• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Californians be redistributed?

Should Californians be redistributed to the rest of the states?

  • yes

    Votes: 3 10.3%

  • no

    Votes: 26 89.7%
  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
haymarket said:
Faulty and false premise.

Clinton beat Trump by 2,864,974 votes. These were NOT the votes from California.. The votes from California are in the twenty to thirty million bracket for Clinton.

The 2,864,974 came from these three states with numbers rounded off.
Kentucky 628 thousand
Oklahoma 420 thousand
Georgia 1 million 877 thousand

It was the Clinton voters in those three states that gave her the margin of victory.
Click to expand...
So... Clinton's 4 million plus advantage in California was of minimal significance. Gotcha.;)

:lamo
 
Ockham said:
Then you only have half the story.
Click to expand...

I live in CO now, I see the results of jackhole CA jerks. I'm not saying that Californians know how to drive, they can't in the least. They don't understand snow or ice or friction.

It's just that NJ drivers aren't good either. I saw some guy going backwards on 80 once because he missed an exit. WTF. And the Garden State Parkway should be fire bombed into oblivion. It's like people from Jersey don't understand how mirrors work.
 
I think it would be best if the U.S. had its own 1989.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
So... Clinton's 4 million plus advantage in California was of minimal significance. Gotcha.;)

:lamo
Click to expand...

20% of voters in California essentially had no republican to vote for, except Trump

I imagine that does something to turnout.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
So... Clinton's 4 million plus advantage in California was of minimal significance. Gotcha.;)

:lamo
Click to expand...

The Clinton California votes were part of the group of her votes between 20 and thirty million. They were NOT the margin of victory. Those votes came from the Democrats who voted for her in Kentucky, Oklahoma and Georgia as I clearly demonstrated with the figures.
 
haymarket said:
The Clinton California votes were part of the group of her votes between 20 and thirty million. They were NOT the margin of victory. Those votes came from the Democrats who voted for her in Kentucky, Oklahoma and Georgia as I clearly demonstrated with the figures.
Click to expand...
Whatever you THINK you demonstrated, you really didn't.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Then they may want to think about rescheduling their primary.
Click to expand...

why? we don't have a popular vote. the system worked fine. hollywood just won't stop crying that they didn't impact the election the way they thought they could.
 
haymarket said:
Tell me then why your premise is valid and true while mine is not?

Bet you cannot do that.
Click to expand...
Because mine is not a premise.

Hillary won California by 4.3 million votes. That's stone cold fact, son.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
With all of the hoopla over the popular vote and the electoral college a thought occurred to me. Since California voters made up the bulk of the difference in the popular vote, would the system be more fair if we were to simply redistribute Californians equally to the rest of the states?
Click to expand...

No.Besides why on earth would you want to spread that Californian loony liberal nonsense to other states?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Because mine is not a premise.

Hillary won California by 4.3 million votes. That's stone cold fact, son.
Click to expand...

But those were NOT the votes that provided the margin of victory. I already told you that the votes that gave Clinton the popular vote victory came from Kentucky, Oklahoma and Georgia.

Now you tell me why that was not so.

Again, bet you cannot just like you failed to do the first time.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
With all of the hoopla over the popular vote and the electoral college a thought occurred to me. Since California voters made up the bulk of the difference in the popular vote, would the system be more fair if we were to simply redistribute Californians equally to the rest of the states?
Click to expand...

We already redistribute most of their federal tax dollars to rural red states. ;)
 
haymarket said:
But those were NOT the votes that provided the margin of victory. I already told you that the votes that gave Clinton the popular vote victory came from Kentucky, Oklahoma and Georgia.

Now you tell me why that was not so.

Again, bet you cannot just like you failed to do the first time.
Click to expand...
Hillary won the popular vote by about 2.8 million votes and California by 4.3 million. Do the math.

What you are attempting, I like to call "obfuscation by complication" and I reject it outright.
 
Redress said:
How exactly was California an aberration compared to most of the country? Lots of states where further from national averages than California. DC, Hawaii, W. Virginia, Wyoming top the list, but are not the only states further from the national average.
Click to expand...

California has more assholes per capita than the rest of the universe. :2razz:
 
American said:
California has more assholes per capita than the rest of the universe. :2razz:
Click to expand...

Nah, Texas, Ohio, Virginia, the Carolinas all have Cali topped in that regard.
 
haymarket said:
But those were NOT the votes that provided the margin of victory. I already told you that the votes that gave Clinton the popular vote victory came from Kentucky, Oklahoma and Georgia.

Now you tell me why that was not so.

Again, bet you cannot just like you failed to do the first time.
Click to expand...
her margin of victory in CA was greater then her margin of victory in most other states. this win disparity in one state can account for her entire popular vote lead.

in statistics it is called an outlier.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
With all of the hoopla over the popular vote and the electoral college a thought occurred to me. Since California voters made up the bulk of the difference in the popular vote, would the system be more fair if we were to simply redistribute Californians equally to the rest of the states?
Click to expand...

LOL

As a Californian, my efforts have been redistributed enough.

I understand the question. California didn't just supply the bulk of the popular vote margin for Hillary it provided all of it and then some.

I wouldn't touch anything. Californians are voting to destroy themselves. I would stay out of it. The Founding Fathers created a process to select the President of the United States, and it worked exactly as designed, protecting the Nation from the Tyranny of the majority.

If I were citizens of other states, I would be pressuring my representatives in Washington to resist any effort by California to bail it out when their house of cards collapses.

After all, how many people heard that the other day, the Progressives running California quietly announced they had a little oops in their accounting, leading to an increase in the deficit by $1.9 billion?

$1.9 billion error adds to California deficit projection

The administration discovered accounting mistakes last fall, but it did not notify lawmakers until the administration included adjustments to make up for the errors in Brown’s budget proposal last week. The Democratic governor called for more than $3 billion in cuts because of a projected deficit he pegged at $1.6 billion.​

Remember how much Progressives have been touting the awesome economy in California?

Sheeple.....
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Hillary won the popular vote by about 2.8 million votes and California by 4.3 million. Do the math.

What you are attempting, I like to call "obfuscation by complication" and I reject it outright.
Click to expand...

To expose the delusional right wing obsession with their perceived enemies in the hated California.

Those California votes were NOT the votes that provided the margin of victory. I already told you that the votes that gave Clinton the popular vote victory came from Kentucky, Oklahoma and Georgia.

Now you tell me why that was not so.

Again, bet you cannot just like you failed to do the first time.
 
ARealConservative said:
her margin of victory in CA was greater then her margin of victory in most other states. this win disparity in one state can account for her entire popular vote lead.

in statistics it is called an outlier.
Click to expand...

But those were NOT the votes that provided the margin of victory. I already told you that the votes that gave Clinton the popular vote victory came from Kentucky, Oklahoma and Georgia.

Now you tell me why that was not so.

Again, bet you cannot just like you failed to do the first time.
 
haymarket said:
But those were NOT the votes that provided the margin of victory. I already told you that the votes that gave Clinton the popular vote victory came from Kentucky, Oklahoma and Georgia.

Now you tell me why that was not so.

Again, bet you cannot just like you failed to do the first time.
Click to expand...
I know what you told me and I reject it completely. How many times do we have to go over this?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I know what you told me and I reject it completely. How many times do we have to go over this?
Click to expand...

You reject it because it exposes the right wing fraud you are a willing participant in/ But yet, you cannot offer any argument against my position other than to say you reject it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom