Do you think a 5' 4" President Bloomberg would make short men cool? Will Trump try to make stupid heightist jokes about him?

[Xenom0rph]

Trolling is all you have to add?

Only with you...because you've demonstrated how uninformed you are about politics....earlier in the thread you called Doomberg an alpha male...and when I pointed out to you that he advocated for stop-and-frisk you tried to ignore it.....you only accept that he's a raycissssss now that Fauxcahontas and Bulshevic Bernie called him out on stage....



.....

 

[EyeBRollin]

Only with you...because you've demonstrated how uninformed you are about politics....earlier in the thread you called Doomberg an alpha male...and when I pointed out to you that he advocated for stop-and-frisk you tried to ignore it.....you only accept that he's a raycissssss now that Fauxcahontas and Bulshevic Bernie called him out on stage....

Bloomberg, Biden, and Sanders are all more alpha than punk bvtch crybaby kkklansman Trump.

 

[Black Widow Void]

I appreciate the cordial dialogue so I’ll ask - why as a lifelong Democrat has Trump wooed your support?

There's one difference between myself and most liberals.

Instead of allowing myself to be spoon-fed (ie; thinking only what Rachel Maddow etc... wants me to think) I look at the facts.
Sure... I think that Trump's behavior (calling candidates "sleepy Joe, Mini-Mike ... among other behaviors..) is childish
*But* I don't vote on how a candidate makes me feel. I vote on their policies.
Trump has not only been the most liberal Republican president (at least in my lifetime) but in some cases, has signed polices that prove that he's been more liberal than some actual Democrat presidents.

The lazy liberal will accuse Trump of being a racist etc...
The thinking liberal will look at his polices and not only disagree with his liberal camp, but see the lazy thinking of his own liberal camp.

@Xenom0rph has provided many facts on the above subject.
You have the choice to believe what the lazy thinking liberal camp wants you to believe, or you can look at the facts on paper and make your own decision.

Personally, I've never subscribed to group-think. I don't need approval from my peers (my liberal camp thinks I'm too conservative and my conservative friends think I'm too liberal). And while it can leave a person feeling some-what like a "loner"... there's a true freedom of not being hostage to what others do or think.

 

[EyeBRollin]

There's one difference between myself and most liberals.

Instead of allowing myself to be spoon-fed (ie; thinking only what Rachel Maddow etc... wants me to think) I look at the facts.
Sure... I think that Trump's behavior (calling candidates "sleepy Joe, Mini-Mike ... among other behaviors..) is childish
*But* I don't vote on how a candidate makes me feel. I vote on their policies.
Trump has not only been the most liberal Republican president (at least in my lifetime) but in some cases, has signed polices that prove that he's been more liberal than some actual Democrat presidents.

The lazy liberal will accuse Trump of being a racist etc...
The thinking liberal will look at his polices and not only disagree with his liberal camp, but see the lazy thinking of his own liberal camp.

@Xenom0rph has provided many facts on the above subject.
You have the choice to believe what the lazy thinking liberal camp wants you to believe, or you can look at the facts on paper and make your own decision.

Personally, I've never subscribed to group-think. I don't need approval from my peers (my liberal camp thinks I'm too conservative and my conservative friends think I'm too liberal). And while it can leave a person feeling some-what like a "loner"... there's a true freedom of not being hostage to what others do or think.

Ninety percent of this post is explaining why you belong in a self-described “camp.” That is the very definition of group think.

You mentioned facts only once so I’ll address that part. On what basis has Trump been “liberal” and “more liberal” than Democratic presidents?

 

[Xenom0rph]

Bloomberg, Biden, and Sanders are all more alpha than punk bvtch crybaby kkklansman Trump.

Stop being h0mophobic - you excluded Mayor BootyJudge.....

 

[EyeBRollin]

Stop being h0mophobic - you excluded Mayor BootyJudge.....

Pathetic. You have nothing but petty insults.

 

[Xenom0rph]

I cant tell if Warren was wearing heels or if Mini Mike is fudging his height.....

 

[EyeBRollin]

I cant tell if Warren was wearing heels or if Mini Mike is fudging his height.....

View attachment 3619

She’s wearing footwear. She was slightly taller than Buttigieg (5’9) that night, and the same height as Sanders (5’10).

I’d love to see her debate Trump. She’s far more potent than Clinton, who mopped the floor with him all three times. Bring the body bag.

 

[Xenom0rph]

Politico is reporting that Bloomberg is already lobbying for super delegates. If Bernie comes into the convention without the 1,991 delegate majority, the super delegates can basically overturn the election results and appoint whoever they want as the dem nominee.

The (establishment) democrats reveal their hypocrisy: they whine and moan about the Electoral College yet they implement a similar system in their own primary....

....btw, I actually agree with the democrats in using this system because i personally believe a pure Democracy is the Tyranny of 51%....

 

[EyeBRollin]

The (establishment) democrats reveal their hypocrisy: they whine and moan about the Electoral College yet they implement a similar system in their own primary....

....btw, I actually agree with the democrats in using this system because i personally believe a pure Democracy is the Tyranny of 51%....

You’d prefer the chosen few rule the many?

 

[Xenom0rph]

You’d prefer the chosen few rule the many?

I've already walked you down this road before but I can summarize again:

Only 5 times in US history has a president won the Oval Office without winning the popular vote... That's about 10%....which means ~ 90% of the time the popular vote aligns with the EC....

...therefore to claim that the EC is elitist rule is a mis-characterization...

...the dem primary is similar, any candidate that can win 2,376 delegates is the winner, if not then it's a brokered convention with Super Delegates functioning similarly to Faithless Electors in a Federal election....

Again, hypocrisy of the democratic party. They came up with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to circumvent the EC...but within their own party they implement a system similar to the EC....

....But I salute the super delegate system because Democracy is mob rule... The Tyranny of 51%....

 

[AttackFormation]

The (establishment) democrats reveal their hypocrisy: they whine and moan about the Electoral College yet they implement a similar system in their own primary....

....btw, I actually agree with the democrats in using this system because i personally believe a pure Democracy is the Tyranny of 51%....

America was according to people like you founded with a political system to prevent a majority from abusing a minority, yet institutionalized slavery with its accompanying torture, and legal racism, was in its foundation from the beginning in 1789 and the government sanctioned genocides of west indians. And then you speak of hypocrisy? In fact your stance is more than even hypocrisy, it's a willful, stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality if it doesn't suit your end goal.

Here's the real deal, "tyranny" can be committed by any number of people. What you really require for a civilized society is a culture - effective measures against corruption, freedom of information, freedom of the press, freedom of organization, right to bodily integrity, freedom from pollution (like lead pollution), equality before the law, and so on. Once you start having such a decent culture, a majority vote system makes sense, and countries incorporate safeguards to prevent a rule of decree by the voters to the extent the law can provide for that. More democratic systems can also catalyze the creation of such systems, in a positive feedback loop.

The whole "tyranny of the 51%" is just a delusional or disingenuously selfserving piece of propaganda.

 

[Xenom0rph]

America was according to people like you founded to prevent a majority from abusing a minority by adopting a weighted representative system, yet institutionalized slavery and legal racism was in its foundation from the beginning in 1789 and the government sanctioned genocides of west indians. And then you speak of hypocrisy? Your stance is more than hypocrisy, it's a willful, stubborn refusal to acknowledge reality if it doesn't suit your end goal.

You're correct that the EC was implemented as a check against majoritarian rule....which is a good thing... I think we can all agree on that.....

.....whether or not the Founding Fathers owned slaves doesn't diminish the fact that the concept of a check on majoritarian rule is a good thing...

Example: the Jim Crow South was majoritarian rule, and we all know the disaster that led to...

 

[Xenom0rph]

The whole "tyranny of the 51%" is just a delusional or disingenuously selfserving piece of propaganda.

The democratic party seems to subscribe to the belief of the Tyranny of 51%....otherwise they wouldn't have implemented the super delegate system....which is basically the EC-Lite....

 

[AttackFormation]

You're correct that the EC was implemented as a check against majoritarian rule....which is a good thing... I think we can all agree on that.....

.....whether or not the Founding Fathers owned slaves doesn't diminish the fact that the concept of a check on majoritarian rule is a good thing...

Example: the Jim Crow South was majoritarian rule, and we all know the disaster that led to...

The EC evidently failed to be a check on "majoritarian rule" in the extreme, in the sense I just outlined. It failed from the start. It didn't just allow genocide, torture, denial of education, lifelong heritable slavery, redlining, and whatever else - it sanctioned those things, and people like James Madison made sure it would do so from the start.

The Jim Crow South was NOT majoritarian rule, neither as a whole and especially not at a county level. After the Civil War, there was a more or less uneasy Republican coalition between the freed blacks and about 20-25% of the white voters ("carpetbaggers" and "scalawags"). This was enough to form a majority in large swathes of counties in the south, a majority on the whole even, because blacks were 40% of the south's population and 20-25% of the remaining 60% is +12-15% = 52-55% coalition total. The Redeemers, a coalition of southern paramilitaries, formed after the war to violently terrorize this coalition into submission and disenfranchisement and destroy the aims of the Radical Republicans' Reconstruction, and were enabled to keep doing so among other things by the Corrupt Bargain 1877.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I've already walked you down this road before but I can summarize again:

Only 5 times in US history has a president won the Oval Office without winning the popular vote... That's about 10%....which means ~ 90% of the time the popular vote aligns with the EC....

...therefore to claim that the EC is elitist rule is a mis-characterization...

...the dem primary is similar, any candidate that can win 2,376 delegates is the winner, if not then it's a brokered convention with Super Delegates functioning similarly to Faithless Electors in a Federal election....

Again, hypocrisy of the democratic party. They came up with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to circumvent the EC...but within their own party they implement a system similar to the EC....

....But I salute the super delegate system because Democracy is mob rule... The Tyranny of 51%....

Is that a yes you do support minority rule?

 

[Xenom0rph]

Is that a yes you do support minority rule?

I support a check on Tyrannical 51% rule on 100% of all political issues.....that check is the EC.... in the Dem primary, that check is the super delegate system....which I salute....

 

[EyeBRollin]

I support a check on Tyrannical 51% rule on 100% of all political issues.....that check is the EC.... in the Dem primary, that check is the super delegate system....which I salute....

Stop cherry picking. Should the minority govern the majority? It’s a yes or no.

 

[AttackFormation]

Stop cherry picking. Should the minority govern the majority? It’s a yes or no.

I just used history to try to explain how the EC has never worked as he wants to believe it does and its creators in fact intended to use it to prevent the justice he claims it promotes, but it's like his brain refuses to acknowledge the evidence I give. This is the second thread it happens in. Can you tell me what the fvck is going on? it's like I just can't reach him.

 

[Xenom0rph]

Stop cherry picking. Should the minority govern the majority? It’s a yes or no.

The minority should not be allowed to always govern the majority...just like the majority should not be allowed to always govern the minority..which is why we have the EC....and the EC is to be saluted...

....evidently the Democrats agree with this which is why they have the super delegate system....which I also salute....