|
Post by Nivro™ on Jan 29, 2018 21:30:36 GMT -5
If you go by the popular vote then your vote doesnt matter. Why should I as a presidential candidate go to your city in Mass that has say 50k people when I can just push myself in LA, NY and Chicago and get 30 million votes. Meh, it won't be like that forever. And you go because you, I don't know, care? I can't speak for candidates but were it me (as a normal person running and not a politician) I'd probably go out of my way to go to as many places as possible to see the entire breadth of it all. People in those locations are more connected than they ever have been. You can say that their votes won't matter in that respect but they have access to information and the ability to keep themselves from being disconnected, in the dark and uninformed, not just about the country but about things in life. People choose to live their pretend lifestyles and stay hidden. My issue with it is them trying to dictate the way the rest of the world works so they can live in a bubble. Stepping out of their bubble, their 'popular vote' would matter just as much. Really it gets down to belief systems and I hate to say it but I don't really think it'll ever be improved until people are more aware and less concerned with religions and weird, old school existences. For the record I wouldn't vote for someone that I saw blatantly only campaigning in certain areas, essentially stating that those are the only areas that matter. I think it's naïve and pessimistic to assume that someone running for office wouldn't visit areas with lower populations because they really only need to win NY or LA, but it's pretty naïve of me and overly optimistic to assume they would. Just so it's out in the open and because I'm not really ashamed of it I'm pretty liberal with political leanings and did not vote in the last election. Why would you not? If you told me I only had to get 75 million votes to become President, why should I spend any time in Podunk Alabama or Backwoods Vermont? Ill hit the biggest cities with the largest populations. You could spend months traveling the state of Tennessee and get every 6mil vote. While your opponent spends their time in the City of Los Angeles and gets all 8mil votes.
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Jan 29, 2018 21:50:53 GMT -5
I'm sick of Florida, New Hampshire and Ohio deciding the election. I am in Massachusetts and my vote doesn't matter so I don't vote. The EC is outdated, unnecessary and from another time. 1.) Your vote does count. 2.) Do you know how the electoral college works? I ask because I have found that the only people who say this are the ones who don't understand it. I explained as simply as I could why the U.S. uses the electoral college, and how it works. If you could, read the first post on the first page and tell me exactly and specifically where you disagree. Why exactly do you think the Electoral College is outdated and unnecessary, and what do you think it should be replaced with? And please do not come back and say the popular vote. I've already explained why the popular vote is terrible. If you don't agree, please explain why. I'll bite I guess. I'm into your layout and I appreciate you explaining democracy but I am in agreement that Constitutional Republic is probably the best way to describe it. Either way Scenario 1, broken down 'mathematically' I guess like you have, what's our statistical likelihood of such a thing happening? You're breaking down the numbers but you haven't said anything in relation to the thought process and personal interests. All these people (let's say selfishly) want to be president of the company but only one is goofy enough to follow the lead of the most boastful option (I don't think that's what you were trying to lay out but I'm going off their real life personalities because why not). If we're going to consider voting to be 'president of a company' the same way we have children vote as to who is president of the treehouse, then sure, let's go for it and it won't turn out like we're hoping. I'm still feeling the same pull from scenario 2. Personal interests are more involved but they are based upon ideals and aspects that I don't think match up directly with our needs and wants as real life human beings. It's a good analogy but I just have to say that I feel things are more complicated than saying on a very basic level 'sales, protection and moving forward'. Your second scenario also assumes that there are pieces/parts/groups of the country who contribute to the overall being and foundation of what it takes to move forward solely based on the fact that they vote. There's no geographical portion of the country or even idealistic portion of the country that effects how and where the country moves forward in the way you're saying in my opinion. Again I like the explanation but too much weakness for me to take the math of it as gospel, sorry. I appreciate you laying it out, though. To answer your question I do know how it works but I don't think the popular vote completely disintegrates the voice of those outside of hub locations like you say it does. My vote doesn't matter because I live in a blue state where I would vote blue. A red vote matters in my state, a blue vote does not. 5 blue votes matter and 10 blue votes matter (I'd even say 3 matter) but my one is not going to affect the outcome of an election as long as I live in Massachusetts and the majority voice stays the same under any circumstance, ever. The only way my vote will have an affect is if I move to a red state or a swing state. The electoral college may have more diverse voices now but it used to represent people with very specific interests in mind which I don't need to detail and represent people at a time when the country could barely stay connected and it used to speed things up because we needed to deliver votes on f*cking horseback and patience in that scenario obviously could have gotten the country hurt, 100 years removed from a time when 30,000 people sneaking into a location on boats with knives could have made a significant impact in taking over someone else's land. Everyone has their reasoning for why they vote. I have lived in Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Massachusetts and New York and been cognizant enough, at different stages of life to really hear and listen people's reasoning for voting and that for me is where the issue lies. To be honest I would be fine with the system if there hasn't been an election stolen by people with old world, outdated ideals, twice. I really can't think anything else other than the idea that until (R) voters have an election 'stolen' in the same way from them they won't wise up to it. You stated in your original post you didn't want to suggest who is good, right or better but that's really what it is, I hate to say. I can't seriously be in favor of a system where someone who not just thinks, but thinks it's ok to legitimately argue that the Earth is only 5000 years old, and THEN thinks it's seriously ok to let that influence their vote to affect the well being, lifestyle and existence of law-abiding, good people (including their own neighbors!) gets an enhancement to their voice and their bizarre dictations of how they think others should be living their lives and that's just what the electoral college does in its current state. Just like, if it were in the state of your first or second scenario, it would cater to those specific thoughts as well. To that point, I am in agreement that I should not be dictating the lives of those who live in Alabama or wherever but this is where the popular vote is even more important. If we stick to the two party system as a decent representation of our ideals (which I think we can despite the fact that Hillary Clinton was not my preferred candidate - I would have easily voted for her) there are roughly 729,000 people who at least tried to vote in Alabama basically held down by the 1.3 million people who voted against what I consider more worthwhile ideals. They are basically completely silenced as those 1.3 million people keep teaching their children that their God is more important, that the military are the end all be all of existence and that 20-35 people should be the richest people on the planet and dictate the capitalist market to favor themselves only and that with enough hard work and determination, they will be #36 (I am a huge capitalist and don't want to give my money to anyone, ever, for the record and I still can see the imbalance). Again I'm generalizing but you get the idea. It's funny because I heard some liberal woman say one time that if I wanted to truly 'make an impact' I should move to Arkansas and teach in the public school system and I find that honestly obnoxious and insulting because it's not my responsibility to teach other people's kids basic common sense in relation to the world around them. That's not what making it in the country is founded on. Selfish of me but whatever. November 2016 -to- Now has only made me happy to be on the right side of history when the insane things that not only people are ok with lying about, but ok with brainwashing others and taking advantage of the, I don't want to say less intelligent, but more easily influenced voter are more prominent and more accepted than ever. It has always been around but it's being accepted and sometimes I wonder if people just feel more comfortable pretending that others don't think the same way they do. The key is that if those same people would RELAX for 10 minutes and get to know someone different they'd probably be able to have a quick conversation and realize that no one is trying to take their mind bubble from them, they just want to be able to create their own bubble and live in their own world with no one forcing them into any sort of direct thought. But when it comes to the things they think are 'right' and 'good', they need to take a good look in the mirror and really ask themselves whether or not those things are true and I think that is difficult for a lot of people. This may make me an A$$h0le but just like the filter is off for conservative leaning folk, the filter is off for me as well. I do not want any semblance of anyone's religion, no matter how right or 'good' they think it is, to dictate my life. It is not one nation under God. I'd be ok with one nation under faith but I'm more okay with just 'one nation', emphasis on the one. This is very hard for certain people to understand as they continue to fight for and advocate treasonous statues and then have the audacity to point at me, the great, great grandson of a slave and tell me it's tradition. These people do not vote the same way I do and I'd honestly die for their right to a voice and I'm a major freedom of speech advocate (way beyond most conservatives and liberals) but anyone who votes alongside them that may not agree with them baffle me as to how they can stand shoulder to shoulder with such thoughts. (The rebuttal here is usually that there are 'left wing' extremists who are just as bad but my ideals are much, MUCH more disconnected from them than most conservatives I've discussed this with are disconnected from conservative extremists.) No, I do not want people that think like that to have a representative voice as a group to compete with people who have fair, modern ideals (many Republicans, Democrats, all kinds of people) and are moving the world forward instead of backwards. Until those ideals are dead. So no, I don't feel like the system is defensible and I'd rather my single vote counted just as much as the single vote of someone in Alabama who thinks if I get my girlfriend pregnant and decide to discuss not keeping the baby with her in a healthy, realistic timeframe that it's anything other than a medical procedure and anything other than mine and her business. The truth is we are not a math equation and even with 'less informed' and 'super intelligent' people in the same place, human beings have complex thoughts and I don't have a good answer to a solution. I know the answer is not the system in place right now. I know that was a lot so thanks for taking the time to read, whoever does.
|
|
|
Post by RSCTom on Jan 29, 2018 21:54:21 GMT -5
Meh, it won't be like that forever. And you go because you, I don't know, care? I can't speak for candidates but were it me (as a normal person running and not a politician) I'd probably go out of my way to go to as many places as possible to see the entire breadth of it all. People in those locations are more connected than they ever have been. You can say that their votes won't matter in that respect but they have access to information and the ability to keep themselves from being disconnected, in the dark and uninformed, not just about the country but about things in life. People choose to live their pretend lifestyles and stay hidden. My issue with it is them trying to dictate the way the rest of the world works so they can live in a bubble. Stepping out of their bubble, their 'popular vote' would matter just as much. Really it gets down to belief systems and I hate to say it but I don't really think it'll ever be improved until people are more aware and less concerned with religions and weird, old school existences. For the record I wouldn't vote for someone that I saw blatantly only campaigning in certain areas, essentially stating that those are the only areas that matter. I think it's naïve and pessimistic to assume that someone running for office wouldn't visit areas with lower populations because they really only need to win NY or LA, but it's pretty naïve of me and overly optimistic to assume they would. Just so it's out in the open and because I'm not really ashamed of it I'm pretty liberal with political leanings and did not vote in the last election. Why would you not? If you told me I only had to get 75 million votes to become President, why should I spend any time in Podunk Alabama or Backwoods Vermont? Ill hit the biggest cities with the largest populations. You could spend months traveling the state of Tennessee and get every 6mil vote. While your opponent spends their time in the City of Los Angeles and gets all 8mil votes. Honestly, because you're a decent human being, bro. I feel like were you in that position (which obviously would be unprecedented) I'd hope that you would care a lot more to show that type of humility instead of heading straight to the 'safe zones'. I'd really hope that anyone in that position would but to your point I don't think it's a given. And I guess if you really want to look at the math of it, Podunk, Alabama and Backwoods, Vermont both would likely have similar ideals so their groupings would be just as important.
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jan 29, 2018 23:50:09 GMT -5
I very clearly said that votes from one states being worth nearly 4 times the votes from another state is not right. And I explained where you were making your mistake. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. Under the Electoral College individual vote totals don't determine who wins the presidency, electoral votes do. To say that someone else's vote is worth 4 times another's is a logical fallacy. California has 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3. That's the math. California has more sway in the presidential election than 17 others combined. That's the math. You cannot argue that. If you think the system is rigged against big states like California, I'm afraid there isn't much more anyone can do to help you at this point. It isn't a logical fallacy, it's math. And I never said that electoral votes from some states were worth more than others, I said that individual votes from citizens of some states are worth more than others. You're cherry picking my statements then taking them out of context. It's like all you conservatives share the same play book. And since you've successfully derailed our initial conversation I'll ask you again: if the electoral college was indicative of the will if the nation then how could someone that the vast majority of the nation voted against win? What better guage if the will of the nation could there be?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 3:39:10 GMT -5
More people would vote if it were a popular vote. People in states that are going a certain way no matter what don't vote if they feel their vote doesn't matter. I know several people on both sides that didn't vote because it didn't matter and wasn't worth the hassle. I don't think Trump wins if more people vote. He made the race ugly and people just wanted it over and a lot didn't vote as turn out was way down. He told coal towns (in swing states)that are dead that he would reopen them, but we have little need for more coal. There have been 57 presidential elections held. 52 out of 57 times the person who won the popular vote also won the presidency. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ There have been 57 presidential elections held, 57 Times out of the 57 the person who won the electoral college vote also won the presidency
|
|
|
Post by Lego Customs! on Jan 30, 2018 10:07:40 GMT -5
I think the best way would be to hand back control to the UK. We'll take your guns away and give you universal health care instead. Everyone's a winner.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 10:49:14 GMT -5
I think the best way would be to hand back control to the UK. We'll take your guns away and give you universal health care instead. Everyone's a winner. Yes, the unsustainable NHS and for good measure we'll leave the population defenceless against the thousands upon thousands of Jihadis and former ISIS fighters we're allowing to flood back into the country. Sounds good.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 30, 2018 10:59:07 GMT -5
I'll bite I guess. I'm into your layout and I appreciate you explaining democracy but I am in agreement that Constitutional Republic is probably the best way to describe it. Either way Scenario 1, broken down 'mathematically' I guess like you have, what's our statistical likelihood of such a thing happening? You're breaking down the numbers but you haven't said anything in relation to the thought process and personal interests. All these people (let's say selfishly) want to be president of the company but only one is goofy enough to follow the lead of the most boastful option (I don't think that's what you were trying to lay out but I'm going off their real life personalities because why not). If we're going to consider voting to be 'president of a company' the same way we have children vote as to who is president of the treehouse, then sure, let's go for it and it won't turn out like we're hoping. I don't have to say anything about why anyone voted the way they want. No one anywhere has to justify their vote. Your response here was a non-sequitur. I don't mean this insultingly, by the way. I really enjoyed reading your very detailed response. The story of each person wanting to be president and the person with the most votes winning is just an example of how a democracy works. Why Ben voted for Donald has nothing do with with how the process works. It is simply to point out that the person who wins the popular vote may not (and often doesn't) win the majority of the votes. This is true, even in our last election. Donald Trump received 62,985,134 votes. Hillary Clinton received 65,853,652 votes. The other 3 candidates won 8,286,698 votes. 65,853,652 people voted for Hillary Clinton. 71,271,832 people voted for anyone but Mrs. Clinton. The majority of the country did not vote for Mrs. Clinton. She did not win a majority of the vote. Yet, only in a democracy could Mrs. Clinton still become the president, even though the majority of people did not want it. This is precisely why democracies do not work, and why the U.S. was never designed to be a democracy. Democracies are mob rule. They allow large mobs to tyrannize minorities. Mrs. Clinton did not win the Electoral Vote. She did not win a majority of the states. She did not even win the majority of votes that were cast. By no fair standard could anyone rightly say she deserved to win the presidency. The Electoral College proved, again, to be the best, most accurate system for gauging the will of the nation as a whole, and not just the will of a large, angry mob. The math is the only thing that is gospel in the electoral system. Or democracy. Or any voting system. The math is all that matters. Why anyone votes the way they do is irrelevant when it comes to vote totals. I'm afraid I just don't follow your logic with this argument. Of course it does. As has already been pointed out in this thread, this is every STATE in the union who has a smaller population than a COUNTY (L.A. County) in California: To say that a popular vote doesn't completely disintegrate the voice of people from Vermont or Wyoming is naive, at best. As has been said, if candidates only had to win the popular vote, they'd campaign in California and New York year round. Your only defense for this is that you say you "hope" candidates would do this, and in an "ideal" world, they'd go visit small states in the rust belt just because. Unfortunately, this isn't an ideal world, it's the real world. And in the real world candidates don't visit states if they (think) they don't have to. Take the last election, for example. Mrs. Clinton did not once visit Wisconsin, and spent very little time or energy in Pennsylvania and Michigan, because they were part of her fabled "Blue Wall" that she believed would go her way regardless. Mr. Trump, on the other hand, spent an extensive amount of time visiting these and other bedrock Democrat states. Before Trump, Pennsylvania had noted voted red since 1988. But Mr. Trump went there because he knew he needed it and knew he could win it. Comparatively, Mr. Trump did not spend much time on California or New York, because he didn't think he could win there, and knew they weren't part of his strategy. Candidates will campaign however they need to in order to win. In a popular vote, this problem would be magnified, not alleviated, because of the population disparity between states. This just isn't accurate. The electoral college was designed with a specific value in mind, namely that small states with small populations wouldn't be railroaded by big states with big populations. Otherwise none of these states would have ever elected to ratify the Constitution and join the Union. There was no secret, heinous, or ulterior motive. If there was, please explain it to me and cite your sources. And there we have it. You dislike the electoral system solely because it elected a politician with values you don't agree with. No one stole anything. As I already stated, the majority of the country voted for someone OTHER than Hillary Clinton. Why should we railroad small states, take away their voice, and ignore the clear majority of American voters who did not want Mrs. Clinton? Simply because a noisy mob wanted her to win really, really bad? Honestly, you have no justification for wanting a popular vote election other than because in this one instance it would have produced the result you wanted. Whether you agree with the values of the other voters should play no role in this discussion, so why do you bring it up? Because you can't separate your feelings. You don't like the electoral college because it gave the victory to someone you loathe, and therefore it must necessarily be a bad, corrupt, evil system. But to repeat again, Mrs. Clinton did not win the majority of the votes cast. She did not win a majority of states. She did not win the required number of electoral votes. By no right or standard can you claim the popular vote superior to the electoral college. It is not. It is inferior in every single way. And here we are again. As I said, you don't want a system that might allow people with opinions different from yours to get into positions of power. Do you not understand what you are arguing for here? You don't want a system that gives people you disagree with the right to choose anything. You are in favor of any system that will stifle the votes of your opponents. You are falling into a dangerous trap that many people on the Left so often fall into, which is this: you don't want a system where people can choose at all. What you really want is a system that can force its will onto the people, and not one where the people can force their will onto the system. If you run your beliefs to their logical end, this is exactly what you are arguing for. What would you then say if Mr. Trump had won the popular vote? You would be arguing against it too, not for it. You don't want the popular vote. Not really. That's just a convenient excuse. You want a system where people you disagree with cannot rise. I know you wrote more, but it all comes back to this point. You said you know the system in place isn't the right one (for you), and you are absolutely right. This isn't the system you want. The graveyard of history is filled with failed nations who had the kind of system you want (even if you yourself don't know yet which one it is you are arguing for.)
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 30, 2018 11:06:44 GMT -5
And I explained where you were making your mistake. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. Under the Electoral College individual vote totals don't determine who wins the presidency, electoral votes do. To say that someone else's vote is worth 4 times another's is a logical fallacy. California has 55 electoral votes. Wyoming has 3. That's the math. California has more sway in the presidential election than 17 others combined. That's the math. You cannot argue that. If you think the system is rigged against big states like California, I'm afraid there isn't much more anyone can do to help you at this point. It isn't a logical fallacy, it's math. And I never said that electoral votes from some states were worth more than others, I said that individual votes from citizens of some states are worth more than others. You're cherry picking my statements then taking them out of context. It's like all you conservatives share the same play book. And since you've successfully derailed our initial conversation I'll ask you again: if the electoral college was indicative of the will if the nation then how could someone that the vast majority of the nation voted against win? What better guage if the will of the nation could there be? I have explained it multiple times. You are either unwilling or unable to understand. As for your last point, 65,853,652 people voted for Hillary Clinton. 71,271,832 people voted for anyone but Mrs. Clinton. The majority of the country did not vote for Mrs. Clinton. She did not win a majority of the vote. Yet, only by using the popular vote could Mrs. Clinton still become the president, even though the majority of people did not want it. This is precisely why democracies do not work, and why the U.S. was never designed to be a democracy. Democracies produce winners without a clear majority. The Electoral College does not. The Electoral College produces a winner with a clear majority every time. It was designed to do this, and it will always do this.
|
|
|
Post by Lego Customs! on Jan 30, 2018 11:27:05 GMT -5
I think the best way would be to hand back control to the UK. We'll take your guns away and give you universal health care instead. Everyone's a winner. Yes, the unsustainable NHS and for good measure we'll leave the population defenceless against the thousands upon thousands of Jihadis and former ISIS fighters we're allowing to flood back into the country. Sounds good. You mean the underfunded NHS, which the Tories underfund on purpose to make it look bad so that they can make the case to the mouth breathers for Americanisation of our healthcare so that they and their cronies can make big profits out of people's health. Despite what trump and Fox News might say, this country is not overrun by terrorists nor are there any no go areas. Still, got to be better than the daily school shootings they get in the US coupled with the victims being unable to pay the vast sums for their lower standard healthcare.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Jan 30, 2018 11:34:53 GMT -5
Maybe we should focus on electoral high school before we worry about electoral college.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 11:52:17 GMT -5
Yes, the unsustainable NHS and for good measure we'll leave the population defenceless against the thousands upon thousands of Jihadis and former ISIS fighters we're allowing to flood back into the country. Sounds good. You mean the underfunded NHS, which the Tories underfund on purpose to make it look bad so that they can make the case to the mouth breathers for Americanisation of our healthcare so that they and their cronies can make big profits out of people's health. Despite what trump and Fox News might say, this country is not overrun by terrorists nor are there any no go areas. Still, got to be better than the daily school shootings they get in the US coupled with the victims being unable to pay the vast sums for their lower standard healthcare. The tories can't govern for shit, but that doesn't mean the NHS would be sustainable. Socialised healthcare isn't sustainable, the NHS is a complete and total disaster. I live in the UK, and there are upward of 23000 Jihadis living here, we're allowing former ISIS fighters back into the country. These are facts. 'lower standard' healthcare in the US? How misinformed can you be LMFAO.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 11:55:39 GMT -5
I think the best way would be to hand back control to the UK. We'll take your guns away and give you universal health care instead. Everyone's a winner. I certainly wouldn’t recommend taking away their guns.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 11:58:31 GMT -5
Yes, the unsustainable NHS and for good measure we'll leave the population defenceless against the thousands upon thousands of Jihadis and former ISIS fighters we're allowing to flood back into the country. Sounds good. You mean the underfunded NHS, which the Tories underfund on purpose to make it look bad so that they can make the case to the mouth breathers for Americanisation of our healthcare so that they and their cronies can make big profits out of people's health. Despite what trump and Fox News might say, this country is not overrun by terrorists nor are there any no go areas. Still, got to be better than the daily school shootings they get in the US coupled with the victims being unable to pay the vast sums for their lower standard healthcare. The NHS is only underfunded because it’s oversubscribed. With over 100,000 net immigrants each year it stands to reason. The NHS doesn’t need more money it needs less people using it. Same goes for housing. Not more houses but less demand. I could govern better than the morons we, and I mean other Brits because I don’t vote for those hypocrites, elect each election.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 12:13:19 GMT -5
You mean the underfunded NHS, which the Tories underfund on purpose to make it look bad so that they can make the case to the mouth breathers for Americanisation of our healthcare so that they and their cronies can make big profits out of people's health. Despite what trump and Fox News might say, this country is not overrun by terrorists nor are there any no go areas. Still, got to be better than the daily school shootings they get in the US coupled with the victims being unable to pay the vast sums for their lower standard healthcare. The NHS is only underfunded because it’s oversubscribed. With over 100,000 net immigrants each year it stands to reason. The NHS doesn’t need more money it needs less people using it. Same goes for housing. Not more houses but less demand. I could govern better than the morons we, and I mean other Brits because I don’t vote for those hypocrites, elect each election. It feels so dirty to have voted for Theresa May... But I just have to tell myself the alternative was that commie idiot Corbyn.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Jan 30, 2018 12:20:10 GMT -5
Maybe we should focus on electoral high school before we worry about electoral college. Still got it Ross
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 12:20:20 GMT -5
The NHS is only underfunded because it’s oversubscribed. With over 100,000 net immigrants each year it stands to reason. The NHS doesn’t need more money it needs less people using it. Same goes for housing. Not more houses but less demand. I could govern better than the morons we, and I mean other Brits because I don’t vote for those hypocrites, elect each election. It feels so dirty to have voted for Theresa May... But I just have to tell myself the alternative was that commie idiot Corbyn. She reminds me of Thatcher, one of the biggest con artists ever. She only said what people wanted to hear in the 70s to halt the right, “we understand the fears and concerns of the British people” blah blah But yeah, the alternative to May is much worse, I couldn’t vote for either of those cranks.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Jan 30, 2018 12:20:39 GMT -5
FFS the brits have taken over this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 12:22:03 GMT -5
FFS the brits have taken over this thread. My bad, I do get carried away
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Jan 30, 2018 12:22:52 GMT -5
Maybe we should focus on electoral high school before we worry about electoral college. Still got it Ross I try.
|
|