Will ANY PC Police admit ANY responsibility for Trump?

[JoeB131]

One week they were gloating about the way the GOP was tearing it self apart,

and the next they are pretending that nothing has changed.

If you don't think the Country Club and rank and file Repubilcans aren't shitting bricks over the prospect of how badly Trumpenfuhrer is about to **** them for a generation, you are delusional.

 

[JoeB131]

I start a thread on the behaviors of the PC Police, and they flood it with examples for me.

You cannot make this shit up.
.

Because anyone who shatters Mac's version of reality is the PC Police.

You know what, guy, I think we can go beyond OCD For you. Paranoid might be better.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Mac, your pal, had me on ignore for a long time ( tried to silence his enemy ) and has labeled me a stalker in an attempt to intimidate me into silence.

He equates ignoring someone with trying to silence them.

If you don't go to a movie, you're trying to silence the director.



This just gets better.
.

You equate being held accountable for ones words and actions as being silenced.

This is so much fun. Let's do it for another few years. You've made serious inroads.

 

[Mac1958]

Too funny

 

[NYcarbineer]

The exit polls...in deciding their vote:

52% said the economy was the most important issue. 18% said terrorism. 13% said immigration. 13% said foreign policy.

0% said because political correctness makes Jerry Seinfeld sad.

 

[Correll]

Except of course, Trump's movement is beautiful, not hideous.

Only to racists. Decent people are horrified.

You are the racist here.

I'm the decent person who find's Trump's movement beautiful.


Try to be less crazy.

 

[Freewill]

the majority of the people wanted an end to the Clinton crime regime. Maybe that is why the founders developed the EC instead of run off elections or popularity contests that could be easily rigged.

The Majority of the people certainly did not. Hillary got 2 million more votes.

The Founders wanted to keep the rabble in it's place.

They didn't want slaves to vote (although they wanted them counted for representation), they didn't want women to vote, they didn't want free men who didn't own property to vote.

They also shit in chamber pots and bleed themselves when they got sick.

So I think instead of saying, "Well they had a good reason", tell me a good reason why we should STILL be doing it that way today?

Because I can't think of one.

I can think of two reasons why it's a horrible idea. George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump

Finding the actual popular vote totals are hard to find. But it is clear that Johnson and Stein took over 4 percent of the vote. Assuming 170 million voters then 4 percent equals 6.8 million. Thus it is clear that the majority of VOTERS rejected Hillary Clinton.

Now you will obviously counter with that the majority also rejected Trump. So how do we decide whom should be president between two candidates that didn't reach 50 percent? Well the founders were pretty smart in what they did. They gave your and my vote more value then it would have if just a popular vote nation wide was used. Instead of ONE popular election there were 51. In that count Trump far exceeded Hillary. Obviously in 49 states if the popular vote were tallied, Trump won. One state isn't enough, in my opinion, to be able to sway the vote. CA let's anyone vote, illegal or not. I certainly don't want my vote being disenfranchised by such a corrupt system, I am surprised you want yours disenfranchised.

 

[Correll]

REmember "clinging to their bibles and guns and distrusting people who look different"? Obama won the very areas he insulted.

Except that's not what he said, verbatim...

[..."

He called the working class blue collar white voters racist, just like I said you libs do. YOur quibbling about exact wording does not change that.

But you are too dishonest to admit that.

 

[Freewill]

You personify the problem very well. As with most liberals you see racism in everything because you view everything through the eyes of a racists. Black or white it is a trait of the liberal left. And maybe even if what you say about Trump supporters is true, it isn't, that doesn't make you and your ilk any less racist. Yeah you try and hide behind a veneer of open mindedness and inclusion but in reality the exact opposite is true.

So pointing out that racism is a problem in this country is... um... racist? Is this your logic here, Sunny-boy?

You see, the difference is, progressives and conservatives both want equality. Progressives want to raise minorities up. Conservatives are totally cool with the rich driving working class whites down, and then blaming the nasty darkies for it.

So when your side nominates a racist as shit billionaire who has been ******* over working class whites pretty much his whole life, you guys totally get behind him.

Yes, there is a racism problem and it is with the liberal left.

 

[JoeB131]

You are the racist here.

I'm the decent person who find's Trump's movement beautiful.


Try to be less crazy.

Guy, you aren't a decent person. You rant all day about people who are less fortunate than you are making your life miserable.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, there is a racism problem and it is with the liberal left.

Okay, PeeWee, whatever you say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

the majority of the people wanted an end to the Clinton crime regime. Maybe that is why the founders developed the EC instead of run off elections or popularity contests that could be easily rigged.

The Majority of the people certainly did not. Hillary got 2 million more votes.

The Founders wanted to keep the rabble in it's place.

They didn't want slaves to vote (although they wanted them counted for representation), they didn't want women to vote, they didn't want free men who didn't own property to vote.

They also shit in chamber pots and bleed themselves when they got sick.

So I think instead of saying, "Well they had a good reason", tell me a good reason why we should STILL be doing it that way today?

Because I can't think of one.

I can think of two reasons why it's a horrible idea. George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump

Finding the actual popular vote totals are hard to find. But it is clear that Johnson and Stein took over 4 percent of the vote. Assuming 170 million voters then 4 percent equals 6.8 million. Thus it is clear that the majority of VOTERS rejected Hillary Clinton.

Now you will obviously counter with that the majority also rejected Trump. So how do we decide whom should be president between two candidates that didn't reach 50 percent? Well the founders were pretty smart in what they did. They gave your and my vote more value then it would have if just a popular vote nation wide was used. Instead of ONE popular election there were 51. In that count Trump far exceeded Hillary. Obviously in 49 states if the popular vote were tallied, Trump won. One state isn't enough, in my opinion, to be able to sway the vote. CA let's anyone vote, illegal or not. I certainly don't want my vote being disenfranchised by such a corrupt system, I am surprised you want yours disenfranchised.

If you want the candidate to get more than 50% in order to win you have a runoff.

 

[JoeB131]

Finding the actual popular vote totals are hard to find. But it is clear that Johnson and Stein took over 4 percent of the vote. Assuming 170 million voters then 4 percent equals 6.8 million. Thus it is clear that the majority of VOTERS rejected Hillary Clinton.

Now you will obviously counter with that the majority also rejected Trump. So how do we decide whom should be president between two candidates that didn't reach 50 percent?

Well, how about having a run-off election with just those two?

Well the founders were pretty smart in what they did. They gave your and my vote more value then it would have if just a popular vote nation wide was used. Instead of ONE popular election there were 51. In that count Trump far exceeded Hillary.

Well,no, that's actually kind of stupid, because it gives arbitrary weight to smaller states.

Example. Wyoming has 582,000 people and three electoral votes. So they get one electoral vote for every every 194,000 people. California has 38 Million people and 55 electoral votes. That gives them one electoral vote for every 697,000 people. That makes a vote in Wyoming three times as valuable as one in California.

Or in another way, both Montana and Wyoming have 3 electoral votes, but Montana has twice as many people. Rhode Island only has 50,000 more people than Montana, but they get one more electoral vote.

The problem is, of course, that when these smaller states are predominately white, then you are giving extra weight to the votes of white people.

CA let's anyone vote, illegal or not. I certainly don't want my vote being disenfranchised by such a corrupt system, I am surprised you want yours disenfranchised.

You guys have been making this claim that all these "illegals" are voting, but you never offer any proof this is happening.

 

[Freewill]

the majority of the people wanted an end to the Clinton crime regime. Maybe that is why the founders developed the EC instead of run off elections or popularity contests that could be easily rigged.

The Majority of the people certainly did not. Hillary got 2 million more votes.

The Founders wanted to keep the rabble in it's place.

They didn't want slaves to vote (although they wanted them counted for representation), they didn't want women to vote, they didn't want free men who didn't own property to vote.

They also shit in chamber pots and bleed themselves when they got sick.

So I think instead of saying, "Well they had a good reason", tell me a good reason why we should STILL be doing it that way today?

Because I can't think of one.

I can think of two reasons why it's a horrible idea. George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump

Finding the actual popular vote totals are hard to find. But it is clear that Johnson and Stein took over 4 percent of the vote. Assuming 170 million voters then 4 percent equals 6.8 million. Thus it is clear that the majority of VOTERS rejected Hillary Clinton.

Now you will obviously counter with that the majority also rejected Trump. So how do we decide whom should be president between two candidates that didn't reach 50 percent? Well the founders were pretty smart in what they did. They gave your and my vote more value then it would have if just a popular vote nation wide was used. Instead of ONE popular election there were 51. In that count Trump far exceeded Hillary. Obviously in 49 states if the popular vote were tallied, Trump won. One state isn't enough, in my opinion, to be able to sway the vote. CA let's anyone vote, illegal or not. I certainly don't want my vote being disenfranchised by such a corrupt system, I am surprised you want yours disenfranchised.

If you want the candidate to get more than 50% in order to win you have a runoff.

That would be one way but not the way of the COTUS. A runoff is the only way to ensure what the majority want. What we have now is what the majority of states want dependent on their EC votes. It makes everyone's vote worth more.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP is more obsessed with PC than anyone here. The OP is more outraged over PC than anyone here. The OP thinks Hillary Clinton lost because of the anti-PC vote.

BUT

The OP voted for Hillary Clinton.

Think about that. If the most anti-PC guy around voted for Hillary Clinton anyway, why does he think any other anti-PC nut would do otherwise?

 

[JoeB131]

He called the working class blue collar white voters racist, just like I said you libs do. YOur quibbling about exact wording does not change that.

But you are too dishonest to admit that.

Let's look at the FULL QUOTE, shall we.

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

That sounds, actually, pretty sympathetic towards those folks... Now, you can fault Obama for not doing enough to fix that (although the Republicans frustrated every effort he made to do so).

 

[Freewill]

Finding the actual popular vote totals are hard to find. But it is clear that Johnson and Stein took over 4 percent of the vote. Assuming 170 million voters then 4 percent equals 6.8 million. Thus it is clear that the majority of VOTERS rejected Hillary Clinton.

Now you will obviously counter with that the majority also rejected Trump. So how do we decide whom should be president between two candidates that didn't reach 50 percent?

Well, how about having a run-off election with just those two?

Well the founders were pretty smart in what they did. They gave your and my vote more value then it would have if just a popular vote nation wide was used. Instead of ONE popular election there were 51. In that count Trump far exceeded Hillary.

Well,no, that's actually kind of stupid, because it gives arbitrary weight to smaller states.

Example. Wyoming has 582,000 people and three electoral votes. So they get one electoral vote for every every 194,000 people. California has 38 Million people and 55 electoral votes. That gives them one electoral vote for every 697,000 people. That makes a vote in Wyoming three times as valuable as one in California.

Or in another way, both Montana and Wyoming have 3 electoral votes, but Montana has twice as many people. Rhode Island only has 50,000 more people than Montana, but they get one more electoral vote.

The problem is, of course, that when these smaller states are predominately white, then you are giving extra weight to the votes of white people.

CA let's anyone vote, illegal or not. I certainly don't want my vote being disenfranchised by such a corrupt system, I am surprised you want yours disenfranchised.

You guys have been making this claim that all these "illegals" are voting, but you never offer any proof this is happening.

You bring up race again. It is like blacks account for much more than the 13 percent of the population. Whites should have the majority of votes that is just how it plays out. But to let California decide the presidency when they allow anyone to vote who is breathing, and I am not sure that is a requirement disenfranchises my vote and a whole lot of minority votes.

You do mean, evidence you will accept, which is far different then reality.

Voter Fraud Is Real. Here’s The Proof

 

[JoeB131]

That would be one way but not the way of the COTUS. A runoff is the only way to ensure what the majority want. What we have now is what the majority of states want dependent on their EC votes. It makes everyone's vote worth more.

No, it doesn't. It makes your vote in California worth less, and your vote in Wyoming worth more.

More tot he point, it depresses turnout. If you know Illinois is going to go to Hillary, no matter what, what's the point of showing up to vote?

One person. One vote. Your vote counts the same as everyone else's vote.

 

[JoeB131]

You bring up race again. It is like blacks account for much more than the 13 percent of the population. Whites should have the majority of votes that is just how it plays out. But to let California decide the presidency when they allow anyone to vote who is breathing, and I am not sure that is a requirement disenfranchises my vote and a whole lot of minority votes.

You do mean, evidence you will accept, which is far different then reality.

You're right, I'm not going to take anything from the Federalist seriously.

But to the point, when you give extra weight to white votes by giving more electors to states with more white people, then that's racist as shit... which is what the original design was.

Add to that minority voter suppression in states with Republican governors, and that makes it all worse.

Now, if you want to reduce vote fraud on a national level, then create single voter standard, with national verification. Problem solved.

 

[NYcarbineer]

the majority of the people wanted an end to the Clinton crime regime. Maybe that is why the founders developed the EC instead of run off elections or popularity contests that could be easily rigged.

The Majority of the people certainly did not. Hillary got 2 million more votes.

The Founders wanted to keep the rabble in it's place.

They didn't want slaves to vote (although they wanted them counted for representation), they didn't want women to vote, they didn't want free men who didn't own property to vote.

They also shit in chamber pots and bleed themselves when they got sick.

So I think instead of saying, "Well they had a good reason", tell me a good reason why we should STILL be doing it that way today?

Because I can't think of one.

I can think of two reasons why it's a horrible idea. George W. Bush and Donald J. Trump

Finding the actual popular vote totals are hard to find. But it is clear that Johnson and Stein took over 4 percent of the vote. Assuming 170 million voters then 4 percent equals 6.8 million. Thus it is clear that the majority of VOTERS rejected Hillary Clinton.

Now you will obviously counter with that the majority also rejected Trump. So how do we decide whom should be president between two candidates that didn't reach 50 percent? Well the founders were pretty smart in what they did. They gave your and my vote more value then it would have if just a popular vote nation wide was used. Instead of ONE popular election there were 51. In that count Trump far exceeded Hillary. Obviously in 49 states if the popular vote were tallied, Trump won. One state isn't enough, in my opinion, to be able to sway the vote. CA let's anyone vote, illegal or not. I certainly don't want my vote being disenfranchised by such a corrupt system, I am surprised you want yours disenfranchised.

If you want the candidate to get more than 50% in order to win you have a runoff.

That would be one way but not the way of the COTUS. A runoff is the only way to ensure what the majority want. What we have now is what the majority of states want dependent on their EC votes. It makes everyone's vote worth more.

A majority of states is a meaningless construct. If you think otherwise than why not just give each state one vote for president?