• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trump has now fallen below 50% US-wide.

braindrain said:
No it absolutely did not. But if you want to pretend I really don’t care
Click to expand...
You got the response you got and at least one other poster clearly understood it. You got what you got and you will either respond or you will not.
 
Slartibartfast said:
You got the response you got and at least one other poster clearly understood it. You got what you got and you will either respond or you will not.
Click to expand...
Your world salad response didn’t even come close to addressing how you think trump winning the popular vote and the right winning control of the house and senate proves the country more left then conservative.
 
braindrain said:
How exactly are you seeing that the country is more liberal than conservative.
Click to expand...

Here is your original statement. This was answered and at least one other poster clearly understood that answer.

braindrain said:
how you think trump winning the popular vote and the right winning control of the house and senate proves the country more left then conservative.
Click to expand...

This is you trying to move the goal posts.
 
Slartibartfast said:
Here is your original statement. This was answered and at least one other poster clearly understood that answer.



This is you trying to move the goal posts.
Click to expand...
No you claimed that the election showed that the country was still more liberal than conservative. My response was in reference to that.

And we both know it.
Why and play dumb games now.
 
braindrain said:
No you claimed that the election showed that the country was still more liberal than conservative. My response was in reference to that.

And we both know it.
Why and play dumb games now.
Click to expand...
I have given you the post that I responded to.

If you want another response, my suggestion is for you to continue the conversation and discontinue your pouting. If you continue to pout, then I have no reason to do anything but essentially repeat my earlier point. It’s up to you.
 
Slartibartfast said:
I have given you the post that I responded to.

If you want another response, my suggestion is for you to continue the conversation and discontinue your pouting. If you continue to pout, then I have no reason to do anything but essentially repeat my earlier point. It’s up to you.
Click to expand...
Yes let’s just pretend that the context of the conversation is irrelevant.

That you want to pretend it is me pouting when I asked you a simple question and you have spent numerous posts dodging giving an actual answer is hilarious.

Tell me do you think this weak ass bs ever fools anyone.
 
nvflash said:
Now you people want to change the rules, after the contest is over and you lost.

These have always been the rules, everyone ever elected to that office has won by those rules.

You just want rules you think will favor you winning, as we all do, but you're not going to get them.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about with "you people."

I am one person. I stated a view.

I also understand the election is over, and unlike some, I accept the results even if my side lost. Imagine such a thing!

It is wiser to be a realist.

We could use more realists in this country.

I would certainly favor changing our election system, making it more modern, taking advantage of better ideas which have evolved since 1789.
 
braindrain said:
Yes let’s just pretend that the context of the conversation is irrelevant.

That you want to pretend it is me pouting when I asked you a simple question and you have spent numerous posts dodging giving an actual answer is hilarious.

Tell me do you think this weak ass bs ever fools anyone.
Click to expand...
I see you have chosen to continue to pout. Please let me know when you are ready to address my point and we will continue this discussion where we left off.
 
The Stars Tremble said:
I don't think so. Run off elections force the third party supporters to choose a side (or stay home.)

We lost this one. The last thing we should do is accuse the winners of not knowing what they were voting for. They turned out to vote, so there's really no doubt about who they wanted.

WHY they wanted Trump, is an ongoing mystery. They're going to get screwed. Deporting immigrants could be enough to trigger a recession, and tariffs on every other country (and counter tariffs) will cause a recession AND cause inflation.

I know exactly why Trump wants to rule from day one. He wants most of the negative consequences, to be over by the mid-terms. But he's not a miracle worker: the US will be in deep shit by the mid-terms, and still getting worse by the elections of 2028. Anyone telling him he's causing a disaster, will simply get fired.
Click to expand...
I would also favor a ranked choice voting system.

I think that is better than run-off elections. Does the same thing. you can vote for your first choice, and if they don't win, you second choice vote will also count. It has also been called instant run-off voting.
 
Peacenik said:
I have no idea what you're talking about with "you people."

I am one person. I stated a view.

I also understand the election is over, and unlike some, I accept the results even if my side lost. Imagine such a thing!

It is wiser to be a realist.

We could use more realists in this country.

I would certainly favor changing our election system, making it more modern, taking advantage of better ideas which have evolved since 1789.
Click to expand...
By better ideas you mean ideas that help you win and rule the way you want to?

The founders were well versed in 'better ideas', they also understood that the majority would simply vote to take all rights and property from the minority if they left that option on the table.

That's why it's so hard to do anything like that under our system, now it can be done, and it has been done to some degree over the last few centuries, but liberty endures under the systems they put in place.

If you think you can get 35 states to ratify removing their own checks on the most populous states holding ALL of the power, knock yourself out, but I doubt the people of those 35 states are going to fall for that.
 
Last edited:
Slartibartfast said:
I see you have chosen to continue to pout. Please let me know when you are ready to address my point and we will continue this discussion where we left off.
Click to expand...
Keep running away. It’s a good look for you.
 
Tender Branson said:
Of course you can be mad.

But I'm just saying that most countries have no electoral college and elect presidents by popular vote and require runoffs if no candidate reaches 50%.

I'm just saying that Trump would not be president now in most other countries that are a democracy, because he's fallen below 50% with actual voters.
Click to expand...
States elect the President in our system.
 
nvflash said:
By better ideas you mean ideas that help you win and rule the way you want to?

The founders were well versed in 'better ideas', they also understood that the majority would simply vote to take all rights and property from the minority if they left that option on the table.

That's why it's so hard to do anything like that under our system, now it can be done, and it has been done to some degree over the last few centuries, but liberty endures under the systems they put in place.

If you think you can get 35 states to ratify removing their own checks on the most populous states holding ALL of the power, knock yourself out, but I doubt the people of those 35 states are going to fall for that.
Click to expand...

Don't try to put words in my mouth. That is impolite.

I am only responsible for what I actually say, not what you imagine it means.

"the majority would simply vote to take all rights and property from the minority"

Seems like that is precisely what is happening right now.

I also suspect Trump will indeed push to Amend the Constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment. And that may very well succeed. He doesn't need Congress. He can go directly to the states to do it.
 
Peacenik said:
Don't try to put words in my mouth. That is impolite.

I am only responsible for what I actually say, not what you imagine it means.

"the majority would simply vote to take all rights and property from the minority"

Seems like that is precisely what is happening right now.

I also suspect Trump will indeed push to Amend the Constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment. And that may very well succeed. He doesn't need Congress. He can go directly to the states to do it.
Click to expand...
He can get 34 states to agree to call for a Constitutional Convention to prepose amendments?

Then he can get 38 states to ratify an amendment to abolish the 22nd amendment?

How many states did he win in the latest election?
 
Slartibartfast said:
This amuses me, given that I just offered to continue the conversation in the post you just quoted.
Click to expand...
Not as much I enjoy watching you run away.

You offered to do it but yet you didn’t. Hmmmm wonder why.
 
braindrain said:
Yeah I am not surprised you have nothing but snark. It’s all you really ever can manage.
Click to expand...
Might want to read your post addressed to me. It was written in hateful snark.

I have no time for all that dark hearted debate.

Be happy, it is that time of year.

Peace
 
phoenix2020 said:
Most countries are not, to my knowledge, a confederation of states wherein each state is to have an equal voice to all others.
Click to expand...

Giving a state of 100,000 an "equal voice" to a state with 10 million people just seems incredibly dumb and backward to me.

I cant think of a single reason why the wants of the 10 million shouldnt outweigh the wants of the 100,000.

Thats just me.
 
PeacefulWarrior said:
Giving a state of 100,000 an "equal voice" to a state with 10 million people just seems incredibly dumb and backward to me.

I cant think of a single reason why the wants of the 10 million shouldnt outweigh the wants of the 100,000.

Thats just me.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s a design flaw that we are stuck with for the foreseeable future.
 
noonereal said:
Might want to read your post addressed to me. It was written in hateful snark.

I have no time for all that dark hearted debate.

Be happy, it is that time of year.

Peace
Click to expand...
No it wasn’t. Not to you responded that way.
Why lie.
 
Slartibartfast said:
I am waiting right here for you to respond.
Click to expand...
I have been waiting for you to explain how this election showed that America is more liberal than conservative for several pages so far. Yet you keep running away from answering that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom