I cannot believe Obama

jtdavis posted:

Not a one of you can answer my question.  Why aren't the larger states given the same representation as lower populated states.

Your question was answered in a couple of ways.  If you fail to comprehend, its no one's fault but your own. As to the manner you stated the question this time, I'm sure that Rhode Island, Alaska, New Hampshire and Vermont would be fine with California limiting itself to 3 electoral votes like them, instead of 55.

Not one of you challenged my posted numbers, so I assume you think they are right. Will any of you tell me why it's fair for one California electoral vote to represent 678,945 people and one Wyoming electoral vote represents 189,433 people? Why should I not feel that is just another type of gerrymandering?

jtdavis posted:

Not one of you challenged my posted numbers, so I assume you think they are right. Will any of you tell me why it's fair for one California electoral vote to represent 678,945 people and one Wyoming electoral vote represents 189,433 people? Why should I not feel that is just another type of gerrymandering?

Jt, your numbers are irrelevant; the electoral system is a known process and both candidates campaigned accordingly to the known rules of presidential elections. If the total number mattered then both candidates would have spent all their time in only the most populated states and the numbers would probably be much different. Republicans would have spent much more on get out the vote initiatives in California, New York, and Illinois that they usually cede to Dems and probably some of the 90 million people who didn't vote because they are overwhelmed in Dem states would have gone to the polls.

I would also note that the founders set up the system because they chose to create a republic and not a democracy because they feared that a democracy was a guaranteed crash and burn:

  http://tenthamendmentcenter.co...-rejected-democracy/

http://americantraditions.org/...%20a%20Democracy.htm

jtdavis posted:

Not one of you challenged my posted numbers, so I assume you think they are right. Will any of you tell me why it's fair for one California electoral vote to represent 678,945 people and one Wyoming electoral vote represents 189,433 people? Why should I not feel that is just another type of gerrymandering?

You still don't understand the method of distribution.  Two electors of each state represent the body of the state, not the population, just as two senators represent the body of the state. Therefore, using the 2010 census, California's population of  37,254,503 have 53 electors representing 702,915 each. While Wyoming's population of 563,767 have one elector representing 563,767.  No gerrymandering, the same compromise between populous states and less populous states that make up both houses of Congress. 

A little more. In 5 elections, the popular vote majority has lost. In 1824, John Quincy Adams won over Andrew Jackson, they were of the same party. Adams was the son of a past president(note this).  In 1876, Hayes, a republican,  won over Tilden, a democrat.  In 1888, Harrison, a republican, won over Cleveland, a democrat and sitting president.  In 2000, Bush, a republican and son of a past president, won over Gore, a democrat. In 2016, Trump, a republican, won over Clinton, a democrat.

Every time except one, a republican was awarded the presidency over a democrat with a popular vote majority. There is a form of gerrymandering in the electoral college. It has been proven 4 out of 5 times.

 

Every time except one, a republican was awarded the presidency over a democrat with a popular vote majority. - JT

All but one!!!.  How'd that get past us?

All played the same game by the same rules.  Democrats have been in control of the executive and legislative branches plenty of times if they had wanted to change them.

But they didn't.  So instead of conservatives, maybe you should ask your favorite Democrats "why."  Shouldn't they be looking out for you?  Apparently they don't care what you think or your fellow liberals would be blowing up this forum with legitimate complaints.

chirp.  chirp.

 

giftedamateur posted:

LOL! So much for Jt's big claim that he will support the president. Dire, please no offense, but why do you waste your time? No matter what facts you tell or show him, Jt will still argue with you.

It s rather like playing with a laser pointer and a cat. Facts are the laser and JT's the cat. He'll never really catch the facts. But, its amusing to see him try.

Read what I stated -- 53 + 2 = 55 and 2+1=3

Dire and all you other mathematical geniuses, I did read what dire posted. How about y'all reading where he posted that California has 53 electors and in his example, he gave Wyoming 1. If you would care to go back to my post before that, I used 55 and 3

jtdavis posted:

Read what I stated -- 53 + 2 = 55 and 2+1=3

Dire and all you other mathematical geniuses, I did read what dire posted. How about y'all reading where he posted that California has 53 electors and in his example, he gave Wyoming 1. If you would care to go back to my post before that, I used 55 and 3

JT missed the second sentence that explained the two electors per state:

"Two electors of each state represent the body of the state, not the population, just as two senators represent the body of the state."

I suppose that reading math problems wasn't one of JT's better skills. Like I said -- cat and laser.

I keep hearing about the popular vote going to Clinton, sorry cry babies that's not how elections work in this Country especially when California has more people than about 40 states combined, The rest of America doesn't live in the libs coastal bubble so quit crying and those states that don't require ID or verification of citizenship have plenty of illegal voters too, all the more reason to have an electoral college.
So majority of people and illegals in California voted for Clinton and by that they demand she gets the presidency? One state decides the presidency over all other small states? That's why we have electoral college to balance things out and California has the biggest electoral college members. It took Trump about 3 or 4 states to counter that 55
Lets stop pretending Hillary won the popular vote.
Voter fraud is rampant and out of control!
Liberals live in a dream world ignoring the reality the rest of us deal with daily.
RECOUNT THE VOTES! PLEASE!! Millions of illegals voted !
Ask them they will tell you. I've asked they told me so. And grand children are voting for dead grandparents via pre absentee voting.
Recount the people that actually are alive and have the right to vote
Hillary loses in a Landslide. Voter fraud is rampant in Northern CA.
All I hear is how the electoral voting sucks from many Democrats. Hmmmm makes me wonder because when Slick Willy Clinton and Useless Obummer each got two terms, they thought the electoral vote was just fine and dandy. Now these cry babies changed their tune. You can't have it both ways. When things went great for them in the past the Dems swore up and down that the electoral vote was the way to go. Now all they do is whine. Look, accept defeat, stop with the moping around and grow up. It is over and the Clinton Crime Family are now a bunch of has been's. End of story
direstraits posted:
giftedamateur posted:

LOL! So much for Jt's big claim that he will support the president. Dire, please no offense, but why do you waste your time? No matter what facts you tell or show him, Jt will still argue with you.

It s rather like playing with a laser pointer and a cat. Facts are the laser and JT's the cat. He'll never really catch the facts. But, its amusing to see him try.

He's dumb, and acts even dumber. He's smart enough to get it, but so dumb he thinks by pretending he doesn't he somehow "wins". Just like he keeps claiming Best asked about his taxes when he knows darn well she didn't do any such thing.

HIFLYER2 posted:

Go back and verify all the votes and get rid of the votes that the illegals, felons and dead people cast and Hillary would loose the popular vote also. 

Just the voting non-citizens would probably cover the popular vote. A study using questionnaires came up with a 11.3% rate:

There is evidence that some non-citizen immigrants voted in both 2008 and 2010. In 2008, thirty eight (11.3%) reported that they voted, had their vote verified, or both.

http://ww2.odu.edu/~jrichman/NonCitizenVote.pdf

Given that most respondents would know that voting would be illegal, I suspect that the 11.8% number is low. Also there are more than 20 million non-citizens residing here and other studies show that among all immigrants that there is a strong preference for the demoncraptick party since they have the same socialistic leanings as the countries they came from.

jtdavis posted:

All of you seem to have a good grip on illegal voting. Reckon y'all could start working on the war against drugs? Y'all should have that solved PDQ

Knowing it exists and "fixing it"are two different things. Watching Obama's nasty kid smoking dope in public and not a peep from you Dems makes it clear the Dems aren't interested in solving the problem. Instead the left wants to make it legal, so why are you mouthing off about it now? Plenty of things you Dems were going to "solve" and you did nothing, and you had 8 years. Trump won so that's a good start towards fixing things.

jtdavis posted:

All of you seem to have a good grip on illegal voting. Reckon y'all could start working on the war against drugs? Y'all should have that solved PDQ

Ahem.  It is the Democrats, not the Conservatives, who have a deserved reputation for having a good grip on illegal voting.

That and the failed Democrat war against drugs were a couple of reasons, plus union blue collar workers putting liberals in their rear view mirror, of why you got Trump.

So put on your happy face. 

 

jtdavis posted:

Knowing it exists and "fixing it"are two different things.

Not really, You don't know and you wouldn't have a clue if you did know

Everyone knows the country has a drug problem, aided and abetted by the left. We also know about voter fraud that the left relies on. You have a short memory. You forget Obama and Bill Clinton urging illegals to vote.  That is an "inconvenient" truth you lefties want to ignore. You're all a bunch of crooks that got stopped by real American voters. President Trump-say it with me, is a step towards clearing out the viper's nest called the Democratic party.

Everyone knows the country has a drug problem, aided and abetted by the left. We also know about voter fraud that the left relies on. You have a short memory. You forget Obama and Bill Clinton urging illegals to vote.  

The left is responsible for the drug problem???  Show proof of voter fraud.  Show written proof that Obama and Clinton urged illegals to vote.

jtdavis posted:

Everyone knows the country has a drug problem, aided and abetted by the left. We also know about voter fraud that the left relies on. You have a short memory. You forget Obama and Bill Clinton urging illegals to vote.  

The left is responsible for the drug problem???  Show proof of voter fraud.  Show written proof that Obama and Clinton urged illegals to vote.

I don't have to show you sh**. You can dang well look for it yourself, it was on the news and on threads on here. You can go read it just like I did.

jtdavis posted:

That and the failed Democrat war against drugs 

Bud, are you saying that republicans never fought drugs??? Or, are you saying the republicans won the war against drugs?

Nowhere in what I wrote did I mention Republicans.  I said the Democrats failed at their war on drugs, but that was with the presumption the Democrats ever fought a war on drugs.  In retrospect, that may have been a conflict of interest  with their constituents even if they had made a half-arsed attempt.  You had 8 years and the only outcome is your lack of concern hard stuff coming across our southern border.

How did you come up with the conclusion that  putting words in my mouth regarding winning the war on drugs was ever an option? 

That and the failed Democrat war against drugs were a couple of reasons, plus union blue collar workers putting liberals in their rear view mirror, of why you got Trump.

Bud, this is your post. How is anyone supposed to take it. It would seem that you are saying the democrats are the only party to fight drugs. In a later post, you mention 8 years the democrats didn't win the border drug trade. From your posts, it would seem  that the democrats fought drugs for 8 years and the republicans have never fought drugs. This war against drugs has been going on for how long, 40 years?

jtdavis posted:

That and the failed Democrat war against drugs were a couple of reasons, plus union blue collar workers putting liberals in their rear view mirror, of why you got Trump.

Bud, this is your post. How is anyone supposed to take it. It would seem that you are saying the democrats are the only party to fight drugs. In a later post, you mention 8 years the democrats didn't win the border drug trade. From your posts, it would seem  that the democrats fought drugs for 8 years and the republicans have never fought drugs. This war against drugs has been going on for how long, 40 years?

Yep.  That's a cut & paste part of what I posted.  Half of it anyway.

40 years sounds about right, but for the last 8 years when the Democrats had their chance for change, the only thing they did was blame Bush.  I see y'all are still at it.

It was YOUR turn at bat, yet y'all never took a swing.   "Hope and Change" was the  campaign promise.  How'd that work out for you?

I mean the second half of your cut & paste - being abandoned by your brother union blue collar workers?

Did that pizz you off?

 

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×