If you agree with the Electoral College, you agree with Slavery

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

If I believe in a Constitutional Monarchy or Dictatorships, like the ones in Africa (where slavery did and still does exist), does that also mean I agree with slavery?

[Anonymous]

Nice troll bait..fact of the matter is the following:
It prevents tyranny of the majority

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of CA

Hillary actually performed worse than Obama in districts he held before. So without CA she would have done worse

We're not a direct democracy

Even with the popular vote, liberals complain. This assertion is backed up by two examples even though there's more
The constant recall elections in WI when Walker was elected. Liberals didn't like the outcome and tied up the courts three times

The vote on prop 8 in CA, where gay marriage was voted down. Ironically the left blamed the Mormons even though stats show it was minority communities that voted in favor of banning gay marriage.

[Anonymous]

OP, I see you're still on the boards throwing your tantrum. One would have thought you would have started towards the acceptance phase by now. I am assuming you must be a very sad, lonely person in real life given your inability to consider any other view point than your own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nice troll bait..fact of the matter is the following:
It prevents tyranny of the majority

Hillary won the "popular vote" because of CA

Hillary actually performed worse than Obama in districts he held before. So without CA she would have done worse

We're not a direct democracy

Even with the popular vote, liberals complain. This assertion is backed up by two examples even though there's more
The constant recall elections in WI when Walker was elected. Liberals didn't like the outcome and tied up the courts three times

The vote on prop 8 in CA, where gay marriage was voted down. Ironically the left blamed the Mormons even though stats show it was minority communities that voted in favor of banning gay marriage.

The trouble we are having with these never-ending EC debates as the the members of the tyrannical majority never see themselves as such.

[Anonymous]

So eight years ago Democrats were fully on board with slavery? Okay then

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

It's 'that simple', eh? One of these days, the roles will be reversed. So, that means you're not aware of it yet, but you have deemed your future self racist also.

Not PP. All 4 times some one became president without winning the popular vote is a republican. Even if a democrat somehow loses the popular vote and wins by EC, it is still wrong that ANY VOTE is disenfranchised regardless of whether it is a dem vote or repub vote.

Besides the GOP has won the popular vote ONLY 1/7 elections. That is bare minimum support and is absolutely unsustainable. How long can the GOP keep winning like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you leftists say you want to do away with U.S. Senate and the Supreme Court because neither represents the will of the popular majority, then we can start talking about the EC.

But not until.

This is absolutely idiotic point. No country in the world elects the supreme court justices. None. Not even the USA.

No country in the world holds an election to pick the loser of the election by 3 million and 2% of votes. ONLY in USA. The senate is already skewing the power to small states. How much more help do the WY voter need? Aren't the CA. NY, TX voter less American because they contribute the most to the country but get the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

It's 'that simple', eh? One of these days, the roles will be reversed. So, that means you're not aware of it yet, but you have deemed your future self racist also.

Not PP. All 4 times some one became president without winning the popular vote is a republican. Even if a democrat somehow loses the popular vote and wins by EC, it is still wrong that ANY VOTE is disenfranchised regardless of whether it is a dem vote or repub vote.

Besides the GOP has won the popular vote ONLY 1/7 elections. That is bare minimum support and is absolutely unsustainable. How long can the GOP keep winning like this?

Okay, PP. I want you to name every President that has won the popular vote.






You can't. It's a trick question. No one has ever won the "popular vote." A national popular vote for President in the US does not exist any more than pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

Each of the 51 regional elections is not a direct vote for President either, so no one is disenfranchised. It is a vote for regional electors who then get to vote for President.

As to disenfranchise:

[Anonymous]

OP, you are making several false links.

Slavery does not equal racism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

It is that simple. This is a great test to see if someone is racist or not. Ask if they agree with the EC. If they do, then you know the answer.

It's 'that simple', eh? One of these days, the roles will be reversed. So, that means you're not aware of it yet, but you have deemed your future self racist also.

Not PP. All 4 times some one became president without winning the popular vote is a republican. Even if a democrat somehow loses the popular vote and wins by EC, it is still wrong that ANY VOTE is disenfranchised regardless of whether it is a dem vote or repub vote.

Besides the GOP has won the popular vote ONLY 1/7 elections. That is bare minimum support and is absolutely unsustainable. How long can the GOP keep winning like this?

Okay, PP. I want you to name every President that has won the popular vote.






You can't. It's a trick question. No one has ever won the "popular vote." A national popular vote for President in the US does not exist any more than pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

Each of the 51 regional elections is not a direct vote for President either, so no one is disenfranchised. It is a vote for regional electors who then get to vote for President.

As to disenfranchise:

Acting smart doesn't make you intelligent. If the loser becomes president after a deficit of 3 million votes and 2%, then it by default means those 3 million voters are DISENFRANCHISED. It means in America, only in America, that votes in a rural state like WY is worth 3 votes in CA or TX or NY.

Then why conduct elections, you might as well let the state electors elect the president. Atleast there won't be any pretense of being a democracy. China does it without any pretense and they seem to get much smarter leaders every decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are making several false links.

Slavery does not equal racism.

Not OP. In America slavery and Racism are closely linked. Thats the context.

[Anonymous]

Given that Clinton won by 3 million and Trump won by 3 million if you take out New York and California, we should just trash national elections and let New York and California decide. Cheaper. More efficient. Blah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that Clinton won by 3 million and Trump won by 3 million if you take out New York and California, we should just trash national elections and let New York and California decide. Cheaper. More efficient. Blah.

That's the problem.

Likes attract likes and create an imbalance.

I say this as a lifelong liberal who didn't vote for either this time around. But he's in, and I'm going to live my life as usual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that Clinton won by 3 million and Trump won by 3 million if you take out New York and California, we should just trash national elections and let New York and California decide. Cheaper. More efficient. Blah.

The biggest contributors to the US economy and revenue should decide the election. Why should the moocher states decide the election when they don't do much for the union. Don't start with farm output. Agriculture is low value and with hybrid farming we can produce as much with lot less land.

How about if we take out a stretch of almost empty land from ID, WY, MT, the Dakotas, NE, etc? That region also gives Trump a similar 3 Million vote margin over Hillary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Omg enough already you sore loser libs. Go away. Go start working on your dumbass "mail safety pins to trump" campaign. YOU. LOST.

here Op - this is for you