New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

End winner take all in the electoral college and let the true voice of the people be heard.

middleview

President
Supporting Member
1) Trump ran on making friends with Russia. That is no secret and it makes sense to be on good working terms with the largest nuclear state on the planet.

2) Yeah, show me the evidence and quantify the effect and only then will I bother worrying about Russian involvement in our election of 2016.


Never happened. He asked the new Ukranian government to commit to investigate corruption.

Did he veto congress' sanctions? Has he imposed his own without legislative prompting?
By the way...please explain the purpose of trying to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into CrowdStrike? Does Trump really think it is a Ukrainian company?
 
By the way...please explain the purpose of trying to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into CrowdStrike? Does Trump really think it is a Ukrainian company?
CrowdStrike? Is that the company that claimed the DNC was hacked by Russians? That provided only a draft report on the matter, that Comey's FBI took hook line and sinker and peddled as the gospel truth without ever having taken the actual DNC "server(s)" themselves to forensically investigate? That CrowdStrike? The one that failed to protect said DNC "server(s)" in the first place!?!? Ha ha ha. You tell very good jokes.
 
Trump sanctioned a handful of people for their involvement in our 2018 election...how funny...

Meanwhile

So Russia has a larger nuclear weapons capability than the US does?

Show you the evidence? Even Trump admitted they had.

Investigate corruption? Something that happened in 2016...oh and I don't feel like the US should investigate it ourselves...and yes, Trump did order a hold on aid.
The "dailyfaggots.com" are shit for source. Much like the Communist News Network. Legislative sanctions are ponderous and inhibit executive flexibility. Every dick in the Senate who wants to be president pulls this kind of shit.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
So you made the assertion that the founding fathers were trying to prevent big cities from controlling the national agenda, but can't find any evidence to back you up...so now you veer off into trying to claim that the battleground states are being protected from "majority rule". The battleground states are battlegrounds because they are so closely divided. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Seriously? Why do you think they called the LOWER chamber the House of REPRESENTATIVES? That was their way of putting mob rule not only in a position of weakness (as merely one third of the legislative mechanism) but also at the bottom of the federal government food chain. That was a feature, not a bug! They didn't call the President the "head people's representative" did they? That would be a Prime Minister style executive, which, of course, they were seeking to avoid at all cost. This isn't rocket science! The founders were clear about their preferences - favoring a weak federal government as well as aversion to mob rule. But you somehow know what they were thinking and it was (apparently) diametrically opposed to the actions they took in devising our system of government. Why am I not surprised? Once again, your position on this (as usual) puts you firmly in the progressive camp. Which is why it is so ironic that you think it is clever (or in any way instructive) to follow me around rating my every post "funny" - while in fact your own posting makes an abject mockery of your pretext of possessing a "middle" view. It is quite obvious to everyone here that nothing could be further from the truth. Your own work here renders your every utterance ridiculous - no ratings needed.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
What a load of bs. Both liberals and conservatives live in both rural areas and big cities. Attacking cities is just the a tactic to discount the liberal vote. Your fear is that there are not more conservatives overall, not the concentrations of liberals in specific areas. You guys just repeat this nonsense over and over to avoid facing that the fear that you are actually in the minority and this is the only way to keep power.
Right, that's why so many city (and Major metropolitan county) governments have been run by Republicans since, well, never...oops!
 

Spamature

President
Right, that's why so many city (and Major metropolitan county) governments have been run by Republicans since, well, never...oops!
Los Angeles has had Republican mayors from 1993- 2001 Richard Riordan was the city's mayor and he was a Republican. So has NYC in fact both Rudy and Bloomberg are Republicans.
 

georgephillip

Governor
The fallacy in your logic is two-fold - 1) Your stat is misleading in that it only counts cities and not the surrounding metropolitan areas (which mostly reflect the city politically), which vastly enlarges their advantage and, 2) the suggestion that the 85% of the population that doesn't live in "big cities" votes differently than the 15% who do is, of course, insipid. The large liberal populations in the metropolitan areas (more like probably 33% of the voters) only need a minority of the remaining votes to impose their will on the nation. That is what the founders were trying to prevent...
I'm not sure how you're defining "surrounding metropolitan areas? I am sure California is largely "blue" along the coast and "blood-red" inland:
PoliticalGeogFigure-4_web[1].png
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-political-geography/

"California has a well-earned reputation as a strongly Democratic state. But it has important, sometimes unexpected, geographic variation in ideology and opinions on specific issues.

"There are many places where conservative and Republican candidates might win elections in California—including places where they currently do not."
 

Spamature

President
What ? They are the two largest cities in the country. This totally contradicts your claim that Republicans don't or have never run the large cities in this country. In fact until recently most of the governors of California had been Republicans since the 1980's.

Your talking point is a bogus and what you are really worried about is that the right would lose the power to impose minority rule under a fair system.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
CrowdStrike? Is that the company that claimed the DNC was hacked by Russians? That provided only a draft report on the matter, that Comey's FBI took hook line and sinker and peddled as the gospel truth without ever having taken the actual DNC "server(s)" themselves to forensically investigate? That CrowdStrike? The one that failed to protect said DNC "server(s)" in the first place!?!? Ha ha ha. You tell very good jokes.
And why would Trump want them investigated by Ukraine? You are a joke and not a very good one. Try to explain why Trump claimed it was a Ukrainian company....
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Seriously? Why do you think they called the LOWER chamber the House of REPRESENTATIVES? That was their way of putting mob rule not only in a position of weakness (as merely one third of the legislative mechanism) but also at the bottom of the federal government food chain. That was a feature, not a bug! They didn't call the President the "head people's representative" did they? That would be a Prime Minister style executive, which, of course, they were seeking to avoid at all cost. This isn't rocket science! The founders were clear about their preferences - favoring a weak federal government as well as aversion to mob rule. But you somehow know what they were thinking and it was (apparently) diametrically opposed to the actions they took in devising our system of government. Why am I not surprised? Once again, your position on this (as usual) puts you firmly in the progressive camp. Which is why it is so ironic that you think it is clever (or in any way instructive) to follow me around rating my every post "funny" - while in fact your own posting makes an abject mockery of your pretext of possessing a "middle" view. It is quite obvious to everyone here that nothing could be further from the truth. Your own work here renders your every utterance ridiculous - no ratings needed.
Try addressing my post. Forget the bullshit about lower house. "Head people's representative"? Where did you dig that up as a point to support your very bizarre agenda. Obvious to everyone, eh? Elected yourself to be the right wing spokesman again?

So you made the assertion that the founding fathers were trying to prevent big cities from controlling the national agenda, but can't find any evidence to back you up...so now you veer off into trying to claim that the battleground states are being protected from "majority rule". The battleground states are battlegrounds because they are so closely divided. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
 

georgephillip

Governor
What do this mean? That we can't have the same level of security that banking over the internet requires?
If we go to online voting, voter ID will become as necessary as the consumer identification we currently require for safe debit and credit card transactions. While I'm sure this is technologically feasible, wouldn't that mean our ballot choices could become public knowledge?
 
If we go to online voting, voter ID will become as necessary as the consumer identification we currently require for safe debit and credit card transactions. While I'm sure this is technologically feasible, wouldn't that mean our ballot choices could become public knowledge?
Of course your vote would be public knowledge. So what? In fact that would make the vote hard very hard to hack.
 

georgephillip

Governor
When did candidates get voted for on the floor of the house as a matter of legislative regular order? And your congressman sure as heck has his votes and causes made in public. Why shouldn't you in a democracy?
I don't personally have any problems with a public ballot; however, I'm not sure if a majority of US voters would agree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot

"The secret ballot, also known as Australian ballot,[1] is a voting method in which a voter's choices in an election or a referendum are anonymous, forestalling attempts to influence the voter by intimidation, blackmailing, and potential vote buying. The system is one means of achieving the goal of political privacy."
 
I don't personally have any problems with a public ballot; however, I'm not sure if a majority of US voters would agree?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot

"The secret ballot, also known as Australian ballot,[1] is a voting method in which a voter's choices in an election or a referendum are anonymous, forestalling attempts to influence the voter by intimidation, blackmailing, and potential vote buying. The system is one means of achieving the goal of political privacy."
I didn't say voting for an official wasn't private. Nor did I say you have to vote. Nor did I say you can't make intimidation, blackmailing, and vote buying (all of which presumably is something congress deals with regularly as it is today) crimes.
 

georgephillip

Governor
I didn't say voting for an official wasn't private.
If online voting required the same degree of "customer" ID as debit and credit card transaction, voting for an official or initiative would no longer be private. Do you believe a majority of US voters would support that change?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
What ? They are the two largest cities in the country. This totally contradicts your claim that Republicans don't or have never run the large cities in this country. In fact until recently most of the governors of California had been Republicans since the 1980's.

Your talking point is a bogus and what you are really worried about is that the right would lose the power to impose minority rule under a fair system.
It was hyperbole. Even someone as single mindedly partisan as you has to understand that there are almost no republican power extant in major city government. And the ones who are, like Bloomberg, are not really "republican" at all.
 

Nutty Cortez

Dummy (D) NY
I guess you missed my post where I said I like the idea of breaking up the electoral votes in each state by that states votes. But the popular vote gives too much power to masses of people from the same state or city even.

Which is EXACTLY what the Founders did not want.

Popular vote you can BUY- even easier than it is now.

Texas State Republicans can promise Guns for every GOP vote.
California State can offer free sex changes for every Democrat Vote


I have yet to figure out why my leftist base wants to go to a King Like Popular Vote Democracy.

It's 50 SEPARATE little elections.

Win 2 states like Cali and NY and lose 48 states and win ? Nope.
Not what they wanted

Just like Hillary in 2016 It did NOT show she had more support nationwide, only that she is a candidate popular in one very populous state
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Try addressing my post. Forget the bullshit about lower house. "Head people's representative"? Where did you dig that up as a point to support your very bizarre agenda. Obvious to everyone, eh? Elected yourself to be the right wing spokesman again?

So you made the assertion that the founding fathers were trying to prevent big cities from controlling the national agenda, but can't find any evidence to back you up...so now you veer off into trying to claim that the battleground states are being protected from "majority rule". The battleground states are battlegrounds because they are so closely divided. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
That's not at all what I said. There were no "big cities" in the 1700s. They were trying to BALANCE political power between populated and un-populated areas. They were trying to keep the federal government from dominating the political agenda for the entire nation. They were trying to maintain the rights of the political minority from the tyranny of the 50% plus 1.

If what they actually wanted was for the popular vote to determine the Presidency, why didn't they simply set it up that way from the get go? Why do you think they needed you to figure out that that is, in fact, what they wanted, instead of what they, you know, actually set up?
 
Top