• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The blue wave just keeps getting bigger

yankintx said:
But does support my argument, she is deeply unpopular.

Check mate
Click to expand...

No, it doesn’t. 53% approval is not “deeply unpopular”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No, it doesn’t. 53% approval is not “deeply unpopular”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Uhm ya it does, unless of course you can provide a cite indicating that 47% is not deeply unpopular. Check mate again
 
What's hilarious is the bravado you hear out of the TRumpling crowd. The Republican party is a shambles, a recent poll said 16% of Republicans don't support TRump. He's done nothing to grow his support, only pandered to his dwindling base. If the Mueller report is even a little damaging, and we don't see some radical shift, you'll soon see more and more Reoublicans turn on him
 
yankintx said:
Uhm ya it does, unless of course you can provide a cite indicating that 47% is not deeply unpopular. Check mate again
Click to expand...

It’s not even unpopular. If you have Majority approval you are not unpopular
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It’s not even unpopular. If you have Majority approval you are not unpopular
Click to expand...

Wow

So if 47% of folks who met you thought you were a douche, you would consider yourself popular?
 
Here in California, the Democrats now control the governorship and the state legislature.

And with all of the migrants crossing the non-existent border, the state is becoming as much a one-party entity as the USSR was.

Really, the Republican Party should disband.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
It doesn’t marginalize anyone. “Marginalized” is an invented concept to purchase political Support from losers. “You’re not a loser, you’re just marginalized”. The senate does not impose tyranny on anyone. In fact I’m not aware of any country with an upper legislative house that apportions that House by population. In Canada and the UK the Senate and House of Lords are not even elected at all


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Sure it does. It makes a California voter's vote worth only 1/80th of that of a Wyoman's vote.

If this were pre-17thA, then you'd have a valid argument. But the states no longer select Senators; rather, the voters now do. And the votes are not of equal value.
 
Chomsky said:
Sure it does. It makes a California voter's vote worth only 1/80th of that of a Wyoman's vote.

If this were pre-17thA, then you'd have a valid argument. But the states no longer select Senators; rather, the voters now do. And the votes are not of equal value.
Click to expand...

Really, how in any objective way is a Californian’s life worse because of a voter in Wyoming?

The votes do not need to have equal value, in fact in every country I know of with a senate who’s political system Im familiar with (UK, Canada, Mexico, and Chile) they’re not. I’m guessing this is true in most all of the developed world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Really, how in any objective way is a Californian’s life worse because of a voter in Wyoming?

The votes do not need to have equal value, in fact in every country I know of with a senate who’s political system Im familiar with (UK, Canada, Mexico, and Chile) they’re not. I’m guessing this is true in most all of the developed world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
They're individual vote is not being represented as fully as a Wyoman's. Which is my whole point, here.
 
Chomsky said:
They're individual vote is not being represented as fully as a Wyoman's. Which is my whole point, here.
Click to expand...

Democrats just picked up an unexpected win in Maine, bringing the projected wave margin to 39.
 
JackA said:
Democrats just picked up an unexpected win in Maine, bringing the projected wave margin to 39.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is indeed getting pretty amazing. If it wasn't the worse Dem Senate map in a century, I think the Dems might have taken the Senate back.
 
Chomsky said:
They're individual vote is not being represented as fully as a Wyoman's. Which is my whole point, here.
Click to expand...

Having a vote is an artificial concept to start with, it’s totally irrelevant, how is their life materially worse because of this setup?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chomsky said:
Yeah, this is indeed getting pretty amazing. If it wasn't the worse Dem Senate map in a century, I think the Dems might have taken the Senate back.
Click to expand...

Yeah, had that happened, how long do you think swampy could last? At least we'd really be able to put an end to this failed experiemnt.
 
JackA said:
Democrats just picked up an unexpected win in Maine, bringing the projected wave margin to 39.
Click to expand...

Because Maine Rigged the system to ensure it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Because Maine Rigged the system to ensure it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If by rigged the system you mean that the voters of Maine chose their preferred voting system, (one that I think is superior to a straight plurality system or one with a later runoff).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom