See? You agree with some of what he said, but not EVERYTHING he said! That's good! That's a balance!
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Sure, it's both. They both try to screw the other as hard and as blatantly as possible. They get more donations and support from their "bases" that way. They maintain their status and grow their wealth, power and influence.
That's the other thing that doomed this country... two political parties. Two tribes fighting it out for perpetuity. And, the American people believing that they give a shit about them.
oh, did he say you're a half wit? I missed it but you're right, I agree. I feel so balanced now.
why don't you and the similarly half-witted strum put your half-brains together and try to grasp that the contention is that he didn't win in a LEGITIMATE, proper election. Unless of course you think third-world type elections are legitimate. The point is that most who have an IQ greater than a head of cauliflower understand that 'deniers' aren't saying the votes AS TABULATED were not enough to declare Biden a winner, but that the tabulation was faulty.
maybe get some third-grader to explain it to you.
it isn't blindly that I strictly oppose a party that supports the things that I mentioned. As I once pointed out to the rank hypocrite who gave you a like, an individual disagreeing with some of what a party represents makes no difference if that individual supports the party that has those things on the agenda. Has this profoundly simple revelation surprised you? I hope not.
And I hope you aren't saying that pulling some political shenanigans is equal to condoning outright murder of the innocent in determining what a party is capable of.,. Maybe YOU can go on and on but I don't need to.
That being said, actually buying into a belief that our election and our government and our very democracy was ever in any real danger is a laughable manifestation of mass hysteria. A bill that would allow a baby's skull to be crushed at nine months was not.
what, for the 100th time? Just so you can disregard it? Just so you can say 'where's the proof?' At some point I just know I'm dealing with an idiot and accept it. I passed that point with you long ago. If you really want an answer, you can find it in spades in a mountain of previous posts. Have fun.
Promise? Won't your full-time editor and publisher be disappointed?
are you sure he said that?
i think it was more like there are 300 election deniers running and the people that will profoundly vote for them are themselves election deniers…are they also more likely to be conservatives, clearly yes.
and hey, if you personally don’t happen to have an “election denier” tuesday on your ballot, you can still be one, just vote r.
I have no agenda. Liberalism isn't absolutism for me. Yes, I lean a certain way just as you do. It doesn’t mean I’m a partisan who’s willing to see my side do whatever it takes in order to win. I want to see peace and prosperity for all citizens of this country.
As for my honest opinion on the video, let’s get one thing straight. Hillary is a bitch. Her telling people to resist corruption is the equivalent of a drug dealer telling people not to consume heroin.
As for her assertions, Hillary isn’t wrong in that if SCOTUS rules that state legislatures have the power to overturn the popular vote in their states and can send their own electors along with making their own maps without court interference, that pretty much ensures Democrats never take power on a national level again. That’s not conspiratorial. And it would end the concept of fair elections ever again.
But she’s wrong using the same language as Trump. And that in itself is damaging. Liberals believing the system is rigged against them is just as counter productive as conservatives believing the same thing. The difference being that one scenario is more plausible than the other. But you asked for qualitative not quantitative.
Hillary using that tactic or any Dem using that tactic is something I’m equally opposed to. And while I maintain Democrats did not use election denial or claims of illegitimacy as often or as frequent as the GOP has done to Biden, looking back the Dems made several huge mistakes. Namely, using Russian interference as the reason why Trump won and by extension, using that as a means to discredit his ascension.
Russia did try to interfere in our election. But that does not mean it worked. Nor does it mean the Trump campaign used Russian money and resources to win. I believe Robert Mueller’s conclusions. The left was so blinded by their hatred of the man, they forgot how to align their policies beyond opposing Trumpism. And in truth, they haven’t had an effective leader or platform for a very long time.
How’s that?
"How’s that?"
I don't know. Is it enough to get you to STFU about how Trump and MAGA conservatives are going to end democracy? Serious question.
But at least you finally responded and I have little to criticize about your post, other than wondering why you couldn't have done this to begin with.
As to the fairness of relegating to the States the power to fashion their own electoral votes, that's the way it was originally intended. We have to decide if we want to be a collection of united sovereign States, or a mass of humanity under a single flag with what amounts to majority mob rule....or some workable compromise between the two. I favor a workable compromise that maintains the sovereignty of the States while recognizing that we ain't what we used to be in that regard.
speaking of trains, have you recovered from the one that ran over you earlier today, twice?
look, i’ve been to high point, so i completely get where you’re coming from…when you’re able to vote in a couple of years, show up like you do here.
dude, you'll find the video I took that from just a few posts back. Start at the 4:00 mark or just before. He's talking about 'the people who are going to decide in 2024 who is going to be President'. That would be us, unless he misspoke, or the rules have changed and I missed it. He mentions the others, but his remark that I paraphrased was aimed at conservative voters for President.
"and hey, if you personally don’t happen to have an “election denier” tuesday on your ballot, you can still be one, just vote r."
way ahead of you.
just as I knew you'd ask the same idiot question that's been answered a hundred times before.
lol you’re saving pics from a decade ago…you might have a bigger problem than just anger…obsess much?…you’re approaching stage 3.
Where is it written in the Constitution the state legislature can override the popular will of the people on the state level? That is blatantly anti democratic. No one should be able to give electoral votes as they please. So in that regard, no, I'm not going to STFU about MAGA and their quest to put their people in positions of power to potentially swing an election in their favor. You can't give at least an inch on that score?
States rights is often a cloak to disguise discriminatory, power grabbing tactics. This is no different.
what would you prefer?…is that what you want?is this your grinder profile ****ing faggit??
schools out for you on tuesday, right?…plenty of time to work on your profile.
amazing what people can refuse to see. The entire dem effort over the last number of years has been dedicated to not relinquishing power, regardless of how despicable that effort could end up being and how threatening to our democracy it has been and still is. But when you create a bugaboo and tell the highly susceptible how scary it is, the pitchforks and torches come out and stay out....and then, being libs, they accuse YOU of what they've done.
so what i took from that is when the s goes down on tuesday, the people that will have won the majority, will be election deniers…the people who voted for them, are essentially election deniers…which means in 2024, no election will be deemed “credible” because the loser, if a denier, will not concede…therefore, here we go again.
and if trump decides to run again, which i fully expect, then nobody can stand in his way even if he loses again…he’s not going away when the “denier” voter & candidate are the majority in power?…it’s really a great plan.
i personally think trump would be more powerful if he didn’t run and just played the system like he’s done the last two years, especially…either way, i’m here for it.
you evidently don't know much about how our country was set up. Everything changed with the defeat of the Confederacy in the Civil War, because that's when the sovereign States ceased being sovereign. Just search and read. Try this for starters...
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/history#:~:text=How did we get the,popular vote of qualified citizens.
"How did we get the Electoral College?
The Founding Fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution, in part, as a compromise between the election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”
Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.
The ratification of the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the States’ use of the popular vote to determine who will be appointed as electors have each substantially changed the process."
We used to be united States as well as THE United States of America. The States were much more independent of the feds and that's the way it was supposed to remain.
Last edited:
I'm well aware of how this country was set up. Are you aware of how things have changed over time? Or is it every conservative's goal to use attitudes in 1788 as a means to suit their own agenda?
The use of electors is not an excuse to deny people their right to choose. A state legislature is responsible for many things but they cannot decide who the people vote for on a national level when it does or does not suit them.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion the Electoral College is BS to begin with and reform is needed- required voting, ranked choice, etc. But the Founders were not in lockstep agreement debating state and Federal power. I find myself more often in the Federalist camp of John Adams. This country cannot function without strong, central government and leaving states to do as they please when it comes to voting means there won't be any consistency in elections.
Lots of things were justified under states rights. This is the latest in a long time. If state legislatures can dismiss the popular vote, there is no country anymore. There is no pretense of fairness.
first paragraph makes no sense.
At any rate, you should be able to see that he was referring to 'the people who will choose the president.' All you have to do then is ask yourself who chooses the president. I doubt that anybody involved in choosing the president doesn't get that generally speaking, the guy with the most votes wins.
My take stands.
"I'm well aware of how this country was set up. Are you aware of how things have changed over time? Or is it every conservative's goal to use attitudes in 1788 as a means to suit their own agenda?"
I AM well aware of that, and that's why I linked what I did. If you'd calm your hysterical lib ass down, you might remember that I was responding to your questioning of what I said USED TO BE. I talked about what originally was and you questioned it. That's why I underlined that what used to be is not the way it is now.
You are a severely self-confused individual.
another hard-hitting essay by the VI. Thanks for clearing things up for us.
I'm just puzzled is all. I am against state legislatures sending electors that do not correspond with the popular vote of the state and you seemed to use originalism to justify why such a scenario would be workable in 2022.
If I missed the mark, that's on me. But that's a chief concern I have moving forward. If SCOTUS rules that state legislatures can operate with impunity in this matter it means the Voting Rights Act is pretty much gone. And since more state legislatures are controlled by Republicans, that means they'll achieve a permanent lock on the Senate and Presidency.
I was referring to the fact that things were different when States were actually sovereign, and in that regard I was trying to justify that returning power to them in that way is not in and of itself a bad thing....but rather a more normal thing according to the way our country was set up.
Originally, the feds only cared so much about how each State conducted its politics because each State was like a country similar to the EU., but of course the restrictions on Federal gov. built into the Constitution have been folded, spindled, mutilated and put on the top shelf of the closet in that unused bedroom..
I specifically stated that I favored a compromise, but you chose to ignore that.
Do you have any specific ideas towards compromise? I know you mentioned that in a previous post, but I’m curious.
I’m just not sure I trust either side to permanently fix power in their favor.
Still pissed that the USA won the Civil War! lol
"We used to be united States as well as THE United States of America. The States were much more independent of the feds and that's the way it was supposed to remain."
Actually, it used to be stated as : the United States ARE... and it became the United States IS, after the war. How much is "much more?" That's like saying "he'll be here anytime." How many minutes are in an anytime?
And, we used to do a lot of things that we don't do anymore. If it was really "supposed to remain that way" then it would still be that way. It's not that way, so that means it wasn't supposed to be "that way."
It's hard to say. He could win and actually use the power of the presidency, which he didn't, to clean up the swamp.
Instead, he tried to hire them. Big mistake but maybe he's learned his lesson.
His smear of De Santis makes me pause and think he hasn't. It's disrespectful to the GOP base. We can tolerate "some" mistakes but open disrespect is another thing.
100% agree... and expected full loyalty
He doesn't make mistakes. He's never made a mistake. So, he can't learn lessons. That's why he's so dangerous. When you have no humility, you lack the capacity to learn anything.
Aside from that, I'm actually amazed that you'd publicly denigrate the man as you have in your last two comments. He's showing more insecurity, and immaturity, by calling DeSantis "DeSanctimonious." DeSantis actually understands how our government operates. He's a governor, with experience as an executive. He's also a much more electable candidate, especially if you're a Republican.
lol, what an inane idiot. Nothing you said here makes any sense, which is no surprise.. You should have stuck with your laughing emoji, because expressing coherent thoughts just isn't your thing.
C-S-A! C-S-A! C-S-A!
Traitors who owned human beings deserved to lose, and lose bad. The or THE, or united or United... The United States won and you're salty 160 years later.
nothing much other than maintaining enough States power to resist mob rule.
Mobs rule in the states, last I checked. Every governor is elected by popular/mob vote. Every state office, for that matter. They never needed an electoral college (electors) to appease slave states, within respective states' elections. It's still mob rules. Self-governing means the mob rules. The candidate with the most votes wins.
Similar threads
