This is why we need the electoral college or we will be run by California and New York

3k1q91.jpg (click to show) The map for free crap is in blue

eyyy over a third of america's population lives in new york city

Because leftist live in their own little selfish world and think they are smarter and more deserving than anyone else

i like how the texas-mexico border has a good share of blue. it's like "no we do not want a wall being constructed in our backyards"

71.6 million followers -
#pledgeTOretweetTRUMP
Gaining 100k followers every few days
https://cutt.ly/4e6wzXs
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump
https://comunistmanifesto101.blogspot.com/2019/10/how-tweet-it-ishow-trump-tweets.html

But more people live in the blue areas...?

I live in the Peoples' Republik of Taxifornnia now, but I grew up in Iowa, and I can tell you that without the Electoral College, small states would get zero interest from candidates in presidential elections.

The founders were quite intelligent. Even back then, they knew of the very real possibility of larger states trampling on the rights of smaller states under the guise of majority rules.

Hence, the electoral college. So, unless you want to see presidential candidates spend all their time in NY and LA, we better keep the EC.

Exactly. only the ignorant or those who want to elect by moob rule, complain about the electoral college

Iowa is the first-in-the-nation primary state, and a swing state in the general election. So of course it gets attention.

Small states that aren’t swing states? (WY, AK, HI, DE, and many others)? Electoral College doesn’t make them worth visiting.

So, why don't you move?

So, why don't you understand the difference between constitutional republic and democracy? You think mob rule is better than having a more balanced vote?

This comment is beyond ignorant. States with fewer populations do not hold less representative power because they have fewer people. If you think that they do, it's doubtful you've ever taken or passed a civics class in your life. It is your very attitude and position as to precisely why our founders ratified the 12th amendment, supporting the electoral college, to begin with. And by the way. The ratifying of that amendment required a 2/3 majority vote of the states - Including those states where " Nobody wants to live "

I've noticed over the years Dems hate the electoral college until one of their own takes the majority of electoral votes; then it's a boast-fest. I should know, I used to be a DIMocrat.

I believe that is their desire.

You like mob rule then?

Our founders who formed our current government did. Read the Federalist papers, specifically federalist 10. Alexander Hamilton and the architect of our constitution, James Madison, have a big discussion about it.

PONY =/= HUMAN

speak when you know the difference

If the people choose revolution should be fine right

We're talking about like how it is in your spacious vacuum of a Province, Alberta, Dimbz.

Correctamundo, and the punchline is:

3hours,
6replies
from you.

just for
1 reply
from me.

And you only stopped because you figured I was sitting back counting them up to post a column of them as I had in the past.

Being triggered, is that all you truly do all day and night? Do you ever even sleep?

3hrs, 6rpls : 1rpl

Beat me to it. I slipped in a bit with my opus which originally was a reply on another meme.
heh heh, this is my 2nd repost of it.

It's always convenient when "progressives" parrot the logical fallacies and bad arguments of other progressives. Then when you knock one down, they all fall down like dominos. Of course, It's also helpful that most of you feed on the same liberal echo-chambers.

Check out my response to your buddy you're replying to above.

What's convenient to you is stating the same standardized cue card party hack claptrap you always do like the wonderfully dutiful windup circus monkey you are.

The best was this summer, when you repeated the same bs for 2 (or was it 3?) days, arguing against me when it was clearer than the space between God's ginormous ass crack that I was totally IN AGREEMENT with YOUR position, only you were too busy babbling your script to realize it.

Then again, perhaps you finally did as you went MIA on the 3rd day, suddenly ceasing to address it any further. Gosh, it was a trip watching you argue against yourself. Hope your lithium battery didn't run too low after that dimwitted dance.

I ain't reading anymore of your lies, and sure ain't doing it when you're addressing it to someone else.

Goodness, you automated drones are a delight.

I love, love, love this site.

Thanks for the reply, I think, but next time try addressing the current topic of discussion instead of spending 2/3 of your post patting yourself on the back for what you perceive as past victories of another conversation which I can barely remember.

Me say what me want.
Don't like it, don't read it, you know, like you 'did' this summer.

You can say what you want. Just don't mistake that for an argument that addresses the current topic of discussion when it's really a Red Herring fallacy diverging from it.

Engage? In what? Changing your Russ shill nappies?

Laterz?

Do you actually ever have anything to say other than cite bogusly applied logical fallacies?
You don't even offer the latticework for an actual argument, let alone substance, just drop the usual pretend fallacy citations that the rest of the shills do.

I guess it's true what they say. Ignorance is bliss.

Hello, you there?
Oh yeah, forgot the time difference Upstate.

Catch you when you wake to pick the apples at 3am.

"I guess it's true what they say. Ignorance is bliss."
To you indeed it is.

"No, you're wrong because Red Herring" does not make for an actual counter.

A counter-argument requires an argument. Telling stories and committing logic fails does not qualify.

You're one dimensional dodging bores me a lot?

Either post something pertinent, (AKA facts, not your phallic fallacy fantasies for fakers fapping) or zip it.

Let's wrap this up, shall we?

If this is your way of saying you don't want to engage. Have it your way. We both know you're craping your britches, but I'm not here to beat people down. Denial, logical fallacies and evasion as a counter-argument or perspective is no counter-argument or perspective at all.

"The 12th Amendment was ratified in 1804."

Thanks for the tip, but I'm already aware of this.

"Just about every "empty" state being discussed wasn't a state yet."

No particular states are being discussed - Just more populated states vs. less populated states and the methods by which our union - regardless of the number of states at the time - ratified amendments.

As is typically the case, Octavia, In your zeal to try and pooh, pooh, a post and redeem yourself from past butt hurt, you completely missed the point by importing a Red Herring.

The point is that the method by which Amendments are Ratified in a Constitutional, Representative, Republic like ours, requires 2/3 of the states to vote in favor. That was true in 1804 when there were only 17 states, and it's true today.

To unseat the 12th amendment progressives would have to unseat the very method by which our Constitution was erected and ratified. Which means you'd literally have to tear it down.

Surprise, surprise!! Right? Not to us conservatives it's not. We've known this was your intention all along. "Progressives" have been attacking our Constitution since the 60s when they formed the Klan, Jim Crow laws, and fought against every major civil rights movement. And they continue attacking it till this day by attacking the 1st, 2nd, and 12th amendments.

Remember back when Democrats denied when they were socialists? Remember when Homosexuals denied they wanted gay marriage and just wanted civil unions? Rember how I was telling in our last exchange how homosexuals and secular progressives are all about manipulation and denial and you denied it and demanded evidence? How much more evidence will you continue to recieve deny?

"No red herring. Your comment was partly about less-populated states. That's what I was addressing."

You're were trying to pooh, pooh, the statement by assuming I was unaware that the current states of the union were not apart of it in 1804. As if that even makes a difference to the point I'm making. It does not.

"I don't have a problem with 2/3 of the states being needed to pass an amendment."

Ok, then. Then you don't have a problem with the 12th amendment, because this is the basis by which it exists.

"If you're including me in the "your", then that's a mistake. You're assuming I'm included in the group you're referring to. That's an assumption you're making."

No, it's not, It a deduction I'm making from your past and current positions. Which are typically progressive leaning.

"Progressives didn't form the Klan."

They in fact did. and I have in the past and can continue to argue this.

"You're confusing 19th Century Democrats with modern-day liberals."

Not at all. The only difference is now we have laws against it and Democrats learned they could better benefit from blacks by exploiting them for votes. The Democrat party has decimated the lives of black people. I could write pages on this topic and cite sources to back it up if I had the time and space, and that's not at all using hyperbolic language or rhetoric. This is a fact.

"Democrats" as a group aren't socialists. Some are and some aren't."

The majority of Democrats in fact are by implication of their positions, socialists. Their positions on economics point exactly in this direction. The fact that not all of them identify this way makes this no less true. However, just like homosexuals came out of the closet, as time passes, so too are Democrats more and more.

"Homosexuals" aren't a monolithic group that all hold the same views."

Most homosexuals are progressives, so are most Atheists. This is a generalization for sure, but it's not at all a hasty one.

"Yes I wanted evidence, because I was justifiably skeptical of that absurd claim."

And there's evidence all over your words in your posts in the past and continues in this one while you continue to deny it, which is itself evidence of what I am advancing.

Ultimately your issue is not your politics or adopting mine. Your issue is that you need to repent of your sins and turn to Jesus Christ. I realize my behavior may not be the most congenial in causing that to occur, but it's no less true that it needs to.

Hmmmmmmmmm, let's see, let's see,,,,,

Ah, yes - take notes please:
("Give me a C, a bouncy C")

History 101 sez:

Short on a hereditary aristocracy and with barely literate former penal colonists country bumpkins forming the nouveau riche-ish land owning class plus the added spectre of hordes of restive commoners well versed in the fine art of revolution and short on a standing professional army or even the means to pay them (they couldn't even afford to mint money for the colonies after Martha ran short on silverware to melt!) to quell the rebels-at-the-ready should they face another bad harvest all combined to declare the Founding Fathers' dream of an oligarchy comprised of themselves one shot away from stillborn so they were forced to allow the vote as a concession to citizens (Brit, German, and Nordic Protestant males) and to their newly independent nations to pretend they have a say in what was almost His Majesty George 'Qaddafi' Washington ("Salary? That is unbecoming of such a postion. I'll take all expenses paid instead! WHOO WHOO, let's go shopping! Oh, and, and don't shake my hand, you lowlife filth") & Co's fiefdom in order to prevent the American Revolution II because let-them-eat-the-rich can suck really bad by dessert time so therefore the Electoral College was whipped up to prevent the cretinous masses comprised of mostly unwanted criminal class elements of the English Empire from electing a populist autocratic psychotic moron with oratory skills limited to triggered colicky infantile Tweeterz and all the charisma delightfully putrid fermented jaundiced toned skin derived from artificial pigmentation can bring.

Something like that.

Oh, and those "States" weren't even on the map yet even as territories. West of the Mississippi might as well been the Moon back then.

Alt Reich (see what I did there?) Fascist Dimber mad.

This same take shut your ass up early this year, remember CrybabyTimby?

Hey, fhag hag Dimby's flirting with its g/bf again? Noice.

This is a nice progressive fictional story and appeal to motive fallacy, but when do you plan on assembling an argument as to why you think a Constitutional, Representative, Republic, should be operating like a direct Democracy?

shhhhhhhhh, just be a good little boy and READ what I said.
You're saying the same exact tired party hack nonsense pulled out of your ass that you did this summer that one time when I was in total, complete, 100% agreement with YOUR position, in effect arguing against yourself.

Oh, and read a book.

I did read it. Do you think I just glossed over it in a triggered manner like you do my posts while pretending you get a chuckle out of it to veil your true feelings? It's a nonsense historical narrative rooted in progressive hate for our nation and those who founded it.

You can always look to people who lived centuries ago and try and pooh, pooh, them when comparing them to modern standards and your political bias, but such an analysis is misplaced and what Oxford professor, C.S. Lewis, called chronological snobbery.

You CAN look it up, you know.

Bottom line: The Founding Fathers initially did NOT want to grant the vote to citizens, and the Electoral College was concieved of as a way to prevent those ignorant masses from electing an unqualified populist which may prove detrimental to what they have come up with. You know, someone like a Trump.

I give you permission to prove otherwise.

- oh, that's right, you didn't because you can't.

"Bottom line: The Founding Fathers initially did NOT want to grant the vote to citizens,"

This is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that the form of government our founders speculated and discussed about forming and the government they actually did form is an entirely separate issue. Do think our current government was handed down from heaven on stone tables and our founders just wrot it down? It came after much discussion and deliberation on the matter.

"and the Electoral College was concieved of as a way to prevent those ignorant masses from electing an unqualified populist which may prove detrimental to what they have come up with."

This is a completely false and empty claim and I challenge you to support it outside of liberal echo chamber sources. I'll even consider those sources if they're summarized and not too lengthy.

"You know, someone like a Trump."

No, I don't know what you mean.

"I give you permission to prove otherwise."

I give you permission to tell me why you think I need to prove your claim and why this isn't what known in logic as an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Oh cool, ping pong.

Now, now, I gave you permission to prove otherwise, but you didn't because you can't because you can't STILL.

Question, what is the name of the fallacy when your false stand in for an 'argument' consists of nothing but citing the usual litany of forced logical fallacies?.

fake* stand in

So your idea is to ignore the votes of these individuals and just focus on those who live in large cities? Because that's what you're saying.

This country isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. Every vote is supposed to count. It isn't mob rule.

Food for thought:

Autocracy is one man is smarter than 1000. Democracy is 1000 men are smarter than one.
But which one, and who decides?

- Lazarus Long
Character in the book “Time Enough for Love“ by Robert H. Heinlein