Can We Stop The January 6 Witchhunt Circus???

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Thank you. I don’t usually do the “grammar Nazi” thing either, but it just irks me when someone whose punctuation and sentence structure is worse than that of a high school student starts calling other people morons.

You're still a moron.

Sentence structure?
Wow, you must have your brain cells working overtime on this site.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

I don't do the "grammar nazi" thing, but Lisa has a point about you.

It's okay, third grade just defeated you....

The only point you two have are the ones on top of your hats.

 

[Lisa558]

No, the US doesn't "have a mix of that" at all.

The US has FPTP. In the House every seat is contested on a FPTP basis, not on a Proportional Representation basis.

I think the biggest problem is people don't realize what systems are out there and how they function, how are they supposed to know what is then the best system?

What in the world do you libs mean by proportional basis? In pre-leftist times, it meant the more state a population has, the greater it’s representation in the House. - and we do have that.

PLEASE tell me you don’t mean “proportional” in some artificial way - like 14% are black, so 14% of Congress should be black. Then we are determining slots based in skin color, and that is a racist policy.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What in the world do you libs mean by proportional basis? In pre-leftist times, it meant the more state a population has, the greater it’s representation in the House. - and we do have that.

PLEASE tell me you don’t mean “proportional” in some artificial way - like 14% are black, so 14% of Congress should be black. Then we are determining slots based in skin color, and that is a racist policy.

What do I mean?

Proportional Representation means one person, one vote, more or less.

Germany has a system whereby everyone votes. Then they take all the votes and dish out the seats accordingly. They do have a 5% cut off, if you get less than 5% you don't get seats. Denmark does it with a 2% cut off.

In the US each seat is contested independently of each other.

Take the Presidential election. The state to vote the most for Trump was California. All the Trump voters in California got NO SAY in the election, because Democrats won easily. They got all the EC votes, regardless of what other people wanted.

In the UK (also with FPTP), one seat in South Belfast was won with less than 25% of the votes. So, 75% of the people said "We don't want this guy to represent us" and he still got in because he got more votes than anyone else.

Proportional isn't based on anything other than choice.

If the US had Proportional Representation with a 2% cut of there'd be at least 10 political parties. That means when you go to vote you have REAL CHOICE of who to represent you.

What do the Republicans stand for? Not much because they need to get 50% of the votes (except where they cheat with gerrymandering). In Germany you have clearly defined parties. Traditional left, traditional right (equivalent to Reps and Dems I guess) and then center right, further right, green left, more socialist left, etc. Proper choice.

I'll compare the UK to Germany here, in the early 1990s a further right (anti-EU) political party called UKIP was formed. By 2015 they managed to get 12.6% of the vote. And one seat. One. Out of 600 something seats. But they got like 1/8th of the votes.

In Germany a party in 2012 or 2013 was formed, further right, called the AfD. They got 12.6% of the vote in 2017. The same percentage, only it took them 5 years and not 25 years to get there. The speed is important, because people felt the system would listen to them, in the UK with FPTP they knew it wouldn't.

The AfD got 90 seats. Not one. They got what the people wanted, they got to represent 12.6% of the voters (well a little more because of those parties who got cut out, below 5%). In the UK the system told voters to ef off.

 

[Lisa558]

What do I mean?

Proportional Representation means one person, one vote, more or less.

Germany has a system whereby everyone votes. Then they take all the votes and dish out the seats accordingly. They do have a 5% cut off, if you get less than 5% you don't get seats. Denmark does it with a 2% cut off.

In the US each seat is contested independently of each other.

Take the Presidential election. The state to vote the most for Trump was California. All the Trump voters in California got NO SAY in the election, because Democrats won easily. They got all the EC votes, regardless of what other people wanted.

In the UK (also with FPTP), one seat in South Belfast was won with less than 25% of the votes. So, 75% of the people said "We don't want this guy to represent us" and he still got in because he got more votes than anyone else.

Proportional isn't based on anything other than choice.

If the US had Proportional Representation with a 2% cut of there'd be at least 10 political parties. That means when you go to vote you have REAL CHOICE of who to represent you.

What do the Republicans stand for? Not much because they need to get 50% of the votes (except where they cheat with gerrymandering). In Germany you have clearly defined parties. Traditional left, traditional right (equivalent to Reps and Dems I guess) and then center right, further right, green left, more socialist left, etc. Proper choice.

I'll compare the UK to Germany here, in the early 1990s a further right (anti-EU) political party called UKIP was formed. By 2015 they managed to get 12.6% of the vote. And one seat. One. Out of 600 something seats. But they got like 1/8th of the votes.

In Germany a party in 2012 or 2013 was formed, further right, called the AfD. They got 12.6% of the vote in 2017. The same percentage, only it took them 5 years and not 25 years to get there. The speed is important, because people felt the system would listen to them, in the UK with FPTP they knew it wouldn't.

The AfD got 90 seats. Not one. They got what the people wanted, they got to represent 12.6% of the voters (well a little more because of those parties who got cut out, below 5%). In the UK the system told voters to ef off.

Oh, so you mean the popular vote. I just explained in another thread why that would be unfair to all of Middle America - whose interests would be ignored - and let two states (NY and CA) decide who becomes president.

There would, in effect, little campaigning at all. The Dem candidate would know he had it, and his only job would be to turn out the vote in NY and CA. He’d promise special policies that would benefit them, even at the expense of the middle states, and the idiot liberals in NY and CA would the rulers of the nation.

Also, re gerrymandering .- get off your leftist high hat. The libs in Maryland just came up with a gerrymandered map that would ensure 8 out of 9 districts would remain Democrat, and the governor vetoed it because he was opposed to redrawing the lines to ensure one party wins - which in this case was the Dems. The libs overruled the veto, and the new, and even stronger, pro-Dem gerrymandered districts are now law.

 

[Lisa558]

What do I mean?

Proportional Representation means one person, one vote, more or less.

Germany has a system whereby everyone votes. Then they take all the votes and dish out the seats accordingly. They do have a 5% cut off, if you get less than 5% you don't get seats. Denmark does it with a 2% cut off.

In the US each seat is contested independently of each other.

Take the Presidential election. The state to vote the most for Trump was California. All the Trump voters in California got NO SAY in the election, because Democrats won easily. They got all the EC votes, regardless of what other people wanted.

In the UK (also with FPTP), one seat in South Belfast was won with less than 25% of the votes. So, 75% of the people said "We don't want this guy to represent us" and he still got in because he got more votes than anyone else.

Proportional isn't based on anything other than choice.

If the US had Proportional Representation with a 2% cut of there'd be at least 10 political parties. That means when you go to vote you have REAL CHOICE of who to represent you.

What do the Republicans stand for? Not much because they need to get 50% of the votes (except where they cheat with gerrymandering). In Germany you have clearly defined parties. Traditional left, traditional right (equivalent to Reps and Dems I guess) and then center right, further right, green left, more socialist left, etc. Proper choice.

I'll compare the UK to Germany here, in the early 1990s a further right (anti-EU) political party called UKIP was formed. By 2015 they managed to get 12.6% of the vote. And one seat. One. Out of 600 something seats. But they got like 1/8th of the votes.

In Germany a party in 2012 or 2013 was formed, further right, called the AfD. They got 12.6% of the vote in 2017. The same percentage, only it took them 5 years and not 25 years to get there. The speed is important, because people felt the system would listen to them, in the UK with FPTP they knew it wouldn't.

The AfD got 90 seats. Not one. They got what the people wanted, they got to represent 12.6% of the voters (well a little more because of those parties who got cut out, below 5%). In the UK the system told voters to ef off.

And P.S. You say the Republicans stand for nothing? We stand for working for a living, supporting law-abiding citizens over criminals, and we oppose massive welfare schemes that drive inflation and disincentivize work.

What do Democrats stand for? Expanding the welfare state, tearing down the border wall to make it easier for illegals to come in, giving jobs to blacks that they don’t qualify for simply because they’re black (and refusing to even consider whites, such as happened with our moronic VP), being soft on crime (NY now considers armed robbery a misdemeanor), and silencing or punishing anyone who dissents from the Radical Left.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh, so you mean the popular vote. I just explained in another thread why that would be unfair to all of Middle America - whose interests would be ignored - and let two states (NY and CA) decide who becomes president.

There would, in effect, little campaigning at all. The Dem candidate would know he had it, and his only job would be to turn out the vote in NY and CA. He’d promise special policies that would benefit them, even at the expense of the middle states, and the idiot liberals in NY and CA would the rulers of the nation.

Also, re gerrymandering .- get off your leftist high hat. The libs in Maryland just came up with a gerrymandered map that would ensure 8 out of 9 districts would remain Democrat, and the governor vetoed it because he was opposed to redrawing the lines to ensure one party wins - which in this case was the Dems. The libs overruled the veto, and the new, and even stronger, pro-Dem gerrymandered districts are now law.

"the popular vote" as you call it, is called Proportional Representation.

You think it'd be unfair to "all of Middle America" because you probably don't understand it.

In Germany one Land (like a state) comprises 21% of the population of Germany. That's way more than California, New York and another left leaning state of your choice put together. And this Land doesn't control German politics. Because PR doesn't do that.

The reality is that with PR California would have a lot of votes for the right as well as the left, New York too. I explained the California was the LARGEST Trump voting state in 2020. It's true, look it up.

The reality also is that there wouldn't be two political parties. Dems would not be sure of any vote at all. In fact the Dems and Reps would probably lose at least 1/3rd of their votes to smaller parties.

No sane country has two political parties. That leads to massive corruption.

Literally people stand on policies and people vote for those policies. They don't need to vote negatively for parties as MANY, MANY people do in the US.

Germany actually has two votes, one FPTP and one PR and the smaller parties do much better with PR.

I'm not a Democrat. Don't talk to me about high horses and all that shit. I don't support the Democrats or Republicans, I hate both of those corrupt pieces of shit. That's why I support PR, because it would mean REAL CHOICE, it's mean people representing people, not representing big money as happens now. They wouldn't be able to buy elections results.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And P.S. You say the Republicans stand for nothing? We stand for working for a living, supporting law-abiding citizens over criminals, and we oppose massive welfare schemes that drive inflation and disincentivize work.

What do Democrats stand for? Expanding the welfare state, tearing down the border wall to make it easier for illegals to come in, giving jobs to blacks that they don’t qualify for simply because they’re black (and refusing to even consider whites, such as happened with our moronic VP), being soft on crime (NY now considers armed robbery a misdemeanor), and silencing or punishing anyone who dissents from the Radical Left.

You think all those Republican "representatives" stand for what you stand for? No, you have Republican politicians who oppose gay people and are "pro-family" and then get caught having gay sex.

They're all in it for the money. They manipulate the hell out of you, they spend millions if not billions creating narratives.

In 1980 the Libertarians had David Koch running as VP and he lost, inevitably. So the Koch brothers decided it wasn't worth trying to control politics by being the politicians. They have managed, probably with others' help, to change the right wing of America, push it more to the right. They tell people what to think, they control those narratives.

PR would allow the people to choose who represent them, the Republican/Democrat hold over politics and money means they tell people what to think and then stand on those issues.

 

[Lisa558]

"the popular vote" as you call it, is called Proportional Representation.

You think it'd be unfair to "all of Middle America" because you probably don't understand it.

In Germany one Land (like a state) comprises 21% of the population of Germany. That's way more than California, New York and another left leaning state of your choice put together. And this Land doesn't control German politics. Because PR doesn't do that.

The reality is that with PR California would have a lot of votes for the right as well as the left, New York too. I explained the California was the LARGEST Trump voting state in 2020. It's true, look it up.

The reality also is that there wouldn't be two political parties. Dems would not be sure of any vote at all. In fact the Dems and Reps would probably lose at least 1/3rd of their votes to smaller parties.

No sane country has two political parties. That leads to massive corruption.

Literally people stand on policies and people vote for those policies. They don't need to vote negatively for parties as MANY, MANY people do in the US.

Germany actually has two votes, one FPTP and one PR and the smaller parties do much better with PR.

I'm not a Democrat. Don't talk to me about high horses and all that shit. I don't support the Democrats or Republicans, I hate both of those corrupt pieces of shit. That's why I support PR, because it would mean REAL CHOICE, it's mean people representing people, not representing big money as happens now. They wouldn't be able to buy elections results.

I understand it and explained why it is unfair.

 

[Lisa558]

You think all those Republican "representatives" stand for what you stand for? No, you have Republican politicians who oppose gay people and are "pro-family" and then get caught having gay sex.

They're all in it for the money. They manipulate the hell out of you, they spend millions if not billions creating narratives.

In 1980 the Libertarians had David Koch running as VP and he lost, inevitably. So the Koch brothers decided it wasn't worth trying to control politics by being the politicians. They have managed, probably with others' help, to change the right wing of America, push it more to the right. They tell people what to think, they control those narratives.

PR would allow the people to choose who represent them, the Republican/Democrat hold over politics and money means they tell people what to think and then stand on those issues.

And you think Democrats aren’t in it for the money? But with them, it’s even worse. They bribe the low-info voters with giveaways paid for by other people.

 

[candycorn]

You CANNOT possibly be this ignorant!

Ever heard of government set-asides, where a certain percentage of contracts MUST be awarded to minority-owned businesses, even in cases where white-owned business offers a superior product and at a cheaper rate?

Its like with Kamala Harris. Biden told us that whites would not be considered, and that he would pick from among the best black. (If she’s the best….OMG.) Same with the contracts.

And then of course, as stated, there are policies in higher education that favor blacks and disadvantage whites. Whites with a 3.6 can pretty much kiss med school goodbye, while blacks with that GPA are practically a shoe-in. They can even get in with a 3.3 or 3.4 - unheard of for whites.

It’s pretty sad that leftists insist we continue with policies that favor blacks, and then deny that they come at the expense of whites.

Yeah, nobody has been more abused in the US than white christians.

You're an idiot.

 

[Lisa558]

Yeah, nobody has been more abused in the US than white christians.

You're an idiot.

MUST you leftists end every post with a personal insult? How much more childish can you get?

And nobody said white Christians were abused. (Where did I ever mention religion, by the way?) But it is racist to set aside contracts that can only be filled by minorities, even if a white company can provide it better or cheaper.

It‘s also a waste of money. Government is NOT going after the best value, just the one where the owner is a minority. He can overcharge, and taxpayers have to cover his bloated profit. And all because racist lefties like you favor blacks over whites.

 

[candycorn]

MUST you leftists end every post with a personal insult? How much more childish can you get?

And nobody said white Christians were abused. (Where did I ever mention religion, by the way?) But it is racist to set aside contracts that can only be filled by minorities, even if a white company can provide it better or cheaper.

It‘s also a waste of money. Government is NOT going after the best value, just the one where the owner is a minority. He can overcharge, and taxpayers have to cover his bloated profit. And all because racist lefties like you favor blacks over whites.

Yep. Your idiocy confirmed. Amazing

 

[22lcidw]

You think all those Republican "representatives" stand for what you stand for? No, you have Republican politicians who oppose gay people and are "pro-family" and then get caught having gay sex.

They're all in it for the money. They manipulate the hell out of you, they spend millions if not billions creating narratives.

In 1980 the Libertarians had David Koch running as VP and he lost, inevitably. So the Koch brothers decided it wasn't worth trying to control politics by being the politicians. They have managed, probably with others' help, to change the right wing of America, push it more to the right. They tell people what to think, they control those narratives.

PR would allow the people to choose who represent them, the Republican/Democrat hold over politics and money means they tell people what to think and then stand on those issues.

You use semantics in a civilization that is destroying itself. There is a lot more than someone spouting to live one way and does the other behind the scenes as for social justice. Progs are anti unalienable rights. Which logically means that social justice gains will be on the table also at some point.

 

[Lisa558]

Yep. Your idiocy confirmed. Amazing

And your worthiness of being viewed as a leftist troll, full of contempt for intelligent people who haven’t fallen for the leftist hatred, has been confirmed.

 

[Nostra]

We should be talking criminal charges against Donald Trump.

And yet, nobody is.

 

[Nostra]

Like you and FOX?
1987? Almost 40 years ago.
You had to go back?

Trump has never released his academic record.
And threatened to sue whoever did.

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump threatened schools he attended with legal consequences if they released his academic records, according to his former personal lawyer.

Attorney Michael Cohen spoke to House committee members on Wednesday in wide-ranging testimony that covered his former boss’ misdeeds. At one point, Cohen claimed that Trump directed him to threaten various institutions in an effort to keep Trump’s school records from being made public.

Neither did Barry Hussein.

 

[kaz]

I think Democratic voters were more motivated and voted.

That's because you always pay zero attention to what's going on around you and you just blindly believe what Democrats tell you to believe

 

[Lisa558]

I think Democratic voters were more motivated and voted.

No. Zuckerberg funded, to the tune of half a billion dollars, Democratic activists to go to areas where they vote 90% for the Dem - and too incompetent or lazy to vote on their own - and walk them through where to check the box to keep all the Democrat handouts flowing.

I say if people are too stupid to vote without assistance, we shouldn’t allow others to “help” them pick which box to select.

 

[otto105]

That's because you always pay zero attention to what's going on around you and you just blindly believe what Democrats tell you to believe

You can try to project, but you're just a sorry ass phax toadie.