(02-27-2017 04:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Kinda like how the GOP were bashing the EC in 2012 but now defend it?

IDK, maybe? If they were doing that they were even bigger idiots than the Dems right now because they also lost the popular vote.

(02-27-2017 04:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The left's butthurt over the EC is so awesome! I love it!

Some here (you) simply don't care for democracy

(02-27-2017 05:00 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 04:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Kinda like how the GOP were bashing the EC in 2012 but now defend it?

IDK, maybe? If they were doing that they were even bigger idiots than the Dems right now because they also lost the popular vote.

Trump called the EC a disaster for democracy in 2012

(02-27-2017 05:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 05:00 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 04:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Kinda like how the GOP were bashing the EC in 2012 but now defend it?

IDK, maybe? If they were doing that they were even bigger idiots than the Dems right now because they also lost the popular vote.

Trump called the EC a disaster for democracy in 2012

It is a disaster for democracy. That's why the country is a representative republic. Try to keep up.

(02-27-2017 04:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 04:27 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:04 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:39 AM)fsquid Wrote:  82 / 5,536,528 = .001481%

That's potentially 82 US citizens that had their votes cancelled by illegals. Doesn't matter the percentage, it's still too many.

But having the electoral college basically cancel the votes of 3 million urban Clinton voters.....that's okay, right?

And you'll give a **** about that right up it's changed, Republicans run a popular vote style campaign and win. Then you'll be screaming about how we shouldn't have abandoned the electoral college.

The founding fathers wouldn't recognize today's EC. It has been so heavily altered since their time that it is incomparable.

Yes and no, sort of. We've added a lot states since the first election so, yes. NC, NY, RI and VT didn't even participate in that first election, btw. Also, about half of the states that did participate didn't even have a popular vote process. Instead they had appointed electors from their state legistator

No, because there were also states back then who got a disproportional "share" back then just like we have now.

(02-27-2017 05:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 04:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The left's butthurt over the EC is so awesome! I love it!

Some here (you) simply don't care for democracy

That's asinine.

(02-27-2017 05:05 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 05:02 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 05:00 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 04:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Kinda like how the GOP were bashing the EC in 2012 but now defend it?

IDK, maybe? If they were doing that they were even bigger idiots than the Dems right now because they also lost the popular vote.

Trump called the EC a disaster for democracy in 2012

It is a disaster for democracy. That's why the country is a representative republic. Try to keep up.

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. You can be both a democracy and a republic.

(02-27-2017 05:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 04:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 04:27 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:04 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  That's potentially 82 US citizens that had their votes cancelled by illegals. Doesn't matter the percentage, it's still too many.

But having the electoral college basically cancel the votes of 3 million urban Clinton voters.....that's okay, right?

And you'll give a **** about that right up it's changed, Republicans run a popular vote style campaign and win. Then you'll be screaming about how we shouldn't have abandoned the electoral college.

The founding fathers wouldn't recognize today's EC. It has been so heavily altered since their time that it is incomparable.

Yes and no, sort of. We've added a lot states since the first election so, yes. NC, NY, RI and VT didn't even participate in that first election, btw. Also, about half of the states that did participate didn't even have a popular vote process. Instead they had appointed electors from their state legistator

No, because there were also states back then who got a disproportional "share" back then just like we have now.

The most critical aspect of the EC is the winner take all system which didn't become mainstream until after the constitution was written. The PV as you mentioned was also a big game changer but also the general ticket.

The biggest aspect of the EC back then was for it to act as a congress for delegates to account for the lack of instant communication as well as an attitude that the general public was too stupid to be allowed to vote. Neither is true today.

False. The average American is too stupid. That's why it was setup that way then and now.


Didn't Tom just the other day say in a different thread that " if you can't manage your finanaces,.. you shouldn't have a firearm"!...Brilliant !

Seeing how the average American can't come up with $250 without having to take a cash advance on a credit card?? Or how 60% of ALL Americans over 60 have zero ,.. $0.00 savings!

However , they are certainly abreast of the topic to cast an individual vote??

The average American is average

Exactly.. I'm surrounded by them and so are you...if you're not one of them.

(02-27-2017 05:57 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  False. The average American is too stupid. That's why it was setup that way then and now.


Didn't Tom just the other day say in a different thread that " if you can't manage your finanaces,.. you shouldn't have a firearm"!...Brilliant !

Seeing how the average American can't come up with $250 without having to take a cash advance on a credit card?? Or how 60% of ALL Americans over 60 have zero ,.. $0.00 savings!

However , they are certainly abreast of the topic to cast an individual vote??

Classic SCD.

(02-27-2017 11:59 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:04 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 10:39 AM)fsquid Wrote:  82 / 5,536,528 = .001481%

That's potentially 82 US citizens that had their votes cancelled by illegals. Doesn't matter the percentage, it's still too many.

But having the electoral college basically cancel the votes of 3 million urban Clinton voters.....that's okay, right?

There is a mechanism in place to change what you feel is unfair. I suggest you spend your time on that instead of b*tching about it in here.

(02-27-2017 12:33 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 12:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(02-27-2017 11:01 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  It's also important to remember that these voters are still only alleged to have voted illegally. They have not been criminally investigated as of yet.

It is entirely possible that at least some of them were actually US citizens, but that the records are in error.

Its possible. But they wouldn't have referred them to law enforcement if that was likely.

Its important to remember that you are a card carrying water carrier for the Democrats denying anything that challenges their orthodoxy.

The Secretary of the State of Ohio is not qualified to make determinations on US Citizenship. That's why they were referred to law enforcement. Until people are charged, it's nothing more than common sense to wait for final determinations to be made.

We've seen this before where mistakes are made in regards to voter rolls. It's only prudent.

And to your second sentence, not only is it a pathetic personal attack, it's just plain factually wrong. I have no love at all for the Democratic party. If you can't engage in a calm and rational discussion without the name calling and innuendo, perhaps you shouldn't?

Nobody wants illegals to vote. Where we disagree is on how we arrive at that. To the left, it needs to be done to minimize disenfranchisement. To the right, it seems more and more clear that their motive is to squelch democrat votes. There's ample evidence of this and it's been cited time and time again on this board.

Just last week, the state GOP chair in Montana tried to block a bill to allow the counties to use a mail in ballot for a special election to replace their lone US Representative should he be confirmed to the Trump cabinet. They came right out and said that the reason is fear that too many democrats would vote.

And the sad part in this, is that the mail in ballots would save the counties much needed money. It's interesting when the GOP suddenly doesn't care about the bottom line.

Quote:State GOP Chairman and Rep. Jeff Essmann sent party members an “emergency chairman’s report on the long-term negative impact” of mail ballot elections on the state Republican Party.

Essmann argued that all-mail ballots “give the Democrats an inherent advantage in close elections due to their ability to organizes large numbers of unpaid college students and members of public employee unions to gather ballots by going door to door.”

“If they succeed in this effort this time they will use it as an example of success and will work to make it a permanent Democrat advantage,” he said.

Oh, Lord. Wait for the voter fraud before we can see what's in it? It's a trend.