If the Democrats tried to do this....
- Thread starter kalimgoodman
- Start date
Only point of contention here is the term “last holdouts” leads one to believe they have done it this way since their beginning.
They haven’t. What Kalim conveniently leaves out is Nebraska didn’t do it this way until 1992. And as far as the “timing being sketchy”, this is something they have been debating and even trying to pass legislation on for years. Hell, this same issue came up in 2016 for a vote.
Kalim fell for talking points, again. It is what it is. Embarrassing.
That was actually my words not his, and I meant holdouts as in literally every single state does it the same way but Nebraska and Maine. No idea why Nebraska changed it up in the first place.
Add a shot of 151 and he may never leave your side 😂
Yessir. That’s why I quoted and responded to you. Just wanted to point out they hadn’t done it this way for long. Yet I am sure the guy trying to point out “hypocrisy” has an older thread here somewhere where he called out the Dem who began the legislation that made this change in 1992.
I will link the thread that verifies he isn’t being a hypocrite below the article discussing the Dem who started this change to help manipulate elections.
Nebraska and Maine split their electoral vote. Is it a better system than winner-take-all?
Every four years, the 2nd Congressional Districts in Nebraska and Maine become mini swing states in the presidential election. That’s because those states can split their electoral vote by district, instead of giving all the votes to the popular vote winner. Does the split vote approach offer a...
nebraskapublicmedia.org
“DiAnna Schimek (a Democrat) said when she heard about the split electoral approach at a conference, she immediately thought it was a better way to represent voters. The former state senator also hoped it would bring more presidential campaigns to the state and motivate voters.
“It just blew me away. I thought it sounded so good, so fair, and a better way of distributing votes,” Schimek said. “I came home all jazzed and ready to introduce something when the legislature started.”
@kalimgoodman thread discussing how upset he was about the 1992 change and proving he is no hypocrite. ⬇️⬇️⬇️
Typical full of bs/ inaccuracies response. Nothing I say to you will make a difference because you "know, what you know". So ok.
Well, why don't you take a moment to dissect this post and tell the class why they're lies.
Because I don't buy your independent status either.
Since I respect your intentions, Ill say more. It is WELL documented. As I said earlier, I don't like saying the same thing over and over. It's pretty clear that they don't believe and will never believe, so why waste anymore time discussing it?
Like you said that you are not a R, I am not going to post every other day saying that I don't believe you. It's a waste of time (IMO). They made their peace, so move on. Makes sense?
If it walks like a duck, etc. I'm a libertarian, and my posts reflect that. Yours reflect democrat, because your politics align as such.
Sure I do. Ever heard my thoughts on drugs, prostitution, and school prayer?
As I said, I'm a libertarian. Well mostly, I don't believe in open borders.
Its none of my business what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.
It's none of my business what adults injest.
Prayer was never taken out of school they merely stopped forcing everyone to take part in an organized fashion.
I am fairly liberal on most social issues.
I'm also rabidly anti government. I'm of the opinion that any situation can be made worse by adding politicians.
@LordofallSocks definitely not Republican. He’s a Libertarian as am I.
I will concede I’m closer to the right than the left though. That’s for sure.
I will concede I’m closer to the right than the left though. That’s for sure.
Not sure how anyone could argue the last point isn’t true.
I will concede above the local government level, I am a de facto Republican, in that I'm simply not voting Democrat as long as they are anti gun and open borders.
I don't believe in open borders, same about bedrooms, same with drugs, I agree with you on prayer, I am liberal on most social issues too, except calling a trans a women and calling straight people CIS. I don't trust the government to develop but they need to regulate because businesses have shown to do harm for profit. I just don't like over regulations.
I call people what they want to be called, it doesn't cost me anything.
But I will be damned if I'm going to refer to myself as cis because I was born exactly as humans were designed to be.
There's this idea that normal is somehow a dirty or bigoted word.
The fact of the matter is abnormal is a scientific term, not a judgement.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay and never had a problem with trans people until they started being hateful and messing with kids, but the fact is they present abnormally. You are not supposed to be attracted to the same sex and you are supposed to align with your chromosomal gender. If you don't, you're abnormal. Doesn't make you bad, just different.
Unless you're messing with kids, then eff you.
Somewhere along the line as a society it’s become taboo to admit someone is different. I don’t get it either.
I respect what they want to be called, I am not a d*** but it doesn't mean that I agree. I don't because of my science background. I have no issues with people being gay. I find it odd that so many people care.
We align more than you think. Guess you are a "liberal", like me (no I am not saying i am).
I've told you before, liberal is not a dirty word. Classic liberalism is pro liberty.
Progressive liberalism is not.
Certainly one of Trump’s great impacts is: he taught Republicans how to fight like Democrats!!!
I like it!
I like it!
Brother I am with you. I am not a Republican either as I am disgusted with many pubs and 99 percent of dems.
I consider myself more libertarian as well, but on social issues my take is a little different. Example:
As I have stated multiple times….take marriage. IMO, I believe if the Government had stayed out of it (licenses, tax breaks etc) then Gay marriage wouldn’t be an issue.
My approach on social issues is fairly nuanced depending on each issue. One more example: on Abortion, my libertarianism is Trumped (no pun) by my faith, and my belief/opinion on our Founders intentions. (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness). How do I square a womans 2nd choice because she didn’t like the consequences of her first Choice, with the Right to LIFE?
No I don’t care to debate it, just showing the nuance.
Last edited:
I call people what they are because…science. I also don’t believe in enabling illness. Whether it be addiction, mental etc..
Why? Because that’s more caring and loving than enabling is, by alot. We are denying people the help they require by enabling them.
