Why the Electoral College?

Frank Apisa said:
It was you fucking American conservative jerk-offs who were proponents of slavery. You assholes were Democrats at that time...and you are Republicans now.

Wake the hell up...and stop pretending it was otherwise.
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Flash said:
While slavery was the main reason, it was not about keeping vs ending slavery since the Republican party, president, or Congress did not have the power to prohibit it.

I suspect the secession documents tried to keep the reasons simple and emotional (much like today's politics).
Click to expand...

Okay.

That was MUCH better than Ralph's, "The Civil War was not about slavery."
 
Flash said:
"There may have been a popular misperception prior to the 2016 election that Democrats had a large number of solidly blue states that made it much easier for them to reach 270 than the Republicans. But professional handicappers never considered states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to be solid for the Democrats, even in the 2008 and 2012 elections — and any notion that they continue to be solidly Democratic going forward was exploded by Trump’s wins in those states, making his use of the present tense dubious.

There may even be a modest Republican lean to the Electoral College in this political moment, but we couldn’t find evidence of a permanent bias either way."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-trumps-questionable-claim-electoral-college/
Click to expand...

You missed the point and math entirely. California has 55 electoral votes and is a reliable BLUE state. New York has 29 electoral votes and is reliably a BLUE state. That represents a solid 84 electoral votes out of the 270 needed or 31% of the vote. That is why Republicans need wins in states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Without them, Democrats would have a LOCK on the electoral count.

If just California apportioned their electoral votes, as they should because Republicans get ZERO representation, Democrats would NEVER win a Presidential election.
 
Truth Detector said:
You missed the point and math entirely. California has 55 electoral votes and is a reliable BLUE state. New York has 29 electoral votes and is reliably a BLUE state. That represents a solid 84 electoral votes out of the 270 needed or 31% of the vote.
Click to expand...

How is that any different than the 110 electoral votes from just nine of the sold red southern states (TX,LA,MS,AL,GA,OK,AR,TN,SC); or, 143 if we include the Midwest and Mountain states? They both represent large blocks of safe votes for each party.
 
Flash said:
How is that any different than the 110 electoral votes from just nine of the sold red southern states (TX,LA,MS,AL,GA,OK,AR,TN,SC); or, 143 if we include the Midwest and Mountain states? They both represent large blocks of safe votes for each party.
Click to expand...

ONE STATE 55 votes. That's Montana, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. Eleven States to make up for ONE blue state. That's the math.

Another reason our founders chose the electoral system over straight mob rule.
 
Frank Apisa said:
1) The Republican Party, from the moment of its formation, was considered rather liberal...anti-slavery.

2) The Civil War WAS about slavery. Don't take my word for it...read the Declarations of Secession Of Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas.

They all claim the reason they are seceding is because of the slavery issue.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states


Nazis like you ought to educate yourselves BEFORE posting.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.....revisionist left wing propaganda. Take the word of Abe Lincoln: He concluded that "slavery" was legal under the terms established (states rights) in the United States Constitution. He was not an "abolitionist" as he worked under the rules established in the constitution....it was not until 1863 that Lincoln used slavery as an issue to run for a second term in office. Reality: When debating Douglas in 1858 Lincoln is directly quoted concerning the issue of slavery, "I will say then...….that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races."


Of course his position "evolved" over the course of his first term when the south was kicking the pompous collective asses off the west point blue bloods from the north east.....this brought us his
"emancipation proclamation" years after the civil war began over the issue of STATES RIGHTS in exercising their 10th amendment rights to determine their own state laws under rule of law established in the United States Constitution. He had to win a 2nd term....hell in a speech delivered in April of 1865 he even suggested that blacks should have the limited right to vote under the terms of earning that right by serving in the Union Army.


Lincoln was against the expansion of Slavery for any new state that entered the Union....instead of addressing this issue as it should have been addressed (amending the Constitution...which did not take place until after the war)…..Lincoln ended the constitutional rule of law in suspending HABEAS CORUPUS. States Rights and the rule of law is why the 2nd revolution was fought. The people (society) evolved in accepting Slavery (flesh peddling) as a moral sin.....the rule of law never did evolve until the constitution was amended to end slavery. The preamble to the founding of this nation "all men are created equal"....was just as true when it was written as it is today. That truth never evolved, truth can't evolve or it was never truth to begin with.....societies (as in the majority) might evolve their moral compass (slavery was legal only as long as the majority made it legal)…..but truth does not evolve. In fact: that same majority that made slavery legal....granted equal and civil rights to every person in the United States....there is not one right in this constitutional republic that did not come from a majority point of view.....IT CAN BE NO OTHER WAY IN A TRULY FREE REPUBLIC RULED BY THE PEOPLE.


You can't revise history. It was not north v. south.....(one the biggest slave holding states was the state of Maryland) it was the GOP v. the Democrats. And that same revolution has been going on since the war first began in mid 1800s. Just as today.....the democrats wish to "cherry" pick bit and pieces of the rule of law and leave the entirety to be dismissed on the whim of what they are attempting to accomplish on any given day.


Look at recent history. During the latest SCOTUS appointment hearing....they attempted to turn the rule of law on its head (upside down) under their new rules....one is guilty by accusation until they can disprove the negative....they are innocent of a crime they never committed in the first place ONLY WHEN THEY CAN DISPROVE THE NEGATIVE. Remember......WOMEN MUST BE BELIEVED regardless of objective evidence or prima facie truths. Now ask yourself this simple question. Just who are the true fascist radicals in this nation. Those that represent the US rule of law in this constitutional republic ….the GOP, or those who wish to dismiss the rule of law when it suits their political needs? (the DNC) Democrats have always been radical when it comes to garnering power and wealth....they will do anything, destroy any peoples, take any property, and use any government agency as a weapon to get and keep political power.


Now that the fascism has come out of the closet in full view.....the PEOPLE know and comprehend full well who has the best interest of this republic in mind.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
Bullshit.....revisionist left wing propaganda. Take the word of Abe Lincoln: He concluded that "slavery" was legal under the terms established (states rights) in the United States Constitution. He was not an "abolitionist" as he worked under the rules established in the constitution....it was not until 1863 that Lincoln used slavery as an issue to run for a second term in office. Reality: When debating Douglas in 1858 Lincoln is directly quoted concerning the issue of slavery, "I will say then...….that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races."


Of course his position "evolved" over the course of his first term when the south was kicking the pompous collective asses off the west point blue bloods from the north east.....this brought us his
"emancipation proclamation" years after the civil war began over the issue of STATES RIGHTS in exercising their 10th amendment rights to determine their own state laws under rule of law established in the United States Constitution. He had to win a 2nd term....hell in a speech delivered in April of 1865 he even suggested that blacks should have the limited right to vote under the terms of earning that right by serving in the Union Army.


Lincoln was against the expansion of Slavery for any new state that entered the Union....instead of addressing this issue as it should have been addressed (amending the Constitution...which did not take place until after the war)…..Lincoln ended the constitutional rule of law in suspending HABEAS CORUPUS. States Rights and the rule of law is why the 2nd revolution was fought. The people (society) evolved in accepting Slavery (flesh peddling) as a moral sin.....the rule of law never did until the constitution was amended to end slavery.


You can't revise history. It was not north v. south.....(one the biggest slave holding states was the state of Maryland) it was the GOP v. the Democrats. And that same revolution has been going on since the war first began in mid 1800s. Just as today.....the democrats wish to "cherry" pick bit and pieces of the rule of law and leave the entirety to be dismissed on the whim of what they are attempting to accomplish on any given day.


Look at recent history. During the latest SCOTUS appointment hearing....they attempted to turn the rule of law on its head (upside down) under their new rules....one is guilty by accusation until they can disprove the negative....they are innocent of a crime they never committed in the first place. Remember......WOMEN MUST BE BELIEVED regardless of objective evidence or prima facie truths.
Click to expand...

Read the Declarations of Secession. They are declaring that the reason they are seceding...is because of the slavery issue.

Some being an asshole.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Read the Declarations of Secession. They are declaring that the reason they are seceding...is because of the slavery issue.

Some being an asshole.
Click to expand...


Slavery was LEGAL in both the north and the south it was protected by law. The war was fought over the semantics of wanting to cherry pick from the rule of law. The democrats.....just like today agreed with the rule of law when it suited their political power needs. When it did not.....they went to war. Again....it was a battle of the GOP who believed in the evolution of "HUMAN RIGHTS" and the democrats...who could give a rats ass about anyone's rights besides their own. Just as it is today....that revolutionary ideology is still being engaged TODAY. The democrats have always been fascist radicals that will do anything to garner power and wealth. They remain the party of the 4 S's...….Slavery, Secession, Segregation, and Socialism. The author's of the Jim Crow laws, the Federal Reserve, the KKK, anti civil rights movement, anti-women and minorities holding power and authority over the good ole blue blood boys club. When will the first female president come into power? They will come on the side of the GOP.
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
What was the slavery issue that caused the Confederate states to withdraw? The government couldn't abolish slavery.
Click to expand...

Are you calling the southerners liars? They publicly (and for the historical record) stated that the reason they seceded was because of slavery. Then their VP gave a speech, declaring that slavery was the cornerstone of the CSA. But do please go on lying to us...
 
Threedee said:
Are you calling the southerners liars? They publicly (and for the historical record) stated that the reason they seceded was because of slavery. Then their VP gave a speech, declaring that slavery was the cornerstone of the CSA. But do please go on lying to us...
Click to expand...

I lied about nothing. I asked a question. What was the slavery issue that caused secession? It was not the right to have slaves since that right continued to exist and the government could not prohibit it without a constitutional amendment which could never get the 2/3 vote for proposal or 3/4 vote for ratification. What did the South mean when they said they were seceding because of slavery?

You are reading things into posts that are not there. Stop and read carefully.
 
Flash said:
I lied about nothing. I asked a question. What was the slavery issue that caused secession? It was not the right to have slaves since that right continued to exist and the government could not prohibit it without a constitutional amendment which could never get the 2/3 vote for proposal or 3/4 vote for ratification. What did the South mean when they said they were seceding because of slavery?

You are reading things into posts that are not there. Stop and read carefully.
Click to expand...

The south actually found the mere discussion of abolition to be offensive. That's one of the reasons why Congress instituted a gag rule over slavery. They were rather irrational over the whole matter, because intelligent Americans can look back and see that the only way slavery was going to be outlawed in the near future was if the south took the exact course of actions that it wound-up taking. There was, however, a strong belief in the south that slavery had to continually expand in order for it to survive. With the north working to keep slavery from expanding westward, that was viewed as a danger. Also, keep in mind that on the day the south began secession, there was a proposed constitutional amendment working its way through Congress, that would have protected slavery in the south.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top