Are democrats intentionally trying to lose the 2016 election?

[expatriate]

oh... and by the way, when the "EC was put in place", there WAS no west coast of the United States.

 

[Redfish]

It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins.

there is no question that the country is turning left, you may think thats a good thing, I do not.

you may think that one party rule would be a good thing, I do not.

you may think that a dictatorship would be good, I do not.

another silly post. Just because people might think that turning left is a good thing does NOT mean that they think that one party rule is a good thing, or that a dictatorship is a good thing.

The more I read from you, the more I realize what a moron you really are.

you said: "It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins."


it is logical to interpret that comment that you think that a one party dictatorship and destruction of the GOP would be a good thing.

if not, what should be inferred from your comment?

and grow the **** up, hurling juvenile insults just destroys what little credibility you ever had.

 

[expatriate]

there is no question that the country is turning left, you may think thats a good thing, I do not.

you may think that one party rule would be a good thing, I do not.

you may think that a dictatorship would be good, I do not.

another silly post. Just because people might think that turning left is a good thing does NOT mean that they think that one party rule is a good thing, or that a dictatorship is a good thing.

The more I read from you, the more I realize what a moron you really are.

you said: "It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins."


it is logical to interpret that comment that you think that a one party dictatorship and destruction of the GOP would be a good thing.

if not, what should be inferred from your comment?

and grow the **** up, hurling juvenile insults just destroys what little credibility you ever had.

bullshit. find a post from me where I said those words, or retract that lie.

I'll wait.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't like the fact that California is a big state?

Fine. Divide California into 5 states instead of 1.

Then you'll have 10 Senators from California instead of 2, and the former California will get 8 additional electoral votes.

Feel better now?

 

[Redfish]

Democrats are pushing increased background checks and sensible gun restrictions on magazines and assault weapons

Gabby Giffords and Sandy Hook parents will haunt GOP Congressmen who blocked legislation.

Lets see who pays a political price

let me see you define and explain what you mean by sensible gun restrictions i know what "sensible" means to me, but i want your definition .., OK ?

you use that term "assault weapons".., i'll bet you can NOT describe an "assault weapon", but i'll give you an opportunity to do so right here for all to see.

Gabby is nothing more than a puppet on a dog leash being dragged around by that political hustler husband of hers. they both are hypocrites

Republicans attack Gabby Giffords on sensible gun control at their own peril. Gabby definitely has a dog in this fight and the voters will listen to her

Sensible gun restrictions? Lets start with keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people and felons. Background checks are supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans. Even most NRA members support enhanced background checks. Republican representatives who block this legislation will pay a price

30-50 round magazines have one purpose....to kill lots of people quickly. Let GOP lawmakers defend why the public needs them

Assault weapons? Lets start with anything that takes one of those 30-50 round magazines. In essence when you put a weapon that says "Look at me, I'm a badass" into the hands of a crazy person, you are asking for trouble

we already have background check laws, try to buy a gun and you will find out.

the problem with magazine limits is that anyone with a small sheet metal shop can make a magazine, outlawing legal sales of them will not keep them out of the hands of criminals and crazy people.

a better solution would be mandatory life sentences for anyone using a large magazine when committing any crime.

why is the guy who shot Giffords still alive? why is the Aurora shooter still alive? Why is Hassan still alive?

 

[Redfish]

another silly post. Just because people might think that turning left is a good thing does NOT mean that they think that one party rule is a good thing, or that a dictatorship is a good thing.

The more I read from you, the more I realize what a moron you really are.

you said: "It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins."


it is logical to interpret that comment that you think that a one party dictatorship and destruction of the GOP would be a good thing.

if not, what should be inferred from your comment?

and grow the **** up, hurling juvenile insults just destroys what little credibility you ever had.

bullshit. find a post from me where I said those words, or retract that lie.

I'll wait.

my mistake, it was NY carbonpaper in post #187, you guys post like twins so it was an easy mistake to make. my bad.

 

[expatriate]

there is no question that the country is turning left, you may think thats a good thing, I do not.

you may think that one party rule would be a good thing, I do not.

you may think that a dictatorship would be good, I do not.

another silly post. Just because people might think that turning left is a good thing does NOT mean that they think that one party rule is a good thing, or that a dictatorship is a good thing.

The more I read from you, the more I realize what a moron you really are.

you said: "It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins."


it is logical to interpret that comment that you think that a one party dictatorship and destruction of the GOP would be a good thing.

if not, what should be inferred from your comment?

not only do you need schooling in math... LOGIC is not one of your strong suits either. Let me give you another inference to the OTHER POSTER's comment:

the country has been on a leftward path for more than a century. Humanity, by and large, has been on that same path for most of its existence. Conservatives don't like that and fantasize about somehow stopping the inevitable march of liberal progressive thought.

see? nothing in there about a dictatorship whatsoever.

 

[Redfish]

You don't like the fact that California is a big state?

Fine. Divide California into 5 states instead of 1.

Then you'll have 10 Senators from California instead of 2, and the former California will get 8 additional electoral votes.

Feel better now?

I have no problem with a lot of people living in the socialist paradise of california--one of the blue states that is broke because of liberal stupidity.

I guess misery loves company, but since people are leaving CA in droves and moving to tax friendly states, the people/EC vote ratio may change by 2016.

 

[expatriate]

You don't like the fact that California is a big state?

Fine. Divide California into 5 states instead of 1.

Then you'll have 10 Senators from California instead of 2, and the former California will get 8 additional electoral votes.

Feel better now?

I have no problem with a lot of people living in the socialist paradise of california--one of the blue states that is broke because of liberal stupidity.

I guess misery loves company, but since people are leaving CA in droves and moving to tax friendly states, the people/EC vote ratio may change by 2016.

again... your lack of civics education shows here... do you know what event prompts a realignment of electoral votes between the states?

 

[Redfish]

another silly post. Just because people might think that turning left is a good thing does NOT mean that they think that one party rule is a good thing, or that a dictatorship is a good thing.

The more I read from you, the more I realize what a moron you really are.

you said: "It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins."


it is logical to interpret that comment that you think that a one party dictatorship and destruction of the GOP would be a good thing.

if not, what should be inferred from your comment?

not only do you need schooling in math... LOGIC is not one of your strong suits either. Let me give you another inference to the OTHER POSTER's comment:

the country has been on a leftward path for more than a century. Humanity, by and large, has been on that same path for most of its existence. Conservatives don't like that and fantasize about somehow stopping the inevitable march of liberal progressive thought.

see? nothing in there about a dictatorship whatsoever.

please list the countries where liberalism has worked. while you are doing that here are a few CIVILIZATIONS where it has failed---Rome, Greece, the Mayans, the Aztecs, the INCAs, and in modern times: pre-breakup USSR, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, Greece.

from the above post your understanding of conservatism is sorely lacking. Conservatives want small federal government, individual freedom, low taxes, constitutional government, freedom to succeed and freedom to fail, individual responsibility and accountablity, unintrusive federal government, states rights on social issues.

conservatism is not evil, progressivism, liberalism, marxism, socialism, communism, et al. degrade the individual and make him/her a slave to the all poweral government.

Is that really what you want?

as to what "humanity by and large" wants, what humanity wants is FREEDOM.

 

[rightwinger]

You don't like the fact that California is a big state?

Fine. Divide California into 5 states instead of 1.

Then you'll have 10 Senators from California instead of 2, and the former California will get 8 additional electoral votes.

Feel better now?

I have no problem with a lot of people living in the socialist paradise of california--one of the blue states that is broke because of liberal stupidity.

I guess misery loves company, but since people are leaving CA in droves and moving to tax friendly states, the people/EC vote ratio may change by 2016.

When those Californians enter Red States do you think they turn into Republicans?

Add people migrating from blue states to a growing Hispanic population and you have states like Florida, Texas and Arizona shifting blue

 

[NYcarbineer]

there is no question that the country is turning left, you may think thats a good thing, I do not.

you may think that one party rule would be a good thing, I do not.

you may think that a dictatorship would be good, I do not.

another silly post. Just because people might think that turning left is a good thing does NOT mean that they think that one party rule is a good thing, or that a dictatorship is a good thing.

The more I read from you, the more I realize what a moron you really are.

you said: "It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins."


it is logical to interpret that comment that you think that a one party dictatorship and destruction of the GOP would be a good thing.

if not, what should be inferred from your comment?

and grow the **** up, hurling juvenile insults just destroys what little credibility you ever had.

If a party by its own chosen nature does not represent the views of enough people to be anything other than a permanent minority party,

whose fault is that?

Adhering to the most fundamental principles of one person one vote and majority rule is not 'dictatorship'.

 

[Redfish]

You don't like the fact that California is a big state?

Fine. Divide California into 5 states instead of 1.

Then you'll have 10 Senators from California instead of 2, and the former California will get 8 additional electoral votes.

Feel better now?

I have no problem with a lot of people living in the socialist paradise of california--one of the blue states that is broke because of liberal stupidity.

I guess misery loves company, but since people are leaving CA in droves and moving to tax friendly states, the people/EC vote ratio may change by 2016.

again... your lack of civics education shows here... do you know what event prompts a realignment of electoral votes between the states?

geez, once again, stop the childish attempts at insults, electoral votes are allocated based on the national census.

 

[Redfish]

You don't like the fact that California is a big state?

Fine. Divide California into 5 states instead of 1.

Then you'll have 10 Senators from California instead of 2, and the former California will get 8 additional electoral votes.

Feel better now?

I have no problem with a lot of people living in the socialist paradise of california--one of the blue states that is broke because of liberal stupidity.

I guess misery loves company, but since people are leaving CA in droves and moving to tax friendly states, the people/EC vote ratio may change by 2016.

When those Californians enter Red States do you think they turn into Republicans?

Add people migrating from blue states to a growing Hispanic population and you have states like Florida, Texas and Arizona shifting blue

if they are leaving CA because of liberal democrat failed policies then its safe to assume that they may become republicans in their new states.

Legal hispanics (the ones who can vote) tend to be religious and have strong family values--they are not democrats, watching the dem controlled DOJ and obama attack the hispanic Zimmerman is not going to make hispanics vote dem.

 

[Redfish]

another silly post. Just because people might think that turning left is a good thing does NOT mean that they think that one party rule is a good thing, or that a dictatorship is a good thing.

The more I read from you, the more I realize what a moron you really are.

you said: "It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins."


it is logical to interpret that comment that you think that a one party dictatorship and destruction of the GOP would be a good thing.

if not, what should be inferred from your comment?

and grow the **** up, hurling juvenile insults just destroys what little credibility you ever had.

If a party by its own chosen nature does not represent the views of enough people to be anything other than a permanent minority party,

whose fault is that?

Adhering to the most fundamental principles of one person one vote and majority rule is not 'dictatorship'.

nice deflection attempt. earlier you were advocating for one party control of the country. Thats what got us the terrible piece of legislation called ACA.

One party control of both houses of congress and the whitehouse would be a virtual dictatorship because congress would become a rubber stamp of the POTUS. Do you really think that would be a good thing? before answering, it could be the GOP in control.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't like the fact that California is a big state?

Fine. Divide California into 5 states instead of 1.

Then you'll have 10 Senators from California instead of 2, and the former California will get 8 additional electoral votes.

Feel better now?

I have no problem with a lot of people living in the socialist paradise of california--one of the blue states that is broke because of liberal stupidity.

I guess misery loves company, but since people are leaving CA in droves and moving to tax friendly states, the people/EC vote ratio may change by 2016.

You didn't answer the question. You complained about big states having too much influence in elections.

 

[expatriate]

you said: "It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins."


it is logical to interpret that comment that you think that a one party dictatorship and destruction of the GOP would be a good thing.

if not, what should be inferred from your comment?

and grow the **** up, hurling juvenile insults just destroys what little credibility you ever had.

If a party by its own chosen nature does not represent the views of enough people to be anything other than a permanent minority party,

whose fault is that?

Adhering to the most fundamental principles of one person one vote and majority rule is not 'dictatorship'.

nice deflection attempt. earlier you were advocating for one party control of the country. Thats what got us the terrible piece of legislation called ACA.

One party control of both houses of congress and the whitehouse would be a virtual dictatorship because congress would become a rubber stamp of the POTUS. Do you really think that would be a good thing? before answering, it could be the GOP in control.

one party control of congress and the white house can and has happened in the past. Virtual dictatorships did not ensue. Nothing more than fearmongering here. Actually, ten of our 44 presidents served their entire terms in office with their own party in control of both houses of congress. None resulted in virtual dictatorships that I know of. Again... if the republican party cannot figure out how to present a platform of ideas and a slate of candidates that represents the majority of Americans, they do not deserve to represent the majority of Americans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

you said: "It's nothing new that conservatives, faced with being a permanent minority politically,

fantasize about electoral systems where magically the minority wins."


it is logical to interpret that comment that you think that a one party dictatorship and destruction of the GOP would be a good thing.

if not, what should be inferred from your comment?

and grow the **** up, hurling juvenile insults just destroys what little credibility you ever had.

If a party by its own chosen nature does not represent the views of enough people to be anything other than a permanent minority party,

whose fault is that?

Adhering to the most fundamental principles of one person one vote and majority rule is not 'dictatorship'.

nice deflection attempt. earlier you were advocating for one party control of the country. Thats what got us the terrible piece of legislation called ACA.

One party control of both houses of congress and the whitehouse would be a virtual dictatorship because congress would become a rubber stamp of the POTUS. Do you really think that would be a good thing? before answering, it could be the GOP in control.

You want a system that supports your biases.

I want a system based on the principles of democratic government. A tyrannical minority is not democratic.

 

[Redfish]

If a party by its own chosen nature does not represent the views of enough people to be anything other than a permanent minority party,

whose fault is that?

Adhering to the most fundamental principles of one person one vote and majority rule is not 'dictatorship'.

nice deflection attempt. earlier you were advocating for one party control of the country. Thats what got us the terrible piece of legislation called ACA.

One party control of both houses of congress and the whitehouse would be a virtual dictatorship because congress would become a rubber stamp of the POTUS. Do you really think that would be a good thing? before answering, it could be the GOP in control.

one party control of congress and the white house can and has happened in the past. Virtual dictatorships did not ensue. Nothing more than fearmongering here. Again... if the republican party cannot figure out how to present a platform of ideas and a slate of candidates that represents the majority of Americans, they do not deserve to represent the majority of Americans.

Yes, it has happened, the most recent disaster resulting from that is the obamacare bill. which no one can understand and now even the unions are demanding that it be killed.

Yes, the GOP needs to find ways to overcome the media bias and get their message out to the majority of the voters. as to representing majority views, 40% of americans self identify as conservatives, 20% self identify as liberals. Sooooooooo, the problem is not the message, its the messengers coupled with a conspriatorial media biased toward liberal democrats.

Its a steep hill, I don't know if they can climb it, but if they cannot, the country will be worse off because of it.

 

[Redfish]

If a party by its own chosen nature does not represent the views of enough people to be anything other than a permanent minority party,

whose fault is that?

Adhering to the most fundamental principles of one person one vote and majority rule is not 'dictatorship'.

nice deflection attempt. earlier you were advocating for one party control of the country. Thats what got us the terrible piece of legislation called ACA.

One party control of both houses of congress and the whitehouse would be a virtual dictatorship because congress would become a rubber stamp of the POTUS. Do you really think that would be a good thing? before answering, it could be the GOP in control.

You want a system that supports your biases.

I want a system based on the principles of democratic government. A tyrannical minority is not democratic.

very true, but you would be OK with that tyranical minority if it was made up of liberal democrats---------you are being hypocritical.