What If Trump resigns or is Removed From Office?

Sounds like either a pre-teen or drunk joke.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

mark

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

then, by your definition, neither am I.

That is incorrect. You regularly engage in childish name-calling whenever you are confronted with facts.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

You shouldnt try to cover up your ignorance with lies, you should use your ignorance as a step to larning.

It is highly dishonorable of you to falsely accuse me of lying.

farmerman wrote:

Also, your insistance about an ultimate count on electors doesnt relly mean to have a full populational count of electors , it can mean that a "Winner take all; system needs to be abandoned" or a mathematical apportioning formula for the large states (like Cal or Texas) also needs to be considered to get closer and closer to "one man one vote"

Dont concentrate on what you think CANT happen (You conservatives are always open to the roadblock), consider, instead, what MAY work better.

I've done that twice now in the past few weeks.

I'm not interested in repeating myself again. If you didn't absorb it the first two times I posted it, that's not my problem.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

you must think that I follow your every word. If youre not on the page Im on, then youre not alive.
Where did you post about doing away with the "winner take all" and substitute "proportional apportionment"?? The only thing I saw you posting was that ed have too many electors by the only means I saw you mention. Am I wrong??
If you did, then I apologize, for "winner take all" is one STATES ENTERED option to the electoral college that is not mentioned in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers and is one where states with larger populations are disenfranchised. (Like California is now).
That is quite important now that our population is almost 100 times bigger than the one when the Constitution was ratified, so disenfranchisement of the larger states, to the benefit of the small population states is going to be more and more the norm.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Where did you post about doing away with the "winner take all" and substitute "proportional apportionment"??

Who calls it that? It sounds well weird. It's called PR, proportional representation.

Nothing surprises me about Oralloy any more.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

... You regularly engage in childish name-calling whenever you are confronted...

,

Which is just another means of name calling in a passive aggressive fshion...

yaaa wwwwwnnnnn,

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

farmerman wrote:

Where did you post about doing away with the "winner take all" and substitute "proportional apportionment"??

Who calls it that? It sounds well weird. It's called PR, proportional representation.

Nothing surprises me about Oralloy any more.

One day he’ll post something reasonable and honest, and it’ll shock the hell out of the both of us.

3 Replies

@snood,

Ha, hes too buy trying to impress others by claiming his marrige to full factual analyses, never lying, and being smarter than many A2Kers.
All I can say is that hed never make it in an lit U where IQ's are ignificantly in the top 0.001 S/B percentile (165-200). Pinky, well he likes whatever sounds conservative whether he understands it or not.

Im amazed at how both these guys endorse violence in dealing with folks who dont slavishly follow their political beliefs.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Whatever you wish to argue about is OK w/ me. Howver, where did Oral mention any of the above??.

I said Id apologize if he did, because I only read stuff of his that lies on the page Im on at that time. I dont like going back because he has a silly habit of seriatim responses to everyone with which he merely keeps fanning the flames of insult and shouting.

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

reasonable and honest,

Maybe one day you will figure what honest and reasonable is. When and if that happens then you can tell the others, but they probably will not listen, Hell, they might even call you names and belittle you because they know best. You starting to see just how wrong you jokers are?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

I quoted you, I assumed your use of speech marks meant you were quoting Oralloy. I'm sorry if that's not the case.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Which is just another means of name calling in a passive aggressive fshion...

Posting facts that you dislike isn't name-calling.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Ha, hes too buy trying to impress others by claiming his marrige to full factual analyses, never lying, and being smarter than many A2Kers.

It's not my fault that I'm better than you.

farmerman wrote:

All I can say is that hed never make it in an lit U where IQ's are ignificantly in the top 0.001 S/B percentile (165-200).

My 170 IQ fits in nicely with that crowd. Out of a randomly selected population of ten million people, I'd be the smartest person in the group.

farmerman wrote:

Pinky, well he likes whatever sounds conservative whether he understands it or not.

You cannot provide any examples of coldjoint not understanding anything.

You're just playing the emotional infant's "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid" game. And it's going badly for you because you're arguing with people who are smarter than you are.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

One day he'll post something reasonable and honest, and it'll shock the hell out of the both of us.

Your lack of honor and integrity is shameful. You cannot provide any examples of dishonest behavior in any of my posts.

I realize that you are not capable of producing intelligent arguments to defend your demented ideology, but that does not justify you spreading lies about me.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The only thing I saw you posting was that ed have too many electors by the only means I saw you mention. Am I wrong??

Drastically increasing the number of electors would greatly reduce the disadvantage that voters in large states have in the electoral college. It would eliminate most of the disparity that you are complaining about.

farmerman wrote:

"winner take all" is one STATES ENTERED option to the electoral college that is not mentioned in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers and is one where states with larger populations are disenfranchised. (Like California is now).

Each state freely chooses for itself whether to have a winner take all system. If having such a system somehow disenfranchises larger states, then they are doing it to themselves, and they have the power to change it at any time.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I NEVER even considered 'drastically increasing the number of electors". Thats a creation of your own imagination.
Ive been consistently espousing changing an internal contrivance that is totally ex-Constitutionally referenced. A while back Robert started a "Lets do away with the Elctoral College". In that one I was saying I would rather see doing away with "Winner take all" Which is the way the EC assigns the electors as the EC summarizes the NATION's VOTE.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Mc posted several Amendments including the 12th which describes the "Tallying" of all the electoral votes. What the constitution is silent about is how those votes are presented by each state on EC voting day.
The 12th Amendment sounds perfectly rationale for its time ("The runner up will be vice president" (You do realize we dont do this anymore. So sometime, ago, it already had been modified by some fashion.
The "Winner take all" proviso became policy in several stages after the US Constitution was ratified in total. Its a dumb thing and it should be altered IMHO. In 2016 if proportinality of the votes had been followed and each state reported its electoral results in that fashion, Hillary would have won by only a few votes and while California voters would have been disenfranchised, so would those in Fla and Texas, clearly still "RED" states. BUT, it would have gone to get rid of the horrible socia;ist method of tallying votes .
As Stalin said," Its not the voters who decide the election, Its those who COUNT THE VOTES who determine the outcome of the election". Weve employed a Stalinist electoral procedure without knowing it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I NEVER even considered 'drastically increasing the number of electors". Thats a creation of your own imagination.

I did not accuse you of coming up with my proposals. I come up with my own proposals. That's why my proposals are better than yours.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

perhaps in your fevered mind. The actual "increasing the number of electors "was the only thing I read that you'd posted. EVERYONE in positions of decision making had a;ready disposed that "idea" as totally inane. So what were your "ideas " on this subject. OR , as I suppose, you are idea-free and just like to claim that you are a superior being(of a no doubt superior species).

3 Replies

What If Trump resigns or is Removed From Office?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know