Reply With Quote
I swear I read somewhere that your mom has baboon vagina. Please confirm.
The country is rigged towards low population states, both for the Senate and for the Electoral College.
I swear I read somewhere that your mom has baboon vagina. Please confirm.
The country is "rigged" towards the producers instead of the consumers, as it should be.
What's always misleading about these maps is that land area doesn't vote and doesn't decide number of voters. As lopsided as the color represents, the population is concentrated in small areas, mostly in blue. The only telling stat is the electoral votes, winning states. That's what was surprising.
what bull .
10Ms of people want good jobs, work at bad jobs (often 2 or more), get by with public assistance, but VRWC/BigCorp has destroyed good jobs.
The economy is rigged towards BigFinance, BigCorp, 1% and everybody else is ed.
Voting as a "democracy" is rigged towards low population states, both for the Senate and for the Electoral College.
Don The Con and Repugs will over everybody but their own top decile.
See the Princeton study about USA as oligarchy, and try to refute it.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 11-23-2016 at 06:46 PM.
Nice word salad, but it has nothing to do with my post.
The Electoral College exists to make sure that the consumer class in large urban centers on the coasts can't simply outvote the people who grow their food, manufacture and transport their goods, and produce their electricity. It works just fine as intended and doesn't need to change.
I will contend it's the democrats that cheat and reprogram the electronic voting machines.
nope, the EC was designed to give electors, supposedly a more serious, less gullible group, a chance to override a demagogic winner of the popular vote. eg, exactly like now, to override the demagogue Don The Con.
yep, the EC was designed PRECISELY to block inexperienced, ignorant, lying, conning demagogues like Don The Con from becoming Pres.
more discussion:
http://time.com/4575119/electoral-college-demagogues/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...sident/508310/
Don't worry honey. You still got a participation sticker for voting.
"Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union"
Translation: you can't just appeal to the takers to win an election - you also have to appeal to the makers.
Don The Con is a taker, been ing over makers, suppliers, investors his entire career.
That has nothing to do with "makers" and "takers"
Don The POTUS built his small family business into a multi-billion-dollar global empire.
You live in mommy's basement and collect welfare checks.
Don the Con lost all first $Ms from Daddy, who bailed him out. Then he went bankrupt 3 or 4 more times, costing his investors $100Ms, while paying himself very well. Perfect definition of a grifter.
His starter wealth has been outperformed by both the stock market and the real estate market.
You're not accounting for his lavish lifestyle and multiple divorces/child support.
You make such convincing points RMT. You really do a great job of selling your boy Trump.
That's what I'm always looking for in a presidential candidate.
Point being, if we had all invested every penny we earned all our life in the stock market we would all be rich. These comparisons are stupid.
But his gold house and rocket car were good investments and not garish at all.
Actually buying this myth
https://www.bloombergview.com/articl...-have-indexed-
Clintons popular vote lead surpasses two million.
Source: NYT
With new votes tallied from New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland and California, Mrs. Clinton’s popular vote lead reached 2,017,563 overnight.
Mrs. Clinton’s lead now exceeds the winning percentages of seven presidents, five of whom also won the Electoral College. And it has given rise to a push from liberal activists to demand audits in three states won narrowly by Mr. Trump: Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
mainly it is pointing toward a structural disadvantage Democrats have with the Electoral College: Their voters are too concentrated in the bright blue states of the West Coast and Northeast. Democrats have now won the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential elections, but lost two of them (Al Gore in 2000, and Mrs. Clinton now) in the Electoral College.
Hillary Clinton has widened her lead in the popular vote to 1.5 percentage points, a spread not seen for a losing candidate since 1876.
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us...ransition.html
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
