Trump supporters?

[RubyRoo]

politicians suck, but there are some that suck less... I believe the 2 party system is rigged, i.e. the electoral college, but lesr we forget the US is a republic, NOT a democracy... we have the electoral college for back when not many people were very smart or well read, now, almost everyone is, but some choose to ignore the stuff they read, so at some point, it's better to keep the electoral college...lol

[BootmanLA]

6 hours ago, RubyRoo said:

politicians suck, but there are some that suck less... I believe the 2 party system is rigged, i.e. the electoral college, but lesr we forget the US is a republic, NOT a democracy... we have the electoral college for back when not many people were very smart or well read, now, almost everyone is, but some choose to ignore the stuff they read, so at some point, it's better to keep the electoral college...lol

We actually have the electoral college because the slave states wanted to ensure that slavery would be protected, and thus they refused to sign onto the Constitution until (a) the idea of giving every state two senators, regardless of size, and placing that provision outside the amendment process, was included; (b) the House was apportioned by counting enslaved people, who could not vote, albeit at a 40% discount; and (c) having the president selected by electors, who equaled in number the senators and representatives from a state. This meant that after the first census (in 1790), VA ended up with 19 House seats and 21 electors, while PA only had 13 House seats and 15 electors, even though it had virtually the same number of men eligible to vote.

It's also true that we have a republic, but a republic is a FORM of democracy. "Republic" means simply that we elect people who make most of the decisions of governance for us, as opposed to having a referendum on every single thing that comes up (we'd be voting full-time if we did). 

It never was about people being "very smart" or "well read"; you could vote for Congress if you were a free white male over the age of majority (with the additional qualification, in some states, of owning some form of property). Rather, the "official" justification for the electoral college was that the candidates for president would likely not be known to anyone outside their home state area, and thus state legislatures, who would know the most widely traveled residents of the state, could use them as electors to then choose the president. In reality, once political parties formed - which happened during Washington's second term and which permeated the 1796 election between Adams and Jefferson - identifying with a particular state was no longer the issue; it was which party backed the candidate.

And as for slavery preservation being the basis for the EC: look at the results for the first twelve races:

1788 - Washington (slave state) wins
1792 - Washington (slave state) wins
1796 - Adams (free state) wins, but only barely
1800 - Jefferson (slave state) wins
1804 - Jefferson (slave state) wins
1808 - Madison (slave state) wins
1812 - Madison (slave state) wins
1816 - Monroe (slave state) wins
1820 - Monroe (slave state) wins
1824 - Adams (free state) wins, but not via the EC.
1828 - Jackson (slave state) wins
1832 - Jackson (slave state) wins

There's a reason all those presidents from slave states kept winning. The votes of white slaveholders and their fellow state residents counted for a lot more than those of white free men in non-slave states, because of how the electors were apportioned.

In any event: in the 21st century, the excuse that people wouldn't know the candidates is ridiculous, as is the notion that electors would exercise independent judgment to keep lowlifes out of the White House (see, for instance, the 2016 election). There's no reason the vote of a person in Wyoming should count for more than three times what the vote of a person in California should (or, to flip the party issues: the vote of a person in Rhode Island shouldn't count for three times what the vote of a person in Texas does).

[RubyRoo]

On 11/27/2020 at 7:52 PM, BootmanLA said:

We actually have the electoral college because the slave states wanted to ensure that slavery would be protected, and thus they refused to sign onto the Constitution until (a) the idea of giving every state two senators, regardless of size, and placing that provision outside the amendment process, was included; (b) the House was apportioned by counting enslaved people, who could not vote, albeit at a 40% discount; and (c) having the president selected by electors, who equaled in number the senators and representatives from a state. This meant that after the first census (in 1790), VA ended up with 19 House seats and 21 electors, while PA only had 13 House seats and 15 electors, even though it had virtually the same number of men eligible to vote.

It's also true that we have a republic, but a republic is a FORM of democracy. "Republic" means simply that we elect people who make most of the decisions of governance for us, as opposed to having a referendum on every single thing that comes up (we'd be voting full-time if we did). 

It never was about people being "very smart" or "well read"; you could vote for Congress if you were a free white male over the age of majority (with the additional qualification, in some states, of owning some form of property). Rather, the "official" justification for the electoral college was that the candidates for president would likely not be known to anyone outside their home state area, and thus state legislatures, who would know the most widely traveled residents of the state, could use them as electors to then choose the president. In reality, once political parties formed - which happened during Washington's second term and which permeated the 1796 election between Adams and Jefferson - identifying with a particular state was no longer the issue; it was which party backed the candidate.

And as for slavery preservation being the basis for the EC: look at the results for the first twelve races:

1788 - Washington (slave state) wins
1792 - Washington (slave state) wins
1796 - Adams (free state) wins, but only barely
1800 - Jefferson (slave state) wins
1804 - Jefferson (slave state) wins
1808 - Madison (slave state) wins
1812 - Madison (slave state) wins
1816 - Monroe (slave state) wins
1820 - Monroe (slave state) wins
1824 - Adams (free state) wins, but not via the EC.
1828 - Jackson (slave state) wins
1832 - Jackson (slave state) wins

There's a reason all those presidents from slave states kept winning. The votes of white slaveholders and their fellow state residents counted for a lot more than those of white free men in non-slave states, because of how the electors were apportioned.

In any event: in the 21st century, the excuse that people wouldn't know the candidates is ridiculous, as is the notion that electors would exercise independent judgment to keep lowlifes out of the White House (see, for instance, the 2016 election). There's no reason the vote of a person in Wyoming should count for more than three times what the vote of a person in California should (or, to flip the party issues: the vote of a person in Rhode Island shouldn't count for three times what the vote of a person in Texas does).

that moment when on a gay breeding forum, a person with a pic of their asshole gives a better history lesson than 20 years of school...

[BootmanLA]

17 hours ago, RubyRoo said:

that moment when on a gay breeding forum, a person with a pic of their asshole gives a better history lesson than 20 years of school...

I'll take that as a compliment. 🙂 though I will say, none of this is especially secret information; while I knew the contours of it, I was able to double-check the winners of those first twelve presidential elections in about 2 minutes total using Google. You just have to want to find it. As someone who was originally slated for a career in teaching history before getting sidetracked, I still have my interest in digging up the facts.

[BootmanLA]

On 10/7/2020 at 11:21 AM, TeenCumDump said:

Let's face it, if anyone voted for Trump in 2016 they're going to vote again.

 

On 10/7/2020 at 11:21 AM, TeenCumDump said:

I'm sorry to say but Trump has played these last few months perfectly and will easily take a win this November. Polls don't mean anything, they were wrong in 2016, they were massively wrong in the UK general election and they're going to be wrong again. I'm not American, of course, so I have no real personal investment in seeing Trump win, but I think it's obvious he will. 

Anyway, as I said, I'm done here. I see no real point in continuing because we're never going to get anywhere. You'll never convince me Trump is anything you think he is, and I'll probably never convince you he isn't half-bad. Not going to read any further replies. That being said, I'll be sure to hit y'all up with an "I told you so" in November 😛

Good thing I didn't hold my breath waiting on you to say "I told you so". I love the color blue but I don't think it would suit me as a skin tone. 

Shorter version: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Seven MILLION votes more for Biden than for Trump. 306 electoral votes to 232 for Mango Mussolini - the same vote spread that Trump, in 2016, called "historic", "unprecedented", and a "landslide". 

[Nah]

On 12/14/2020 at 12:23 AM, BootmanLA said:

 

Good thing I didn't hold my breath waiting on you to say "I told you so". I love the color blue but I don't think it would suit me as a skin tone. 

Shorter version: HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Seven MILLION votes more for Biden than for Trump. 306 electoral votes to 232 for Mango Mussolini - the same vote spread that Trump, in 2016, called "historic", "unprecedented", and a "landslide". 

Don’t forget that Biden actually got more EC votes; there were two faithless electors in Texas in 2016, meaning trump actually only got 304 votes.

[BootmanLA]

8 hours ago, TC1127 said:

Don’t forget that Biden actually got more EC votes; there were two faithless electors in Texas in 2016, meaning trump actually only got 304 votes.

True. I'd been meaning to go back and look up whether Texas was one of the states that forces EC votes to match the state results (since the Supreme Court had ruled that states did indeed have that power). But Texas is not one, so he actually only got 304. Thanks for prompting me to go back and confirm that!

[Kaleebottom85]

one thing i will say, when i hook up with any hung blm supporters, they fuck me even harder if i tell them i'm a trump supporter. I can't stand the man. looks like melania hasn't gotten a good dicking since forever, but i love the fire it stokes in a black bulls full balls. then i get to spend the next three hours, at least, having the racist white privilege fucked out of me via my boi pussy.

[ConversionPiglet]

Please for the life (insert what ever higher power or lack of one you believe in) give these posts a rest.  Seriously the guy is past news; move on and look forward to the future.  Thanks