Are democrats intentionally trying to lose the 2016 election?

[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 see longtime majorities for one party or another in state and local governments all the time.

Does that mean those governments are dictatorships?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

How do you manage to presume to know what I believe?

 

[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.

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

that was not my point. I was only pointing out the mathematical results, not making a right or wrong judgement on it.

thats the problem with most of you libs, you twist things to make everything an argument. All I said originally was the CA and NY made obama the winner--2 states out of 50. If those 2 had gone to Romney, he would have won.

those are facts. no other 2 states have that much swing power.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So how would you stop a state like Massachusetts from electing Democratic majorities year after year?

 

[Redfish]

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.

How do you manage to presume to know what I believe?

so are you now saying that you believe that a viable republican party is good for the country? earlier you wanted the GOP to be a permanent minority party. have you now changed that position?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh, and btw,

Obama won the popular vote in 26 states. Romney won 24.

So even if you took Redfish's fantasies to the logical extreme, and gave each state only 1 electoral vote regardless of population,

Obama still wins.

So even the most radical absurd notions of rigging the system in favor of Republicans don't work.

lol

 

[expatriate]

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.

that was not my point. I was only pointing out the mathematical results, not making a right or wrong judgement on it.

thats the problem with most of you libs, you twist things to make everything an argument. All I said originally was the CA and NY made obama the winner--2 states out of 50. If those 2 had gone to Romney, he would have won.

those are facts. no other 2 states have that much swing power.

and again... it's not the STATES that have the power. Real estate doesn't vote. People do. Wouldn't you WANT the states with the most people to have the most influence on national elections?

 

[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.

So how would you stop a state like Massachusetts from electing Democratic majorities year after year?

why would I want to stop Mass from electing who they want? that's not pertinent to the discussion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[/COLOR]


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

How do you manage to presume to know what I believe?

so are you now saying that you believe that a viable republican party is good for the country? earlier you wanted the GOP to be a permanent minority party. have you now changed that position?

I want the will of the people to be as accurately reflected in elections as is possible.

 

[expatriate]

[/COLOR]


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

How do you manage to presume to know what I believe?

so are you now saying that you believe that a viable republican party is good for the country? earlier you wanted the GOP to be a permanent minority party. have you now changed that position?

again... if the republican party cannot figure out how to present a platform that appeals to a majority of Americans and a slate of candidates that appeals to a majority of Americans, why in the world would they expect to be anything BUT a minority party?

 

[Redfish]

Oh, and btw,

Obama won the popular vote in 26 states. Romney won 24.

So even if you took Redfish's fantasies to the logical extreme, and gave each state only 1 electoral vote regardless of population,

Obama still wins.

So even the most radical absurd notions of rigging the system in favor of Republicans don't work.

lol

no one wants a rigged system. obama won in 2012, the people picked him. The people have to live with their choice, thats how our system works.

I personally think the country would have been better off if Romney had won, but I am only one vote.

the country deserves the results of who they put in power.

 

[Redfish]

How do you manage to presume to know what I believe?

so are you now saying that you believe that a viable republican party is good for the country? earlier you wanted the GOP to be a permanent minority party. have you now changed that position?

I want the will of the people to be as accurately reflected in elections as is possible.

on that we agree.

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

that was not my point. I was only pointing out the mathematical results, not making a right or wrong judgement on it.

thats the problem with most of you libs, you twist things to make everything an argument. All I said originally was the CA and NY made obama the winner--2 states out of 50. If those 2 had gone to Romney, he would have won.

those are facts. no other 2 states have that much swing power.

Wrong, Texas has 9 more electoral votes than NY.

 

[Redfish]

How do you manage to presume to know what I believe?

so are you now saying that you believe that a viable republican party is good for the country? earlier you wanted the GOP to be a permanent minority party. have you now changed that position?

again... if the republican party cannot figure out how to present a platform that appeals to a majority of Americans and a slate of candidates that appeals to a majority of Americans, why in the world would they expect to be anything BUT a minority party?

thats not the question we are debating. Earlier you seemed to think that one party rule would be a good thing. do you still think that?

we agree that the GOP has made a lot of dumb mistakes in the last 2 elections.

second question: do you think it is good for the country that the media openly supports one party?

 

[Redfish]

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

that was not my point. I was only pointing out the mathematical results, not making a right or wrong judgement on it.

thats the problem with most of you libs, you twist things to make everything an argument. All I said originally was the CA and NY made obama the winner--2 states out of 50. If those 2 had gone to Romney, he would have won.

those are facts. no other 2 states have that much swing power.

Wrong, Texas has 9 more electoral votes than NY.

which two red states have as many votes as the blue states of CA and NY?

 

[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.

So how would you stop a state like Massachusetts from electing Democratic majorities year after year?

why would I want to stop Mass from electing who they want? that's not pertinent to the discussion.

It's absolutely relevant. You are making the argument that one party domination is a bad thing,

therefore there must be something wrong with the system in MA that has allowed one party to dominate for so long.

 

[Redfish]

So how would you stop a state like Massachusetts from electing Democratic majorities year after year?

why would I want to stop Mass from electing who they want? that's not pertinent to the discussion.

It's absolutely relevant. You are making the argument that one party domination is a bad thing,

therefore there must be something wrong with the system in MA that has allowed one party to dominate for so long.

Romney and Scott Brown were not democrats.

 

[expatriate]

so are you now saying that you believe that a viable republican party is good for the country? earlier you wanted the GOP to be a permanent minority party. have you now changed that position?

again... if the republican party cannot figure out how to present a platform that appeals to a majority of Americans and a slate of candidates that appeals to a majority of Americans, why in the world would they expect to be anything BUT a minority party?

thats not the question we are debating. Earlier you seemed to think that one party rule would be a good thing. do you still think that?

we agree that the GOP has made a lot of dumb mistakes in the last 2 elections.

second question: do you think it is good for the country that the media openly supports one party?

earlier? show me where I ever said that one party rule would be a good thing.

And I disagree with your premise that the media supports one party. Are you suggesting that Fox News is a figment of my imagination? Are you suggesting that every single major newspaper in America endorsed Obama instead of Romney?

If the GOP can't figure out HOW to win elections, they ought not to... wouldn't you agree?

 

[expatriate]

why would I want to stop Mass from electing who they want? that's not pertinent to the discussion.

It's absolutely relevant. You are making the argument that one party domination is a bad thing,

therefore there must be something wrong with the system in MA that has allowed one party to dominate for so long.

Romney and Scott Brown were not democrats.

are YOU suggesting that the democratic party is not overwhelmingly dominant in Massachusetts?

 

[AceRothstein]

that was not my point. I was only pointing out the mathematical results, not making a right or wrong judgement on it.

thats the problem with most of you libs, you twist things to make everything an argument. All I said originally was the CA and NY made obama the winner--2 states out of 50. If those 2 had gone to Romney, he would have won.

those are facts. no other 2 states have that much swing power.

Wrong, Texas has 9 more electoral votes than NY.

which two red states have as many votes as the blue states of CA and NY?

You are moving the goalposts again which you have done multiple times in this thread.