2020 Democratic Platform

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Sep 29, 2011
584
111
593
59
Breckenridge, CO
#21
GumbyFromPokeyLand wants to mislead you. There is no such thing as a 2020 Democrat Platform. It is true that there is the 2016 Democrat Platform, and there is not a word in it about:

- Expansion of the Supreme Court
- Abolish Electoral College
- Green New Deal
- Expansion of Illegal's rights

Democrats support a legal immigration system, but believe the current one is broken and needs fixed.
Of course none of the above were in the 2016 Dem platform. The first two are only because they lost the 2016 election. The third because of newly elected liberal whackos. And the last because its the opposite of what Trump wants. And BTW, of course Liberals support legal immigration. They also (for the most part) do not oppose illegal immigration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,771
2,187
743
Where else but Stillwater
#25
If you abolish the Electoral College we are no longer a republic and the less populated areas will be ignored
Most states large and small are already ignored because they are reliably Republican or Democrat. So about all of the electioneering is concentrated in the 12--15 close states of which only 3 or so are small. More states would be visited if only popular votes were counted.
 
Sep 29, 2011
584
111
593
59
Breckenridge, CO
#27
If you abolish the Electoral College we are no longer a republic and the less populated areas will be ignored
Most states large and small are already ignored because they are reliably Republican or Democrat. So about all of the electioneering is concentrated in the 12--15 close states of which only 3 or so are small. More states would be visited if only popular votes were counted.
Visited? Is that your idea of a Republic?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
6,968
6,540
1,743
Tulsa
#28
Most states large and small are already ignored because they are reliably Republican or Democrat. So about all of the electioneering is concentrated in the 12--15 close states of which only 3 or so are small. More states would be visited if only popular votes were counted.
And again you are wrong.look at a freaking map of the past few elections. See the YUGE red everywhere except a few small areas of blue which are the big cities. It would only get worse under a popular vote. The ONLY way to get more states visited equitably is to award each electoral college vote by the results in each congressional district. But Dims won't do that because they would lose about a third of CA and NY and they would never win.
 
Nov 16, 2013
3,327
2,017
743
33
tractor
#29
And again you are wrong.look at a freaking map of the past few elections. See the YUGE red everywhere except a few small areas of blue which are the big cities. It would only get worse under a popular vote. The ONLY way to get more states visited equitably is to award each electoral college vote by the results in each congressional district. But Dims won't do that because they would lose about a third of CA and NY and they would never win.
Yep
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,771
2,187
743
Where else but Stillwater
#30
And again you are wrong.look at a freaking map of the past few elections. See the YUGE red everywhere except a few small areas of blue which are the big cities. It would only get worse under a popular vote. The ONLY way to get more states visited equitably is to award each electoral college vote by the results in each congressional district. But Dims won't do that because they would lose about a third of CA and NY and they would never win.
No, you are wrong for wanting to keep the Electoral College. President Trump, who many Republicans richly admire and look forward to reelecting him, says you're wrong. The Gallup poll says you're wrong. No wonder. Every state would look attractive as a place to get votes, since it's not a winner take all. The Republican campaign may get 10 million votes in California by repeatedly visiting California. While it may not be enough to win California, it may be enough to help win the popular vote.

 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,771
2,187
743
Where else but Stillwater
#31
"Remember, we won the election. And we won it easily. You know, a lot of people say ‘Oh, it was close.’ And by the way, they also like to always talk about Electoral College. Well, it’s an election based on the Electoral College. I would rather have a popular election, but it’s a totally different campaign. It’s as though you're running — if you're a runner, you're practicing for the 100-yard dash as opposed to the 1-mile.

I would rather see it, where you went with simple votes. You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this. Because it brings all the states into play. I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and move to the popular election of our president.” President Donald Trump
 
Last edited:

pokes16

Territorial Marshal
Oct 16, 2003
6,968
6,540
1,743
Tulsa
#32
And yet another, Oh Townie moment. Your debate skills were honed at the third grade level. You set up straw men so you can knock them down. You scream extreme Christian Right almost as well as San Fran Nan, as if that will instantly make any weak argument you conjure stronger. And in this case, you point to authority in Trump. The problem is you have zero idea why Republicans like Trump to begin with. And you somehow think that we agree with his every utterance. You never bring an original thought to the table. And your schtick at this point is just annoying. Like arguing with the 3rd grader as I stated earlier. As the great philosopher Johnny Dangerously once said to Danny Vermin, You know, I'm bored with slapping you around. It bores me.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,741
24,025
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#33
No, you are wrong for wanting to keep the Electoral College. President Trump, who many Republicans richly admire and look forward to reelecting him, says you're wrong. The Gallup poll says you're wrong. No wonder. Every state would look attractive as a place to get votes, since it's not a winner take all. The Republican campaign may get 10 million votes in California by repeatedly visiting California. While it may not be enough to win California, it may be enough to help win the popular vote.

We are not a Democracy and this shows that even the president can be ignorant of that fact (although in 2012, he was a Democrat).
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,741
24,025
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#34
Every state would look attractive as a place to get votes, since it's not a winner take all
Oklahoma's EV's are 1.3% of the total EV's available. In 2016, the total votes cast in Oklahoma were 1.06% of the total votes cast in the country. You are simply flat out 100% completely wrong to say getting rid of the EC makes every state look more attractive. It does not.
The population of New York City is 8.6 million (just the city). The population of Oklahoma is 3.9 million (the whole state). You can't be this dense.
 

kaboy42

Territorial Marshal
May 2, 2007
7,805
8,377
1,743
#35
Oklahoma's EV's are 1.3% of the total EV's available. In 2016, the total votes cast in Oklahoma were 1.06% of the total votes cast in the country. You are simply flat out 100% completely wrong to say getting rid of the EC makes every state look more attractive. It does not.
The population of New York City is 8.6 million (just the city). The population of Oklahoma is 3.9 million (the whole state). You can't be this dense.
Oh but he is! :blink: He's proven it time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time on here.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,771
2,187
743
Where else but Stillwater
#36
And yet another, Oh Townie moment. Your debate skills were honed at the third grade level. You set up straw men so you can knock them down. You scream extreme Christian Right almost as well as San Fran Nan, as if that will instantly make any weak argument you conjure stronger. And in this case, you point to authority in Trump. The problem is you have zero idea why Republicans like Trump to begin with. And you somehow think that we agree with his every utterance. You never bring an original thought to the table. And your schtick at this point is just annoying. Like arguing with the 3rd grader as I stated earlier. As the great philosopher Johnny Dangerously once said to Danny Vermin, You know, I'm bored with slapping you around. It bores me.
Then make no doubt about it, whatsoever, we will have to quite strongly disagree to agree when it comes to the Electoral College.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,771
2,187
743
Where else but Stillwater
#37
Oklahoma's EV's are 1.3% of the total EV's available. In 2016, the total votes cast in Oklahoma were 1.06% of the total votes cast in the country. You are simply flat out 100% completely wrong to say getting rid of the EC makes every state look more attractive. It does not.
The population of New York City is 8.6 million (just the city). The population of Oklahoma is 3.9 million (the whole state). You can't be this dense.
Face it you and kaboy are all out WRONG. Once again, 10 million popular votes in California for the Republican candidate for president will look a lot more attractive to campaign for, unlike with the Electoral College when the Democrat candidate can take all after getting 10,000,001 votes. By the same token, 1 million popular votes in Oklahoma for the Democrat will look much better than before for the Democrats. So please change your minds and start supporting the end of the Electoral College. Or must we wait until Republicans start losing the Electoral College with a winning popular vote before you will remotely consider doing that?
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
16,771
2,187
743
Where else but Stillwater
#38
Oh but he is! :blink: He's proven it time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time after time on here.
LOL, kaboy42, you most certainly didn't make your case for your support of the Electoral College with the above repeated nonsense, but, hey, I'll take it. But are you sure you're not in high school?
 

oks10

Territorial Marshal
Sep 9, 2007
8,033
6,734
1,743
Yukon, OK
#39
Face it you and kaboy are all out WRONG. Once again, 10 million popular votes in California for the Republican candidate for president will look a lot more attractive to campaign for, unlike with the Electoral College when the Democrat candidate can take all after getting 10,000,001 votes. By the same token, 1 million popular votes in Oklahoma for the Democrat will look much better than before for the Democrats. So please change your minds and start supporting the end of the Electoral College. Or must we wait until Republicans start losing the Electoral College with a winning popular vote before you will remotely consider doing that?
Do you really not see how the comments you've made throughout this thread completely contradict each other?? Like, honest question. You go on and on about how smaller states would get more attention and talk about a republican win in Cali would "mean" more. How the heck do you think republicans would win California? By giving smaller states more attention?! Really?!
 
Jul 25, 2018
1,663
467
213
48
Boulder, CO
#40
Face it you and kaboy are all out WRONG. Once again, 10 million popular votes in California for the Republican candidate for president will look a lot more attractive to campaign for, unlike with the Electoral College when the Democrat candidate can take all after getting 10,000,001 votes. By the same token, 1 million popular votes in Oklahoma for the Democrat will look much better than before for the Democrats. So please change your minds and start supporting the end of the Electoral College. Or must we wait until Republicans start losing the Electoral College with a winning popular vote before you will remotely consider doing that?
**sigh, out of pity**

How many times do you need this question answered? People answered it before, but you just said they were lying, so wtf would anyone want to answer you, yet again, on this?

Don't bother answering.