Voting during a pandemic

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Maybe you stable geniuses can explain this incoherent gem of wisdom by boxcar

I simply asked him.....
.

How does a state going "code pinko-commie" necessitate the need of the electoral college electing the president and vice p?

First off it's the wrong question, you dunce. First off, the founding fathers never thought in the precise terms you expressed. Since no one state has powers that are more broad than the federal government (union of states), the founding fathers placed limited restrictions on them, basically allowing the states their own sovereignty to go their own way within the framework of the Constitution. Conversely, there are so many restrictions placed on the federal government because an unchecked government at this level, with all its broad, sweeping powers, can do irreparable harm to the entire union.

So...if Kommiefornia, for example, declares that it's a communist state, this will have little impact on the other 49 states. But...If Creepy JoeBiteMe gets elected by pure popular vote and the dimwits win both houses, etc., and the dimwits decide that the U.S. will go pinko-commie, then this impacts the entire country. And this is why the electoral college was created: It serves as as a check and balance against mob rule. It makes radical ideological changes like this (from capitalism to communism) a lot more difficult.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by hcap

How does a state going "code pinko-commie" necessitate the need of the electoral college electing the president and vice p?

Originally Posted by boxcar

First off it's the wrong question, you dunce. First off, the founding fathers never thought in the precise terms you expressed.

That was your lunatic declaration you DUNCE that I was questioning. Of course you don't remember

Originally Posted by boxcar

But those states are sovereign and can make their own laws and policies. So, when a state goes code pinko-commie, for example, and wants to rush headlong off a cliff, the rest of the sovereign states are free to not follow.
Now, go beat up on a fly.

Since no one state has powers that are more broad than the federal government (union of states), the founding fathers placed limited restrictions on them, basically allowing the states their own sovereignty to go their own way within the framework of the Constitution. Conversely, there are so many restrictions placed on the federal government because an unchecked government at this level, with all its broad, sweeping powers, can do irreparable harm to the entire union.

So...if Kommiefornia, for example, declares that it's a communist state, this will have little impact on the other 49 states. But...If Creepy JoeBiteMe gets elected by pure popular vote and the dimwits win both houses, etc., and the dimwits decide that the U.S. will go pinko-commie, then this impacts the entire country. And this is why the electoral college was created: It serves as as a check and balance against mob rule. It makes radical ideological changes like this (from capitalism to communism) a lot more difficult.

Nonsense!...Any state going "rogue", fascist or communist, would stand the same chance of unduly influencing the federal government. Regardless if they chose the president or vice p. using the electoral college or by democratic direct vote. The numbers of Senators and House Representatives would not change

However direct majority rule stands a better chance of allowing the majority of the entire state's citizen's "to get their way" Direct major rule of every citizen of their state is not dependent on a select few "electors".

Hey bunky, why not re institute Dukes and Duchess. Earls and Barons?
We already have "King Donald The False"

Electors are selected state-by-state, as determined by the laws of each state. ... Although ballots list the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who run on a ticket), voters actually choose electors when they vote for president and vice president. According to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, each state legislature determines the manner by which its state's electors are chosen. The number of each state's electors is equal to the sum of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives;

California has 55. You think it is easier for 1/2 the population of California,or 20 million people to go rogue than 55 select electors?



OBVIOUSLY corrupting a select few is a hell of lot easier than millions.

It takes many more citizens to be corrupted than the few electors each state has...

Currently, there are 538 electors; based on 435 representatives, 100 senators from the fifty states and three electors from Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20), and Pennsylvania (20).

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

That was your lunatic declaration you DUNCE that I was questioning. Of course you don't remember

Nonsense!...Any state going "rogue", fascist or communist, would stand the same chance of unduly influencing the federal government. Regardless if they chose the president or vice p. using the electoral college or by democratic direct vote. The numbers of Senators and House Representatives would not change

However direct majority rule stands a better chance of allowing the majority of the entire state's citizen's "to get their way" Direct major rule of every citizen of their state is not dependent on a select few "electors".

Hey bunky, why not re institute Dukes and Duchess. Earls and Barons?
We already have "King Donald The False"

Electors are selected state-by-state, as determined by the laws of each state. ... Although ballots list the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who run on a ticket), voters actually choose electors when they vote for president and vice president. According to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution, each state legislature determines the manner by which its state's electors are chosen. The number of each state's electors is equal to the sum of the state's membership in the Senate and House of Representatives;

California has 55. You think it is easier for 1/2 the population of California,or 20 million people to go rogue than 55 select electors?



OBVIOUSLY corrupting a select few is a hell of lot easier than millions.

It takes many more citizens to be corrupted than the few electors each state has...

Currently, there are 538 electors; based on 435 representatives, 100 senators from the fifty states and three electors from Washington, D.C. The six states with the most electors are California (55), Texas (38), New York (29), Florida (29), Illinois (20), and Pennsylvania (20).

Yo-yo, we're not talking about 1/2 the population of a state v. its own electors. We're talking about its electors v. all the other electors in the U.S.!

Further, the electoral college has no bearing on state politics, policies or laws. The EC is a representative state body that votes only in presidential elections. So, it wouldn't matter if all 55 electors were card-carryin' commies or not.

Finally, you totally twisted my original example around by asking one of your most stupid questions ever.

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by hcap

Knew you and Tom were just as clueless as to what the box babbled incoherently about the electoral college, as the box.

Hint: The country will have the wisdom to stick your moron-n chief in Leavenworth after he is soundly defeated by a landslide, and go down definitively as the absolute worst criminal president in U.S history.

Thank you for lumping me in the same company with Tom, I encourage everyone here to lump you in with the dark forces that is a plague upon our country right now. Anything and everything that is good is under threat by your kind and should not be supported.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by boxcar

the founding fathers never thought in the precise terms you expressed.

I always love it how most conservatives become self-proclaimed experts
on exactly what the "founding fathers" had in mind back in the day.

It's as if they were there with them - hammering it all out.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

I always love it how most conservatives become self-proclaimed experts
on exactly what the "founding fathers" had in mind back in the day.

It's as if they were there with them - hammering it all out.

Doesn't matter what they had in mind- we have what they put on paper. And THAT is what we go by. CLEARLY, the popular vote DOES NOT ELECT THE PRESIDENT.

What part of that do you fail to grasp, horsey?
I can 'splain it to you word by word.

That written document ALSO has the process to CHANGE IT.

But all you guys do is whine and cry! Waaaaaaaaa!Waaaaaaaa!

What lazy losers!

You belong in Seattle, tending to the tunnips.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

I always love it how most conservatives become self-proclaimed experts
on exactly what the "founding fathers" had in mind back in the day.

It's as if they were there with them - hammering it all out.

Threethings: Go to a library and read up on American history. Secondly, steer clear of the "self-proclaimed experts" on Wikipedia. And finally, no, ignorance isn't blissful.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Yo-yo, we're not talking about 1/2 the population of a state v. its own electors. We're talking about its electors v. all the other electors in the U.S.!

Further, the electoral college has no bearing on state politics, policies or laws. The EC is a representative state body that votes only in presidential elections. So, it wouldn't matter if all 55 electors were card-carryin' commies or not.

Finally, you totally twisted my original example around by asking one of your most stupid questions ever.

One again you forgot what you were talking about. You tried to make a case that the electoral college SOMEHOW prevented their states from overly influencing the federal government. And if we elected presidents and vice p's by direct majority rule, if that state went "pinko-commie"....It would SOMEHOW keep the others from falling off the same cliff

Originally Posted by boxcar

But those states are sovereign and can make their own laws and policies. So, when a state goes code pinko-commie, for example, and wants to rush headlong off a cliff, the rest of the sovereign states are free to not follow.

Now, go beat up on a fly.

Still no explanation!. Do you remember now?

I will ONLY respond when you cook one up. However you must remember your idiotic argument FIRST!.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Still no explanation!.

As I've said previously, Gray Matter Matters.

Go out and play in traffic.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

As I've said previously, Gray Matter Matters.

Go out and play in traffic.

So you do not know. You only resort are more idiotic insults.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

So you do not know. You only resort are more idiotic insults.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

You do not know either. Care to try and explain how the popular vote makes the presidency more vulnerable to a communist (or fascist) takeover, than the electoral college?

Can not get a straight answer from the source of that claim

Originally Posted by boxcar

But those states are sovereign and can make their own laws and policies. So, when a state goes code pinko-commie, for example, and wants to rush headlong off a cliff, the rest of the sovereign states are free to not follow.

Now, go beat up on a fly.

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by hcap

You do not know either. Care to try and explain how the popular vote makes the presidency more vulnerable to a communist (or fascist) takeover, than the electoral college?

Can not get a straight answer from the source of that claim

Don't ya know?
Our learned (coughs) cons have communicated directly with the FFs.

Séances.....spiritual awakenings......divine dillywopper sessions.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

Don't ya know?
Our learned (coughs) cons have communicated directly with the FFs.

Séances.....spiritual awakenings......divine dillywopper sessions.

The problem is not only their absurd ridiculous post and positions, but their inability to remember the why and how, of what they so foolishly preached, just barely one day before.

If they even remember at all.

Question boxcar about anything, and usually you get insulted if he gets stumped. Which is often.

Ask Tom say where he hid his bananas. and get called some meaningless
acronym only he knows, expecting everyone ease to figure out his
peculiar misspelled orangutan code.

For instance. The dynamic duo are both pilled high with lots of......

T.A.U.T.

Tom's and boxcAr's crazz bUllshiT.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

You do not know either. Care to try and explain how the popular vote makes the presidency more vulnerable to a communist (or fascist) takeover, than the electoral college?

Can not get a straight answer from the source of that claim

You poor delusional fool.
You can't even follow along your own arguments.

I NEVER made any claim about that, not one.
I DID post a over YOU accusing Boxcar of resorting to insults - which is basically ALL you do every day.

My, GOD, man....SEEK HELP! Your noggin is sloggin. Your noodle is strudel. Your gray matter is batter.