Why yes, Patrick Star Giuliani: If we systematically tossed out urban ballots, the GOP would retain the presidency indefinitely.

New template with MAGA hat imgflip.com/i/4lt82f

I myself am perfectly happy with the electoral college. 55% of presidents have been republicans and the other 45% are Democrats. Though I don’t agree with the dems on various issues, the fact that the system has resulted in a close to balanced elections I think it’s a great system.

The electoral college had its time back when America was more more rural, undeveloped country and was meant to give a more balanced voice to those not living near a big city. Those days are long behind us. It’s long-overdue for the electoral college to be abolished, as evidenced by the 2000 and 2016 election, where the candidate with less people voting for them won their respective elections.

Let the people decide, not politicians. Republicans will push back hard on this, mainly because they’ve been able to thrive in the relative ignorance of their voter base. The GOP as it stands today, led by Moscow Mitch, are the true RINOs, potraying themselves as fiscally-responsible (tripled the federal deficit, pre-pandemic), advocating states’ rights (establishing the Dept of Homeland Security, thereby consolidating centralized federal power), and advocating personal responsibility (for poor people only).

It is still necessary to provide balance. Half of the entire country lives in these counties, all of which vote Democrat majority. If there was no electoral college then dems would win every single time since the 1900s and on. Besides, we are NOT a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. The founding fathers saw and knew how and why democracies fail. That's why with the electoral college the presidency has been split 55/45 between republicans and democrats. (It would be closer to 50/50 but assassinations happen.) Also, exactly 5 times has a president been elected without winning the popular vote, but 22 times has a baseball team won the world series but scored less total runs. Is this unfair? No, because the system credits wins by the number of games won, not purely runs scored. Our system works the same way, each state is worth a certain number of electoral votes based on population, and whichever party is most popular in a state determines from which party the electors are chosen.

Your World Series analogy only applies if you’re going to tell me that a team like the Kansas City Royals (because they have the lowest payroll in baseball), every time they score a run, it’s worth 1.3 runs and every time the Los Angeles Dodgers (because they have the highest payroll), their runs are only worth 0.75.

You still have to win four games to clinch the pennant. The most games won wins the whole series.

I’ll posit another scenario; if you’re telling me abolishing the electoral college means Democrats win a popular vote every time, and the Republicans can only win on a curve, maybe the Republicans are doing something wrong?

No, it means that the democrats have found what appeals to high population areas, which isn't necessarily good. Like the push for socialism nowadays even though history has shown more than 60 times that it simply is not a good system. From 2006 to 2016 the democrats have changed their views entirely on immigration. In the 90s Bill Clinton told Americans they are rightly afraid of illegal immigration. In 2006 Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Chuck Schumer and 23 other prominent democrats agreed for a fence to be built along the Mexican American border. In 2016 they condemned Trump for building a wall on the border and then called for the 22 million illegal immigrants to be given citizenship. In the 1960s mainstream democrats such as John F Kennedy hated abortion but that has obviously flipped.

Trump was condemned for building a useless fence (one that’s already falling down in sections, by the way) to cater to his ignorant base.

You’re not okay with socialism, even though America has many socialist programs like welfare, highways, utility infrastructure but a socialist aspect of making one person’s vote count more than someone else’s is okay with you?

You’re selectively okay with socialism...but only when it benefits you, personally.

Got it.

No, trump was called racist and condemned long before construction of the wall even started. He was criticized for implementing stricter immigration laws, which is exactly what the Democrats called for earlier.

I am not 100% free market, as the monopolies, robber barons, and tycoons of the 1800s showed what happens when the government does nothing at all to restrict business. Some regulation is beneficial, such as the federal reserve, which united us under 1 currency, the laws that prevent companies from forming monopolies and raising sky high prices and so on. The problem I have is when the progressives want to continue adding more government regulation until it disrupts the balance and starts harming us. They want to create democratic version, which is like diet socialism. They want us to be more like the Scandinavian countries for example. The problem with this is not only the 3x higher citizen debt rate over there but the closer a country is to socialism, the slower the economy moves. That's why only 1 of the top 50 corporations over there have been founded after 1970, whereas here in the freer market 14 of the top 50 were founded after 1970. Our healthcare system treats more effectively, advances, and contributes more to research than any other country period. This is driven by the free market, which is why so many Canadians with their socialized healthcare system come here for treatment. So yeah, I most certainly am selectively okay with certain policies from either side as long as it benefits the nation. I don't HAVE to choose one or the other.

Trump was called racist and condemned as a racist because Trump is racist. From the Muslim ban to the pointless border wall to the race-baiting about keeping America’s suburbs ‘safe,’ (wink-wink-nudge-nudge-say no more!)

Right now, the “government regulation” you seem to have a problem with (and Trump recently repealed) were the Obama-era environmental protections. Whether you accept it or not, the world is careening towards a climate crisis.

Stop listening to your weirdo uncle. The US is already in many facets, a socialist country. Ironically, we’re the only industrialized country that doesn’t have universal healthcare...us and those “shithole” African countries (another racist Trump callback). And don’t give me that “it’s not as effective” BS...I have friends living in Canada and I have friends living in the UK and Belgium and none of them have anything negative to say about it.

Would racist Trump be the first president to officially label KKK as domestic terrorist? Would racist Trump instill policies that helped raise black and latino income by 9.2%? Would racist Trump create a "Platinum plan" to create 500,000 new black owned businesses thus opening 3 million new jobs?
The muslim ban has ONLY been on countries run by terrorist groups or riddled with terrorists within. In fact, now that Sudan got rid of their radical dictator and complied with cleaning up the government Trump took them off the travel ban. This isn't about racism, this is about protecting America.
The world will go into a climate crisis regardless. Truth be told, we're screwed no matter what. There is simply no way to meet the world's energy demands without harming the planet.
The US is still one of the freest countries in the world and that's why our health system contributes more to advancement and research than anyone else, all fueled by sweet sweet capitalism.
Trump isn't calling African people shitholes, he's calling the country and thus the government system shitholes. And he's right. 19 African countries are currently under dictatorship and 15 are currently at war. Zero African countries have ever advanced enough to bring their citizens something as simple as clean water like we have here in US and almost all of Europe has, because there are new warlords rising up and fighting across Africa constantly. I call that shithole, but it has nothing to do with race.
Anytime you have a government controlled healthcare system there will be some form of rationing implemented, like what you see with the NHS in England. I too have British and Canadian friends. Here's what one said:
"Since Canada has a government controlled health system, they can decide who gets treatment and who doesn’t, even though we’re all paying for it. My father has been suffering for the past 30 years because our government deems him not worthy of the surgeries he should be getting. My dad has absolutely no say over his own health in Canada.”
-Dylan, Ontario.

"Us Canadians pay an average of $7,000 a year for "free" healthcare. And in terms of wait times, I have to wait 3 months to find out whether I need a transplant, at which point if I do I have to wait somewhere from 6 months to a year to get it. THAT’s why so many go to the U.S. for treatment."