|
|
Post by VYPR on Sept 23, 2024 4:44:02 GMT
All these MAGA hypocrites....they hate gays, they hate transexuals, but God bless their libidos, they want to GET IT ON with those same people! Bridget Ziegler is definitely a smokin' hot bisexual bigot. Mark Robinson, well, he's a fat black NAZI who loves him some tranny porn! And they are both of them MAGA through and through: fucked up, hypocritical, opportunist, lying bigots. Just like so many of the MAGA leadership elite, they represent the basest and worst of us. They should set up a joint OnlyFans for MAGA eyes only and cash in on their fame and reputations while they can, like Trump has with his latest $100 Trump coin.  www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/22/trump-commemorative-coins |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 23, 2024 12:43:51 GMT
All these leftists want to shoot trump with guns. Crooks. Ryan Routh. Everybody on the left who supports Ukraine is actually a wannabe murderer. Bunch of hypocrites who also want to ban guns. Why are you all potential assassins just lying in wait? Disgusting. I am appalled. Just really upset with it all, and it helps me feel morally virtuous about everything in putting a post on an anonymous forum about it all.
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Sept 23, 2024 14:11:51 GMT
All these leftists want to shoot trump with guns. Crooks. Ryan Routh. Everybody on the left who supports Ukraine is actually a wannabe murderer. Bunch of hypocrites who also want to ban guns. Why are you all potential assassins just lying in wait? Disgusting. I am appalled. Just really upset with it all, and it helps me feel morally virtuous about everything in putting a post on an anonymous forum about it all. It sounds like it's placebo day for you. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 23, 2024 14:16:22 GMT
All these leftists want to shoot trump with guns. Crooks. Ryan Routh. Everybody on the left who supports Ukraine is actually a wannabe murderer. Bunch of hypocrites who also want to ban guns. Why are you all potential assassins just lying in wait? Disgusting. I am appalled. Just really upset with it all, and it helps me feel morally virtuous about everything in putting a post on an anonymous forum about it all. It sounds like it's placebo day for you. Do tell. |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Sept 23, 2024 14:31:06 GMT
Trumpworld would, with only a few minor editorial changes, make a great sitcom. People will be studying that clown and the cult he discovered for years. Unlike Jim Jones, who created his cult by targeting people in dire straits (physically or mentally if not both), Trump accidentally discovered his. That's the saddest part of the whole thing, and the very reason the founders created the Electoral College, which has not functioned anything like the founders' intent for 200 years or so.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 23, 2024 14:40:50 GMT
I hope that whatever is wrong with you, being able to vent your rambling nonsense here helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 23, 2024 15:00:05 GMT
Trumpworld would, with only a few minor editorial changes, make a great sitcom. People will be studying that clown and the cult he discovered for years. Unlike Jim Jones, who created his cult by targeting people in dire straits (physically or mentally if not both), Trump accidentally discovered his. That's the saddest part of the whole thing, and the very reason the founders created the Electoral College, which has not functioned anything like the founders' intent for 200 years or so. Anything like the founders' intent? Please explain. What was the founders' intent originally? |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,521
|
Post by thor on Sept 23, 2024 16:44:36 GMT
Trumpworld would, with only a few minor editorial changes, make a great sitcom. People will be studying that clown and the cult he discovered for years. Unlike Jim Jones, who created his cult by targeting people in dire straits (physically or mentally if not both), Trump accidentally discovered his. That's the saddest part of the whole thing, and the very reason the founders created the Electoral College, which has not functioned anything like the founders' intent for 200 years or so. Anything like the founders' intent? Please explain. What was the founders' intent originally? Poor dear. Did you not pay attention to American History at USMA? |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Sept 23, 2024 17:48:34 GMT
The founders' intent was for the voting masses to have as little to do with selection of president, vice-president, and senate as is humanly possible. They feared nothing more than popular election of those offices. When Ben Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what kind of government do we have?" He replied "A republic, if we can keep it." And it was internal threats he feared, one of the main ones being the voters. A wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us."
Their intent was for each state, by whatever means their legislative bodies decided but preferably not by popular vote, to select their electors. Each elector, obviously a white male of substance, would act independently of all the others from his state and vote for one candidate for president. They might confer amongst each other, but in the end there was no requirement that all electors from a state vote for the same guy. Each elector from every state would act in the best interest of the nation as a whole as much as humanly possible. They would be men of character, as uncorruptible and unbiased as is humanly possible. The candidate with the greatest number of votes would be president. Second place would be veep. In cases of a tie, which the founders anticipated would not be rare, the house would decide - each state having ONE vote. There would be no such thing as "pledged electors." The very thought gave them gas.
Rabbit went to USMA?
|
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 23, 2024 18:32:32 GMT
The founders' intent was for the voting masses to have as little to do with selection of president, vice-president, and senate as is humanly possible. They feared nothing more than popular election of those offices. When Ben Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what kind of government do we have?" He replied "A republic, if we can keep it." And it was internal threats he feared, one of the main ones being the voters. A wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us." Their intent was for each state, by whatever means their legislative bodies decided but preferably not by popular vote, to select their electors. Each elector, obviously a white male of substance, would act independently of all the others from his state and vote for one candidate for president. They might confer amongst each other, but in the end there was no requirement that all electors from a state vote for the same guy. Each elector from every state would act in the best interest of the nation as a whole as much as humanly possible. They would be men of character, as uncorruptible and unbiased as is humanly possible. The candidate with the greatest number of votes would be president. Second place would be veep. In cases of a tie, which the founders anticipated would not be rare, the house would decide - each state having ONE vote. There would be no such thing as "pledged electors." The very thought gave them gas. Rabbit went to USMA? Would you prefer the original intent to the current state? |
|
|
|
Post by Fiddler on Sept 23, 2024 18:44:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Sept 23, 2024 20:28:24 GMT
It sounds like it's placebo day for you. Do tell. It means you're off your meds, dumb-ass. |
|
HolyMoly
Legend
Posts: 3,116
Member is Online
|
Post by HolyMoly on Sept 23, 2024 20:52:49 GMT
He might be ready, but I don't know if she would. We're talking about close to 300
pounds of blubber on top. Ouch. Then again maybe she would consent to dressing up
as Eva Braun to give the black Nazi a thrill.
Yep, the FF preferred to have men much like themselves making the decisions.
|
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Sept 23, 2024 20:55:18 GMT
The founders' intent was for the voting masses to have as little to do with selection of president, vice-president, and senate as is humanly possible. They feared nothing more than popular election of those offices. When Ben Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what kind of government do we have?" He replied "A republic, if we can keep it." And it was internal threats he feared, one of the main ones being the voters. A wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us." Their intent was for each state, by whatever means their legislative bodies decided but preferably not by popular vote, to select their electors. Each elector, obviously a white male of substance, would act independently of all the others from his state and vote for one candidate for president. They might confer amongst each other, but in the end there was no requirement that all electors from a state vote for the same guy. Each elector from every state would act in the best interest of the nation as a whole as much as humanly possible. They would be men of character, as uncorruptible and unbiased as is humanly possible. The candidate with the greatest number of votes would be president. Second place would be veep. In cases of a tie, which the founders anticipated would not be rare, the house would decide - each state having ONE vote. There would be no such thing as "pledged electors." The very thought gave them gas. Rabbit went to USMA? Would you prefer the original intent to the current state? Yes, because it could take the voters completely out of the process, depending on how electors were selected. The devil is in the details and I would be happy to opine on that. But failing that, better would be to prorate electoral votes in each state based on the popular vote rounded to the nearest whole number. That would be virtually the same as eliminating it, but eliminating would require a constitutional amendment. Allocating electoral votes is a state matter. Nebraska and Maine already allocate theirs, one starting in 1972 and the other starting in 1999. But they do it in a complicated manner that does not reflect the popular vote allocation. But it still can result in split electoral votes. That's why the pansy Lindsey Graham is all up in Nebraska's business to get them to change to winner take all. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 23, 2024 21:03:57 GMT
It means you're off your meds, dumb-ass. But I don't take any medications, Dave. |
|
|
|
Post by rabbitreborn on Sept 23, 2024 21:07:31 GMT
Would you prefer the original intent to the current state? Yes, because it could take the voters completely out of the process, depending on how electors were selected. The devil is in the details and I would be happy to opine on that. But failing that, better would be to prorate electoral votes in each state based on the popular vote rounded to the nearest whole number. That would be virtually the same as eliminating it, but eliminating would require a constitutional amendment. Allocating electoral votes is a state matter. Nebraska and Maine already allocate theirs, one starting in 1972 and the other starting in 1999. But they do it in a complicated manner that does not reflect the popular vote allocation. But it still can result in split electoral votes. That's why the pansy Lindsey Graham is all up in Nebraska's business to get them to change to winner take all. Wouldn't eliminating the current electoral college (or prorating electoral votes based on popular vote, which you correctly state would be nearly the same as elimination of it) go completely against the founders' concerns of the voters directly deciding the presidency? Sure, it would remove the winner-take-all approach that currently exists within most states, but we'd still be back at a complete perversion of the original intent. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,521
|
Post by thor on Sept 23, 2024 21:31:10 GMT
The founders' intent was for the voting masses to have as little to do with selection of president, vice-president, and senate as is humanly possible. They feared nothing more than popular election of those offices. When Ben Franklin was asked "Well, Doctor, what kind of government do we have?" He replied "A republic, if we can keep it." And it was internal threats he feared, one of the main ones being the voters. A wise man once said, "none of us is as dumb as all of us." Their intent was for each state, by whatever means their legislative bodies decided but preferably not by popular vote, to select their electors. Each elector, obviously a white male of substance, would act independently of all the others from his state and vote for one candidate for president. They might confer amongst each other, but in the end there was no requirement that all electors from a state vote for the same guy. Each elector from every state would act in the best interest of the nation as a whole as much as humanly possible. They would be men of character, as uncorruptible and unbiased as is humanly possible. The candidate with the greatest number of votes would be president. Second place would be veep. In cases of a tie, which the founders anticipated would not be rare, the house would decide - each state having ONE vote. There would be no such thing as "pledged electors." The very thought gave them gas. Rabbit went to USMA? Yep. And he fucked up the opportunities a free ride there gave him, and ended up being a right-wingnut 'libertarian'. LMAO! |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Sept 23, 2024 23:35:47 GMT
It means you're off your meds, dumb-ass. But I don't take any medications, Dave. Well, since you're a liar, that doesn't mean anything. |
|
|
|
Post by elmerfudd on Sept 24, 2024 2:03:36 GMT
Yes, because it could take the voters completely out of the process, depending on how electors were selected. The devil is in the details and I would be happy to opine on that. But failing that, better would be to prorate electoral votes in each state based on the popular vote rounded to the nearest whole number. That would be virtually the same as eliminating it, but eliminating would require a constitutional amendment. Allocating electoral votes is a state matter. Nebraska and Maine already allocate theirs, one starting in 1972 and the other starting in 1999. But they do it in a complicated manner that does not reflect the popular vote allocation. But it still can result in split electoral votes. That's why the pansy Lindsey Graham is all up in Nebraska's business to get them to change to winner take all. Wouldn't eliminating the current electoral college (or prorating electoral votes based on popular vote, which you correctly state would be nearly the same as elimination of it) go completely against the founders' concerns of the voters directly deciding the presidency? Sure, it would remove the winner-take-all approach that currently exists within most states, but we'd still be back at a complete perversion of the original intent. Yes, it would. But going back to the founders' intent will not happen. It didn't even last but a relative few years after establishment because "none of us is as dumb as all of us." The way it is now, there are usually a relatively few states that matter. Those change, usually gradually, but if we're going to use popular vote in any part of the process let's use it in the whole process. And each state can change the way it allocates electoral votes without the need of changing the constitution to eliminate the electoral college. |
|
|
|
Post by Lomelis on Sept 24, 2024 7:07:24 GMT
All these MAGA hypocrites....they hate gays, they hate transexuals, but God bless their libidos, they want to GET IT ON with those same people! Bridget Ziegler is definitely a smokin' hot bisexual bigot. Mark Robinson, well, he's a fat black NAZI who loves him some tranny porn! And they are both of them MAGA through and through: fucked up, hypocritical, opportunist, lying bigots. Just like so many of the MAGA leadership elite, they represent the basest and worst of us. They should set up a joint OnlyFans for MAGA eyes only and cash in on their fame and reputations while they can, like Trump has with his latest $100 Trump coin. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/22/trump-commemorative-coinsLol and Vypr goes full Stu. Never go full Stu. |
|
