Why Won't She Stop Talking?

Comments

skeptoid's picture
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones's picture

Hilary deserves ridicule but also should just be ignored.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

We can easily dispel the "I won the popular vote vs. winning the electoral college" by simply making votes count on a 1 for 1 basis.  But people are scared to do that for multiple, very nebulous reasons.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

Mr. Fudd, there is a reason why the electoral college exists and why Presidents are not directly elected.  Nobody who knows why it exists is "scared" to chage a damn thing and the reasons why it should not be changed are specific and known.

 

We are a Republic of States which you, and everyone who bitches about how our system works, seem to have forgotten this fact, including that sick old wrinkled cunt who lost in 2016.

 

Every four years there are in effect 50 Presidental elections where, as you say, votes count on a 1 for 1 basis.  Whoever wins the majority of the vote in each State wins that State's electoral votes.  The rules of the game were understood by everyone and they were not changed mid contest, yet dispite knowning the rules, the criminal candidate who you wanted to win decided to play the game according to the non-existant "popular vote rules".

 

If Donald Trump really is as dumb as the radical left claims he is, then imagine how utterly retarded you would need to be to lose an election to him.  And to think that person is the person you wanted to run shit.

+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

It's almost like he had an army of foreign trolls on his side proclaiming that Hillary killed nine people. 

 

When I vote for a sheriff my vote counts 1 for 1.  When I vote for a state senator my vote counts 1 for 1.  When I vote for a governor my vote counts 1 for 1.  You should notice and be aware that it wasn't always like this:  it used to be that all of these offices were appointed or voted for by other politicians or people of influence, meaning rich people (which is what the electoral college essentially is today).  This made it so that only the political and wealthy elite had a hand in determining these posts.  The entire reason the 17th amendment exists is to curb the idea of the Senate being "a millionaires' club". 

 

And yet when it comes to the President we need this ultra-convoluted, overly-complex middle man to dilute your vote and mine because we can't have it be a 1 for 1 vote when it comes to the Presidency...despite the fact that every other political race requires a 1 for 1 vote.  Weird how that works...it's almost like this unecessary middle-man is to fuck over the People's voice.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Fullauto223cal's picture

It's almost like he had an army of foreign trolls on his side proclaiming that Hillary killed nine people.

 


You really have been drinking the kool-aid for a long time if you think that is why he won.  I can't hope to overcome months worth of bullshit you've been feeding yourself in one post so I'll move on.

 

When I vote for a sheriff my vote counts 1 for 1.
 

Easy, a County Sheriff is not National President.  Apples vs. Oranges.  Next.

 

When I vote for a state senator my vote counts 1 for 1.

 

Yes, but isn't suppose to be.  You and I were never intended to be able to vote for Senators.  The purpose of Senators was to be a check on the power of the National Government and the will of the mob.  They were suppose to be appointed by the State Legislatures, but then the first generation of so-called "Progressives" came along a fucked it up.

 

But yes, your vote for your State's Senator does count 1 for 1.  A Senator is not a President.  Apples vs. Oranges again.  Next.

 

When I vote for a governor my vote counts 1 for 1.

 

A State Governor is not a National President.  I'm assuming you have taken civics 101 and understand the different functions of each.  Because so far you seem to be completely unaware that these offices are different and on a different level.

 

You should notice and be aware that it wasn't always like this:  it used to be that all of these offices were appointed or voted for by other politicians or people of influence, meaning rich people (which is what the electoral college essentially is today).

I am aware that some of what you are saying is true while a sizable chunck is utter bullshit.  Before becoming States, Governors were appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.  Those people are in positions of power so duh they have influence.  They were also generally wealthy, which is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things but not surprising that a young neo-marxist like yourself would bring it up.

 

The reasons for the Electoral College have been a matter of record since it was created.  You can read about it here. 

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

 

It has fuck all to do with your Marxist tripe.  It was all about protecting the Republic from the will of the mob where all that is needed to wreak everything is 51%.

If Hillary weren't such an entitled dumb cunt, maybe she would have thought better than to give a speach where called half of the United States voting population racist deplorable.  Maybe if she had not put all her eggs in the Hollywood basket and actually visited some of the rust belt.  Who knows.  All we know is that in the end Trump played the game better than Hillary and over a year later the left is still salty as ever that her ugly ass lost.

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down
Grothesk's picture

All of your "apples to oranges" arguments were used by Loyalists and British Parliament when discussing the rights of the Colonies in 1774.  I'm currently reading Killing England by Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard and they legit brought up how the King has supreme rule over the American colonies, which is why they would not be represented. 

 

Sheriff, senator, governor, president...these are all simply variations of power, which are all supposed to be "checked" and "balanced", right?  So when you really say "apples to oranges", you're being quite disingenuous...because they're all simply different levels of government.  The President is near the top (and arguably, NOT at the top) of that list, so that somehow makes it completely different?  We don't have a 1 for 1 vote for the President because he's somehow different...almost like...would you say...a king? 

 

I've gone through all of the bullshit reasons in favor of the electoral college and some of them do give us a slight benefit, but the drawback of not having our vote count 1 for 1 is far too glaring to overlook.  It's comical that you bring up the phrase "will of the mob" while every single day I am confronted with TRUMP TRAINers and idiots telling me how Seth Rich was murdered with Clinton's scarf, or whatever.  Are you going to post an image of an electoral map in all red and tell me about "will of the mob" then?  There's a reason you're scared to get rid of the Middle Man of the electoral college and that's because the vast majority of America is progressive-minded.  The removal of the electoral college is the death of the Republican party.

+1
+1
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid's picture

What about a "Hunger Games" scenario? Is that too far out there, because based on the current US geographical political landscape it looks like what could very well result would be a version of that. You can already hear it in Clinton's talk about how the urban areas that voted for her were progressive forward-thinkers and those who voted for Trump were backwards rural idiots who fuck goats. You see where this is going?

+1
-1
-1
Vote comment up/down