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.

 

The Polls One Year Ago In The "FAKE NEWS"

page: 7
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Here is the latest bs push from the left -

The National Popular Vote bill

As another member correctly pointed out the moment the system is changed and a Democrat still losees they will bitch about needing the electoral college.

We have already seen a preview of this with the election of Trump. All of a sudden Democrats want to reign in the authority of the President by trying to deny him use of the very tools they gave to Obama.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-10-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123
You guys are ruthless, we can, at the very least, let them have their participation ribbon? If it makes them feel better, then perhaps we should let them have it, calm them down a bit. They're a bit rattled, even after this long.

Leftist liberal delusions dictates the popular vote as important as the EC because we're all winners!!! lol, smh.

Yes, because making a thread to gloat about an election that you won a year ago is TOTALLY a rational thing to do and not just pure pettiness.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I see Trump supporters are getting desperate for a win so they are dredging up their "greatest hits". YAWN. Carry on with this useless thread I guess. And y'all try to tell us WE are obsessed with the election still. *eyeroll*

Our greatest hits are YT compilations of election night liberal screeching, its still very amusing to watch.

We aren't desperate for a win, we already won, nice try lefty? 😏

Of course ya'll are still obsessed, you're in this thread are you not?

Not our fault for your ills choices and terrible advice you picked up from the MSM 🙄



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
"NUH HUH! I refuse to believe it so it doesn't exist! There is no possible way that people can tally up all the individual state wide popular votes to get a national vote. That kind of math is impossible!"

Except for that pesky problem of no national popular vote. On the off chance you are unaware each state is a seperate sovereign, both from every other state as well as the federal government. Allowing a populous state to control an agenda is extremely dangerous and does the very thing democrats like to bitch about - it disenfranchises voters.

Because each state is sovereign their votes, and by extension electoral college votes, are solely the purview of the voters in that state. Having NY or CA invalidate the results in other states is a non starter.



originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Who is "they"? Certainly not me. So telling me this is still a strawman, and yes Clinton DID beat Trump by 3 million votes. That's because she was more popular and won the national vote. Unfortunately for her (and the country for this election at least) that doesn't win you the Presidency. The Electoral College does; which she lost.

Read the thread to see the people making that argument. Yes Clinton beat Trump in the states of California and New York. Because of that she won those 2 states electoral college votes.

There is no such thing as a national popular vote. If there were it would have been included in the Constitution.




originally posted by: Krazysh0t
The popular vote doesn't have to be spelled out in the Constitution. AGAIN it is unofficial, but just because it is unofficial doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again. All you need is math to find out what it is.

and yet it is spelled out in the Constitution - via the electoral college and 51 popular elections with absolutely non mention of a national popular vote.

funny how that works.



originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's possible for things to exist without them being in the Constitution. How about you point out where the War of Drugs is spelled out in the Constitution? If you can't, surely it doesn't exist.

This comment is scary... What part of "anything not specifically granted to the federal government is reserved to the states" do you not understand? It would require a constitutional amendment to move to a national popular vote which completely undermines the argument you just gave.

the war on drugs is actually spelled out in the Constitution as well as all state constitutions. It can be found in the executive, legislative and judicial branch sections where the legislature makes the law, the executive branch enforces the law and the judiciary rules on the law.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Arnie123
You guys are ruthless, we can, at the very least, let them have their participation ribbon? If it makes them feel better, then perhaps we should let them have it, calm them down a bit. They're a bit rattled, even after this long.

Leftist liberal delusions dictates the popular vote as important as the EC because we're all winners!!! lol, smh.

Yes, because making a thread to gloat about an election that you won a year ago is TOTALLY a rational thing to do and not just pure pettiness.


Except for the fact the thread was talking about polls and how incredibly wrong they were. At that point some people started the national popular vote bs and we went from there.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Another example -

Democrats were just fine with the electoral college when the fake media kept saying Clinton would win.

Remember this -


Funny how, since she lost, the Democrats changed their position and all of a sudden refuse to follow their own argument. This is what the left does - gloat about a win only to bitch when they lose.

Using Clinton's position all Democrats who support impeaching trump or demanding changes to the electoral college are in fact a direct threat to our Democracy.

Never mind the fact the United States is not a Democracy but a Constitutional Representative Republic. Another little fact that supports the founders position against against a national popular vote.

It is sad when the Democrats support disenfranchising voters in order to secure their own power.
It is even more sad that Democrats think the people of 2 states are more important than the people in states that didnt support Democrats.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Good grief KS! I just read this thread and it's rather "Twilight-zone-esque"

lol. Good luck with this hot mess!



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Popular vote will never determine the election results.

47 states would never allow 3 states to decide the election.

A more fair way would be to allow each state 1 electoral vote plus D.C. that HAS to go to whoever wins the most votes in that state.

There would never be a tie because their would be 51 votes.

Trump would have still won because he carried more states.
edit on R172017-10-24T12:17:58-05:00k1710Vpm by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Arnie123
You guys are ruthless, we can, at the very least, let them have their participation ribbon? If it makes them feel better, then perhaps we should let them have it, calm them down a bit. They're a bit rattled, even after this long.

Leftist liberal delusions dictates the popular vote as important as the EC because we're all winners!!! lol, smh.

Yes, because making a thread to gloat about an election that you won a year ago is TOTALLY a rational thing to do and not just pure pettiness.


Except for the fact the thread was talking about polls and how incredibly wrong they were. At that point some people started the national popular vote bs and we went from there.

Because most of the polls oft-cited by the media were polls PREDICTING the national popular vote.

What about this don't you understand?
edit on 24-10-2017 by Dudemo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Dudemo5

People who keep arguing in this thread that Clinton won the popular vote.

She didnt because there is no such thing as a national popular vote.

If you arent going to follow the thread then why respond at all?


Seems you aren't the one following along.

The OP claimed that the polls were wrong. The polls cited most often predicted the national popular vote. Those polls were CORRECT.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
The EC also creates an exploitable system where undue focus is placed on about a dozen states. I'm sure the FF didn't envision that either. How could they have?


The founding fathers believed in proportional representation. We no longer have that. In order to fix it, we would have to almost completely revamp how representation is calculated, and thus the EV's each state has.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: theantediluvian
The EC also creates an exploitable system where undue focus is placed on about a dozen states. I'm sure the FF didn't envision that either. How could they have?


The founding fathers believed in proportional representation. We no longer have that. In order to fix it, we would have to almost completely revamp how representation is calculated, and thus the EV's each state has.


Actually, we have more proportional representation than ever.

All the Congressional Districts are populated fairly equal.




posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
I don't believe the EC is serving its intended purpose.

There is a common fault in the argumentation by conservatives. They seem to believe that if they can recite the reasons (well half the reasons) for the EC's establishment, that it's somehow an actual argument for its continuing existence.


I think the EC is a good thing. I think it's in need of reform though. The truth is, our government simply isn't designed to operate at the scale it's currently operating at. The system was great when the population of the US was 1 million people, but the system of government outlined by the Constitution is not scalable. Since a group becomes unmanagable at about 550 people, our constitution (and related EC/EV) can only scale to about 11 million people. Even most states are above that now. It's a serious issue.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Congress is beset by tons of gerrymandering. No reasonable person would suggest that Congressional districts are fairly divided.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Congress does not draw congressional district boundaries......
jesus did your school even have civics?



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: RickinVa

Until we add more states to the union, like Puerto Rico or Guam. PR will be a state within the next 20 years.

A more fair way to do it would be to award EV's proportionally by state rather than winner take all, and to give the Presidency to whoever gets the most EV's rather than requiring 270.

Your system just makes Wyoming equal to California for election results, when that's not fair at all.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm wondering if your school taught reading comprehension because I never said that Congress draws congressional boundaries. But hey, looks like we can add another strawman to the Conservative fallacy pile. Way to go, keep your peers proud, but by no means should you ever get near a respectful or intelligent discussion.
edit on 24-10-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm wondering if your school taught reading comprehension because I never said that Congress draws congressional boundaries.


I was going to point that out, but figured he was actually addressing his comment to Jesus.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Dudemo5

Lol. That's funny right there.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Actually, we have more proportional representation than ever.

All the Congressional Districts are populated fairly equal.


That's not true. New York for example has 27 representatives in the House for 8.54 million people. That's one person per 316,000 citizens. Wyoming has 1 rep for 586,000 citizens. That's not even close to equal.

Actually managing Congress if we were to represent 1 per 20k like the Constiution says or even 1 per 100k would quickly make things an unmanagable clusterf*ck though. Congress as currently implemented simply cannot operate at the scale required for the US, and it can't work for even most states.

This relates to the EC because congressional seats are how number of EV's are determined. The EC is a good idea, but currently doesn't operate as it should.




top topics



 
30
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join