Let's go back in history to settle the statehood issue for Puerto Rico and DC.

[forkup]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.

No need. to compare. You apparently have no dick!

Unlike you than who is one, but here goes wise teacher.

You would be wrong

On political parties.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

On the electoral college.

the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Alexander Hamilton

The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Alexander Hamilton

So, oh great teacher who gives an F what exactly was I wrong about?

I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years.

Maybe, I'm just an amateur. That doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. I've had some great history teachers over the years. I've also had some, where the sum of their knowledge can best be described as insufficient.

 

[my2¢]

To simply apply the Missouri Compromise seems like a very rational solution but unfortunately there is an additional legal hoop of getting California and Virginia to agree. Article IV Section 3 says:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Article IV - States, Citizenship, New States | The National Constitution Center

I never said there wasn't.

That's right. You presented, as I mentioned, something completely rational. I could have substituted for 'rational' in my reply anything along the lines of 'common sense', 'astute', 'intelligent', etc. However in looking at all the options, not one would be something I'd expect out of the California legislature.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

Contrary to what liberals say in 2020

Puerto Rico has never voted in a binary vote for statehood, it is not clear a majority support statehood if it was put up for a vote (again binary, they play games with more than 2 choices on statehood because it can't seem to win)

I complain about this to liberals every time i hear it. It's just assumed they want to be a state and we are keeping them out? Republicans wouldn't be so brazenly partisan to deny statehood to puerto rico if they just had a simple vote and statehood won. Never has. That would

Cali will never give up part of the state that will turn red, almost all of them who talk about splitting cali want it laterally. The northern cali people call their new theoretical "jefferson" lol. The norcal people seem to really love the idea

Problem is other than texas most red states don't have enough people to split really.

East California lies east of the mountains. Small population.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.

No need. to compare. You apparently have no dick!

Unlike you than who is one, but here goes wise teacher.

You would be wrong

On political parties.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

On the electoral college.

the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Alexander Hamilton

The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Alexander Hamilton

So, oh great teacher who gives an F what exactly was I wrong about?

I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years.

Maybe, I'm just an amateur. That doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. I've had some great history teachers over the years. I've also had some, where the sum of their knowledge can best be described as insufficient.

You get an a in Google and an F in reading comprehension.

 

[forkup]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.

No need. to compare. You apparently have no dick!

Unlike you than who is one, but here goes wise teacher.

You would be wrong

On political parties.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

On the electoral college.

the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Alexander Hamilton

The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Alexander Hamilton

So, oh great teacher who gives an F what exactly was I wrong about?

I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years.

Maybe, I'm just an amateur. That doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. I've had some great history teachers over the years. I've also had some, where the sum of their knowledge can best be described as insufficient.

You get an a in Google and an F in reading comprehension.

Oh your an English teacher now to? I didn't need google to make my assertion, implying a certain level of knowledge. I did need it to find the relevant quotes to support it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.

No need. to compare. You apparently have no dick!

Unlike you than who is one, but here goes wise teacher.

You would be wrong

On political parties.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

On the electoral college.

the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Alexander Hamilton

The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Alexander Hamilton

So, oh great teacher who gives an F what exactly was I wrong about?

I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years.

Maybe, I'm just an amateur. That doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. I've had some great history teachers over the years. I've also had some, where the sum of their knowledge can best be described as insufficient.

You get an a in Google and an F in reading comprehension.

Oh your an English teacher now to? I didn't need google to make my assertion, implying a certain level of knowledge. I did need it to find the relevant quotes to support it.

"Oh, you're an English teacher now to?"

Three errors in one sentence. That's is some education you have there? 5th grade perhaps?

 

[Pogo]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

There is no way the Electrical College is working "as designed" since everything it was designed FOR, is no longer in play.

The tertiary function, to prevent a charlatan from duping the electorate into voting him into office, has had its legs cut off by so-called "faithless elector" laws, which relegate said Elector to a robot;

The secondary one, to substitute more knowledgeable electors for a populace who, in a time before electronic media, national newspapers or even telegraph, could not be expected to be familiar with a candidate from a thousand miles distant, a journey to which would take weeks, has been disappeared by electronic media and easy travel; and

The primary function, to appease Slave Power states so that they would join the union, has been rendered superfluous by the Abolition of the peculiar institution.

Thus the EC as practiced has no function, except to perpetuate the permanent Duopoly, depress voter turnout, ensure that most parts of the country will never see a candidate, create artificial bullshit divisions of "red states" and "blue states", throw millions of well-intentioned votes immediately into the shredder, and provide that said Duopoly will never present a quality candidate, since its only competition is the other half of the same corrupt Duopoly.

Not exactly a shining track record.

 

[Pogo]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.

No need. to compare. You apparently have no dick!

Unlike you than who is one, but here goes wise teacher.

You would be wrong

On political parties.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

On the electoral college.

the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Alexander Hamilton

The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Alexander Hamilton

So, oh great teacher who gives an F what exactly was I wrong about?

I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years.

Maybe, I'm just an amateur. That doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. I've had some great history teachers over the years. I've also had some, where the sum of their knowledge can best be described as insufficient.

You get an a in Google and an F in reading comprehension.

Oh your an English teacher now to? I didn't need google to make my assertion, implying a certain level of knowledge. I did need it to find the relevant quotes to support it.

"Oh, you're an English teacher now to?"

Three errors in one sentence. That's is some education you have there? 5th grade perhaps?

Uh, I think he did that on purpose, teach. And it said "your". Get it?

 

[candycorn]

We don't need some shithole 3rd world island dragging down the mainland.

Sell that shit to someone for a Klondike bar. It only takes a minimal amount of intelligence to see what kind of massive tourist trap you could build to make bank. Yet here they are decades later living in squalor.


As for DC, you get what you vote for. A shithole surrounded by beauty.

Missouri (or is it Misery?) is already doing it.

 

[candycorn]

DC was purposely excluded as a state for good reason. It needs to stay that way. PR is a third world shit hole. How about we just rescinded their territory status.

We should get rid of Missouri.

Seriously, would anyone miss it?

 

[forkup]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.

No need. to compare. You apparently have no dick!

Unlike you than who is one, but here goes wise teacher.

You would be wrong

On political parties.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

On the electoral college.

the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Alexander Hamilton

The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Alexander Hamilton

So, oh great teacher who gives an F what exactly was I wrong about?

I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years.

Maybe, I'm just an amateur. That doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. I've had some great history teachers over the years. I've also had some, where the sum of their knowledge can best be described as insufficient.

You get an a in Google and an F in reading comprehension.

Oh your an English teacher now to? I didn't need google to make my assertion, implying a certain level of knowledge. I did need it to find the relevant quotes to support it.

"Oh, you're an English teacher now to?"

Three errors in one sentence. That's is some education you have there? 5th grade perhaps?

Yup, and I'll make more. On the other hand I'm not the one claiming to teach something and then have to deflect the premise of what's being said by going after typos made on a smartphone. Or asserting that you can't read.

You asserted my knowledge of history was worthy of an F when I answered to your claim that the constitution worked as designed by asserting that the founding father designed the document not with political parties in mind considering they didn't like that concept and that the electoral college was designed as a check on the will of the majority. Further mentioning that the founding fathers encoded more ideas in the constitution that are immoral.

Something completely in line with my original premise and your OP. That the "balance" you are describing is nothing more than perputuating undemocratic injustice.

 

[Pogo]

DC was purposely excluded as a state for good reason. It needs to stay that way. PR is a third world shit hole. How about we just rescinded their territory status.

We should get rid of Missouri.

Seriously, would anyone miss it?

But how would we get to Kansas?

 

[forkup]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.

No need. to compare. You apparently have no dick!

Unlike you than who is one, but here goes wise teacher.

You would be wrong

On political parties.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

On the electoral college.

the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Alexander Hamilton

The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Alexander Hamilton

So, oh great teacher who gives an F what exactly was I wrong about?

I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years.

Maybe, I'm just an amateur. That doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. I've had some great history teachers over the years. I've also had some, where the sum of their knowledge can best be described as insufficient.

You get an a in Google and an F in reading comprehension.

Oh your an English teacher now to? I didn't need google to make my assertion, implying a certain level of knowledge. I did need it to find the relevant quotes to support it.

"Oh, you're an English teacher now to?"

Three errors in one sentence. That's is some education you have there? 5th grade perhaps?

Uh, I think he did that on purpose, teach. And it said "your". Get it?

Nope those where actual mistakes. I was rushed, on my smartphone, as I am now, so I didn't proofread. It is also completely irrelevant to what I was saying. But our friend doesn't like to engage in an actual conversation so this is what he does.

 

[candycorn]

DC was purposely excluded as a state for good reason. It needs to stay that way. PR is a third world shit hole. How about we just rescinded their territory status.

We should get rid of Missouri.

Seriously, would anyone miss it?

But how would we get to Kansas?

Its like someone ordering a non-alcoholic beer. It won't come up.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.

No need. to compare. You apparently have no dick!

Unlike you than who is one, but here goes wise teacher.

You would be wrong

On political parties.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

On the electoral college.

the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Alexander Hamilton

The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Alexander Hamilton

So, oh great teacher who gives an F what exactly was I wrong about?

I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years.

Maybe, I'm just an amateur. That doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. I've had some great history teachers over the years. I've also had some, where the sum of their knowledge can best be described as insufficient.

You get an a in Google and an F in reading comprehension.

Oh your an English teacher now to? I didn't need google to make my assertion, implying a certain level of knowledge. I did need it to find the relevant quotes to support it.

"Oh, you're an English teacher now to?"

Three errors in one sentence. That's is some education you have there? 5th grade perhaps?

Uh, I think he did that on purpose, teach. And it said "your". Get it?

Nope those where actual mistakes. I was rushed, on my smartphone, as I am now, so I didn't proofread. It is also completely irrelevant to what I was saying. But our friend doesn't like to engage in an actual conversation so this is what he does.

How do you respond to unending stupidity? Easy! I ignore your stupid ass!

 

[forkup]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

What balance are you referring to? The balance that has a Republican "majority" in the Senate that represents 20 million fewer people than the Democratic "minority" if the GOP wins both races in Georgia? Or is it the balance that allows the Republicans to win the presidential election 3 times since the early 90's while winning the popular vote only once? Or is it the balance that makes thanks to Gerrymandering that winning the house means the Democrats have to run about 4 percent ahead on average? Is that the balance you are referring to?

3 times? So you are saying Trump won this time also? Also, where do the 90's come in? So far, Bush and Trump beat Algore and Shrillary in 2000 and 2016 respectively.

When I'm talking about the results of the popular votes in previous elections I think it is obvious I'm speaking of INDIVIDUAL election cycles. But hey if you want to claim you really don't understand basic English be my guest.

It's pretty ironic that in an OP that invokes the early part of the 19th century and an agreement made between slave states and free states (I'll refrain from gaslightighting you by asking you if you consider the current Southern States as slave states) , you are questioning the relevance of me invoking the election results of the last 2 decades.


Now can you please engage my premise. When you speak of "balance", are you speaking of a "balance" that allows for a minority to consistently win elections without a plurality of votes?

Failed history in high school, huh?

Your attempted deflection is noted, and dismissed with prejudice.

DC and PQ will vote Democrat do you not know this? Republicans are smart enough NOT to give the Dems any more advantages than they already have. The Electoral College is working precisely as designed and you libtards can't stand it because all of your voters live in just a very few states.

What advantages do dems have in your assessment. Seems to me if you lose 2 times despite getting more votes you're being hosed.

As for the constitution. The framers of the constitution didn't have political parties in mind at all when they drafted the constitution. They had a check on non upper class winning elections in mind. They also didn't see a problem in holding other people as slaves. Meaning claiming that the intent of the founders should be respected at all times is somewhat misguided.

As for my knowledge of history... I don't know I'm capable of holding my own on American history speaking in what is my third language. I'm fairly confident in my intellectual ability.

You would be wrong. I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years. Your explanations and excuses are pathetic. Grade F!

Ok than, oh wise teacher, please explain to me what advantages that you consider the Dems to have? We'll compare history dicks later.

No need. to compare. You apparently have no dick!

Unlike you than who is one, but here goes wise teacher.

You would be wrong

On political parties.

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

On the electoral college.

the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” Alexander Hamilton

The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.” Alexander Hamilton

So, oh great teacher who gives an F what exactly was I wrong about?

I have a degree in history and taught it for 21 years.

Maybe, I'm just an amateur. That doesn't mean you know what you're talking about. I've had some great history teachers over the years. I've also had some, where the sum of their knowledge can best be described as insufficient.

You get an a in Google and an F in reading comprehension.

Oh your an English teacher now to? I didn't need google to make my assertion, implying a certain level of knowledge. I did need it to find the relevant quotes to support it.

"Oh, you're an English teacher now to?"

Three errors in one sentence. That's is some education you have there? 5th grade perhaps?

Uh, I think he did that on purpose, teach. And it said "your". Get it?

Nope those where actual mistakes. I was rushed, on my smartphone, as I am now, so I didn't proofread. It is also completely irrelevant to what I was saying. But our friend doesn't like to engage in an actual conversation so this is what he does.

How do you respond to unending stupidity? Easy! I ignore your stupid ass!

How do you respond when you can't engage the premise of someone. Simple you call somebody stupid. Noted.

 

[schmidlap]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

Slavery is no longer the determinative issue for many Americans, the United States having vanquished slavery insurrectionists over a century-and-a-half ago.

The shifting political preferences of states is a flimsy pretext to determine statehood and representational governance.

Wyoming's population in 1890, when it became a state, was 62,000. In 2020, it’s 596,000 (1/14th that of New York City.)

How many Americans reside in the District of Columbia? 716,000. (Like half of Wyoming, DC is under federal control.)

How many Americans resident Puerto Rico? Over 3,700,000.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

Slavery is no longer the determinative issue for many Americans, the United States having vanquished slavery insurrectionists over a century-and-a-half ago.

The shifting political preferences of states is a flimsy pretext to determine statehood and representational governance.

Wyoming's population in 1890, when it became a state, was 62,000. In 2020, it’s 596,000 (1/14th that of New York City.)

How many Americans reside in the District of Columbia? 716,000. (Like half of Wyoming, DC is under federal control.)

How many Americans resident Puerto Rico? Over 3,700,000.

Why do you think PQ and DC are not states? It is not geography or population. They are overwhelmingly invested with liberals.

 

[Pogo]

Back in the 1800s, we had the Missouri Compromise on the issue of free and slave states by keeping the balance of admitting one free state for every slave state. What if we admitted Puerto Rico and DC as liberal states and then add East California and South Virginia to keep the balance?

Slavery is no longer the determinative issue for many Americans, the United States having vanquished slavery insurrectionists over a century-and-a-half ago.

The shifting political preferences of states is a flimsy pretext to determine statehood and representational governance.

Wyoming's population in 1890, when it became a state, was 62,000. In 2020, it’s 596,000 (1/14th that of New York City.)

How many Americans reside in the District of Columbia? 716,000. (Like half of Wyoming, DC is under federal control.)

How many Americans resident Puerto Rico? Over 3,700,000.

Why do you think PQ and DC are not states? It is not geography or population. They are overwhelmingly invested with liberals.

Probably because PQ is a province in Canada. A nice one too, been there many times.

What do I win?

As far as being "invested with Liberals" whatever that means, that seems like a sterling argument FOR being states, since Liberals are the founding fathers who created this country and wrote its Constitution. So it would be natural to "invest in Liberals" would it not?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

DC was purposely excluded as a state for good reason. It needs to stay that way. PR is a third world shit hole. How about we just rescinded their territory status.

We should get rid of Missouri.

Seriously, would anyone miss it?

Yes, every time you went shopping you’d miss us. The question is would we miss you?