• 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!

The Blue Wave Disaster in 2018.

OscarLevant said:
Oh, so the minority determines the "will of the people" ?


That makes no sense.

Thing is, if you had won the popular vote, you would be singing a different tune.

If you say otherwise, you are lying.

No point in arguing this any further. You mind is hermetically sealed by a master mesmerizer named Donald Trump.


You may have the last word.
Click to expand...

A: Didn't vote Trump, wrote in Cruz. For the umpteenth ****ing time. I like the results of some of his actions, don't like the man.

B: The reason the popular vote doesn't matter, is it doesn't matter. We use this thing called the "Electoral College". That's how the system works.

C: California has a lot of people, they represent the people of California's views, that doesn't make them the majority view for the USA.
 
Renae said:
A: Didn't vote Trump, wrote in Cruz. For the umpteenth ****ing time. I like the results of some of his actions, don't like the man.

B: The reason the popular vote doesn't matter, is it doesn't matter. We use this thing called the "Electoral College". That's how the system works.

C: California has a lot of people, they represent the people of California's views, that doesn't make them the majority view for the USA.
Click to expand...

The 39 million people in CA is inclusive of the 350 million people in America. That those 39 million choose to live in CA has no bearing on the total as CA, as is every other state, inclusive in the total.

More than half of the USA leans left. The last election proved it. It will be even more so in 2020.

That's all that matters. We have the will of the people, you don't.

That does matter, whether you like it or not.

You cling to the electoral college ONLY because it serves the republican agenda, for now.

The electoral college has been emasculated from it's original design, it is currently a dinosaur in need of overhaul.

Things can change.

The winds of change are not blowing in the conservative direction.
 
OscarLevant said:
The 39 million people in CA is inclusive of the 350 million people in America. That those 39 million choose to live in CA has no bearing on the total as CA, as is every other state, inclusive in the total.

More than half of the USA leans left. The last election proved it. It will be even more so in 2020.

That's all that matters. We have the will of the people, you don't.

That does matter, whether you like it or not.

You cling to the electoral college ONLY because it serves the republican agenda, for now.

The electoral college has been emasculated from it's original design, it is currently a dinosaur in need of overhaul.

Things can change.

The winds of change are not blowing in the conservative direction.
Click to expand...

Without CA, Hill loses by 1.6 million. So, that means that a majority of 77% of the voters (those outside CA) apparently do not lean left. If they did, Dems wouldn't be the minority in Congress and only have 1/3 of the statehouses and state legislatures.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
The 39 million people in CA is inclusive of the 350 million people in America. That those 39 million choose to live in CA has no bearing on the total as CA, as is every other state, inclusive in the total.

More than half of the USA leans left. The last election proved it. It will be even more so in 2020.

That's all that matters. We have the will of the people, you don't.

That does matter, whether you like it or not.

You cling to the electoral college ONLY because it serves the republican agenda, for now.

The electoral college has been emasculated from it's original design, it is currently a dinosaur in need of overhaul.

Things can change.

The winds of change are not blowing in the conservative direction.
Click to expand...

The MAJORITY OF THE STATES (30 =60%) elected Pres.Trump, including FOUR of the SEVEN (aka: "a majority") of the states with populations of 10,000,000+.

California, New York and Illinois DO NOT get to TRYANNICALLY DICTATE to the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF AMERICA....


The Electoral College was a BRILLIANT IDEA, and we should go back to letting the State Legislatures elect the Senate, as well.
 
veritas1 said:
Without CA, Hill loses by 1.6 million. So, that means that 77% of the voters (those outside CA) apparently do not lean left. If they did, Dems wouldn't be the minority in Congress and only have 1/3 of the statehouses and state legislatures.
Click to expand...
The Mayor of Washington D.C. once claimed during a time in which the city was one of the most dangerous in the country that "if you don't count the killings, crime in the city is actually low." Saying "Hillary would have lost the popular vote if it weren't for California" makes no sense. Hipsters and Hispanics and screenwriters and Hollywood space cadets (or whatever other stereotypes you have for Californians) are every bit as much Americans as ****-stomping farmers, oilrig workers, and opioid addicts in middle America. The peculiarities of our hybrid democratic republic notwithstanding, the folks on the coasts votes count as well--just less.

Because we all know that middle America and the Deep South are especially useful and prosperous regions that contribute the most to this nation's advancement, and that they aren't heavily subsidized by taxpayers from the States and D.C. that they so despise.

That last part was sarcasm.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
The Mayor of Washington D.C. once claimed during a time in which the city was one of the most dangerous in the country that "if you don't count the killings, crime in the city is actually low." Saying "Hillary would have lost the popular vote if it weren't for California" makes no sense. Hipsters and Hispanics and screenwriters and Hollywood space cadets (or whatever other stereotypes you have for Californians) are every bit as much Americans as ****-stomping farmers, oilrig workers, and opioid addicts in middle America. The peculiarities of our hybrid democratic republic notwithstanding, the folks on the coasts votes count as well--just less.

Because we all know that middle America and the Deep South are especially useful and prosperous regions that contribute the most to this nation's advancement, and that they aren't heavily subsidized by taxpayers from the States and D.C. that they so despise.

That last part was sarcasm.
Click to expand...

The point was that the claim that more than half the country leans left needs to be properly understood. CA with its large population and heavy liberal tendencies does not necessarily represent the views of the other three quarters of the voting public. Like I said, if they did, then Dems should control Congress and the state legislatures but they are a minority in both. I also said nothing as to the economic contributions of CA, although they will be lessened if the outflow of taxpayers continues.
 
veritas1 said:
The point was that the claim that more than half the country leans left needs to be properly understood. CA with its large population and heavy liberal tendencies does not necessarily represent the views of the other three quarters of the voting public. Like I said, if they did, then Dems should control Congress and the state legislatures but they are a minority in both. I also said nothing as to the economic contributions of CA, although they will be lessened if the outflow of taxpayers continues.
Click to expand...
In the English language, at face value, we take half the country in this context to mean half the population of the country. It's not that ****ing complicated. Whether half the country actually "leans left" or not is a separate argument. But no one thinks "half the country" means half the geographic country (like drawing a line down the center of a goddamned map and counting people on either side) or half the precincts, or counties, or states, or regions, or half the high schools, or anything else. You'd have to be autistic to assume that. It's half the polity.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
In the English language, at face value, we take half the country in this context to mean half the population of the country. It's not that ****ing complicated. Whether half the country actually "leans left" or not is a separate argument. But no one thinks "half the country" means half the geographic country (like drawing a line down the center of a goddamned map and counting people on either side) or half the precincts, or counties, or states, or regions, or half the high schools, or anything else. You'd have to be autistic to assume that. It's half the polity.
Click to expand...

I looked at how many people voted in 2016 and how many of them were in CA. What some guy thinks who never votes, matters not at all. How would we know what the half (or more) who don't vote, thinks? Instead of attacking me, you should be attacking the nonsense claim I responded to.
 
OscarLevant said:
The 39 million people in CA is inclusive of the 350 million people in America. That those 39 million choose to live in CA has no bearing on the total as CA, as is every other state, inclusive in the total.

More than half of the USA leans left. The last election proved it. It will be even more so in 2020.

That's all that matters. We have the will of the people, you don't.

That does matter, whether you like it or not.

You cling to the electoral college ONLY because it serves the republican agenda, for now.

The electoral college has been emasculated from it's original design, it is currently a dinosaur in need of overhaul.

Things can change.

The winds of change are not blowing in the conservative direction.
Click to expand...

If more than half did, then the Dem's wouldn't be the minority in the state and governorships across the country.
 
veritas1 said:
I looked at how many people voted in 2016 and how many of them were in CA. What some guy thinks who never votes, matters not at all. How would we know what the half (or more) who don't vote, thinks? Instead of attacking me, you should be attacking the nonsense claim I responded to.
Click to expand...
Well we can only know what polling and actual votes tell us. They were within about 1%, on average, of one another in 2016. And California's and New York's turnout (about 59%) lagged behind the national average (not odd for non-competitive states). So fewer of their less worthy, hippie, Hispanic, coastal voices were counted (as a proportion of the population) than even the rest of the country.

And I wasn't attacking you. I was attacking your argument. It's stupid and decidedly churlish. We all know that the hybrid Democratic-Republic set up by our founders was designed to limit pure democracy. We all understand it. Most of us accept it. But most of us do also prefer that our elected national leaders and representatives actually represent the will of at least a plurality (if not majority) of people who bothered to drag their asses to the polls or mail in a ballot--as typically occurs. Crowing about how it doesn't matter or saying "we won the popular vote if you don't count these millions of voters" is ****ing stupid. Sorry if you don't see that if this becomes more common, there's eventually going to be a backlash. Few people outside of small states believe that small states should be setting the national agenda. And fewer and fewer worship at the alter of what "the framers intended."

Sometimes a system has to bend, lest it break.
 
LincolnRossiter said:
The Mayor of Washington D.C. once claimed during a time in which the city was one of the most dangerous in the country that "if you don't count the killings, crime in the city is actually low." Saying "Hillary would have lost the popular vote if it weren't for California" makes no sense. Hipsters and Hispanics and screenwriters and Hollywood space cadets (or whatever other stereotypes you have for Californians) are every bit as much Americans as ****-stomping farmers, oilrig workers, and opioid addicts in middle America. The peculiarities of our hybrid democratic republic notwithstanding, the folks on the coasts votes count as well--just less.

Because we all know that middle America and the Deep South are especially useful and prosperous regions that contribute the most to this nation's advancement, and that they aren't heavily subsidized by taxpayers from the States and D.C. that they so despise.

That last part was sarcasm.
Click to expand...

When I read his post that is the exact same analogy of Marion Berry saying that that I had in my head.
 
Last edited:
OscarLevant said:
Never in the history of any country has 100% of the population voted, unless it's mandated under law.
Click to expand...

Then you cannot say a vote in California, when a larger number of republicans don't bother voting, is the will of the people. Republicans in California know that Democrats will win all those electoral vote.

Now this goes back to the rules. If the law was change to a popular vote, then those staying home would be more likely to vote, because they are now going to be counted.
 
enderpotato00 said:
TBH Both parties suck, but I'd much rather vote Republican than Democrat.
Click to expand...

I agree I think both parties suck, but its time to end the Republicans two year blank check. I will be voting Dem or third party straight down the ballot.
 
Middleground said:
And once again, a woman who has been sexually assaulted is to blame. You make me want to ****ing vomit. Poor poor sexual deviant Kavanagh. :roll:
Click to expand...

Lol. where's the evidence that she got sexually assaulted 36 years ago? And, by Kavanaugh to boot?

If she did get assaulted, guess what? She just got screwed -on national tv - by the frigging Democrats!

Why isn't she outraged that she's been outed? Surely she must want to know how the heck her name got leaked?
Isn't she even curious about that?
 
Lutherf said:
I'm not really convinced that this is the case. What I'm seeing here in AZ is that Democrats are registering new voters at a rate of 3:1 over Republicans. What I'm seeing is that Democrats are incredibly pissed off at the Trump administration and are willing to go to whatever lengths they believe are necessary to rectify what they see as an assault on everything they hold important. They really aren't concerned about going overboard or punching below the belt to get what they want. They believe, with some justification, that their base appreciates that "fighting spirit".

Bear in mind that being a liberal progressive means you believe that life, economy and politics are all a zero sum game. They believe that there can only be one winner in any contest and that any concession made to accommodate a competing plan is a "loss" for their side. The Republicans are up against hard line fanatics who aren't the least bit concerned to utterly destroy them. It's a fight that I still don't think most Republicans realize they are in.
Click to expand...

LOL The GOP has not been willing to compromise with Dems for a decade and now that you sense you are going to lose the House the "c" word comes out. Have you no shame?
 
Due to the toxic vitriol being hurled by Dems and their supporters, I suspect that there are many women supporting Republicans (because of this circus), who are maintaining silence right now.
 
tosca1 said:
Lol. where's the evidence that she got sexually assaulted 36 years ago? And, by Kavanaugh to boot?

If she did get assaulted, guess what? She just got screwed -on national tv - by the frigging Democrats!

Why isn't she outraged that she's been outed? Surely she must want to know how the heck her name got leaked?
Isn't she even curious about that?
Click to expand...

I share your concern about the lack of evidence but not to worry, next year the Democratic House will fully investigate ALL the claims made by the multiple accusers of Brett. Brett will finally get the chance to clear his name and so will Dr. Ford. There will be no stone left unturned I assure you. :lol:
 
iguanaman said:
I share your concern about the lack of evidence but not to worry, next year the Democratic House will fully investigate ALL the claims made by the multiple accusers of Brett. Brett will finally get the chance to clear his name and so will Dr. Ford. There will be no stone left unturned I assure you. :lol:
Click to expand...

Will they also investigate who made the leak?
 
tosca1 said:
Will they also investigate who made the leak?
Click to expand...

Why not? The problem there is that Dr. Ford did not make a complaint and she was the one "wronged" by her name coming out. Perhaps she made the "leak"? Then it would not be a leak would it? It was quite clear that she did not want Brett confirmed without her story being told. I believe she cited "civic duty"? Do you even doubt that was the truth?
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Why not? The problem there is that Dr. Ford did not make a complaint and she was the one "wronged" by her name coming out. Perhaps she made the "leak"? Then it would not be a leak would it?
Click to expand...

Then, she would've been a flat-out big fat liar, wouldn't she?

What was it again that lying Blumenthal sermonized about a lie? “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”


At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus




It was quite clear that she did not want Brett confirmed without her story being told. I believe she cited "civic duty"? Do you even doubt that was the truth?
Click to expand...

She did not want Kavanaugh to be confirmed, I don't doubt that at all.

Was it civic duty? Depends if she's truly confused......... or the allegation was made up.
If it's the latter, nowhere can it be a civic duty. It would be a crime!
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
Then, she would've been a flat-out big fat liar, wouldn't she?

What was it again that lying Blumenthal sermonized about a lie? “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus






She did not want Kavanaugh to be confirmed, I don't doubt that at all.

Was it civic duty? Depends if she's truly confused......... or the allegation was made up.
If it's the latter, nowhere can it be a civic duty. It would be a crime!
Click to expand...

LOL Dr. Ford changed her mind about staying anonymous. That does not make her a liar like choir boy Brett's totally disingenuous "drinking was legal for seniors" lie
 
LincolnRossiter said:
Well we can only know what polling and actual votes tell us. They were within about 1%, on average, of one another in 2016. And California's and New York's turnout (about 59%) lagged behind the national average (not odd for non-competitive states). So fewer of their less worthy, hippie, Hispanic, coastal voices were counted (as a proportion of the population) than even the rest of the country.

And I wasn't attacking you. I was attacking your argument. It's stupid and decidedly churlish. We all know that the hybrid Democratic-Republic set up by our founders was designed to limit pure democracy. We all understand it. Most of us accept it. But most of us do also prefer that our elected national leaders and representatives actually represent the will of at least a plurality (if not majority) of people who bothered to drag their asses to the polls or mail in a ballot--as typically occurs. Crowing about how it doesn't matter or saying "we won the popular vote if you don't count these millions of voters" is ****ing stupid. Sorry if you don't see that if this becomes more common, there's eventually going to be a backlash. Few people outside of small states believe that small states should be setting the national agenda. And fewer and fewer worship at the alter of what "the framers intended."

Sometimes a system has to bend, lest it break.
Click to expand...

The GOP holds the WH, the House, the Senate and two thirds of the state houses and state legislatures. Seems the answer to this is for Dems to get their followers interested in going to the polls. Until they do, the "more than half the country leans left" claim will be nothing more than the refrain of a party on the outside looking in. As for a "backlash", how can there be any legitimate backlash if people stay home? Nobody who fails to vote has any reason to be commenting on the propensities of those who do.
 
poweRob said:
When I read his post that is the exact same analogy of Marion Berry saying that that I had in my head.
Click to expand...

And when I read that "more than half the country leans left" I immediately hear something about if only "ifs and buts were candies and nuts".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom