Trump selects J.D. Vance as his running mate

[Kotchman]

lol. You guys are getting Peter Buttplug 

[Make Angels Great Again]

21 minutes ago, Rico said:

 

 

Today is the 11th day since JD Vance was announced as his running mate.

Meaning, he has now lasted 1 day longer with Trump than the mooch. What a fag lol.

[tdawg87]

1 hour ago, Kotchman said:

lol. You guys are getting Peter Buttplug 

I wish.

[Rico]

I think it'll be Kelly. 

[Kotchman]

2 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

I wish.

He ends up pregnant every time he changes jobs. 

[Taylor]

17 hours ago, Rico said:

I think it'll be Kelly. 

Pennsylvania’s 19 votes are better than Arizona’s 11.

The electoral college is so dumb.

[Kotchman]

30 minutes ago, Taylor said:

Pennsylvania’s 19 votes are better than Arizona’s 11.

The electoral college is so dumb.

The electoral college certainly isn’t as democratic as the Dem primary 

[Taylor]

1 hour ago, Kotchman said:

The electoral college certainly isn’t as democratic as the Dem primary 

If we let the cows vote in Wisconsin, the 3 electoral votes will be mathematically justified.

[Kotchman]

4 minutes ago, Taylor said:

If we let the cows vote in Wisconsin, the 3 electoral votes will be mathematically justified.

I mean nothing is more just than majority rule. 

[Taylor]

9 minutes ago, Kotchman said:

I mean nothing is more just than majority rule. 

If the went to straight popular vote, your vote would mean more. You wouldn't have to live in one of five swings states for your vote to matter.

[wopphil]

5 hours ago, Taylor said:

If the went to straight popular vote, your vote would mean more. You wouldn't have to live in one of five swings states for your vote to matter.

I’m no constitutional expert, but isn’t the whole purpose of the electoral college to allow for situations in which a strong majority of states support a candidate, even if he/she isn’t the choice of the majority of the nation’s populace? It seems to work well in that regard.  Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016 both took 30 states and won the election despite losing the popular vote. Based on how the constitution was constructed and the interest in given states some equality of power, that seems like a justifiable outcome in those instances. 

[Kotchman]

24 minutes ago, wopphil said:

I’m no constitutional expert, but isn’t the whole purpose of the electoral college to allow for situations in which a strong majority of states support a candidate, even if he/she isn’t the choice of the majority of the nation’s populace? It seems to work well in that regard.  Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016 both took 30 states and won the election despite losing the popular vote. Based on how the constitution was constructed and the interest in given states some equality of power, that seems like a justifiable outcome in those instances. 

Taylor is more of a mob rule democracy type. Honestly , if the federal government did what it was intended to do and the states weren’t whores for federal money , Americans would be much happier. Unfortunately, a queer dem moves to SC because he can’t afford his NYC taxes and he expects the Bible Belt to conform to hie values. If they don’t Uncle Sam comes in and bullies the state.

This practice brought ushered in a Trump. The Supreme Court handed abortion to the states and the fed government and blue state libs are undermining pro life states across the country. I don’t mind that men in California squat to piss, just don’t interfere with men in Texas and Missouri who stand. 

[Taylor]

48 minutes ago, wopphil said:

I’m no constitutional expert, but isn’t the whole purpose of the electoral college to allow for situations in which a strong majority of states support a candidate, even if he/she isn’t the choice of the majority of the nation’s populace? It seems to work well in that regard.  Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016 both took 30 states and won the election despite losing the popular vote. Based on how the constitution was constructed and the interest in given states some equality of power, that seems like a justifiable outcome in those instances. 

In theory, yes.

In practice, it’s a system that disproportionately benefits the smaller states. If you go by population per state, the electoral vote totals don’t match proportionally. California should have several more votes if Wisconsin has 3, etc.

No other democracy uses an electoral college system. Why is that?

[Kotchman]

13 minutes ago, Taylor said:

In theory, yes.

In practice, it’s a system that disproportionately benefits the smaller states. If you go by population per state, the electoral vote totals don’t match proportionally. California should have several more votes if Wisconsin has 3, etc.

No other democracy uses an electoral college system. Why is that?

Now apply your theory at an individual level. 47% of the population are dependent on government assistance. Their vote should count significantly less than those of us who pay taxes. 

[Blarg]

1 hour ago, Taylor said:

In theory, yes.

In practice, it’s a system that disproportionately benefits the smaller states. If you go by population per state, the electoral vote totals don’t match proportionally. California should have several more votes if Wisconsin has 3, etc.

No other democracy uses an electoral college system. Why is that?

Hey, retarded one, states with five electoral votes are destroyed by California with 54. Each state has their own economy and needs but 10 states have to band together just to get any representation over one. That is disproportionally unfair.

But you are stupid enough to believe that concentrated populace has the right to rule everyone in other states. That really isn't democracy at all, that's bullies choosing to beat up the small kids for their milk money. 

[Taylor]

8 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Hey, retarded one, states with five electoral votes are destroyed by California with 54. Each state has their own economy and needs but 10 states have to band together just to get any representation over one. That is disproportionally unfair.

But you are stupid enough to believe that concentrated populace has the right to rule everyone in other states. That really isn't democracy at all, that's bullies choosing to beat up the small kids for their milk money. 

Maybe those states should have more babies or something. 

[Kevin]

I think Blarg needs to be banned for a bit. He’s been throwing insults around for a long time and if it’s good enough for @cals, it’s good enough for Blarg.

Or is that not how it works here at AW?

[tdawg87]

9 hours ago, Blarg said:

Hey, retarded one, states with five electoral votes are destroyed by California with 54. Each state has their own economy and needs but 10 states have to band together just to get any representation over one. That is disproportionally unfair.

But you are stupid enough to believe that concentrated populace has the right to rule everyone in other states. That really isn't democracy at all, that's bullies choosing to beat up the small kids for their milk money. 

#freecals

[tdawg87]

10 hours ago, Kotchman said:

Now apply your theory at an individual level. 47% of the population are dependent on government assistance. Their vote should count significantly less than those of us who pay taxes. 

That's gonna be popular with folks receiving social security and medicare. 

[Taylor]

4 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

That's gonna be popular with folks receiving social security and medicare. 

Many of whom live in the aforementioned red states that have more electoral votes than they should.

[AngelsLakersFan]

4 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

That's gonna be popular with folks receiving social security and medicare. 

You mean Trump supporters?

[Kotchman]

5 hours ago, tdawg87 said:

That's gonna be popular with folks receiving social security and medicare. 

Yes it needs to be based on a lifetime of work and let’s not forget Americans paid into those programs which is different than a 25 year old dead beat. 

[Kotchman]

1 hour ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

You mean Trump supporters?

My parents wouldn’t need social security if they had all the money Uncle Sam stole and handed to democrat losers. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 minutes ago, Kotchman said:

My parents wouldn’t need social security if they had all the money Uncle Sam stole and handed to democrat losers. 

This is something that always cracks me up. Everyone receiving money from the government is a loser, except when it's yourself or your family. 

Also, isn't every single one of your paychecks the result of a government handout to the defense industry? At this point, the entire military is essentially one giant social program for losers who couldn't hack it in the real world.

[Kotchman]

7 hours ago, Kevin said:

I think Blarg needs to be banned for a bit. He’s been throwing insults around for a long time and if it’s good enough for @cals, it’s good enough for Blarg.

Or is that not how it works here at AW?

I’m not for banning Blarg but there is a double standard with rule enforcement and which groups are protected from criticism. Blarg is uniquely Blarg. His blend of arrogance and ignorance keeps the conversations going. We miss him when he’s away. It’s no different with Cals. Cals brings humor and a unique perspective that doesnt always toe a particular party line. Say what you want but he is value added to the room.