jakee

Simple one sentence statements are always good at accurately representing how the world works.

What is my example? Pretty sure I didn't float an example. I honestly can't follow what you just said. If at the moment each district votes for their own funding within that district, how is your example at all analogous to a national election?

Why do you then want to maintain a system that guarantees the representation they do have is worth less? Why do the country folk deserve better schools if they don't?

The extension of the logic being that inner city schools are the envy of the nation?

So in what way do you support what Trump’s border policy actually is?

Who are you talking to and what are you talking about?

But that is Trump’s central, core, overriding policy on the border. You can’t say you support Trumps policy on the border then moan when people start talking to you about the wall. It’s lazy communication on your part. if you support Trump on the border but don’t support the wall, what specifically is he doing that you do support? Don’t think anyone here disagrees with that. He is for sure more of a failure than any other recent President regarding Notth Korea.

It’s not a fact. And one thing’s for sure, you know it’s not a fact, because you said it before and I replied telling you the people who were convicted of crimes they committed while working for Trump. Ah well, two pathological liars, you were made for each other!

Except for all the people in prison.

Has the Republican bar really sunk so low that having a President who didn't directly conspire with the Russian government to influence an election is viewed as a great success? I mean, listen to yourself...

“Judges” is a policy? I guess now that ‘lock her up’ is over the most popular parts of Trump’s speeches boil down to just naming things people like. Think how efficient he could be on the stump in 2020. ”Judges. Military! Borders. Bibles! Coal. Money! Trump!”

When?

It is what happened. You quoted a source which consists purely of the opinions of its author. It doesn't become more worthwhile than your own opinion or my own opinion just because it was written somewhere else first. I don't need to quote someone else in order to have a valid disagreement with it, I can use my own brain and my own words just as well. So why are you moaning about not being provided with opposing sources? You have an opposing source, and it is your source. Did you watch it and review his actual argument? Paraphrasing; he worked in state government therefore he is personally biased towards anything which empowers states as political blocks. The US has had good Presidents (note he does not even attempt to argue the US would not have had good presidents otherwise). If something heinous is uncovered during the 6 weeks between the popular vote and the EC vote the presumptive President Elect can be booted by the EC and this would apparently not cause a fuss or involve the courts (LOL). Why it doesn't matter if something heinous is uncovered in the 6 weeks (or even 4 years) after the EC casts their votes, I'm not exactly sure. Anyway, that's the guy you want to hang your hat on? Those are the arguments you want to go with? Really? Like, that's seriously the best you've got? Yeah, but so what? Is your opinion now more valid than mine or Jerry's simply because you once changed your mind?

Cool, so you're saying Trump only ever appealled to a small minority of the country. Who do you think would disagree with you on that?

Except that's not true, you've got it backwards. The EC exists so that the Deep State chooses the President, not the population. The Constitution doesn't say there needs to be a popular vote in any state, or that the electors need to pay any attention to it if there is. But, since voting just happens to be the way things ended up being done, now you have multiple States that were created with extremely low populations just to game the EC system.

That doesn't make sense, because the main thing the 12th Amendment did was to make Electors specify a vote for President and a vote for VP, rather than casting two equal votes for two different people. It happened because the original counting system was an organisational clusterfuck that resulted in what was essentially a hung election between two candidates on the same ticket. The three fifths compromise was part of the original Constitution, and was not changed in any way by the 12th Amendment. The three fifths compromise affected the EC from the moment it was invented by the original text of the US Constitution. However the three fifths compromise only indirectly affects the Electoral College. The direct impact of the three fifths compromise was the number of Congressmen in the House that each state would get, the knock on effect on the EC being that EC voters for each State equals number of Senators plus Congressmen. So, to repeat myself, if you believe the Electoral College should be abolished because it is tarnished by association with slavery, you must also support the abolition of the House of Representatives.

Very true. The intent of the Electoral College is to have the President of the United States chosen by the Deep State. (I'm not even joking, that's the literal truth.)

So what? I mean seriously, who gives a damn? Just because an arbitrary decision was made at some point in time to draw a line on a map around a given quantity of land, the people who live in that land should now wield significant amounts of political power over people who live in LA?

Bigun - there were no original citations in your quoted text. Sure you cited the source you got the text from, but the text itself is purely the opinion of its author. Claiming that that one cannot legitimately disagree with the content of that author’s opinion unless one has another author’s opinion to cite is utterly ridiculous.

Is that how the cause and effect worked? Sure slavery and 3/5ths had a huge impact on how the EC worked, but that doesn't mean it was why it exists. 3/5ths had a huge impact on representation in the House and levels of taxation as well, but that doesn't mean Congress and Federal taxes are vestiges of slavery.

And if the legislation is signed then there will be a law. Thats how lawmaking works. If it was only possible to write laws that were already laws then there would be no laws. They would be allowed to vote for anyone who fulfilled the requirements to get on the ballot. You're assuming that Trump would be unwilling to fulfil those requirements and that a candidate of a different party would, but that's all it is, an assumption. That's completely different and unconnected. The WA legislation doesn't require a candidate to have paid a certain amount of tax, or indeed any tax at all. It wouldn't disqualify the candidate if the returns showed they had committed serious tax fraud. It demands nothing of their behaviour, only their transparency. People drop out of elections all the time because someone discovers something in their past that is deemed politically unnacceptable. That decides an election before anyone can even vote. Note; I'm not saying it's a good idea, only that the reasons for your outrage are bogus.

Nonsense. Splitting of electoral votes is much closer to what Liberals want. Look at any of the EC threads on here for the past few years and it is overwhelmingly your Red colleagues who are desperately clinging to winner takes all.

Don’t you think all those people living in those cities should be offended that you and your much smaller number of friends want the power to tell them what to do?

Because he didn’t, as was explained in the post you just replied to. There is no ‘and yet’. It makes literally no sense as a reply.

In what way? That story contains absolutely zero suggestion of improper action by Clinton.