Here, tell ya what.....just talk to the handBut I'll be nice enough to just agree to disagree, and then invoke my ignore feature. Congratulations!
See what I mean? Can't be justified. If it could you'd have a response more intelligent than the Finger. But I understand your purpose the entire time you've been on this site has been to resist anything I say even when you don't have an argument. That's your problem, not mine. By the way are we married yet?
With all due respect we're straying from your topic and there's already a thread on the EC and its effects (which is here), where nobody has come up with a justification there either -- although I'm not sure anyone has made the The Finger argument. But to your original point, the way in which the individual states pick their elecors, and how they execute it, is up to each individual state according to the Constitution as I posted yesterday and Montrovant went into as well. So it would seem that within the structure we have at present, the avenue for change is through each individual state Legislature. For all 57 states.
Precisely.
See. . . that's where you short sighted partisanship is not allowing you to see the statistical truth of the big picture.
One candidate CAN run up the score by amassing a big vote in limited regions. That is exactly what Clinton did in this last election. Her supporters very much would like Chicago, NY, LA, and every other metropolitan area to decide policy for the rest of the nation. (Just look at the county map I have posted.)
The electoral college decidedly puts the breaks on the unfairness of a minority of counties in the US dictating policies for all the rest of the counties in the US.
Voting SHOULD NOT be based solely on the number of votes, but also on where those votes originate. IF they do not continue using this system, than it should be up to states to decide to leave the Union if they do not like the outcome of the election. How would an entirely rural state benefit from a President that was elected by voters who were appealed to by someone that knew nothing but metropolitan values, culture and policy?
It's just like with jobs to me the dumb assess want to do it their way good have at it I am gone and fuck you
It's just like with jobs to me the dumb assess want to do it their way good have at it I am gone and fuck you
Yes I had seen your post and agree......it is hard to compete with young college grads that many companies see as 'clean slates' to train & mold to their way of doing/thinking. Even if you have more than enough experience & could out work or produce those half your age. It sucks
It's just like with jobs to me the dumb assess want to do it their way good have at it I am gone and fuck you
Yes I had seen your post and agree......it is hard to compete with young college grads that many companies see as 'clean slates' to train & mold to their way of doing/thinking. Even if you have more than enough experience & could out work or produce those half your age. It sucks
What?
Guess you're misunderstood my posts.
College grads can't carry my tool belt.. I can't stand being in management anymore.. I was born to be a blue collar guy and work with my hands and fix the things no one else could..
That's what i excel at and to of course yell at the kids who don't know any better to just stop what they are doing otherwise it will kill them.
I never kiss ass and I hate paying liberal taxes and fuck ups
.
See. . . that's where you short sighted partisanship is not allowing you to see the statistical truth of the big picture.
One candidate CAN run up the score by amassing a big vote in limited regions. That is exactly what Clinton did in this last election. Her supporters very much would like Chicago, NY, LA, and every other metropolitan area to decide policy for the rest of the nation. (Just look at the county map I have posted.)
The electoral college decidedly puts the breaks on the unfairness of a minority of counties in the US dictating policies for all the rest of the counties in the US.
Voting SHOULD NOT be based solely on the number of votes, but also on where those votes originate. IF they do not continue using this system, than it should be up to states to decide to leave the Union if they do not like the outcome of the election. How would an entirely rural state benefit from a President that was elected by voters who were appealed to by someone that knew nothing but metropolitan values, culture and policy?
Thank you Pogo thinks we would of still been the United States with out it, heck no we would of looked like Europe.. The constitution and electoral college was what united us.
And it's funny the libs always botched the founding fathers had slaves and women didn't get the right to vote..
Well dumb asses society was not ready for such a drastic change at the time but the constitution had the change set in stone and in motion..
So fuck you Pogo and you trying to make the electoral college racist and take that fat ass Micheal Moore with you.
Here, tell ya what.....just talk to the hand
See what I mean? Can't be justified. If it could you'd have a response more intelligent than the Finger. But I understand your purpose the entire time you've been on this site has been to resist anything I say even when you don't have an argument. That's your problem, not mine. By the way are we married yet?
With all due respect we're straying from your topic and there's already a thread on the EC and its effects (which is here), where nobody has come up with a justification there either -- although I'm not sure anyone has made the The Finger argument. But to your original point, the way in which the individual states pick their elecors, and how they execute it, is up to each individual state according to the Constitution as I posted yesterday and Montrovant went into as well. So it would seem that within the structure we have at present, the avenue for change is through each individual state Legislature. For all 57 states.
If you really understand why it's there, you would acknowledge it is fine as it is.
See. . . that's where you short sighted partisanship is not allowing you to see the statistical truth of the big picture.
One candidate CAN run up the score by amassing a big vote in limited regions. That is exactly what Clinton did in this last election. Her supporters very much would like Chicago, NY, LA, and every other metropolitan area to decide policy for the rest of the nation. (Just look at the county map I have posted.)
The electoral college decidedly puts the breaks on the unfairness of a minority of counties in the US dictating policies for all the rest of the counties in the US.
Voting SHOULD NOT be based solely on the number of votes, but also on where those votes originate. IF they do not continue using this system, than it should be up to states to decide to leave the Union if they do not like the outcome of the election. How would an entirely rural state benefit from a President that was elected by voters who were appealed to by someone that knew nothing but metropolitan values, culture and policy?
Thank you Pogo thinks we would of still been the United States with out it, heck no we would of looked like Europe.. The constitution and electoral college was what united us.
And it's funny the libs always botched the founding fathers had slaves and women didn't get the right to vote..
Well dumb asses society was not ready for such a drastic change at the time but the constitution had the change set in stone and in motion..
So fuck you Pogo and you trying to make the electoral college racist and take that fat ass Micheal Moore with you.
Perhaps someday Google Translate or Berlitz will come up with a way to translate the above to Engish but for now, "the libs always botched the founding fathers had slaves and women didn't get the right to vote" isn't even a sentence.
Anyway the fact remains the Electrical College was set up around the Three Fifths Compromise in order to artificially inflate the influence of the slaveholding South, and the fact remains that it contributed directly to six of our first seven Presidents being exactly that -- slaveholders from the South (specifically Virginia, which by virtue of counting black people as three-fifths of a person had the most influence). And it's also a fact that all that is history and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
And no, that didn't get 'changed' until we had to go through our bloodiest war ever, and there's a strong case to be made that that Southern bias helped to set up that war by that very dynamic. Just for starters.
So no ---- fuck you, clown shoes.
