Colorforms
Senator
Clearly then, I'm not the idiot, and you being insulting right off the bat is par for the course.Clearly you do.
Clearly then, I'm not the idiot, and you being insulting right off the bat is par for the course.Clearly you do.
Clearly you do.
Did you know Trump favors the popular vote?
As long as it brings power to the RNC, right?So ? See , Unlike my leftists who follow what their leaders want to the T. (less thinking involved)
GOPers can be more diverse.
LA Trump got about 30%.LA & NYC...…………..lmfao
Weird you say that when 3 people said the opposite of what you say Trump liked.As long as it brings power to the RNC, right?
Face it, you guys are lemmings and even your slavish repetition of Trump's insults is amazingly word for word.
For those cities to control the presidential election would require all voters vote for one party. They don't, but you seem to pretend they do.Clearly then, I'm not the idiot, and you being insulting right off the bat is par for the course.
It would take a little research to know what Trump has said about the popular vote. On the other hand everyone knows when Trump tweets out that someone is a traitor, which is immediately regurgitated here. Trump tweets out that Vindman is a "never trumper" and that is repeated in posts here. No evidence of that, but none needed.Weird you say that when 3 people said the opposite of what you say Trump liked.
You are terrible at this, if you haven't noticed. But you are good at projecting- since you MUST and I mean MUST follow the DNC in lock step.
Again, you make claims that are unsubstantiated by logic, and it would assume that all of the voters in rural areas vote republican, an equally idiotic contention.For those cities to control the presidential election would require all voters vote for one party. They don't, but you seem to pretend they do.
Can you show statistics that any of the top 10 cities vote 100% for one candidate?
A contention I've never made. Clearly you think it is the voters of New York City against the population of the "fly over states", isn't that what you called the "republican" states?Again, you make claims that are unsubstantiated by logic, and it would assume that all of the voters in rural areas vote republican, an equally idiotic contention.
Do population now ITLA Trump got about 30%.
New York city is harder to total. Here ya go. I don't know what counties are considered
party of the city. Manhattan hillary got 90%, Nassau Trump got 45%.
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/new-york
Shoots holes in the myth that the cities voted 100% for one candidate. In any case, add up the votes in those cities you think are democratic strongholds and see if they amount to 65 million.
So you made it up...………...why am I not surprised...……...It would take a little research to know what Trump has said about the popular vote. On the other hand everyone knows when Trump tweets out that someone is a traitor, which is immediately regurgitated here. Trump tweets out that Vindman is a "never trumper" and that is repeated in posts here. No evidence of that, but none needed.
Why not? Because smart people set up the electoral college.Hey, great diversion topic ! States, Counties, Cities, Townships all decide on total vote count so why not the national election ? Whoops
A national popular vote would absolutely end up with more states ignored. There would be California, New York, Texas, Florida and maybe Ohio.It might be more useful to focus on "winner-take-all" when discussing universal domination of US elections:
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation
"The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from 'winner-take-all' laws that have been enacted by state legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state.
"Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion.
"In 2012, as shown on the map, all of the 253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were completely ignored."
The EC looks nothing like what those smart people set up.Why not? Because smart people set up the electoral college.
Glad I could help. We'll put that on your ever-increasing tab.
If you think you know how the popular vote would influence turnout...where is any supporting link to that info?A national popular vote would absolutely end up with more states ignored. There would be California, New York, Texas, Florida and maybe Ohio.
You brought it up. You provide the info.If you think you know how the popular vote would influence turnout...where is any supporting link to that info?
You assume no change and think 8 or 10 million voters would decide the election. I assume substantially more people would vote because every vote would count.You brought it up. You provide the info.
Good for you.You assume no change and think 8 or 10 million voters would decide the election. I assume substantially more people would vote because every vote would count.
Thank you for your objective and unbiased opinions sir.Wow...nice go at stringing together a bunch of irrelevant crap.
1. If you were correct then we'd never have elected Nixon, Reagan or GHW Bush. They were elected by both the popular vote and the EC.
2. The EC got us two of the worst presidents of my life time.
Diversity of opinion based on the state they live in? Nice try at meaningless rhetoric.