Nobody is trying to, or even thinks it is possible, to convince ppl like you and trump supporters to vote against trump or other racists.

Yall are the definition of lost causes.

I think we are genuinely watching a president learn about how government works as he goes along.

I told you guys Anderson Cooper should have asked him how a bill becomes a law at the debate.

GTFO. I wasn't trying to "convict" Trump of something he hasn't done yet. I merely was making a prediction. And if I want to berate him for stupid **** that he has already done, I have plenty to choose from.

It was clear to anyone who watched the debates he doesn't have a clue how government works. That's probably why 2,900,000 more people voted for Hillary.

Doubtful.

I love Twitter

Well, I mean it would be hard to be more unequal than the current system using any criteria. But I would think wealth, income, job stability, job flexibility, criminal record, housing situation (including how often you've moved in the past 5 years), education level, general maturity as best as can be determined, and some other factors would be incorporated.

Furthermore, this is not only an issue for newborn children as it also comes into play in divorces with kids who have spent years in a home with both parents playing a role in their upbringing. In many of these cases a father could easily be better as a single parent than a mother, but they are very rarely given the opportunity.

Wookie,

I think this abortion stuff is a perfectly legit discussion to have, but not here. Can't you extract or move it.

A killer - so what? It's not like he insulted Dear Leader.



Alternate version

O'Reilly: Do you respect Putin?
Trump: I do, but--
O'Reilly: Do you? Why?
Trump: blah blah leader blah blah ISIS blah blah
O'Reilly: Putin's A killer.
Trump: Great point, Bill. That too.

I don't think that makes it easier. Someone posted the numbers this year if we did it that way and Hillary would have won by 1 electoral vote. I forgot the tally but I think it was 261-260 with Johnson and Stein splitting the rest.

Republicans aren't going to ****ing do it nationwide for ****'s sake. They are only doing it in states where it benefits them, like MN, MI, VA, PA.

No, republicans are only trying to do it in blue states. If blue states are all proportional and red states are winner take all then there will never again be a democratic president.

The system needs to be changed to award things proportionally based on how close the state was, not congressional districts. So a state such as Georgia has 16 electoral votes, so if the state is won 51-49% by a candidate that candidate wins the electoral votes for that state 9-7. I don't see why they don't just do it this way, it's more fair and would encourage people in a state like New York who are conservative or Texas who are liberal to come out and try and make things closer

Republicans aren't concerned with fair.

"The system needs to be changed..." has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Republicans will try to do whatever they can get away with to rig the vote in their favor.

That's fine and certainly better than what we've got. But still inferior to popular vote wins.

I'm lazy. Beg tom.

BMOL33,

Why is it so bad if one can get by in South Florida without speaking English?

The electoral will never be gotten rid of because you won't get 37 states to approve it. Mostly bigger states will go for it along with smaller blue states like Delaware and Rhode Island but you can put down 14 states easily who will say no and never budge

Sure, but Republicans aren't tryign to do this. They're just trying to build an advantage into the system so that they can win presidential and congressional elections with an ever diminishing percentage of the national popular vote.

Any chance the National Popular Vote movement makes it to 270? It's where states make it law that they cast electoral votes as a single block depending on the winner of the national popular vote. Currently at 165 electoral votes.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

So you agree that the Muslim ban must go right? You know, because it's hard to prove "they" want to kill us before they do.

This problem has already been solved.

Don't need to get rid of the electoral college to make popular vote winner president:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...rstate_Compact

Definitely don't need 38 states to pass this.

Obviously. Would be funny if they accidentally got to a high enough number for that popular vote compact to kick in, thus swinging every election to the popular vote winner.