cat of curiosity
Well-Known Member
wait, it wasn't rigged if hillary won, because elections are NOT rigged, but it's rigged because she lost?
how far can a dog run into the woods?
The ballon mortgage of the fourth estate come due
- Thread starter choomer
- Start date
how far can a dog run into the woods?
see4
Well-Known Member
You don't have believe anything you read on pot forums, nor do you have to believe "any of their shit", I assume you mean main stream media. But you do have to believe the facts. And the facts are, at this point, Hillary has 1,000,000 more votes than Donald Trump.
Take your head out of the sand, stop being lazy and do some fucking research.
Big_Lou
Well-Known Member
I'm honestly surprised that the poor state case cuck is still here. It must be some form of latent masochism among the lower trolls/trailer court denizens here....weird, either way......
see4
Well-Known Member
I never claimed the election was rigged. That was all Donald Trump. Stop being a fucking moron.
By definition of Electoral College, elections are 'rigged'. A popular vote, where EVERY vote is counted is the true democratic way of electing a President. I'm sorry you and your kind are too fucking stupid to comprehend that. But that's just the way it is.
That being said, I am not crying that Donald Trump won the election by the rules. He won it fair and square according the the rules. However, since its inclusion into the Amendments, the Electoral College has almost always favored one party over the other. And it's become progressively worse over the years. Gee, I wonder why that is.
Big_Lou
Well-Known Member
Angry inbreeders like him can't take their "heads out of the sand", though. They are firmly planted there from birth.
cat of curiosity
Well-Known Member
see4
Well-Known Member
I never said the election was rigged. I labeled the Electoral College as rigged by Republicans. Which it has been for decades. Your word salad smells like shit, try again.
Big_Lou
Well-Known Member
Again, you are asking too much in this case. Kind of like 'debating' (LOL) earlier with 'nut stroker' -- a completely futile effort. Next time, simply put a mullet wig and a greasy ball cap on a bucket of vomit and proceed to yell at it...the same effect will be achieved.
cat of curiosity
Well-Known Member
so the electoral college isn't a part of the election? so trump DIDN'T win?
your posts are shit, try again.
see4
Well-Known Member
As I've stated several times, by the rules of the game, Trump won, fair and square. That I am not debating. Please stop being intentionally obtuse.
Electoral College, the current method by which a President is elected is flawed, it is rigged. It has been rigged for decades. District gerrymandering is alive and well, one political party has been using it to it's advantage for decades, skewing the efficiency of democratic voting processes.
That aside; do you think Electoral College is the right means to democratically vote someone into office, or do you think popular vote is the right way to do it?
Big_Lou
Well-Known Member
I don't think he's intelligent enough to fully grasp the realities of the Electoral College. You've got to keep in mind that he is an aging state case/part time 'electrician' that subsists on handouts and government benefits. Lack of exposure to other cultures, poverty, low IQ, and irrational fears are all symptomatic of so called 'white rage', and this one is a prime example.
see4
Well-Known Member
Big_Lou
Well-Known Member
cat of curiosity
Well-Known Member
would you like to meet me for a quotient test? only catch is you have to use a real name and i'll post the results (pdf or img) here.
choomer
Well-Known Member
DING! dingdingdingdingding!
I started this thread to point out that this election cycle has shown to the masses that MSM is not far from propaganda as evinced by the owner of the NYT having to post a "re-dedication" to that news source honestly reporting the news.
See4 has tried to derail it into a Hitlery/Dumph debate, a divisiveness debate, and a popular vote/electoral college debate.
I've tried steering him back to the main topic plenty of times but he tries to steer this post into a topic he wants (plus I assume the ever so pleasant and relevant commentary of Buckold and Babaloo) and the closest it's gotten is him saying he relies on Reuter's and AP for "news".
But I wonder is he knows who owns the Thomas Corp. or the full roster of the news reporting services "making up" the AP?
I assume that's who he is relying on for his popular vote numbers, but it's really a moot point as popular vote doesn't matter once it's been used to select the members of the electoral college.
Electoral/popular discrepancies have happened before, but no one thinks about:
"In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.
In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266."
The next logical tangent they'll use is "well those are piddly numbers. Nothing like the difference THIS time!"
That would work until you compare US population today to what it was during those times. I figure it's because they still can't understand that the USA is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC that uses many democratic principles, but not a "true" democracy. e.g.
It's O.K.
If all those metropolitan areas responsible for the popular vote difference want to do away with the electoral college, why don't they just secede as Texas has threatened multiple times and California threatens to today?
I'd be happier if just the Metro areas tried that and I'd be more than willing to allow the one in my state to do so and leave the rest of the country to us "deplorables".
I wonder how long they'd be able to do it. It would take a while to get rid of the politicians their influence had elected, but after that I'd really like to see how the interstate/international trade agreements go since most of the deplorables are the same folks who grow the food.
I wouldn't expect me to be around too much longer as I've called out a mod publicly for partisan applications of the rules (maybe it's because Buckold was once a mod of Politics according to an old thread in Support or Site News).
Either way...nice to meet you and Rosey!
Keep the rubber down and the shiny side up!
Big_Lou
Well-Known Member
LOL!!
Post after embarrassing post, and each one more dull/inane than the one before, tsk tsk tsk....
Big_Lou
Well-Known Member
DING! dingdingdingdingding!
I started this thread to point out that this election cycle has shown to the masses that MSM is not far from propaganda as evinced by the owner of the NYT having to post a "re-dedication" to that news source honestly reporting the news.
See4 has tried to derail it into a Hitlery/Dumph debate, a divisiveness debate, and a popular vote/electoral college debate.
I've tried steering him back to the main topic plenty of times but he tries to steer this post into a topic he wants (plus I assume the ever so pleasant and relevant commentary of Buckold and Babaloo) and the closest it's gotten is him saying he relies on Reuter's and AP for "news".
But I wonder is he knows who owns the Thomas Corp. or the full roster of the news reporting services "making up" the AP?
I assume that's who he is relying on for his popular vote numbers, but it's really a moot point as popular vote doesn't matter once it's been used to select the members of the electoral college.
Electoral/popular discrepancies have happened before, but no one thinks about:
"In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.
In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266.
The next logical tangent they'll use is "well those are piddly numbers. Nothing like the difference THIS time!"
That would work until you compare US population today to what it was during those times. I figure it's because they still can't understand that the USA is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC that uses many democratic principles, but not a "true" democracy. e.g.
It's O.K.
If all those metropolitan areas responsible for the popular vote difference want to do away with the electoral college, why don't they just secede as Texas has threatened multiple times and California threatens to today?
I'd be happier if just the Metro areas tried that and I'd be more than willing to allow the one in my state to do so and leave the rest of the country to us "deplorables".
I wonder how long they'd be able to do it. It would take a while to get rid of the politicians their influence had elected, but after that I'd really like to see how the interstate/international trade agreements go since most of the deplorables are the same folks who grow the food.
I wouldn't expect me to be around too much longer because I'm a bigoted lump of shit not long for this earth.
Either way...nice to meet you and Rosey! Are you state cases like me?
Flerp herp-da-derrrrp!
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
the length of your post is inversely correlated to the size of your penis.DING! dingdingdingdingding!
I started this thread to point out that this election cycle has shown to the masses that MSM is not far from propaganda as evinced by the owner of the NYT having to post a "re-dedication" to that news source honestly reporting the news.
See4 has tried to derail it into a Hitlery/Dumph debate, a divisiveness debate, and a popular vote/electoral college debate.
I've tried steering him back to the main topic plenty of times but he tries to steer this post into a topic he wants (plus I assume the ever so pleasant and relevant commentary of Buckold and Babaloo) and the closest it's gotten is him saying he relies on Reuter's and AP for "news".
But I wonder is he knows who owns the Thomas Corp. or the full roster of the news reporting services "making up" the AP?
I assume that's who he is relying on for his popular vote numbers, but it's really a moot point as popular vote doesn't matter once it's been used to select the members of the electoral college.
Electoral/popular discrepancies have happened before, but no one thinks about:
"In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.
In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266."
The next logical tangent they'll use is "well those are piddly numbers. Nothing like the difference THIS time!"
That would work until you compare US population today to what it was during those times. I figure it's because they still can't understand that the USA is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC that uses many democratic principles, but not a "true" democracy. e.g.
It's O.K.
If all those metropolitan areas responsible for the popular vote difference want to do away with the electoral college, why don't they just secede as Texas has threatened multiple times and California threatens to today?
I'd be happier if just the Metro areas tried that and I'd be more than willing to allow the one in my state to do so and leave the rest of the country to us "deplorables".
I wonder how long they'd be able to do it. It would take a while to get rid of the politicians their influence had elected, but after that I'd really like to see how the interstate/international trade agreements go since most of the deplorables are the same folks who grow the food.
I wouldn't expect me to be around too much longer as I've called out a mod publicly for partisan applications of the rules (maybe it's because Buckold was once a mod of Politics according to an old thread in Support or Site News).
Either way...nice to meet you and Rosey!
Keep the rubber down and the shiny side up!
see4
Well-Known Member
see4
Well-Known Member
I've ALWAYS been opposed to the Electoral College, it's illogical. I opposed it back in 1992 when I first learned about it, and I've opposed it ever since. It is a flawed system, much more flawed than popular vote.DING! dingdingdingdingding!
I started this thread to point out that this election cycle has shown to the masses that MSM is not far from propaganda as evinced by the owner of the NYT having to post a "re-dedication" to that news source honestly reporting the news.
See4 has tried to derail it into a Hitlery/Dumph debate, a divisiveness debate, and a popular vote/electoral college debate.
I've tried steering him back to the main topic plenty of times but he tries to steer this post into a topic he wants (plus I assume the ever so pleasant and relevant commentary of Buckold and Babaloo) and the closest it's gotten is him saying he relies on Reuter's and AP for "news".
But I wonder is he knows who owns the Thomas Corp. or the full roster of the news reporting services "making up" the AP?
I assume that's who he is relying on for his popular vote numbers, but it's really a moot point as popular vote doesn't matter once it's been used to select the members of the electoral college.
Electoral/popular discrepancies have happened before, but no one thinks about:
"In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected president despite not winning either the popular vote or the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson was the winner in both categories. Jackson received 38,000 more popular votes than Adams, and beat him in the electoral vote 99 to 84. Despite his victories, Jackson didn’t reach the majority 131 votes needed in the Electoral College to be declared president. In fact, neither candidate did. The decision went to the House of Representatives, which voted Adams into the White House.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won the election (by a margin of one electoral vote), but he lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 ballots to Samuel J. Tilden.
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison received 233 electoral votes to Grover Cleveland’s 168, winning the presidency. But Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes.
In 2000, George W. Bush was declared the winner of the general election and became the 43rd president, but he didn’t win the popular vote either. Al Gore holds that distinction, garnering about 540,000 more votes than Bush. However, Bush won the electoral vote, 271 to 266."
The next logical tangent they'll use is "well those are piddly numbers. Nothing like the difference THIS time!"
That would work until you compare US population today to what it was during those times. I figure it's because they still can't understand that the USA is a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC that uses many democratic principles, but not a "true" democracy. e.g.
It's O.K.
If all those metropolitan areas responsible for the popular vote difference want to do away with the electoral college, why don't they just secede as Texas has threatened multiple times and California threatens to today?
I'd be happier if just the Metro areas tried that and I'd be more than willing to allow the one in my state to do so and leave the rest of the country to us "deplorables".
I wonder how long they'd be able to do it. It would take a while to get rid of the politicians their influence had elected, but after that I'd really like to see how the interstate/international trade agreements go since most of the deplorables are the same folks who grow the food.
I wouldn't expect me to be around too much longer as I've called out a mod publicly for partisan applications of the rules (maybe it's because Buckold was once a mod of Politics according to an old thread in Support or Site News).
Either way...nice to meet you and Rosey!
Keep the rubber down and the shiny side up!
Following your logic, a law is a law and must not be changed, we can conclude you're in favor of keeping Obamacare? Or any law for that matter? Because a law is a law, and it must not be changed.
I don't believe in secession, I'm not a heartless ignorant redneck who thinks of only himself. But since we're on that topic, if the blue states were to secede from the "Union", the red states would be utterly fucked. I mean, that's why the red states voted the way they did, because of financial ruin, right?
Have your cake and eat it too dipshit, your logic is flawed and arguments are tired. As I have most definitely not convinced you of anything, nor have you convinced me.
Good, I hope you do get the ban hammer, your kind aren't welcome here. To be honest, I'd prefer the mods IP block the lot of you shit sticks. It would make our time here more enjoyable, you provide nothing positive to this community.