@AverageJoe1
Funny how you zombies are trying your best to KILL the electoral college by LEGALLY being allowed to dump duly appointed electoral college electors with their own, JUST LIKE THE ILLEGAL ONES ALREADY TRIED but now LEGALLY ALLOWED to just dump the real ones and install their own where they would say TRUMP WINS AGAIN! no matter HOW many dem votes for his opponent comes out.
You are a FLAMING HYPOCRITE when it comes to the electoral college, it has worked for 200 + years and will ensure a real election but you don't WANT real elections you want zombies to win NO MATTER WHO VOTES AGAINST THEM.
@sonhouse saidI am missing something here son house. For 200 years the electoral college as elected both Democrats and Republicans. So it would be nice if you could tell us where the disparagement is in that process.
@AverageJoe1
Funny how you zombies are trying your best to KILL the electoral college by LEGALLY being allowed to dump duly appointed electoral college electors with their own, JUST LIKE THE ILLEGAL ONES ALREADY TRIED but now LEGALLY ALLOWED to just dump the real ones and install their own where they would say TRUMP WINS AGAIN! no matter HOW many dem votes for his opponent ...[text shortened]... election but you don't WANT real elections you want zombies to win NO MATTER WHO VOTES AGAINST THEM.
Further, I take exception to your casual use of the word illegal. You’ll have to send us some definitive links about any ‘illegality’. It seems you want us to talk about hypothesis, as if it is fact, and that is impossible.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@averagejoe1 saidWow. Talk about being ignorant about your own country's history...
I am missing something here son house. For 200 years the electoral college as elected both Democrats and Republicans.
200 years ago, sub-average Joe, was 1822. In 1822, neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party existed. At that point, what you had was the Democratic-Republican Party, a.k.a. the Jeffersonians, and the Federalists. So back then, it could have elected a Democratic-Republican, but not a Democrat nor a Republican.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@averagejoe1 saidToo transparent, Joe. Still too transparent.
I have never donated one moment of my time to see what is going on with the Jan 6 hearings. Further, I care not about the findings.
@shallow-blue saidWas keying on the 200 year reference of SHouse, thx for the history lesson. Put in any number of years you’d like, you will find dems and repubs all get a fair crack at it.
Wow. Talk about being ignorant about your own country's history...
200 years ago, sub-average Joe, was 1822. In 1822, neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party existed. At that point, what you had was the Democratic-Republican Party, a.k.a. the Jeffersonians, and the Federalists. So back then, it could have elected a Democratic-Republican, but not a Democrat nor a Republican.
Geez.
@shallow-blue saidI guess the hearings are transparent. I will read up on their findings, when they find something.
Too transparent, Joe. Still too transparent.
You mad at me Shallow? Do you want some of my stuff? When you get a free check, you will be getting some of my stuff. Isn’t that enough?
@averagejoe1 saidBiden won with 53.3%.
I think you may be speaking of me, I do not want minority to rule. I want MORE than just 51% to rule, no matter which party wins.
You fellers get so personal, you say "He wouldn't mind the majority having the say, etc etc". It is not what I would mind, it is my saying that having the EC is the only way to keep 51% of those who vote from ruling all the rest. Pleas ...[text shortened]... again, why do some votes in the Senate,, or in a condominium development, require a 2/3 vote? Why?
@averagejoe1 saidOft used phrase used by who ? FOX ?
I don't know anything about Jan 6, and the 16 months of one-sided inquests do not see Trump getting indicted that I can tell. So, the Jan 6 thing is worth nothing.
Mob rule is an oft used phrase where the lesser of a crowd are overrun by the larger, being the mob.
btw, the term "mob" is usually used by a group of people of varying size to describe a bunch of unruly people.
Like that group on Jan 6.
You know, that day you don't know anything about ?
Of course, you can also use the term to describe the BLM riots.
Or to describe a group of people that toss a couple of bricks through a store window in New York city if the Yankees win the world series.
But on Jan 6, that mob was trying to overturn an election result.
And Trump instigated it !!
Of course, you didn't watch the proceedings.
You were busy watching DeSantis flying Venezuelans to Martha's Vineyard.
@averagejoe1 saidThere is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if the Electoral College had instead stolen the presidency from a Republican candidate twice in the past 22 years, you would be howling for its abolition.
Get rid of Electoral College? But, the Framers rightfully feared the tendency of Pure Democracy, which we and the Framers want to be the case, to descend into Mob Rule and run roughshod over the rights of disfavored minorities. (What Marauder and Sonhouse want to be the case)
The Constitution is full of anti-majoritarian safeguards, a primary one being the Electoral ...[text shortened]... n the biggest states—California, for example—and major urban centers like Chicago and New York City.
I know it. You know it. Anyone here whose IQ doesn't round down to zero knows it. Nevertheless you will continue with your kabuki theater in the hyper-partisan, black-and-white world that your childlike mind finds so very comforting.
1 edit
@soothfast saidSorry to disappoint. I would not want to live in a society which would disenfranchise part of the society, giving them no voice.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if the Electoral College had instead stolen the presidency from a Republican candidate twice in the past 22 years, you would be howling for its abolition.
I know it. You know it. Anyone here whose IQ doesn't round down to zero knows it. Nevertheless you will continue with your kabuki theater in the hyper-partisan, black-and-white world that your childlike mind finds so very comforting.
You are really smart, so tell us why 2/3 is sometimes the rule, when one would think 51% would be a gracious plenty?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
@averagejoe1 saidThen you'd better emigrate right now, because that's exactly the kind of country you do live in.
Sorry to disappoint. I would not want to live in a society which would disenfranchise part of the society, giving them no voice.
@shallow-blue saidBut why do people smarter than us figure 2/3 should be the rule in some cases? Why not 51% in all cases? Why 2/3? You missed my question above
Then you'd better emigrate right now, because that's exactly the kind of country you do live in.
@averagejoe1 saidWhat makes you think they are smarter than us?
But why do people smarter than us figure 2/3 should be the rule in some cases? Why not 51% in all cases? Why 2/3? You missed my question above
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidYou refer to immigrants as criminals with no legal convictions involved. Stop being a hypocrite.
I am missing something here son house. For 200 years the electoral college as elected both Democrats and Republicans. So it would be nice if you could tell us where the disparagement is in that process.
Further, I take exception to your casual use of the word illegal. You’ll have to send us some definitive links about any ‘illegality’. It seems you want us to talk about hypothesis, as if it is fact, and that is impossible.
@athousandyoung saidTrue, maybe we and wildgrass are inherently smarter, but they have 'studied', if you will, and have debated into many long nights, and these people number thousands over two hundred years. They have regarded every possibility and every reason. They have arrived et well-considered decisions, whether we like them or not.
What makes you think they are smarter than us?
We have not done that, so we are no more qualified than that Jimmm person of a few months back. So,, in DC, about this issue, they have been working on it a lot.