2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
I just think it’s normal politic .
Look why Obama choose Biden right ?
Old white male, conservative for a democrats, long experience …
Seem it fit right in imo .
And Trump is a pretty bad person to be making these claims. Got into college through affirmative action, took over a business because his grandfather started it, picked 2 awful VP candidates (Pence/Vance) based on religion a d bro-nism, hired his idiot daughter and son in law to be serious white house advisors, appointed his idiot sons to run his inherited business, his idiot daughter in law is the RNC chair etc
does Amy Coney Barrett know she was a DEI pick yet?
Y'know, the party that's won the popular vote only once in 30 years really should not talk a lot of **** about the other side being "undemocratic."
This isn't hard. Electors in the electoral college are to general elections what delegates are to primaries.
What is your point? This is about the popular vote in the general.
This isn't hard dude.
Conservatives: "Kamala is an undemocratic nominee because she was selected by the delegates not by the people."
Also conservatives: "Popular vote doesn't matter, electoral college is how we pick presidents. Suck it up, libs."
Also conservatives: "We are a bunch of hypocritical dunces."
This isn't hard dude.
Conservatives: "Kamala is an undemocratic nominee because she was selected by the delegates not by the people."
Also conservatives: "Popular vote doesn't matter, electoral college is how we pick presidents. Suck it up, libs."
Also conservatives: "We are a bunch of hypocritical dunces."
This isn't hard.
Trolly trolls a sidebar about the general election popular vote.
I tell him popular vote is not what determines general elections.
Libtards: but primaries.....
This isn't hard.
Trolly trolls a sidebar about the general election popular vote.
I tell him popular vote is not what determines general elections.
Libtards: but primaries.....
The ****ing conversation was about primaries before it segues into the general as a secondary point/comparison. Keep up, slowcoach.
Y'know, the party that's won the popular vote only once in 30 years really should not talk a lot of **** about the other side being "undemocratic."
The ****ing conversation was about primaries before it segues into the general as a secondary point/comparison. Keep up, slowcoach.
Keep up Teddy. The post by Trolly was specifically about the popular vote in the general election.
The original conversation was about how Harris "undemocratically" got the nomination. That's completely in line with Trump undemocratically winning the presidency. The popular vote doesn't matter; you vote for some unknown elector/delegate to cast a vote for you that actually matters.
In your opinion, for ease of discussion, can we divide all U.S. employees into two groups? Group 1 is white guys, who presumptively were hired mainly or exclusively on merit. Group 2 is all other people, who presumptively were hired at least partly for reasons other than merit.
These are only presumptions. I know you would concede that some men are hired mainly for reasons other than merit and some women, etc. are hired exclusively based on merit.
Is this a fair starting point in your view?
Um, yes they do. Do you just not know what the word delegate means? Delegates in the general election are called "electors."
Delegates
Delegates are people authorized to vote on behalf of others in an indirect election. A classic example of delegates acting on behalf of a wider electorate in order to elect a representative is the United States presidential election. During US presidential elections, voters in each state elect delegates (also known as “electors”😉 in the electoral college who then elect the president.
Keep up Teddy. The post by Trolly was specifically about the popular vote in the general election.
I am sure a man of your intellectual caliber understands what "conversation" means, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that when you chose to quote one post and completely ignore the larger context of the conversation, this was an uncharacteristic oversight on your part.
I am sure man of your intellectual caliber understands what "conversation" means, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that when you chose to quote one post and completely ignore the larger context of the conversation, this was an uncharacteristic oversight on your part.
I'm not ignoring the rest of the conversation. I'm not even sure I disagree with you about the rest of the conversation. But if someone posts a sidebar about the popular vote, I'm free to respond to that sidebar.
Take the L on this one, horsenuts. Can't win them all. Or, in your case, any, really. C'est la vie.
I'm not ignoring the rest of the conversation. I'm not even sure I disagree with you about the rest of the conversation. But if someone posts a sidebar about the popular vote, I'm free to respond to that sidebar.
Your snarky "correction" was literally the entire point of his post. Which was why I said "welcome to the point."
And then you just further display your complete ignorance of the entire world around you by arguing that delegates don't vote in the presidential election.
Do you ever just look back at your posting history in sheer embarrassment?
Housenuts not understanding the 2020 election "fake elector" scheme makes perfect sense now.
