To the libs who believe obama's policies work

[ahole-ic]

So, which states are the most heavily subsidized, again?

Please tell me how your comment relates to the quoted statement....

 

[DoesDad 10+ year member]

Why bother with this eCrack? All you're going to do is frustrate yourself. Whatever you say, no matter how intelligently you say it, no matter if it's 100% the truth the libs are going to believe what they're going to believe. It doesn't matter. In the end Obama will either get reelected or he won't. I'll worry about it and send some money to the people I think can stop it but other than that there's not a whole lot a 15 page thread on caraudio.com is going to change anything or anyone's mind. I know and you know he's a dedicated Marxist that is out to wreck the country but the libs see a swell basketball and golf playin', slick talkin', "cool" guy. No amount of knowledge is going to change that. Bush is the bad guy and Obama is the good guy. If he does get reelected and the countries fvcked up after 6 years they'll still be blaming Bush! Lol! You can't reason with people when there's such a blind allegiance to King Obama.

 

[ahole-ic]

Why bother with this eCrack? All you're going to do is frustrate yourself. Whatever you say, no matter how intelligently you say it, no matter if it's 100% the truth the libs are going to believe what they're going to believe. It doesn't matter. In the end Obama will either get reelected or he won't. I'll worry about it and send some money to the people I think can stop it but other than that there's not a whole lot a 15 page thread on caraudio.com is going to change anything or anyone's mind. I know and you know he's a dedicated Marxist that is out to wreck the country but the libs see a swell basketball and golf playin', slick talkin', "cool" guy. No amount of knowledge is going to change that. Bush is the bad guy and Obama is the good guy. If he does get reelected and the countries fvcked up after 6 years they'll still be blaming Bush! Lol! You can't reason with people when there's such a blind allegiance to King Obama.

Lol because I study people like this. Notice how they don't use facts, but rather put downs? Then they all gang up and act like they've proved something. It is incredibly interesting. Then if you give it enough time, one will declare some sort of supremacy. In this case we have at least 2. It amuses me a great deal.

 

[ahole-ic]

The #1 lesson to be learned about liberals is this: They always get the maddest when you tell the truth about them.

Notice how mad they get when I just identify what they are doing and disregard it as a coherent thought? Manti can't take it for instance. It's hysterical.

 

[DoesDad 10+ year member]

The #1 lesson to be learned about liberals is this: They always get the maddest when you tell the truth about them.Notice how mad they get when I just identify what they are doing and disregard it as a coherent thought? Manti can't take it for instance. It's hysterical.

I just lol'ed! You are right sir. I'm surprised they kept it together that long without hurling insults back and forth. After all, it's what they're good at. Don't have an intelligent argument? Yell loudly so no one can hear the other person! Thanks btw... I have enjoyed the 2 threads. Amazing to me how the liberal mind thinks....

 

[ahole-ic]

I just lol'ed! You are right sir. I'm surprised they kept it together that long without hurling insults back and forth. After all, it's what they're good at. Don't have an intelligent argument? Yell loudly so no one can hear the other person! Thanks btw... I have enjoyed the 2 threads. Amazing to me how the liberal mind thinks....

LOL! and I think you sir. It is nice to know there is someone else out there with ample common sense.

 

[Scratchy 10+ year member]

Lol because I study people like this. Notice how they don't use facts, but rather put downs? Then they all gang up and act like they've proved something. It is incredibly interesting. Then if you give it enough time, one will declare some sort of supremacy. In this case we have at least 2. It amuses me a great deal.

Hey, I figure that all of us that are merely amused by all of this blather ultimately win!

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Mad? Quite the accusation. I enjoy riling you up and seeing you fail.

 

[ahole-ic]

Mad? Quite the accusation. I enjoy riling you up and seeing you fail.

Well you must be tired of waiting for that! LOL

 

[bubbagumper6 5,000+ posts]

No I don't think so... and the fact that you can't explain it means you don't either.

bahahaha, so glad I'm still following this thread

 

[Scratchy 10+ year member]

You are having delusions of grandeur. lmfao

I'm grand like a cold-case biscuit, b-itch!

Like the biggest teat in the Tetons!

Like a funky railroad!

 

[ahole-ic]

bahahaha, so glad I'm still following this thread

You're such a troll. I told you I could explain, but I gave you a prerequisite. You ignorantly refused because you think you know everything but don't have a clue.

 

[vaiboy 10+ year member]

wow, to be honest you just changed my opinion of the electoral college a bit, I always thought it was a stupid idea but your explanation is rather good...I was kind of young back in 2000 so mind explaining what exactly happened then? I thought Florida's electoral college went against it's popular vote?

In the 2000 presidential election, the Florida vote was very close. Election night based on exit polling the major networks all projected Gore to be the winner but as the results came in they retracted that and declared Bush the winner. Later they retracted that and called it "too close to call". The election night results had Bush in the lead by 1,700 votes, the margin wasn't high enough and triggered an automatic recount. After the recount Bush still had a 537 vote lead. Gore and Bush kept challenging the results in court. It was a big mess with arguments over hanging chads, the butterfly ballots, and selective recounts. Finally, the Supreme Court stepped in and put and end to the final partial recount, Bush still had a 154 vote lead when the count was stopped. Seven of the Justices felt that only recounting select counties violated the equal protection clause. So the final certified total reverted back to the first recount and gave Bush the win by 537 votes. That meant Bush was awarded the 25 electors from Florida which was enough to beat Gore. Nationally Bush didn't win the popular vote but he won the election. Any problems in the 2000 election weren't from the electoral college, it worked as it was designed, all the controversy was caused by the way the Florida recounts were handled.

 

[MANTI5 10+ year member]

Watch this: Recount (TV 2008) - IMDb

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

"The presidential election of 1824 is notable for being the only election since the passage of the Twelfth Amendment to have been decided by the House of Representatives in accordance with its provision to turn over the choice of the president to the House when no candidate secures a majority of the electoral vote. It was also the only presidential election in which the candidate who received the most electoral votes did not become president (since Andrew Jackson's plurality of electoral votes was insufficient to prevent the election from being thrown into the House of Representatives). The election of 1824 is often claimed to be the first in which the successful presidential candidate did not win the popular vote, however it is not always pointed out that the popular vote was not measured nationwide at the time. Several states did not permit a popular vote, but rather allowed the state legislature to choose their electors."
The electors of the individual states did not vote against the popular vote in their states in the election of 1824. Neither candidate received enough electoral votes to be declared the winner so as per the 12th amendment the election was decided by the House of Reps.

This election was not decided by electors voting against their states will either. There were three states that were in dispute like Florida in the 2000 election. When the three disputed races were all declared wins for Hayes, the electoral votes for those three states went to Hayes giving him the win. You could argue the systems put in place to handle close elections are inadequate, and gave the win to the wrong man, but the electoral college functioned exactly as it was designed. There were no rogue electors changing the outcome.

No rogue electors in this election either, just a case of electoral college working as designed.

The fact is the President was never meant to be a direct representative of the people, the President was intended to be a representative of the states. The electoral college helps keep a balance of power between heavily populated states and sparsely populated states. The interests of California and New York are not necessarily the same as Montana and South Dakota, if you remove the electoral college you will in effect have a president that represents the interests of the 4-5 most populous states and ignores the interests of the rest of the nation. That's the tyranny of the majority.

Your examples while interesting don't expose any flaw in the electoral college, to they contrary the just demonstrate the system working as designed.

Thanks. I believed this to be the case.