[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[Lacius]

Get your Brian Stelter government disinfo and propaganda off the forum. All getting rid of the electoral college does is make it a million times easier to commit voter fraud. With the electoral college, to rig the vote you have to infilitrate numerous states and rig them all. Without it, you just rig one big state and claim 100% of people living in NY voted Hillary.

The only potential widespread fraud I can come up with is contingent upon the Electoral College, where the Trump campaign hypothetically gets something like the Pennsylvania legislature to throw out the votes of the people on their state and pledge their delegates to Trump instead. Please get your facts straight.

 

[Deleted User]

We disagree because without the Electoral College, every election would be determined by only three states.

Yeah we don't need California New York + all the illegals there deciding every election. Dems would love that of course.

What I think we really need and I think even most Dems would agree. Just split into two countries. We're too different and don't want any part of one another.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The only potential widespread fraud I can come up with is contingent upon the Electoral College, where the Trump campaign hypothetically gets something like the Pennsylvania legislature to throw out the votes of the people on their state and pledge their delegates to Trump instead. Please get your facts straight.

Yeah there's absolutely no one selling their mail in vote right now. You're heads not in the sand at all.

 

[omgcat]

Yeah we don't need California New York + all the illegals there deciding every election. Dems would love that of course.

What I think we really need and I think even most Dems would agree. Just split into two countries. We're too different and don't want any part of one another.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Yeah there's absolutely no one selling their mail in vote right now. You're heads not in the sand at all.

you don't need us deciding all the elections, but you sure do need our sweet sweet federal tax dollars. honestly CA and NY should stop sending in federal taxes if trump wins the election, we didn't receive any federal aid for our fires, and NY didn't receive aid for their Covid-19 outbreak, so all the red states shouldn't get our handouts.

 

[Deleted User]

you don't need us deciding all the elections, but you sure do need our sweet sweet federal tax dollars. honestly CA and NY should stop sending in federal taxes if trump wins the election, we didn't receive any federal aid for our fires, and NY didn't receive aid for their Covid-19 outbreak, so all the red states shouldn't get our handouts.

When you're right you're right. California and New York should just leave the United States. (which is what happens when you don't pay any federal taxes) Please do.

Both are cesspools.

 

[omgcat]

When you're right you're right. California and New York should just leave the United States. (which is what happens when you don't pay any federal taxes) Please do.

Both are cesspools.

hell yeah, cesspools that contribute to 22% of the USA's GDP.

 

[Deleted User]

hell yeah, cesspools that contribute to 22% of the USA's GDP.

We'd manage without you somehow. Dems would be completely out of power. The country would thrive actually.

 

[omgcat]

We'd manage without you somehow. Dems would be completely out of power. The country would thrive actually.

you'd be losing your largest tech sectors, and an extremely large percent of your food production, but sure sounds smart.

 

[Deleted User]

you'd be losing your largest tech sectors, and an extremely large percent of your food production, but sure sounds smart.

We'd be fine.

But you're not going anywhere unfortunately.

 

[omgcat]

We'd be fine.

But you're not going anywhere unfortunately.

yeah we're not going anywhere, cause the deep south would collapse and die without us.

 

[gregory-samba]

We disagree because without the Electoral College, every election would be determined by only three states.

The electoral college was never a problem for the Liberals until their candidate lost.

When Clinton and Obama won there was no complaining about the electoral college.

I wonder what the Liberals reaction would be if in November Trump wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college votes?

 

[Deleted User]

yeah we're not going anywhere, cause the deep south would collapse and die without us.

Keep telling yourself that.

There actually would still be 48 states. Not all of them in the South.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It's funny how Texas has no state income tax and second biggest population but has no debt. While New York charges the highest taxes in the country, and is drowning in it. Neither California or New York could survive as a seperate country so yeah you're not going anywhere.

 

[omgcat]

Keep telling yourself that.

There actually would still be 48 states. Not all of them in the South.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It's funny how Texas has no state income tax and second biggest population but has no debt. While New York charges the highest taxes in the country, and is drowning in it.

you don't understand, CA contributes more to the GDP of the USA than the lowest 25 states COMBINED. if we leave, or stop participating with the rest of the USA, you guys are fucked. full stop.

 

[Lacius]

Yeah we don't need California New York + all the illegals there deciding every election. Dems would love that of course.

What I think we really need and I think even most Dems would agree. Just split into two countries. We're too different and don't want any part of one another.

The Democratic voters in New York and California combined make up approximately 10% of the total electorate in the United States. There is also no evidence that any significant number of illegal immigrants are voting in US elections.

You know what is absurd? In the Electoral College, it is entirely possible for a candidate in 2016 to have gotten less than 27% of the vote and still won the Electoral College, and that's not even talking about faithless electors, meddling state legislatures hypothetically throwing out the votes of their citizens, etc. The Electoral College is a joke.

The electoral college was never a problem for the Liberals until their candidate lost.

When Clinton and Obama won there was no complaining about the electoral college.

I wonder what the Liberals reaction would be if in November Trump wins the popular vote, but loses the electoral college votes?

The Electoral College has always been a problem. There have been bipartisan efforts to try to get rid of it for a very long time. I suggest you educate yourself.

 

[Deleted User]

you don't understand, CA contributes more to the GDP of the USA than the lowest 25 states COMBINED. if we leave, or stop participating with the rest of the USA, you guys are fucked. full stop.

Fake news, because you're leaving out the part where you receive Federal money. Just because the U.S. Government has decided not to fix your own personal problem of forest fires doesn't mean you're not getting ANY money. This post is not biased it says you'd do ok without United States too.

California is 14% of US GDP and 12% of the population. On average Californians are about 17% more productive than the US average. California provides the US with 13.3% of its taxes— roughly 11% more per capita than the US average. It receives about $350B in Federal spending for $400B in Federal taxes so the US would lose about $50B in tax revenue per year. Losing California would be a serious loss but the United States is still pretty large without California. The US would do okay and California would do fine as well— probably better.

 

[omgcat]

California should lay a tariff on food being sent to states with a negative federal tax input. something like 25-40%. southern states would immediately collapse.

 

[Deleted User]

California should lay a tariff on food being sent to states with a negative federal tax input. something like 25-40%. southern states would immediately collapse.

Please do, we'd cut you off in a second. It's not like you're the only freaking state with food Jesus christ. Your state doesn't make up the farming community much.

 

[Lacius]

Fake news, because you're leaving out the part where you receive Federal money. Just because the U.S. Government has decided not to fix your own personal problem of forest fires doesn't mean you're not getting ANY money. This post is not biased it says you'd do ok without United States too.

California is 14% of US GDP and 12% of the population. On average Californians are about 17% more productive than the US average. California provides the US with 13.3% of its taxes— roughly 11% more per capita than the US average. It receives about $350B in Federal spending for $400B in Federal taxes so the US would lose about $50B in tax revenue per year. Losing California would be a serious loss but the United States is still pretty large without California. The US would do okay and California would do fine as well— probably better.

California should lay a tariff on food being sent to states with a negative federal tax input. something like 25-40%. southern states would immediately collapse.

Or we could just make every vote equal.

 

[gregory-samba]

Fake news, because you're leaving out the part where you receive Federal money. Just because the U.S. Government has decided not to fix your own personal problem of forest fires doesn't mean you're not getting ANY money. This post is not biased it says you'd do ok without United States too.

California is 14% of US GDP and 12% of the population. On average Californians are about 17% more productive than the US average. California provides the US with 13.3% of its taxes— roughly 11% more per capita than the US average. It receives about $350B in Federal spending for $400B in Federal taxes so the US would lose about $50B in tax revenue per year. Losing California would be a serious loss but the United States is still pretty large without California. The US would do okay and California would do fine as well— probably better.

It's also one of the first states to legalize addictive drugs, stop cops from arresting people if they steal property worth less than $900.00 USD, has a very serious homeless drug addict problem and is about to decriminalize having sex with children. If this is "progress" the progressives are talking about then no thanks, I don't want any. Allowing them to hang themselves would probably be the best option here, but since they are part of the USA we simply have to put up with their sins and wickedness, unfortunately.

 

[Deleted User]

I would love to see what happens. Who would be more likely to survive New York who can't stay out of debt despite charging the highest taxes or the United States. California is a little more respectable I give them that they might do ok. But New York would be bankrupt as a country in 6 months.

 

[Lacius]

It's also one of the first states to legalize addictive drugs, stop cops from arresting people if they steal property worth less than $900.00 USD, has a very serious homeless drug addict problem and is about to decriminalize having sex with children. If this is "progress" the progressives are talking about then no thanks, I don't want any. Allowing them to hang themselves would probably be the best option here, but since they are part of the USA we simply have to put up with their sins and wickedness, unfortunately.

Half these things aren't true.