The US is a Banana Republic

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Mark,

OK, you do admit that you cannot find one, just one, quote from HRC as you claimed that she had said something.

I'm good with that.

Jerry Baumchen

https://dailycaller.com/2016/11/26/flashback-clinton-said-not-accepting-election-results-was-horrifying-video/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/11/28/oh-that-time-when-clinton-said-anyone-who-doesnt-accept-the-results-of-an-election-is-a-threat-to-democracy-n2251780

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-once-claimed-that-questioning-election-results-was-a-threat-to-democracy-guess-what-shes-doing-now

 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

8 minutes ago, markharju said:

As in founders seeing a future where large (densely populated) states could dominate others.

Did they write about these issues at all? cause what I have seen relates to elite vs masses. Not urban vs rural.

Or are you just making shit up?

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, jakee said:

Brazile passed on questions during the primary. Hillary won that election.

 

So, y'know, how the fuck did you find such a stupid meme?

Meh, I thought it was funny. Unlike some people in this forum, I can actually laugh at something silly and not get my panties in a wad.

[jakee 1,561]

2 minutes ago, markharju said:

As in founders seeing a future where large (densely populated) states could dominate others.

Thinking that is the main explanation is pathetically shortsighted. Do you think the founders foresaw the future where states of intentionally tiny populations were created simply in order to skew the electoral map to a particular party's advantage?

 

Further, your post really encapsulates the limited way of thinking that leads people to think any states are being trampled on. Because what you have to forget in order for that argument to make sense is that States aren't homogenous blobs of like minded people. For instance, thinking that giving California equal representation would trample all over the good ol' boys in Texas. You cn't have a bunch of liberals from the coast telling the whole of the rest of the country what to do! But here's the thing - Texas isn't full of conservatives. It isn't the big red block you see on the map. 9 out of 20 voters in Texas wanted a Democrat. Same in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin. The current electoral college system disenfranchised those voters twice - not only do they get dismissed through the simple fact their state went red, but their fellow voters in states that went blue get counted for less than they should. 

[jakee 1,561]

12 minutes ago, markharju said:

Meh, I thought it was funny. Unlike some people in this forum, I can actually laugh at something silly and not get my panties in a wad.

Hah, I love it when you claim that. Sure, you must have a great sense of humour if you can laugh at a stupid joke that agrees with your political stance. Oh, hang on a minute - nah, everyone can do that.

If you want to boast at having a sense of humour stronger than your political biases you need a history of posting jokes that poke fun at what you hold dear, not at what the other guy holds dear.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

Hah, I love it when you claim that. Sure, you must have a great sense of humour if you can laugh at a stupid joke that agrees with your political stance. Oh, hang on a minute - nah, everyone can do that.

If you want to boast at having a sense of humour stronger than your political biases you need a history of posting jokes that poke fun at what you hold dear, not at what the other guy holds dear.

Not an easy thing one one side is literally and constantly demonized for the mortal sin of having a point of view which dissents from progressive orthodoxy, but I promise I'll give it a shot.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, jakee said:

Thinking that is the main explanation is pathetically shortsighted. Do you think the founders foresaw the future where states of intentionally tiny populations were created simply in order to skew the electoral map to a particular party's advantage?

 

Further, your post really encapsulates the limited way of thinking that leads people to think any states are being trampled on. Because what you have to forget in order for that argument to make sense is that States aren't homogenous blobs of like minded people. For instance, thinking that giving California equal representation would trample all over the good ol' boys in Texas. You cn't have a bunch of liberals from the coast telling the whole of the rest of the country what to do! But here's the thing - Texas isn't full of conservatives. It isn't the big red block you see on the map. 9 out of 20 voters in Texas wanted a Democrat. Same in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Wisconsin. The current electoral college system disenfranchised those voters twice - not only do they get dismissed through the simple fact their state went red, but their fellow voters in states that went blue get counted for less than they should. 

There are states in the Northeast which are bluer than blue, yet still have the minimum requirement of electoral votes. They get their say too. None of this, however, disturbs me as much as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact.

I think it's evil personified. There's your banana republic.

Edited June 1, 2020 by Guest

[jakee 1,561]

11 minutes ago, markharju said:

Not an easy thing one one side is literally and constantly demonized for the mortal sin of having a point of view which dissents from progressive orthodoxy, but I promise I'll give it a shot.

If you're as hard done by as you claim that would actually make it easier - there'd be loads of jokes against you that you could post.

[jakee 1,561]

13 minutes ago, markharju said:

There are states in the Northeast which are bluer than blue, yet still have the minimum requirement of electoral votes. They get their say too.

So?

Quote

None of this, however, disturbs me as much as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact.

I think it's evil personified.

Why?

Quote

There's your banana republic.

A - Why?

 

B - Have you considered that it too is made possible purely because of your precious EC?

Edited June 1, 2020 by jakee

[kallend 2,106]

1 hour ago, markharju said:

Once again, you knew that I knew but you shat on me just to make your pathetic point. Your attorney tricks don't help your remarks one bit. As in founders seeing a future where large (densely populated) states could dominate others.

The ONLY information we have of what the founders intended is in Federalist #68, and contradicts your statement.

That is a FACT and not an "attorney trick".

[nigel99 567]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

If you're as hard done by as you claim that would actually make it easier - there'd be loads of jokes against you that you could post.

Depends what you’re looking for. Seem to remember he couldn’t find any churches in Edinburgh either

Edited June 1, 2020 by nigel99

[turtlespeed 226]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

She didn't have to say it...she lived it.  And she still couldn't win.

Brazile sums it up near the end: “If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”

THIS^^^

[turtlespeed 226]

3 hours ago, markharju said:

https://dailycaller.com/2016/11/26/flashback-clinton-said-not-accepting-election-results-was-horrifying-video/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/11/28/oh-that-time-when-clinton-said-anyone-who-doesnt-accept-the-results-of-an-election-is-a-threat-to-democracy-n2251780

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/hillary-clinton-once-claimed-that-questioning-election-results-was-a-threat-to-democracy-guess-what-shes-doing-now

 

Ooops 

 

That's more than one, isn't it?

Edited June 1, 2020 by turtlespeed

[kallend 2,106]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Ooops 

 

That's more than one, isn't it?

But none from a credible source.

[turtlespeed 226]

12 hours ago, kallend said:

But none from a credible source.

Of course . . . But Hillary herself wouldn't be credible enough right now.

[kallend 2,106]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

Of course . . . But Hillary herself wouldn't be credible enough right now.

Let's not forget that HRC testified under oath fo 11 hours and was investigated by the FBI and by 8 congressional committees led by the GOP.  Since no wrongdoing, including lying to congress, was found, I'd say HRC has far far more credibility than, say Trump, Breitbart, Fox News, Hannity, and Limbaugh combined.

[turtlespeed 226]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Let's not forget that HRC testified under oath fo 11 hours and was investigated by the FBI and by 8 congressional committees led by the GOP.  Since no wrongdoing, including lying to congress, was found, I'd say HRC has far far more credibility than, say Trump, Breitbart, Fox News, Hannity, and Limbaugh combined.

Of course you would.

But then it doesn't matter if what you said, regarding the testimony, is true or not.  You would still feel that way.

[kallend 2,106]

17 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Of course you would.

But then it doesn't matter if what you said, regarding the testimony, is true or not.  You would still feel that way.

Taking trump's 18,000+ proven, documented lies and falsehoods as a reference, tell us why you think HRC's testimony under oath, the truth of which even the GOP couldn't refute, lacks credibility

[airdvr 210]

27 minutes ago, kallend said:

Taking trump's 18,000+ proven, documented lies and falsehoods as a reference, tell us why you think HRC's testimony under oath, the truth of which even the GOP couldn't determine, lacks credibility

FIFY

[SkyDekker 1,465]

52 minutes ago, airdvr said:

FIFY

If 8 separate GOP investigations could not determine what you think is clearly so obvious, they aren't very smart. The people voting for them must be even dumber.

Edited June 2, 2020 by SkyDekker

[billvon 3,067]

On 6/1/2020 at 1:52 PM, markharju said:

There are states in the Northeast which are bluer than blue, yet still have the minimum requirement of electoral votes. They get their say too. None of this, however, disturbs me as much as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact.

I think it's evil personified. There's your banana republic.

Because people choosing a leader via democratic vote is "evil personified?"

[jakee 1,561]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Of course you would.

But then it doesn't matter if what you said, regarding the testimony, is true or not.  You would still feel that way.

You're projecting again. It is your habit, whenever Trump or the Republicans are caught with their hand in the cookie jar, to scream that 'oh the Dems would have done something even worse if only they could have reached the lid'! 

And yet again, in this case what Kallend said is true. If it wasn't true, you know what you would do in his place - you just shouldn't assume he would do the same.

[ryoder 1,590]

On 6/1/2020 at 2:52 PM, markharju said:

There are states in the Northeast which are bluer than blue, yet still have the minimum requirement of electoral votes. They get their say too. None of this, however, disturbs me as much as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact.

I think it's evil personified. There's your banana republic.

The way governors, senators, and representatives are elected, must give you nightmares.

[sfzombie13 324]

On 6/1/2020 at 4:21 PM, markharju said:

Once again, you knew that I knew but you shat on me just to make your pathetic point. Your attorney tricks don't help your remarks one bit. As in founders seeing a future where large (densely populated) states could dominate others.

this is so much bullshit and has been debunked by anyone who actually reads for hundreds of years.  i for one would much rather the VOTERS in large states selecting a president rather than the APPOINTED OFFICIALS anywhere electing one.  at least the PEOPLE decide, not the ASS-KISSERS OF A POLITICAL PARTY.

[sfzombie13 324]

On 6/1/2020 at 4:21 PM, markharju said:

Once again, you knew that I knew but you shat on me just to make your pathetic point. Your attorney tricks don't help your remarks one bit. As in founders seeing a future where large (densely populated) states could dominate others.

this is so much bullshit and has been debunked by anyone who actually reads for hundreds of years.  i for one would much rather the VOTERS in large states selecting a president rather than the APPOINTED OFFICIALS anywhere electing one.  at least the PEOPLE decide, not the ASS-KISSERS OF A POLITICAL PARTY.  name one other reason for the electorate, other than the bullshit you put down about states deciding elections, as that is patently false.