Trump the Fool King (Page 11): No, Smedly... The Electoral College is NOT designed to obscure or combat the popular vote. Read the Constitution for crying out loud.

straightUp Loc: California

Smedley_buzkill wrote:

Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, pal. If you support the popular vote in a presidential election then you oppose the Electoral College in a situation where the two are contradictory.

No, Smedly... The Electoral College is NOT designed to obscure or combat the popular vote. Read the Constitution for crying out loud.

pafret Loc: Northeast

straightUp wrote:

OK, fine... so he won most of the states. But states don't have an equal share of people, so stop trying to make this about people, when it's not.

I'll try to make this simple... Say you have three states, one with 10 people, one with 5 people and one with 500 people. If a candidate wins the first two states it means he won most of the states, right but since those states only have 15 people versus the 500 in the other state he CAN'T say most of the people voted for him.

Look dummy, you are singing to the choir. Post as many straw men as you like because that was not what I wrote and you seem to be incapable of grasping plain English. I and most others on this forum are well acquainted with Democracy, which has never worked as a form of government, and a Representative Republic such as what we have. This is a nation of laws, with a Constitution enumerating the rights of all sectors. What you feel has no import, what you think is fair has no import; Trump won the majority of Counties as well as enough States to give him the Electoral College majority, hence he won in most of the nation.

It doesn't matter if you are a Rump Wrangling San Francisan or a NYC Master of the Universe, your vote is watered down to eliminate the advantage of all of you carrion crows flocking together.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

pafret wrote:

Look dummy, you are singing to the choir. Post as... (show quote)

Parfret, I would say you have made a proper assessment in everything you stated.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

byronglimish wrote:

Treason!

This isn't the first treasonous actions by Jon Carry. He went to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese acting like he was a part of the US government and he wasn't anything other than a National Guard member at the time.

I call him Jon Carry because some American troops in Iraq made up that huge sign in which they admitted to being stupid and spelled his name Jon Carry. I just can't do that one any other way even when he was Barack Obama's Secretary of State. I just wonder if he ever really knew what his 2004 mistake that brought those soldiers in making fun of him were about. Poor soul was trying to use a joke that he must not have understood and he screwed up.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

straightUp wrote:

That law states that the popular vote, which is the true reflection of the people's will, doesn't count. So you CAN say that Trump won according to the rules, but that doesn't mean "We The People" have been represented fairly.

How many of your popular vote majority didn't come from New York and California? Maybe you need to check that out.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

lindajoy wrote:

Shows your Psycholinguistic evidence of scrambled letters in reading is outstanding...

Was English your strong subject in school??

<koff, choke, spew> "Psycholinguistic"? Is that even a word? Amazing ... for much of this site, that word would be unpronounceable let alone used in context. And using it in a detrimental manner is even more amazing.

Showoff!!!

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

pafret wrote:

It doesn't matter if you are a Rump Wrangling San Francisan or a NYC Master of the Universe, your vote is watered down to eliminate the advantage of all of you carrion crows flocking together.

Another amazing sentence. Three degrading zings in one string. "Rump Wrangling San Franciscan" ... I haven't heard that one before, and "NYC Master of the Universe" is a regurgitated phrase from years ago. As for "carrion crows", that's a basic misuse of the term ... crows usually don't eat carrion, ravens do. But I forgive the error so as to create the alliteration. While these terms are demeaning, I admire your use of verbiage to create these gems.

Nickolai

straightUp wrote:

No, Smedly... The Electoral College is NOT designed to obscure or combat the popular vote. Read the Constitution for crying out loud.

The electoral college was a concession to the slave state in order to get them to replace the articles of confederation with a constitution and to compensate for the fact the white population was less than the industrial northern states and gave the less populated slave states equalization and now gives the rural areas of the US more power than the states with larger rural areas more power than the blue states with large urban areas the result is two presidential elections out five in the 21 century so far being won by the candidate with fewer popular votes. Totally un democratic and discouraging

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

straightUp wrote:

A minority..? Seriously?
Look, the MAJORITY of Americans live in heavily Democratic urban areas, which makes the rural populations the minority. So it's accurate to say that the MINORITY populations in rural areas have little in common with MOST of the country (that is, if we're counting citizens and not squirrels, birds and trees).

You are relying on geographical divisions to make excuses for ignoring the majority of American citizens and I can see right through it. Get a brain.

You can see right through the idea that we just can't have the popular vote being used to elect the President. Think about what I said and then come at us again with popular vote being used to elect the president. You are so left leaning on so many things that I can see right through the things you say, especially about things like Hillary should have won since New York and California voted for her. I was amazed when she didn't win but I sure didn't vote for her like you did.

Do you know that we are very fortunate that the Dems don't control and can't count birds instead of people. They would cut it to pigeons which we in the sticks don't have as many of, as you citified people. I would, however, accept sparrows and squirrels since we do have more squirrels in our neighborhood than people.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

whitnebrat wrote:

<koff, choke, spew> "Psycholinguistic"? Is that even a word? Amazing ... for much of this site, that word would be unpronounceable let alone used in context. And using it in a detrimental manner is even more amazing.

Showoff!!!

Good day to you, young lady.

Just 'cause you brought it to attention:

A brief Merriam Webster definition of psycholinguistics: The study of the mental faculties involved in the perception, production, and acquisition of language.

Nickolai

pafret wrote:

Look dummy, you are singing to the choir. Post as... (show quote)

Yes we are stuck with an 18 century out dated system with the electoral system that was designed as a concession to the less populated slave states to encourage then to let go of the articles of confederation and adopt a central government and a constitution. The second amendment was also a concession to the state of Virginia as an incentive. All men between the age of 18 and 45 had to serve in the slave patrol militia and furnish their own weapons in catching runaway slaves and slave rebellions

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

straightUp wrote:

With senior White House officials anonymously writing op-eds to assure the people that "grown ups" are on staff to undercut the presidents insanity and now former Secretary of State John Kerry negotiating with Iran, it seems that Trump is loosing control (if he ever had any). It's one thing to be so disrespected, but these new developments show a whole level of dysfunction that we've not seen before in the White House. And now Trump's approval rating is dropping in ALL the polls.

So, obviously, an upset can occur within the space of a single election cycle but to turn that anomaly into a sustained shift in power would take a far more that a tweetstorm of BS. In the past, people like Hitler and Mussolini moved quickly to secure the power shift after the first election slip mostly through techniques that have eventually become associated with fascism. For a while, it was looking like Trump was going to do the same thing, but Trump is no Hitler. Trump is no Mussolini... Trump is a ridiculous fool who spends way too much time on vanities. So if the White-Nationalists and various other deplorables want to Make America White Again, they're going to need to find a new guy.

In the meantime, it's reassuring to know that even while Trump sits on his throne, his power is being compromised from within. He is depending more and more on a shrinking base of ineffective morons to support him while the "grownups" continue to ignore his orders and preserve the things of value that Trump is trying to destroy.

But don't loose hope, deplorables... Pence is right there, waiting in the wings. And this is why I advocate letting Trump stay on his throne until 2020. Kerry should be telling Iran to hang tight until then as I am sure he is. I'm sure all the great democracies around the world are doing the same. It's only two more years, after all. In that time, Trump's reckless policies, such as the 2017 Tax cut will have their effect and he won't be able to blame the consequences on his impeachment. Meanwhile, Trumps inability to legislate through Congress (he has sponsored only two LAWS in two years), his inability to enforce his own executive orders in sanctuary states like California (who is basically flipping Trump the bird) and his inability to gain any real consensus in the international community makes him to a large degree, ineffective.

I'm not saying we don't have anything to worry about... Any issue where Trump is really just doing what the Republicans want, such as the tax cuts and judicial nominees is an issue of concern, but the idea that Trump is going to buck the system is about as realistic as Pee Wee Herman destroying ISIS. Most of the powers that decide the world are just going to ignore his demands until he is voted off the island in 2020 and the parts of Obama's legacy, that are still relevant will be reinstated.

With senior White House officials anonymously writ... (show quote)

You say that Trump's approval ratings are so low and yet, I read in Rasmussen Reports today that he stands at 49% among their likely voters groups. That number is higher than Obama was at the same point in his first 2 years. Of course, Rasmussen says his 32% of high numbers measures a -7 against the same numbers for Obama. Problem is that many people like Trump for a number of reasons and lefties just couldn't quite "dislike" Obama. I am sorry to use Rasmussen since you left leaners don't like them. Maybe you need to read how they do their polls and how they report the numbers instead of letting your left leaning people explain to you.

Can you tell me the names of "all" of those people who are writing about what goes on in the White House. Since you people aren't able to tell us who are writing in the far left papers it seems to me that something fishy must be going on.

What government job does or did Pee Wee Herman hold? Without anything like that I doubt he could have destroyed ISIS no matter how hard he tried.

So you are really desirous of Trump not enforcing things in California? What will you say when he takes the dollars from them?

We "deplorables" won't lose our hopes on many things. I would like to bring up the latest smear campaign from the Dems about the Supreme Court appointment. That woman may be a member of "Me Too" but she couldn't remember the name of what she wanted to be her witness against Kavanaugh. I think Feinstein waited too long to tell the story and didn't check to see if such was going on. I will never like Feinstein because she wants to take away my guns and then the leaning army could push me around.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Nickolai wrote:

Yes we are stuck with an 18 century out dated syst... (show quote)

When will you of the far left lean (Communists) be ready to amend that part of the Constitution? You do know how hard amendment is, don't you?

straightUp Loc: California

pafret wrote:

Look dummy, you are singing to the choir.

No need to start with insults. Also, if you disagree with what I am saying then "singing to the choir" is the wrong euphemism.

pafret wrote:

Post as many straw men as you like because that was not what I wrote and you seem to be incapable of grasping plain English.

The only point I made was that a count of states is not the same thing as a count of people... How the heck is that a strawman?

pafret wrote:

I and most others on this forum are well acquainted with Democracy,

And yet you capitalize it like it's a proper noun while expecting me to consider a consensus of fools as validation. LOL

pafret wrote:

which has never worked as a form of government, and a Representative Republic such as what we have.

AND a representative republic such as what we have... what? Did you mean to say OR a representative republic such as what we have?

Sorry to be such a pest about your grammar but generally speaking, people who struggle with language naturally struggle with comprehension too. This might explain your ignorance.

Almost every country in the world is a democracy of one form or another and the history of democracy goes back thousands of years and you're actually telling me it never works?

pafret wrote:

This is a nation of laws, with a Constitution enumerating the rights of all sectors.

Yes, it's a nation of laws, just like every other established nation on Earth but the Constitution does NOT enumerate the rights of all sectors. The Constitution only applies to the government. It's the body of laws that says what the government can and can't do.

[quote=pafret]
What you feel has no import, what you think is fair has no import. Trump won the majority of Counties as well as enough States to give him the Electoral College majority, hence he won in most of the nation.
That still doesn't mean he won over most Americans. I'm not disputing the claim that he won the most states, or the most counties or the most districts or whatever geographic qualification you can come up with. I'm not disputing his victory either. I'm only saying that not all geographic divisions have an equal share of population and that despite the way the population is geographically divided, Trump did NOT win the votes of most Americans.

I KNOW you're getting this because your back-pedaling with ambiguous statements like "he won most of the nation" If you mean most if the states or most of the counties then sure but if you mean most of the American people, you're flat out wrong.

pafret wrote:

It doesn't matter if you are a Rump Wrangling San Francisan or a NYC Master of the Universe, your vote is watered down to eliminate the advantage of all of you carrion crows flocking together.

OK,I'm a little tired of this idiot "because I said so" BS... So why don't you show me where in the Constitution it actually says what you are claiming. Go ahead - make my day.

straightUp Loc: California

oldroy wrote:

How many of your popular vote majority didn't come from New York and California? Maybe you need to check that out.

Why? What would that matter?