• 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!

Liar and Thief

Trump, Hillary, Obama, Bush, "Slick Willy", et al., and you cannot distinguish between any of them. They ALL are habitual liars whose every breath contains falsehoods. To attempt to excuse one over the other is both moronic and incredibly partisan. It is not a position that can be supported.

Every politician, without exception, is a professional liar that deliberately lies absolutely every hour of every day. To consider ANY politician to be honest, regardless of their political party, is a demonstration of massive self-delusion. If a politician opens their mouth you can be 100% absolutely certain they will be spewing forth lies.

You must have a hard time deciding who to vote for and fact checking every statement made by US politicians to be so sure of your 100% falsehood claim.
 
You must have a hard time deciding who to vote for and fact checking every statement made by US politicians to be so sure of your 100% falsehood claim.

I have no problem deciding for whom I should vote. I never listen to any of their speeches. I never waste my time with debates. I care nothing about any answer they give to any question they might be asked, or any promises that they make. Because I know it will always be a lie. I base my decision on their voting record.
 
I have no problem deciding for whom I should vote. I never listen to any of their speeches. I never waste my time with debates. I care nothing about any answer they give to any question they might be asked, or any promises that they make. Because I know it will always be a lie. I base my decision on their voting record.

You must have a lot of time to study Congressional records.

Out of interest, have you ever voted for members of both major political parties ?
 
You must have a lot of time to study Congressional records.

Out of interest, have you ever voted for members of both major political parties ?

Nixon was the first President that I voted for in 1972. I have not voted for a Republican nominee for President since 1992, although I have voted for Republicans who ran or were selected by other third parties. For example, I voted for the Constitution Party candidate during the General Election in 2016, which happened to be Sen. Cruz. I will not be voting for Trump in 2020 because I only vote for conservative candidates, and Trump has never been even remotely conservative.
 
A politician and a liar. What a coinky-dink, eh? Who'd a thunk it?
/

tRUMP is a business man tho, yes?
Same thing? Liars are business men? Most aren't.
 
Nixon was the first President that I voted for in 1972. I have not voted for a Republican nominee for President since 1992, although I have voted for Republicans who ran or were selected by other third parties. For example, I voted for the Constitution Party candidate during the General Election in 2016, which happened to be Sen. Cruz. I will not be voting for Trump in 2020 because I only vote for conservative candidates, and Trump has never been even remotely conservative.

You've voted in primary elections ? I've never met anyone who did, nor knew how your register as a Republican or Democratic voter.
I assume you couldn't vote in both.

In a country like the UK the party leader is chosen by MPs and ordinary party members....the USA has a very confusing way of picking it's presidential candidate.


I'm not sure I know what conservative means anymore, but I would label Trump as one. He is dyed in the wool conservative supporting people with money.

I guess if Trump stand for re-election next year, you won't be voting at all for a president.
 
You've voted in primary elections ? I've never met anyone who did, nor knew how your register as a Republican or Democratic voter.
I assume you couldn't vote in both.
I vote in every election. In a participatory government, it is my civic responsibility to vote in every election.

It depends on the political party in that State. Political parties in each State determine who is eligible to vote in their primaries. For example, in Alaska the Democratic Party decided to have two State primary elections: One in March that only registered Democrats may vote in, and another in August that Independents and Undeclared voters may vote in. How they are going to choose one candidate from two primaries I have no idea, but they have the right. The Republicans are only having one State primary election in July, as normal.

You can only vote in one party's primary, and only if they allow it. The party nominee is really up to the party in question to decide. In 2010, for example, Lisa Murkowski failed to win the Alaska GOP primary election. Therefore she could not run as a Republican. She had to run as a write-in candidate because her name did not appear on the ballot.

In a country like the UK the party leader is chosen by MPs and ordinary party members....the USA has a very confusing way of picking it's presidential candidate.
Party leadership in each State is determined by registered members of each party. Third parties rarely, if ever, hold State primaries so you are not likely to find third party leadership at the national level. There are exceptions to that, of course. For example the Libertarian Party still holds State primaries and has national elections. The Reform Party held their national primary election for 2016 in New York. The feds only get involved with the certification process, and if the President fails to win 50% + 1 of the Electoral College votes (which has only happened once in 1824). Otherwise all elections are handled by each State.

I'm not sure I know what conservative means anymore, but I would label Trump as one. He is dyed in the wool conservative supporting people with money.

I guess if Trump stand for re-election next year, you won't be voting at all for a president.
No, Trump is most definitely not a conservative. Trump has joined eight different political parties during his lifetime. He is currently a Republican, but he was also registered member of the Democratic Party. He also ran for President in 2000 as the Reform Party candidate. Pat Buchanan won the Reform Party nomination in 2000, not Trump, but he still ran. So nobody really knows what Trump's ideology might be. One thing is absolutely certain, however, Trump is no conservative.

The reason you don't know what a conservative may be is because there hasn't been a conservative President for a very long time. Trump, Obama, Bush43, and Clinton are all leftists. None of them embrace the conservative ideology of the right-wing. Not even Reagan was truly conservative. Reagan made a deal with Tip O'Neal that allowed him unlimited defense spending in return for not vetoing unlimited social spending by the Democrats. The end result almost tripled the National Debt in an 8-year period. That was not a very conservative thing to do.
 
Last edited:
He is a politician, what did you expect? All politicians lie, without exception. Politicians and liars are synonymous. So don't act so surprised and don't try to pretend that every politician doesn't lie all the time.

Not their politicians, right?
 
I vote in every election. In a participatory government, it is my civic responsibility to vote in every election...

That view was taken by Australia who decided that voting was as much a duty as jury service and they made voting compulsory.

The opposite view was that in a free country you have a right not to participate. A third view gained popularity in the UK in the 90's to restore voting turnout. In a solid red state, for example, some blue voters may not bother to vote as they know their candidate will lose. It's called proportional representation and would benefit the USA, IMO

eg: if 40% of a states votes are blue, the blue candidate gets 40% of the electoral votes - this encourages all votes to vote

...political parties in each State determine who is eligible to vote in their primaries. For example, in Alaska the Democratic Party decided to have two State primary elections: One in March that only registered Democrats may vote in, and another in August that Independents and Undeclared voters may vote in. How they are going to choose one candidate from two primaries I have no idea, but they have the right. The Republicans are only having one State primary election in July, as normal.

In 2010, for example, Lisa Murkowski failed to win the Alaska GOP primary election. Therefore she could not run as a Republican. She had to run as a write-in candidate because her name did not appear on the ballot....

Everyone who wants to run should be on the ballot. I still think it's crazy for a party to allow non party members to select a candidate.


...Trump is most definitely not a conservative. Trump has joined eight different political parties during his lifetime. He is currently a Republican, but he was also registered member of the Democratic Party. He also ran for President in 2000 as the Reform Party candidate. Pat Buchanan won the Reform Party nomination in 2000, not Trump, but he still ran. So nobody really knows what Trump's ideology might be. One thing is absolutely certain, however, Trump is no conservative....

Trump doesn't like reform. He is a total crook but his policies are protective and his MAGA sub campaign is a hallmark of the nationalist right. I see him a most definitely a conservative. He is definitely not a fan of social welfare, he is about hanging on to wealth and justifying it

...the reason you don't know what a conservative may be is because there hasn't been a conservative President for a very long time. Trump, Obama, Bush, and Clinton are all leftists. None of them embrace the conservative ideology of the right-wing. Not even Reagan was truly conservative...

Trump is a poor man's nationalist and a crook but no way could you call him left wing. Same with Bush Jr and his tax breaks.

If you think a conservative is for 18th century style small government you'll be disappointed to look such an animal today. The government is there to run the country, not let it do its own thing.
Right versus Left is determined by the economics - Sanders talks of social welfare reform and it's clear where his spending priorities will be. He's definitely on the left. Trump is as far to the uncaring right as I've seen in a US president.
 
That view was taken by Australia who decided that voting was as much a duty as jury service and they made voting compulsory.
That is another fine example of fascism. Saddam Hussein required mandatory voting as well. All the dictators support mandatory voting. They think they are fooling the world by requiring their populations to vote in lock-step with them. Nobody ever claimed fascist dictators were particularly bright.

Just because I take voting seriously doesn't mean everyone should be forced to vote. If someone chooses not to vote or participate in an election that is also their right. Only fascist governments compel their citizens with force.

The opposite view was that in a free country you have a right not to participate. A third view gained popularity in the UK in the 90's to restore voting turnout. In a solid red state, for example, some blue voters may not bother to vote as they know their candidate will lose. It's called proportional representation and would benefit the USA, IMO

eg: if 40% of a states votes are blue, the blue candidate gets 40% of the electoral votes - this encourages all votes to vote
The US had proportional representation until the Apportionment Act of 1911 that fixed the number of House Representative at 435 members. Since 1911 the number of House Representatives has been distributed between the States based upon population, but never exceeding 435 voting House members regardless of the population.

Everyone who wants to run should be on the ballot. I still think it's crazy for a party to allow non party members to select a candidate.
It is entirely up to the political parties who appears on the ballot, as it is up to each political party to determine who to allow to vote in their primary. If we allowed everyone who wanted to be on the ballot on it, it wouldn't be a ballot it would be a book.

In most States, like Alaska, the majority of voters are neither Republican nor Democrat. The largest single voting block in Alaska are the "Undeclared." Those that either haven't, or have refused, to register for any political party. Then comes the Republican Party and in third place are the registered Independents. The Democratic Party is actually the fourth largest voting block in Alaska.

Trump doesn't like reform. He is a total crook but his policies are protective and his MAGA sub campaign is a hallmark of the nationalist right. I see him a most definitely a conservative. He is definitely not a fan of social welfare, he is about hanging on to wealth and justifying it
Trump managed to reform just about everything Obama did during his 8 years by undoing it. Except, of course, for one of Obama's illegal acts as President - DACA. That illegal and socialist act is still being enforced by Trump, three years after Obama left office. Trump is also rabidly anti-Second Amendment, just like the rest of the anti-American fascist left.

With regard to welfare spending, look to Congress not the President. Don't make the same mistake as all the other civically illiterate morons who know nothing about their own government. Presidents are not responsible for acts of Congress. In the last three years Trump has been President Congress has passed Continuing Resolutions, Omnibus, and Supplemental Spending bills - each with a veto-proof majority. Even if Trump wanted to have input into the budget process that veto-proof majority ensured that he wouldn't.

So be careful who you blame. Not everything that comes out of DC originates with the President.

Trump is a poor man's nationalist and a crook but no way could you call him left wing. Same with Bush Jr and his tax breaks.
As terrible as they may have been they were both infinitely better than the alternatives. Again, Presidents don't give tax breaks, or raise taxes. That would be an act of Congress.

If you think a conservative is for 18th century style small government you'll be disappointed to look such an animal today. The government is there to run the country, not let it do its own thing.
Right versus Left is determined by the economics - Sanders talks of social welfare reform and it's clear where his spending priorities will be. He's definitely on the left. Trump is as far to the uncaring right as I've seen in a US president.

You are mistaken. Conservatives are winning all the time. In the last 30 years conservatives have won every Supreme Court decision. How do you think we went from a nation that banned firearms in 1990 and 1994 to a nation that recognizes the individual right of all Americans to keep and bear arms by 2010? Those are conservative victories.
 
That is another fine example of fascism...

So is voting a duty or not ?

If it is, what to you feel about people who shirk voting ? If you think they should, why do you demonize state like Australia as "fascist"?
And now you also abandon an economic definition of fascism and the ownership of wealth and substitute a political yard stick

You seem VERY confused as to what fascism is.


Why is making people vote bad if you think it's a duty - isn't that like a state making people do jury service as a civic "duty" ?


...if someone chooses not to vote or participate in an election that is also their right....

But you think voting is no so much a right as a "duty"


...only fascist governments compel their citizens with force....

Why fascism and their economic model ? Do you mean totalitarian ?
Can you define "fascism" ? Would a democratically voted government like Australia count - the people of who'm consistently support mandatory voting in free & open opinion polls ?

Would fascist apply to the USA which compels citizens to do their duty like serve on juries, obey the draft in times of war and complete invasive questionnaires like the Census and American Community Survey ??

...the US had proportional representation until the Apportionment Act of 1911 that fixed the number of House Representative at 435 members....

That is a form of proportional representation in that each state gets the number of congressmen based on its population (as determined by the Census head count)
But it doesn't do anything to guarantee the political representation citizens want. For instance the Electoral College is an undemocratic idea as are senatorial elections. Georgia has two GOP senators and ALL its EC votes in 2016 went to Trump which means Democrat voters counted for nothing and they have no representation in the Senate.

...it is entirely up to the political parties who appears on the ballot, as it is up to each political party to determine who to allow to vote in their primary. If we allowed everyone who wanted to be on the ballot on it, it wouldn't be a ballot it would be a book....

In the UK candidates are required to pay a large deposit which they lose unless they get a certain percentage of the vote. It cuts out frivolous candidates

...Trump is also rabidly anti-Second Amendment, just like the rest of the anti-American fascist left....

Trump is as pro 2nd Amendment as any president since I can remember (sadly)

And didn't you just brand fascism as right wing governments like Saddam's making people do things the don't want to do.

You really don't know anything about left versus right wing politics or left versus right wing economics

Calling Fascism "left wing" is massively ignorant

...presidents are not responsible for acts of Congress....

Presidents can promote policies/laws that they promised in election campaigns
Presidents can kill bills they don't like

...even if Trump wanted to have input into the budget process that veto-proof majority ensured that he wouldn't....

Congress has to approve the president's budget proposal - remember earlier this year when the House wouldn't approve Trump's budget to include billions for his crazy wall ?


...presidents don't give tax breaks, or raise taxes. That would be an act of Congress....


The president proposes the budgets (which is basically rubber stamped by Congress if the president's party controls both houses)


...conservatives are winning all the time. In the last 30 years conservatives have won every Supreme Court decision. How do you think we went from a nation that banned firearms in 1990 and 1994 to a nation that recognizes the individual right of all Americans to keep and bear arms by 2010? Those are conservative victories.

I didn't say conservatives don't win.

A conservative just won a presidential election in 2016. Bush Jr won two terms. The whole GOP is hard right conservative.

Not allowing a government to ban firearms it the biggest mistake the SC have made.

IMO if the Democrats win the presidency an both houses next year they should move to repeal the second and create more liberal justices on the SC by increasing their number to 9 or 11.
 
So is voting a duty or not ?

If it is, what to you feel about people who shirk voting ? If you think they should, why do you demonize state like Australia as "fascist"?
And now you also abandon an economic definition of fascism and the ownership of wealth and substitute a political yard stick

Why is making people vote bad if you think it's a duty - isn't that like a state making people do jury service as a civic "duty" ?
It is only a civic duty when it is voluntary. When you use force you've created a nation of slaves, not citizens. This is the fascist left's ideal: A completely enslaved nation that is forced to do the bidding of an all-powerful government.

Australia and New Zealand would have made Benito Mussolini so very proud.

That is a form of proportional representation in that each state gets the number of congressmen based on its population (as determined by the Census head count)
But it doesn't do anything to guarantee the political representation citizens want. For instance the Electoral College is an undemocratic idea as are senatorial elections. Georgia has two GOP senators and ALL its EC votes in 2016 went to Trump which means Democrat voters counted for nothing and they have no representation in the Senate.
Proportional representation no longer exists in the US, not since 1911. The US was never suppose to be democratic. The US Constitution states flat out that the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Don't look now but your lack of education is showing.

At its inception the only federal position the people could vote for was the House of Representatives. Senators and Presidents were chosen by the States, not the people. Even after the ratification of the 17th Amendment which included the Senate as being determined by popular vote, the States still determine the President, not the people.

In the UK candidates are required to pay a large deposit which they lose unless they get a certain percentage of the vote. It cuts out frivolous candidates
The UK also arrests on average 9 people everyday for what they post online. Yet another fine example of a fascist nation, and the very nation that caused the US to separate. Nothing has changed since 1775, the limey bastards are still arrogant POS that violate the rights of their citizens at will.

Trump is as pro 2nd Amendment as any president since I can remember (sadly)
You clearly don't know anything about Trump. Trump is rabidly anti-Second Amendment.

Calling Fascism "left wing" is massively ignorant
Tell that to socialist Benito Mussolini who created and defined the term.

Presidents can promote policies/laws that they promised in election campaigns
Only someone with no education in civics could believe such utter nonsense.

Presidents can kill bills they don't like
Only if the bill isn't passed with a veto-proof majority.

Congress has to approve the president's budget proposal - remember earlier this year when the House wouldn't approve Trump's budget to include billions for his crazy wall ?
Another fine example of civic ignorance. Congress has never once passed any budget that any President has ever proposed. The entire idea of the President proposing a budget to Congress began with President Wilson, and is not a constitutional requirement. It is tradition nothing more.

Since the US Constitution specifically states that all appropriation bills will originate with the House of Representatives, every proposed budget by every President is already dead on arrival.

Not a single budget passed by Congress in the last three years had any input from Trump. They were all passed with veto-proof majorities.

The whole GOP is hard right conservative.
Actually, the GOP today are mostly leftists pretenders. Also known as "RINOs." The Republican Party since 1999 has supported increased government spending, more social programs, more restrictions on our liberties, and expanding the scope and size of the federal government. In other words, the Republicans today are left-wing POS, no different from the Democrats. At least Democrats have the honesty to admit they are leftist scum. Republicans try to hide it.

Not allowing a government to ban firearms it the biggest mistake the SC have made.
Only a leftist fascist would consider liberty and freedom to be a "mistake."

IMO if the Democrats win the presidency an both houses next year they should move to repeal the second and create more liberal justices on the SC by increasing their number to 9 or 11.
LOL! That'll never happen.
 
Last edited:
Australia and New Zealand would have made Benito Mussolini so very proud.
How do you come up with such moronic tripe?

Proportional representation no longer exists in the US, not since 1911. The US was never suppose to be democratic. The US Constitution states flat out that the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.
Learn the meaning of words, because a constitutional republic is also a democracy.

Don't look now but your lack of education is showing.
And the lack of yours is glaring.

Only someone with no education in civics could believe such utter nonsense.
See above.
 
It is only a civic duty when it is voluntary. When you use force you've created a nation of slaves, not citizens. This is the fascist left's ideal...

So the military draft is "fascist" ?

So jury service is "fascist" ?



...Australia and New Zealand would have made Benito Mussolini so very proud....

How so ? What Australian and New Zealand government policies qualify as "fascist"

By having fully functional democracies ?

(you are aware that both are democracies. You are an ignorant parochial "little-american" who thinks that the USA is the best country in the world and the rest of the world is "fascist")

...proportional representation no longer exists in the US, not since 1911. The US was never suppose to be democratic. The US Constitution states flat out that the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Don't look now but your lack of education is showing....

Are you really that ignorant ?
The USA integrates PR in the number of representatives per state based on population BUT not based on who citizens vote for

Of course the USA is a democracy...specifically it is a REPRESENTATIVE democracy based on a Constitutional REPUBLIC
Canada, for example, is a Representative Democracy based on a Constitutional Monarchy

You have no education in politics at all, you're too politically "illiterate" to know how uneducated you are.


...at its inception the only federal position the people could vote for was the House of Representatives...

And why do you think its called that - citizens elect Representatives NOT Delegates - do you know what the difference is ?

...the UK also arrests on average 9 people everyday for what they post online. Yet another fine example of a fascist nation...

Oh Jeez. The USA also uses on-line threats to arrest people:

Jailed for a Facebook post: how US police target critics with arrest and prosecution | US news | The Guardian


It might surprise you to know the a majority of American, in a recent poll, backed repealing the first amendment to outlaw hate speech:


"A new poll found that the majority of Americans would like the First Amendment to be rewritten to reflect the current climate - including updates such as being able to punish 'hate speech' and media who publish content that is 'biased, inflammatory, or false.'..."



Americans want the First Amendment changed 'to reflect cultural norms of today' | Daily Mail Online
 
...you clearly don't know anything about Trump. Trump is rabidly anti-Second Amendment....

Trump describes himself as a "second amendment guy". He has done nothing to oppose gun ownership and accepts generous donation from the NRA, who'm he allows to dictate policy

Do you also think Trump is a "fascist" ?


...tell that to socialist Benito Mussolini who created and defined the term....

He created the term "fascist" ? To which you liberally apply to the governments of Australia and New Zealand, about which you know nothing.


...only someone with no education in civics could believe such utter nonsense...

For someone who claims to do extensive research before voting, you have zero knowledge.

So you say that it's "utter nonsense" that presidents make electoral promises of new laws ?

Like Trump's electoral promise to end citizenship by being born in the USA

Like Obama promised to enact universal healthcare legislation
Like Obama promised to reform immigration laws

FDR even promised to make a constitutional amendment and repeal prohibition - which he did


You lack of political education on your own country is staggering. No wonder you are so ignorant about others like Australia and New Zealand.
No wonder you think everyone else is a fascist outside the USA.

...only if the bill isn't passed with a veto-proof majority....

Ah so presidents CAN kill bills the don't like?

To be veto-proof (as you have probably just researched and found to your horror that a bill passed by Congress DOESN'T automatically become law after 11 days....
...needs what proportion of support in BOTH houses of congress ... and how many such bills have been passed in the last 5, 10 or 20 YEARS ?

It never ceases to amaze me how little Americans know about their OWN country and then pretend to know anything about other countries.
(it's about 7% Btw, so 83% of bills are subject to presidential veto)

...another fine example of civic ignorance. Congress has never once passed any budget that any President has ever proposed. The entire idea of the President proposing a budget to Congress began with President Wilson, and is not a constitutional requirement. It is tradition nothing more....

No it's how the US government is run.

"The current federal budget law (31 U.S.C. § 1105(a)) requires that the President submit the budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. In recent times, the President's budget submission has been issued in the first week of February...."

You really don't know how the US government works do you ?
Yet you call others who ARE educated and DO know "ignorant"

Doesn't you lack of knowledge about how your OWN government works embarrass you ?
I suppose not since most Americans lack an education


...not a single budget passed by Congress in the last three years had any input from Trump...

Despite a legal requirement to do so ?
Do you not remember earlier this year that Trump petulantly shut down government because the Democrat led House wouldn't approve his budget, specifically fund of his wall ?


...actually, the GOP today are mostly leftists pretenders....

The world outside the USA is "fascist"
The USA is not "democratic"

and now the Republicans are "leftist"

What a tiny world you live in.


...only a leftist fascist...

Yada Yada Yada

You don't know what "leftist" means and you certainly don't know what "fascist" means.


...that'll never happen.


The leftist fascists want to take your freedom....

Then your guns...the allow same sex marriage and term abortions...and teach school kids that the universe is 13 billion+ years old


I really hope the US elects a gay president next year who's also a confirmed Atheist...the loud popping noise across American will be the sound of little conservatives collective head exploding with incredulous outrage.

PS: Trump is guilty and needs to be impeached.
 
Well here you go.


Trump welcomes a Senate trial

Of course - what president wouldn't - after he worked tooth and nail NOT to be impeached.


He tried to block witnesses from testifying, publicly calling the Hose hearings a "witch trial" and a "lynching"

Whereas Nixon denied doing what he was accused of, Trump admits it and dares Congress to impeach him for it.


Surely the US Senate has 67 senators in it with an ounce oh honor.
 
That view was taken by Australia who decided that voting was as much a duty as jury service and they made voting compulsory.

The opposite view was that in a free country you have a right not to participate. A third view gained popularity in the UK in the 90's to restore voting turnout. In a solid red state, for example, some blue voters may not bother to vote as they know their candidate will lose. It's called proportional representation and would benefit the USA, IMO

eg: if 40% of a states votes are blue, the blue candidate gets 40% of the electoral votes - this encourages all votes to vote



Everyone who wants to run should be on the ballot. I still think it's crazy for a party to allow non party members to select a candidate.




Trump doesn't like reform. He is a total crook but his policies are protective and his MAGA sub campaign is a hallmark of the nationalist right. I see him a most definitely a conservative. He is definitely not a fan of social welfare, he is about hanging on to wealth and justifying it



Trump is a poor man's nationalist and a crook but no way could you call him left wing. Same with Bush Jr and his tax breaks.

If you think a conservative is for 18th century style small government you'll be disappointed to look such an animal today. The government is there to run the country, not let it do its own thing.
Right versus Left is determined by the economics - Sanders talks of social welfare reform and it's clear where his spending priorities will be. He's definitely on the left. Trump is as far to the uncaring right as I've seen in a US president.
Problem is that most states are " winner take all states "
Now IF they would divide their Electoral college votes by Congregational districts and got rid of " winner take all states " every bodies vote would count
and that 40% you talk about would have their vote counted, but as of now it is not that way
ex. say NY had 27 CDs and 14 went Dem and 13 Rep. as it is now all 27 would go for the Dem and none for the Rep.
so almost half of the states voters are not being heard and their vote doesn't count.
in order to have every bodies vote count we have to get rid of " winner take all states " ( and that is almost all of them )
have a nice afternoon
 
Problem is that most states are " winner take all states "
Now IF they would divide their Electoral college votes by Congregational districts and got rid of " winner take all states " every bodies vote would count
and that 40% you talk about would have their vote counted, but as of now it is not that way
ex. say NY had 27 CDs and 14 went Dem and 13 Rep. as it is now all 27 would go for the Dem and none for the Rep.
so almost half of the states voters are not being heard and their vote doesn't count.
in order to have every bodies vote count we have to get rid of " winner take all states " ( and that is almost all of them )
have a nice afternoon
My point is that say 50.01% people in a take all state vote vote Republican and 49.99% vote Dem. then all the Electoral College votes go for the Republican and the 49.99% that voted Dem don't count
This is unfair and it should be by Congressional district NOT by " winner take all "
They have to change this so every bodies vote counts
Have a nice day
 
My point is that say 50.01% people in a take all state vote vote Republican and 49.99% vote Dem. then all the Electoral College votes go for the Republican and the 49.99% that voted Dem don't count
This is unfair and it should be by Congressional district NOT by " winner take all "
They have to change this so every bodies vote counts
Have a nice day
And one more thing IF it was by Congressional districts back in 2016 Trump would not be President

A lot of the people that did vote did NOT have their vote counted because of the winner take all states BS
it is time to change this and make a Constitutional Amendment that makes the Electoral College realize that NOT every bodies vote is being counted.
again IF a state has 50.01% of it's people vote one way and it is a winner take all state the other 49.99% of the people that didn't vote for the person who got the 50.01 votes , their votes do NOT count , and that is because it is all about the " winner take all " BS
again I say this should be changed some way so every bodies vote counts
Have a nice night
 
Back
Top Bottom