Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Dem Governor 1st to veto National Popular Vote Bill

24

Comments

  • UW_Doog_Bot
    UW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 18,047 Founders Club
    Anyways, yeah, what could go wrong if we let the top 10 or so metropolitan areas decide all of federal policy moving forward?

    I'm sure no president would resort to pork barrel type spending on urban infrastructure and welfare to buy votes at the expense of the rest of the nation. JFC millenials are fucking indoctrinated.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TurdBomber
    TurdBomber Member Posts: 20,035 Standard Supporter
    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    RaceBannon said:

    GDS said:

    Sledog said:

    The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

    The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?
    You assume the other states are static which they aren't
    I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?
    Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.
    A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

    I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.
    You should stop writing before you embarrass yourself.

    Oops. Too late.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GDS
    GDS Member Posts: 1,470
    TurdBomber said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    RaceBannon said:

    GDS said:

    Sledog said:

    The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

    The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?
    You assume the other states are static which they aren't
    I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?
    Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.
    A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

    I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.
    You should stop writing before you embarrass yourself.

    Oops. Too late.
    Imagine thinking it's embarrassing to want the person that gets the most votes to be the winner....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    GDS said:

    TurdBomber said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    RaceBannon said:

    GDS said:

    Sledog said:

    The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

    The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?
    You assume the other states are static which they aren't
    I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?
    Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.
    A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

    I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.
    You should stop writing before you embarrass yourself.

    Oops. Too late.
    Imagine thinking it's embarrassing to want the person that gets the most votes to be the winner....
    Imagine wanting the interests of just a handful of large population states to have all of the Executive power.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GDS
    GDS Member Posts: 1,470
    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    TurdBomber said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    RaceBannon said:

    GDS said:

    Sledog said:

    The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

    The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?
    You assume the other states are static which they aren't
    I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?
    Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.
    A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

    I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.
    You should stop writing before you embarrass yourself.

    Oops. Too late.
    Imagine thinking it's embarrassing to want the person that gets the most votes to be the winner....
    Imagine wanting the interests of just a handful of large population states to have all of the Executive power.
    Such a stupid lazy rebutal. The idea that a popular vote election would be decided by California, Texas and Florida is laughable.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    TurdBomber said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    RaceBannon said:

    GDS said:

    Sledog said:

    The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

    The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?
    You assume the other states are static which they aren't
    I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?
    Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.
    A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

    I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.
    You should stop writing before you embarrass yourself.

    Oops. Too late.
    Imagine thinking it's embarrassing to want the person that gets the most votes to be the winner....
    Imagine wanting the interests of just a handful of large population states to have all of the Executive power.
    Such a stupid lazy rebutal. The idea that a popular vote election would be decided by California, Texas and Florida is laughable.
    What's even lazier is a strawman ass fuck response.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • UW_Doog_Bot
    UW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 18,047 Founders Club
    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    TurdBomber said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    RaceBannon said:

    GDS said:

    Sledog said:

    The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

    The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?
    You assume the other states are static which they aren't
    I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?
    Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.
    A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

    I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.
    You should stop writing before you embarrass yourself.

    Oops. Too late.
    Imagine thinking it's embarrassing to want the person that gets the most votes to be the winner....
    Imagine wanting the interests of just a handful of large population states to have all of the Executive power.
    Such a stupid lazy rebutal. The idea that a popular vote election would be decided by California, Texas and Florida is laughable.
    Yeap, totally FS to think that you could split politics down by population density and have a stark divide between urban and non-urban centers.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    And you just know that the 1st time a Rat President win election through the EC but loses the popular vote they'll have no problem with the EC. They have no integrity. It's all just about raw political power with them.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TurdBomber
    TurdBomber Member Posts: 20,035 Standard Supporter
    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    TurdBomber said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    RaceBannon said:

    GDS said:

    Sledog said:

    The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

    The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?
    You assume the other states are static which they aren't
    I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?
    Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.
    A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

    I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.
    You should stop writing before you embarrass yourself.

    Oops. Too late.
    Imagine thinking it's embarrassing to want the person that gets the most votes to be the winner....
    Imagine wanting the interests of just a handful of large population states to have all of the Executive power.
    Such a stupid lazy rebutal. The idea that a popular vote election would be decided by California, Texas and Florida is laughable.
    Yeap, totally FS to think that you could split politics down by population density and have a stark divide between urban and non-urban centers.


    Thread winner and Thread Ender. DoogBot wins.

    Anything more is pure AIDS.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited May 2019
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TurdBomber
    TurdBomber Member Posts: 20,035 Standard Supporter
    GDS said:

    TurdBomber said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    RaceBannon said:

    GDS said:

    Sledog said:

    The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

    The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?
    You assume the other states are static which they aren't
    I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?
    Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.
    A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

    I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.
    You should stop writing before you embarrass yourself.

    Oops. Too late.
    Imagine thinking it's embarrassing to want the person that gets the most votes to be the winner....
    Jesus. What a child.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    Yeah, bullshit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited May 2019
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    Meanwhile, the Dow is up 36% since November 2016. No “big boy letter” required. My bet is you’re getting bent over with fees for nothing you can’t get with an index fund. You’re some kind of financial whiz. Idiot.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    Yeah, bullshit.
    Embarrassing.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    RaceBannon said:




    El Monte financial wizard heard from


    Not surprised you are clueless.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,726 Founders Club
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:




    El Monte financial wizard heard from


    Not surprised you are clueless.
    Well I am surprised
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    Yeah, bullshit.
    I’ll be happy to prove you’re a hapless sucker any way you’d like. Just let me know.

    I understand your shame and embarrassment.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 113,726 Founders Club
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    Yeah, bullshit.
    I’ll be happy to prove you’re a hapless sucker any way you’d like. Just let me know.

    I understand your shame and embarrassment.
    Why don't you hit him with your wallet?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    Yeah, bullshit.
    I’ll be happy to prove you’re a hapless sucker any way you’d like. Just let me know.

    I understand your shame and embarrassment.
    Cool. Prove me wrong. Lay it out. Dipshit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    Yeah, bullshit.
    I’ll be happy to prove you’re a hapless sucker any way you’d like. Just let me know.

    I understand your shame and embarrassment.
    Cool. Prove me wrong. Lay it out. Dipshit.
    Sure. Never heard of assisted living? Non-profit health care? Charter schools? Probably not. You should get back to your TD account.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,682 Standard Supporter
    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    TurdBomber said:

    GDS said:

    SFGbob said:

    GDS said:

    RaceBannon said:

    GDS said:

    Sledog said:

    The founders obviously saw one or two large cities determining the vote. Can't have that.

    The 2020 presidential election will likely boil down to about 200,000 voters in three states. Whomever wins at least two out of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan likely wins the election. How is the electoral college not an example of a few states holding the rest of the country hostage?
    You assume the other states are static which they aren't
    I said likely - not certain. You could still boil it down to 6-7 states if you want to expand beyond the three I mentioned. How is that not a few states holding the nation hostage via the EC something sled argued shouldn't happen in an election?
    Those states aren't holding the nation hostage, they are in play and could go either way. Your way would allow New York and California and Illinois and a handful of other large population liberal states to hold the entire country hostage. It would also create a system much more susceptible to fraud.
    A single voter in LA or NYC has the same power as a single voter in Cheyenne, Wyoming or Tulsa, Oklahoma in a popular vote election. Under the EC none of those votes really matter. Every other election I have seen or participated in whether it's school counsel, senate, mayor etc etc means whomever gets the most votes wins. For some reason president is the only elected office in this country that is elected in a different manner.

    I actually don't want us to scrap the EC but would to see us go to a proportional system or voting by CDs like in Nebraska and Maine. Then you might actually see candidates campaigning in places like California, Illinois, New York, Alabama, Louisiana etc etc whereby those states currently never see a presidential candidate.
    You should stop writing before you embarrass yourself.

    Oops. Too late.
    Imagine thinking it's embarrassing to want the person that gets the most votes to be the winner....
    Imagine wanting the interests of just a handful of large population states to have all of the Executive power.
    Such a stupid lazy rebutal. The idea that a popular vote election would be decided by California, Texas and Florida is laughable.
    it Could be decided by just LA, NYC and Chicago. The supposed 3 million difference last election could have just been NYC alone. Can't have that shit. That's why we are a republic.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:




    El Monte financial wizard heard from


    Not surprised you are clueless.
    Come on don't lie. That's a picture of El Monte.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited May 2019
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    Yeah, bullshit.
    I’ll be happy to prove you’re a hapless sucker any way you’d like. Just let me know.

    I understand your shame and embarrassment.
    Cool. Prove me wrong. Lay it out. Dipshit.
    Sure. Never heard of assisted living? Non-profit health care? Charter schools? Probably not. You should get back to your TD account.
    Of course I have heard of it. So you can’t provide any details that have given you more return than the Dow in the last 30 months. Got it. The numbers you laid out are pedestrian and available to anyone. 12%? The Dow is up 14. No “big boy letters” or anything.

    You’re getting worked over.

    Unless your into real estate on your own (not in REITs) you’re doing nothing special. Getting taken is my guess. An idiot like you is ripe for the picking.

    The fact you have a mortgage is all we need to know.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    Yeah, bullshit.
    I’ll be happy to prove you’re a hapless sucker any way you’d like. Just let me know.

    I understand your shame and embarrassment.
    Cool. Prove me wrong. Lay it out. Dipshit.
    Sure. Never heard of assisted living? Non-profit health care? Charter schools? Probably not. You should get back to your TD account.
    Of course I have heard of it. So you can’t provide any details that have given you more return than the Dow in the last 30 months. Got it. The numbers you laid out are pedestrian and available to anyone. 12%? The Dow is up 14. No “big boy letters” or anything.

    You’re getting worked over.

    Unless your into real estate on your own (not in REITs) you’re doing nothing special. Getting taken is my guess. An idiot like you is ripe for the picking.
    Lol. Great guesses retard. Sounds like you either don’t know what you are doing and / or are being led around by the nose of a broker / advisor who has no access to high yield product, it happens to a lot of people. Namely you.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited May 2019
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    Yeah, bullshit.
    I’ll be happy to prove you’re a hapless sucker any way you’d like. Just let me know.

    I understand your shame and embarrassment.
    Cool. Prove me wrong. Lay it out. Dipshit.
    Sure. Never heard of assisted living? Non-profit health care? Charter schools? Probably not. You should get back to your TD account.
    Of course I have heard of it. So you can’t provide any details that have given you more return than the Dow in the last 30 months. Got it. The numbers you laid out are pedestrian and available to anyone. 12%? The Dow is up 14. No “big boy letters” or anything.

    You’re getting worked over.

    Unless your into real estate on your own (not in REITs) you’re doing nothing special. Getting taken is my guess. An idiot like you is ripe for the picking.
    Lol. Great guesses retard. Sounds like you either don’t know what you are doing and / or are being led around by the nose of a broker / advisor who has no access to high yield product, it happens to a lot of people. Namely you.
    So no details. Are you still sticking with your story of having inside access that hasn’t returned more than any smuck can get with an index fund? You literally quoted index fund returns.

    You probably have not idea what fees and expenses you are being charged to make you feel like you’re getting insider access. Someone sees you as a sucker and is laughing all the way to the bank.

    If you’re not into real estate you’re not making shit. Mortgage boy.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    MikeDamone said:


    CirrhosisDawg said:

    RaceBannon said:

    You have a mortgage?

    Sad

    Borrow at 4 pct.
    Earn at 10 pct.
    Do you need additional help with the math?
    1) you’re not earning at 10
    2) you have to borrow? Sad!
    You’re right. It’s actually higher than 10 pct after taxes. There are a lot of NR tax-exempt debt securities with a nominal 7 pct + yield available for knowledgeable investors. $25k minimum investment. You have to sign a “big boy” letter. I don’t true that up until April every year during tax season that in California boosts the total return to 12 pct or so. You know about this right? Diversification of cash and capital structure is essential. But you knew that already too?
    Yeah, bullshit.
    I’ll be happy to prove you’re a hapless sucker any way you’d like. Just let me know.

    I understand your shame and embarrassment.
    Cool. Prove me wrong. Lay it out. Dipshit.
    Sure. Never heard of assisted living? Non-profit health care? Charter schools? Probably not. You should get back to your TD account.
    Of course I have heard of it. So you can’t provide any details that have given you more return than the Dow in the last 30 months. Got it. The numbers you laid out are pedestrian and available to anyone. 12%? The Dow is up 14. No “big boy letters” or anything.

    You’re getting worked over.

    Unless your into real estate on your own (not in REITs) you’re doing nothing special. Getting taken is my guess. An idiot like you is ripe for the picking.
    Lol. Great guesses retard. Sounds like you either don’t know what you are doing and / or are being led around by the nose of a broker / advisor who has no access to high yield product, it happens to a lot of people. Namely you.
    So no details. Are you still sticking with your story of having inside access that hasn’t returned more than any smuck can get with and index fund? Lay it out. You can’t
    Never mind. 12 pct tax exempt income isn’t for you. Stick to the the Djia. It’s more your speed.

    I don’t have insider access. I have clients.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter