The Tulsi Disgrace

[Vic]

You guys over-complicate things. Conservative policy is not complicated, it's just whatever liberals were proposing a generation ago that is still popular today.

Case in point: raising the tobacco age to 21. Something that Democrats fought for, and Republicans fought against, for decades. But a Republican President signs it into law, and it's magically a great victory for those who fought against it for so long.

'nuff said.

 

[Jhhnn]

Exactly there is no plan for success

Don't need one! Trump has taken us from MAGA all the way to KAG in three short & glorious years!

 

[jmagg]

Ha!!!! Retrain the workers to mbe Space faring military men and work on Space Force!!!!! \
In all seriousness you have to be daft if you believe that fielding a team that puts everyone to work will some the health care issues and the immigration issues and the climate issues and feeding the needy and helping the homeless.......
I see it`s called pie in the sky!!!

It is a pie in the sky. Maybe the Dems can pull it closer together, but it wont be Trump bad we good.

 

[Greenman]

And yes if it becomes known that Russia is propping up any campaign they candidate should withdraw.
Tricky thing to say because propping someone up to then admittedling you are propping them up is different than propping them up and denying you are propping them up.

That statement gives Russia 100% control over who runs for president in the US. I would rather see any form of political content banned from social media for a year before the election.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That statement gives Russia 100% control over who runs for president in the US. I would rather see any form of political content banned from social media for a year before the election.

Sort of what I mean it is a complicated question. Bottom line if you become Russia’s favorite candidate you should to some self evaluation as to why.
I would prefer to mess with Putin five times as much as he messes with us until he stops.

 

[ch33zw1z]

That statement gives Russia 100% control over who runs for president in the US. I would rather see any form of political content banned from social media for a year before the election.

Aint gonna happen with GOP running things. Social media presents a perfect mode of propoganda dissemination. Pretty much all they have, since they're policies are very popular with the general public.

 

[Greenman]

Aint gonna happen with GOP running things. Social media presents a perfect mode of propoganda dissemination. Pretty much all they have, since they're policies are very popular with the general public.

The general public is who's voting for the republicans. Not sure what it is that you want to do about that.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The general public is who's voting for the republicans. Not sure what it is that you want to do about that.

Not a majority for sure. Conservatives vote on social wedge issues, not public policy.

It's how the GOP can only implement a tax cut for the wealthy as policy and still maintain a similar support base, the rest is just social issues they claim to care about.

Not sure what you think you should do about it. I dgaf what you do. I was merely pointing out that the GOP will not regulate social media to prevent Russian election meddling. They may regulate social media outlets because they believe conservative propoganda accounts are being "unfairly" ousted or silenced, regardless of the hypocrisy involved. But that won't stop hostile foreign powers to spread the FUD to ignorant Americans.

 

[fskimospy]

The general public is who's voting for the republicans. Not sure what it is that you want to do about that.

You do realize that Republicans generally lose the popular vote, right?

 

[Starbuck1975]

You do realize that Republicans generally lose the popular vote, right?

You do realize that is irrelevant.

 

[zinfamous]

Trump ran on specifics

lol wtf were you smoking from 2015-2016?

 

[fskimospy]

You do realize that is irrelevant.

Why is that irrelevant.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

The general public is who's voting for the republicans. Not sure what it is that you want to do about that.

Three million plus more voted for the losing candidate....
Explain to me why voters in the midwestern states (plus Alaska) are more qualified to have greater electoral college representation?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Remember the big, beautiful wall Mexico was going to pay for and it was not going to cost me (the tax payers) one cent?
Where’s my big beautiful wall that didn’t cost me a penny?

 

[Vic]

The general public is who's voting for the republicans. Not sure what it is that you want to do about that.

The term "general public" implies a majority. Or are you being elitist and saying that the majority of Americans who don't for Republicans are not the general public?

 

[Greenman]

Why is that irrelevant.

Because the people don't elect the president, the states do.

 

[Greenman]

Three million plus more voted for the losing candidate....
Explain to me why voters in the midwestern states (plus Alaska) are more qualified to have greater electoral college representation?

I'll use the same answer again. The people don't elect the president, the states do. The "people" are represented by the House, the senate was originally appointed by the state legislature, so they were "elected" by the states. The president is elected the same way, by the states.
To use your logic, why should one state have more say about how the country is run than any other state? Why would any state want to be part of the republic if they didn't have an equal say in how it's governed.

 

[fskimospy]

I'll use the same answer again. The people don't elect the president, the states do. The "people" are represented by the House, the senate was originally appointed by the state legislature, so they were "elected" by the states. The president is elected the same way, by the states.
To use your logic, why should one state have more say about how the country is run than any other state? Why would any state want to be part of the republic if they didn't have an equal say in how it's governed.

You do understand that the electoral college was made to protect slavery, right?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Why is that irrelevant.

It’s not how we elect Presidents. It’s a meaningless metric.

 

[fskimospy]

It’s not how we elect Presidents. It’s a meaningless metric.

Only a fool would think that is meaningless. If presidential elections don’t consistently track what the majority of voters want they will lose legitimacy and the system will collapse.

We are a democracy. What the most people want is at the heart of why our system exists.

 

[Paratus]

You do realize that is irrelevant.

I like that you know your place and know who your betters are when it comes to voting.
So unless you are from Wyoming I’m glad your comfortable being a fraction of a person.

In 2016 individuals in NY, CA, and TX were worth about 1/3 of a resident of Wyoming, while FL was worth about 1/4. Even the constitution considered slaves to be 3/5.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I'll use the same answer again. The people don't elect the president, the states do. The "people" are represented by the House, the senate was originally appointed by the state legislature, so they were "elected" by the states. The president is elected the same way, by the states.
To use your logic, why should one state have more say about how the country is run than any other state? Why would any state want to be part of the republic if they didn't have an equal say in how it's governed.

because one state has a metric shit ton more people in it
pretty clear to me.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I'll use the same answer again. The people don't elect the president, the states do. The "people" are represented by the House, the senate was originally appointed by the state legislature, so they were "elected" by the states. The president is elected the same way, by the states.
To use your logic, why should one state have more say about how the country is run than any other state? Why would any state want to be part of the republic if they didn't have an equal say in how it's governed.

That's funny, cuz this was you first "answer", pretty quick change there. Flail like

The general public is who's voting for the republicans. Not sure what it is that you want to do about that.

 

[ch33zw1z]

because one state has a metric shit ton more people in it
pretty clear to me.

Greenman just argued to abolish the EC.

Wait, all of a sudden the popular vote becomes relevant again, can't have that

haha, who am i kidding, we know the GOP won't get behind something that destroys their party. Party over country, 5life.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I like that you know your place and know who your betters are when it comes to voting.
So unless you are from Wyoming I’m glad your comfortable being a fraction of a person.

In 2016 individuals in NY, CA, and TX were worth about 1/3 of a resident of Wyoming, while FL was worth about 1/4. Even the constitution considered slaves to be 3/5.

Every Presidential candidate knows the rules of the game. Running up the score in high density population areas is an even worst solution. The Rust Belt gave Trump the White House. Maybe Democrats should spend more time campaigning there instead of appealing to the people who will vote for them anyway.

But this is the dilemma of a two party system. Maybe Tulsi will build enough of a coalition to create a viable third one.