State Republicans consider cancelling their 2020 presidential primaries

What the hell is the difference between outright not even having a primary, and having primaries where everyone knows the outcome long before the primaries? Seriously

2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia

Did anyone think anyone other than Obama even had a chance at winning anything in 2012?

What a silly thread.

Or that anyone but Clinton in 2016 did. I recall watching one of the primaries -- I think it was Hawaii -- where Clinton had X number of delegates, before "voting" even started. Because "superdelegates". :rolleyes:

I put "voting" in quotes because it's a bread and circus sham made to look like "participation".


That's the sham both parties have perpetrated on the American people. Okay it's their parties, they can run who they want, we don't have a right to vote in a primary, that's just a fact. But the sham comes in the form of the two parties have absolutely colluded to make it as hard as possible for anyone who isn't in on of their parties to win any election. Meaning A Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump is going to be President even if the vast majority of Americans find them both to be morally repugnant.

AMEN to that. Duopoly is monopoly. I think of it as a puppet show with half the puppets in blue and the other half in red, and the drones are supposed to believe they're different things even though if they took the time to look UP they'd see both in the hands of the same puppeteer.

And the Duopoly's main machine to keep itself entrenched is the WTA Electrical College.


Gonna have to disagree there, the EC could be entirely done away with and nothing would change.

As we've seen with Trump, the President can easily be nullified by a handful of morons in Congress, that is where we need to see reform.

I'm not debating about Trump per se, I'm just saying a handful of Congress jack offs have been able to stop most of his agenda, even when it's things the American people clearly want, and even when it's things those jack offs themselves clearly supported in the past.

Those jack offs have convinced themselves that they know what's best for the rest of us, and they have created a system that keeps us fighting while they remain in power.

In a just society, people would look around and say "you've been in DC 20 fucking years and you can't really even name one thing you've done that has actually fixed anything you have labeled as a problem that entire time and thus you're out of here" regardless of party.

Here's why the EC is crucial to the Duopoly --- and note I said the WTA EC.

Ross Perot got close to 20% of the vote in '92, which translated to zero % of the vote.

"Nobody" took as much as 50% of the vote in my state in '16, yet Rump got 100% of the vote.

"WTA" stands for "winner take all", a perversion so heinous that James Madison, who championed the EC itself, advocated a new Amendment to ban WTA. Even though his own state would have suffered. He could see where it was going, even then.

WTA effectively makes any challenge to the Duopoly, impossible. Hordes of voters, no doubt the vast majority, wanted neither the Democrat nor the Republican in '16 but simply voted for one to block the other. Matter of fact that's true of most POTUS elections going back as far as memory serves. Without WTA that would never happen, because those non-Duopoly votes would actually count. There would even be a chance that at least one of the Duopoly would NOT finish first or second. That hasn't happened since 1912 and even then it only happened because the third party was a popular ex-POTUS (and it also let Wilson slip into office with less than 42% of the popular vote).

That's why the goal of any third party that seriously expects to finish, whether it's a Perot or a George Wallace or a John Anderson, is not to actually win the EC, but only to siphon off enough votes from "both" sides that neither of them pulls a majority of EC, which then throws the election to the House of Reps, where anything can happen. In other words they have to undermine the election itself. It's the only chance they have.

It also makes the vast majority of votes irrelevant, since everybody in a red state or a blue state is getting their vote tossed immediately in the trash can. They can vote with their state, against their state, for a third party or stay home and bake cookies, and all four produce the same result, with the exception that in the last case you at least get some cookies.

It's a major reason our voter turnout is abysmally low compared to the rest of the world, because for most people, what's the point.
 
Last edited:
What the hell is the difference between outright not even having a primary, and having primaries where everyone knows the outcome long before the primaries? Seriously

2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia

Did anyone think anyone other than Obama even had a chance at winning anything in 2012?

What a silly thread.

Or that anyone but Clinton in 2016 did. I recall watching one of the primaries -- I think it was Hawaii -- where Clinton had X number of delegates, before "voting" even started. Because "superdelegates". :rolleyes:

I put "voting" in quotes because it's a bread and circus sham made to look like "participation".


That's the sham both parties have perpetrated on the American people. Okay it's their parties, they can run who they want, we don't have a right to vote in a primary, that's just a fact. But the sham comes in the form of the two parties have absolutely colluded to make it as hard as possible for anyone who isn't in on of their parties to win any election. Meaning A Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump is going to be President even if the vast majority of Americans find them both to be morally repugnant.

AMEN to that. Duopoly is monopoly. I think of it as a puppet show with half the puppets in blue and the other half in red, and the drones are supposed to believe they're different things even though if they took the time to look UP they'd see both in the hands of the same puppeteer.

And the Duopoly's main machine to keep itself entrenched is the WTA Electrical College.


Gonna have to disagree there, the EC could be entirely done away with and nothing would change.

As we've seen with Trump, the President can easily be nullified by a handful of morons in Congress, that is where we need to see reform.

I'm not debating about Trump per se, I'm just saying a handful of Congress jack offs have been able to stop most of his agenda, even when it's things the American people clearly want, and even when it's things those jack offs themselves clearly supported in the past.

Those jack offs have convinced themselves that they know what's best for the rest of us, and they have created a system that keeps us fighting while they remain in power.

In a just society, people would look around and say "you've been in DC 20 fucking years and you can't really even name one thing you've done that has actually fixed anything you have labeled as a problem that entire time and thus you're out of here" regardless of party.

Here's why the EC is crucial to the Duopoly --- and note I said the WTA EC.

Ross Perot got close to 20% of the vote in '92, which translated to zero % of the vote.

"Nobody" took as much as 50% of the vote in my state in '16, yet Rump got 100% of the vote.

"WTA" stands for "winner take all", a perversion so heinous that James Madison, who championed the EC itself, advocated a new Amendment to ban WTA. Even though his own state would have suffered. He could see where it was going, even then.

WTA effectively makes any challenge to the Duopoly, impossible. Hordes of voters, no doubt the vast majority, wanted neither the Democrat nor the Republican in '16 but simply voted for one to block the other. Matter of fact that's true of most POTUS elections going back as far as memory serves. Without WTA that would never happen, because those non-Duopoly vote would actually count. There would even be a chance that at least one of the Duopoly would NOT finish first or second. That hasn't happened since 1912 and even then it only happened because the third party was a popular ex-POTUS (and it also let Wilson slip into office with less than 42% of the popular vote).

That's why the goal of any third party that seriously expects to finish, whether it's a Perot or a George Wallace or a John Anderson, is not to actually win the EC, but only to siphon off enough votes from "both" sides that neither of them pulls a majority of EC, which then throws the election to the House of Reps, where anything can happen. In other words they have to undermine the election itself.

It also makes the vast majority of votes irrelevant, since everybody in a red state or a blue state is getting their vote tossed immediately in the trash can. They can vote with their state, against their state, for a third party or stay home and bake cookies, and all four produce the same result, with the exception that in the last case you at least get some cookies.

It's a major reason our voter turnout is abysmally low compared to the rest of the world, because for most people, what's the point.

My bad, I misread your post. I don't agree with Winner Take All either. Now in smaller states, it probably doesn't matter much, but in larger states like CA where there is a clear delineation in political beliefs it's nor really fair that, for example, a large population in Southern CA can totally negate a smaller population in Northern CA, or you could use a small liberal area inside of conservative TX as an example if you prefer.

But I stand by my earlier statement, we need reform in Congress more than we need reform in the Presidential election.
 
Or that anyone but Clinton in 2016 did. I recall watching one of the primaries -- I think it was Hawaii -- where Clinton had X number of delegates, before "voting" even started. Because "superdelegates". :rolleyes:

I put "voting" in quotes because it's a bread and circus sham made to look like "participation".


That's the sham both parties have perpetrated on the American people. Okay it's their parties, they can run who they want, we don't have a right to vote in a primary, that's just a fact. But the sham comes in the form of the two parties have absolutely colluded to make it as hard as possible for anyone who isn't in on of their parties to win any election. Meaning A Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump is going to be President even if the vast majority of Americans find them both to be morally repugnant.

AMEN to that. Duopoly is monopoly. I think of it as a puppet show with half the puppets in blue and the other half in red, and the drones are supposed to believe they're different things even though if they took the time to look UP they'd see both in the hands of the same puppeteer.

And the Duopoly's main machine to keep itself entrenched is the WTA Electrical College.


Gonna have to disagree there, the EC could be entirely done away with and nothing would change.

As we've seen with Trump, the President can easily be nullified by a handful of morons in Congress, that is where we need to see reform.

I'm not debating about Trump per se, I'm just saying a handful of Congress jack offs have been able to stop most of his agenda, even when it's things the American people clearly want, and even when it's things those jack offs themselves clearly supported in the past.

Those jack offs have convinced themselves that they know what's best for the rest of us, and they have created a system that keeps us fighting while they remain in power.

In a just society, people would look around and say "you've been in DC 20 fucking years and you can't really even name one thing you've done that has actually fixed anything you have labeled as a problem that entire time and thus you're out of here" regardless of party.

Here's why the EC is crucial to the Duopoly --- and note I said the WTA EC.

Ross Perot got close to 20% of the vote in '92, which translated to zero % of the vote.

"Nobody" took as much as 50% of the vote in my state in '16, yet Rump got 100% of the vote.

"WTA" stands for "winner take all", a perversion so heinous that James Madison, who championed the EC itself, advocated a new Amendment to ban WTA. Even though his own state would have suffered. He could see where it was going, even then.

WTA effectively makes any challenge to the Duopoly, impossible. Hordes of voters, no doubt the vast majority, wanted neither the Democrat nor the Republican in '16 but simply voted for one to block the other. Matter of fact that's true of most POTUS elections going back as far as memory serves. Without WTA that would never happen, because those non-Duopoly vote would actually count. There would even be a chance that at least one of the Duopoly would NOT finish first or second. That hasn't happened since 1912 and even then it only happened because the third party was a popular ex-POTUS (and it also let Wilson slip into office with less than 42% of the popular vote).

That's why the goal of any third party that seriously expects to finish, whether it's a Perot or a George Wallace or a John Anderson, is not to actually win the EC, but only to siphon off enough votes from "both" sides that neither of them pulls a majority of EC, which then throws the election to the House of Reps, where anything can happen. In other words they have to undermine the election itself.

It also makes the vast majority of votes irrelevant, since everybody in a red state or a blue state is getting their vote tossed immediately in the trash can. They can vote with their state, against their state, for a third party or stay home and bake cookies, and all four produce the same result, with the exception that in the last case you at least get some cookies.

It's a major reason our voter turnout is abysmally low compared to the rest of the world, because for most people, what's the point.

My bad, I misread your post. I don't agree with Winner Take All either. Now in smaller states, it probably doesn't matter much, but in larger states like CA where there is a clear delineation in political beliefs it's nor really fair that, for example, a large population in Southern CA can totally negate a smaller population in Northern CA, or you could use a small liberal area inside of conservative TX as an example if you prefer.

But I stand by my earlier statement, we need reform in Congress more than we need reform in the Presidential election.

I think you made two different points there, and I focused on the WTA-EC.

As far as Congress though, that's supposed to be their job -- legislating and appropriating. It's not the POTUS' job. That's part of the checks and balances. For example, when's the last time Congress declared war, versus when's the last time we started one.
 
That's the sham both parties have perpetrated on the American people. Okay it's their parties, they can run who they want, we don't have a right to vote in a primary, that's just a fact. But the sham comes in the form of the two parties have absolutely colluded to make it as hard as possible for anyone who isn't in on of their parties to win any election. Meaning A Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump is going to be President even if the vast majority of Americans find them both to be morally repugnant.

AMEN to that. Duopoly is monopoly. I think of it as a puppet show with half the puppets in blue and the other half in red, and the drones are supposed to believe they're different things even though if they took the time to look UP they'd see both in the hands of the same puppeteer.

And the Duopoly's main machine to keep itself entrenched is the WTA Electrical College.


Gonna have to disagree there, the EC could be entirely done away with and nothing would change.

As we've seen with Trump, the President can easily be nullified by a handful of morons in Congress, that is where we need to see reform.

I'm not debating about Trump per se, I'm just saying a handful of Congress jack offs have been able to stop most of his agenda, even when it's things the American people clearly want, and even when it's things those jack offs themselves clearly supported in the past.

Those jack offs have convinced themselves that they know what's best for the rest of us, and they have created a system that keeps us fighting while they remain in power.

In a just society, people would look around and say "you've been in DC 20 fucking years and you can't really even name one thing you've done that has actually fixed anything you have labeled as a problem that entire time and thus you're out of here" regardless of party.

Here's why the EC is crucial to the Duopoly --- and note I said the WTA EC.

Ross Perot got close to 20% of the vote in '92, which translated to zero % of the vote.

"Nobody" took as much as 50% of the vote in my state in '16, yet Rump got 100% of the vote.

"WTA" stands for "winner take all", a perversion so heinous that James Madison, who championed the EC itself, advocated a new Amendment to ban WTA. Even though his own state would have suffered. He could see where it was going, even then.

WTA effectively makes any challenge to the Duopoly, impossible. Hordes of voters, no doubt the vast majority, wanted neither the Democrat nor the Republican in '16 but simply voted for one to block the other. Matter of fact that's true of most POTUS elections going back as far as memory serves. Without WTA that would never happen, because those non-Duopoly vote would actually count. There would even be a chance that at least one of the Duopoly would NOT finish first or second. That hasn't happened since 1912 and even then it only happened because the third party was a popular ex-POTUS (and it also let Wilson slip into office with less than 42% of the popular vote).

That's why the goal of any third party that seriously expects to finish, whether it's a Perot or a George Wallace or a John Anderson, is not to actually win the EC, but only to siphon off enough votes from "both" sides that neither of them pulls a majority of EC, which then throws the election to the House of Reps, where anything can happen. In other words they have to undermine the election itself.

It also makes the vast majority of votes irrelevant, since everybody in a red state or a blue state is getting their vote tossed immediately in the trash can. They can vote with their state, against their state, for a third party or stay home and bake cookies, and all four produce the same result, with the exception that in the last case you at least get some cookies.

It's a major reason our voter turnout is abysmally low compared to the rest of the world, because for most people, what's the point.

My bad, I misread your post. I don't agree with Winner Take All either. Now in smaller states, it probably doesn't matter much, but in larger states like CA where there is a clear delineation in political beliefs it's nor really fair that, for example, a large population in Southern CA can totally negate a smaller population in Northern CA, or you could use a small liberal area inside of conservative TX as an example if you prefer.

But I stand by my earlier statement, we need reform in Congress more than we need reform in the Presidential election.

I think you made two different points there, and I focused on the WTA-EC.

As far as Congress though, that's supposed to be their job -- legislating and appropriating. It's not the POTUS' job. That's part of the checks and balances.

Right, and so when a President says " I will enforce the laws by building the fence that the law calls to be built" and a handful of morons in Congress stand up and say "wait , no we can't build that fence we already voted for" it's quite clear which party is attempting to do their job, and which isn't.

You can't truly believe it is right that Congress passed a law that says "build that fence" essentially and then each year for a dozen years the President has to fight for a few dollars to add to that fence , if he so chooses to do so.

And what's more Pogo, you know the Dems aren't really serious about preventing a fence or they would have already proposed a bill to rescind the 2006 bill that called for the fence.

This is Dems in Congress playing political games to stop a President who is doing what the law actually calls for.

You can't possibly believe that is okay. Even if you disagree with a law, you can't be okay with the legislative branch attempting to prevent the executive branch from enforcing it. Can you? Hell, I don't even believe that half of the people out there screaming about the wall and how evil it is are actually against the wall. I 100% believe that the vast majority of them if in 2020 they are told by the Democratic Party to be FOR THE WALL, they will be for it, because party over principles.

And before you ask, I 100% know for fact that there are Republicans who do the same.
 
AMEN to that. Duopoly is monopoly. I think of it as a puppet show with half the puppets in blue and the other half in red, and the drones are supposed to believe they're different things even though if they took the time to look UP they'd see both in the hands of the same puppeteer.

And the Duopoly's main machine to keep itself entrenched is the WTA Electrical College.


Gonna have to disagree there, the EC could be entirely done away with and nothing would change.

As we've seen with Trump, the President can easily be nullified by a handful of morons in Congress, that is where we need to see reform.

I'm not debating about Trump per se, I'm just saying a handful of Congress jack offs have been able to stop most of his agenda, even when it's things the American people clearly want, and even when it's things those jack offs themselves clearly supported in the past.

Those jack offs have convinced themselves that they know what's best for the rest of us, and they have created a system that keeps us fighting while they remain in power.

In a just society, people would look around and say "you've been in DC 20 fucking years and you can't really even name one thing you've done that has actually fixed anything you have labeled as a problem that entire time and thus you're out of here" regardless of party.

Here's why the EC is crucial to the Duopoly --- and note I said the WTA EC.

Ross Perot got close to 20% of the vote in '92, which translated to zero % of the vote.

"Nobody" took as much as 50% of the vote in my state in '16, yet Rump got 100% of the vote.

"WTA" stands for "winner take all", a perversion so heinous that James Madison, who championed the EC itself, advocated a new Amendment to ban WTA. Even though his own state would have suffered. He could see where it was going, even then.

WTA effectively makes any challenge to the Duopoly, impossible. Hordes of voters, no doubt the vast majority, wanted neither the Democrat nor the Republican in '16 but simply voted for one to block the other. Matter of fact that's true of most POTUS elections going back as far as memory serves. Without WTA that would never happen, because those non-Duopoly vote would actually count. There would even be a chance that at least one of the Duopoly would NOT finish first or second. That hasn't happened since 1912 and even then it only happened because the third party was a popular ex-POTUS (and it also let Wilson slip into office with less than 42% of the popular vote).

That's why the goal of any third party that seriously expects to finish, whether it's a Perot or a George Wallace or a John Anderson, is not to actually win the EC, but only to siphon off enough votes from "both" sides that neither of them pulls a majority of EC, which then throws the election to the House of Reps, where anything can happen. In other words they have to undermine the election itself.

It also makes the vast majority of votes irrelevant, since everybody in a red state or a blue state is getting their vote tossed immediately in the trash can. They can vote with their state, against their state, for a third party or stay home and bake cookies, and all four produce the same result, with the exception that in the last case you at least get some cookies.

It's a major reason our voter turnout is abysmally low compared to the rest of the world, because for most people, what's the point.

My bad, I misread your post. I don't agree with Winner Take All either. Now in smaller states, it probably doesn't matter much, but in larger states like CA where there is a clear delineation in political beliefs it's nor really fair that, for example, a large population in Southern CA can totally negate a smaller population in Northern CA, or you could use a small liberal area inside of conservative TX as an example if you prefer.

But I stand by my earlier statement, we need reform in Congress more than we need reform in the Presidential election.

I think you made two different points there, and I focused on the WTA-EC.

As far as Congress though, that's supposed to be their job -- legislating and appropriating. It's not the POTUS' job. That's part of the checks and balances.

Right, and so when a President says " I will enforce the laws by building the fence that the law calls to be built" and a handful of morons in Congress stand up and say "wait , no we can't build that fence we already voted for" it's quite clear which party is attempting to do their job, and which isn't.

You can't truly believe it is right that Congress passed a law that says "build that fence" essentially and then each year for a dozen years the President has to fight for a few dollars to add to that fence , if he so chooses to do so.

And what's more Pogo, you know the Dems aren't really serious about preventing a fence or they would have already proposed a bill to rescind the 2006 bill that called for the fence.

This is Dems in Congress playing political games to stop a President who is doing what the law actually calls for.

You can't possibly believe that is okay. Even if you disagree with a law, you can't be okay with the legislative branch attempting to prevent the executive branch from enforcing it. Can you? Hell, I don't even believe that half of the people out there screaming about the wall and how evil it is are actually against the wall. I 100% believe that the vast majority of them if in 2020 they are told by the Democratic Party to be FOR THE WALL, they will be for it, because party over principles.

And before you ask, I 100% know for fact that there are Republicans who do the same.

Nobody voted for a wall like Rump described. That never happened. But interesting word-masquerade, spelling it 'fence'.
 
Gonna have to disagree there, the EC could be entirely done away with and nothing would change.

As we've seen with Trump, the President can easily be nullified by a handful of morons in Congress, that is where we need to see reform.

I'm not debating about Trump per se, I'm just saying a handful of Congress jack offs have been able to stop most of his agenda, even when it's things the American people clearly want, and even when it's things those jack offs themselves clearly supported in the past.

Those jack offs have convinced themselves that they know what's best for the rest of us, and they have created a system that keeps us fighting while they remain in power.

In a just society, people would look around and say "you've been in DC 20 fucking years and you can't really even name one thing you've done that has actually fixed anything you have labeled as a problem that entire time and thus you're out of here" regardless of party.

Here's why the EC is crucial to the Duopoly --- and note I said the WTA EC.

Ross Perot got close to 20% of the vote in '92, which translated to zero % of the vote.

"Nobody" took as much as 50% of the vote in my state in '16, yet Rump got 100% of the vote.

"WTA" stands for "winner take all", a perversion so heinous that James Madison, who championed the EC itself, advocated a new Amendment to ban WTA. Even though his own state would have suffered. He could see where it was going, even then.

WTA effectively makes any challenge to the Duopoly, impossible. Hordes of voters, no doubt the vast majority, wanted neither the Democrat nor the Republican in '16 but simply voted for one to block the other. Matter of fact that's true of most POTUS elections going back as far as memory serves. Without WTA that would never happen, because those non-Duopoly vote would actually count. There would even be a chance that at least one of the Duopoly would NOT finish first or second. That hasn't happened since 1912 and even then it only happened because the third party was a popular ex-POTUS (and it also let Wilson slip into office with less than 42% of the popular vote).

That's why the goal of any third party that seriously expects to finish, whether it's a Perot or a George Wallace or a John Anderson, is not to actually win the EC, but only to siphon off enough votes from "both" sides that neither of them pulls a majority of EC, which then throws the election to the House of Reps, where anything can happen. In other words they have to undermine the election itself.

It also makes the vast majority of votes irrelevant, since everybody in a red state or a blue state is getting their vote tossed immediately in the trash can. They can vote with their state, against their state, for a third party or stay home and bake cookies, and all four produce the same result, with the exception that in the last case you at least get some cookies.

It's a major reason our voter turnout is abysmally low compared to the rest of the world, because for most people, what's the point.

My bad, I misread your post. I don't agree with Winner Take All either. Now in smaller states, it probably doesn't matter much, but in larger states like CA where there is a clear delineation in political beliefs it's nor really fair that, for example, a large population in Southern CA can totally negate a smaller population in Northern CA, or you could use a small liberal area inside of conservative TX as an example if you prefer.

But I stand by my earlier statement, we need reform in Congress more than we need reform in the Presidential election.

I think you made two different points there, and I focused on the WTA-EC.

As far as Congress though, that's supposed to be their job -- legislating and appropriating. It's not the POTUS' job. That's part of the checks and balances.

Right, and so when a President says " I will enforce the laws by building the fence that the law calls to be built" and a handful of morons in Congress stand up and say "wait , no we can't build that fence we already voted for" it's quite clear which party is attempting to do their job, and which isn't.

You can't truly believe it is right that Congress passed a law that says "build that fence" essentially and then each year for a dozen years the President has to fight for a few dollars to add to that fence , if he so chooses to do so.

And what's more Pogo, you know the Dems aren't really serious about preventing a fence or they would have already proposed a bill to rescind the 2006 bill that called for the fence.

This is Dems in Congress playing political games to stop a President who is doing what the law actually calls for.

You can't possibly believe that is okay. Even if you disagree with a law, you can't be okay with the legislative branch attempting to prevent the executive branch from enforcing it. Can you? Hell, I don't even believe that half of the people out there screaming about the wall and how evil it is are actually against the wall. I 100% believe that the vast majority of them if in 2020 they are told by the Democratic Party to be FOR THE WALL, they will be for it, because party over principles.

And before you ask, I 100% know for fact that there are Republicans who do the same.

Nobody voted for a wall like Rump described. That never happened. But interesting word-masquerade, spelling it 'fence'.


Eh, if you're one of those, we can just discontinue this conversation now. There's a reason I don't participate in the main sub forums of this board.

Maybe at one time Trump envisioned a solid concrete wall from coast to coast, but he certainly isn't planning on building one now, or at any point in the last 2 years.
 
Here's why the EC is crucial to the Duopoly --- and note I said the WTA EC.

Ross Perot got close to 20% of the vote in '92, which translated to zero % of the vote.

"Nobody" took as much as 50% of the vote in my state in '16, yet Rump got 100% of the vote.

"WTA" stands for "winner take all", a perversion so heinous that James Madison, who championed the EC itself, advocated a new Amendment to ban WTA. Even though his own state would have suffered. He could see where it was going, even then.

WTA effectively makes any challenge to the Duopoly, impossible. Hordes of voters, no doubt the vast majority, wanted neither the Democrat nor the Republican in '16 but simply voted for one to block the other. Matter of fact that's true of most POTUS elections going back as far as memory serves. Without WTA that would never happen, because those non-Duopoly vote would actually count. There would even be a chance that at least one of the Duopoly would NOT finish first or second. That hasn't happened since 1912 and even then it only happened because the third party was a popular ex-POTUS (and it also let Wilson slip into office with less than 42% of the popular vote).

That's why the goal of any third party that seriously expects to finish, whether it's a Perot or a George Wallace or a John Anderson, is not to actually win the EC, but only to siphon off enough votes from "both" sides that neither of them pulls a majority of EC, which then throws the election to the House of Reps, where anything can happen. In other words they have to undermine the election itself.

It also makes the vast majority of votes irrelevant, since everybody in a red state or a blue state is getting their vote tossed immediately in the trash can. They can vote with their state, against their state, for a third party or stay home and bake cookies, and all four produce the same result, with the exception that in the last case you at least get some cookies.

It's a major reason our voter turnout is abysmally low compared to the rest of the world, because for most people, what's the point.

My bad, I misread your post. I don't agree with Winner Take All either. Now in smaller states, it probably doesn't matter much, but in larger states like CA where there is a clear delineation in political beliefs it's nor really fair that, for example, a large population in Southern CA can totally negate a smaller population in Northern CA, or you could use a small liberal area inside of conservative TX as an example if you prefer.

But I stand by my earlier statement, we need reform in Congress more than we need reform in the Presidential election.

I think you made two different points there, and I focused on the WTA-EC.

As far as Congress though, that's supposed to be their job -- legislating and appropriating. It's not the POTUS' job. That's part of the checks and balances.

Right, and so when a President says " I will enforce the laws by building the fence that the law calls to be built" and a handful of morons in Congress stand up and say "wait , no we can't build that fence we already voted for" it's quite clear which party is attempting to do their job, and which isn't.

You can't truly believe it is right that Congress passed a law that says "build that fence" essentially and then each year for a dozen years the President has to fight for a few dollars to add to that fence , if he so chooses to do so.

And what's more Pogo, you know the Dems aren't really serious about preventing a fence or they would have already proposed a bill to rescind the 2006 bill that called for the fence.

This is Dems in Congress playing political games to stop a President who is doing what the law actually calls for.

You can't possibly believe that is okay. Even if you disagree with a law, you can't be okay with the legislative branch attempting to prevent the executive branch from enforcing it. Can you? Hell, I don't even believe that half of the people out there screaming about the wall and how evil it is are actually against the wall. I 100% believe that the vast majority of them if in 2020 they are told by the Democratic Party to be FOR THE WALL, they will be for it, because party over principles.

And before you ask, I 100% know for fact that there are Republicans who do the same.

Nobody voted for a wall like Rump described. That never happened. But interesting word-masquerade, spelling it 'fence'.


Eh, if you're one of those, we can just discontinue this conversation now. There's a reason I don't participate in the main sub forums of this board.

Maybe at one time Trump envisioned a solid concrete wall from coast to coast, but he certainly isn't planning on building one now, or at any point in the last 2 years.

"One of those"? :rofl: Yeah I'm 'one of those' who holds people to their statements, until such time as they reverse themselves. By all means link us to where Rump revised that. Or, run away if you like. Whatever.

And it's coast to Gulf, actually.

The most telling aspect of all this was that it was nothing more than a mnemonic to keep him focused on "something". And he actually took it seriously.
 
My bad, I misread your post. I don't agree with Winner Take All either. Now in smaller states, it probably doesn't matter much, but in larger states like CA where there is a clear delineation in political beliefs it's nor really fair that, for example, a large population in Southern CA can totally negate a smaller population in Northern CA, or you could use a small liberal area inside of conservative TX as an example if you prefer.

But I stand by my earlier statement, we need reform in Congress more than we need reform in the Presidential election.

I think you made two different points there, and I focused on the WTA-EC.

As far as Congress though, that's supposed to be their job -- legislating and appropriating. It's not the POTUS' job. That's part of the checks and balances.

Right, and so when a President says " I will enforce the laws by building the fence that the law calls to be built" and a handful of morons in Congress stand up and say "wait , no we can't build that fence we already voted for" it's quite clear which party is attempting to do their job, and which isn't.

You can't truly believe it is right that Congress passed a law that says "build that fence" essentially and then each year for a dozen years the President has to fight for a few dollars to add to that fence , if he so chooses to do so.

And what's more Pogo, you know the Dems aren't really serious about preventing a fence or they would have already proposed a bill to rescind the 2006 bill that called for the fence.

This is Dems in Congress playing political games to stop a President who is doing what the law actually calls for.

You can't possibly believe that is okay. Even if you disagree with a law, you can't be okay with the legislative branch attempting to prevent the executive branch from enforcing it. Can you? Hell, I don't even believe that half of the people out there screaming about the wall and how evil it is are actually against the wall. I 100% believe that the vast majority of them if in 2020 they are told by the Democratic Party to be FOR THE WALL, they will be for it, because party over principles.

And before you ask, I 100% know for fact that there are Republicans who do the same.

Nobody voted for a wall like Rump described. That never happened. But interesting word-masquerade, spelling it 'fence'.


Eh, if you're one of those, we can just discontinue this conversation now. There's a reason I don't participate in the main sub forums of this board.

Maybe at one time Trump envisioned a solid concrete wall from coast to coast, but he certainly isn't planning on building one now, or at any point in the last 2 years.

"One of those"? :rofl: Yeah I'm 'one of those' who holds people to their statements, until such time as they reverse themselves. By all means link us to where Rump revised that. Or, run away if you like. Whatever.

And it's coast to Gulf, actually.

The most telling aspect of all this was that it was nothing more than a mnemonic to keep him focused on "something". And he actually took it seriously.


Your use of "Rump" tells me that I just need to discontinue this conversation now. If I wanted to argue with children all day long, I would have became a school teacher.
 
I think you made two different points there, and I focused on the WTA-EC.

As far as Congress though, that's supposed to be their job -- legislating and appropriating. It's not the POTUS' job. That's part of the checks and balances.

Right, and so when a President says " I will enforce the laws by building the fence that the law calls to be built" and a handful of morons in Congress stand up and say "wait , no we can't build that fence we already voted for" it's quite clear which party is attempting to do their job, and which isn't.

You can't truly believe it is right that Congress passed a law that says "build that fence" essentially and then each year for a dozen years the President has to fight for a few dollars to add to that fence , if he so chooses to do so.

And what's more Pogo, you know the Dems aren't really serious about preventing a fence or they would have already proposed a bill to rescind the 2006 bill that called for the fence.

This is Dems in Congress playing political games to stop a President who is doing what the law actually calls for.

You can't possibly believe that is okay. Even if you disagree with a law, you can't be okay with the legislative branch attempting to prevent the executive branch from enforcing it. Can you? Hell, I don't even believe that half of the people out there screaming about the wall and how evil it is are actually against the wall. I 100% believe that the vast majority of them if in 2020 they are told by the Democratic Party to be FOR THE WALL, they will be for it, because party over principles.

And before you ask, I 100% know for fact that there are Republicans who do the same.

Nobody voted for a wall like Rump described. That never happened. But interesting word-masquerade, spelling it 'fence'.


Eh, if you're one of those, we can just discontinue this conversation now. There's a reason I don't participate in the main sub forums of this board.

Maybe at one time Trump envisioned a solid concrete wall from coast to coast, but he certainly isn't planning on building one now, or at any point in the last 2 years.

"One of those"? :rofl: Yeah I'm 'one of those' who holds people to their statements, until such time as they reverse themselves. By all means link us to where Rump revised that. Or, run away if you like. Whatever.

And it's coast to Gulf, actually.

The most telling aspect of all this was that it was nothing more than a mnemonic to keep him focused on "something". And he actually took it seriously.


Your use of "Rump" tells me that I just need to discontinue this conversation now. If I wanted to argue with children all day long, I would have became a school teacher.

Bye.

 
Gonna have to disagree there, the EC could be entirely done away with and nothing would change.

As we've seen with Trump, the President can easily be nullified by a handful of morons in Congress, that is where we need to see reform.

I'm not debating about Trump per se, I'm just saying a handful of Congress jack offs have been able to stop most of his agenda, even when it's things the American people clearly want, and even when it's things those jack offs themselves clearly supported in the past.

Those jack offs have convinced themselves that they know what's best for the rest of us, and they have created a system that keeps us fighting while they remain in power.

In a just society, people would look around and say "you've been in DC 20 fucking years and you can't really even name one thing you've done that has actually fixed anything you have labeled as a problem that entire time and thus you're out of here" regardless of party.

Here's why the EC is crucial to the Duopoly --- and note I said the WTA EC.

Ross Perot got close to 20% of the vote in '92, which translated to zero % of the vote.

"Nobody" took as much as 50% of the vote in my state in '16, yet Rump got 100% of the vote.

"WTA" stands for "winner take all", a perversion so heinous that James Madison, who championed the EC itself, advocated a new Amendment to ban WTA. Even though his own state would have suffered. He could see where it was going, even then.

WTA effectively makes any challenge to the Duopoly, impossible. Hordes of voters, no doubt the vast majority, wanted neither the Democrat nor the Republican in '16 but simply voted for one to block the other. Matter of fact that's true of most POTUS elections going back as far as memory serves. Without WTA that would never happen, because those non-Duopoly vote would actually count. There would even be a chance that at least one of the Duopoly would NOT finish first or second. That hasn't happened since 1912 and even then it only happened because the third party was a popular ex-POTUS (and it also let Wilson slip into office with less than 42% of the popular vote).

That's why the goal of any third party that seriously expects to finish, whether it's a Perot or a George Wallace or a John Anderson, is not to actually win the EC, but only to siphon off enough votes from "both" sides that neither of them pulls a majority of EC, which then throws the election to the House of Reps, where anything can happen. In other words they have to undermine the election itself.

It also makes the vast majority of votes irrelevant, since everybody in a red state or a blue state is getting their vote tossed immediately in the trash can. They can vote with their state, against their state, for a third party or stay home and bake cookies, and all four produce the same result, with the exception that in the last case you at least get some cookies.

It's a major reason our voter turnout is abysmally low compared to the rest of the world, because for most people, what's the point.

My bad, I misread your post. I don't agree with Winner Take All either. Now in smaller states, it probably doesn't matter much, but in larger states like CA where there is a clear delineation in political beliefs it's nor really fair that, for example, a large population in Southern CA can totally negate a smaller population in Northern CA, or you could use a small liberal area inside of conservative TX as an example if you prefer.

But I stand by my earlier statement, we need reform in Congress more than we need reform in the Presidential election.

I think you made two different points there, and I focused on the WTA-EC.

As far as Congress though, that's supposed to be their job -- legislating and appropriating. It's not the POTUS' job. That's part of the checks and balances.

Right, and so when a President says " I will enforce the laws by building the fence that the law calls to be built" and a handful of morons in Congress stand up and say "wait , no we can't build that fence we already voted for" it's quite clear which party is attempting to do their job, and which isn't.

You can't truly believe it is right that Congress passed a law that says "build that fence" essentially and then each year for a dozen years the President has to fight for a few dollars to add to that fence , if he so chooses to do so.

And what's more Pogo, you know the Dems aren't really serious about preventing a fence or they would have already proposed a bill to rescind the 2006 bill that called for the fence.

This is Dems in Congress playing political games to stop a President who is doing what the law actually calls for.

You can't possibly believe that is okay. Even if you disagree with a law, you can't be okay with the legislative branch attempting to prevent the executive branch from enforcing it. Can you? Hell, I don't even believe that half of the people out there screaming about the wall and how evil it is are actually against the wall. I 100% believe that the vast majority of them if in 2020 they are told by the Democratic Party to be FOR THE WALL, they will be for it, because party over principles.

And before you ask, I 100% know for fact that there are Republicans who do the same.

Nobody voted for a wall like Rump described. That never happened. But interesting word-masquerade, spelling it 'fence'.

I did. I want a wall the size of the wall on Skull Island, electrified.
 
Here's why the EC is crucial to the Duopoly --- and note I said the WTA EC.

Ross Perot got close to 20% of the vote in '92, which translated to zero % of the vote.

"Nobody" took as much as 50% of the vote in my state in '16, yet Rump got 100% of the vote.

"WTA" stands for "winner take all", a perversion so heinous that James Madison, who championed the EC itself, advocated a new Amendment to ban WTA. Even though his own state would have suffered. He could see where it was going, even then.

WTA effectively makes any challenge to the Duopoly, impossible. Hordes of voters, no doubt the vast majority, wanted neither the Democrat nor the Republican in '16 but simply voted for one to block the other. Matter of fact that's true of most POTUS elections going back as far as memory serves. Without WTA that would never happen, because those non-Duopoly vote would actually count. There would even be a chance that at least one of the Duopoly would NOT finish first or second. That hasn't happened since 1912 and even then it only happened because the third party was a popular ex-POTUS (and it also let Wilson slip into office with less than 42% of the popular vote).

That's why the goal of any third party that seriously expects to finish, whether it's a Perot or a George Wallace or a John Anderson, is not to actually win the EC, but only to siphon off enough votes from "both" sides that neither of them pulls a majority of EC, which then throws the election to the House of Reps, where anything can happen. In other words they have to undermine the election itself.

It also makes the vast majority of votes irrelevant, since everybody in a red state or a blue state is getting their vote tossed immediately in the trash can. They can vote with their state, against their state, for a third party or stay home and bake cookies, and all four produce the same result, with the exception that in the last case you at least get some cookies.

It's a major reason our voter turnout is abysmally low compared to the rest of the world, because for most people, what's the point.

My bad, I misread your post. I don't agree with Winner Take All either. Now in smaller states, it probably doesn't matter much, but in larger states like CA where there is a clear delineation in political beliefs it's nor really fair that, for example, a large population in Southern CA can totally negate a smaller population in Northern CA, or you could use a small liberal area inside of conservative TX as an example if you prefer.

But I stand by my earlier statement, we need reform in Congress more than we need reform in the Presidential election.

I think you made two different points there, and I focused on the WTA-EC.

As far as Congress though, that's supposed to be their job -- legislating and appropriating. It's not the POTUS' job. That's part of the checks and balances.

Right, and so when a President says " I will enforce the laws by building the fence that the law calls to be built" and a handful of morons in Congress stand up and say "wait , no we can't build that fence we already voted for" it's quite clear which party is attempting to do their job, and which isn't.

You can't truly believe it is right that Congress passed a law that says "build that fence" essentially and then each year for a dozen years the President has to fight for a few dollars to add to that fence , if he so chooses to do so.

And what's more Pogo, you know the Dems aren't really serious about preventing a fence or they would have already proposed a bill to rescind the 2006 bill that called for the fence.

This is Dems in Congress playing political games to stop a President who is doing what the law actually calls for.

You can't possibly believe that is okay. Even if you disagree with a law, you can't be okay with the legislative branch attempting to prevent the executive branch from enforcing it. Can you? Hell, I don't even believe that half of the people out there screaming about the wall and how evil it is are actually against the wall. I 100% believe that the vast majority of them if in 2020 they are told by the Democratic Party to be FOR THE WALL, they will be for it, because party over principles.

And before you ask, I 100% know for fact that there are Republicans who do the same.

Nobody voted for a wall like Rump described. That never happened. But interesting word-masquerade, spelling it 'fence'.

I did. I want a wall the size of the wall on Skull Island, electrified.


That's nice. Know what you should do? Get into model trains.

I didn't even mention to the poster (before he ran away) that Rump promised, over and over, that Mexico would pay for this "wall". When that didn't happen (who saw that coming?), he tried to hold the whole government and 800,000 workers hostage. And then when that FAILED TOO he went to the tactic of "declaring an emergency", said 'emergency' being that he wants to grab taxpayer money for this bogus project that Congress --- whose JOB IT IS --- already told him "NO" on.

I didn't get to tell him that, before he ran away. If he comes back, pass it on.
 
My bad, I misread your post. I don't agree with Winner Take All either. Now in smaller states, it probably doesn't matter much, but in larger states like CA where there is a clear delineation in political beliefs it's nor really fair that, for example, a large population in Southern CA can totally negate a smaller population in Northern CA, or you could use a small liberal area inside of conservative TX as an example if you prefer.

But I stand by my earlier statement, we need reform in Congress more than we need reform in the Presidential election.

I think you made two different points there, and I focused on the WTA-EC.

As far as Congress though, that's supposed to be their job -- legislating and appropriating. It's not the POTUS' job. That's part of the checks and balances.

Right, and so when a President says " I will enforce the laws by building the fence that the law calls to be built" and a handful of morons in Congress stand up and say "wait , no we can't build that fence we already voted for" it's quite clear which party is attempting to do their job, and which isn't.

You can't truly believe it is right that Congress passed a law that says "build that fence" essentially and then each year for a dozen years the President has to fight for a few dollars to add to that fence , if he so chooses to do so.

And what's more Pogo, you know the Dems aren't really serious about preventing a fence or they would have already proposed a bill to rescind the 2006 bill that called for the fence.

This is Dems in Congress playing political games to stop a President who is doing what the law actually calls for.

You can't possibly believe that is okay. Even if you disagree with a law, you can't be okay with the legislative branch attempting to prevent the executive branch from enforcing it. Can you? Hell, I don't even believe that half of the people out there screaming about the wall and how evil it is are actually against the wall. I 100% believe that the vast majority of them if in 2020 they are told by the Democratic Party to be FOR THE WALL, they will be for it, because party over principles.

And before you ask, I 100% know for fact that there are Republicans who do the same.

Nobody voted for a wall like Rump described. That never happened. But interesting word-masquerade, spelling it 'fence'.

I did. I want a wall the size of the wall on Skull Island, electrified.


That's nice. Know what you should do? Get into model trains.

I didn't even mention to the poster (before he ran away) that Rump promised, over and over, that Mexico would pay for this "wall". When that didn't happen (who saw that coming?), he tried to hold the whole government and 800,000 workers hostage. And then when that FAILED TOO he went to the tactic of "declaring an emergency", said 'emergency' being that he wants to grab taxpayer money for this bogus project that Congress --- whose JOB IT IS --- already told him "NO" on.

I didn't get to tell him that, before he ran away. If he comes back, pass it on.

Shrug. I don't care who pays for it. Never have.
 
I think you made two different points there, and I focused on the WTA-EC.

As far as Congress though, that's supposed to be their job -- legislating and appropriating. It's not the POTUS' job. That's part of the checks and balances.

Right, and so when a President says " I will enforce the laws by building the fence that the law calls to be built" and a handful of morons in Congress stand up and say "wait , no we can't build that fence we already voted for" it's quite clear which party is attempting to do their job, and which isn't.

You can't truly believe it is right that Congress passed a law that says "build that fence" essentially and then each year for a dozen years the President has to fight for a few dollars to add to that fence , if he so chooses to do so.

And what's more Pogo, you know the Dems aren't really serious about preventing a fence or they would have already proposed a bill to rescind the 2006 bill that called for the fence.

This is Dems in Congress playing political games to stop a President who is doing what the law actually calls for.

You can't possibly believe that is okay. Even if you disagree with a law, you can't be okay with the legislative branch attempting to prevent the executive branch from enforcing it. Can you? Hell, I don't even believe that half of the people out there screaming about the wall and how evil it is are actually against the wall. I 100% believe that the vast majority of them if in 2020 they are told by the Democratic Party to be FOR THE WALL, they will be for it, because party over principles.

And before you ask, I 100% know for fact that there are Republicans who do the same.

Nobody voted for a wall like Rump described. That never happened. But interesting word-masquerade, spelling it 'fence'.

I did. I want a wall the size of the wall on Skull Island, electrified.


That's nice. Know what you should do? Get into model trains.

I didn't even mention to the poster (before he ran away) that Rump promised, over and over, that Mexico would pay for this "wall". When that didn't happen (who saw that coming?), he tried to hold the whole government and 800,000 workers hostage. And then when that FAILED TOO he went to the tactic of "declaring an emergency", said 'emergency' being that he wants to grab taxpayer money for this bogus project that Congress --- whose JOB IT IS --- already told him "NO" on.

I didn't get to tell him that, before he ran away. If he comes back, pass it on.

Shrug. I don't care who pays for it. Never have.

You just want it for Trump. We know you love him and no matter what you want what he wants. YOU can pay for it.
 
Right, and so when a President says " I will enforce the laws by building the fence that the law calls to be built" and a handful of morons in Congress stand up and say "wait , no we can't build that fence we already voted for" it's quite clear which party is attempting to do their job, and which isn't.

You can't truly believe it is right that Congress passed a law that says "build that fence" essentially and then each year for a dozen years the President has to fight for a few dollars to add to that fence , if he so chooses to do so.

And what's more Pogo, you know the Dems aren't really serious about preventing a fence or they would have already proposed a bill to rescind the 2006 bill that called for the fence.

This is Dems in Congress playing political games to stop a President who is doing what the law actually calls for.

You can't possibly believe that is okay. Even if you disagree with a law, you can't be okay with the legislative branch attempting to prevent the executive branch from enforcing it. Can you? Hell, I don't even believe that half of the people out there screaming about the wall and how evil it is are actually against the wall. I 100% believe that the vast majority of them if in 2020 they are told by the Democratic Party to be FOR THE WALL, they will be for it, because party over principles.

And before you ask, I 100% know for fact that there are Republicans who do the same.

Nobody voted for a wall like Rump described. That never happened. But interesting word-masquerade, spelling it 'fence'.

I did. I want a wall the size of the wall on Skull Island, electrified.


That's nice. Know what you should do? Get into model trains.

I didn't even mention to the poster (before he ran away) that Rump promised, over and over, that Mexico would pay for this "wall". When that didn't happen (who saw that coming?), he tried to hold the whole government and 800,000 workers hostage. And then when that FAILED TOO he went to the tactic of "declaring an emergency", said 'emergency' being that he wants to grab taxpayer money for this bogus project that Congress --- whose JOB IT IS --- already told him "NO" on.

I didn't get to tell him that, before he ran away. If he comes back, pass it on.

Shrug. I don't care who pays for it. Never have.

You just want it for Trump. We know you love him and no matter what you want what he wants. YOU can pay for it.

No, I want it as an aid to keep America pest-free.

The beauty of it is that YOU will pay for it too. :113:
 
Nobody voted for a wall like Rump described. That never happened. But interesting word-masquerade, spelling it 'fence'.

I did. I want a wall the size of the wall on Skull Island, electrified.


That's nice. Know what you should do? Get into model trains.

I didn't even mention to the poster (before he ran away) that Rump promised, over and over, that Mexico would pay for this "wall". When that didn't happen (who saw that coming?), he tried to hold the whole government and 800,000 workers hostage. And then when that FAILED TOO he went to the tactic of "declaring an emergency", said 'emergency' being that he wants to grab taxpayer money for this bogus project that Congress --- whose JOB IT IS --- already told him "NO" on.

I didn't get to tell him that, before he ran away. If he comes back, pass it on.

Shrug. I don't care who pays for it. Never have.

You just want it for Trump. We know you love him and no matter what you want what he wants. YOU can pay for it.

No, I want it as an aid to keep America pest-free.

The beauty of it is that YOU will pay for it too. :113:

The tragedy of it is that a con artist came along selling snake oil, and you couldn't get your wallet out fast enough to buy it even while said con artist was shelling out millions for fraud, and now everybody has to pay for it. And all because he mouthed a line that was only made up to give a scatterbrain a shiny object to focus on, and you actually took it seriously.

How 'bout a bridge with that wall? Package deal. :deal:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top