It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disgruntled Democrats Want A Constitutional Convention To Leave The Union

page: 7
43
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: reldra

You're absolutely correct those numbers are no where near correct.

The real numbers are as follows: There are 200,081,377 registered voters of those voters 65,383,628 voted for Hillary. As you can see the percentage of registered voters that voted for Hillary is less than 33%

So in reality what you are arguing for is control of the country by a 33% minority. I think not .

---
Oh yeah you by the way seem to be the one denying math.
Didn't trump receive about 2mil fewer votes than Clinton? If so that would mean he won with about a 30% minority, so within that frame, HRC won the popular vote of those that voted. ?




posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Beaux

OK.

So talk with your elected representative and ask him/her to please start the process to add/change an amendment to the United States Constitution.

The process to do so is well understood and well documented.

If the constitution is amended by a 2/3 majority of both houses and then ratified by a 75% majority of the states (in which they have 7 years to consider same BTW) , I am all for it.

I'll be the first to shake your hand when this is complete.

I personally disagree vehemently with trying to change the electoral college process. It is in place for a reason. And it works, regardless of whether or not your candidate was the ox being gored at any particular time. And my candidate got gored on more than one occasion, but I still understood and respected the process.

It's not about you or any other single individual. It's about ALL of us.

If you really don't like that - you are certainly free to find another place to live that fits your standards better.

But this is the way it is in the USA. Period. End of story.

And I am grateful for that.

ETA - I understand that each state can decide how their electors vote - and I am in full agreement with that. I actually believe electors should be apportioned based on how many districts/counties they won (like ME for instance), but that is not for me to decide.

It is up to each state.

And that's the way it should be.

Remember what we are - The United STATES of America. People always seem to forget that.



edit on 12/9/2016 by Riffrafter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

It's funny how the liberals claim to be all about protecting minorities, the disadvantaged, and the groups of people that are not the "dominate" group.

The electoral college protects the little guy, and our republic ensures that even the smallest groups of citizens are protected and have a voice.

Don't be hypocrites, support our republic, and defend the minority population.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
The first thing there Constitutional Convention will go after is not anything to do with the election.

The first thing they will go after is removing the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

The same thing with Calexit the first law after calif leaves would be a gun ban.
There are to many republicans in Calif and Calif would have no military.
this would allow the republicans to take over there parts of the state and return to the US.
www.facebook.com...



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: xuenchen

It's funny how the liberals claim to be all about protecting minorities, the disadvantaged, and the groups of people that are not the "dominate" group.

The electoral college protects the little guy, and our republic ensures that even the smallest groups of citizens are protected and have a voice.

Don't be hypocrites, support our republic, and defend the minority population.


The Electoral College has nothing to do with the "little guy", it has to do with a State's involvement in deciding the Presidency. Nor does our republic provide any assurances to groups, large or small, except as a right to assemble in them. The Republic is set up to protect individual rights by stating that all are equal under the law. Based on that there are are no minority or majority rights since it recognizes a citizen regardless of their color, ancestry, gender, etc. and their size, big or little, does not empower them above another.

Protect the rights of the individual and the rest becomes easy.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Beaux






You seem to have missed the point...

...

... So arguing the value of one state or person versus another becomes detrimental to the purpose of one citizen/one vote and you wish to punish those that populate one area more than another.



Wow...talk about missing the point!!



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoAngel2u

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: reldra

You're absolutely correct those numbers are no where near correct.

The real numbers are as follows: There are 200,081,377 registered voters of those voters 65,383,628 voted for Hillary. As you can see the percentage of registered voters that voted for Hillary is less than 33%

So in reality what you are arguing for is control of the country by a 33% minority. I think not .

---
Oh yeah you by the way seem to be the one denying math.
Didn't trump receive about 2mil fewer votes than Clinton? If so that would mean he won with about a 30% minority, so within that frame, HRC won the popular vote of those that voted. ?


You are correct; by the latest count (they are still counting votes in some areas), Clinton has received 2.6 million more votes than Trump. By the time it is official it should be around a 2.8 million vote lead.

Where the aggravation is occurring is that she will have won California by 3 million votes while losing the remaining states by approx. 200,000 votes. So the argument becomes that a California voter should have less say than the others since they did not follow the majority of the states. And the Electoral College, as currently established, agrees.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
With some of the recounts showing that they counted some of the Clinton votes 6 times....I'm not even sure she won the popular vote.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Beaux

Let's do the math a different way...

Remove California completely from the vote totals...and then what are the totals???

Trump wins the popular vote by a landslide!

I realize you are either unable, or unwilling, to accept this as being the very reason for the EC, but it is. Anything less is not balanced representation of the will of the people. Once again, California does not OWN the US...they just DON'T. Nor should they be allowed to think they do!






edit on 12/9/2016 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Lysergic

Yep. we dodged a bullet with Mr. standing in line for food is good." That guy would have went further left than Obama. I am thankful they ran Killary... The snowflakes would have put that mad man in office..



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: NoAngel2u

hillary only won pop vote due to one state. just 56 precints/counties. and trump won the rest of the ones left. Electorally he is the winner. One state cannot be allowed to run the nation.



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well...

California pays for much of the tab for red states entitlement and assistance programs. They pay much more to the fed then they get. They are the largest contributor to fed revenues and would be hugely better off fiscally if they were their own nation. California is something like the worlds 5th largest economy? If the red states think so little of CA, they should be OK with CA going it on its own? Conversely is there not an argument to be made that the state that pays the bills for a lot of other states should have a proportional say in the election?

Lastly...someone explain to me if Trump supporters are fans of the electoral college.
Trump himself has called the electoral college a disaster in the past.
His supporters are now saying how great it is...but do they realize that system also intentionally affords for electors to choose whoever they like despite how their state voted? So they should be ok if the electors reject Trump? Still the way the system is supposed to work? Right?



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=21627756]Flyingclaydisk

Let's do the math a different way...

Remove California completely from the vote totals...and then what are the totals???

Trump wins the popular vote by a landslide!









That is ridiculous...

Remove any red state and Clinton would have won the popular vote by a LARGER landslide!

Mississippi should not rule the country!

Dishonest or bad at math and reasoning.
edit on 9-12-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-12-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Both! lol



posted on Dec, 9 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Beaux

Your only counting legal residents. Try adding in all the dead weight, then show me numbers.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Natas0114
a reply to: Beaux

Your only counting legal residents. Try adding in all the dead weight, then show me numbers.


I already did.
"For every dollar that California contributes in taxes to the Federal Government, they receive $0.87 in Federal spending." That would include whatever dead weight you are referencing.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Beaux

Let's do the math a different way...

Remove California completely from the vote totals...and then what are the totals???

Trump wins the popular vote by a landslide!

I realize you are either unable, or unwilling, to accept this as being the very reason for the EC, but it is. Anything less is not balanced representation of the will of the people. Once again, California does not OWN the US...they just DON'T. Nor should they be allowed to think they do!







You can't parcel out the most populous state in the union simply because you disagree with how they voted. Perhaps you can see it at a micro level.

A town has 100 residents that vote for a mayor. Candidate A leads 47-43 over B but all 10 voters in the western part of town vote for B making it 53-47. But you want to invalidate those 10 because they "don't own the town, they just don't". Nope they don't and could not have elected B on their own anymore than California could elect anyone on their own. You are better off arguing the Electoral College but from a democratic process the argument of exclusion is disingenuous and wholly partisan.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: StoutBroux
Based on this thread, www.abovetopsecret.com... and the image put forth,

,

It might behoove the US to grant the request with the condition that those wishing for exemption from the union also migrate to specific designated states. Particularly, CA. In fact, give them WA, OR, CA and let them sink or swim. Let them have their own country independent from the United States of America.

NO!!! US needs shipping ports on both east and west coasts.

Give them WA, OR and CA... from the Russian River... no Marin... north.



I'd say, give them the bottom half of California, that will give them room for all the New Yorkers who want to go with them. They are used to living in big cities. Northern California has more republicans than Democrats anyway.

That would be good if they left, then the not so radical democrats can bring their party back and gain the presidency next election with a decent candidate. With all the radical Democrats gone we will probably do pretty good in this country.


Um, no, the reverse is actually true. Northern Cali tends to be more liberal, and it is in the south that the biggest Republican strongholds are. So it would actually be the bottom where the right wing went. Which is fine by me, because the concept of Cascadia actually stretches from Northern California to British Columbia, and California has been wanting to split into separate states anyway. So if the U.S, kept anything, it would be California Bakersfield;d on south.



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Sounds just like Republicans after Obama was elected both times.

I actually think we should do this... Our country is so divided and messed up that there are two or more versions of the truth
taking shape to the point where human history might have it's first psychic break in mass. The sun is hot, no it's cold!
The economy is great, no it's bloody terrible. These appointees are elite scumbag billionaires, no they are populists sent to
reduce your wages for your own good!

I think America is old news, we are the laughing stock of the world. We hired a billionaire reality TV star... It's got electrolytes



posted on Dec, 10 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Beaux


I already did.
"For every dollar that California contributes in taxes to the Federal Government, they receive $0.87 in Federal spending." That would include whatever dead weight you are referencing.


Yep. One of the major reasons I think California became such a basketcase in the past two decades is from the dual burden of paying for the rest of the country while trying to be a country of it's own. Not just California, either. The old "North" has a similar problem with funding of the south.

Red states are the welfare queens. Funny enough, they are also the ones who are traditionally the ones screaming for, or bragging about seceding, or totally anti federal government, yet they are the ones most dependent on the federal teat. Every time Texas and the south have talked about seceding, I have always cheered them on, and think they should be allowed to. Just like I believe the whole West Coast should be able to break off into it's own. And Alaska and Hawaii should be able to do the same.

Just like dissolving a bad an irreconcilable marriage, let the divorce proceedings begin.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join