T1B

I'm sure this has all the impact of a fart in a hurricane, but I couldn't help but drop my junior Senator a note this morning.

Dear Mrs. Clinton,

I am writing as a long time Democrat and a person who has voted for you twice during your Senate races. Furthermore, should you prevail amongst the remaining Democratic electorate and gain a majority of pledged delegates, I will be happy to support your Presidential candidacy this fall.

That being said, if you somehow manage to gain the Democratic Presidential nomination without obtaining a majority of the pledged delegates, I will not, under any circumstances be voting for you this fall.

The very concept of "super delegates" should be anathema within a democratic society. And it should be especially so within the confines of the Democratic Party. We are a party that prides itself in making sure EVERY vote counts. We are the party that was on the right side of Bush v Gore. And we are the party that doesn’t apportion delegates in a “winner take all” fashion that often disenfranchises over half their electorate.

Thank you

Somehow I doubt mine was the first email she has received on this subject.

We are a party that prides itself in making sure EVERY vote counts. We are the party that was on the right side of Bush v Gore.

Funny shit.

Make sure every vote counts, including inconclusive (hanging chad) ones and if you are from cook county, dead ones.

Yup, you guys sure are the party of "every vote counts".

I will man up and say you fukks do have it right with "winner takes his share, and not a vote more". Has this always been the case or are you guys doing it because of the ass fukking you took in florida in '00?

I think Romney would have hung in there and maybe pulled it out if the reps had the same policy. Also his $$$$ would have bought more super duper delegates.

Wonder if the dems would be interested in proportional voting in the general election? I kinda doubt it as they would have to give up 40+ percent of some big states which they currently pwn.

smackaholic wrote:Make sure every vote counts, including inconclusive (hanging chad) ones and if you are from cook county, dead ones.

Yup, you guys sure are the party of "every vote counts".

I will man up and say you fukks do have it right with "winner takes his share, and not a vote more". Has this always been the case or are you guys doing it because of the ass fukking you took in florida in '00?

It's been that way since 1972. Proportional representation was a byproduct of the disastrous 1968 convention.

I think Romney would have hung in there and maybe pulled it out if the reps had the same policy. Also his $$$$ would have bought more super duper delegates.

It is quite possible. Romney was definitely triangulated right out of the race by McCain and Huckabee.

Wonder if the dems would be interested in proportional voting in the general election? I kinda doubt it as they would have to give up 40+ percent of some big states which they currently pwn.

I know I'd be all for most forms of proportional voting. And I don't know any Dems who are not. In fact, I've never met a person from either party who thinks the Electoral College is a valid option for a modern, technologically advanced society.

mvscal wrote:

smackaholic wrote:the party of "every vote counts".

Yep. Over and over and over.

Unless they're in uniform, that is.

http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/ba ... 190823.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a188ddc1663.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Two Democratic candidates left.

Candidate A
Supported by the educated and professionals of all races, blacks.

Candidate B
Supported by poor white trash and mexicans er Latinos.

If Candidate B's cronies override Candidate A's win of the popular vote, the Democratic Party will go the way of the Whig Party.

BSmack wrote:

In fact, I've never met a person from either party who thinks the Electoral College is a valid option for a modern, technologically advanced society.

Funny, I've never met a person from either party who actually troubled themselves to read the friggin' Constitution who doesn't believe that electroshock therapy isn't a "valid option" to stir the viscous soup you call gray matter into cognizant, reasonable thought. Please tell me you're trolling, B, because your post is quite easily one of the dumbest takes you've ever written. XIIth Amendment out front shoulda told you.

Truman wrote:

BSmack wrote:In fact, I've never met a person from either party who thinks the Electoral College is a valid option for a modern, technologically advanced society.

Funny, I've never met a person from either party who actually troubled themselves to read the friggin' Constitution who doesn't believe that electroshock therapy isn't a "valid option" to stir the viscous soup you call gray matter into cognizant, reasonable thought. Please tell me you're trolling, B, because your post is quite easily one of the dumbest takes you've ever written. XIIth Amendment out front shoulda told you.

Shocking, another critter from flyover country rises to defend the indefensible.

Komrade BSmack wrote:Shocking, another critter from flyover country rises to defend the indefensible.

...all the while a Northeast, Far-Left whack-job futilely seeks to assail the unassailable.

Last I checked, BDebs, the Constitution is still Law of the Land. Short of you rallying a Constitutional Convention anytime soon - or "Revolution," as your kind is known to incite - I'd say that makes my position fairly defensible. Lemme know how that works out for ya....

Any other windmills you'd care to take a poke at while you're up B, or shall we let your last post stand on its own inanity?

Truman wrote:

Komrade BSmack wrote:Shocking, another critter from flyover country rises to defend the indefensible.

...all the while a Northeast, Far-Left whack-job futilely seeks to assail the unassailable.

Last I checked, BDebs, the Constitution is still Law of the Land. Short of you rallying a Constitutional Convention anytime soon - or "Revolution," as your kind is known to incite - I'd say that makes my position fairly defensible. Lemme know how that works out for ya....

No need for a revolution of Constitutional Convention a simple Amendment will suffice.

We live in a society where news travels at the speed of light yet we wait for a month after our Presidential Election to allow "electors" to allegedly reflect the will of the people and then another month thereafter to install the winner as President, presumably to allow the winner time to travel to Washington via stagecoach.

Yea, that shit makes a lot of fucking sense.

Psst! Are you going to ever comprehend the difference between a defensible position as a matter of Constitutional Law and a defensible position as a matter of Common Fucking Sense?

Trust me, Dio, BSmolensk more than understands the theory of the Electoral College…

He just doesn't like it.

Hence the urgency – some might suggest desperation – of those of his ilk to seize control of America's destiny by fomenting Change through the only means they know how:

Presidential Appointment of Far-Left ideologues to the Federal Judiciary.

Since the Left will never have the legislative numbers or popular support to blow up the sacrosanct work of the Founders, their only hope to re-pave America in their own image is to gain the Whitehouse and appoint a left-wing judiciary to "interpret" the "true meaning" of the sacred document.

The irony here – er, other than being run out of his own thread - is that while BSocialist burns thousands of keystrokes to decry our "archaic" electoral process or futilely argue that Universal Healthcare is somehow a "Constitutional Entitlement," he's quick to defend his "Constitutional Right" to spark up a smoke down at the Dew Drop In.

Can't have it both ways, pal. The Nazification of public smoking is the fascist manifestation of the "we-know-what's-best-for-you-because-you're-too-stupid-to-figure-it-out-all-on-your-own-without-our-help" crowd.

Guess how those folks vote, Sparky?

BSmack wrote: Psst! Are you going to ever comprehend the difference between a defensible position as a matter of Constitutional Law and a defensible position as a matter of Common Fucking Sense?

Now there's a laugh…

You DO realize that your presidential vote carries the exact same impact as the one cast by the ill-read, ill-informed, 42-year-old pot-head living in his mother's basement; or that of the racist, right-wing separatist living in his secure compound in Idaho; or even that of a politically-active, border-jumping illegal casting his ballot under the lax eye of officials in a sanctuary precinct, right?

Hell, your vote means as much as mine does…

So employing THIS logic, why should the good folks in New York hold sway over the good folks of, say, Nebraska?

They shouldn't. And the Constitution guarantees that they don't. You want representative government determined by population? Perfect. We can accomodate you. It's called the House of Representatives. As for Common Sense…

Get back to me when you decide to post some.

Truman wrote:...Far-Left...
...the Left...left-wing ...BSocialist...

You're a dildo. Straight up. No chaser.

Next time you scribble together a post, can you make it less obvious that you're using one of those "How To Win An Online Arguement" 10 point bulletins?

You might be the lightest weight blow-hard in this whole forum. Wags seems profound next to you.

Come on. Rack the Bsmack for his fortitude and email to the Hillary camp.

Go easy on him, Trev.

He's an idealist. He'll grow up one of these days.

Truman wrote:

BSmack wrote: Psst! Are you going to ever comprehend the difference between a defensible position as a matter of Constitutional Law and a defensible position as a matter of Common Fucking Sense?

Now there's a laugh…

You DO realize that your presidential vote carries the exact same impact as the one cast by the ill-read, ill-informed, 42-year-old pot-head living in his mother's basement; or that of the racist, right-wing separatist living in his secure compound in Idaho; or even that of a politically-active, border-jumping illegal casting his ballot under the lax eye of officials in a sanctuary precinct, right?

Hell, your vote means as much as mine does…

So employing THIS logic, why should the good folks in New York hold sway over the good folks of, say, Nebraska?

They shouldn't.

Agreed, but . . .

And the Constitution guarantees that they don't.

Wrong on this point. 2000 Election out front told you so.

Martyred wrote:

Truman wrote:...Far-Left...
...the Left...left-wing ...BSocialist...

You're a dildo. Straight up. No chaser.

Next time you scribble together a post, can you make it less obvious that you're using one of those "How To Win An Online Arguement" 10 point bulletins?

You might be the lightest weight blow-hard in this whole forum. Wags seems profound next to you.

I don't even know where to start with Truman. Arguing with someone who thinks that my vote counts the same as a person in Kansas is pointless. Simple common sense tells me that the votes of those people living in lightly populated shitholes are weighted heavier than those who live in larger states when it comes to assigning electors. I'm sure it was an absolutely brilliant idea in 1787 when a trip to your neighboring state was a week long affair and 90% of the population was barred from voting anyway.

BSmack wrote:
I don't even know where to start with Truman.

And yet you do. Every time.

The king of non sequiturs, Tru-STRAW-man McFakeStory leaves you twisting in the wind. What does that say about you?

BSmack wrote:

Martyred wrote:

Truman wrote:...Far-Left...
...the Left...left-wing ...BSocialist...

You're a dildo. Straight up. No chaser.

Next time you scribble together a post, can you make it less obvious that you're using one of those "How To Win An Online Arguement" 10 point bulletins?

You might be the lightest weight blow-hard in this whole forum. Wags seems profound next to you.

I don't even know where to start with Truman. Arguing with someone who thinks that my vote counts the same as a person in Kansas is pointless. Simple common sense tells me that the votes of those people living in lightly populated shitholes are weighted heavier than those who live in larger states when it comes to assigning electors.

Someone from Pennsylvania refering to anywhere else as a shithole?

Outstanding.

And the point is that without the EC, the votes of Kansans, Coloradans and Alaskans would count for exactly nothing.

Which would be make leftwing tools like you happy, but be horrible for real Americans.

Martyred wrote: Tru-STRAW-man McFakeStory

How fresh.

I'm guessing someone here got a healthy Truman beatdown in the past.

Diogenes wrote:

BSmack wrote:I don't even know where to start with Truman. Arguing with someone who thinks that my vote counts the same as a person in Kansas is pointless. Simple common sense tells me that the votes of those people living in lightly populated shitholes are weighted heavier than those who live in larger states when it comes to assigning electors.

Someone from Pennsylvania refering to anywhere else as a shithole?

Outstanding.

He's from upstate New York, you gibbering fucktard.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: I'm sure it was an absolutely brilliant idea in 1787 when a trip to your neighboring state was a week long affair and 90% of the population was barred from voting anyway.

Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the reasoning behind the Electoral College.

The purpose of which is to ensure that the ten largest urban areas do not decide national elections for the rest of the nation.

Obviously you missed this emerging trend called suburbs? The combined population of our 10 largest cities is about 25 million. Exactly how do you propose they swing an election in a nation of 300 million people?

Sorry you despise "flyover country", no doubt the feeling is mutual as well as too fucking bad for you. A constitutional amendment to eliminate the Electoral College will never under any circumstances ever pass.

And priests will never stop fucking altar boys. That doesn't make it right.

Martyred wrote:

Truman wrote:...Far-Left...
...the Left...left-wing ...BSocialist...

You're a dildo. Straight up. No chaser.

Next time you scribble together a post, can you make it less obvious that you're using one of those "How To Win An Online Arguement" 10 point bulletins?

You might be the lightest weight blow-hard in this whole forum. Wags seems profound next to you.

Just when exactly was it that Martard, the rock throwing, rabble rousing Canuck, started believing he was smart or "profound" enough to pass judgement on somebody else's posting ability?

Whenever that was, it was just another delusional fantasy. Truman hardly needs any defense from anyone, much less moi, but he runs circles around your transparent, contentless dribblings. In other news, water is wet, and one of his posts is worth more than your entire contribution to this board.

Go fuck yourself, Perk.

War Wagon wrote: Whenever that was, it was just another delusional fantasy. Truman hardly needs any defense from anyone, much less moi, but he runs circles around your transparent, contentless dribblings. In other news, water is wet, and one of his posts is worth more than your entire contribution to this board.

Go fuck yourself, Perk.

I laugh at you, you dummy.

Tru-AM-radio's Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh whittled down talking points are just your speed.

Duuuhhhh. You and B_Monica* need to get a room.

* 'sup Cuda...

mvscal wrote:I quite clearly said urban area, the ten largest of which total roughly 80 million people.

Also quite clear is your continuing inability to make your point without disingenuous characterizations or outright lies.

The Electoral College is functioning exactly as intended for reasons which remain every bit as valid today as they were over two hundred years ago.

Lemme guess, Simi Valley is a part of the LA "urban area"? How did that work out for Rodney King? To suggest that what we now call "urban" or "metro" areas are even remotely similar from point to point in their voting patterns is absolutely fucking absurd.

The only reason you like the electoral college is because, for the moment, it gives Republicans a slight advantage. Just admitt and move on.

Of course if few million more brown people move into Arizona, Nevada and Colorado, you can kiss that electoral college advantage goodbye. About all the GOP will have left will be the snake handlers out in Truman's neck of the woods.

Martyred wrote: Tru-AM-radio's Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh whittled down talking points are just your speed.

You forgot to include Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham in with that broad brush, you hypocritical, know nothing simpleton.

The very fucking thing you accuse someone else of doing, you most certainly do yourself.

Pathetic.

Having a discussion or debate with you about anything is worthless, and I certainly don't intend to entertain that bothersome notion. But somebody had to set the record straight on the merits of a Truman vs. the merits of an idiot such as Martard.

Ok, which one of you shitheels invited the slow kid to post in this thread…?

Martyred wrote:You're a dildo. Straight up. No chaser.

You really aren't very good at this, are you Marty?

While it's obvious that "smack" clearly doesn't translate easily into Canadian, I'll play.

I'm a dildo? Perfect. You're a colostomy bag.

All things considered, I'd much rather spend quality time pleasuring some hot chick's snatch than to walk around all day full of shit.

But that's just me.

At least you didn't call me a "Jew-hating Communist" or (horrors!) a "Canadian" for God's sake….

Next time you scribble together a post, can you make it less obvious that you're using one of those "How To Win An Online Arguement" 10 point bulletins?-

Sorry, 'red, but the shit I just took carries more weight than any post you could possibly string together on American politics. Why? Because it's an American shit, you fucking Loser! BTW, feel free to mix in an actual take, you fuckin' Cannucklehead, or get the fuck outta this Forum!

You might be the lightest weight blow-hard in this whole forum. Wags seems profound next to you.

Translation: Wags ran your junky ass, too.

But I see you workin' 'red: Guilt by geography.

Which leaves you and Phibes skipping hand-in-hand gaily across the Canadian Steppes – er, Plains - with matching Young Octobrist's scarves streaming in the wind and singing the Internationale on the way down to the local kollectiv….

Just die, Loser. The only "game" you have resonates from the stench of your week-old underwear….

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Wrong on this point. 2000 Election out front told you so.

Ah. Another Graduate from the 1+1=Whateveryoufeelitshouldequal School of Higher Progressive Thought..

Riddle me this Ter: What part of 271-266 continues to defeat you…?

BSmack wrote:I don't even know where to start with Truman.

'Course you don't. 'Cause like Chuck Norris...

Truman starts with YOU.

Arguing with someone who thinks that my vote counts the same as a person in Kansas is pointless.

Wrong. Arguing with someone who thinks that his vote should count more than that of a person in Kansas is pointless. But B's misguided logic, like trainwrecks, is fascinating. So we press on....

Simple common sense tells me that the votes of those people living in lightly populated shitholes are weighted heavier than those who live in larger states when it comes to assigning electors.

Is that right? Lemme get this straight:

You choose to live in an area that averages 93 inches of snowfall each year and yet you dare to lecture folks about "simple common sense"?!



BTW, New York has 31 Electoral Votes; Missouri 11. So much for your specious argument that "the votes of those people living in lightly populated shitholes are weighted heavier than those who live in larger states when it comes to assigning electors.”

You through here, Mensa, or do you have any other "wisdom" that you'd care to contribute to yet another losing argument?

Truman wrote: Sorry, 'red, but the shit I just took carries more weight than any post you could possibly string together on American politics. Why? Because it's an American shit, you fucking Loser! BTW, feel free to mix in an actual take, you fuckin' Cannucklehead, or get the fuck outta this Forum!

I am officially in your dome.

And now...to declare your dome a Socialist Republic...



The people have spoken.

Truman wrote:Is that right? Lemme get this straight:

You choose to live in an area that averages 93 inches of snowfall each year and yet you dare to lecture folks about "simple common sense"?!

Current temperature in Rochester, NY: 32 degrees

Current temperature in Kansas City, MO: 19 degrees

You do know that the same body of water responsible for dropping 93 inches of snow on Rochester also moderates our climate?

BTW, New York has 31 Electoral Votes; Missouri 11. So much for your specious argument that "the votes of those people living in lightly populated shitholes are weighted heavier than those who live in larger states when it comes to assigning electors.”

You through here, Mensa, or do you have any other "wisdom" that you'd care to contribute to yet another losing argument?

I'm going to break it down for you one more time.

Population of New York State: 18,976,457

Population of Missouri: 5,842,713

Now, take the population of each state and divide by the number of electors.

New York: 612143.77

Missouri: 531155.72

That's how many people each elector represents from each state. As you can plainly see, a New York elector represents 80988 more people than an elector from Missouri.

What about that is not sinking into your thick head?

BSmack wrote: Current temperature in Kansas City, MO: 19 degrees

Actually, it's 14 degrees out at KCI airport near where I live.

I had to go buy more kerosene today. :brad:

...a New York elector represents 80988 more people than an elector from Missouri.

Sounds about right to me, Bri. Missourians are good judges of character. What's the problem here?

You know you want us choosing your President.

Btw, props on posting your cogent thoughts sans the gratuitous personal insults. That's the way it should be done. Seriously, you're setting a fine example for the rest of us knuckle draggers.

Diogenes wrote:You do realize that each state has two additional electors over those given for population?

Of course. That's what fucks up the whole one man, one vote equation.

Let me guess, after you abolish the EC you'll want the senate to be proportioned according to population.

I'd just as soon see the Senate abolished and state boundaries ignored when apportioning representation in the House. Take the population from the last census and divide by 535 and apportion the districts accordingly. Who cares if they overlap state boundaries?

BSmack wrote:

Diogenes wrote:You do realize that each state has two additional electors over those given for population?

Of course. That's what fucks up the whole one man, one vote equation.

Good thing. That equation sucks.

BSmack wrote:

Let me guess, after you abolish the EC you'll want the senate to be proportioned according to population.

I'd just as soon see the Senate abolished and state boundaries ignored when apportioning representation in the House. Take the population from the last census and divide by 535 and apportion the districts accordingly. Who cares if they overlap state boundaries?

The Founding Fathers and any non-bolshevik American with a clue.

BSmack wrote: I'd just as soon see the Senate abolished and state boundaries ignored when apportioning representation in the House. Take the population from the last census and divide by 535 and apportion the districts accordingly. Who cares if they overlap state boundaries?

Who cares?

Probably those less populous States whom you want to disenfranchise. They joined the Union under a certain set of rules, but now you want to change those rules, eh?

Good luck with that. I'd say there's a better chance of Ron Paul being president with Dins as his vice that there is of getting some States to give up representative power.

War Wagon wrote:

BSmack wrote:I'd just as soon see the Senate abolished and state boundaries ignored when apportioning representation in the House. Take the population from the last census and divide by 535 and apportion the districts accordingly. Who cares if they overlap state boundaries?

Who cares?

Probably those less populous States whom you want to disenfranchise. They joined the Union under a certain set of rules, but now you want to change those rules, eh?

Good luck with that. I'd say there's a better chance of Ron Paul being president with Dins as his vice that there is of getting some States to give up representative power.

I never said it would happen, just it was the ideal solution for a modern 21st century democracy to undertake.

Of course as we become more oligarchic, the chances for true democratic reform become nil and zero.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: That's what fucks up the whole one man, one vote equation.

There is no such equation, dumbfuck. There never has been and there never will be. Deal with it, you whiny fucking pussy.

Direct democracy is mob rule. Anyone advocating it should be stood against a wall and shot.

Equal apportionment of representation does not equal direct democracy. Much less mob rule.