Serious question to Trump voters

[dkovic77]

Are you really this stupid?

2016
2020

Oh I’m sorry, Joe had two more electoral votes… so yeah, it was closer for him than the 2016 victory.

But yeah, if you are going to focus on the margin compared to the total, it isn’t the big difference you think it is.

Landslide!

 

[icanhelp1]

2016
2020

Oh I’m sorry, Joe had two more electoral votes… so yeah, it was closer for him than the 2016 victory.

But yeah, if you are going to focus on the margin compared to the total, it isn’t the big difference you think it is.

Trump won 2016
Biden won 2020 **the numbers speak for themselves**

If you're going to focus on the popular vote, well, we don't elect presidents using the popular vote. If the shoe were on the other foot and dems won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote you'd be screaming from the highest mountain tops that *we elect presidents using the electoral college*.

 

[dkovic77]

Trump won 2016
Biden won 2020 **the numbers speak for themselves**

If you're going to focus on the popular vote, well, we don't elect presidents using the popular vote. If the shoe were on the other foot and dems won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote you'd be screaming from the highest mountain tops that *we elect presidents using the electoral college*.

Wtf are you talking about, just the electoral vote is all I’m bringing up.

Take an extra pill and tell your doctor you need more.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Here's how to do it; have at it:

An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

Like I said there is close to zero chance of it happening. Which creates so many problems that half the time we just kinda ignore the Constitution. Honestly people only care about it when they are losing an argument on its merits so you appeal to the dead men we can't debate.

 

[dkovic77]

Trump won 2016
Biden won 2020 **the numbers speak for themselves**

If you're going to focus on the popular vote, well, we don't elect presidents using the popular vote. If the shoe were on the other foot and dems won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote you'd be screaming from the highest mountain tops that *we elect presidents using the electoral college*.

And did I miss, you said Biden won 2020. Wow. So only the my pillow guy, the Cheeto and four seasons….good defense for him coming up… he didn’t think he lost. Right.

 

[icanhelp1]

Like I said there is close to zero chance of it happening. Which creates so many problems that half the time we just kinda ignore the Constitution. Honestly people only care about it when they are losing an argument on its merits so you appeal to the dead men we can't debate.

That's why we have SCOTUS, to interpret the constitution. Right Now we have 6 conservative judges 4 of which are originalist, 3 liberal.

 

[Sean Renaud]

That's why we has SCOTUS, to interpret the constitution. Right Now we have 6 conservative judges 4 of which are originalist, 3 liberal.

Which generally has no bearing on the situation. We collectively just shrug at it until we're losing an argument. Like the 2nd Amendment says "Shall not be infringed." It doesn't say a damn thing about ex-cons, an age limit. We don't really make grenades available and those are just off the top of my head.

The Electoral College is literally doing the opposite of its true intended purpose.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Which generally has no bearing on the situation. We collectively just shrug at it until we're losing an argument. Like the 2nd Amendment says "Shall not be infringed." It doesn't say a damn thing about ex-cons, an age limit. We don't really make grenades available and those are just off the top of my head.

The Electoral College is literally doing the opposite of its true intended purpose.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with explosives, including hand grenades. So this is kind of a ridiculous comparison. Convicts through out history have had their rights restricted, and society has long had age restrictions on all kinds of things, driving, drinking, smoking, marriage and so on.

The electoral college was created to stop largely populated areas from always controlling federal elections and making smaller populated areas essentially irrelevant. It seems to still work very well.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with explosives, including hand grenades. So this is kind of a ridiculous comparison. Convicts through out history have had their rights restricted, and society has long had age restrictions on all kinds of things, driving, drinking, smoking, marriage and so on.

The electoral college was created to stop largely populated areas from always controlling federal elections and making smaller populated areas essentially irrelevant. It seems to still work very well.

Yes it does have to do with explosives. It says the right to bear ARMS. grenades the ones that look like they popped out of a cartoon existed back them. They could have said guns or said "no bombs" but they did not.

That's the lie they teach in school. This was about slavery in large part and protecting New York from Virginia.

 

[TrailerHitch]

Yes it does have to do with explosives. It says the right to bear ARMS. grenades the ones that look like they popped out of a cartoon existed back them. They could have said guns or said "no bombs" but they did not.

That's the lie they teach in school. This was about slavery in large part and protecting New York from Virginia.

Arms are usually considered to be firearms, pistols, rifles and so on. We can play semantical games all day if you wish. By your standard though, if only what existed back then counts as part of the 2nd Amendment then machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, and even nuclear weapons would be exempt.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Arms are usually considered to be firearms, pistols, rifles and so on. We can play semantical games all day if you wish. By your standard though, if only what existed back then counts as part of the 2nd Amendment then machine guns, semi-automatic weapons, and even nuclear weapons would be exempt.

If they'd meant guns they would have written that. This isn't semantics its accepting the law as written. No, by my standard if they were aware of grenades and they were, they would have specified we only mean this. Obviously it covers things that weren't in existence back then. That part is undeniable.

 

[TrailerHitch]

If they'd meant guns they would have written that. This isn't semantics its accepting the law as written. No, by my standard if they were aware of grenades and they were, they would have specified we only mean this. Obviously it covers things that weren't in existence back then. That part is undeniable.

I am glad that you can see that it does in fact cover firearms that did not exist back then because sometimes anti-gunners try to claim that it only covers muskets since that's all that existed then. But disregarding the 1st Amendment where all that existed then was the Gutenberg press. No phones, cell or otherwise, no internet, no telegraph, no radio, and no TV. But somehow the 1st Amendment is exempt from the back then rule.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I am glad that you can see that it does in fact cover firearms that did not exist back then because sometimes anti-gunners try to claim that it only covers muskets since that's all that existed then. But disregarding the 1st Amendment where all that existed then was the Gutenberg press. No phones, cell or otherwise, no internet, no telegraph, no radio, and no TV. But somehow the 1st Amendment is exempt from the back then rule.

While I disagree with the law, I think at this point it does far more harm than any possible good it could do the way its written doesn't say anything about what kinds of weapons you can own. Now we restrict things which is why I bring up other forms of weapons. Its worth noting that the Founders largely believed that having a standing army was tyranny. We've since gotten over that.

 

[Bray123]

Funny how ammosexuals try to twist stuff around. The purpose of having arms was to sustain a Regulated Militia. Not to enable people to send Christmas cards depicting themselves polishing their barrels in Walmart.

Anyway the purpose of this thread was to explore why apparently normal people continue to support a candidate who openly tried to overturn the Constitution and install himself as President against the will of the people. But as the point of the Electoral College has been raised, this was a devised specifically to enable slave-states to overrule the others whilst denying non-white folks the right to vote. Those non-voters still had to pay taxes though (wasn't there a war about that?).

The effect nowadays is to enable small state politicians to shout down the large states. If you want to make your vote really count, move to Wyoming.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Funny how ammosexuals try to twist stuff around. The purpose of having arms was to sustain a Regulated Militia. Not to enable people to send Christmas cards depicting themselves polishing their barrels in Walmart.

Anyway the purpose of this thread was to explore why apparently normal people continue to support a candidate who openly tried to overturn the Constitution and install himself as President against the will of the people. But as the point of the Electoral College has been raised, this was a devised specifically to enable slave-states to overrule the others whilst denying non-white folks the right to vote. Those non-voters still had to pay taxes though (wasn't there a war about that?).

The effect nowadays is to enable small state politicians to shout down the large states. If you want to make your vote really count, move to Wyoming.

Its worse than that since prior to the Civil War if you added a state to the Union the Confederacy gets one. The result in the modern world is that there are way too many states that nobody really live in that wield more power than even the Founders intended for them have.

Actually the EC in no small part was about states like New York having a large free white population against states like Virginia which had relatively few free whites by comparison to New York or Pennsylvania but lots of slaves. That's what the 3/5ths compromise was about and it should have been 0. I'm not saying black people aren't people but if I can't claim my dog as a dependent they shouldn't have been able to count their slaves as citizens. You'd still count them but that's just so the government knows how many bodies are in any given area.

 

[dkovic77]

Its worse than that since prior to the Civil War if you added a state to the Union the Confederacy gets one. The result in the modern world is that there are way too many states that nobody really live in that wield more power than even the Founders intended for them have.

Actually the EC in no small part was about states like New York having a large free white population against states like Virginia which had relatively few free whites by comparison to New York or Pennsylvania but lots of slaves. That's what the 3/5ths compromise was about and it should have been 0. I'm not saying black people aren't people but if I can't claim my dog as a dependent they shouldn't have been able to count their slaves as citizens. You'd still count them but that's just so the government knows how many bodies are in any given area.

Remember according to Florida, those enslaved persons were getting on the job training. That accounts for that 3/5. Or some garbage like that.

 

[icanhelp1]

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with explosives, including hand grenades. So this is kind of a ridiculous comparison. Convicts through out history have had their rights restricted, and society has long had age restrictions on all kinds of things, driving, drinking, smoking, marriage and so on.

The electoral college was created to stop largely populated areas from always controlling federal elections and making smaller populated areas essentially irrelevant. It seems to still work very well.

The electoral college protects our nation from becoming * THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA *

 

[dkovic77]

The electoral college protects our nation from becoming * THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CALIFORNIA *

Took you all that time to come up with that? At least in California there can be a recall vote.

And it was designed to protect the south and slave holding power.

 

[icanhelp1]

And did I miss, you said Biden won 2020. Wow. So only the my pillow guy, the Cheeto and four seasons….good defense for him coming up… he didn’t think he lost. Right.


View attachment 2262655

The constitution protects freedom of speech. Challenging the outcome of an election is natural as mom’s apple pie. There were many irregularities in 2020. Courts failing to have evidentiary hearings failed us in 2020. Courts did a substandard job of eliminating doubt. Pennsylvania is a good example where the court made a ruling that belonged to the legislative body. What happened in Pennsylvania was unconstitutional at both state and federal levels.

 

[dkovic77]

The constitution protects freedom of speech. Challenging the outcome of an election is natural as mom’s apple pie. There were many irregularities in 2020. Courts failing to have evidentiary hearings failed us in 2020. Courts did a substandard job of eliminating doubt. Pennsylvania is a good example where the court made a ruling that belonged to the legislative body. What happened in Pennsylvania was unconstitutional at both state and federal levels.

Freedom of speech protects you from prosecution by the government and not being called out by your community.

Yeah for Pennsylvania. They should have figured it out before the election, and not waited for the result and then cried foul.

2022 went real well in PA for the 2020 election conspiracy folks. Ass kicking from what I remember.

 

[icanhelp1]

Took you all that time to come up with that? At least in California there can be a recall vote.

And it was designed to protect the south and slave holding power.

Recall authorization comes from state constitutions.

The EC was never perfect, it was a compromise.

 

[dkovic77]

Recall authorization comes from state constitutions.

Gold star!

The EC was never perfect, it was a compromise.

Never perfect is right, just a compromise (like all of them) that favored the slave holders.

We will all wait while you try to discount that since it hurts so much.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Gold star!

Never perfect is right, just a compromise (like all of them) that favored the slave holders.

We will all wait while you try to discount that since it hurts so much.

The compromise actually protected the north from southern states. The big problem was that they made blacks count as 3/5s of a person when they shouldn't have counted at all for the purposes of deciding how many Represenatives you get.

 

[dkovic77]

The compromise actually protected the north from southern states. The big problem was that they made blacks count as 3/5s of a person when they shouldn't have counted at all for the purposes of deciding how many Represenatives you get.

Yeah well it would have been 50% then. 3/5 gave advantage to the south to count “people” who they didn’t deem as people.

South wanted them to count as a full person, north wanted zero.

Really it just placated the south so they would join and stay in the Union.

 

[icanhelp1]

Freedom of speech protects you from prosecution by the government and not being called out by your community.

Yeah for Pennsylvania. They should have figured it out before the election, and not waited for the result and then cried foul.

2022 went real well in PA for the 2020 election conspiracy folks. Ass kicking from what I remember.

In Pennsylvania the court should have been on the ball and not overstepped its authority. It’s a complicated subject which will never be solved on a porn board.

I also believe that the the outcome of a pure popular vote would not have the outcome many voters believe. First off, for example, in blue states like California and Massachusetts a popular vote would incentivize conservative voters who sit out voting due to overwhelming feeling that their vote makes no difference those voters would be more apt to vote changing the balance of blue votes nationally. IMHO