp's meltdowns are more gracious

All this lashing out because CC hit you with kill shots. :lol


Good luck getting 2/3 to ratify the "let three states run the country" amendment.


Damn you are stupid. Yes, the constitution allows for amendments which have to be approved by 2/3 in both houses of Congress and then 3/4 of the states. Joseph Heller says hi.


I dont have to justify it. It's the US constitution.

:lol Rent free

[CosmicCowboy]

Just pointing out that whining about the senate and the EC makes just as much sense as whining about gravity.

[spurraider21]

Just pointing out that whining about the senate and the EC makes just as much sense as whining about gravity.
Does whining about slavery make about as much sense too?

and regardless of what you think about the feasibility of changing it, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule is a better and more fair system than a popular vote?

[Spurtacular]

Does whining about slavery make about as much sense too?

and regardless of what you think about the feasibility of changing it, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule is a better and more fair system than a popular vote?

:lol "Minority rule"

You don't even give a sh** about the majority having to pay for illegals and leaches right now. You weren't crying when activist judges struck down 187 in Cali.

Your schtick is sad, Lite.

[spurraider21]

:lol "Minority rule"
how else do you describe it when the side with less votes wins?


You don't even give a sh** about the majority having to pay for illegals and leaches right now. You weren't crying when activist judges struck down 187 in Cali.

Your schtick is sad, Lite.
187 had nothing to do with majority/minority derp. The measure passed. It was just unconstitutional.

Activist judge is just code for judge who’s decision you disagree with politically

[Spurtacular]

how else do you describe it when the side with less votes wins?

I describe it as we're a republic. I don't get to pick 434 of 435 Congressmen and 98 of 100 Senators. Same pretty much goes for everyone else. I get to pick 0 of 9 Supreme Court justices. The list goes on....

[Spurtacular]

187 had nothing to do with majority/minority derp. The measure passed. It was just unconstitutional.

Activist judge is just code for judge who’s decision you disagree with politically

Really. Cos I found nothing in the California Consitution that said we have to give a sh**load of free services to illegals.

Activist judges are minority rule. This has been the Democrats game for decades. Your tears are bull sh**.

[spurraider21]

Really. Cos I found nothing in the California Consitution that said we have to give a sh**load of free services to illegals.

Activist judges are minority rule. This has been the Democrats game for decades. Your tears are bull sh**.
It was against the US constitution not the CA constitution. Federal court struck it down

[Spurtacular]

It was against the US constitution not the CA constitution. Federal court struck it down

Yea, I found nothing in either Constitution, Lite.

You've been doing minority rule all along.

[spurraider21]

Yea, I found nothing in either Constitution, Lite.
and you’re not a judge

it infringed on feds ability to regulate immigration and was preempted by existing federal law on welfare benefits


You've been doing minority rule all along.
no. The judiciary is an equal branch of government

[Spurtacular]

and you’re not a judge

it infringed on feds ability to regulate immigration and was preempted by existing federal law on welfare benefits


no. The judiciary is an equal branch of government

Bull shit it infringed on their ability.

Like I said, you've been doing minority rule this whole time. Your contention that we need majority rule is a facade.

[CosmicCowboy]

Does whining about slavery make about as much sense too?

and regardless of what you think about the feasibility of changing it, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule is a better and more fair system than a popular vote?

The 14th amendment pretty much set that slavery strawman on fire.

[DMC]

Popular vote is fine within the state. This is what we do. We are run first by state governments, and the states report to the federal government. Do you want to abolish state governments and have one country under the federal government? This is really the only way total popular vote makes any sense.

States elect the POTUS through the EC. Get rid of the United States and you can get rid of the EC.

[Thread]

Popular vote is fine within the state. This is what we do. We are run first by state governments, and the states report to the federal government. Do you want to abolish state governments and have one country under the federal government? This is really the only way total popular vote makes any sense.

States elect the POTUS through the EC. Get rid of the United States and you can get rid of the EC.

(They) abolished (due process) to facilitate their needs & wants.

[spurraider21]

The 14th amendment pretty much set that slavery strawman on fire.
How?

slavery was constitutional for all that time. People whined about that. It got changed. I thought whining about the constitution was as useless at whining about gravity.

And i think you meant thirteenth

[DMC]

Also, what if it's not a 2 party election, like there are 4 people and no one gets more than 30% of the vote? So someone gets elected with 30% of the popular vote and somehow that's more democratic than someone getting 49% of the popular vote?

I feel like the dems look at a system historically decided by the EC and then magically apply popular vote as if the election and turnout wouldn't be totally different under that totally different system - as if the dems could just remove the results of the EC and cherry pick the popular vote totals in those cases.

[spurraider21]

Popular vote is fine within the state. This is what we do. We are run first by state governments, and the states report to the federal government. Do you want to abolish state governments and have one country under the federal government? This is really the only way total popular vote makes any sense.

States elect the POTUS through the EC. Get rid of the United States and you can get rid of the EC.
:lol no. That’s a ridiculous comment.

How about you keep state governments in place, preserve the current balance between state and federal autonomy, and have the presidential election decided by popular vote.

Members of the house are elected via popular vote by the people they represent (their district). Same for members of the senate (their state). It’s apparently radical to do the same for the president who represents the nation

[spurraider21]

Also, what if it's not a 2 party election, like there are 4 people and no one gets more than 30% of the vote? So someone gets elected with 30% of the popular vote and somehow that's more democratic than someone getting 49% of the popular vote?
the EC doesn’t have a built in solution for that either :lol. They let the house vote for president. If you like tradition so much, you can keep that as the contingency plan. Or ranked choice voting helps get you past that


I feel like the dems look at a system historically decided by the EC and then magically apply popular vote as if the election and turnout wouldn't be totally different under that totally different system - as if the dems could just remove the results of the EC and cherry pick the popular vote totals in those cases.
How would turnout be impacted?

[spurraider21]

It comes down to an objectively unfair system that has benefitted your team in recent years, so you bend over backwards doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify it

[Pelicans78]

These other candidates are either really tone deaf on healthcare or they’re getting pressure from big pharma to make a full court press trying to convince Democrats that they shouldn’t want Medicare for all. The exit polling in Iowa Is pretty clear that Sanders’ won the popular vote because of healthcare but the establishment candidates are still trying to attack Bernie over it.

My personal preference would be against Medicare for all since I don’t think it’s run very well now, already bankrupt just covering senior citizens, and doesn’t cover everything compared to private insurances. It’s just very inefficient overall and cares more about costs than actually helping patients. That’s just from my experience. Covering everyone would make it more comparable to Medicaid instead of actual Medicare now. I’m in favor of a healthy balance between private and government insurance. I think everyone should have coverage but not by Medicare. I would prefer paying for private insurance than having Medicaid or Medicare.

[Will Hunting]

I feel like the dems look at a system historically decided by the EC and then magically apply popular vote as if the election and turnout wouldn't be totally different under that totally different system - as if the dems could just remove the results of the EC and cherry pick the popular vote totals in those cases.
Not sure if this is what you’re saying but I think you’re right in the sense that if things were decided by pure popular vote then Trump would spend a lot more time campaigning in California because it’s where the most popular votes could be had and even though he’d still lose the popular vote in CA it wouldn’t be by such a wide margin. Still think Shillary stills wins the popular vote but not by as wide of a margin. No way to know though.

My counter argument to that would be great and we’d have a much different looking Republican Party if it didn’t get to ignore California (same thing with the Democratic Party in Texas). The EC has created a dynamic where each party completely ignores huge demographics / huge population centers and it’s led to a never ending partisan pissing match.

[CosmicCowboy]

How?

slavery was constitutional for all that time. People whined about that. It got changed. I thought whining about the constitution was as useless at whining about gravity.

And i think you meant thirteenth

No meant the 14th. The civil rights act of 1964. States agreeing without a freaking war that we needed to put discrimination behind us.

[spurraider21]

No meant the 14th. The civil rights act of 1964. States agreeing without a freaking war that we needed to put discrimination behind us.
What? without a fight?

the 14th amendment was one of the civil war amendments and the civil rights act was federal and imposed on the Jim Crow states that didn’t want to change :lol

[ChumpDumper]

:lol what just happened here?

[CosmicCowboy]

My mistake. Should have looked it up instead of going by memory. Still, didn't take a civil war to pass it.

[DMC]

:lol no. That’s a ridiculous comment.

How about you keep state governments in place, preserve the current balance between state and federal autonomy, and have the presidential election decided by popular vote.

Members of the house are elected via popular vote by the people they represent (their district). Same for members of the senate (their state). It’s apparently radical to do the same for the president who represents the nation

:lol No, that doesn't make any sense at all. You're comparing apples to oranges.

[ChumpDumper]

My mistake. Should have looked it up instead of going by memory. Still, didn't take a civil war to pass it.Actually it took 188 years including a civil war to get to that point.

[DMC]

Not sure if this is what you’re saying but I think you’re right in the sense that if things were decided by pure popular vote then Trump would spend a lot more time campaigning in California because it’s where the most popular votes could be had and even though he’d still lose the popular vote in CA it wouldn’t be by such a wide margin. Still think Shillary stills wins the popular vote but not by as wide of a margin. No way to know though.

My counter argument to that would be great and we’d have a much different looking Republican Party if it didn’t get to ignore California (same thing with the Democratic Party in Texas). The EC has created a dynamic where each party completely ignores huge demographics / huge population centers and it’s led to a never ending partisan pissing match.

But the states are supposed to be taking those people into account when they send representatives to Washington.

Not only would candidates campaign differently, but people in polarized states wouldn't avoid voting because their vote doesn't change the outcome, so you'd not be able to go into a retrospective analysis mode where you say Gore would have won, Hillary would have won, etc... Different system altogether, doesn't jive with revisionist history.

[spurraider21]

:lol what just happened here?
I’m not exactly sure tbh. Something about the electoral college? Not sure how we got to that time when Alabama and Mississippi pushed for the civil rights act and the 14th amendment.

The next logical direction for this convo is some dinesh D’Souza memes

[ChumpDumper]

I’m not exactly sure tbh. Something about the electoral college? Not sure how we got to that time when Alabama and Mississippi pushed for the civil rights act and the 14th amendment.

The next logical direction for this convo is some dinesh D’Souza memesPrager University video incoming.

[spurraider21]

:lol No, that doesn't make any sense at all. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Still haven’t explained why we’d have to abolish states to allow for a popular vote. Instead of just keeping our system in place as is but switching to a popular vote

[DMC]

Still haven’t explained why we’d have to abolish states to allow for a popular vote. Instead of just keeping our system in place as is but switching to a popular vote

Recount would be done on a nationwide basis, which would entail not only state counting methods but counties as well. Imagine recounting 130 million votes with thousands of different counting systems. Under one governmental body, the voting system and canvassing would all be the same. With state governments, each state would have a different counting method, different voting methods, different ballots.

You'd be opening a can of worms, not very well thought out tbh

I'd be ok with dividing up the electoral votes based on percentages though.

Can't even get one state like Iowa to canvass properly but you expect 50 to do so at the same time? :lol

[TSA]

https://mobile.twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1226577362562752513

:lol he’s so done

[Will Hunting]

https://mobile.twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1226577362562752513

:lol he’s so done
His campaign knew what it was doing when it was hiding him from public appearances as much as humanly possible, but now that he has ground to make up in the polls they can’t hide him anymore and it’s a disaster :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Can't even get one state like Iowa to canvass properly but you expect 50 to do so at the same time? :lolUh, doesn't that actually happen every election or are you saying multiple states are a disaster every federal election?

[spurraider21]

Recount would be done on a nationwide basis, which would entail not only state counting methods but counties as well. Imagine recounting 130 million votes with thousands of different counting systems. Under one governmental body, the voting system and canvassing would all be the same. With state governments, each state would have a different counting method, different voting methods, different ballots.

You'd be opening a can of worms, not very well thought out tbh

I'd be ok with dividing up the electoral votes based on percentages though.

Can't even get one state like Iowa to canvass properly but you expect 50 to do so at the same time? :lol
So the objection to the popular vote is no longer some obscure “we need to change our whole government for it to make sense” argument, but rather a question of logistics.

Thats progress. Still falls flat

right now in the general election, each state records it’s own popular vote totals. It’s already done. Now you just tally those results. A step which is already taken every election.

If a particular state had reporting issues you can still have that one state do a recount if needed.

We already have a nationwide popular vote so there isn’t a need to change the mechanics. You just put away the napkin math

[CosmicCowboy]

Still haven’t explained why we’d have to abolish states to allow for a popular vote. Instead of just keeping our system in place as is but switching to a popular vote

Why not do away with the EC and go with the popular vote? It's really pretty simple. Article 2, section 1, clause 2 of the US Constitution. You can wish all you want but you are stuck with it.

[Thread]

Why not do away with the EC and go with the popular vote? It's really pretty simple. Article 2, section 1, clause 2 of the US Constitution. You can wish all you want but you are stuck with it.

No way, CC. It took us this freakin' long to figure out how to utilize the EC.

[CosmicCowboy]

Maybe if you want to wish for something then wish for all the states to go to proportional representation in the choosing of electors.

[spurraider21]

Why not do away with the EC and go with the popular vote? It's really pretty simple. Article 2, section 1, clause 2 of the US Constitution. You can wish all you want but you are stuck with it.
note to the american people prior to 1912

Why not do away with current system of selecting senators and put it up to a vote of the people? It's really pretty simple. Article 1, section 3, clause 1 of the US Constitution. You can wish all you want, but your are stuck with your state legislature picking your senators for you.


regardless of what you think about the feasibility of changing it, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule is a better and more fair system than a popular vote?
haven't really addressed this at all

[CosmicCowboy]

Doesnt matter what I think. You sound like someone that got way too many "participation" trophies. In the real world life is not fair.

[Th'Pusher]

The Democrat has won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections.

[spurraider21]

Doesnt matter what I think. You sound like someone that got way too many "participation" trophies. In the real world life is not fair.
but feasibility of implementing it notwithstanding, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule (based on geography of voters) is a more fair system than a popular vote?

[ChumpDumper]

Why not do away with the EC and go with the popular vote? It's really pretty simple. Article 2, section 1, clause 2 of the US Constitution. You can wish all you want but you are stuck with it.Right. We still have slavery and women can't vote.:tu

[ChumpDumper]

Doesnt matter what I think. You sound like someone that got way too many "participation" trophies. In the real world life is not fair.:lolK b:lol:lolmer

[CosmicCowboy]

Right. We still have slavery and women can't vote.:tu

As usual Chump starts building ridiculous strawmen. The Electoral College was still the law of the land when slavery was abolished and women got the vote.

[ChumpDumper]

As usual Chump starts building ridiculous strawmen. The Electoral College was still the law of the land when slavery was abolished and women got the vote.How is showing the Constitution can be and has been changed a straw man?

[spurraider21]

As usual Chump starts building ridiculous strawmen. The Electoral College was still the law of the land when slavery was abolished and women got the vote.
women still couldn't vote when slavery was abolished. was women's complaining about the right to vote as useless as complaining about gravity... until it wasn't?

a good starting point would be to answer this question: feasibility of implementing it notwithstanding, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule (based on geography of voters) is a more fair system than a popular vote?

[DMC]

So the objection to the popular vote is no longer some obscure “we need to change our whole government for it to make sense” argument, but rather a question of logistics.

Thats progress. Still falls flat

right now in the general election, each state records it’s own popular vote totals. It’s already done. Now you just tally those results. A step which is already taken every election.

If a particular state had reporting issues you can still have that one state do a recount if needed.

We already have a nationwide popular vote so there isn’t a need to change the mechanics. You just put away the napkin math

When a state like California has a total vote count and the dems have millions more than the GOP, no one is demanding a recount. However if the grand total of all states was close enough, recounts in every state would matter. You're once again taking the system we have now and trying to force fit the popular vote mechanics into it. You'd have to do a lot more than you seem to imply. You can't just take the popular vote count from the current EC system and pretend that's the deciding factor. It would not work that way. I do notice several of you trying that though.

Why would states be in charge of counting votes if the state has no representation in the election? Shouldn't it be federal? Are the states in charge of collecting and ensuring federal income taxes from citizens? How about other federal programs, are they also run by the states?

[DMC]

women still couldn't vote when slavery was abolished. was women's complaining about the right to vote as useless as complaining about gravity... until it wasn't?

a good starting point would be to answer this question: feasibility of implementing it notwithstanding, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule (based on geography of voters) is a more fair system than a popular vote?
It depends on the circumstances. If you think there should only be 2 people in the general election, then sure, but what if there are 3 or 4 under your new system? Since no one has to get a specific number of electoral votes to win now, 4 people could be on the ballot and so the winner could have only 30% of the vote, or less. Is that more fair than the winner having 49% of the vote?

[Reck]

https://mobile.twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1226577362562752513

:lol he’s so done

He may or may not be done but this isn't going to be the reason why. :lol TSA.

If people cared about this kind of behavior, do you think we'd have this dumbass president right now? Thought so

[spurraider21]

When a state like California has a total vote count and the dems have millions more than the GOP, no one is demanding a recount. However if the grand total of all states was close enough, recounts in every state would matter.
what would be the basis of a recount? if you have particular reason to believe there's an issue with the vote. you have the same vote gathering measures as we already have. if there are issues in a particular state, have them recount it. like it's already done.


You're once again taking the system we have now and trying to force fit the popular vote mechanics into it. You'd have to do a lot more than you seem to imply. You can't just take the popular vote count from the current EC system and pretend that's the deciding factor. It would not work that way. I do notice several of you trying that though.
what do you mean? i'm not suggesting we go back and retroactively change previous results. why not have the same method of gathering the popular vote state by state and just tally the totals? what exactly are you saying needs to change?


Why would states be in charge of counting votes if the state has no representation in the election? Shouldn't it be federal? Are the states in charge of collecting and ensuring federal income taxes from citizens? How about other federal programs, are they also run by the states?
no need to go down the slippery slope. it's probably more feasible to have states collect their own data. and by having 50 separate pools of votes, it would make it easier to recount areas that have discrepancies, rather than an all-or-nothing "we have to recount all 150 million votes" situation any time there is a reporting issue somewhere.

states still hold elections at the same time for their representatives, senators, ballot measures, etc. why would you then have a completely separate apparatus for the presidential vote? you're suggesting that the situation needs to be unnecessarily complicated. it doesnt. keep the same vote-gathering system we have in place. you just ignore the midde-man math step of the EC.

[DMC]

what would be the basis of a recount? if you have particular reason to believe there's an issue with the vote. you have the same vote gathering measures as we already have. if there are issues in a particular state, have them recount it. like it's already done.


Total count is close, even if 4 ways. What's the acceptable margin of error on 130 million votes?

If your results are close, a recount could be called for, and you couldn't just cherry pick the state. It would have to be nationwide, because the numbers gained or lost in one state due to recount could be reversed in another.


what do you mean? i'm not suggesting we go back and retroactively change previous results. why not have the same method of gathering the popular vote state by state and just tally the totals? what exactly are you saying needs to change?

Because you're not having a state by state vote. You're having a national election and taking a total vote count. It should be run by the federal government, and the states should have nothing to do with it if the EC isn't going to be involved.


no need to go down the slippery slope. it's probably more feasible to have states collect their own data. and by having 50 separate pools of votes, it would make it easier to recount areas that have discrepancies, rather than an all-or-nothing "we have to recount all 150 million votes" situation any time there is a reporting issue somewhere.
More feasible? You'd have to ask the states if they would rather save the money they spend on canvassing boards for that election and only spend on their state and local elections. The feds would need to run it to ensure consistency, and to have one governing election body controlling the methods.

It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

[spurraider21]

It depends on the circumstances. If you think there should only be 2 people in the general election, then sure, but what if there are 3 or 4 under your new system? Since no one has to get a specific number of electoral votes to win now, 4 people could be on the ballot and so the winner could have only 30% of the vote, or less. Is that more fair than the winner having 49% of the vote?
why does the number of candidates matter?

what happens if there are 3 or 4 on the ballot under the current EC? right now, as it stands, if nobody gets the majority of electoral votes (270), a winner isn't declared. the house of representatives then votes for president. you can still keep that "tiebreak" method in place even if we switch from requiring a majority of the EC votes to a majority of the popular vote.

or you can have ranked choice voting which would be another solution

[spurraider21]

Total count is close, even if 4 ways. What's the acceptable margin of error on 130 million votes?

If your results are close, a recount could be called for, and you couldn't just cherry pick the state. It would have to be nationwide, because the numbers gained or lost in one state due to recount could be reversed in another.
this is why you can still conduct recounts on a state by state basis the same way we do now. if theres reason to believe that a specific state or states had discrepancies in their reporting or their popular vote was within x%, you recount only those states.

there's no need for an all-or-nothing national vote recount.


Because you're not having a state by state vote. You're having a national election and taking a total vote count. It should be run by the federal government, and the states should have nothing to do with it if the EC isn't going to be involved.
i disagree. i think it makes more sense for the states to gather their own votes the same way they already do for representatives, senators, etc. you already have all the people gathering on election day to vote for all these things. deciding to complicating by adding a separate election day, or separate polling locations specifically for the presidential vote would be very stupid. it also prevents the need for all-or-nothing nationwide recounts as i mentioned above. it makes perfect sense to keep the current vote-gathering system in place


More feasible? You'd have to ask the states if they would rather save the money they spend on canvassing boards for that election and only spend on their state and local elections. The feds would need to run it to ensure consistency, and to have one governing election body controlling the methods.It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
right now, states already gather votes for local, state, and national elections. why is it going to suddenly become problematic for states continuing to do exactly the same thing they already do now? you're unnecessarily complicating it

[spurraider21]

right now, a popular vote for the president is already being gathered every single election. pretending that you have to complete uproot the method in which the popular vote is gathered, quite frankly, makes no sense.

the only people that have to change how they go about things are presidential candidates who no longer will be able to ignore large portions of the population and disproportionally campaign in only a handful of states... as if the people of those states are any more important than any other american anywhere

[Will Hunting]

Doesnt matter what I think. You sound like someone that got way too many "participation" trophies. In the real world life is not fair.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything more deserve of an “OK boomer” response than this post :lol

[DMC]

A solution to what? What's the current issue?

[DMC]

right now, a popular vote for the president is already being gathered every single election. pretending that you have to complete uproot the method in which the popular vote is gathered, quite frankly, makes no sense.

the only people that have to change how they go about things are presidential candidates who no longer will be able to ignore large portions of the population and disproportionally campaign in only a handful of states... as if the people of those states are any more important than any other american anywhere

It's not being scrutinized nationally. When is the last time any of the stronghold states had recounts? Just because one side wins handily every time in these states doesn't mean the count is accurate. No one calls for a recount when a million votes separates the candidates, but errors can stack x 50 states.

You keep making these statements based on basically nothing other than guesswork but you say them as if they are researched facts.

You obviously haven't given much thought to it, or you're following some liberal hack website.

[spurraider21]

It's not being scrutinized nationally. When is the last time any of the stronghold states had recounts? Just because one side wins handily every time in these states doesn't mean the count is accurate. No one calls for a recount when a million votes separates the candidates, but errors can stack x 50 states.
cool. so if the general election ends up being very close, you should have a good faith basis to decide where a recount is needed. if some states had irregularities with reporting, thats might indicate a need to look there. if there's a compelling case for a nationwide recount, so be it. 2000 is the only time in the last 40 years that the popular vote was less than ~3 million apart.

the concern for a potential recount is a lazy argument against a popular vote, because the same concern would be used to argue against any instance that calls for a vote of the people, whether its national or otherwise. a national recount would be huge in scope, but on the off chance that one is needed, i think the office of the presidency is significant enough to warrant it


You keep making these statements based on basically nothing other than guesswork but you say them as if they are researched facts.
what facts do i claim to have researched? its true that a popular vote is already recorded every election. you're the one who is deciding that we would need a completely new apparatus to end up with the same popular vote figures that we already record every election. you're the one who is bringing up the concern of "what if there are more people on the ballot" even though that isn't an issue which would be unique to a popular vote, and is equally applicable to the current EC system we have. you're just making shit up as you go along. not so long ago you for some reason claimed that we'd have to scrap our system of having states in order to accommodate a popular vote :lol


You obviously haven't given much thought to it, or you're following some liberal hack website.
im not following any website, this is all my opinion. nice narrative though. and LOL EDITS

[DMC]

For one, it's never going to happen because the left and right cannot agree to a fucking thing, and it requires some consensus in Washington to change the constitution. 2nd, fairness is just a lovely dressing the left wraps this in, because if it was about majority rules, then the minorities in the country would have no voice. The non-urban areas of the US, and states not named California and New York also have an interest in how the country is run, but the left only seems to care about majority rules when they have the majority. At the same time, they want their minority opinions to be dragged to the forefront of social discussion.

[spurraider21]

A solution to what? What's the current issue?
what is this post referring to?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol irregularities are fine if the margins are big enough to look like a solid win.

[spurraider21]

For one, it's never going to happen because the left and right cannot agree to a fucking thing, and it requires some consensus in Washington to change the constitution. 2nd, fairness is just a lovely dressing the left wraps this in, because if it was about majority rules, then the minorities in the country would have no voice. The non-urban areas of the US, and states not named California and New York also have an interest in how the country is run, but the left only seems to care about majority rules when they have the majority. At the same time, they want their minority opinions to be dragged to the forefront of social discussion.
when in doubt, broad-strokes comments about "the left" :lol

and the feasibility of getting a constitutional amendment in place is a legitimate concern... but ultimately not what was being discussed. i prefaced a number of my comments with "notwithstanding the feasibility"

if you want to argue that the current political climate wont allow for a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC in place of a popular vote, i'd probably agree with you. but i'm arguing that a popular vote would be a more fair system than the one in place which allows for minority rule as long as those people live sufficiently far apart from one another. that your argument against it keeps evolving as the discussion goes along, followed by a "well bah humbug its never going to happen anyway" tells me that you know its true or dont really have a good faith argument against that being the case. its ok, you weret alone. CC has been the same way. a lot of nothing followed by "lol its never going to happen anyway" instead of giving a good answer for why it's not a more fair/democratic system

[Spurtacular]

irregularities are fine

Pretty much your stance on Iowa.

[pgardn]

One thing that the blue team absolutely has to come to grips with is that Trump won the election under our current rules.
This has to be accepted and respected. And Hillary 2 million ahead in the popular vote is still a very close election.

So I personally have no problem with 2016 results. But if the red team does not recognize and actually take foreign interference seriously, instead of claiming 2 million Democrat vote were cast illegally, then the red team is far worse than the some of the blue team refusing to accept Trump as president. This lying and fake news has to be treated like the a virus. Its real, lets try to get the best numbers we can, and put the best people out there trying to predict what could happen and why. And then move and take precautions that EVERYONE agrees with. But they cant, because a virus and real numbers and logic defy politics. For some, deep seated hatred, that really does not pass as legitimate concern rules.

Stop fucking around with elections. Tell the truth. Yes blue team, claiming victory in a fd up useless Iowa caucas counts as Trumpian manipulation. I won, no I won, but, but... Just stop it and reveal exactly why it was such a mess. Then fix it.

[DMC]

cool. so if the general election ends up being very close, you should have a good faith basis to decide where a recount is needed. if some states had irregularities with reporting, thats might indicate a need to look there. if there's a compelling case for a nationwide recount, so be it. 2000 is the only time in the last 40 years that the popular vote was less than ~3 million apart.

Good faith? Did you watch the impeachment trial? :lol

You're trying to use results from one equation to answer a different equation. What happened under today's rules wouldn't necessarily be what happens under different rules. I thought you got that concept, I've said it 3 times at least, but you keep going back to past counts.


the concern for a potential recount is a lazy argument against a popular vote, because the same concern would be used to argue against any instance that calls for a vote of the people, whether its national or otherwise. a national recount would be huge in scope, but on the off chance that one is needed, i think the office of the presidency is significant enough to warrant it

You don't get it though - the EC is how it currently is. You're asking people to defend it. You need to provide a compelling reason to change it. I can lob reasons at you all day, but you can just wave them off with "lazy" or "over complicating things". You want it changed. You explain why it's worth the effort and how it would be implemented.


what facts do i claim to have researched? its true that a popular vote is already recorded every election. you're the one who is deciding that we would need a completely new apparatus to end up with the same popular vote figures that we already record every election. you're the one who is bringing up the concern of "what if there are more people on the ballot" even though that isn't an issue which would be unique to a popular vote, and is equally applicable to the current EC system we have. you're just making shit up as you go along. not so long ago you for some reason claimed that we'd have to scrap our system of having states in order to accommodate a popular vote :lol

How accurate is the popular vote currently and how relevant is it in a system of winner take all in states like California, Texas and New York? You seem to think numbers no one is really trying to get are meaningful in retrospect when considering a new system.

What you're doing is akin to counting how much of a product is consumed when the product is free and trying to figure the profit when you start charging for it.


im not following any website, this is all my opinion. nice narrative though. and LOL EDITS
Your opinion isn't well thought out. You should blame it on someone else.

[DMC]

when in doubt, broad-strokes comments about "the left" :lol

I said left and right. How is that a broad stroke about the left?

However the right isn't pushing for rule changes to the entire election process because "muh popular vote".


and the feasibility of getting a constitutional amendment in place is a legitimate concern... but ultimately not what was being discussed. i prefaced a number of my comments with "notwithstanding the feasibility"

It's being discussed if that's what I want to discuss. Do you want to control the narrative now too? :lol


if you want to argue that the current political climate wont allow for a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC in place of a popular vote, i'd probably agree with you. but i'm arguing that a popular vote would be a more fair system than the one in place which allows for minority rule as long as those people live sufficiently far apart from one another. that your argument against it keeps evolving as the discussion goes along, followed by a "well bah humbug its never going to happen anyway" tells me that you know its true or dont really have a good faith argument against that being the case. its ok, you weret alone. CC has been the same way. a lot of nothing followed by "lol its never going to happen anyway" instead of giving a good answer for why it's not a more fair/democratic system
It evolves because the burden is on you, not me. As I said, anything I say you can just dismiss casually. So you have the EC system and a shit ton of obstacles to clear in order to change it. Your "fairness" is personal opinion, and how can I disprove your view on fairness? So we'll default to burden of proof. You want it changed, provide something besides your version of "fair" that somehow conveniently aligns with the left's version of fair when they lose elections.

[spurraider21]

You're trying to use results from one equation to answer a different equation. What happened under today's rules wouldn't necessarily be what happens under different rules. I thought you got that concept, I've said it 3 times at least, but you keep going back to past counts.
teah you keep repeating this and never elaborate when asked. It’s a vague and cryptic concern. Explain how it would manifest


You don't get it though - the EC is how it currently is. You're asking people to defend it. You need to provide a compelling reason to change it. I can lob reasons at you all day, but you can just wave them off with "lazy" or "over complicating things". You want it changed. You explain why it's worth the effort and how it would be implemented.
:lol really? Why don’t you look back at how the conversation started. You always whine about people jumping into discussions without having read the previous dialogue.

Choosing the winner by popular vote is more fair and sensical because it gives every Americans vote equal weight and consequence. The EC creates the unnecessary potential of allowing a minority vote to prevail because of the geography of the voters. The EC disincentivizes voting in non battleground states. Republican voters in New York are essentially disenfranchised when it comes to presidential elections. And so on.

The EC makes it such that the same persons vote is significantly more consequential if he lives in Ohio as opposed to Oregon, even though the president is nationally elected.


How accurate is the popular vote currently and how relevant is it in a system of winner take all in states like California, Texas and New York? You seem to think numbers no one is really trying to get are meaningful in retrospect when considering a new system.
if circumstances reflect that there’s a significant likelihood of inaccuracy they can recount. This isn’t a novel concept. Even in state wide elections sometimes they only hold recounts in those counties where there were irregularities. If the issues can’t be reasonably narrowed and results are within some accepted margin (say, 1%) then sure maybe the possibility arises that we need a national recount. Recounts are a possibility in any election scheme. That’s not enough of a deterrent.


What you're doing is akin to counting how much of a product is consumed when the product is free and trying to figure the profit when you start charging for it.
what? :lol


Your opinion isn't well thought out. You should blame it on someone else.
Oh ok. Maybe if you change your counter arguments a few more times you might end up with a god one

[spurraider21]

It's being discussed if that's what I want to discuss. Do you want to control the narrative now too? :lol
ive said i agree that the feasibility of amending the constitution is an obstacle unlikely to be overcome. How much more do you want to discuss it. Would you be satisfied if we repeat this line back to each other a few more times?


It evolves because the burden is on you, not me. As I said, anything I say you can just dismiss casually. So you have the EC system and a shit ton of obstacles to clear in order to change it. Your "fairness" is personal opinion, and how can I disprove your view on fairness? So we'll default to burden of proof. You want it changed, provide something besides your version of "fair" that somehow conveniently aligns with the left's version of fair when they lose elections.
Your arguments have evolved over such a short period of time because they aren’t well thought out and are pointed out as such.

but ok. Let’s talk fairness. I think the most fair method of a national election is more every American vote to carry with it equal weight and consequence.

Do you disagree?

[ChumpDumper]

Pretty much your stance on Iowa.What are you saying happened in Iowa?

[Spurtacular]

What are you saying happened in Iowa?

Suspicious activity. You want info refer to the posts in that thread instead of doing your infinite loop.

[ChumpDumper]

Suspicious activity. You want info refer to the posts in that thread instead of doing your infinite loop.Sorry, why don't you say what you found so suspicious in your own words?

Let's discuss your concerns.

[Spurtacular]

Sorry, why don't you say what you found so suspicious in your own words?

Let's discuss your concerns.

Because there is a current thread that lists plenty of suspicious activity and I don't need to list stuff for you to nitpick.

:lmao Nitpicking is your endgame always.

[ElNono]

Ok.


Dems should pick the most leftist candidate. That's what most Americans are starving for.

:lmao

I'm not sure why you say this, when Trump campaigned for a closed economy (tariffs, bringing back manufacturing, stopping outsourcing), "cheap and best" healthcare, that the rich hedge fund guys were going to have to lose money this time, leave Social Security as it is, etc... That's textbook left populist message.

Maybe not Bernie's level left, but decidedly left of center.

Sure, he aligned with the right on environmental regulations and tax cuts, and that's exactly why I mention ideology has little to do with it. He was all over the place, and very light on details.

[CosmicCowboy]

when in doubt, broad-strokes comments about "the left" :lol

and the feasibility of getting a constitutional amendment in place is a legitimate concern... but ultimately not what was being discussed. i prefaced a number of my comments with "notwithstanding the feasibility"

if you want to argue that the current political climate wont allow for a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC in place of a popular vote, i'd probably agree with you. but i'm arguing that a popular vote would be a more fair system than the one in place which allows for minority rule as long as those people live sufficiently far apart from one another. that your argument against it keeps evolving as the discussion goes along, followed by a "well bah humbug its never going to happen anyway" tells me that you know its true or dont really have a good faith argument against that being the case. its ok, you weret alone. CC has been the same way. a lot of nothing followed by "lol its never going to happen anyway" instead of giving a good answer for why it's not a more fair/democratic system

Way back at post 400 I told you how you could accomplish your goal of the Presidential vote tracking the popular vote without doing away with the EC and you just blew right by it and kept whining. States can individually decide to have their electors proportionately track their popular vote.

[DMC]

teah you keep repeating this and never elaborate when asked. It’s a vague and cryptic concern. Explain how it would manifest


:lol really? Why don’t you look back at how the conversation started. You always whine about people jumping into discussions without having read the previous dialogue.

Choosing the winner by popular vote is more fair and sensical because it gives every Americans vote equal weight and consequence. The EC creates the unnecessary potential of allowing a minority vote to prevail because of the geography of the voters. The EC disincentivizes voting in non battleground states. Republican voters in New York are essentially disenfranchised when it comes to presidential elections. And so on.

The EC makes it such that the same persons vote is significantly more consequential if he lives in Ohio as opposed to Oregon, even though the president is nationally elected.


if circumstances reflect that there’s a significant likelihood of inaccuracy they can recount. This isn’t a novel concept. Even in state wide elections sometimes they only hold recounts in those counties where there were irregularities. If the issues can’t be reasonably narrowed and results are within some accepted margin (say, 1%) then sure maybe the possibility arises that we need a national recount. Recounts are a possibility in any election scheme. That’s not enough of a deterrent.


what? :lol


Oh ok. Maybe if you change your counter arguments a few more times you might end up with a god one


ive said i agree that the feasibility of amending the constitution is an obstacle unlikely to be overcome. How much more do you want to discuss it. Would you be satisfied if we repeat this line back to each other a few more times?


Your arguments have evolved over such a short period of time because they aren’t well thought out and are pointed out as such.

but ok. Let’s talk fairness. I think the most fair method of a national election is more every American vote to carry with it equal weight and consequence.

Do you disagree?

Parsimony is needed here.

People live in states and they vote with state needs in mind. Without states, you would be correct. States with more people have more power than states with fewer people. Thats represented also with the EC and reps in Washington.

So no states, popular vote is ok. With states, voters are already segregated and the voting controlled by states.

As for retrospect, if we decided to take total points over the season for each team we may have a different outcome than we have now. Teams only put points on the board to win a game. You could hypothetically say that one team scored more than another team for the season then use that to say it's a better team. It would just be faulty reasoning. This is what dems are doing with past popular vote.

If states are counting all votes now, all votes count.

[ChumpDumper]

Because there is a current thread that lists plenty of suspicious activity and I don't need to list stuff for you to nitpick.

:lmao Nitpicking is your endgame always.derp folds

Folding is your endgame always.

[spurraider21]

Parsimony is needed here.

People live in states and they vote with state needs in mind. Without states, you would be correct. States with more people have more power than states with fewer people. Thats represented also with the EC and reps in Washington.

So no states, popular vote is ok. With states, voters are already segregated and the voting controlled by states.
so you don’t think every Americans vote should have equal effect and weight when it comes to voting for president. Ok, that’s where we are at an impasse


As for retrospect, if we decided to take total points over the season for each team we may have a different outcome than we have now. Teams only put points on the board to win a game. You could hypothetically say that one team scored more than another team for the season then use that to say it's a better team. It would just be faulty reasoning. This is what dems are doing with past popular vote.

If states are counting all votes now, all votes count.
Nobody is suggesting we undo previous elections, so this concern is unfounded.

[spurraider21]

Way back at post 400 I told you how you could accomplish your goal of the Presidential vote tracking the popular vote without doing away with the EC and you just blew right by it and kept whining. States can individually decide to have their electors proportionately track their popular vote.
This was post 400

Why not do away with the EC and go with the popular vote? It's really pretty simple. Article 2, section 1, clause 2 of the US Constitution. You can wish all you want but you are stuck with it.
But to your post, i agree that it would be an improvement to our current system. It would require all 50 states to buy in, though, which is arguably harder than amending the constitution.

Since that system is almost seeking to emulate the effect of a popular vote, can i take that to mean that you would agree it’s a better system to have everybody’s vote count as equal regardless of where they live?

[CosmicCowboy]

https://media2.giphy.com/media/RL0xU1daTlMoE/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611d6fd2e7ad0e59c420716c2cc1cf4 0cc313dac50c&rid=giphy.gif

[spurraider21]

https://media2.giphy.com/media/RL0xU1daTlMoE/giphy.gif?cid=790b7611d6fd2e7ad0e59c420716c2cc1cf4 0cc313dac50c&rid=giphy.gif
just answer the question tbh :lol...

Since that system is almost seeking to emulate the effect of a popular vote, can i take that to mean that you would agree it’s a better system to have everybody’s vote count as equal regardless of where they live?

[CosmicCowboy]

just answer the question tbh :lol...

:lmao fucker thinks he is Chump now. Ask the same stupid question for three pages.

[spurraider21]

:lmao fucker thinks he is Chump now. Ask the same stupid question for three pages.
you're spending more effort finding gifs and making these posts than spitting out an answer to whats a really basic question about the entire premise of this conversation :lol

[Spurminator]

Maybe if you want to wish for something then wish for all the states to go to proportional representation in the choosing of electors.

This is what I'd do. Keep it a state-by-state vote, but Wyoming should be so disproportionately represented in the EC vs. California.

[CosmicCowboy]

you're spending more effort finding gifs and making these posts than spitting out an answer to whats a really basic question about the entire premise of this conversation :lol

I think every state should do what it considers to be in its best interest. There. I answered your last rephrased question.

[spurraider21]

This is what I'd do. Keep it a state-by-state vote, but Wyoming should be so disproportionately represented in the EC vs. California.
thats a result of the senate and the fixed number of reps which leads to imperfect proportional representation

[ChumpDumper]

you're spending more effort finding gifs and making these posts than spitting out an answer to whats a really basic question about the entire premise of this conversation :lolderpesque

[spurraider21]

I think every state should do what it considers to be in its best interest. There. I answered your last rephrased question.
no, you aren't answering. i asked if you would agree that it's a better system to have everybody's vote count as equal regardless of where they live.

if you dont hold that opinion that's your business. it shouldn't be that hard to just say so :lol

[Spurminator]

thats a result of the senate and the fixed number of reps which leads to imperfect proportional representation

Sure, I know there's precedent, but we're discussing an overhaul of how we elect a President and I think it's a pretty fair middle ground. Don't think you can change the Senate. Best fix for that is more states.

[CosmicCowboy]

Keep in mind that when you change a procedure that you consider is in your current political best interest it can always backfire. Harry Reid learned that the hard way when he went nuclear in 2013 on Federal judge appointments. The Republicans have crammed that decision up his ass ever since.

[baseline bum]

Keep in mind that when you change a procedure that you consider is in your current political best interest it can always backfire. Harry Reid learned that the hard way when he went nuclear in 2013 on Federal judge appointments. The Republicans have crammed that decision up his ass ever since.

Because McConnell obstructed at an unprecedented rate for four years.

[spurraider21]

Sure, I know there's precedent, but we're discussing an overhaul of how we elect a President and I think it's a pretty fair middle ground. Don't think you can change the Senate. Best fix for that is more states.
oh, absolutely. i already said i'd be for that solution as a reasonable compromise.

but that requires all 50 states to be on board, individually

[SnakeBoy]

Keep in mind that when you change a procedure that you consider is in your current political best interest it can always backfire.

The funny thing about this argument from them is that the EC favors their party. It's only when they run incredibly shitty candidates like Gore & Hillary that they have a problem with it.

[spurraider21]

Keep in mind that when you change a procedure that you consider is in your current political best interest it can always backfire. Harry Reid learned that the hard way when he went nuclear in 2013 on Federal judge appointments. The Republicans have crammed that decision up his ass ever since.
i dont have an issue with this because the popular vote is not inherently advantageous to any one party of the other. it's only advantageous to the people, because only in that system does everybody's vote count as the same. your vote in texas right now, in terms of the presidential election, means dick-all. i dont know why you prefer that to a popular vote where your vote now matters as much as some shmuck who happens to live on florida or pennsylvania


The funny thing about this argument from them is that the EC favors their party. It's only when they run incredibly shitty candidates like Gore & Hillary that they have a problem with it.
how did you reach the conclusion that the EC favors the democratic party?

[baseline bum]

how did you reach the conclusion that the EC favors the democratic party?

Same way he reached the conclusion that Trump would be a Democrat after getting elected?

[baseline bum]

The funny thing about this argument from them is that the EC favors their party. It's only when they run incredibly shitty candidates like Gore & Hillary that they have a problem with it.

How does that make any sense? The GOP ran incredibly shitty candidates in Bush and Trump and won thanks only to the EC.

[boutons_deux]

If Repugs had lost 2 of the last 5 elections due to EC, they would have been SCREAMING to abolish the EC.

The EC has failed to block the Trash type of candidate that the FFs feared when they created the EC

America simply can't fix its shit, which shit has been rigged, weaponized against solutions.

[baseline bum]

The GOP has won the popular vote once in the last 30 years and yet they have won 3 of those 7 elections. But the electoral college favors the Democrats. :lmao

[spurraider21]

If Repugs had lost 2 of the last 5 elections due to EC, they would have been SCREAMING to abolish the EC.
and they'd have a great point tbh

i love how the argument is "we dont want 51% to impose their will on the 49%" but somehow its much better to allow the 49% to impose their will on the 51%? :lol

[baseline bum]

and they'd have a great point tbh

i love how the argument is "we dont want 51% to impose their will on the 49%" but somehow its much better to allow the 49% to impose their will on the 51%? :lol

I still remember in gradeschool thinking how stupid the electoral college sounded when we were taught it but the teachers said it always lines up with the popular vote anyways so it didn't matter. Too bad we couldn't get rid of this stain from slavery before ClearChannel and Fox News radicalized the right. It's obviously never going anywhere now under this current scumbag Republican party.

[spurraider21]

I still remember in gradeschool thinking how stupid the electoral college sounded when we were taught it but the teachers said it always lines up with the popular vote anyways so it didn't matter. Too bad we couldn't get rid of this stain from slavery before ClearChannel and Fox News radicalized the right.
:lol what a trip... i was in grade school when bush/gore happened, and i remember not understanding what the fuck was going on, especially with the court getting involved. i just remember my dad (current trumper, for reference) telling me nothing except gore was trying to cheat, and calling Gore-Lieberman Sore-Loserman

[Spurtacular]

:lol what a trip... i was in grade school when bush/gore happened, and i remember not understanding what the fuck was going on, especially with the court getting involved. i just remember my dad (current trumper, for reference) telling me nothing except gore was trying to cheat, and calling Gore-Lieberman Sore-Loserman

Your dad was smart. Why did you rebel against him?

[Spurminator]

Keep in mind that when you change a procedure that you consider is in your current political best interest it can always backfire. Harry Reid learned that the hard way when he went nuclear in 2013 on Federal judge appointments. The Republicans have crammed that decision up his ass ever since.

Well, I'm not really considering the political advantage, I'm considering the equal balance. With that said, I don't see how the two scenarios are similar. Population and demographics don't shift substantially back and forth every four years like with elections.

[spurraider21]

Your dad was smart. Why did you rebel against him?
oh, the more i read the more i learned. simple stuff like even understanding how marginal tax brackets work (something i had to even walk you through, not that long ago)

[ChumpDumper]

oh, the more i read the more i learned. simple stuff like even understanding how marginal tax brackets work (something i had to even walk you through, not that long ago):lmao derp's education

[Spurminator]

The funny thing about this argument from them is that the EC favors their party. It's only when they run incredibly shitty candidates like Gore & Hillary that they have a problem with it.

"It's only when the Democrats win the popular vote with shitty candidates that the EC doesn't favor them."

Solid take.

[Spurtacular]

oh, the more i read the more i learned. simple stuff like even understanding how marginal tax brackets work (something i had to even walk you through, not that long ago)

Dems and Repubs enable the rich to eat the poor, tbh.

I don't even like Bush; but your dad was right about Gore's antics.

[Spurtacular]

derpesque


:lmao derp's education

Blake impressions won't get you the tiny w's you crave, tbh.

[ChumpDumper]

Blake impressions won't get you the tiny w's you crave, tbh.You're nowhere near as intelligent as you want people here to think and it burns you up inside.

Now use some big words to compensate.

[Spurtacular]

oh, the more i read the more i learned. simple stuff like even understanding how marginal tax brackets work (something i had to even walk you through, not that long ago)

I remember the convo but not exactly what your thoughts were on that. Give me a refresher.

[ChumpDumper]

I remember the convo but not exactly what your thoughts were on that. Give me a refresher.:rollin :rollin :rollin

[Spurtacular]

You're nowhere near as intelligent as you want people here to think and it burns you up inside.

Now use some big words to compensate.

Chump's insecurities bubbling up again.

[spurraider21]

ST's search function is down, but i was able to google "spurstalk marginal tax rates spurtacular" and it took me to the thread :lol.

there was an earlier part of the convo that i was having with darrin, where he made a mistake about the marginal rates and then realized and acknowledged it. you for some reason decided that no, he was completely accurate all along :lol. click on any of these posts to go back to the thread for full context

this was his original comment with respect to having a higher marginal tax rate (70%) on income above 10 mil


So, Anderson Cooper would just take home 3.6M of his 12M salary? I don't think so. He'd probably renegotiate his salary to 9.9M and get some other kind of financial incentive.

but the analysis was wrong because he operated under the assumption that the entirety of the 12M would be taxed at 70%. he quickly realized and acknowledged that like an adult. you then decided no he's right all along


Good gawd you want to be spoonfed today. 3.6 M is 30 percent of 12 M. Going down a bracket and finding other options like stock options or other "payments" or something of the sort would allow him to then keep more money on whatever figure it all adds up to be.


that's exactly my point. so you dont know what marginal tax rates are either.

good to know. how does it feel then AOC knows more about tax policy than you do?

:lol
DarrinS (https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2042) maybe you can help him out tbh


WTF are you talking about. It's not a hard concept, whatsoever. Good gawd you need a win worse than chump. You're just making shit up in your mind at this point.


:lol you have no idea how tax brackets work. that's adorable.

let me spoonfeed you, bruh.

lets assume these are the only tax brackets

$0 through $9,999,999 - 20%
$10 mil plus - 50%

if somebody earned a total of 20 million, they would NOT pay 50% tax on their entire salary. their take-home would NOT be 10 mil.

instead, all of their income from 0 through 9,999,999 will be taxed at the lower 20% rate (2 mil in taxes on those earnings). all income EXCEEDING the 10 mil point will be taxed at the full 50% mark (5 mil in taxes on those earnings). so somebody earning 20 mil given the brackets above would pay 7 mil in taxes for an effective tax rate of 35%

you're welcome for the lesson, bruh. i'm glad AOC got you to learn something new today.


Hence why DarrinS was arguing for AC to take his income down below 10M and for me explaining exactly the same damn thing. You need to stop pretending people are making incorrect arguments; that or work on your comprehension. You just come off as desperate for a W, bruh.

:lol A lesson that I already gave to you, bruh.


you make no sense. darrin calculated it as though Cooper would pay the full 70% rate on his entire 12 million salary. hence his claim that cooper would only be able to take home 3.6 million out of 12.

that is objectively incorrect.

[spurraider21]

basically anyone who thinks "if i show less income, i will take home more money after taxes" fundamentally misunderstands how tax brackets work... and that ends up being a talking about among conservatives who argue against the concept of tax brackets

"if they set a new bracket at $200,000, then people will just try to make 199k instead of 201k!"

[Spurminator]

basically anyone who thinks "if i show less income, i will take home more money after taxes" fundamentally misunderstands how tax brackets work... and that ends up being a talking about among conservatives who argue against the concept of tax brackets

"if they set a new bracket at $200,000, then people will just try to make 199k instead of 201k!"

:cry I'm being punished for making more money :cry

Always my favorite talking point/bitch.

[spurraider21]

:cry I'm being punished for making more money :cry

Always my favorite talking point/bitch.
they're admittedly lines i would parrot without understanding what the fuck i was talking about... until i actually learned how these things worked. i was probably insufferable as fuck during high school

i actually read "The Way Things Ought To Be" by Medal of Freedom winning Rush Limbaugh and "How To Talk To a Liberal (If You Must)" by Ann Coulter during high school :lol

[Spurtacular]

I wasn't asking you to spike the football and/or post all that garble, Lite. I just want you to give me a brief synopsis (a few lines) on marginal tax brackets and why you think the Democrats are so much better in changing the structure.

[spurraider21]

I wasn't asking you to spike the football and/or post all that garble, Lite. I just want you to give me a brief synopsis (a few lines) on marginal tax brackets and why you think the Democrats are so much better in changing the structure.
ok. brief synopsis is that my views on things like tax rates changed when i actually learned about how they worked, and that you were a good example of somebody who still has trouble grasping how they work

[Spurtacular]

ok. brief synopsis is that my views on things like tax rates changed when i actually learned about how they worked, and that you were a good example of somebody who still has trouble grasping how they work

Okay, lash out all you want. I just figured you would be interested in a discussion.

[spurraider21]

Okay, lash out all you want. I just figured you would be interested in a discussion.
Always. What would you like to discuss?

[Spurtacular]

Always. What would you like to discuss?

I recall that tax rate kicking in at various dollar amounts on rates starting at said marks. I don't recall exactly what your issue is though.

[spurraider21]

I recall that tax rate kicking in at various dollar amounts on rates starting at said marks. I don't recall exactly what your issue is though.
that wasn't the message you were trying to get across in that previous discussion. if you've come around and learned how the brackets actually work, good on you.

the basic rule is that no matter what the brackets are, you will never take home less money by getting into a higher bracket. you do get diminishing returns, of course, but you never lose money by making more, which is a (frustratingly) common misconception.

so when AOC wants to slap on a 70% for everybody making north of 10 mil, it's fundamentally wrong to say that you take home more money by showing 9.9 mil of income as opposed to 10.1 mil. if you have "come to terms" with that, then we're good (doesnt mean you have to agree that the tax would be a good thing)

and circling back to how this came up, before i understood how the brackets worked (and made the very mistake that now frustrates me to see), i thought tax brackets were inherently bad and thought a flat tax made more sense. i no longer believe that because i've learned how taxes actually work. my views change as i learn.

[Spurtacular]

that wasn't the message you were trying to get across in that previous discussion. if you've come around and learned how the brackets actually work, good on you.

the basic rule is that no matter what the brackets are, you will never take home less money by getting into a higher bracket. you do get diminishing returns, of course, but you never lose money by making more, which is a (frustratingly) common misconception.

so when AOC wants to slap on a 70% for everybody making north of 10 mil, it's fundamentally wrong to say that you take home more money by showing 9.9 mil of income as opposed to 10.1 mil. if you have "come to terms" with that, then we're good (doesnt mean you have to agree that the tax would be a good thing)

Okay, so there's a common misconception out there. I'm still not for the government doing nothing and feeling entitled to the lion's share of person's earnings. You may recall being taught in your econ classes about how excessive taxation is waste. Somehow, liberals love to ignore this very basic reality.

[spurraider21]

Okay, so there's a common misconception out there. I'm still not for the government doing nothing and feeling entitled to the lion's share of person's earnings. You may recall being taught in your econ classes about how excessive taxation is waste. Somehow, liberals love to ignore this very basic reality.
right, the laffer curve. the issue with the laffer curve is that it is incredibly vague and there's no real mathematical analysis determining what the optimum tax rates are. its entirely conceptual. and of course, optimum tax rates would differ based on income level.

assuming flat rates with no brackets, just for the sake of argument, if i'm earning 100k a year but paying 70% taxes on all that money, its not worth my while to only bring home 30k. but if i'm earning 200 mil a year gross and paying 70% taxes on all that money, i'm still bringing home 60 mil net. hardly causing me financial strain, and still worth my while.

i dont think the US is anywhere near being on the "wrong side" of the laffer curve

[Spurtacular]

right, the laffer curve. the issue with the laffer curve is that it is incredibly vague and there's no real mathematical analysis determining what the optimum tax rates are. its entirely conceptual. and of course, optimum tax rates would differ based on income level.

assuming flat rates with no brackets, just for the sake of argument, if i'm earning 100k a year but paying 70% taxes on all that money, its not worth my while to only bring home 30k. but if i'm earning 200 mil a year gross and paying 70% taxes on all that money, i'm still bringing home 60 mil net. hardly causing me financial strain, and still worth my while.

i dont think the US is anywhere near being on the "wrong side" of the laffer curve

It's not a curve; it's just a basic principle. Taxes are to be taken out to be paid on services the private sector won't perform. Any excess is considered waste.

One could argue socialism is better than the crony capitalism we have now; but I'm still not overlooking the inevitability of grand waste and that what we will have is crony socialism.

[DarrinS]

There aren't enough millionaires and billionaires to cover their crazy plans. At least Bernie was honest enough to admit that taxes on middle class would have to be increased.

[Spurtacular]

There aren't enough millionaires and billionaires to cover their crazy plans. At least Bernie was honest enough to admit that taxes on middle class would have to be increased.

Pocohantas shut down when she was asked how she was going to pay for the plans she stole from Bernie. :lol

[spurraider21]

It's not a curve; it's just a basic principle. Taxes are to be taken out to be paid on services the private sector won't perform. Any excess is considered waste.

One could argue socialism is better than the crony capitalism we have now; but I'm still not overlooking the inevitability of grand waste and that what we will have is crony socialism.
socialism and capitalism are on a spectrum. we dont have to go all-in in either direction.

[Spurtacular]

socialism and capitalism are on a spectrum. we dont have to go all-in in either direction.

That's oversimplified. Our means of production is largely capitalistic / crony capitalistic. Our compulsory taxation and programs are largely crony socialism with a lot of waste. I don't want to expand upon that waste.

[spurraider21]

There aren't enough millionaires and billionaires to cover their crazy plans. At least Bernie was honest enough to admit that taxes on middle class would have to be increased.
right. i dont think warren's plan is tenable, tbh... she wants to pin too much of it on employers. it makes more sense to acknowledge that taxes will go up on people but with the understanding that it will be more than offset by their no longer paying premiums/deductibles/copays

[Spurminator]

they're admittedly lines i would parrot without understanding what the fuck i was talking about... until i actually learned how these things worked. i was probably insufferable as fuck during high school

i actually read "The Way Things Ought To Be" by Medal of Freedom winning Rush Limbaugh and "How To Talk To a Liberal (If You Must)" by Ann Coulter during high school :lol

I got into Coulter and D'Souza for a while after 9/11. Watched a lot of Hannity too and listened to his radio show. At some point I noticed my intelligence was being insulted. It's troubling that so many people never reach that point.

[ElNono]

Like all the people and companies moving to Texas from California?

This is a fairly common dig, but the numbers don't back it up.

https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/US-California-Texas-Florida-New-York-population.png

[ElNono]

Also, what if it's not a 2 party election, like there are 4 people and no one gets more than 30% of the vote? So someone gets elected with 30% of the popular vote and somehow that's more democratic than someone getting 49% of the popular vote?

I feel like the dems look at a system historically decided by the EC and then magically apply popular vote as if the election and turnout wouldn't be totally different under that totally different system - as if the dems could just remove the results of the EC and cherry pick the popular vote totals in those cases.

You can do a runoff with the top two candidates... I mean, this isn't new.

[ElNono]

His campaign knew what it was doing when it was hiding him from public appearances as much as humanly possible, but now that he has ground to make up in the polls they can’t hide him anymore and it’s a disaster :lol

I called it.

Me

The sooner this guy has a stroke, the better the Dems will be in figuring out their candidate.

[DarrinS]

Like all the people and companies moving to Texas from California?


This is a fairly common dig, but the numbers don't back it up.



https://www.city-journal.org/red-states-economic-demographic-advantage

[ElNono]

https://www.city-journal.org/red-states-economic-demographic-advantage

That's great, but anecdotal. Comparing 10 years worth of blue state domination to last year and calling it a trend, well, you buy that.

The numbers still don't back it up. I've been hearing about the mass exodus of people away from California for years on end, yet, their population keeps going up and up, and no more or less than Texas.

I would agree, however, that there's a demographic shift. It's simply more expensive to live in cities that give better salaries, so there's certainly class turnaround.