Pick your number but either way Trump won by a landslide

[rushmc 18]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-clinton-counties-won/

 

 The fact that Snopes says it was not so one-sided is a damned joke at best 

[headoverheels 291]

Kansas, with 1/13th of the population of California, has nearly twice the number of counties.   Texas, with under 3/4 of the population of California, has more than 4x the number of counties.

By that logic, Romney won by nearly the same landslide.

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by headoverheels

[yoink 321]

10 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

Kansas, with 1/13th of the population of California, has nearly twice the number of counties.   Texas, with under 3/4 of the population of California, has more than 4x the number of counties.

You’re onto a loser here. 

Rush has no interest in relative ratios or comparative mathematics and has only ever cherry picked figures that support his trolling. 

Pointing out the flaws in the numbers or argument will only ever get a ‘lol!’ or similarly pointless response before he moves the goalposts yet again to generate yet more responses.

[kallend 1,635]

Since when did government of the people by the people for the people become government of the people by arbitrarily bounded geographic areas for the people?

 

Rush has posted some really stupid things over the years but this one is a winner.

[ryoder 1,390]

One acre, one vote!

[rushmc 18]

9 hours ago, headoverheels said:

Kansas, with 1/13th of the population of California, has nearly twice the number of counties.   Texas, with under 3/4 of the population of California, has more than 4x the number of counties.

By that logic, Romney won by nearly the same landslide.

 

And yet you can’t even admit Trump won the country by a landslide.

 

A popular vote election would see Iowa and the rest of middle rural America ignored.

 

This is exactly why the electoral college will never be ended.

 

As the founders intended

[DJL 232]

12 hours ago, rushmc said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-clinton-counties-won/

 

 The fact that Snopes says it was not so one-sided is a damned joke at best 

Could you clarify the point you're trying to make?

[BillyVance 34]

Since I live in a state with a lot of green land and clean lakes (I literally have a lakefront home), with a couple, or 3 shithole cities that have high crime and are led by DEMOCRATIC mayors, I'd be offended if I was being told how to live by heavily populated high crime city DEMOCRATIC elites who can't get their shit together. Speaking of which, what's up with NYC mayor Bill De Blasio's wife being unable to account for $1.6 billion, or is it $1.8 billion, that she was given for her mental health initiative or whatever the fuck it was?

https://nypost.com/2019/02/28/de-blasio-and-co-mayor-wife-have-wasted-1-8b-of-taxpayer-money/

 

[kallend 1,635]

3 hours ago, rushmc said:

And yet you can’t even admit Trump won the country by a landslide.

 

A popular vote election would see Iowa and the rest of middle rural America ignored.

 

This is exactly why the electoral college will never be ended.

 

As the founders intended

What the founders intended is explained clearly in Federalist #68, and is NOT that a small bunch of rural farmers should tell tens of millions of city dwellers how they should be governed.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, BillyVance said:

Since I live in a state with a lot of green land and clean lakes (I literally have a lakefront home), with a couple, or 3 shithole cities that have high crime and are led by DEMOCRATIC mayors, I'd be offended if I was being told how to live by heavily populated high crime city DEMOCRATIC elites who can't get their shit together.

Edit: Wups,that was an alphabetical list.  Here's violent highest Violent Crime:

Missouri	St. Louis	310284	2082.29	66.07	93.14	626.52	1296.55	6041.24	1011.33	4155.55	874.36	64.78
Michigan	Detroit	670792	2056.67	39.80	103.91	393.42	1519.55	4540.60	1231.08	2093.79	1215.73	129.55
Maryland	Baltimore	613217	2027.01	55.77	62.29	958.71	950.23	4928.11	1311.28	2773.57	843.26	42.56
Tennessee	Memphis	652765	2003.32	27.73	90.38	529.59	1355.62	6297.83	1460.25	4224.49	613.08	55.92
Missouri	Kansas City	484948	1724.31	30.93	91.76	383.13	1218.48	4543.79	960.52	2670.39	912.88	41.45
Wisconsin	Milwaukee	595168	1597.36	19.83	72.92	490.45	1014.17	3792.04	927.13	1940.29	924.61	52.59
Ohio	Cleveland	385351	1556.76	27.77	128.97	699.88	700.14	4916.04	1518.87	2516.15	881.01	65.65
California	Stockton4	309566	1414.56	17.77	49.75	390.22	956.82	3627.34	691.29	2274.15	661.89	67.19
New Mexico	Albuquerque	561375	1369.14	12.47	84.26	521.93	750.48	7365.84	1246.23	4750.84	1368.78
Indiana	Indianapolis

 

 

 

 

Edited March 21, 2019 by DJL

[jakee 1,257]

4 hours ago, rushmc said:

And yet you can’t even admit Trump won the country by a landslide.

Because he didn’t, as was explained in the post you just replied to.

 

There is no ‘and yet’. It makes literally no sense as a reply. 

[jakee 1,257]

3 hours ago, BillyVance said:

Since I live in a state with a lot of green land and clean lakes (I literally have a lakefront home), with a couple, or 3 shithole cities that have high crime and are led by DEMOCRATIC mayors, I'd be offended if I was being told how to live by heavily populated high crime city DEMOCRATIC elites who can't get their shit together. 

Don’t you think all those people living in those cities should be offended that you and your much smaller number of friends want the power to tell them what to do?

[billvon 2,406]

3 hours ago, BillyVance said:

Since I live in a state with a lot of green land and clean lakes (I literally have a lakefront home), with a couple, or 3 shithole cities that have high crime and are led by DEMOCRATIC mayors, I'd be offended if I was being told how to live by heavily populated high crime city DEMOCRATIC elites who can't get their shit together.

I live very close to the border, and we're being told how to deal with border problems by a REPUBLICAN president in a shithole who is clueless about the risks the border presents, doesn't know where illegal immigrants come from and lies on average 15 times a day.  Yet you support that.

So perhaps deal with the beam before dealing with the mote.

[billvon 2,406]

13 hours ago, ryoder said:

One acre, one vote!

And if you have less land, or are the wrong color, maybe you can have 3/5ths of a vote.

[wmw999 2,129]

22 minutes ago, billvon said:

And if you have less land, or are the wrong color, maybe you can have 3/5ths of a vote.

Oh no, after lobbying, it'll be based on a combination based on dollar worth of abode, with acreage coming in second. All those rich people wouldn't want to be disenfranchised. It'd keep out the urban poor, though, so that'd be to the good 

[ryoder 1,390]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

Oh no, after lobbying, it'll be based on a combination based on dollar worth of abode, with acreage coming in second. All those rich people wouldn't want to be disenfranchised. It'd keep out the urban poor, though, so that'd be to the good 

And if you are a landlord and rent to someone of color, you are allocated an additional 3/5 of a vote for each member in their family!

[GeorgiaDon 340]

2 hours ago, ryoder said:

And if you are a landlord and own someone of color, you are allocated an additional 3/5 of a vote!

Fixed to reflect the actual intent of the electoral college.

People should be ashamed to depend for their power on a system that was created to allow the slave states to count slaves towards their representation in Washington while at the same time denying those slaves the most basic of human rights.  The electoral college is a vestige of slavery, and like slavery it should be buried deep enough to conceal its stink.

Don

[jakee 1,257]

6 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

People should be ashamed to depend for their power on a system that was created to allow the slave states to count slaves towards their representation in Washington while at the same time denying those slaves the most basic of human rights.

Is that how the cause and effect worked? Sure slavery and 3/5ths had a huge impact on how the EC worked, but that doesn't mean it was why it exists. 3/5ths had a huge impact on representation in the House and levels of taxation as well, but that doesn't mean Congress and Federal taxes are vestiges of slavery.

[yoink 321]

10 hours ago, BillyVance said:

Since I live in a state with a lot of green land and clean lakes (I literally have a lakefront home), with a couple, or 3 shithole cities that have high crime and are led by DEMOCRATIC mayors, I'd be offended if I was being told how to live by heavily populated high crime city DEMOCRATIC elites who can't get their shit together. Speaking of which, what's up with NYC mayor Bill De Blasio's wife being unable to account for $1.6 billion, or is it $1.8 billion, that she was given for her mental health initiative or whatever the fuck it was?

https://nypost.com/2019/02/28/de-blasio-and-co-mayor-wife-have-wasted-1-8b-of-taxpayer-money/

 

I love that you capitalize DEMOCRATIC.

It makes me think that you don't actually give a shit about the functioning of the electoral college and would be fine if it were REPUBLICAN elites who can't get their shit together telling you what to do, but the fact that it's the other team's party means that you just have to oppose it otherwise your brain will fizzle out in a mouth frothing frenzy of apoplexy. 

[rushmc 18]

The electoral college is working exactly as designed. If you really look at the population there are only six or seven states in the whole nation that have more population than one county in California. It was never the intent to have large population areas elect the president of the United States. Hence the electoral college. And it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of it which would require ratification by the states which we all know will never happen

[kallend 1,635]

12 minutes ago, rushmc said:

The electoral college is working exactly as designed. If you really look at the population there are only six or seven states in the whole nation that have more population than one county in California. It was never the intent to have large population areas elect the president of the United States. Hence the electoral college. And it would take a constitutional amendment to get rid of it which would require ratification by the states which we all know will never happen

You really should read Federalist #68 before fabricating reasons for the EC.

[SkyDekker 1,129]

15 minutes ago, rushmc said:

It was never the intent to have large population areas elect the president of the United States. Hence the electoral college.

Do you have any evidence or article indicating that this was the stated intent of the Electoral College?

My understanding is that the thought process was more that a presidential election through Congress would make a president to beholden to the states. Further, there was a sense that the people could not be trusted to make the right decision, they either aren't smart enough, or too easily duped. Lastly, the sense was that a truly national election wasn't possible (at that time).

The concept of the Electoral College was the compromise. I haven't read anything that would suggest that the intent was to counter urban vs rural population concentrations.

Edited March 22, 2019 by SkyDekker

[jakee 1,257]

2 hours ago, rushmc said:

It was never the intent to have large population areas elect the president of the United States. Hence the electoral college. 

Very true. The intent of the Electoral College is to have the President of the United States chosen by the Deep State.

 

(I'm not even joking, that's the literal truth.)

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

20 minutes ago, jakee said:

Very true. The intent of the Electoral College is to have the President of the United States chosen by the Deep State.

 

(I'm not even joking, that's the literal truth.)

Yup. In both theory and practice, the EC follows the 'will of the people' and elects the one who got the most votes. For the most part.

The idea that they could be 'smarter than the people' and refuse to elect a demagogue, blatant con man or someone clearly unfit for the office was one good reason for their existence.

The fact that they failed miserably the last time, when we had a wannabe dictator and con man and someone who failed to meet the constitutional requirements (emoluments clause, anyone?) and still put him into office kinda throws the whole 'Deep State" conspiracy idea out the window. 

[airdvr 198]

The only failure was Democrats who believed the MSM and decided not to go to the polls and then feigned shock and dismay.  Your side fucked up...you need to own that shit.

Still makes me chuckle...