Current Events > Funny how supporters of the electoral college don't even know the reason

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
ChainedRedone 08/04/17 6:44:08 PM #1:	for its existence. Hint: No, it wasn't so smaller states would have a chance against bigger states It's pretty astounding that 'patriotic' Americans defend an undemocratic system so hard without even knowing what its intended purpose is. --- David Mink. Hero. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6043/6337878059_009dd4c4f3_z.jpg <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884194604] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote>for its existence. Hint: No, it wasn't so smaller states would have a chance against bigger states It's pretty astounding that 'patriotic' Americans defend an undemocratic system so hard without even knowing what its intended purpose is.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thecoolgu 08/04/17 6:45:34 PM #2:	It's all trolling and fluff until you tell us what it's for, Buster. --- (Insert situational remark here) <cite>thecoolgu posted [p:884194672] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote>It's all trolling and fluff until you tell us what it's for, Buster.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/04/17 6:47:21 PM #3:	thecoolgu posted... It's all trolling and fluff until you tell us what it's for, Buster. Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that. --- David Mink. Hero. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6043/6337878059_009dd4c4f3_z.jpg <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884194770] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>thecoolgu posted...</cite> <quote>It's all trolling and fluff until you tell us what it's for, Buster.</quote> Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thecoolgu 08/04/17 6:50:15 PM #4:	ChainedRedone posted... Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. I mean, Trump is still the President. The system must be broken at the moment. --- (Insert situational remark here) <cite>thecoolgu posted [p:884194943] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote>Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'.</quote> I mean, Trump is still the President. The system must be broken at the moment.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
iPhone_7 08/04/17 6:50:26 PM #5:	It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected if they won the popular vote, except it's exactly what helped Trump get elected. They didn't foresee that officials would lack a spine and vote along party lines anyways. And this is twice now within 16 years that the electoral college has screwed over the Democrats. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. --- Sig User Logic http://i.imgur.com/lA5fm7w.jpg <cite>iPhone_7 posted [p:884194956] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote>It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected if they won the popular vote, except it's exactly what helped Trump get elected. They didn't foresee that officials would lack a spine and vote along party lines anyways. And this is twice now within 16 years that the electoral college has screwed over the Democrats. Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/04/17 6:52:17 PM #6:	thecoolgu posted... ChainedRedone posted... Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. I mean, Trump is still the President. The system must be broken at the moment. Something rabid Republicans and intellectual lightweights on the internet can seem to grasp: the electoral college is bullshit. --- David Mink. Hero. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6043/6337878059_009dd4c4f3_z.jpg <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884195054] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>thecoolgu posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote>Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'.</quote> I mean, Trump is still the President. The system must be broken at the moment.</quote> Something rabid Republicans and intellectual lightweights on the internet can seem to grasp: the electoral college is bullshit.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 08/04/17 6:52:36 PM #7:	iPhone_7 posted... It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected if they won the popular vote, except it's exactly what helped Trump get elected. They didn't foresee that officials would lack a spine and vote along party lines anyways. Idk if I would call it party lines as the electorate isn't really affiliated with any one party. Just most of them voted towards whatever the state results were. Although I believe some states have rules in place to keep the electorates from voting differently anyways. --- http://i.imgur.com/BBcZDLJ.png <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:884195073] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote>It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected if they won the popular vote, except it's exactly what helped Trump get elected. They didn't foresee that officials would lack a spine and vote along party lines anyways.</quote> Idk if I would call it party lines as the electorate isn't really affiliated with any one party. Just most of them voted towards whatever the state results were. Although I believe some states have rules in place to keep the electorates from voting differently anyways.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SSMajinVegeta2 08/04/17 6:54:51 PM #8:	So the electoral college gets to have their opinion outweigh America's? --- On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer. Satoru Iwata, 1959 - 2015 RIP GP God bless <cite>SSMajinVegeta2 posted [p:884195175] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote>So the electoral college gets to have their opinion outweigh America's?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/04/17 6:55:38 PM #9:	http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/ The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” 1. a stupid president (lol) 2. a cohesive group being able to bully the minority just like these people say about california vs. their little states “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” this is literally the scenario where the democrats can say "we got New York and California and Chicago, so we don't have to listen to people in rural states." The faction here would be urbanites who don't know about or care about rural life and thus have no incentive to listen to their concerns --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884195210] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote>http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-reason-for-the-electoral-college/ <quote>The reason that the Constitution calls for this extra layer, rather than just providing for the direct election of the president, is that most of the nation’s founders were actually rather afraid of democracy. James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. Madison’s fear – which Alexis de Tocqueville later dubbed “the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.” Madison has a solution for tyranny of the majority: “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” </quote> 1. a stupid president (lol) 2. a cohesive group being able to bully the minority just like these people say about california vs. their little states <quote>“the tyranny of the majority” – was that a faction could grow to encompass more than 50 percent of the population, at which point it could “sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.”</quote> this is literally the scenario where the democrats can say "we got New York and California and Chicago, so we don't have to listen to people in rural states." The faction here would be urbanites who don't know about or care about rural life and thus have no incentive to listen to their concerns</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
iPhone_7 08/04/17 6:56:05 PM #10:	Tmaster148 posted... Idk if I would call it party lines as the electorate isn't really affiliated with any one party. Just most of them voted towards whatever the state results were. Although I believe some states have rules in place to keep the electorates from voting differently anyways. Actually you're correct. They go in whatever way their state votes. Although I'm unsure how exactly how or why they're picked, like if they're unaffiliated with any party. --- Sig User Logic http://i.imgur.com/lA5fm7w.jpg <cite>iPhone_7 posted [p:884195222] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>Idk if I would call it party lines as the electorate isn't really affiliated with any one party. Just most of them voted towards whatever the state results were. Although I believe some states have rules in place to keep the electorates from voting differently anyways.</quote> Actually you're correct. They go in whatever way their state votes. Although I'm unsure how exactly how or why they're picked, like if they're unaffiliated with any party.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
iPhone_7 08/04/17 6:59:50 PM #11:	this is literally the scenario where the democrats can say "we got New York and California and Chicago, so we don't have to listen to people in rural states." The faction here would be urbanites who don't know about or care about rural life and thus have no incentive to listen to their concerns sigless user is me or am I? So ruralites who don't know about or care about urban life get to have their vote matter more because of where they live. --- Sig User Logic http://i.imgur.com/lA5fm7w.jpg <cite>iPhone_7 posted [p:884195413] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><quote>this is literally the scenario where the democrats can say "we got New York and California and Chicago, so we don't have to listen to people in rural states." The faction here would be urbanites who don't know about or care about rural life and thus have no incentive to listen to their concerns sigless user is me or am I?</quote> So ruralites who don't know about or care about urban life get to have their vote matter more because of where they live.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 08/04/17 7:00:56 PM #12:	iPhone_7 posted... Tmaster148 posted... Idk if I would call it party lines as the electorate isn't really affiliated with any one party. Just most of them voted towards whatever the state results were. Although I believe some states have rules in place to keep the electorates from voting differently anyways. Actually you're correct. They go in whatever way their state votes. Although I'm unsure how exactly how or why they're picked, like if they're unaffiliated with any party. Electors are picked by the ballot we vote for it's just that instead of voting for the elector we vote for an elector who pledge to vote for x candidate. It's a really weird system. --- http://i.imgur.com/BBcZDLJ.png <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:884195484] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>Idk if I would call it party lines as the electorate isn't really affiliated with any one party. Just most of them voted towards whatever the state results were. Although I believe some states have rules in place to keep the electorates from voting differently anyways.</quote> Actually you're correct. They go in whatever way their state votes. Although I'm unsure how exactly how or why they're picked, like if they're unaffiliated with any party.</quote> Electors are picked by the ballot we vote for it's just that instead of voting for the elector we vote for an elector who pledge to vote for x candidate. It's a really weird system.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/04/17 7:01:30 PM #13:	darkphoenix181 posted... this is literally the scenario where the democrats can say "we got New York and California and Chicago, so we don't have to listen to people in rural states." No it's not because the electoral college aims to prevent the situation through electorates voting for the candidate that is not a tyranical demagogue. Not by giving massively disproportionate power to the smaller states. More evidence that you people still can't understand the concept if your life depended on it. --- David Mink. Hero. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6043/6337878059_009dd4c4f3_z.jpg <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884195513] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>this is literally the scenario where the democrats can say "we got New York and California and Chicago, so we don't have to listen to people in rural states." </quote> No it's not because the electoral college aims to prevent the situation through electorates voting for the candidate that is not a tyranical demagogue. Not by giving massively disproportionate power to the smaller states. More evidence that you people still can't understand the concept if your life depended on it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/04/17 7:03:20 PM #14:	iPhone_7 posted... Tmaster148 posted... Idk if I would call it party lines as the electorate isn't really affiliated with any one party. Just most of them voted towards whatever the state results were. Although I believe some states have rules in place to keep the electorates from voting differently anyways. Actually you're correct. They go in whatever way their state votes. Although I'm unsure how exactly how or why they're picked, like if they're unaffiliated with any party. They do belong to a party. The people choose the electorates. So say democrates win in CA, the Californian electorates that were picked by the democratic party vote for the president. If the Republicans win, it is a different set of electorates, ones chosen by Republicans. For this reason electorates very rarely vote outside their party lines.The people choose the electorates, the electorates then choose the president. --- David Mink. Hero. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6043/6337878059_009dd4c4f3_z.jpg <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884195598] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote>Idk if I would call it party lines as the electorate isn't really affiliated with any one party. Just most of them voted towards whatever the state results were. Although I believe some states have rules in place to keep the electorates from voting differently anyways.</quote> Actually you're correct. They go in whatever way their state votes. Although I'm unsure how exactly how or why they're picked, like if they're unaffiliated with any party.</quote> They do belong to a party. The people choose the electorates. So say democrates win in CA, the Californian electorates that were picked by the democratic party vote for the president. If the Republicans win, it is a different set of electorates, ones chosen by Republicans. For this reason electorates very rarely vote outside their party lines.The people choose the electorates, the electorates then choose the president.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/04/17 7:05:55 PM #15:	iPhone_7 posted... this is literally the scenario where the democrats can say "we got New York and California and Chicago, so we don't have to listen to people in rural states." The faction here would be urbanites who don't know about or care about rural life and thus have no incentive to listen to their concerns sigless user is me or am I? So ruralites who don't know about or care about urban life get to have their vote matter more because of where they live. you are looking at it wrong look at it through Madison's perspective: James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. He wasn't worried that one person's vote would count more than another person's, he was worried than one group's votes would count more than another groups. So since there is less people in the rural areas, to bring that group to parity with people living in cities, yes you would have to make each rural person's individual vote count more. But as a group, as a whole, their vote is not more important than those in a city. To win the election you need to appeal to both. His fear was that to win the election you need to appeal to only one and forget the other. More specifically, they didn't want one state bullying all the rest. Which is what happens when one state has massively more population and each vote counts the same. --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884195714] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote><quote>this is literally the scenario where the democrats can say "we got New York and California and Chicago, so we don't have to listen to people in rural states." The faction here would be urbanites who don't know about or care about rural life and thus have no incentive to listen to their concerns sigless user is me or am I?</quote> So ruralites who don't know about or care about urban life get to have their vote matter more because of where they live.</quote> you are looking at it wrong look at it through Madison's perspective: <quote>James Madison worried about what he called “factions,” which he defined as groups of citizens who have a common interest in some proposal that would either violate the rights of other citizens or would harm the nation as a whole. </quote> He wasn't worried that one person's vote would count more than another person's, he was worried than one group's votes would count more than another groups. So since there is less people in the rural areas, to bring that group to parity with people living in cities, yes you would have to make each rural person's individual vote count more. But as a group, as a whole, their vote is not more important than those in a city. To win the election you need to appeal to both. His fear was that to win the election you need to appeal to only one and forget the other. More specifically, they didn't want one state bullying all the rest. Which is what happens when one state has massively more population and each vote counts the same.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/04/17 7:07:44 PM #16:	darkphoenix181 posted... He wasn't worried that one person's vote would count more than another person's, he was worried than one group's votes would count more than another groups. So since there is less people in the rural areas, to bring that group to parity with people living in cities, yes you would have to make each rural person's individual vote count more. But as a group, as a whole, their vote is not more important than those in a city. To win the election you need to appeal to both. His fear was that to win the election you need to appeal to only one and forget the other. You are literally wrong the electoral college was not meant to give disproportionate power to rural states. You are doing what every electoral college supporter does which is falsely romantacize the concept and mechanism of the electoral college. --- David Mink. Hero. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6043/6337878059_009dd4c4f3_z.jpg <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884195803] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>He wasn't worried that one person's vote would count more than another person's, he was worried than one group's votes would count more than another groups. So since there is less people in the rural areas, to bring that group to parity with people living in cities, yes you would have to make each rural person's individual vote count more. But as a group, as a whole, their vote is not more important than those in a city. To win the election you need to appeal to both. His fear was that to win the election you need to appeal to only one and forget the other.</quote> You are literally wrong the electoral college was not meant to give disproportionate power to rural states. You are doing what every electoral college supporter does which is falsely romantacize the concept and mechanism of the electoral college.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/04/17 7:10:43 PM #17:	ChainedRedone posted... darkphoenix181 posted... He wasn't worried that one person's vote would count more than another person's, he was worried than one group's votes would count more than another groups. So since there is less people in the rural areas, to bring that group to parity with people living in cities, yes you would have to make each rural person's individual vote count more. But as a group, as a whole, their vote is not more important than those in a city. To win the election you need to appeal to both. His fear was that to win the election you need to appeal to only one and forget the other. You are literally wrong the electoral college was not meant to give disproportionate power to rural states. You are doing what every electoral college supporter does which is falsely romantacize the concept and mechanism of the electoral college. I cited an article which literally quoted James Madson do you for some reason not like factcheck.org? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884195956] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>He wasn't worried that one person's vote would count more than another person's, he was worried than one group's votes would count more than another groups. So since there is less people in the rural areas, to bring that group to parity with people living in cities, yes you would have to make each rural person's individual vote count more. But as a group, as a whole, their vote is not more important than those in a city. To win the election you need to appeal to both. His fear was that to win the election you need to appeal to only one and forget the other.</quote> You are literally wrong the electoral college was not meant to give disproportionate power to rural states. You are doing what every electoral college supporter does which is falsely romantacize the concept and mechanism of the electoral college.</quote> I cited an article which literally quoted James Madson do you for some reason not like factcheck.org?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/04/17 7:12:58 PM #18:	darkphoenix181 posted... More specifically, they didn't want one state bullying all the rest. Which is what happens when one state has massively more population and each vote counts the same. to illustrate a state could elect their governor to be president to have him make deals to bring more wealth to their state and do all sorts of things that ONLY benefits their state that is, a state could do this IF we had votes only work via population that is, if one state has enough of population disparity, it automatically wins if the people in that state like the candidate with less populous places having their people have a higher say, it balances it out such that they could actually fight this and say "you can't just do things that benefits your one state only! you need to benefit the whole country!" --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884196057] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote>More specifically, they didn't want one state bullying all the rest. Which is what happens when one state has massively more population and each vote counts the same.</quote> to illustrate a state could elect their governor to be president to have him make deals to bring more wealth to their state and do all sorts of things that ONLY benefits their state that is, a state could do this IF we had votes only work via population that is, if one state has enough of population disparity, it automatically wins if the people in that state like the candidate with less populous places having their people have a higher say, it balances it out such that they could actually fight this and say "you can't just do things that benefits your one state only! you need to benefit the whole country!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
iPhone_7 08/04/17 7:15:36 PM #19:	I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote. --- Sig User Logic http://i.imgur.com/lA5fm7w.jpg <cite>iPhone_7 posted [p:884196184] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote>I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Banana_Cyanide 08/04/17 7:15:47 PM #20:	ChainedRedone posted... Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that. Holy shitting fuck you could not be any more wrong if you tried. This is some serious standard setting shit right here. --- Who knew bananas could be so lethal? Proud member of The Church of The God-Emperor of Man. <cite>Banana_Cyanide posted [p:884196195] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote>Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that.</quote> Holy shitting fuck you could not be any more wrong if you tried. This is some serious standard setting shit right here.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/04/17 7:23:06 PM #21:	Banana_Cyanide posted... Holy shitting fuck you could not be any more wrong if you tried. This is some serious standard setting shit right here. That is the well-known reason for the electoral college. Would you like me to Google an article for you? --- David Mink. Hero. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6043/6337878059_009dd4c4f3_z.jpg <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884196573] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>Banana_Cyanide posted...</cite> <quote>Holy shitting fuck you could not be any more wrong if you tried. This is some serious standard setting shit right here.</quote> That is the well-known reason for the electoral college. Would you like me to Google an article for you?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnholyMudcrab 08/04/17 7:23:50 PM #22:	Banana_Cyanide posted... ChainedRedone posted... Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that. Holy shitting fuck you could not be any more wrong if you tried. This is some serious standard setting shit right here. What a useless post --- http://i.imgur.com/VeNBg.gif http://i.imgur.com/gd5jC8q.gif http://i.imgur.com/PKIy7.gif http://i.imgur.com/3p29JqP.gif <cite>UnholyMudcrab posted [p:884196611] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>Banana_Cyanide posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote> Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that.</quote> Holy shitting fuck you could not be any more wrong if you tried. This is some serious standard setting shit right here.</quote> What a useless post</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/04/17 7:24:29 PM #23:	iPhone_7 posted... I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote. then we might as well abolish states --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884196646] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote>I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote.</quote> then we might as well abolish states</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Tmaster148 08/04/17 7:27:20 PM #24:	darkphoenix181 posted... iPhone_7 posted... I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote. then we might as well abolish states States still have a function outside of voting for president. Plus they already get representation via congress. --- http://i.imgur.com/BBcZDLJ.png <cite>Tmaster148 posted [p:884196780] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote>I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote.</quote> then we might as well abolish states</quote> States still have a function outside of voting for president. Plus they already get representation via congress.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Banana_Cyanide 08/04/17 7:29:45 PM #25:	ChainedRedone posted... That is the well-known reason for the electoral college. Would you like me to Google an article for you? Yet you've already been PROVEN WRONG by a direct quote from James Madison but go ahead continue to be INFURIATINGLY WRONG while avoiding having to admit that all you want is for the democrats to be back in power FOREVER while the republicans can go fuck off somewhere else. --- Who knew bananas could be so lethal? Proud member of The Church of The God-Emperor of Man. <cite>Banana_Cyanide posted [p:884196885] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote>That is the well-known reason for the electoral college. Would you like me to Google an article for you?</quote> Yet you've already been PROVEN WRONG by a direct quote from James Madison but go ahead continue to be INFURIATINGLY WRONG while avoiding having to admit that all you want is for the democrats to be back in power FOREVER while the republicans can go fuck off somewhere else.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkphoenix181 08/04/17 7:31:59 PM #26:	Tmaster148 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... iPhone_7 posted... I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote. then we might as well abolish states States still have a function outside of voting for president. Plus they already get representation via congress. curious what in your opinion are the purposes of states? if you can, can you give at least 5? --- sigless user is me or am I? <cite>darkphoenix181 posted [p:884196969] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote>I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote.</quote> then we might as well abolish states</quote> States still have a function outside of voting for president. Plus they already get representation via congress.</quote> curious what in your opinion are the purposes of states? if you can, can you give at least 5?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/04/17 9:34:10 PM #27:	Banana_Cyanide posted... ChainedRedone posted... That is the well-known reason for the electoral college. Would you like me to Google an article for you? Yet you've already been PROVEN WRONG by a direct quote from James Madison but go ahead continue to be INFURIATINGLY WRONG while avoiding having to admit that all you want is for the democrats to be back in power FOREVER while the republicans can go fuck off somewhere else. It actually wasn't a quote from James Madison. It was a quote from Ben Shapiro. --- David Mink. Hero. https://c1.staticflickr.com/7/6043/6337878059_009dd4c4f3_z.jpg <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884202719] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>Banana_Cyanide posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote>That is the well-known reason for the electoral college. Would you like me to Google an article for you?</quote> Yet you've already been PROVEN WRONG by a direct quote from James Madison but go ahead continue to be INFURIATINGLY WRONG while avoiding having to admit that all you want is for the democrats to be back in power FOREVER while the republicans can go fuck off somewhere else.</quote> It actually wasn't a quote from James Madison. It was a quote from Ben Shapiro.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JohnLennon6 08/05/17 11:49:38 AM #28:	darkphoenix181 posted... Tmaster148 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... iPhone_7 posted... I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote. then we might as well abolish states States still have a function outside of voting for president. Plus they already get representation via congress. curious what in your opinion are the purposes of states? if you can, can you give at least 5? --- He has good daygame - MasterOfMissions <cite>JohnLennon6 posted [p:884227911] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote>I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote.</quote> then we might as well abolish states</quote> States still have a function outside of voting for president. Plus they already get representation via congress.</quote> curious what in your opinion are the purposes of states? if you can, can you give at least 5?</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/05/17 2:40:16 PM #29:	JohnLennon6 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... Tmaster148 posted... darkphoenix181 posted... iPhone_7 posted... I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote. then we might as well abolish states States still have a function outside of voting for president. Plus they already get representation via congress. curious what in your opinion are the purposes of states? if you can, can you give at least 5? Lmao ain't nobody going to do your homework, kids. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.1 <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884235480] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>JohnLennon6 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Tmaster148 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>darkphoenix181 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote> I'd rather one's vote not matter depending on what state their registered home is. One person, one vote. </quote> then we might as well abolish states </quote> States still have a function outside of voting for president. Plus they already get representation via congress. </quote> curious what in your opinion are the purposes of states? if you can, can you give at least 5?</quote></quote> Lmao ain't nobody going to do your homework, kids.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JohnLennon6 08/05/17 3:08:26 PM #30:	Sounds like a cop-out. --- He has good daygame - MasterOfMissions <cite>JohnLennon6 posted [p:884236867] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote>Sounds like a cop-out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 08/05/17 3:15:07 PM #31:	ChainedRedone posted... for its existence. Pure democracy = tyranny of the majority Without the EC, only the concerns of people living in population-dense coastal cities would matter and everyone else would get screwed. --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:884237241] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote>for its existence. </quote> Pure democracy = tyranny of the majority Without the EC, only the concerns of people living in population-dense coastal cities would matter and everyone else would get screwed.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/05/17 4:17:07 PM #32:	Sephiroth1288 posted... ChainedRedone posted... for its existence. Pure democracy = tyranny of the majority Without the EC, only the concerns of people living in population-dense coastal cities would matter and everyone else would get screwed. Again, a false romanization of the purpose of the electoral college. Jfc is every EC supporter this ignorant? --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.1 <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884240296] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote> for its existence. </quote> Pure democracy = tyranny of the majority Without the EC, only the concerns of people living in population-dense coastal cities would matter and everyone else would get screwed.</quote> Again, a false romanization of the purpose of the electoral college. Jfc is every EC supporter this ignorant?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/05/17 4:17:58 PM #33:	JohnLennon6 posted... Sounds like a cop-out. Sounds like the homework deadline is approaching. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.1 <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884240339] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>JohnLennon6 posted...</cite> <quote>Sounds like a cop-out.</quote> Sounds like the homework deadline is approaching.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gamer167 08/05/17 4:21:00 PM #34:	ChainedRedone posted... thecoolgu posted... It's all trolling and fluff until you tell us what it's for, Buster. Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that. Well Hillary didn't get elected so I guess it did its job. --- https://i.imgflip.com/1jhnka.jpg <cite>gamer167 posted [p:884240475] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote><cite>thecoolgu posted...</cite> <quote>It's all trolling and fluff until you tell us what it's for, Buster.</quote> Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that.</quote> Well Hillary didn't get elected so I guess it did its job.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FL81 08/05/17 4:22:20 PM #35:	iPhone_7 posted... It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected if they won the popular vote iPhone_7 posted... Al Gore and Hillary Clinton. seems to be working pretty well to me --- https://i.imgtc.com/C6jP02v.jpg https://i.imgtc.com/UAGNJFv.gif https://i.imgtc.com/cBTnWgf.png https://i.imgtc.com/wdjM3F8.png <cite>FL81 posted [p:884240532] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote>It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected if they won the popular vote</quote> <cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote>Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.</quote> seems to be working pretty well to me</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/05/17 4:23:15 PM #36:	gamer167 posted... ChainedRedone posted... thecoolgu posted... It's all trolling and fluff until you tell us what it's for, Buster. Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that. Well Hillary didn't get elected so I guess it did its job. He says this as Trump and his surrogates is under federal investigation. Lol --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.1 <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884240579] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>gamer167 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>thecoolgu posted...</cite> <quote> It's all trolling and fluff until you tell us what it's for, Buster. </quote> Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that.</quote> Well Hillary didn't get elected so I guess it did its job.</quote> He says this as Trump and his surrogates is under federal investigation. Lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Fill_Kessel 08/05/17 4:25:23 PM #37:	Lol, why don't you just let the population elect the President? --- NHL Insider, you're welcome <cite>Fill_Kessel posted [p:884240689] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote>Lol, why don't you just let the population elect the President?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gamer167 08/05/17 4:25:37 PM #38:	ChainedRedone posted... gamer167 posted... ChainedRedone posted... thecoolgu posted... It's all trolling and fluff until you tell us what it's for, Buster. Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that. Well Hillary didn't get elected so I guess it did its job. He says this as Trump and his surrogates is under federal investigation. Lol Guess he has more in common with Hillary than we thought. --- https://i.imgflip.com/1jhnka.jpg <cite>gamer167 posted [p:884240697] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gamer167 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>thecoolgu posted...</cite> <quote> It's all trolling and fluff until you tell us what it's for, Buster. </quote> Electorates were supposed to be intelligent and knowledgable and vote against a tyranical or scandalous candidate. In other words, they were safeguards in case the electorates felt that 'the people picked the wrong guy'. It had literally nothing to do with giving smaller states power and it's incredible so many ignorant Americans truly believe that.</quote> Well Hillary didn't get elected so I guess it did its job.</quote> He says this as Trump and his surrogates is under federal investigation. Lol</quote> Guess he has more in common with Hillary than we thought.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 08/05/17 4:27:49 PM #39:	ChainedRedone posted... Sephiroth1288 posted... ChainedRedone posted... for its existence. Pure democracy = tyranny of the majority Without the EC, only the concerns of people living in population-dense coastal cities would matter and everyone else would get screwed. Again, a false romanization of the purpose of the electoral college. Jfc is every EC supporter this ignorant? Protip: it's unwise to call people ignorant when you avoid addressing their argument. --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:884240778] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote> for its existence. </quote> Pure democracy = tyranny of the majority Without the EC, only the concerns of people living in population-dense coastal cities would matter and everyone else would get screwed.</quote> Again, a false romanization of the purpose of the electoral college. Jfc is every EC supporter this ignorant?</quote> Protip: it's unwise to call people ignorant when you avoid addressing their argument.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/05/17 4:27:52 PM #40:	Fill_Kessel posted... Lol, why don't you just let the population elect the President? Because Americans think the USA is a mystical land unlike every other nation on Earth. America is the only place in the world where urban voters would trample all over the interests of rural voters. It is a place where anarchy would ensure if the popular vote was the deciding factor, even though every other country in the world abides by that without any controversy. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.1 <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884240781] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>Fill_Kessel posted...</cite> <quote>Lol, why don't you just let the population elect the President?</quote> Because Americans think the USA is a mystical land unlike every other nation on Earth. America is the only place in the world where urban voters would trample all over the interests of rural voters. It is a place where anarchy would ensure if the popular vote was the deciding factor, even though every other country in the world abides by that without any controversy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/05/17 4:29:45 PM #41:	Sephiroth1288 posted... ChainedRedone posted... Sephiroth1288 posted... ChainedRedone posted... for its existence. Pure democracy = tyranny of the majority Without the EC, only the concerns of people living in population-dense coastal cities would matter and everyone else would get screwed. Again, a false romanization of the purpose of the electoral college. Jfc is every EC supporter this ignorant? Protip: it's unwise to call people ignorant when you avoid addressing their argument. I didn't avoid. I just told you that wasn't the purpose. It was not to give rural voters a bigger say. It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected by the unintelligent rabble. I've been saying it this entire topic. It's modern day Republicans that invented the notion that the EC purpose is so that big population states don't always decide elections. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.1 <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884240872] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote> for its existence. </quote> Pure democracy = tyranny of the majority Without the EC, only the concerns of people living in population-dense coastal cities would matter and everyone else would get screwed. </quote> Again, a false romanization of the purpose of the electoral college. Jfc is every EC supporter this ignorant? </quote> Protip: it's unwise to call people ignorant when you avoid addressing their argument.</quote> I didn't avoid. I just told you that wasn't the purpose. It was not to give rural voters a bigger say. It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected by the unintelligent rabble. I've been saying it this entire topic. It's modern day Republicans that invented the notion that the EC purpose is so that big population states don't always decide elections.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Damn_Underscore 08/05/17 4:32:37 PM #42:	Hillary should have won easily and she still lost, get over it. --- Shenmue II = best game of all time Shenmue = 2nd best game of all time <cite>Damn_Underscore posted [p:884241000] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote>Hillary should have won easily and she still lost, get over it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/05/17 4:33:51 PM #43:	Damn_Underscore posted... Hillary should have won easily and she still lost, get over it. When did I mention Hilary? Try again. --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.1 <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884241055] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>Damn_Underscore posted...</cite> <quote>Hillary should have won easily and she still lost, get over it.</quote> When did I mention Hilary? Try again.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 08/05/17 4:34:00 PM #44:	ChainedRedone posted... I didn't avoid. I just told you that wasn't the purpose. It was not to give rural voters a bigger say. It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected by the unintelligent rabble. All politicians are "demagogues". Don't use words when you don't know what they mean. --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:884241064] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote>I didn't avoid. I just told you that wasn't the purpose. It was not to give rural voters a bigger say. It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected by the unintelligent rabble. </quote> All politicians are "demagogues". Don't use words when you don't know what they mean.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChainedRedone 08/05/17 4:34:48 PM #45:	Sephiroth1288 posted... ChainedRedone posted... I didn't avoid. I just told you that wasn't the purpose. It was not to give rural voters a bigger say. It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected by the unintelligent rabble. All politicians are "demagogues". Don't use words when you don't know what they mean. That's untrue. Maybe you should look up the definition --- Posted with GameRaven 3.2.1 <cite>ChainedRedone posted [p:884241106] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote> I didn't avoid. I just told you that wasn't the purpose. It was not to give rural voters a bigger say. It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected by the unintelligent rabble. </quote> All politicians are "demagogues". Don't use words when you don't know what they mean.</quote> That's untrue. Maybe you should look up the definition</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 08/05/17 4:35:46 PM #46:	Of course regressive liberals think the system failed when it resulted in a candidate they don't like and who hurts their feelings daily. Much easier to blame the electoral college than the millions of lazy fellow liberals who decided not to vote on Election Day. --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:884241145] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote>Of course regressive liberals think the system failed when it resulted in a candidate they don't like and who hurts their feelings daily. Much easier to blame the electoral college than the millions of lazy fellow liberals who decided not to vote on Election Day.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 08/05/17 4:36:44 PM #47:	Sephiroth1288 posted... ChainedRedone posted... I didn't avoid. I just told you that wasn't the purpose. It was not to give rural voters a bigger say. It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected by the unintelligent rabble. All politicians are "demagogues". Don't use words when you don't know what they mean. You called Nazi's leftists and weren't anti-gay. It's ironic that you're trying to talk down at someone. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:884241193] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sephiroth1288 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ChainedRedone posted...</cite> <quote>I didn't avoid. I just told you that wasn't the purpose. It was not to give rural voters a bigger say. It was to prevent a demagogue from being elected by the unintelligent rabble. </quote> All politicians are "demagogues". Don't use words when you don't know what they mean.</quote> You called Nazi's leftists and weren't anti-gay. It's ironic that you're trying to talk down at someone.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sephiroth1288 08/05/17 4:38:25 PM #48:	sktgamer_13dude posted... You called Nazi's leftists and anti-gay. Because they are leftists and anti-gay... --- The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience. Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248 <cite>Sephiroth1288 posted [p:884241259] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>sktgamer_13dude posted...</cite> <quote>You called Nazi's leftists and anti-gay. </quote> Because they are leftists and anti-gay...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sktgamer_13dude 08/05/17 4:38:38 PM #49:	The Admiral posted... Of course regressive liberals think the system failed when it resulted in a candidate they don't like and who hurts their feelings daily. Much easier to blame the electoral college than the millions of lazy fellow liberals who decided not to vote on Election Day. Electoral college is stupid. Hillary didn't 100% lose because of it though. She lost because she failed to campaign the Rust Belt states along with multiple other grievances. You can be critical against the system without blaming it for a loss. Shut the fuck up. --- http://i.imgur.com/jWVrg9U.gif http://i.imgur.com/g2efUtT.jpg http://i.imgur.com/5dOwhaP.jpg http://i.imgur.com/LVdqu8J.gif Go Cougs and M's #DI4B <cite>sktgamer_13dude posted [p:884241274] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote><cite>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>Of course regressive liberals think the system failed when it resulted in a candidate they don't like and who hurts their feelings daily. Much easier to blame the electoral college than the millions of lazy fellow liberals who decided not to vote on Election Day.</quote> Electoral college is stupid. Hillary didn't 100% lose because of it though. She lost because she failed to campaign the Rust Belt states along with multiple other grievances. You can be critical against the system without blaming it for a loss. Shut the fuck up.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
yemmy 08/05/17 4:39:17 PM #50:	http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA679.html poor Al, lol --- p226 <cite>yemmy posted [p:884241306] in Funny how ... [t:75638292]...</cite> <quote>http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA679.html poor Al, lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > Funny how supporters of the electoral college don't even know the reason (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Funny how supporters of the electoral college don't even know the reason