| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Great Show
Liz Warren cut Trump and the GOP leadership to pieces so small, even
toothless John Herring could chew them. Fun to watch. |
Great Show
On 6/9/2016 9:21 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
Liz Warren cut Trump and the GOP leadership to pieces so small, even toothless John Herring could chew them. Fun to watch. I watched her speech. Not a big fan of Mrs. Beasly due to her ultra liberal views but I *did* enjoy and had a few chuckles as she tore up Trump and the Republican wimps who support him. Painted a very accurate picture, I think. As much as I dislike Hillary it really has become an issue of the lesser of two evils. I'll grit my teeth and wish her the best of luck in November. |
Great Show
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 05:18:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/9/2016 9:21 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: Liz Warren cut Trump and the GOP leadership to pieces so small, even toothless John Herring could chew them. Fun to watch. I watched her speech. Not a big fan of Mrs. Beasly due to her ultra liberal views but I *did* enjoy and had a few chuckles as she tore up Trump and the Republican wimps who support him. Painted a very accurate picture, I think. As much as I dislike Hillary it really has become an issue of the lesser of two evils. I'll grit my teeth and wish her the best of luck in November. Gary Johnson. |
Great Show
|
Great Show
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:19:33 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 6/10/16 12:54 PM, wrote: Gary Johnson. Oh, please, not a loonytarian. I can't pinch my nose hard enough to vote for Trumpy or Dumpy. We can't handle 4 more years of the same policies that got us here and Trump is ... Trump. |
Great Show
|
Great Show
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 1:59 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:19:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 12:54 PM, wrote: Gary Johnson. Oh, please, not a loonytarian. I can't pinch my nose hard enough to vote for Trumpy or Dumpy. We can't handle 4 more years of the same policies that got us here and Trump is ... Trump. The only result of voting loonytarian is casting a vote as a spoiler. There is no chance the loonytarians will be elected. The platform's clauses on economics and government is nothing more than right-wing Republicanism taken to a new extreme. Well the Democrats and Republican economics are on the verge of lumping us in e Greece category. Debt 121% of GDP or more. Traditionally has been in the 64% range. Last time was 120% was 1946. |
Great Show
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. |
Great Show
On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. |
Great Show
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. |
Great Show
|
Great Show
On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. |
Great Show
On 6/10/2016 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. Not Florida's fault you broke the rules and had to forfeit your house. |
Great Show
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:17:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. === I'm sure you're not a favor of theirs either. I'm becoming a bit concerned about your lapses into incoherency. You should get it checked out. |
Great Show
On 6/10/16 9:02 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:17:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. === I'm sure you're not a favor of theirs either. I'm becoming a bit concerned about your lapses into incoherency. You should get it checked out. It's fun to leave a little sand on the floor for the right-wing sweepers. |
Great Show
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 20:19:42 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote: On 6/10/2016 7:17 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. Not Florida's fault you broke the rules and had to forfeit your house. === Harry still blames the greedy bankers who wanted their loan money back. There's an old saying about the banking industry that "any fool can lend money," the trick is to get it back. |
Great Show
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. You should have paid more attention in school. The federal government was never supposed to be all empowered. The President was the states choice. How they chose their candidate was up to the state legislatures. |
Great Show
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:06:36 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/10/2016 12:54 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 05:18:51 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/9/2016 9:21 PM, Keyser Söze wrote: Liz Warren cut Trump and the GOP leadership to pieces so small, even toothless John Herring could chew them. Fun to watch. I watched her speech. Not a big fan of Mrs. Beasly due to her ultra liberal views but I *did* enjoy and had a few chuckles as she tore up Trump and the Republican wimps who support him. Painted a very accurate picture, I think. As much as I dislike Hillary it really has become an issue of the lesser of two evils. I'll grit my teeth and wish her the best of luck in November. Gary Johnson. Kinda reminds me of Mr. Roper on "Three's Company". More of a Kasich kinda guy but he is actually fairly smart. |
Great Show
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:17:46 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states. This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority I guess. I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and they like the feudal system. |
Great Show
On 6/10/16 9:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. You should have paid more attention in school. The federal government was never supposed to be all empowered. The President was the states choice. How they chose their candidate was up to the state legislatures. D'oh. I know how and why our "system" is structured in the EC. How we elect a POTUS has changed over the centuries, and it can change again. Stick to falling down and breaking bones, doofus...it's your area of expertise. |
Great Show
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:15:05 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:17:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states. This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority I guess. I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and they like the feudal system. And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best educated' lists. |
Great Show
On 6/11/16 6:50 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 01:15:05 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:17:46 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states. This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority I guess. I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and they like the feudal system. And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best educated' lists. Isn't it true that your residing in Alexandria/Springfield has significantly raised the percentage of old white racists in that area? |
Great Show
Jun 9Keyser Söze
Liz Warren cut Trump and the GOP leadership to pieces so small, even toothless John Herring could chew them. Fun to watch. ..... Yeah, I thought it was funny too. After she'd masquerading as a Native American for years, Liz turns around and called Trump a "fraud". Lol |
Great Show
On 6/11/16 7:08 AM, Tim wrote:
Jun 9Keyser Söze Liz Warren cut Trump and the GOP leadership to pieces so small, even toothless John Herring could chew them. Fun to watch. .... Yeah, I thought it was funny too. After she'd masquerading as a Native American for years, Liz turns around and called Trump a "fraud". Lol I recall reading some years ago that her parents told her repeatedly when she was a little girl that she was descended from Native Americans. I don't know if what her parents told her is true, but she believed it. Apparently your parents told you about Jesus, and you believed it. Familial myths die hard. And yes, Donald Trump is a racist and a fraud and much worse. |
Great Show
Myth? Lol! I can prove my native ancestry. As far as Jesus goes yeh, my folks told me about Him. The bible talks about him, then so do era philosophers and historians like Josephus, Pliney, and Tactius.
You talk about Ducati's, guns, and big boat ownership. But show no real evidence. Hmmm myths do die hard, eh |
Great Show
On 6/11/16 8:11 AM, Tim wrote:
Myth? Lol! I can prove my native ancestry. As far as Jesus goes yeh, my folks told me about Him. The bible talks about him, then so do era philosophers and historians like Josephus, Pliney, and Tactius. You talk about Ducati's, guns, and big boat ownership. But show no real evidence. Hmmm myths do die hard, eh Obviously you missed the point. Warren's parents told her repeatedly about her native American ancestry. She believed her parents. You believed your parents about Jesus, and also you believed the new testament and others. No real evidence, though, eh? If I were interested in the comments/opinions of the participants here, I'd post photos. I post those elsewhere. |
Great Show
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:18:35 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: If I were interested in the comments/opinions of the participants here, I'd post photos. I post those elsewhere. === Why are you here? |
Great Show
On 6/11/16 8:28 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:18:35 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: If I were interested in the comments/opinions of the participants here, I'd post photos. I post those elsewhere. === Why are you here? It's the only venue I have to keep track of conservatrash. |
Great Show
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:18:35 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/11/16 8:11 AM, Tim wrote: Myth? Lol! I can prove my native ancestry. As far as Jesus goes yeh, my folks told me about Him. The bible talks about him, then so do era philosophers and historians like Josephus, Pliney, and Tactius. You talk about Ducati's, guns, and big boat ownership. But show no real evidence. Hmmm myths do die hard, eh Obviously you missed the point. Warren's parents told her repeatedly about her native American ancestry. She believed her parents. You believed your parents about Jesus, and also you believed the new testament and others. No real evidence, though, eh? If I were interested in the comments/opinions of the participants here, I'd post photos. I post those elsewhere. For one as well versed in deceit as yourself, I find it odd that you actually believe Warren's story. |
Great Show
On 6/11/16 8:58 AM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:18:35 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/11/16 8:11 AM, Tim wrote: Myth? Lol! I can prove my native ancestry. As far as Jesus goes yeh, my folks told me about Him. The bible talks about him, then so do era philosophers and historians like Josephus, Pliney, and Tactius. You talk about Ducati's, guns, and big boat ownership. But show no real evidence. Hmmm myths do die hard, eh Obviously you missed the point. Warren's parents told her repeatedly about her native American ancestry. She believed her parents. You believed your parents about Jesus, and also you believed the new testament and others. No real evidence, though, eh? If I were interested in the comments/opinions of the participants here, I'd post photos. I post those elsewhere. For one as well versed in deceit as yourself, I find it odd that you actually believe Warren's story. I believe her parents told her that story. Tim and others here believe in the story of jesus. |
Great Show
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/10/16 9:31 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. You should have paid more attention in school. The federal government was never supposed to be all empowered. The President was the states choice. How they chose their candidate was up to the state legislatures. D'oh. I know how and why our "system" is structured in the EC. How we elect a POTUS has changed over the centuries, and it can change again. Stick to falling down and breaking bones, doofus...it's your area of expertise. How we elect the President has not changed. How the Electors are chosen has, but that is a states right. Your education does not seem to have helped your critical thinking. |
Great Show
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 06:50:11 -0400, Poquito Loco
wrote: Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states. This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority I guess. I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and they like the feudal system. And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best educated' lists. It is ironic that the big cities, that rank so badly in every measure of the human endeavor, want to drag the rest of the country down to their level and call it "progressive". |
Great Show
|
Great Show
On 6/11/16 11:42 AM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 9:31 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. You should have paid more attention in school. The federal government was never supposed to be all empowered. The President was the states choice. How they chose their candidate was up to the state legislatures. D'oh. I know how and why our "system" is structured in the EC. How we elect a POTUS has changed over the centuries, and it can change again. Stick to falling down and breaking bones, doofus...it's your area of expertise. How we elect the President has not changed. How the Electors are chosen has, but that is a states right. Your education does not seem to have helped your critical thinking. Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of the EC were changed. |
Great Show
|
Great Show
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/11/16 12:03 PM, wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 06:50:11 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states. This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority I guess. I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and they like the feudal system. And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best educated' lists. It is ironic that the big cities, that rank so badly in every measure of the human endeavor, want to drag the rest of the country down to their level and call it "progressive". Right, because everyone should live in backwater Florida. So you consider the increase in Chicago's murder rate 'progression'? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...2016/82507210/ They're apparently progressing fairly rapidly. |
Great Show
On 6/11/16 12:40 PM, Poquito Loco wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/11/16 12:03 PM, wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 06:50:11 -0400, Poquito Loco wrote: Too bad the founders were interested in the rights of the states. This is where the democrats start not giving a **** about the minority I guess. I suppose it is because their mass resides in a dozen big cities and they like the feudal system. And they don't mind that those same cities keep us so low in the 'peaceful country' and 'best educated' lists. It is ironic that the big cities, that rank so badly in every measure of the human endeavor, want to drag the rest of the country down to their level and call it "progressive". Right, because everyone should live in backwater Florida. So you consider the increase in Chicago's murder rate 'progression'? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...2016/82507210/ They're apparently progressing fairly rapidly. Still obsessed with Chicago, eh? It's still one of my favorite cities, along with New York, Boston, Miami, and San Francisco. You're such a pussy, I'm sure I'll never encounter you there...you're more comfy with your redneck buds at the blown-out grass "festivals." |
Great Show
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:32:55 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of the EC were changed. How electors are selected did not change and there is still nothing that forces the electors to vote for the person they were supposed to. Plenty of elections have at least one rogue elector. Most recently was 2004 where one idiot from Minnesota voted for Edwards as president and vice president. In 1988 a West Virginia democrat voted for Bentsen for president and Dukakis for VP. In 76 Reagan got a vote and he wasn't even running. |
Great Show
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 6/11/16 11:42 AM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 9:31 PM, Califbill wrote: Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:57 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:45:59 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 6/10/16 3:39 PM, wrote: On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:49:52 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: In article , says... If there was ever a chance for a strong 3d party bid (in the last 100 years), it is now. Yabbut...the system is rigged. Look at Bernie's experience. Now Bernie had a chance, but he chose to run as a Democrat. C'est la vie. I agree it is rigged but that will never change unless the system is challenged, Twenty years ago, the odds would have been very high that a black or a woman would never get the nomination. You can challenge the system all you want, but unless and until the EC is trashed, nothing much will happen, other than, perhaps throwing a future election into the U.S. House, which should **** off voters big time. It is really only "big state" (population) people who want to abolish the EC. Smaller states see it as their only way to have a voice. If you think the EC is biased against the big states, look at the procedure if this gets to the house. There are 50 votes (maybe 51 with the 23d amendment) and each "state" gets one. DC will not swing that vote, even if they do allow them in but it could easily be argued, their delegation does not get to vote in the house so they don't get to vote in the selection process. I'm not interested in bias, as you describe it, I'm interested in seeing the candidate with the most votes win. I am not a favor of states' rights. You should have paid more attention in school. The federal government was never supposed to be all empowered. The President was the states choice. How they chose their candidate was up to the state legislatures. D'oh. I know how and why our "system" is structured in the EC. How we elect a POTUS has changed over the centuries, and it can change again. Stick to falling down and breaking bones, doofus...it's your area of expertise. How we elect the President has not changed. How the Electors are chosen has, but that is a states right. Your education does not seem to have helped your critical thinking. Read the 12th amendment and get back to us. The duties and procedures of the EC were changed. The 12th defines how the election goes if not a majority of the votes by the electors is not reached. Otherwise, has not changed how electors are chosen, or their duties. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:36 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com