Making ignorance great again--
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/05/...l?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
I actually don't think side discussions on BUT POPULAR VOTE are all that useful, as it doesn't seem likely the system will be changed anytime soon. Trump won, and it doesn't matter how many votes Hillary got; Electoral votes matter, not raw vote numbers.
However, in a hypothetical reality where popular vote mattered, Trump would have probably have used a different strategy, but if his twitter feed since his election shows anything, he is pretty much incapable of toning down his rhetoric. That edge in popular vote that Hillary got comes heavily from urban leftwing strongholds. I don't see any viable way he could have appealed to those voters.
As for third party candidates never winning because of statements like mine? Mine are grounded in reality. Provide one example in the history of this nation of a third party actually winning the presidency. A quick check on Wikipedia shows that the most electoral votes, taking in account the number available, that a third party won during a presidential election was about 23%, that was in 1860. If your prefer a measure by popular vote, then it's ~27%, and that was in 1912. We have had parties just collapse, but that just results in another party, usually heavily comprised of the politicians from the defunct party, becoming the new second party. Incidentally the last time THAT happened was in the 1850's, when the Whigs disintegrated over differences in opinion over the slavery question.
At local levels sure, third parties can do okay, I won't deny that. Although even then the number of senators and governors who are third party at any given time is vanishingly small.
If you want to change the government, the best approach isn't third party, but simply mobilize folks at the grassroots level to shift your party of choice in the direction you want. That's basically what the Tea Party did with the Republicans, and you can argue this is happening now to a lesser extent in the Democratic Party with Bernie loyal progressives.
Um.....proof please.
More media-driven propaganda BS. B
And if having a valid ID is voter intimidation, then yes, we are (proudly) guilty.
Um.....proof please.
More media-driven propaganda BS. B
And if having a valid ID is voter intimidation, then yes, we are (proudly) guilty.
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL. v. SANDRA LITTLE COVINGTON, ET AL.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 16–1023. Decided June 5, 2017
Easy to find, and the latest in a series going back some time.
MJB
Gerrymandering has a very long history by both sides.
Of course it does and the sooner an end is put to it, the better.
Donald Trump is the author of the book "The art of the deal", but pulled out from Pars deal. I can see some inconsistency.
....This election was waged on creating American jobs and keeping foreigners out (note invasive species research not hit too much) - ironic that it took a foreign power to get him through the door....
And what these hateful invectives supposed to be - arguments ?“I put lipstick on a pig . . .”.
And what these hateful invectives supposed to be - arguments ?