Jump to content
SiouxSports.com Forum

2020 Dumpster Fire (Enter at your own risk)


jk

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

Mob rule is what a direct vote would create.

How long do you think it would take smaller states to rebel if they had zero voice in the national elections. Every election would be determined out of their control.

Mob rule if each voter had equal representation in our country?

It would be in control of all citizens equally.  You have a problem with that? 

This from the fear of Antifa folks?  

That's beyond bizarre. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Mob rule if each voter had equal representation in our country?

It would be in control of all citizens equally.  You have a problem with that? 

This from the fear of Antifa folks?  

That's beyond bizarre. 

 

the thing that you are puposfully overlooking is that all national elections would be controlled by california and new york....sounds really fair to the rest of the country

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hayduke1 said:

Mob rule if each voter had equal representation in our country?

It would be in control of all citizens equally.  You have a problem with that? 

This from the fear of Antifa folks?  

That's beyond bizarre. 

 

Nationally? Yes, I have a problem with a direct vote.

You’re wrong about the effect it would have. It would actually eliminate a massive sector of US citizens from having any voice at all. 
 

It would decrease voter turnout and lead to a revolution and that’s not an exaggeration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hayduke1 said:

Actually, as a cultist you are beyond ridiculous.  You also do not seem to possess any critical thinking skills.  Which helps make you the perfect tool for Trump.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/electoral-college-racist-origins/601918/

Behind Madison’s statement were the stark facts: The populations in the North and South were approximately equal, but roughly one-third of those living in the South were held in bondage. Because of its considerable, nonvoting slave population, that region would have less clout under a popular-vote system. The ultimate solution was an indirect method of choosing the president, one that could leverage the three-fifths compromise, the Faustian bargain they’d already made to determine how congressional seats would be apportioned. 

instead of population for the EC let's do land mass.....North Dakota for example would have 10 votes compared to a Connecticut which would have 3...I'm in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bison06 said:

Nationally? Yes, I have a problem with a direct vote.

You’re wrong about the effect it would have. It would actually eliminate a massive sector of US citizens from having any voice at all. 
 

It would decrease voter turnout and lead to a revolution and that’s not an exaggeration.

Really?

Is this the talking point from Fox, Rush or some other "credible source"?

Why would some have no voice if it was a direct vote?  In fact, all would have an equal voice. 

Wouldn't this help drive more voters to the polls from all points of view knowing that it actually mattered?  Look at it this way.  How many more Republicans might vote in California knowing that a direct vote means their vote would matter?   Same thing in red states for Democrats.  

Democracy isn't something to be feared.  It also isn't a game to be rigged. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 1972 said:

image.png.c6984c18127abdde8c8dcea3f062c567.png

 

this is the map of the 2016 election...do youo now understand why the electoral college is so important?  im guesing, no

I'm guessing you haven't a clue about population density.

Well, you are good at the dense part though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 1972 said:

the thing that you are puposfully overlooking is that all national elections would be controlled by california and new york....sounds really fair to the rest of the country

No.  Ir would be controlled by ALL United States citizens. 

Why would that scare you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hayduke1 said:

I'm guessing you haven't a clue about population density.

Well, you are good at the dense part though. 

i was right, you do not have a clue.  please go back to your super nintendo, and eating cheetos...grown ups are talking

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hayduke1 said:

Really?

Is this the talking point from Fox, Rush or some other "credible source"?

Why would some have no voice if it was a direct vote?  In fact, all would have an equal voice. 

Wouldn't this help drive more voters to the polls from all points of view knowing that it actually mattered?  Look at it this way.  How many more Republicans might vote in California knowing that a direct vote means their vote would matter?   Same thing in red states for Democrats.  

Democracy isn't something to be feared.  It also isn't a game to be rigged. 

 

 

Just now, Hayduke1 said:

I'm guessing you haven't a clue about population density.

Well, you are good at the dense part though. 

Willful ignorance is not a virtue.

Isn’t learning that your vote doesn’t count leading to decreased voter turnout the democratic argument for voter disenfranchisement? You’re losing touch on your liberal talking points.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hayduke1 said:

No.  Ir would be controlled by ALL United States citizens. 

Why would that scare you?

Because there is a very real possibility you'd drive from the Jersey Shore to LA and not encounter a drive through a single state where the President won lol

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 1972 said:

i was right, you do not have a clue.  please go back to your super nintendo, and eating cheetos...grown ups are talking

Someone said earlier Trump is a master persuader.

Haydouche1...........is just a master bator.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hayduke1 said:

Really?

Is this the talking point from Fox, Rush or some other "credible source"?

Why would some have no voice if it was a direct vote?  In fact, all would have an equal voice. 

Wouldn't this help drive more voters to the polls from all points of view knowing that it actually mattered?  Look at it this way.  How many more Republicans might vote in California knowing that a direct vote means their vote would matter?   Same thing in red states for Democrats.  

Democracy isn't something to be feared.  It also isn't a game to be rigged. 

 

100 people are in a room, 51 of them vote to kill the other 49. 
 

Democracy has flaws.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bison06 said:

 

Willful ignorance is not a virtue.

Isn’t learning that your vote doesn’t count leading to decreased voter turnout the democratic argument for voter disenfranchisement? You’re losing touch on your liberal talking points.

 

Again, it would count equally. You have no basis in saying otherwise.  

Just cultist talking points not backed up by facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 1972 said:

actually, no it wouldnt becasue of, wait for it...POPULATION DENSITY!

Really?  One citizen, one vote is affected by population density?

Please tell me you didn't goto UND.  Because thats some hall of shame stuff there.

ROTFLMFAO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...