Active Now

Malizz
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » The MAJORITY of the American people dislike/distrust the dipsh**. The MAJORITY of the American people WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM. SO?
RosieG

The MAJORITY of the American people dislike/distrust the dipsh**. The MAJORITY of the American people WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM. SO?

The election will in fact be RIGGED IF HE WINS. Not if he loses. DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH DUH

How thickheaded do people have to be to figure that out?

He lost the popular vote by THREE MILLION VOTES in 2016. We didn't know how awful he was then. He had no track record. We know him now. He has a depraved disgusting corrupt track record. Republicans are advocating not voting for him. They are even running pro Biden anti dipsh** ads. They know something and they are trying to tell you.

So you see how silly Dipsh** is being? Calling so much attention to rigging he will be the beneficiary of any rigging that is attempted or achieved.

Don't cry wolf so much dipsh**. FAKE PHONY BALONEY TERRIFIED LITTLE MAN that he is. A definite LOSER. . The people who voted for him the first time are the suckers. The ones who are not very smart will be the ones who vote for him again.

Period. End of story. Bottom line.

Posted - September 16, 2020
Tags : None

Responses


  • 10466

    Unfortunately, it’s not that easy.  Sure, most people think he’s a dweeb, but they’ll still vote for him.  Some people vote party no matter what, some like to be difficult, some are stupid, and a few naively think he’ll change.  The big question is - will the Electoral College do their job this time or not.  THEY wanted trump so THEY voted him in... instead of doing what they pledged to do (the will of the people).  I believe they call them faithless electors.  (Personally, I think electors who do that should be tried for treason.)

      September 16, 2020 2:13 PM MDT
    1

  • 6023
    Actually, the Electoral College did exactly as it's supposed to do, under current laws.
    In every state where Trump won the majority of the vote - he received ALL of the Electoral College votes.
    In every state where Trump lost the majority of the vote - he received NONE of the Electoral College votes.

    The only two states that ties Electoral Votes to a ratio of the popular vote are Nebraska and Maine.

    Here's an interesting site, to see how the 2016 outcome could have been different - based on alternative EC counting methods.
    https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/?year=2016 This post was edited by Walt O'Reagun at September 17, 2020 7:22 AM MDT
      September 16, 2020 2:20 PM MDT
    4

  • 113301
    :):):) Doesn't the Electoral College nullify the will of the people? 3 MILLION MORE of us voted for Hillary and the loser of the popular vote won. How is that fair or logical? Just askin'
      September 17, 2020 3:15 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023

    If you read the Federalist Papers around the Electoral College ... it's obvious the intention of the Founders was to have it as a "check and balance" on the will of the People.  Really, they didn't trust the People to elect a government.

    If you use the link I provided, any Electoral College that is run by the same rules nationwide would result in Trump's election in 2016.
    The closest outcome would have been where all states proportioned their EC votes by ratio of the popular vote.
    That would result in 267 Trump and 265 Clinton - with 6 for 3rd Parties.

    Only when it is set for each state to be the optimal EC rules for Democrats, would Clinton have won (358 to 179).
    If it was set for each state to be the optimal EC rules for Republicans, Trump would have won 398 to 136.

    The only method that the site doesn't cover, is the current push to have state EC votes tied to the national popular vote - rather than the vote of the state.  This totally nullifies the purpose of state representation, as the large states will control the EC of smaller states.  IE: the popular vote of California will decide who (say) Idaho votes for - even though the two states generally favor opposite parties.  This would also mean that candidates could completely ignore states with lower populations, and focus on those with high populations.

      September 17, 2020 7:20 AM MDT
    3

  • 113301
    Power in numbers. California has 40 million people living here give or take a few. How many people does Rhode Island have or Montana. Why shouldn't the power of the people be manifested in its numbers? Having each state have to two Senators is ridiculous! I know. The House of Rerepsentatives is set up on a different basis. One that makes sense. You gut the power of California Senator wise since we know that no matter what the house if the senate doesn't approve it doesn't get done. As for the electoral the Founding Fathers didn't trust the people to vote for whom they want to lead them? So they settle on an ELECTORAL College that is more likely to be PARTISAN and CORRUPT. So what was gained? Well not much. You seem to be a proponent of Electoral College tactics. I am not. Never was. Never am. Never will be. THE MAJORITY SHOULD RULE. If what the majority WANTS is ignored isn't the whole thing a travesty a hoax a very bad joke? Thank you for your reply Walt.
      September 17, 2020 8:25 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    I would favor doing away with the Electoral College ... as that would increase the votes of 3rd Party Candidates.

    But it also makes sense to have "checks and balances" on the popular vote.
    The problem is there is no way to regulate that the EC votes for the best candidate.
    Which is why I espouse the idea that most (if not all) elections should be replaced with a random drawing of eligible citizens.
    I would also make it illegal to serve more than 10 years in a single government job, to try and prevent bureaucrats from accumulating too much power.
      September 17, 2020 8:50 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Would that be something that "we the people" would vote on? Or an edict shoved up our butts and down our throats by politicians who would gain? Do they gain by it or lose? I don't understand what you mean by "random drawing of eligible citizens". You mean anyone who is eligible could be "elected" by lottery? Please explain. My brain is having a tough getting there. Thank you for your reply Walt. 10 years is too much time if the jerk is a jacka**. I don't know what amount of time would be best. What if you had a REALLY GREAT person doing a REALLY GREAT job? Oy vey. Well so far we haven't had that problem. I wish we did. Thank you for your reply Walt! :)
      September 17, 2020 9:22 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    Yeah ... like how most states do Jury Pools.  A random selection of eligible citizens.
    While serving, they would be paid the average wage for their district.  (this would also serve as an incentive to improve the quality of life and wages in their district)
    Term lengths would be the same as now.

    The 10 years limit would be for those "public servants" who are currently not elected.
    (we could make an exception for the military)


      September 17, 2020 10:00 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I just thought of an idea. Why not make the election of the PREZ BE BASED ON A CONTINGENCY. A TRIAL PERIOD of one year and then they're out on their butts and the veep would get a crack at it? TRIAL RUN. Whatcha think? I"m gonna ask. Thank you for your reply Walt.
      September 17, 2020 10:46 AM MDT
    0

  • 113301
    I think the Electoral College is an albatross around our necks because it nullifies the will of the people. Think maybe one day it will be got rid of permanently? Thank you for your reply Shuhak! :)
      September 17, 2020 3:14 AM MDT
    2

  • 10466
    It was meant to make things fair.  Otherwise big states would run an election, not allowing smaller ones to have a say.  IF they would do their job (correctly) it should still work.
      September 17, 2020 1:02 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    So you don't believe that the majority should rule? Why should a very tiny populated state have EQUAL SAY in anything? California has around 40 million. It SHOULD carry more weight since more voices are being represented. Nothing is fair about the way the Senate is set up in my opinion. I shall ask. Thank you for your reply Shuhak and Happy Friday to thee! :)
      September 18, 2020 2:33 AM MDT
    1

  • 32663
    The problem is the capped the number of House members. (Number of EC votes...state gets 1 EC per House member and per Senator so min of 3)  which makes it more likely that the EC and popular vote may not match. 
      September 18, 2020 5:02 AM MDT
    0

  • 10466
    That's not what I said.  Yes the majority should rule.  That's democracy.  

    What you're saying is that if 100% of California and New York voted for trump, then the rest of the nation should just suck it up (because combined we have the most votes).    Doesn't sound very fair.

    This post was edited by Shuhak at September 19, 2020 1:55 AM MDT
      September 18, 2020 4:35 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    That is a big IF and would never happen. We have pockets of red up and down the state. Very weak and ineffective but they are there doing they same dirty tricks as theh do in the south and in the midwest and in the northwest. .Orange County is overloaded with them. I'm sure New York has some too. All the pals and cronies of Donald the Duck. So you think it's fair that a two-person state should carry the same weight as a 1000 person state? Really? I shall have to rethink the math I grew up with. It they are equal in power to decide then all bets are off. Just buy off the two. Easier to do than buying 1000. The fix is in. GOD'S in HIS heaven and all's right with the world! Sheesh. Sorry Shuhak. I disagree. I'm shocked that you don't see my point. It happens. Thank you for your reply.
      September 19, 2020 2:00 AM MDT
    1

  • I happen to think that the outcome of this election has been in the works since early this year. I want to get this information out of the way before November so that I won't be accused of coming up with the inevitable results after the fact. In other words, you heard it here first. Now, if this were a legitimate election in which a MAJORITY of Americans who are dissatisfied with the status quo were given their right to change it under the guarantees of the constitution, there'd be no problem. If we can't pull off a fair, clean, legitimate election, then it's only one more indication of how low and debased we really are as a society. I'm afraid that all the bases will be covered and nothing will be left to chance this time. Biden will be installed as president next year even if it takes a violent overthrow of the government. Yep, that's what I said. Will it be for a four year term, or will it be for a few months until Kamala Harris is prepared to step into the office next spring? Time will tell. Her recent Freudian slip about the Harris Administration seems to indicate that she knows a lot more about it than we do. There is much to consider in this election cycle. We've got more to think about than just the future of economic development and the directions we'll take in foreign and domestic relations. There's the options available to bring punishment down on the heads of 63 million voters that brought the Trump Administration into being. As one of the SUCKERS that voted for the president in '16, (And who will repeat the process this year despite the perils) I won't be grousing or obsessing about the outcome. I'll learn how to survive the staggering taxes, the increased polarization of the races, the violence in the streets, the confiscation of both wealth and property, the loss of personal freedom and civil liberties, the comical approaches to "climate change" etc, etc, ad nauseum. 
      September 16, 2020 2:58 PM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    That's way too many statements for a paragraph that is supposed to be on one topic.

    For me, you have too many assumptions / predictions in it to really analyze it; and while I tried to restructure what you said by doing a "copy and paste into a word document," it became to unwieldy and time consuming for me to continue.

    And so I have too many questions to really comment on what you may have been trying to say. This post was edited by tom jackson at September 17, 2020 2:08 AM MDT
      September 16, 2020 3:57 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I have no idea what you went through m'dear because I did not read the post to which you refer but if you can't figger something out then it isn't figgeroutable. For what's it's worth! :)
      September 17, 2020 2:09 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    It's the post right above my comment.
      September 18, 2020 1:12 PM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I know tom. Some monikers I avoid and never read. Mea culpa. I can only stand so much bullsh** and I have found what works best for me is avoidance. Cowardly? Sure. Why not? What could it hurt? Thank you for your reply! :)
      September 19, 2020 3:12 AM MDT
    0

  • 32663
    I disagree. Trump is going to win. The states doing mail in voting are not enough to change the EC.  
    I agree it is going to get bad. Anti-Trumpers are going to be more violent. And Yes, their plan is for Biden not to serve a full term.  Did you see the look Harris shot him when he said he might run for a 2nd term? Ha. Priceless. 
    Establishment always have their decision made on who will be the Pres and the people normally listen. This is why they hate Trump so much. Hillary was supposed to win. And she was supposed to beat Jeb. This post was edited by my2cents at September 17, 2020 10:32 AM MDT
      September 17, 2020 5:44 AM MDT
    1

  • 13395
    Interesting that you are so confident Trump will win and poor Trump is showing that he is feeling so terrified of losing.
      September 17, 2020 9:08 AM MDT
    0

  • 32663
    Remember I told you. Trump will win. I do not know 1 single Trump voter who has changed their mind. I do know Clinton voters who are voting for Trump this time.  
    I see NO excitment for Biden. His voters may have time to riot and set fires but I think they maybe too busy to vote. Or perhaps have lost their eligibility to vote in a Fed election.
      September 17, 2020 10:10 AM MDT
    2

  • 13395

    I don't say Trump won't win but he's sure making desperate moves because he is so terrified of losing. Why has he been so paranoid about mail in voting? 

    Must be quite a few millions of Biden  voters rioting  and setting fires and too busy to vote do you think?
      September 17, 2020 10:48 AM MDT
    0