51-49 Vote

[gohawks50]

I rarely if ever talk politics with people I'm not extremely close with, and even then its rare. Something most on the far left clearly lack the ability to do.

Doesn't this post claim the opposite of your earlier post?

But I do. Pretty wide cross section really. There is absolutely no way 70% of the population is remotely clued in on this, we rarely have 60% even vote in presidential elections.
.

In one post you claim to discuss politics with a wide variety of people to demonstrate you have your finger on the pulse of Americans. Then in the next post you say you rarely talk politics unless you are extremely close friends. Can you explain how you know what a wide variety of people feel, but only discuss politics with people you are close to? I'm not following the logic.

 

[The Tradition]

Not compelling. Individuals apparently don’t matter.

We are a federation of states.

If you want to abolish states and just have "America" that would be a tall order.

 

[mstp1992]

We are a federation of states.

If you want to abolish states and just have "America" that would be a tall order.

Keep the states, allow for individual votes for the president. Period. Full stop.

Obviously, you aren’t very smart.

 

[The Tradition]

Keep the states, allow for individual votes for the president. Period. Full stop.

Obviously, you aren’t very smart.

I'm very smart. California, New York, Florida and Texas would dominate presidential politics. There would be no hopeful candidates shaking hands and kissing babies in Iowa if your idea became law.

 

[gohawks50]

I'm very smart. California, New York, Florida and Texas would dominate presidential politics. There would be no hopeful candidates shaking hands and kissing babies in Iowa if your idea became law.

Iowa only gets the attention it does due to the first in the nation caucus. If our votes were held in the middle of the nomination process the number of handshakes and babies kissed would go way down.

 

[mstp1992]

I'm very smart. California, New York, Florida and Texas would dominate presidential politics. There would be no hopeful candidates shaking hands and kissing babies in Iowa if your idea became law.

You’re actually supporting my argument. The candidates don’t give a crap about these photo-ops. I know enough about the candidates’ positions I don’t need them to make personal appearances at the local diner to garner my vote.
This might be important to simpletons like your average Trump supporter, but to those with a modicum of intelligence it isn’t necessary.

 

[gohawks50]

Number of Presidential Candidate Visits in 2016 by State

Number of EC votes per state

 

[The Tradition]

You’re actually supporting my argument. The candidates don’t give a crap about these photo-ops. I know enough about the candidates’ positions I don’t need them to make personal appearances at the local diner to garner my vote.
This might be important to simpletons like your average Trump supporter, but to those with a modicum of intelligence it isn’t necessary.

 

[mstp1992]

So, you agree with me.

 

[The Tradition]

So, you agree with me.

Nope.

I have a bean counter at my company advocating that we implement "virtual meetings" instead of traveling to save money.

Stupid bitch. Nothing replaces face-to-face contact.

 

[Rudolph]

I rarely if ever talk politics with people I'm not extremely close with, and even then its rare. Something most on the far left clearly lack the ability to do.

So, let me get this straight. You are basically saying here that you talk politics with an extremely small sample of people. And yet it seems perfectly sensible to you to then make a big, fat, broad brush statement about a large group of people regarding the very thing for which you admittedly have an extremely narrow frame of reference?

And you do this in back-to-back sentences. SMH.

 

[TheCainer]

That's happening in the next 5-10 years regardless. The GOP will have to reinvent themselves as the older generations continue to die off.

Can they go back to the Whigs? Or, was that trademarked?

How about The Know Nothings?

Probably too soon for that one, too.

 

[TheCainer]

exactly. The dems are pathological liars and hoax perpetrators.

The American people will not trust them with congressional leadership again for a long while

lol

 

[joelbc1]

It will be interesting now to see how the Trumpers fight hard to keep Bolton’s book from being published/distributed. They have about 6 weeks to work their magic. Bolton’s book will be mostly true and not at all kind to our nation’s President.It well could be a “ long hot summer” for my President. The “witch hunt” continues....NO President has ever been as persecuted as Mr. Trump!
Prepare the victim card! Please use an orange background...

 

[joelbc1]

And if California didn't exist, Trump would have won the popular vote in 2016.

If my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle, too.

 

[mstp1992]

Nope.

I have a bean counter at my company advocating that we implement "virtual meetings" instead of traveling to save money.

Stupid bitch. Nothing replaces face-to-face contact.

So, you’re comparing apples and zebra fish.

Try again.

 

[ThorneStockton]

I rarely if ever talk politics with people I'm not extremely close with, and even then its rare. Something most on the far left clearly lack the ability to do.

Well how do you know how all the other normal people feel about this issue?

 

[Mattski]

Doesn't this post claim the opposite of your earlier post?

In one post you claim to discuss politics with a wide variety of people to demonstrate you have your finger on the pulse of Americans. Then in the next post you say you rarely talk politics unless you are extremely close friends. Can you explain how you know what a wide variety of people feel, but only discuss politics with people you are close to? I'm not following the logic.

You don’t talk with normal people, then. Multiple polls have demonstrated these numbers time and time again.
Similarly, those same polls have consistently shown a ‘removal/conviction’ preference around 51%, matching the disapproval numbers across multiple sources.

Doesn't this post claim the opposite of your earlier post?

In one post you claim to discuss politics with a wide variety of people to demonstrate you have your finger on the pulse of Americans. Then in the next post you say you rarely talk politics unless you are extremely close friends. Can you explain how you know what a wide variety of people feel, but only discuss politics with people you are close to? I'm not following the logic.

I didn't mention taking politics with normal people with frequency, you're adding that part.
But sure, over the course of about a month and a half it's come up in multiple conversations. A little at holidays, a couple family get togethers, random work convos etc... the vast majority of people aren't paying attention to this shit. Just losers like us.

 

[Mattski]

Well how do you know how all the other normal people feel about this issue?

Enough to know 70% of the population has litrle to no idea what's going on with any real detail.

 

[Mattski]

So, let me get this straight. You are basically saying here that you talk politics with an extremely small sample of people. And yet it seems perfectly sensible to you to then make a big, fat, broad brush statement about a large group of people regarding the very thing for which you admittedly have an extremely narrow frame of reference?

And you do this in back-to-back sentences. SMH.

I clarified above. Sorry for not making it clear. Though I don't frequently talk politics in everyday life, I've had enough convos since impeachment began to make an informed opinion.
Why is that what your fixating on anyway? Do you truly believe 70% of the population is informed enough to have an educated opinion on this subject? As I said earlier, only 60% of eligible voters even turn out for national elections. You think 10% more are paying close attention to this impeachment stuff lol?

 

[Rudolph]

I didn't mention taking politics with normal people with frequency, you're adding that part.
But sure, over the course of about a month and a half it's come up in multiple conversations. A little at holidays, a couple family get togethers, random work convos etc... the vast majority of people aren't paying attention to this shit. Just losers like us.

lol

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

I didn't mention taking politics with normal people with frequency, you're adding that part.
But sure, over the course of about a month and a half it's come up in multiple conversations. A little at holidays, a couple family get togethers, random work convos etc... the vast majority of people aren't paying attention to this shit. Just losers like us.

We already know you're full of shit.

Spare us.

 

[biggreydogs]

It was over long before now.

This is the best thing to happen to Democrats. And think of all the entertainment we'll have on HROT regarding Trump for another ten months.

Start thinking who will be your chosen lib in 2024 because Trump wins 2020. Thank you Nancy for going through with impeachment, that move was gold. It solidified Trump 2020. Start building safe places libs, you will need it.

 

[MepoDawg#]

That's happening in the next 5-10 years regardless. The GOP will have to reinvent themselves as the older generations continue to die off.

What’s the Dems identity?

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

Start thinking who will be your chosen lib in 2024 because Trump wins 2020. Thank you Nancy for going through with impeachment, that move was gold. It solidified Trump 2020. Start building safe places libs, you will need it.

You must be drunker than I am.

I've said for a while now the best thing that could happen to Dems is for Trump to win re-election while they mop up on the Hill. Whoever the next president is will have to deal with a major economic recession. If Trump is still in office, he will be blamed. If a Democrat is, Trump will be vindicated.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

What’s the Dems identity?

Socialism and tolerance of multiple pronouns.

 

[biggreydogs]

You must be drunker than I am.

I've said for a while now the best thing that could happen to Dems is for Trump to win re-election while they mop up on the Hill. Whoever the next president is will have to deal with a major economic recession. If Trump is still in office, he will be blamed. If a Democrat is, Trump will be vindicated.

News of a recession for 3 years, still waiting. MAGA kept us from a recession.

 

[BlackNGoldBleeder]

News of a recession for 3 years, still waiting. MAGA kept us from a recession.

History says otherwise, dawg.

 

[biggreydogs]

History says otherwise, dawg.

https://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/TIPP_Pres_OverSMALL_020320.jpg

 

[INXS83]

When evidence comes out and more corruption is revealed, Republicans will be viewed as complicit.

America has been waiting for REAL evidence for 3 years and counting. How does it feel waiting for that which does not exist? Kind of like waiting for the perfect one-wiper shit or a real pink unicorn?

 

[mthawkeyes]

And if California didn't exist, Trump would have won the popular vote in 2016.

If California didn't exist, our economy would be worse off by far.
On the other hand, if Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Iowa, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming (which have a combined population less than California's) Trump wouldn't have won the electoral college, and the per capita GDP would be much higher.

 

[biggreydogs]

If California didn't exist, our economy would be worse off by far.
On the other hand, if Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Iowa, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming (which have a combined population less than California's) Trump wouldn't have won the electoral college, and the per capita GDP would be much higher.

Move to CA.

 

[The Tradition]

If California didn't exist, our economy would be worse off by far.
On the other hand, if Louisiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Iowa, Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, Nebraska, Idaho, West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming (which have a combined population less than California's) Trump wouldn't have won the electoral college, and the per capita GDP would be much higher.

So, you're arguing that Iowa shouldn't exist?

 

[mthawkeyes]

So, you're arguing that Iowa shouldn't exist?

No. I'm arguing that you're stupid for trying to make a point by ruminating about what would happen if California didn't exist.

 

[The Tradition]

No. I'm arguing that you're stupid for trying to make a point by ruminating about what would happen if California didn't exist.

And Iowa would politically cease to exist if you get rid of the EC.

 

[mthawkeyes]

And Iowa would politically cease to exist if you get rid of the EC.

We would still have two senators, the same as all of the other states. There's no rational reason that Iowa should have the out-sized political influence that it does compared to residents of states like California, Texas, and many others.

 

[royhobbs2]

The only reason democrats oppose the ec is because it keeps them from seizing power. If it was the other way around they would say the ec was sacrosanct.

 

[West Duval Nole]

I love this. Dems think this will backfire on Repubs and Repubs think the impeachment will back fire on the Dems. And the election will not be a landslide either way. It will once again be close to a 50/50 vote.

So that means it either backfired on both and enough people switched sides for both or it didn't backfire at all. So everyone can claim they were right and the other side was wrong. Glorious isn't it?

 

[Mattski]

We already know you're full of shit.

Spare us.

Mkay, says the guy gullible enough to believe that bs poll and parrot it ss fact. But yeah, I'm full of shit.

 

[Mattski]

lol

POTY!