|
Post by ET had AIDS on Jan 30, 2018 12:57:39 GMT -5
i like ladies royal rumbles owww
|
|
|
Post by Lego Customs! on Jan 30, 2018 13:39:01 GMT -5
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. Oh god, Daily Mail readers... The UK equivalent to the trumpanzees. Oh yes, giving the emergency services a well earned pay rise, giving the NHS the money it needs, providing free university tuition, ending child poverty and homelessness in one of the richest countries in the world, that's dangerous extremist Marxism isn't it? Much easier to blame immigrants (who put more money into our economy than they take out) or the EU (even though it's the UK who didn't bother to implement EU laws around immigration and benefits and now cry about it) or whoever else the Daily Mail (who even Wikipedia have blacklisted as a credible news source) or The Sun tell their readers and I use that term very loosely, that they must hate and fear.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 13:43:44 GMT -5
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. Oh god, Daily Mail readers... The UK equivalent to the trumpanzees. Oh yes, giving the emergency services a well earned pay rise, giving the NHS the money it needs, providing free university tuition, ending child poverty and homelessness in one of the richest countries in the world, that's dangerous extremist Marxism isn't it? Much easier to blame immigrants (who put more money into our economy than they take out) or the EU (even though it's the UK who didn't bother to implement EU laws around immigration and benefits and now cry about it) or whoever else the Daily Mail (who even Wikipedia have blacklisted as a credible news source) or The Sun tell their readers and I use that term very loosely, that they must hate and fear. I certainly NEVER read the daily mail establishment nonsense. There are too many people using the service that’s why it’s in ruins. If there were millions less people in the country it wouldn’t struggle. If there were millions less people in the country there’d be no housing crisis, if there were millions less people in the country it wouldn’t take me 2 hours to cross the dartford bridge in the evening, if there were millions less people in the country there wouldn’t be overcrowded classrooms all facts that are IMPOSSIBLE to deny. And don’t call me a daily mail reader, it’s a Tory mouthpiece and I certainly am not a Tory. I also NEVER blamed immigrants, I blame immigration. BIG difference. The only people I hate are the politicians and I definitely don’t fear anyone
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 14:02:12 GMT -5
Oh god, Daily Mail readers... The UK equivalent to the trumpanzees. Oh yes, giving the emergency services a well earned pay rise, giving the NHS the money it needs, providing free university tuition, ending child poverty and homelessness in one of the richest countries in the world, that's dangerous extremist Marxism isn't it? Much easier to blame immigrants (who put more money into our economy than they take out) or the EU (even though it's the UK who didn't bother to implement EU laws around immigration and benefits and now cry about it) or whoever else the Daily Mail (who even Wikipedia have blacklisted as a credible news source) or The Sun tell their readers and I use that term very loosely, that they must hate and fear. I certainly NEVER read the daily mail establishment nonsense. There are too many people using the service that’s why it’s in ruins. If there were millions less people in the country it wouldn’t struggle. If there were millions less people in the country there’d be no housing crisis, if there were millions less people in the country it wouldn’t take me 2 hours to cross the dartford bridge in the evening, if there were millions less people in the country there wouldn’t be overcrowded classrooms all facts that are IMPOSSIBLE to deny. And don’t call me a daily mail reader, it’s a Tory mouthpiece and I certainly am not a Tory. I also NEVER blamed immigrants, I blame immigration. BIG difference. The only people I hate are the politicians and I definitely don’t fear anyone I love the assumption he made. Very tolerant, very progressive!
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 14:05:11 GMT -5
I certainly NEVER read the daily mail establishment nonsense. There are too many people using the service that’s why it’s in ruins. If there were millions less people in the country it wouldn’t struggle. If there were millions less people in the country there’d be no housing crisis, if there were millions less people in the country it wouldn’t take me 2 hours to cross the dartford bridge in the evening, if there were millions less people in the country there wouldn’t be overcrowded classrooms all facts that are IMPOSSIBLE to deny. And don’t call me a daily mail reader, it’s a Tory mouthpiece and I certainly am not a Tory. I also NEVER blamed immigrants, I blame immigration. BIG difference. The only people I hate are the politicians and I definitely don’t fear anyone I love the assumption he made. Very tolerant, very progressive! It’s nothing new my friend. These people tend to insult rather than try to debate as they know they’re wrong.
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Jan 30, 2018 14:25:20 GMT -5
SO MUCH FOR THE TOLERANT LEFT
|
|
|
Post by Lego Customs! on Jan 30, 2018 15:38:30 GMT -5
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. The 23,000 Jihadis story seems to come from Breitbart, The Express and The Times, which are also right wing newspapers. The UK as well as the rest of Europe pretty much always tops the US in healthcare rankings. Plus all the anecdotal evidence from Americans using the The NHS and admitting it is far superior. Not sure I’m the one who’s ‘misinformed here’. 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. ‘Commie Idiot’ being an insult there. Corbyn is actually a socialist which is diferent, maybe you’d like to look into it a little? 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. Cranks being an insult you’ve thrown there… You’re also saying that hard line austerity that punishes the poorest while rewarding the richest is better? A government that has forced well over 1 million people to visiting food banks is better? A government that has ripped money away from the disabled and terminally ill while giving tax breaks to the rich is better? I could go on. I love the assumption he made. Very tolerant, very progressive! It’s nothing new my friend. These people tend to insult rather than try to debate as they know they’re wrong. You’ve actually thrown the insults out while trying to argue with baseless ‘facts’ from right wing newspapers. There are too many people using the service that’s why it’s in ruins. If there were millions less people in the country it wouldn’t struggle. If there were millions less people in the country there’d be no housing crisis, if there were millions less people in the country it wouldn’t take me 2 hours to cross the dartford bridge in the evening, if there were millions less people in the country there wouldn’t be overcrowded classrooms all facts that are IMPOSSIBLE to deny. And don’t call me a daily mail reader, it’s a Tory mouthpiece and I certainly am not a Tory. I also NEVER blamed immigrants, I blame immigration. BIG difference. The only people I hate are the politicians and I definitely don’t fear anyone Too many people using the services or not enough resources going into it? As I said, the NHS has been underfunded while the health secretary has tried to privatise the NHS bit by bit, which is why he is being taken to court as he did not run this past parliament first. If the NHS had the funding it needed, people would get their operations, nurses would be paid a fair wage meaning they don’t quit to take up jobs in retail. As we’ve seen the figures this week, there is a serious exodus of NHS staff who cannot take being underpaid by the government while working ridiculous hours to cover everything. Transport would be better nationalised. It is ridiculous that people are having to spend thousands of pounds on train tickets for a poor service and overcrowding while the train company shareholders make millions and don’t reinvest. You know it costs well over £10,000 for a season ticket between Birmingham and London? Not only that, other countries have bought shares in our rail companies so you sell a kidney to buy a train ticket here, your money then goes between fat cat shareholders and foreign states who put that money into their own nationalised railways. Look at the Netherlands, for a couple of Euros you can travel around Amsterdam all day in new modern carriages while here you pay £20-odd to travel around London, usually standing, sometimes crammed into the armpit of someone else. Privatise it, then the money that goes in, goes back to the customer in the form of a good service and without the greedy shareholders who increase prices at a whim, prices can be lowered. Same goes for gas, water and electricity. Immigration is a good one here in the UK, so many right wingers cry about immigrants allegedly getting all these benefits and blame the EU for it… it’s completely at the discretion of the UK government, they don’t have to give out such generous benefits, they don’t have to allow people to send their money home, they can even give UK citizens priority in housing and jobs… but they’ve chosen not to, which then makes immigrants and easy target to point the finger at.
|
|
|
Post by ET had AIDS on Jan 30, 2018 15:43:46 GMT -5
GUYS GUYS i know this is getting heated but let's all remember one thing:
NEW HARDEE BOYX
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 16:01:03 GMT -5
Lego Customs! none of your left wing rhetoric will change he fact that the vast majority of the problems in this country stem from immigration. From housing to crime, from the nhs to employment. And please don’t assume I’m a sheep, I find my own way, I don’t follow, I don’t read a paper and I don’t believe until I see it. And I have seen it. I, a white man, born in England, am officially a minority in my own capital city, when similar happened, but in reverse, in south africa, there was rightful unrest. But in my country we take it. We move out from cities, to the suburbs, where do I go next? The sea? No amount of guardian dribble will change my views, I’ve seen the effects of immigration. I’m not mad at immigrants, I’m mad at immigration, I’m mad at the decades of politicians that have ruined my country. I’m mad at my forebears for not stopping it sooner. The only people I’d ever insult are those responsible for the mess. I’m a British Nationalist, I believe the interests of British people should be put first. Call me names I don’t care. I have the high ground because I speak the truth. I know I’m over the target because I’m taking the flak
|
|
|
Post by BSR on Jan 30, 2018 16:37:03 GMT -5
Well then.
|
|
|
Post by GBGav on Jan 30, 2018 17:55:36 GMT -5
FFS the brits have taken over this thread. If you want us to leave I'll tell you how to do it. You go make a discussion in the UK board asking for our opinions on our favourite brands of tea. That'll keep us distracted for a few days.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Oct 6, 2024 13:25:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2018 18:10:16 GMT -5
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. The 23,000 Jihadis story seems to come from Breitbart, The Express and The Times, which are also right wing newspapers. The UK as well as the rest of Europe pretty much always tops the US in healthcare rankings. Plus all the anecdotal evidence from Americans using the The NHS and admitting it is far superior. Not sure I’m the one who’s ‘misinformed here’. It feels so dirty to have voted for Theresa May... But I just have to tell myself the alternative was that commie idiot Corbyn. ‘Commie Idiot’ being an insult there. Corbyn is actually a socialist which is diferent, maybe you’d like to look into it a little? 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. Cranks being an insult you’ve thrown there… You’re also saying that hard line austerity that punishes the poorest while rewarding the richest is better? A government that has forced well over 1 million people to visiting food banks is better? A government that has ripped money away from the disabled and terminally ill while giving tax breaks to the rich is better? I could go on. It’s nothing new my friend. These people tend to insult rather than try to debate as they know they’re wrong. You’ve actually thrown the insults out while trying to argue with baseless ‘facts’ from right wing newspapers. There are too many people using the service that’s why it’s in ruins. If there were millions less people in the country it wouldn’t struggle. If there were millions less people in the country there’d be no housing crisis, if there were millions less people in the country it wouldn’t take me 2 hours to cross the dartford bridge in the evening, if there were millions less people in the country there wouldn’t be overcrowded classrooms all facts that are IMPOSSIBLE to deny. And don’t call me a daily mail reader, it’s a Tory mouthpiece and I certainly am not a Tory. I also NEVER blamed immigrants, I blame immigration. BIG difference. The only people I hate are the politicians and I definitely don’t fear anyone Too many people using the services or not enough resources going into it? As I said, the NHS has been underfunded while the health secretary has tried to privatise the NHS bit by bit, which is why he is being taken to court as he did not run this past parliament first. If the NHS had the funding it needed, people would get their operations, nurses would be paid a fair wage meaning they don’t quit to take up jobs in retail. As we’ve seen the figures this week, there is a serious exodus of NHS staff who cannot take being underpaid by the government while working ridiculous hours to cover everything. Transport would be better nationalised. It is ridiculous that people are having to spend thousands of pounds on train tickets for a poor service and overcrowding while the train company shareholders make millions and don’t reinvest. You know it costs well over £10,000 for a season ticket between Birmingham and London? Not only that, other countries have bought shares in our rail companies so you sell a kidney to buy a train ticket here, your money then goes between fat cat shareholders and foreign states who put that money into their own nationalised railways. Look at the Netherlands, for a couple of Euros you can travel around Amsterdam all day in new modern carriages while here you pay £20-odd to travel around London, usually standing, sometimes crammed into the armpit of someone else. Privatise it, then the money that goes in, goes back to the customer in the form of a good service and without the greedy shareholders who increase prices at a whim, prices can be lowered. Same goes for gas, water and electricity. Immigration is a good one here in the UK, so many right wingers cry about immigrants allegedly getting all these benefits and blame the EU for it… it’s completely at the discretion of the UK government, they don’t have to give out such generous benefits, they don’t have to allow people to send their money home, they can even give UK citizens priority in housing and jobs… but they’ve chosen not to, which then makes immigrants and easy target to point the finger at. -The 23000 number comes from the UK intelligence office. Not random right-wing newspapers. I'd wager that right-wing publications would report it because it fits their agenda. Left-wing ones don't because it destroys their 'diversity is our strength' BS. -I'm (para)quoting Noel Gallagher when I call Corbyn a commie idiot. I'm well aware that he's a socialist, and an idiot.
|
|
Majere
Mid-Carder
Joined on: Nov 29, 2017 8:18:27 GMT -5
Posts: 80
|
Post by Majere on Jan 30, 2018 18:26:29 GMT -5
I'm well aware that he's a socialist, and an idiot. Aren't they synonyms?
|
|
|
Post by disorder on Jan 30, 2018 20:12:04 GMT -5
It doesn’t change how many votes a state gets, but how those votes are swayed. As I said, it was an example they used as to why the pa map was deemed unconstitutional. I said it’s a bs system. I understand why we have it, but it definitely needs to be tweeted and fixed. There’s no reason a guy living in the middle of Nebraska should have a stronger vote than someone living in a more populated area. I get that he won more states thus, those states points were awarded to him. My original argument was that the majority of voters did not vote for him. That was what I originally responded to in the original post you decided to make a thread about. My argument is that individuals should get more of a say than they have and that the popular vote should be more than just a graph they show on the news. It doesn't change how the votes are swayed. People are going to vote for the president they want, regardless of the district they live in. You said, and I quote, "the electoral vote is complete bs. There’s no defending it one bit." But now you say that you understand why we have it, but that it needs to be "tweeted" (I think you mean tweaked) and "fixed." You're shifting on your initial premise (and kudos for doing so), that it is "complete bs" and that there is no "defending it." In fact you now seem to think the system itself has merit, since your proposal now is to tweak it instead of abolish it. People who live in Nebraska don't have a "stronger vote" than people living in more populated areas. You still don't seem to fully understand how the electoral college works. Individual votes do not determine who wins the presidency. Electoral votes do. Your individual vote will help determine which candidate wins your state. That's it. That's all it does. The end. Nebraska has 5 electoral votes. California has 55 electoral votes. To say that voters in Nebraska have a "stronger vote" than voters in California is patently false. California (and therefore Californians) have a far greater influence on the election than Nebraska does. As I posted earlier, a candidate would have to win Wyoming (3), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Alaska (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Delaware (3), Montana (3), Hawaii (4), Rhode Island (4), Idaho (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), West Virginia (5), New Mexico (5), Nebraska (5), and Nevada (6) to equal California. You cannot sit there and honestly tell me California is getting shafted in the Electoral College. They aren't. Small states are. They just aren't getting as shafted as much as they would in a presidency determined by the popular vote. In the popular vote no smaller states would ever have a voice again. Candidates would slug it out in L.A. County exclusively throughout their entire campaign, and no one anywhere else would matter or count. Ever. As for the popular vote, it shouldn't even be a graph on the news. It is worthless, as it should be. The popular vote is a euphemism for "mob rule." Mob rule isn't the triumph of freedom. Mob rule is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Thankfully our founding fathers were too smart and too wise to allow our country to descend into the barbarism of mob rule. There’s honestly no debating on this board. The electoral college was created because they plain out did not trust the citizens to elect a leader. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.aspIt’s a flawed system when trump won PA and FL by only around 200k votes and was awarded 56 points, while Clinton won MA by over a million and was only give 11 points. I get it. Defending it and all your talking points are a part of your parties narrative. It’s useless to argue, because you will be right and nothing can change your mind. This thread has turned out just like every other political thread.. All the boards right wingers swarming anyone with different views to the point no one feels like arguing and you all can give your selfs a pat on the back. Now just waiting for one of you to get all racist, as usual
|
|
|
Post by Sizzle on Jan 30, 2018 20:15:12 GMT -5
It doesn't change how the votes are swayed. People are going to vote for the president they want, regardless of the district they live in. You said, and I quote, "the electoral vote is complete bs. There’s no defending it one bit." But now you say that you understand why we have it, but that it needs to be "tweeted" (I think you mean tweaked) and "fixed." You're shifting on your initial premise (and kudos for doing so), that it is "complete bs" and that there is no "defending it." In fact you now seem to think the system itself has merit, since your proposal now is to tweak it instead of abolish it. People who live in Nebraska don't have a "stronger vote" than people living in more populated areas. You still don't seem to fully understand how the electoral college works. Individual votes do not determine who wins the presidency. Electoral votes do. Your individual vote will help determine which candidate wins your state. That's it. That's all it does. The end. Nebraska has 5 electoral votes. California has 55 electoral votes. To say that voters in Nebraska have a "stronger vote" than voters in California is patently false. California (and therefore Californians) have a far greater influence on the election than Nebraska does. As I posted earlier, a candidate would have to win Wyoming (3), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Alaska (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Delaware (3), Montana (3), Hawaii (4), Rhode Island (4), Idaho (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), West Virginia (5), New Mexico (5), Nebraska (5), and Nevada (6) to equal California. You cannot sit there and honestly tell me California is getting shafted in the Electoral College. They aren't. Small states are. They just aren't getting as shafted as much as they would in a presidency determined by the popular vote. In the popular vote no smaller states would ever have a voice again. Candidates would slug it out in L.A. County exclusively throughout their entire campaign, and no one anywhere else would matter or count. Ever. As for the popular vote, it shouldn't even be a graph on the news. It is worthless, as it should be. The popular vote is a euphemism for "mob rule." Mob rule isn't the triumph of freedom. Mob rule is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Thankfully our founding fathers were too smart and too wise to allow our country to descend into the barbarism of mob rule. There’s honestly no debating on this board. The electoral college was created because they plain out did not trust the citizens to elect a leader. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.aspIt’s a flawed system when trump won PA and FL by only around 200k votes and was awarded 56 points, while Clinton won MA by over a million and was only give 11 points. I get it. Defending it and all your talking points are a part of your parties narrative. It’s useless to argue, because you will be right and nothing can change your mind. This thread has turned out just like every other political thread.. All the boards right wingers swarming anyone with different views to the point no one feels like arguing and you all can give your selfs a pat on the back. Now just waiting for one of you to get all racist, as usual I’m not trying to get involved with any arguing, but it truly is unfortunate that this happens. I’ve gone into some political threads hoping for some thoughtful debates, but I’m pretty much done with that now. It’s always chaos.
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Jan 30, 2018 20:26:32 GMT -5
Its all fun and games until and leftist gets offended....Then we gotta lock it up. Add another to the list.
|
|
|
Post by screech on Jan 30, 2018 20:36:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Nivro™ on Jan 30, 2018 20:49:11 GMT -5
It doesn't change how the votes are swayed. People are going to vote for the president they want, regardless of the district they live in. You said, and I quote, "the electoral vote is complete bs. There’s no defending it one bit." But now you say that you understand why we have it, but that it needs to be "tweeted" (I think you mean tweaked) and "fixed." You're shifting on your initial premise (and kudos for doing so), that it is "complete bs" and that there is no "defending it." In fact you now seem to think the system itself has merit, since your proposal now is to tweak it instead of abolish it. People who live in Nebraska don't have a "stronger vote" than people living in more populated areas. You still don't seem to fully understand how the electoral college works. Individual votes do not determine who wins the presidency. Electoral votes do. Your individual vote will help determine which candidate wins your state. That's it. That's all it does. The end. Nebraska has 5 electoral votes. California has 55 electoral votes. To say that voters in Nebraska have a "stronger vote" than voters in California is patently false. California (and therefore Californians) have a far greater influence on the election than Nebraska does. As I posted earlier, a candidate would have to win Wyoming (3), Vermont (3), Washington D.C. (3), Alaska (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Delaware (3), Montana (3), Hawaii (4), Rhode Island (4), Idaho (4), New Hampshire (4), Maine (4), West Virginia (5), New Mexico (5), Nebraska (5), and Nevada (6) to equal California. You cannot sit there and honestly tell me California is getting shafted in the Electoral College. They aren't. Small states are. They just aren't getting as shafted as much as they would in a presidency determined by the popular vote. In the popular vote no smaller states would ever have a voice again. Candidates would slug it out in L.A. County exclusively throughout their entire campaign, and no one anywhere else would matter or count. Ever. As for the popular vote, it shouldn't even be a graph on the news. It is worthless, as it should be. The popular vote is a euphemism for "mob rule." Mob rule isn't the triumph of freedom. Mob rule is the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Thankfully our founding fathers were too smart and too wise to allow our country to descend into the barbarism of mob rule. There’s honestly no debating on this board. The electoral college was created because they plain out did not trust the citizens to elect a leader. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp It’s a flawed system when trump won PA and FL by only around 200k votes and was awarded 56 points, while Clinton won MA by over a million and was only give 11 points.I get it. Defending it and all your talking points are a part of your parties narrative. It’s useless to argue, because you will be right and nothing can change your mind. This thread has turned out just like every other political thread.. All the boards right wingers swarming anyone with different views to the point no one feels like arguing and you all can give your selfs a pat on the back. Now just waiting for one of you to get all racist, as usual Fine, each state gets 1 vote so it will be equal. Every liberal loves equality. Whomever wins the most states is your President. Allow me to introduce you to your 45th President
|
|
|
Post by disorder on Jan 30, 2018 20:55:05 GMT -5
There’s honestly no debating on this board. The electoral college was created because they plain out did not trust the citizens to elect a leader. avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp It’s a flawed system when trump won PA and FL by only around 200k votes and was awarded 56 points, while Clinton won MA by over a million and was only give 11 points.I get it. Defending it and all your talking points are a part of your parties narrative. It’s useless to argue, because you will be right and nothing can change your mind. This thread has turned out just like every other political thread.. All the boards right wingers swarming anyone with different views to the point no one feels like arguing and you all can give your selfs a pat on the back. Now just waiting for one of you to get all racist, as usual Fine, each state gets 1 vote so it will be equal. Every liberal loves equality. Whomever wins the most states is your President. Allow me to introduce you to your 45th President Shouldn’t you be cranking it to the state of the union right now?
|
|
|
Post by 6 seasons and a movie on Jan 30, 2018 21:05:53 GMT -5
If each state are counted as one we would have like 100 states right now because big states would divide to gain more power. Small poor states that don't pay much taxes and take more per person then other states shouldn't have so much power.
|
|