On 20 Sep 2024 19:03:44 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> Xi is building on Deng Xiaoping's legacy.

In some ways, he is selling it out.

Deng saw the ugly consequences of a personality cult, when things nearly
fell apart after Mao died. He introduced term limits to ensure no leader
could accrue such a cult to themselves ever again.

Xi got rid of those term limits.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:59:58 -0400, Joel wrote:

> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
> Kamala will make him defeated again ...

Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>
>Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.

Yeah, I remember when Trump won the first time. But we are gonna win
this one. We have to.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-10-21 9:21 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:59:58 -0400, Joel wrote:
>
>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>
> Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
> democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.

Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country simply
because the agricultural sectors feeding the parasites of those areas
are sparsely populated. The Electoral College ensures that people doing
the real work get to have a say, not just the welfare recipients living
in slums having twenty children despite not being able to feed any of them.

Without such a system, there would be no reason for agricultural states
not to decide to secede, especially since the politics of the masses are
wholly incompatible with every one of their values.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>On 2024-10-21 9:21 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:59:58 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>>
>> Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>> democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.
>
>Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country simply
>because the agricultural sectors feeding the parasites of those areas
>are sparsely populated. The Electoral College ensures that people doing
>the real work get to have a say, not just the welfare recipients living
>in slums having twenty children despite not being able to feed any of them.
>
>Without such a system, there would be no reason for agricultural states
>not to decide to secede, especially since the politics of the masses are
>wholly incompatible with every one of their values.

Uh huh, you're just a bigot, the states with big cities pay their fair
share, the rural rednecks just like to complain, they are the ones
with the sense of entitlement, in truth, they want "the greatest
country in the world" to base its economy on their woodchopper
businesses, fuck that. We're more advanced than that. It's
ridiculous when they talk about divorcing the different states, they
need to just suck it up and realize that their way of life is fine for
them, but it's not something divine, nay it is Satanic when it trumps
everyone else. Fuck off, rednecks.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:

> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...

I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the Dumbfuckistani
voting system, and I still don’t understand it.

Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?

On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:26:18 -0400, Joel wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>>
>>Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>>democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.
>
>
> Yeah, I remember when Trump won the first time. But we are gonna win
> this one. We have to.

We? You have a mouse in your back pocket?

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:43:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>
> I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the Dumbfuckistani
> voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>
> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?

Never forget that even when that document was written so pigs were a lot
more equal than others. 3/5 in fact.

Without quibbling over constitutional republic and so forth the Electoral
College is a bandaid on the problems of democracy. Don't forget the first
paragraph of the document you alluded to.

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When
in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and
to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation."

Most of the rest of the document is a list of grievances against the king
of Great Britain.

The fascist Lincoln negated the concept of peacefully dissolving political
bands and imposed his will with the force of arms. Were the red states to
submit a similar list to a government that considers them a basket of
deplorables, how would that play out?

I will make no predictions but I will say if the Democrats lose they
brought it on themselves, putting the junior varsity in the game so late.
After he won they should have said "Joe, you've fulfilled your career
ambition and you'll have your 4 years. Now let's build the next
president." Had they done that I truly doubt Harris would have been the
anointed.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>
>I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the Dumbfuckistani
>voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>
>Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
>equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?

You're asking a lot of these people, if you saw the J6 committee
hearings, you know that a uniformed, black Capitol police offer was
called the N- word by a rioter, because he said he voted for Pres.
Biden. This is the kind of lunacy the rural redneck voters display.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:26:18 -0400, Joel wrote:
>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>>>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>>>
>>>Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>>>democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.
>>
>> Yeah, I remember when Trump won the first time. But we are gonna win
>> this one. We have to.
>
>We? You have a mouse in your back pocket?

"We" who don't vote for the collapse of civilization, if I have to
spell it out.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-10-21, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On 19 Sep 2024 18:33:14 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>> The US is merely a state, a political entity, whose existence is
>> premised on Enlightenment ideals.
>
> Enlightenment ideals were about a secular state, free from religious
> influence. And also the beginnings of the idea that all human beings are
> created equal.

Yeah, the paradises of the Soviet Union and Red China were more like that. I
bet you're hankering to go back in time so you can enjoy one or the other.

> The US was never that.

It's getting close now, though. Note how happy everyone is these days —
we'll be even happier when we own nothing, or so we're told by the godless
morons at the WEF.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

>I will make no predictions but I will say if the Democrats lose they
>brought it on themselves, putting the junior varsity in the game so late.
>After he won they should have said "Joe, you've fulfilled your career
>ambition and you'll have your 4 years. Now let's build the next
>president." Had they done that I truly doubt Harris would have been the
>anointed.

I'm pretty sure she would've won the primaries, had they been open.
She's not what the naysayers so casually observe her to be, she's
intelligent and experienced as the incumbent vice president.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:59:58 -0400, Joel wrote:
>
>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>
> Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
> democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.

Thank goodness. But don't bet on her even winning the popular vote. She's
tied or trailing Trump in many polls, and these polls are always skewed by
the pollsters against Republicans. (They had both Clinton and Biden well
ahead of Trump at this time in the two previous elections.)

The only way Harris can win is if they steal the election again.

And modern "democracy" worked "great" in France. Macron got decimated in the
vote, but he rigged it so he could stay in power. That's called "democracy."
Just like Harris, never winning a single delegate but somehow winning the
Democrat nomination is "democracy." Kind of myopic, don't you think?

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
> On 2024-10-21 9:21 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:59:58 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>>
>> Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>> democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.
>
> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country simply
> because the agricultural sectors feeding the parasites of those areas
> are sparsely populated. The Electoral College ensures that people doing
> the real work get to have a say, not just the welfare recipients living
> in slums having twenty children despite not being able to feed any of them.
>
> Without such a system, there would be no reason for agricultural states
> not to decide to secede, especially since the politics of the masses are
> wholly incompatible with every one of their values.

Yep. That's why the U.S. has an electoral college, so that a few cities
can't run the whole country.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>
> I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the Dumbfuckistani
> voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>
> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?

Nope, that's mob rule. What's fair is the agreement the states made BEFORE
joining the Union. Now they want to renegotiate the contract.

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

On 2024-10-22, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:43:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>>
>> I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the Dumbfuckistani
>> voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>>
>> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
>> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?
>
> Never forget that even when that document was written so pigs were a lot
> more equal than others. 3/5 in fact.
>
> Without quibbling over constitutional republic and so forth the Electoral
> College is a bandaid on the problems of democracy. Don't forget the first
> paragraph of the document you alluded to.
>
> "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When
> in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
> dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and
> to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
> which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent
> respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
> causes which impel them to the separation."
>
> Most of the rest of the document is a list of grievances against the king
> of Great Britain.
>
> The fascist Lincoln negated the concept of peacefully dissolving political
> bands and imposed his will with the force of arms. Were the red states to
> submit a similar list to a government that considers them a basket of
> deplorables, how would that play out?
>
> I will make no predictions but I will say if the Democrats lose they
> brought it on themselves, putting the junior varsity in the game so late.
> After he won they should have said "Joe, you've fulfilled your career
> ambition and you'll have your 4 years. Now let's build the next
> president." Had they done that I truly doubt Harris would have been the
> anointed.

I don't think they had much choice. The campaign money was collected for the
Biden - Harris campaign. I don't think it can be legally passed on to anyone
else. Besides, the Rosthschilds have done fine with one brain-dead
president, why not a second?

And these hyenas run both parties anyhow, so what difference does it make?

--
“Evil is not able to create anything new, it can only distort and destroy
what has been invented or made by the forces of good.” —J.R.R. Tolkien

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

>The only way Harris can win is if they steal the election again.

Just kill yourself, retarded old man.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

>the U.S. has an electoral college, so that a few cities
>can't run the whole country.

Better for a few rednecks who have no concept of the modern world to
run the whole country, sure, you dumb old fart.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-10-22 12:43 a.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>
> I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the Dumbfuckistani
> voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>
> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?

Because the very nature of agriculture means that it would be impossible
for states doing the real work to have as many people as the areas where
people collect welfare. As we've also learned, welfare recipients don't
mind producing countless children since they don't have to pay for them
or even take care of them, and those uneducated, useless people have the
same voting rights as hard-working Americans who toil in the field every
day. Without the Electoral College, the country would be empowering
cretins like Chris Ahlstrom or Joel Crump, and the United States would
succumb to Marxism within a generation. Then, like the Communists who
took over Rhodesia and turned it into Zimbabwe, those same citizens
would wonder why they're starving, why there is rampant crime and why
their wives and daughters get raped every day.

Face it, there is countless evidence that not only is pure democracy
dangerous, but that the progressive politics the people living
comfortably in a metropolis love destroys everything it latches on to. I
am sorry that you are so politically stupid, but you are.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-22 3:10 a.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:43:15 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>>
>> I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the Dumbfuckistani
>> voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>>
>> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
>> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?
>
> Never forget that even when that document was written so pigs were a lot
> more equal than others. 3/5 in fact.
>
> Without quibbling over constitutional republic and so forth the Electoral
> College is a bandaid on the problems of democracy. Don't forget the first
> paragraph of the document you alluded to.
>
> "The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When
> in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to
> dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and
> to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to
> which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent
> respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
> causes which impel them to the separation."
>
> Most of the rest of the document is a list of grievances against the king
> of Great Britain.
>
> The fascist Lincoln negated the concept of peacefully dissolving political
> bands and imposed his will with the force of arms. Were the red states to
> submit a similar list to a government that considers them a basket of
> deplorables, how would that play out?
>
> I will make no predictions but I will say if the Democrats lose they
> brought it on themselves, putting the junior varsity in the game so late.
> After he won they should have said "Joe, you've fulfilled your career
> ambition and you'll have your 4 years. Now let's build the next
> president." Had they done that I truly doubt Harris would have been the
> anointed.

Kamala's being late is not the reason she is likely to lose; Kamala's
shocking retardation is. This is the woman who, when asked why she
hasn't achieved anything in three and a half years, pointed out that
Trump has been campaigning for that long. This is the woman who told a
kid who said "Jesus Chris is Lord" that he's in the wrong rally. This is
the woman who, when visiting a church, had people kicked out of their
own church for asking her why she kicked that same kid out. This is the
woman who, when she has no idea how to answer a question, talks about
her neighbour's lawn growing up.

Full disclosure: lawns in Westmount, Québec look like shit in the
summer, so even that is a lie. How sad it must be for a progressive like
you to have to bet on this clown to be your next president. She might
win and lucky for her, there's lots of stuff left for her dumb ass to
destroy.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-22 3:33 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:59:58 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>>
>> Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>> democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.
>
> Thank goodness. But don't bet on her even winning the popular vote. She's
> tied or trailing Trump in many polls, and these polls are always skewed by
> the pollsters against Republicans. (They had both Clinton and Biden well
> ahead of Trump at this time in the two previous elections.)
>
> The only way Harris can win is if they steal the election again.

Apparently, there is going to be some major nationwide "cybersecurity
test" on November 5th. I wouldn't be surprised if this is what will be
used to steal the election for her in Georgie:
<https://atlanta.afceachapters.org/2024-homeland-security-critical-infrastructure-conference>

> And modern "democracy" worked "great" in France. Macron got decimated in the
> vote, but he rigged it so he could stay in power. That's called "democracy."
> Just like Harris, never winning a single delegate but somehow winning the
> Democrat nomination is "democracy." Kind of myopic, don't you think?

Much like Ahlstrom and fat vallor, Lawrence will disregard such things
to support his Democrat party.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-22 3:34 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-10-22, CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>> On 2024-10-21 9:21 p.m., Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Sep 2024 14:59:58 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he isn't.
>>>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>>>
>>> Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>>> democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.
>>
>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country simply
>> because the agricultural sectors feeding the parasites of those areas
>> are sparsely populated. The Electoral College ensures that people doing
>> the real work get to have a say, not just the welfare recipients living
>> in slums having twenty children despite not being able to feed any of them.
>>
>> Without such a system, there would be no reason for agricultural states
>> not to decide to secede, especially since the politics of the masses are
>> wholly incompatible with every one of their values.
>
> Yep. That's why the U.S. has an electoral college, so that a few cities
> can't run the whole country.

Considering who lives in places like Los Angeles and New York City, I
don't see why anyone would be willing to give them as much power as they
want. People whose IQ never reaches anywhere near 100 and with no hope
or ever owning property shouldn't have any power whatsoever over politics.

Once again, I submit Rhodesia as an example of how to do things right.
Despite being landlocked, the British there turned a sparsely-populated
land into the breadbasket of Africa. Whites and blacks both had the
right to vote as long as they owned property and while this was the
case, the country prospered. Then, the Communists emerged from every
side to destroy it, and with the support of the Soviet Union, China, the
United Kingdom and the United States, they ended up bringing it down to
become Zimbabwe. Now, those brilliant progressives are starving and
desperately asking the Whites to return to feed their useless asses.

The lesson here is simple: don't let progressivism into your country.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On 2024-10-22 3:36 a.m., RonB wrote:
> On 2024-10-22, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:37:36 -0400, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> Even the dumbest citizen knows that it wouldn't make sense for the
>>> presidency to be decided by the metropolises of the country ...
>>
>> I’ve heard that nonsense from countless supporters of the Dumbfuckistani
>> voting system, and I still don’t understand it.
>>
>> Don’t you take it as “self-evident” that all your people are created
>> equal? If so, why shouldn’t their votes count equally too?
>
> Nope, that's mob rule. What's fair is the agreement the states made BEFORE
> joining the Union. Now they want to renegotiate the contract.

They don't even want to negotiate. They simply know that the mob will
vote for the people who promise to give them free stuff, regardless of
whether they actually get that stuff. Considering this mob is also
usually composed of people whose IQ is inferior to 80 (blacks, spics,
progressives), they know that their emotions are easily manipulated. The
Electoral College prevents these barbarians from getting their way.

--
CrudeSausage
Paleoconservative, Catholic, Christ is king.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 03:17:50 -0400, Joel wrote:

> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:26:18 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I would almost believe this if Trump were going to win, but he
>>>>> isn't.
>>>>> Kamala will make him defeated again ...
>>>>
>>>>Harris seems guaranteed to win the popular vote over Trump. In a
>>>>democracy, that would be enough. In the US, it isn’t.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I remember when Trump won the first time. But we are gonna win
>>> this one. We have to.
>>
>>We? You have a mouse in your back pocket?
>
>
> "We" who don't vote for the collapse of civilization, if I have to spell
> it out.

I have already voted. Let the collapse begin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cQNkIrg-Tk

On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 03:26:28 -0400, Joel wrote:

> I'm pretty sure she would've won the primaries, had they been open.
> She's not what the naysayers so casually observe her to be, she's
> intelligent and experienced as the incumbent vice president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

They were open. She was not a candidate. Biden was rubber-stamped despite
low approval ratings and increasingly evident senility. Sometime between
the close of the primaries in June and July 21 the Democrats noticed
Biden's problems.