Alert: Maine Senate Passes National Popular Vote Bill To Bypass Electoral College

a reply to: chr0naut

The people who live in that parcel might care though

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut

The people who live in that parcel might care though

If any.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Just for fun, lets say I am a schizophrenic. I have more than 5 million distinctly separate personalities. Each and every one of them wants to vote. Its who I identify as, at any given moment and that is all that counts, right liberals?

So here it is: I like Trump. So do I. Me too. Yeah, me too. I'm right there with ya. Me too. Count me in. And so on for the rest of me.

A few more people like me and that should take care of the illegal vote. Now, lets get on with the real election...

Why would it be fun to call you a schizophrenic? Perhaps I'm a bit Aspbergers and don't understand things like that.



Also, would the mental illness be a pre-condition of voting for Trump or an after effect? You weren't specific enough in your hypothetical.

a reply to: chr0naut

Nope and nope. Its more of a 'liberals love to create new perceptions of themselves and demand to be respected and treated as whatever they decide to be that day' kind of thing. Why stop with choosing genders or ethnicities? Having multiple personalities who all demand a vote is just as valid.

It would seem that the requirement of mental illness requirement for liberals is not hypothetical. But thats just 'us'.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: chr0naut

Nope and nope. Its more of a 'liberals love to create new perceptions of themselves and demand to be respected and treated as whatever they decide to be that day' kind of thing. Why stop with choosing genders or ethnicities? Having multiple personalities who all demand a vote is just as valid.

It would seem that the requirement of mental illness requirement for liberals is not hypothetical. But thats just 'us'.

I can't wait for the day where I can identify as a medical doctor and actually practice.

At this point, my advice is stop feeding the trolls.

There are no valid points coming from the other side anymore. Just posturing and identity politics. It's sad we've allowed ourselves to devolve into this.

originally posted by: sine.nomine

Just posturing and identity politics.

Great summation, dem platform in a nutshell.

What sick people....

a reply to: infolurker

Well, in all honesty..........I'd have to guess that a great many already saw that coming.

One party rule in the US is inevitable. Maybe, considering that there's not enough talent out there to provide quality politicians to two parties, its just as well. One things for certain, voting in the Federal elections in fly-over country will become utterly pointless. New York and California will decide the outcome of every Presidential election. The only thing left to the States will be the Senate.

Mmm is ironic appropriate...

The very party pushing that a state issued id is a hardship and voter suppression..


But in the next breath will push something like this that will suppress the value of a voters choice by letting the big city states dictate who gets the EC votes.

Bypassing the electoral college sounds like a bad idea.
Lower population states will not have as much say as the coasts.

I say let them have their own country. Seriously, I am tired of this nonsense. All you midwestern/western and southern dems can just migrate to these "utopias".

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: infolurker
The only thing left to the States will be the Senate.

That will be the next thing to be attracted. Why should small states have any representation; we big states don't like they think after all.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: chr0naut

Nope and nope. Its more of a 'liberals love to create new perceptions of themselves and demand to be respected and treated as whatever they decide to be that day' kind of thing. Why stop with choosing genders or ethnicities? Having multiple personalities who all demand a vote is just as valid.

It would seem that the requirement of mental illness requirement for liberals is not hypothetical. But thats just 'us'.

There was no mention of 'us' or some generalist term in either your previous post or in my reply to it. Clearly, we were talking just about your scenario where only you were the schizophrenic.

It's rather poor reasoning to apply very specific motivations to large and anonymous groups. This is something that is done repeatedly by specific people on ATS. It is as stupid as telling someone else what their beliefs and motivations are, when you clearly don't have a clue and they clearly do. Very poor argument. Very poor reasoning.

originally posted by: Elton
Bypassing the electoral college sounds like a bad idea.
Lower population states will not have as much say as the coasts.

Surely that is the opposite of "government for the people and by the people" - 'government for the arbitrary division of land area and by the arbitrary division of land area'.

its like children who lose, they change the rules the next round so they feel it's "fair" , in their eyes.


a reply to: infolurker