ADVERTISEMENT

RBG health scare...

What are you babbling about now?
I said “no diversity of thought” in a discussion of political leanings. I meant “no diversity of political thought” and thought that was implied but saw that you and others didn’t get that so I amended/clarified the statement. You of course thought you had something to run with do you refuse to accept the correction which is ridiculous albeit typical.

To answer your question, no I wasn’t and have not questioned your statement of support for the EC. What I called into question is your belief that this one statement somehow counters the years of shilling for the Democratic Party. Hope that helps.

Question number 2: no I don’t think I’m “implying that” when mentioning the fact that farm land can’t be as densely packed as urban population centers. Thanks m saying there was a reason why the agricultural states wanted a compromise when forming the constitution. They wanted equal representation in one house of Congress and they wanted protection in national elections.

Please share with me the “absurd” comments I’ve made about urban residents. You think it’s “absurd” to suggest that urban population centers lack political diversity? Show me evidence to the contrary. I’ve used NYC elections to support the point. Feel free to show the contrary.
I couldn’t agree more that it is absolutely insufferable for you to continue to throw false narratives against the wall, in desperate hopes that at least one of them will stick. Like this foolishness about backtracking multiple times. I clarified a single statement but never let the truth get in the way of some good lawyering, amirite?
As always, it’s been fun. Im sure I haven’t heard the last yet, but you take care as well.

You’ve had to backtrack twice now... spare me the long-winded diatribe.
 
What are you babbling about now?
I said “no diversity of thought” in a discussion of political leanings. I meant “no diversity of political thought” and thought that was implied but saw that you and others didn’t get that so I amended/clarified the statement. You of course thought you had something to run with do you refuse to accept the correction which is ridiculous albeit typical.

To answer your question, no I wasn’t and have not questioned your statement of support for the EC. What I called into question is your belief that this one statement somehow counters the years of shilling for the Democratic Party. Hope that helps.

Question number 2: no I don’t think I’m “implying that” when mentioning the fact that farm land can’t be as densely packed as urban population centers. Thanks m saying there was a reason why the agricultural states wanted a compromise when forming the constitution. They wanted equal representation in one house of Congress and they wanted protection in national elections.

Please share with me the “absurd” comments I’ve made about urban residents. You think it’s “absurd” to suggest that urban population centers lack political diversity? Show me evidence to the contrary. I’ve used NYC elections to support the point. Feel free to show the contrary.
I couldn’t agree more that it is absolutely insufferable for you to continue to throw false narratives against the wall, in desperate hopes that at least one of them will stick. Like this foolishness about backtracking multiple times. I clarified a single statement but never let the truth get in the way of some good lawyering, amirite?
As always, it’s been fun. Im sure I haven’t heard the last yet, but you take care as well.
No matter how many times you say it or try to defend.. To say that there is no thought diversity or political thought diversity in nyc is fugging retarded.

If you want to say, New York always votes blue for president.. That's fine.. But just try to not say this dumb ass shit anymore.

War eagle and good day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 00aubie
FWIW I tagged you because you were part of the four page back and forth. We have had discussions here before and I had the opinion that you were a rational thinker capable of good discussion. I now recognise my mistake and will avoid engaging you in the future. Kerryon Pontius
Just so I understand:
You tagged me and I responded “ok”.
You then decided to be a smartass and tell me how “delightful” I am based off of a two letter response.
I returned you’re smartassery and now I’m no longer a rational not reasonable.
Yeah, that sounds about right for this place. If I were you I would go so far as to employ the ignore feature. You don’t want to have to deal with those irrational and unreasonable two letter responses. Sorry I was so harsh that you felt the need to offer such a reasonable and rational smartass response.

Have a great day.
 
You’ve had to backtrack twice now... spare me the long-winded diatribe.
Have I? Do share.
One clarification = 2 backtracks.
Seems about right in your hyperbole world.

Is that short-winded enough?
 
No matter how many times you say it or try to defend.. To say that there is no thought diversity or political thought diversity in nyc is fugging retarded.

If you want to say, New York always votes blue for president.. That's fine.. But just try to not say this dumb ass shit anymore.

War eagle and good day.
The point is absolutely 100% correct.
NYC is a single note political city. There is absolutely 0 political diversity in the city in regards to this discussion which is about a national election.
The fact that you can’t just admit that is silly in and of itself. The fact that you’re trying to suggest that the point is “retarded” (grow the hell up) is laughable.

War Eagle and you have a great day!
 
Just so I understand:
You tagged me and I responded “ok”.
You then decided to be a smartass and tell me how “delightful” I am based off of a two letter response.
I returned you’re smartassery and now I’m no longer a rational not reasonable.
Yeah, that sounds about right for this place. If I were you I would go so far as to employ the ignore feature. You don’t want to have to deal with those irrational and unreasonable two letter responses. Sorry I was so harsh that you felt the need to offer such a reasonable and rational smartass response.

Have a great day.
You could have simply not responded, but you chose to be a grumpy blumpkin. I'm sure you're just having a rough day. My thoughts and prayers are with you.
 
The point is absolutely 100% correct.
NYC is a single note political city. There is absolutely 0 political diversity in the city in regards to this discussion which is about a national election.
The fact that you can’t just admit that is silly in and of itself. The fact that you’re trying to suggest that the point is “retarded” (grow the hell up) is laughable.

War Eagle and you have a great day!

Donald fvcking Trump himself hails from New York... but there’s no political diversity.

Hell, it took revelations of a wannabe televangelist and known con-artist being banned from a mall and highly questionable behavior towards children before losing his Alabama Senate race by TWO PERCENT. What a bastion of diversity.

The truth is that there are plenty of members of both parties in all locales across the country.
 
You could have simply not responded, but you chose to be a grumpy blumpkin. I'm sure you're just having a rough day. My thoughts and prayers are with you.
I said “ok”. As in, that’s a reasonable point. I acknowledged your statement.
You took that two letter response and turned it into whatever this is you’re describing and then decided to be an ass.
It does seem like one of us is having a rough day. For you to decide “ok” is a “grumpy blumpkin”)whatever that even means) response might give us a clue as to who that might be.

I hope it gets better for you. Again, I’ll try and dial back those harsh, “grumpy” two letter responses.
 
I said “ok”. As in, that’s a reasonable point. I acknowledged your statement.
You took that two letter response and turned it into whatever this is you’re describing and then decided to be an ass.
It does seem like one of us is having a rough day. For you to decide “ok” is a “grumpy blumpkin”)whatever that even means) response might give us a clue as to who that might be.

I hope it gets better for you. Again, I’ll try and dial back those harsh, “grumpy” two letter responses.
Again, I'll pray for you. I hope that brings you peace.
 
The point is absolutely 100% correct.
NYC is a single note political city. There is absolutely 0 political diversity in the city in regards to this discussion which is about a national election.
The fact that you can’t just admit that is silly in and of itself. The fact that you’re trying to suggest that the point is “retarded” (grow the hell up) is laughable.

War Eagle and you have a great day!
You're being intentionally dumb (or naive).. And it's a bad look.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DisplacedBarner1003
Donald fvcking Trump himself hails from New York... but there’s no political diversity.

Hell, it took revelations of a wannabe televangelist and known con-artist being banned from a mall and highly questionable behavior towards children before losing his Alabama Senate race by TWO PERCENT. What a bastion of diversity.

The truth is that there are plenty of members of both parties in all locales across the country.
Bless your heart! You’re so triggered your naming individual people as evidence of the political diversity of a city of 8.6 million.

Then you try to discuss the lack of diversity of Alabama which I’ve previously pointed out at least twice itt. I even used the exact example you site to say, Alabama is just as bad.

NYC -
- republican mayor for 10 of the last 70 years.
- republican borough presidents 7 of 45 in the past 70 years.
- republican city council members 4 of 51.

Yep, that the picture of diversity. I don’t know what I was thinking...
 
You're being intentionally dumb (or naive).. And it's a bad look.
If you define “dumb” as 100% accurate, then I guess I agree. Seems odd but whatever.

You got any data to support your point? What am I saying, we both knownthe answer to that question, don’t we?
 
Bless your heart! You’re so triggered your naming individual people as evidence of the political diversity of a city of 8.6 million.

Then you try to discuss the lack of diversity of Alabama which I’ve previously pointed out at least twice itt. I even used the exact example you site to say, Alabama is just as bad.

NYC -
- republican mayor for 10 of the last 70 years.
- republican borough presidents 7 of 45 in the past 70 years.
- republican city council members 4 of 51.

Yep, that the picture of diversity. I don’t know what I was thinking...

Lol... did you seriously just go the “triggered” route? So much for a second attempt at reasonableness.

Even though you’ve backtracked twice, it’s clear that you aren’t going to own your highly ignorant, broad-brush comments itt. Oh well.
 
If you define “dumb” as 100% accurate, then I guess I agree. Seems odd but whatever.

You got any data to support your point? What am I saying, we both knownthe answer to that question, don’t we?

Ok so dumb it is.
 
Bless your heart! You’re so triggered your naming individual people as evidence of the political diversity of a city of 8.6 million.

Then you try to discuss the lack of diversity of Alabama which I’ve previously pointed out at least twice itt. I even used the exact example you site to say, Alabama is just as bad.

NYC -
- republican mayor for 10 of the last 70 years.
- republican borough presidents 7 of 45 in the past 70 years.
- republican city council members 4 of 51.

Yep, that the picture of diversity. I don’t know what I was thinking...
You are better than this type of argument. The idea that someone in North Dakota would be disenfranchised because their vote counts exactly the same as someone in New York is silly. Rural areas are not very ideologically diverse, but yet you are not claiming that means they should get less weight in Congress. The idea that people who live in cities deserve less of a voice because they live in largely liberal areas is as backward as any political idea you could espouse.
 
Lol... did you seriously just go the “triggered” route? So much for a second attempt at reasonableness.

Even though you’ve backtracked twice, it’s clear that you aren’t going to own your highly ignorant, broad-brush comments itt. Oh well.
Bwahahahahaha!!! I didn’t understand that you were “attempting” to be reasonable buy pointing out that the buffoon occupying the White House is a New Yorker and repeating a point that I had already made more than once about the state in which I live. I did notice however that you completely avoided to actual data since you have none with which to counter. More excellent lawyering.

Again, I clarified a statement and owned that. You’ve yet to share these “multiple backtracks” but did anyone really expect you to? (That’s rhetorical)

I actually “own” every word I post on this board. Every single one. Feel free to save your “ignorant” insults for someone who may be affected by them. I really didn’t mean to hurt your feelings by suggesting that you shill for a party. I thought it was universally accepted. That’s on me.
 
Rthomas thinks he has everyone worked up.... Lol
 
Yes. I'm the one who was "set off". A delight indeed.
Well at least we agree on that point.

What hilarious about this response is you posted your smartass response because you were offended by the response “ok”.

Think about that for a second. You’re embarrassing yourself with this silliness.
 
Well at least we agree on that point.

What hilarious about this response is you posted your smartass response because you were offended by the response “ok”.

Think about that for a second. You’re embarrassing yourself with this silliness.
oh I wasn't offended. I was making an observation. The observation panned out to be correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AUBK
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Get back to me when you have any data to counter what I’ve shared. Any at all.
Honestly.. You're better off being binary. You are obviously a simple God fearin man.

We'll just leave it that way.

If you decide to educate yourself, on.. Oh I don't know.. The various political parties in nyc (the place I vote....) come back and dm me and we can chat on it.

I'm sorry this was all too complex for you. I will only engage when I have simple concepts to discuss.
 
You are better than this type of argument. The idea that someone in North Dakota would be disenfranchised because their vote counts exactly the same as someone in New York is silly. Rural areas are not very ideologically diverse, but yet you are not claiming that means they should get less weight in Congress. The idea that people who live in cities deserve less of a voice because they live in largely liberal areas is as backward as any political idea you could espouse.
I couldn’t care less if they are liberal or conservative. The truth is there were compromises made when the constitution was ratified so that the rural parts of the country would not be overrun by the population centers. One of those was the equal representation in the senate for every state. The other was the EC.
The political leanings of the population centers are of no consequence. The mass numbers of people in 8 to 10 locations being able to completely control the rest of the country in our one and only national election is the issue. And issue that was addressed two centuries ago, long before the current political makeup of the country.

What you’re referring to as “backward a political idea...” is literally the way the constitution sets up the presidential election.

You asked me a question earlier and I answered it with no response from you (you’re better than that). We are a collection of states. The United States of America. We have one national election and each of those states deserve to have a say in that election. That election affects them all. If you can’t understand how the mass amounts of votes from LA, NYC, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, etc in a strait popular vote election would not allow the interests of the more rural and mid American states to be heard or addressed, then you’re just not trying. I mean it’s ok if you don’t get it, but that a you thing. It has nothing to do with me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AUJMac
oh I wasn't offended. I was making an observation. The observation panned out to be correct.
Got it. So we are back to

Before today I thought you were reasonable and rational. Then I said “ok” and all of that changed.
Makes perfect sense.

The truth is, you misinterpreted the simplest of responses and desired to act like an ass and now your pride won’t let you just admit that.

No big deal but alt least be honest with yourself.
 
I couldn’t care less if they are liberal or conservative. The truth is there were compromises made when the constitution was ratified so that the rural parts of the country would not be overrun by the population centers. One of those was the equal representation in the senate for every state. The other was the EC.
The political leanings of the population centers are of no consequence. The mass numbers of people in 8 to 10 locations being able to completely control the rest of the country in our one and only national election is the issue. And issue that was addressed two centuries ago, long before the current political makeup of the country.

What you’re referring to as “backward a political idea...” is literally the way the constitution sets up the presidential election.

You asked me a question earlier and I answered it with no response from you (you’re better than that). We are a collection of states. The United States of America. We have one national election and each of those states deserve to have a say in that election. That election affects them all. If you can’t understand how the mass amounts of votes from LA, NYC, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, etc in a strait popular vote election would not allow the interests of the more rural and mid American states to be heard or addressed, then you’re just not trying. I mean it’s ok if you don’t get it, but that a you thing. It has nothing to do with me.
Rthomas gives no ****s about individual rights. He only cares for red team win.

It's become incredibly obvious.

Nevermind all the people who go without a say.... Rob just does not give a shit about them.
 
Honestly.. You're better off being binary. You are obviously a simple God fearin man.

We'll just leave it that way.

If you decide to educate yourself, on.. Oh I don't know.. The various political parties in nyc (the place I vote....) come back and dm me and we can chat on it.

I'm sorry this was all too complex for you. I will only engage when I have simple concepts to discuss.
Please share the significance of the “various political parties in NYC” on a national election. For that matter, please share their significance on local elections.
I’ll say one more time, not that it will matter, we are discussing the diversity of a city as it relates to a national election. Every the local elections show absolutely 0 evidence of the multi party diversity you’re trying to push. New York City is a blue as it gets. That’s just the absolute truth, no matter how hard you try to avoid that truth.
47-4 city council split. No seats, not even 1 for your additional parties. The American Labor party, the Federalists, the People’s Party, etc. all together can’t change the deep navy blue nature of the city.
Make no mistake, we all are aware that you live there and no one that doesn’t can offer anything of substance in your opinion (well unless they agree with you) but everything I’ve shared here are simply facts. Those can be problematic sometimes.
 
I couldn’t care less if they are liberal or conservative. The truth is there were compromises made when the constitution was ratified so that the rural parts of the country would not be overrun by the population centers. One of those was the equal representation in the senate for every state. The other was the EC.
The political leanings of the population centers are of no consequence. The mass numbers of people in 8 to 10 locations being able to completely control the rest of the country in our one and only national election is the issue. And issue that was addressed two centuries ago, long before the current political makeup of the country.

What you’re referring to as “backward a political idea...” is literally the way the constitution sets up the presidential election.

You asked me a question earlier and I answered it with no response from you (you’re better than that). We are a collection of states. The United States of America. We have one national election and each of those states deserve to have a say in that election. That election affects them all. If you can’t understand how the mass amounts of votes from LA, NYC, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, etc in a strait popular vote election would not allow the interests of the more rural and mid American states to be heard or addressed, then you’re just not trying. I mean it’s ok if you don’t get it, but that a you thing. It has nothing to do with me.

I certainly understand the EC. It was a compromise made given the dynamics of a tiny country in the 1700s. The framers were also extremely hypocritical given they purported to be committed to the ideal of all men being created equal, yet they allowed slavery to continue under the Constitution which is certainly something we should all consider backward today. Thomas Jefferson wanted to note slavery was evil as part of the Declaration of Independence, but he was overridden by others from slaveholding areas. The founders were certainly not infallible in their approach to designing our government and its absolutely right for us to now consider whether antiquated institutions are still necessary or appropriate.

You said that people in rural areas would be "disenfranchised" if their votes were counted equally to those in cities. That is obviously false. At present, rural Americans are over-represented in both the EC and the Senate. Making their voice equal to all other Americans in Presidential elections would not mean they were losing any right.
 
Got it. So we are back to

Before today I thought you were reasonable and rational. Then I said “ok” and all of that changed.
Makes perfect sense.

The truth is, you misinterpreted the simplest of responses and desired to act like an ass and now your pride won’t let you just admit that.

No big deal but alt least be honest with yourself.



Your pride won't let you admit that you came into this engagement grumpy from what I can only assume was having to actually talk to people who disagree with your opinion and calling you delightful clearly triggered you into a very Christ like sarcasm laced tirade of responses, which made me realize that I may have pegged you all wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 00aubie
Rthomas gives no ****s about individual rights. He only cares for red team win.

It's become incredibly obvious.

Nevermind all the people who go without a say.... Rob just does not give a shit about them.
Goodness gracious. This one is the best attempt at deflection yet.
Remind me again, who’s being denied their individual rights.
I know you’ve informed me that I’m a republican but this “red team” crap is silly even for you, and that’s saying something.
 
I certainly understand the EC. It was a compromise made given the dynamics of a tiny country in the 1700s. The framers were also extremely hypocritical given they purported to be committed to the ideal of all men being created equal, yet they allowed slavery to continue under the Constitution which is certainly something we should all consider backward today. Thomas Jefferson wanted to note slavery was evil as part of the Declaration of Independence, but he was overridden by others from slaveholding areas. The founders were certainly not infallible in their approach to designing our government and its absolutely right for us to now consider whether antiquated institutions are still necessary or appropriate.

You said that people in rural areas would be "disenfranchised" if their votes were counted equally to those in cities. That is obviously false. At present, rural Americans are over-represented in both the EC and the Senate. Making their voice equal to all other Americans in Presidential elections would not mean they were losing any right.
Got it. So it’s not my ideas that you find as “backwards and any political idea you could espouse” it’s the thoughts of the founders of the country.
Do you also believe that the equal representation of the senate is a “backward” idea.
Well at least that’s out there now so we know where everyone stands. Thanks for being transparent.

Oh, also thanks for the history lesson, “I certainly understand how the framers came to compromises”. I wasn’t aware of your apparent disdain for them.
 
Got it. So it’s not my ideas that you find as “backwards and any political idea you could espouse” it’s the thoughts of the founders of the country.
Do you also believe that the equal representation of the senate is a “backward” idea.
Well at least that’s out there now so we know where everyone stands. Thanks for being transparent.

Oh, also thanks for the history lesson, “I certainly understand how the framers came to compromises”. I wasn’t aware of your apparent disdain for them.
I did not say I had disdain for the founders as a group. They should be judged individually on their merits. Those who valued slavery and defended it certainly should be viewed in the proper light. Thomas Jefferson, despite being a slave owner, understood slavery was an evil institution and struggled mightily with how to deal with it during the founding of our country. His first draft of the Declaration of Independence included language condemning slavery that would have set the stage for abolition under our new government. The fact the founders as a whole got the issue of slavery wrong proves they were not infallible and thus none of their decisions or ideas should be above reproach.

Equal representation in the Senate among states was a logical way to balance power among large and small states. I don't think it should be changed.
 
Your pride won't let you admit that you came into this engagement grumpy from what I can only assume was having to actually talk to people who disagree with your opinion and calling you delightful clearly triggered you into a very Christ like sarcasm laced tirade of responses, which made me realize that I may have pegged you all wrong.
I’ve shared for years, that I would always rather have a reasonable conversation, but if you want to be an asshole, I’m your huckleberry for that as well.
My response to your post was “ok”. What followed is completely laid at your feet. You took the lead and I followed. Your idea of this weak little Christian who should lay down and get walked on just isn’t me. Sorry I don’t fit your cartoon character.
I’m all for reasonable, rational conversation but if you want to be an ass, I got plenty of that in me as well.
Just so you understand, no one minute in this two day conversation with multiple people have I been mad or even irritated. I’m enjoy debate. I defend my point vigorously. It’s who I am. I don’t have to be upset to do that. You guys think arguing means mad. I can have this argument and never think twice about it tomorrow. It’s just conversation.
 
I did not say I had disdain for the founders as a group. They should be judged individually on their merits. Those who valued slavery and defended it certainly should be viewed in the proper light. Thomas Jefferson, despite being a slave owner, understood slavery was an evil institution and struggled mightily with how to deal with it during the founding of our country. His first draft of the Declaration of Independence included language condemning slavery that would have set the stage for abolition under our new government. The fact the founders as a whole got the issue of slavery wrong proves they were not infallible and thus none of their decisions or ideas should be above reproach.

Equal representation in the Senate among states was a logical way to balance power among large and small states. I don't think it should be changed.
Slavery is a fantastic rabbit to attempt to chase. Maybe you think I’m all for that compromise. I do find it funny that you think Jefferson should get a pass. He compromised his ideals and owned other humans. He’s as guilty as anyone. The others who agreed to sign (whether they owned or not) are just as guilty. On the matter of slavery, there is not one of the founders that is without guilt.
So you think the out of proportion representation that is the senate is a good compromise but the same attempt to protect rural ag states are n presidential elections was an over reach.
Got it. Seems consistent.
 
Slavery is a fantastic rabbit to attempt to chase. Maybe you think I’m all for that compromise. I do find it funny that you think Jefferson should get a pass. He compromised his ideals and owned other humans. He’s as guilty as anyone. The others who agreed to sign (whether they owned or not) are just as guilty. On the matter of slavery, there is not one of the founders that is without guilt.
So you think the out of proportion representation that is the senate is a good compromise but the same attempt to protect rural ag states are n presidential elections was an over reach.
Got it. Seems consistent.
No. Where did I say Jefferson should get a pass? He deserves credit for the fact that he acknowledged slavery was evil and attempted to set the stage for abolition. He should obviously still be rightfully viewed as someone who participated in the evil practice.

Both the Senate and the EC were compromises to appease smaller states. Of the two, the Senate is the most logical and thus I have no problem with it continuing. I do not believe the founders intent with the EC was to allow one party to repeatedly win the Presidency despite losing the popular vote. Even if that was their intent, its further evidence they were fallible and its a mistake that we should be fixed.
 
Bwahahahahaha!!! I didn’t understand that you were “attempting” to be reasonable buy pointing out that the buffoon occupying the White House is a New Yorker and repeating a point that I had already made more than once about the state in which I live. I did notice however that you completely avoided to actual data since you have none with which to counter. More excellent lawyering.

Again, I clarified a statement and owned that. You’ve yet to share these “multiple backtracks” but did anyone really expect you to? (That’s rhetorical)

I actually “own” every word I post on this board. Every single one. Feel free to save your “ignorant” insults for someone who may be affected by them. I really didn’t mean to hurt your feelings by suggesting that you shill for a party. I thought it was universally accepted. That’s on me.

I tried to be reasonable, but you just won't let it go.

Backtrack #1

They are “swing” states because the actually have diversity of thought. The urban population centers I referred to lack that and yet dominate population.

Backtrack #2

Maybe hitting too close to home? Nah, couldn’t be that. You support the electoral college...

Please share where I questioned your support of the EC? That’s gonna take a while because it didn’t happen...

Now, are you going to even acknowledge that I support a system that disfavors Democrats while continuing to claim that I'm a shill? Or just continue to show your ass?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AUBK
No. Where did I say Jefferson should get a pass? He deserves credit for the fact that he acknowledged slavery was evil and attempted to set the stage for abolition. He should obviously still be rightfully viewed as someone who participated in the evil practice.

Both the Senate and the EC were compromises to appease smaller states. Of the two, the Senate is the most logical and thus I have no problem with it continuing. I do not believe the founders intent with the EC was to allow one party to repeatedly win the Presidency despite losing the popular vote. Even if that was their intent, its further evidence they were fallible and its a mistake that we should be fixed.
What your describing is something that has happened a total of 5 times in the countries history. It has happened 2 times in the past in the past 20 years. Let’s pump the breaks a bit before we declare that this is something that is going to or has happened “repeatedly”.

As I’ve stated, which laughably gets lost in this discussion as the gang here has decided that my “red team” is all I care about, I’m the only person itt that has offered a workable compromise that would change the way the EC is done. I was the one who openly stated and have stated for years that the EC should be overhauled. I don’t believe the EV should be done away with because the same issue that cause them to create it, still exist today. Maybe even more so.
 
I tried to be reasonable, but you just won't let it go.

Backtrack #1



Backtrack #2





Now, are you going to even acknowledge that I support a system that disfavors Democrats while continuing to claim that I'm a shill? Or just continue to show your ass?
This is sad.
No “backtrack” exists at all.
As I’ve said multiple times, I clarified, expounded upon my original “diversity of thought” comment. What I have explained couldn’t be more reasonable. If you can’t get that (you can because you’re smart but you just refuse to acknowledge it) I’m sorry.

You asked me a direct question about “backtrack #2” (so ridiculously weak) and I already stated that I was not asserting that you didn’t support the EC. I haven’t once suggested you didn’t support the EC.
The partial quote you shared to support this silliness is in response to you suggesting that because you support the EC that it’s ridiculous that I suggested that you are a “team player” for the Democrats. I didn’t once question your support of the EC. Just like the other guy though (can’t remember his handle) your pride won’t allow you to just admit, you misinterpreted my statement and have been pushing a false narrative ever since.
I’m trying to figure out when exactly it was that you were trying so hard to be reasonable. Was it when you were refusing to accept my owning that I misspoke and correcting it. Way it when you continually pushed a failed narrative of my position or was it when you referred to my position as “ignorant”. I just want to see where I missed the reasonable posts.
Thanks in advance.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT