C'mon dude, you can't be this gullible. He wanted to listen to YMCA at the end of his "townhall" to calm the cultists. LMFAO. Good grief.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
C'mon dude, you can't be this gullible. He wanted to listen to YMCA at the end of his "townhall" to calm the cultists. LMFAO. Good grief.
Answer this question to the best of your abilities. Why has the trump campaign flooded the polls (538) with over 60 sponsored polls over the last few weeks?
Tell it to the blowhard who is trying his best to make you guys seem more righteous than us. You can reach him at @pooponduke.
One of your own posted an article proving what happened. You sheep much Junior?
Don't worry, in just a few days Harris' astroturf campaign will come crashing down.
No one has denied a couple of cultist losers dropped. That has nothing to do with gramps "dancing" for 39 minutes instead of answering a simple question about Healthcare.
It's ok Junior, just go to your safespace. Uncle Donald will be in charge soon.
Glad to see you now know when you're making a fool of yourself. Congratulations on your personal growth.
Was that your best explanation of why the trump campaign is sponsoring and dropping over 60 polls over the last few weeks? Lol.
I'll give you a clue, it ends with you being arrested in D.C.
this was good and there is a wealth of like information out there for anyone interested. Sure it has been changed over time just like anything else, but it still is fundamentally based on the power of sovereign States to hold their own against each other rather than the majority. That's why the States provided electors.
The question about an EC working within States is interesting but irrelevant, IMO. Counties are generally not assigned sovereignty and given political space from each other. They are pretty much just independent units of administration but not independent beyond that. The notion of sovereignty connotes separation without but not within. If Hawaii enacts a law that says women can go topless any place and time that they care to, then that's the law in Hawaii but not in Oklahoma. Contrarily, each county tends to have it's own sheriff but that sheriff enforces the same law that the next county's sheriff does.
And that brings up what I said about doing away with the vestiges of sovereignty, now that that idea has been largely obliterated. How often do you hear about some murder case going unsolved because the murder was committed in one jurisdiction but the perp lived in a different one, and the two LE agencies just didn't communicate well., It would tend to be more efficient and more successful if one LE agency handled both. That kind of thing, and there are many more areas that this applies to. So that sort of helps your argument but it also helps illustrate why it's a bad idea. An independent LE agency can develop better procedures and those procedures can then be adopted by other agencies, whereas all LE operating under one umbrella will tend to become slaves to the blanket operation in place, with personal advancement becoming political instead of merit-based.
If you dig deeper, I think it really comes down to encouraging and supporting individuality over the mass majority. 'merica.
eta; I re-read my post and I think it gives you too little credit for the video you provided. The points in it are well taken by me.
Last edited:
I don't have to ask @pooponduke. I know we are more righteous. I was being generous just for the sake of keeping the argument on point..
You're too stupid to know whether you're coming or going.
you're too stupid to realize that there's nothing contradictory in what you quoted. Maybe if you had a smidge of reading comprehension.
However, as to what you're trying to pull here, did you stupidly forget to quote me in entirety? Or are you just a lying sack of excrement?. OF COURSE you are a lying sack of shit, you always have been.. The real question is can you actually be so stupid as to try to pull off your out-of-context trick again when it has failed so many times before?
One thing is inarguable. You're far too stupid to stop trying too hard.
Yes, they are. They're states inside of states that choose all kinds of "rules" differently from each other.
Only betas think this guy is some spot of tough guy. He's afraid to stand on a stage with a 5'4" woman. Lol.
na. Administrative rules are not laws. And they are nothing like states in anything like the sense that the States are. You can call any geographical area with borders a state if you want to, but you're just playing with words.
. . . . . . . .This is your brain. , , , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .This is your brain on Trump.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
It’s the only take needed. I’m not trying to win some argument with some, liberal Gen Z, queer. I don’t give a fu*k what you think. I’m not trying to change your mind. In fact, I like that you’re trying to convince yourself that he’s behind. Because it’s going to be more fun for me when he wins and I get to tell you to eat shit.
No... You can't call "any area" a state. Counties exist in states in the same way that states exist in the country.
I guess all the governors are Democrats because all of the big cities and their larger populations wind up electing them. That's not the case at all. And, they don't need any electoral college to attain the diversity.
Props on the linked video explaining the electoral college. Some here should watch it - more than once - even though it's far, far longer than their attention spans. I'm not at all surprised it's from Hillsdale. I am surprised you linked it coming from there. Again, kudos.
However, I'm not sure your take aways/conclusions are consistent with the content. The professor lays out two important lists, the benefits of having the EC and what would happen without it.
Benefits of the Electoral College
Safeguards against "Tyranny of the Majority"
Fosters Truly Nationwide Campaigns
Encourages Moderation Amongst Candidates
Effects of Abolishing the Electoral College
Politics: From "Retail" to "Wholesale"
The Decline of "Rural Issues"
Greater Potential for Election Integrity Concerns
As such, I stand by my earlier comments on the topic. Now, we could debate the transformation of the system over the decades into how it is applied by the states and the individual political parties and whether we should morph it to eliminate winner take all, etc., but that's an entirely different discussion. Regarding your other questions about applying an EC style system to other offices or jurisdictions, that might not be a bad thing. The devil is in the details of course. You are spot on about one thing, however, "Too late now."
Last edited:
Sometimes I truly worry about you. What your partisanship filters through is just scary. If Spock ever did a mind meld on you, besides it only taking seconds, he might have to be institutionalized.
Winner take all is an example of Tyranny of the Majority. 6 million republicans in CA are losing their voice because the Majority is squashing their vote. Plus there are other much more impactful protections against "Tyranny of the majority" built into our gov.
Are you joking? Nothing is nationwide about presidential politics. It's about swing states only, with occasional steps elsewhere for sake of down-ballot impacts on congress. The current system actually HINDERS nationwide campaigns. There are 6 million republicans in CA, more than either Tx or FL and they're ignored. Small states get almost no attention regardless or whether they're more rural (wyoming) or urban (delaware).
He says "AT LEAST IT USED TO encourage moderation amongst Candidates". There is absolutely nothing moderate about maga... Trump spouts direct garbage from QANON and also embraces divisiveness.
Why is it that those who promote this deceit seem unconcerned that the alternative is tyranny of the minority?
We have safeguards in the constitution - especially the Bill of Rights - against the worst excesses of any potential tyranny of the majority. And if they aren't good enough, a democracy can supplement them through legislation.
The EC is not one such protection, since it entrenches unequal power.
What we don't have is sufficient protection against our government being captured by corporate and private wealth.
It would be if we were a democracy instead of a constitutional republic.
This.
The EC encourages focus on that small subset of voters in a small subset of states (battleground states) who are so clueless about issues, candidates and parties that they don't already know how they want to vote.
God help us!
And yet, that explains a lot, doesn't it?
Don't be Noir and act so stupidly. The video addressed it and so did I with my comments about a separate discussion for the winner take all implementation. So, nice try. You only want the Tyranny of the Majority to get worse. Ever heard the expression about throwing out the baby with the bath water?
That's funny. Guess all those campaign stops and rallies in those places that aren't swing states and towns in rural areas don't really happen. And you think it would improve with the elimination of the EC? Get a life and stop lying through your blue teeth. You only want a system, any system that improves your party's chances.
Ah, now I get it. You dispute everything he claims, except when you agree with him. There is absolutely nothing moderate about who the D's cater to and their agenda. You always seem to push the Q and Proud Boy agenda and falsely attach it as an attack on orange. Stuff like Charlottesville, which you STILL have not admitted was a lie repeated by yourself. You need to look in a mirror about the divisiveness and stop using words like Hitler, bloodbath, dictator, etc.
Too late. He kinda admits it. The internet has trumped the town hall. And again, at present you can focus on the mass media for swing-states only. In NC i'm seeing continuous mailers and commercials... i bet Wyoming gets zero.
Rural issues outside of swing states don't matter though. Wyoming might have a specific need which is Rural, but it is going to be ignored unless that same matter is important to a swing state. Why are we talking about Fracking? Cuz Pennsylvania.
Small states are an afterthought, even the rural ones. NH is probably the only "swing" state, even though it has such a small number of EC votes it barely fits in this category. And states extremely rural are typically not swing states, so also an afterthought.
Some urban places are very Dem, but not all. Phoenix (Maricopa county) is the 5th biggest city, 48% of the county went for Trump.
I kinda agree. But at the same time his explanation could be restated as "currently, election integrity issues are only targeted or questioned at swing states". All the shenanigans focus on AZ and GA...
@pooponduke instead of respond on the topic of Tyranny of Majority more i'll just repost this. Your vids commentary is theoretical while we have actual protections in Bill of Rights, the "checks and balances" via the trio branches, etc.
Wait. So, you think these people are different from the rest of the larger subset of states who aren't so clueless about issues, candidates and parties that they do already know how they want to vote?
THAT does explain a lot.
And the EC is the only thing that keeps candidates from doing anything other than showing up in the fifteen or so most populace states and in particular the 25 or so major cities across the country. But that would be just fine from your perspective of candidates.
Montana's 600,000 were the difference in the Bush v Gore super tight race. They would matter more without the EC than they do now. So yes, they're get more attention.
Also, isn't important that the major cities in the country get SOME attention?
Of the top 25 largest cities in the US, only 5 are in a swing state: Charlotte, Phoenix, Philly, Las Vegas, Detroit. -- the rest DON'T MATTER, despite their impact on GDP.
Extend it to top 39 and you only add a few more cities: Tuscon, Albuquerque, Milwaukee, Atlanta.
So of the 39 largest cities in the US, only 9 get attention.
You and WWJD keep harping on the idea or theme that the EC isn't needed to have an impact on the TOM because of other mechanisms. First, what is wrong with the idea of having more than one method of keeping such an evil suppressed? When one fails, another kicks in.
Second, it's an entirely different issue when one thinks about the particular and singular importance of the Office of the President. We've surely been witness to the power of their pens with both orange and pawpaw. EO's much? And then there is the real power that you have had your panties twisted up over for years now, the power of judicial nominations. And then there is policy, foreign actions, directing the DOJ, etc.
There simply is nothing wrong with attacking a problem on multiple levels.
More is great unless it is a detriment due to all the other reasons we've provided.
Similar threads
