@TechLeed I really wish you’d read what I wrote before responding, and maybe do some research into how our government works and it’s founding.
Your reply is basically all nonsense and doesn’t address a single point I’ve raised. You’re making vacuous statements and platitudes and then trying to insult me. You’ve moved from one argument to the next, constantly changing position and never once addressing any of the fundamental points of the discussion. It seems you have a conclusion you’ve made without any supporting data, your misguided attempts to back it up (e.g. your “direct democracy” argument) have all been dismantled, and now you’ve just moved on to gaslighting.
Yes, the US is a nation made up of states. Our system of government is intended to *balance* the powers of states and the union as a whole. The election of the President is not set up as a manner of giving states power over the federal government. The powers of the President do that, as do the constitutions limits on the powers of the federal legislature.
The executive branch is specifically intended to be representative of the majority without factoring in state boundaries. A single representative logically can’t represent individual views or needs of different states or meaningfully afford them unique powers. That’s not the purpose of the Presidency.
If you unpack your argument even a little, it becomes clear that you’re arguing that the President should always represent the minority of the population. That’s the exact opposite of the intent of the founders, and logically diametrically opposed to the notion of democracy.
By the way, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about districts and congress. Do you know who controls the House right now? Despite overt and clearly unfair Republican gerrymandering?
The House is specifically set up to represent all US citizens equally, regardless of state boundaries. The Senate is what balances that with equal size influence per state, regardless of population. There are more blue districts than red, and the outcome of a district-by-district vote ends up as a reasonable approximation of a popular vote. That’s the whole point of apportioning districts by population.
The original plan the founders had was for the House to choose the President. This was intended as an easy proxy for a popular vote. But there was pushback that this would invite too much intrigue and concern about back room deals. This led to preference for a direct popular vote as the ideal solution, but the founders believed the southern slave-owning states wouldn’t agree to it. The reason was that the south didn’t want slaves to be able to choose whom they voted for in the election of the President, but that they *did* want them to count as votes - but where the vote was chosen by the slave-owner. The deal that was struck was the infamous “three fifths compromise”, and the Electoral College was part of that. It enabled them to have delegates apportioned via the 3/5s rule (same as the House), but votes decided by just the white male slave-owners in those states.
Thanks again for replying and ignoring every point of discussion just to insult and gaslight.
Maryland has only 8 congressional districts. Democrats there have proposed pacts with Virginia Republicans to switch to fair districting across both states, but Republicans won’t accept the deal. They have more to lose, and don’t want to set a precedent that could undermine their far more extensive use of gerrymandering in other states (including Virginia, Texas, and NC - where their recent attempt at even more extreme gerrymandering was blocked by the federal courts). Austin, a very blue city, was carved by Republicans into 6 districts - 5 of which are red. Nobody is saying only they do it, but they stand the most to lose if the practice were stopped.
The only people that supported Trump in 2016 were the fake news lovers. If Google wants their search engine to be more about learning the facts and less about propaganda, it makes sense that they would fight fake news. And Trump loves spreading fake news and propaganda. Don’t believe me? Try fact checking one of his public speeches.
Well, fucking duh. Russia made Google, Facebook and Twitter their lapdog for peddling misinformation campaigns. That should have been very embarrassing for them. Of course they want to prevent an outsider from influencing our elections.
Calling Peter Strzok an anti-Trump activist, or Andrew Weissmann a big Hillary supporter, is not a “conspiracy theory”. Why do you think Schiff and Nadler will only let Mueller’s staff testify behind closed doors with no transcripts?
Yes, it is. It’s insane bullshit. And you’re not even talking about anyone who had anything significant to do with the report, the indictments, or ongoing cases. What a sad, desperate attempt to deceive people.
Ok. Then you are delusional. In his publicly released text messages, Peter Strzok calls Trump supporters smelly Walmart people and says he will stop him from becoming president...but it is “insane” to suggest he is in any way biased. 🙄
First, that’s a lie. He most certainly never said he would “stop Trump from becoming President”. He didn’t like Trump. Most of the country didn’t (and still doesn’t). Are you saying that only people who like Trump should work in law enforcement? Do you have a shred of evidence that his personal opinions affected his work in any way? (No, of course you don’t)
Second, who the fuck cares about the personal opinions of some random ass FBI agent who had nothing to do with any of this?
Liberal logic: make up the facts to support your argument. domin8, if you had read the article, you would realize it listed 50 *craziest* lies on Wikipedia... I.e. not every single lie. So your math is moot; wiki has more than 50 incorrect pages. You also didn’t do the same calculation for all other sources, so you can’t claim it’s the most credible source on the planet lmao. Do you work in HR or recruiting or marketing? Not very sharp.
This thread is depressing. Just mindless taking points while missing the bigger picture. There is no democracy and facts don’t matter. We are assigned our opinions and google is claiming the moral authority to do so.
Lol. Project Veritas... Well known fakers. Not to say that Google is a private company and can do whatever they want with their product. Majority of people are against Trump and his policies. Why not have the search engine, which reflects the reality.
Which media hasn’t? CNN made up the fine people hoax. They said Don jr got heads up from Wikileaks before release. I think there is a site with all their lies. Point is can’t trust any outlet wholesale. Got to judge each report individually. Blanket judgment on PV is not a well thought out position. Check your biases.