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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm intelligent enough to know who won and who lost, especially who will be taking the oath of office for President on inauguration day and not keep up delusional fantasies to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. They are linked but not one and the same.

[Anonymous]

This post should've been entitled, "Dwindling American Intellect."

[Anonymous]

Invective is the last resort of the intellect-challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm intelligent enough to know who won and who lost, especially who will be taking the oath of office for President on inauguration day and not keep up delusional fantasies to the contrary.

Yes sure your guy won BUT you didn't win. He is laughing at useful idiots like you by rolling back on the promises he made one after another. The joke is on you because Putin controls your master. His team of rich white people, hardliners and racists are in this to run their own agenda. Trump can't even hold back on tweets and you think he can hold his party, government, cpuntry and the world together for 4 years. He is gonna be scandal plagued failure and then idiots who love him will have no shirt on them yet at others but not themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm intelligent enough to know who won and who lost, especially who will be taking the oath of office for President on inauguration day and not keep up delusional fantasies to the contrary.

Yes sure your guy won BUT you didn't win. He is laughing at useful idiots like you by rolling back on the promises he made one after another. The joke is on you because Putin controls your master. His team of rich white people, hardliners and racists are in this to run their own agenda. Trump can't even hold back on tweets and you think he can hold his party, government, cpuntry and the world together for 4 years. He is gonna be scandal plagued failure and then idiots who love him will have no shirt on them yet at others but not themselves.

Someone was talking how history would remember the Obama administration. The talk turned to scandals and everyone said the only scandals the administration would caused by Clinton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm intelligent enough to know who won and who lost, especially who will be taking the oath of office for President on inauguration day and not keep up delusional fantasies to the contrary.

Yes sure your guy won BUT you didn't win. He is laughing at useful idiots like you by rolling back on the promises he made one after another. The joke is on you because Putin controls your master. His team of rich white people, hardliners and racists are in this to run their own agenda. Trump can't even hold back on tweets and you think he can hold his party, government, cpuntry and the world together for 4 years. He is gonna be scandal plagued failure and then idiots who love him will have no shirt on them yet at others but not themselves.

Someone was talking how history would remember the Obama administration. The talk turned to scandals and everyone said the only scandals the administration would caused by Clinton.

Now you are agreeing that Obama has no scandals and linking Obama to Trump. Thats laughable. Trump has tonnes of business conflicts, Putin has him by the throat with hacked information that he is using to blackmail trump to do his bidding, and he is incompetent and temperamentally unfit. Anything that has all signs of failure will fail. Hope is not a solution.

[Anonymous]

No American uses the word "tonnes".

Where are you posting from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No American uses the word "tonnes".

Where are you posting from?

British American.