(11-10-2022 02:05 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 02:00 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 12:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 11:42 AM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 11:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And much of that distrust is due to vile individuals that just lie and make up ****.

Jim Bob, a constuction worker in rural Arkansas lies and it's a threat to Democracy.

Biden and the media lie repeatedly, every single day and no biggie.

Got it. You are very intelligent.

No, Jim Bob is not the threat. It's ******** like trump, Rudy, Lindell, Powell, et. al. that lie to their millions of followers and supporters who sow the distrust.

That really did not need to be explained.

If you think Trump and the folks on the right lie more than Biden and the folks on the left, then you a truly hoodwinked soul.

OMFG, you're actually serious.

Just speaking on trump, most of the board righties here don't even believe that nonsense!

Didn't some major newspaper just award Biden a "Bottomless Pinocchio" due to his incessant lying? I've never heard of anyone else ever getting that dubious award.

(11-11-2022 11:54 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  You're proving my point. You will pick the repub party even if the person who is the candidate for them is terrible, just because they're not a democrat (minus Manchin).
Party over person.

No, I am picking him because the people put forward by the democrats are so awful.

Trump is a bad person with some good ideas. Biden/Harris/Pelosi/Schumer/Obama/Bernie are evil bastards with bad ideas.

(11-11-2022 11:54 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  

(11-10-2022 04:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  [quote='tigergreen' pid='18576261' dateline='1668115136']
That flies in the fact of all the people swearing up & down they don't actually like Trump, but would still vote for him. Republicans most definitely vote for party over person.

No, it's just that the person opposing Trump was so Godawful. Twice. But one time, the democrats' voting for party over person carried the day for them.

Heck, I will swear up and down that I don't like Trump the person, although I do like a lot of his ideas. But I'll gladly vote for him over any democrat you can name, with the possible exception of Joe Manchin.

Donald Trump is a horrible person with some good ideas. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are evil bastards with bad ideas.

You're proving my point. You will pick the repub party even if the person who is the candidate for them is terrible, just because they're not a democrat (minus Manchin).
Party over person.
[/quo

I'll never vote for a Demoncrat again unless they change their platform. Libertarian yes Independent yes Demoncrat never.

(11-10-2022 04:18 PM)tigergreen Wrote:  That flies in the fact of all the people swearing up & down they don't actually like Trump, but would still vote for him. Republicans most definitely vote for party over person.

Here is my person versus person breakdown:

Trump v. any other republican - Any other republican
Trump v. Biden - Trump
Trump v. Harris - Trump by a wide margin
Trump v. Pelosi - Trump by a wide margin
Trump v. Schumer - Trump by a wide margin
Trump v. Sinema - Trump close, because Sinema is a bit of a flake
Trump v. Manchin - coin flip

I do not say that democrats are intentionally determined to destroy the USA. But I do believe that they are determined to implement a socialist/communist policy agenda which will have the effect of destroying the USA. And that strikes me as evil personified.

You may want to argue that democrats are not socialists/communists, but I would have two questions:
1) It appears to me that every major policy decision taken by democrats in recent years has had the effect of moving us closer to socialism/communism. What democrat decisions do you see as taking us away from socialism/communism?
2) If democrats do not intend to take the USA to socialism/communism, then there must be some point where their leftward drift will stop short of socialism/communism. Where is that point, that differentiator between democrats and socialism/communism?

I realize that this characterization of democrats is moving away from the historic idea that political opponents were decent, reasonably intelligent people with whom we simply had differences of opinion. I am sorry, but I simply cannot look at today's democrat leaders that way.

I don't necessarily think of anyone on this board as being evil personified. But I do see a number of useful idiots.

Thinking about it another way, here is how I would rank relevant people from both parties, best to worst:

DeSantis
Trump - Manchin, basically a push
Tulsi
Sinema
Hillary
Biden
Pelosi
Schumer
Kamala
The Quad

Biggest gap is probably between Sinema and Hillary.

The absolute bottom line is America deserves whatever happens with the various states' vote count/verification processes.

Alaska is another State with stupid election laws. The majority of the voters lost.

(11-12-2022 10:05 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Alaska is another State with stupid election laws. The majority of the voters lost.

Kind of what plurality primaries got the Republicans as general election nominees if you want to be consistent.

What precisely is your issue with ranked voting?

They've called AZ senate for Dems. Thanks McConnell.

They have called NV governor for Republicans, but the senate race there is uncomfortably close.
Haven't called any more house races for Republicans. Still +9 (which would get them to 221) but its 211-202 in called races.

(11-12-2022 10:05 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Alaska is another State with stupid election laws. The majority of the voters lost.

Like in 2016 when voters preferred Clinton over Trump.

(11-12-2022 12:11 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(11-12-2022 10:05 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Alaska is another State with stupid election laws. The majority of the voters lost.

Like in 2016 when voters preferred Clinton over Trump.

Go back into your hole.

(11-12-2022 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-12-2022 10:05 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Alaska is another State with stupid election laws. The majority of the voters lost.

Kind of what plurality primaries got the Republicans as general election nominees if you want to be consistent.

What precisely is your issue with ranked voting?

The TWO Republican nominees got more votes than the Democrat in the House race.

(11-12-2022 12:24 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-12-2022 10:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-12-2022 10:05 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Alaska is another State with stupid election laws. The majority of the voters lost.

Kind of what plurality primaries got the Republicans as general election nominees if you want to be consistent.

What precisely is your issue with ranked voting?

The TWO Republican nominees got more votes than the Democrat in the House race.

You assume people should value party more than candidates then. I wouldnt say that is a good rationale.

I guess you are mad that the Beglich voters wont put Palin over the top? Why should a Beglich voter automatically back Palin?

(11-12-2022 12:23 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(11-12-2022 12:11 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(11-12-2022 10:05 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  Alaska is another State with stupid election laws. The majority of the voters lost.

Like in 2016 when voters preferred Clinton over Trump.

Go back into your hole.

What an intelligent comeback. Please explain why it is OK for Trump to win when he loses the popular vote but it is stupid if Murkowsi does it.

AKC, surely you realize that the 'popular vote' is not an official thing. It means diddly and was only created out of curiosity.

Maybe you don't. I know that a lot of far lefties want it to count for something.

(11-12-2022 05:08 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  AKC, surely you realize that the 'popular vote' is not an official thing. It means diddly and was only created out of curiosity.

Maybe you don't. I know that a lot of far lefties want it to count for something.

I get what you're saying, but that isn't quite right. It's certainly true that the Constitution doesn't specify a popular vote and electors are chosen by the legislature, who originally instructed them how to vote. And I'm aware of nothing that would prevent a state from passing legislation reclaiming that right and declining to put the Presidential race on the ballot at all if they chose, with the legislature determining where the state's electoral votes would go.

What the Court wouldn't likely do is allow a legislature to change the rules after the process has begun, as some on the right wanted in 2020. The state would need to announce and install the new system prior to conducting a Presidential election, not override the people's vote once they let them have it. And good luck to the legislators who installed such a system the next time they faced the voters!

In Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states can enforce electors' pledges to vote for the state's popular vote winner. Thirty two states and DC have laws requiring this, so in the majority of the country the popular vote is indeed a real thing and absolutely determines how that jurisdiction's electoral votes will be cast.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/politi...ote-164233

(11-12-2022 05:08 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  AKC, surely you realize that the 'popular vote' is not an official thing. It means diddly and was only created out of curiosity.

Maybe you don't. I know that a lot of far lefties want it to count for something.

I am aware of how the electoral college works and that popular vote on a national level is irrelevant. And I'm not a far lefty just because I don't bow down to Trump, a person I concluded was full of crap and a horrible person long before he entered politics.

I think the EC is a stupid way to select the president but that's the system we have. It was created by people who didn't think the riffraff (non-white male land/humanowners) should vote at all.

I haven't had direct experience with ranked choice voting but it seems designed to elect someone that the majority can live with. If it keeps Sarah Palin out it did its job. If NY had it you might see a moderate Democrat and not AOC. And that would work for me as well.

As far as I am concerned, voting for Sarah Palin is the equivalent of voting for Fetterman.

(11-12-2022 08:04 PM)AssKickingChicken Wrote:  

(11-12-2022 05:08 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  AKC, surely you realize that the 'popular vote' is not an official thing. It means diddly and was only created out of curiosity.

Maybe you don't. I know that a lot of far lefties want it to count for something.

I am aware of how the electoral college works and that popular vote on a national level is irrelevant. And I'm not a far lefty just because I don't bow down to Trump, a person I concluded was full of crap and a horrible person long before he entered politics.

I think the EC is a stupid way to select the president but that's the system we have. It was created by people who didn't think the riffraff (non-white male land/humanowners) should vote at all.

I haven't had direct experience with ranked choice voting but it seems designed to elect someone that the majority can live with. If it keeps Sarah Palin out it did its job. If NY had it you might see a moderate Democrat and not AOC. And that would work for me as well.

Absolute whiff on Electoral College on your part. The EC was put in place so small states would have a voice in electing the President and VP. They used to run on their own not as a set. Otherwise, there would never be a need for Presidential candidates to hold rallys anywhere but large population areas.

We would all be subservient to large urban areas. Talk about disenfranchisement. Would most likely lead to a ton of malcontents.