You might want to take a peak at the populations and growth trends of the states before you run off and do something stupid.
Why are all liberals completely incapable of looking more than 1 election into the future?
California and New York are dying. Texas and Florida are growing.
Illinois is dying. Ohio is growing faster than Pennsylvania.
You never think anything through.
Why would that be a consideration when we are talking about implementing a fairer election process? If the country turns out to be majority red and stupid in 20 years then at least it's going down the toilet with a majority having been behind it.
People are literally fleeing New York and California because people like you have terrible ideas.
The data doesn't match your feelings.
What the hell is "fair" about California getting to dictate what 10 other states do? The founders created the electoral college specifically to protect small states from being controlled by the big states.
You haven't thought any of this through you're too busy rooting for your stupid team.
Why would that be a consideration when we are talking about implementing a fairer election process? If the country turns out to be majority red and stupid in 20 years then at least it's going down the toilet with a majority having been behind it.
People are literally fleeing New York and California because people like you have terrible ideas.
The data doesn't match your feelings.
What the hell is "fair" about California getting to dictate what 10 other states do? The founders created the electoral college specifically to protect small states from being controlled by the big states.
You haven't thought any of this through you're too busy rooting for your stupid team.
Hate to break it to you, but it aint about feelings. As we stand, mouth breathers in small states effectively get to dictate policies that impact us all. I understand why it may just be a given to you that this is fair.
And your statement above is straight up bull. Post your proof.
Of course I agree, because it is the current rule. AND I support it no longer being the rule of the land because it does not reflect a democratic voting process. I would be thrilled to see this amended. Wouldn't you?
So you want NY and California deciding every single presidential election? Does that seem good to you? They are very liberal - is that why you want them deciding the election?
A person can support AND disagree with a provision of law or the Constitution. Many Democrats disagree with the Electoral College in part because it has resulted in 2 Republican Presidents in the past 25 years who did NOT win the popular vote. Republicans would likely be against the EC if they were on the losing side of this equation a few times.
But Democrats did NOT unlawfully attack the Capital in either 2000 or 2016 when they won the popular vote and lost the Electoral College. Trump lost both the popular vote AND the Electoral College in 2020 and his supporters refused to accept this and attacked the Capital, injuring 150 police officers, looting and vandalizing the building in an attempt to overturn the result. Trump supported this criminal activity.
People are literally fleeing New York and California because people like you have terrible ideas.
The data doesn't match your feelings.
What the hell is "fair" about California getting to dictate what 10 other states do? The founders created the electoral college specifically to protect small states from being controlled by the big states.
You haven't thought any of this through you're too busy rooting for your stupid team.
Hate to break it to you, but it aint about feelings. As we stand, mouth breathers in small states effectively get to dictate policies that impact us all. I understand why it may just be a given to you that this is fair.
And your statement above is straight up bull. Post your proof.
Please keep in mind you only think this because you are stupid.
The Senate cannot do a f*cking thing on it's own.
The House vote is determined by population.
California gets 52 votes in the House. Utah gets 4. New Hampshire gets 2.
The presidency is determined by population.
California gets 54 votes in the presidency. Utah gets 6. New Hampshire gets 4.
The small states don't get to dictate anything.
You're ignorant.
This post was edited 53 seconds after it was posted.
I am sure the DA will release them with no bond. On a serious note, I would send them to San Quentin and put them in the general population. Raping 2-year-old kids? Really?
People are literally fleeing New York and California because people like you have terrible ideas.
The data doesn't match your feelings.
What the hell is "fair" about California getting to dictate what 10 other states do? The founders created the electoral college specifically to protect small states from being controlled by the big states.
You haven't thought any of this through you're too busy rooting for your stupid team.
Hate to break it to you, but it aint about feelings. As we stand, mouth breathers in small states effectively get to dictate policies that impact us all. I understand why it may just be a given to you that this is fair.
And your statement above is straight up bull. Post your proof.
It is BAFFLING that you can be arrogant while demonstrating that you have absolutely no f*cking idea how the government works.
Oh so you think it’s sustainable let alone fair in a democratic republic for 400,000 people in Wyoming to have the same senatorial representation as 40,000,000 people in California?
So you want the 80 million people in NY and Calif. to decide all elections? Does that seem fair to you?
Without an Electoral College, we would end up with "mob rule." If we had that, a presidential candidate would only need to campaign in 3 states (IL, CA, NY) more specifically in Chicago, Los Angeles & NYC and thereby ignore the rest of the country.
The Electoral College isn't perfect but the alternative is much worse since millions of voters outside the above states will have essentially no voice.
Go back and read up on the setup of the electoral college system and let us know what you learn.
Do you deny that higher population states get more say in the presidency and the house than smaller states?
I think you need to read these things you don't seem to have any idea how it works.
You are an insane moran for stating that higher population states get more than their proportionate say in government.
Our voting system skews rural massively - that's not even up for debate. States that contain less than 20% of the US population can elect a Senate majority, and guess which states they are. Bills supported by heavily populated states have a higher tendency to get rejected due to this disproportionate power and when it comes to the presidential election we all know how it works.
When your hero framers were developing the constitution, 95% of america was rural so this did not matter. Thus the massive flaw that was the Connecticut Compromise created the Senate process giving equal power to those elected officials, regardless of how their states were populated and would look like down the road. So now, don't give is this framers' foresight cr@p. You're just another tzee dumbfk taking history lessons from Tucker. Go read up on what prompted the split of the Dakotas as an example. Just one minor learning exercise for you today.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
So you want the 80 million people in NY and Calif. to decide all elections? Does that seem fair to you?
Without an Electoral College, we would end up with "mob rule." If we had that, a presidential candidate would only need to campaign in 3 states (IL, CA, NY) more specifically in Chicago, Los Angeles & NYC and thereby ignore the rest of the country.
The Electoral College isn't perfect but the alternative is much worse since millions of voters outside the above states will have essentially no voice.
One person, one vote, equal representation = mob rule. Got it.
So you want the 80 million people in NY and Calif. to decide all elections? Does that seem fair to you?
Without an Electoral College, we would end up with "mob rule." If we had that, a presidential candidate would only need to campaign in 3 states (IL, CA, NY) more specifically in Chicago, Los Angeles & NYC and thereby ignore the rest of the country.
The Electoral College isn't perfect but the alternative is much worse since millions of voters outside the above states will have essentially no voice.
Wow that is some Einstein logic right there. Bravo! I'm sure you could read your own post 1,000 times and still reach the same conclusions. I admire your consistency!
Without an Electoral College, we would end up with "mob rule." If we had that, a presidential candidate would only need to campaign in 3 states (IL, CA, NY) more specifically in Chicago, Los Angeles & NYC and thereby ignore the rest of the country.
The Electoral College isn't perfect but the alternative is much worse since millions of voters outside the above states will have essentially no voice.
One person, one vote, equal representation = mob rule. Got it.
That's why I can only offer ridicule to these idiots.. they are irretrievably lost.
Do you deny that higher population states get more say in the presidency and the house than smaller states?
I think you need to read these things you don't seem to have any idea how it works.
You are an insane moran for stating that higher population states get more than their proportionate say in government.
Our voting system skews rural massively - that's not even up for debate. States that contain less than 20% of the US population can elect a Senate majority, and guess which states they are. Bills supported by heavily populated states have a higher tendency to get rejected due to this disproportionate power and when it comes to the presidential election we all know how it works.
When your hero framers were developing the constitution, 95% of america was rural so this did not matter. Thus the massive flaw that was the Connecticut Compromise created the Senate process giving equal power to those elected officials, regardless of how their states were populated and would look like down the road. So now, don't give is this framers' foresight cr@p. You're just another tzee dumbfk taking history lessons from Tucker. Go read up on what prompted the split of the Dakotas as an example. Just one minor learning exercise for you today.
Straw man much?
Where did I say they get more than their proportionate say?
YOU said the small states dictate everything which is demonstrably bullSh*t.
5 of the 10 smallest states are blue states. Nothing you believe has any basis in reality.
What the hell does rural have to do with anything? Are rural Americans not American enough for you? Are there no rural areas in Vermont and New York and California??
The Electoral College works as an "all or nothing" system by state (with exceptions in Maine and Nebraska). This means that a state that gets a 0.1% vote margin will give 100% of their Electoral votes to one candidate. This sets up a system where only the close states determine the President. No state votes 100% for one side but so this system essentially disenfranchises the minority.
This is why Republicans hate CA. But what if CA, which voted approximately 65/35%, split that percentage and all states did the same. If the Republicans came up with a more moderate candidate, they might cut that to CA vote to 60/40 or better swinging the popular vote count their way by millions of votes. The country could get more palatable candidates from both sides who would try to cater to the middle instead of the most extreme or local issues of a swing state.
It would be possible to do this without eliminating the Electoral College. Since Republicans have managed to win a lot of Presidential elections on the popular vote previously, it doesn't seem like it would be so damaging to them.
Why does Trump feel he deserves immunity from criminal prosecution?
I don’t need immunity. My friends don’t need immunity. My family doesn’t need immunity. All previous Presidents didn’t need immunity although one would have liked it so he wouldn’t need that pardon after he resigned. Mayors don’t need immunity. Lawmakers don’t need immunity.
What gives?
It’s almost like Trump is a blatant criminal that has been criming for decades.
"If the President does it, it's not illegal." -- Richard Nixon (post-Watergate, in case that wasn't clear)
That's not even close to the his best quote. One of his economic advisors gave a verbal report on the Italian Lira. Without missing a beat, Nixon looked at him and said, "Who gives a &$*% (starts with "s") about the Italian Lira!"
And, this, which is probably his best quote, and applies here many times over: "Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."
