Introducing the Democrat '28 nominee for President

Why not give some analysis on the shit show that the Republicans like to peddle? Ya know, to keep it balanced.  Or is it that they parrot all things trump and trump dysfunction is already over analyzed?

As I like to point out, the popular vote in 2024 was roughly 50-50. Which is perhaps what one might expect.

So Trump was not overwhelmingly popular, he just benefited from what is, the contrived US voting system.

So the 2024 Presidential election was simply a loss for the Democrats rather than the abject failure that you like to make out.

In fact pretty much the same happened previously for the Republicans.

It really is just a case of wait and see what happens next time.

And as always, the US Presidential election circus is all about who can put on the best show and buy and sell themselves for the highest price.

Last time it was Trumpo the goofy orange clown…And he sure has entertained us since.

The off white boring lady didn't really cut the mustard…Especially in them there good ole States…As one might of expected.

For Democrat's to win they would have to have a First Lady that was a sex worker born in a Communist country.

Yep, no political or diplomatic qualifications necessary.

Because right now [though it has, and will change] the Republican who matters, being the president, is not a shyte stage production. But I know, without knowing a bloody thing about you but by words, that you disagree. So be it.

As I like to point out, the popular vote in 2024 was roughly 50-50.

As I like to point out, the popular vote isn't worth shyte, but you'll keep supporting it as the only valid vote. Not by the Constitution, it isn't, boyo. Should you read it sometime, you'll find the E.C. is not contrived, but actually more fairly and accurately reflects the will of the people in every State by taking state population variance out of the equation so that WY [the least pop'd state] weighs as much as CA [the most pop'd state. Get it? I didn't think so. I read the Constitution monthly, completely, and have for 30+ years. It's worth the read. Might learn something most Democrats & Republicans ignore. I'm an Indie, by the way.

As I see it, a Presidents role should be as an unbiased global ambassador for the Nation, rather than as an autocratic party affiliate.

States have their own political representatives.

Off topic. Presidents are elected by states, but then represent the entire nation, particularly when on foreign soil. He is elected both for his executive skills at home [and being an executive inthe private sector doesn't hurt], and on the world stage. It's all defined in the Constitution, you don't need you own "as I see it."

Yep I know how it works.

Though a Party Political President will never truly represent an entire nation.

And certainly Trump has no desire at all, to represent the views of an entire nation.

so you dont think each person's vote should count the same as everyone else's?

Trump has no desire to represent the views of an entire nation.

That's a desire moi president ever hast or evert will achieve, so, what's the point?

Yes, I do, and, by the Electoral College in my State, and every other, one's vote counts as much as anyone else's, but only by the E.C. It certainly cannot happen by popular vote, because that accounting is a nationwide vote, and E.C. is State by State. A nationwide vote is totally unofficial, and always has been, and statistically, ends up being less representative than by state by state vote. You would have to understand statistical analysis to realize that fact. MOst political polls have no clue what that really is, being mostly funded by media of colleges; both worthless efforts of dunderheads who do not know sampling size calculation, confidence level percentage, or margin of error, let alone design of experiments.

Exactly.

What is the point of a President?

that's an illogical statement. you cant claim you think everyone's vote should count the same, and then claim it should be done by the electoral college. with the electoral college, someone in california, their vote is worth less than someone in north dakota. i mean there's arguments to be made for the electoral college, but it's not logical to say you think everyone's vote is equal, when the votes are not equal. you have two options here... admit you dont dont think everyone's vote should be equal, or admit you dont always prefer being logical.

What is the point of a President?

US Constitution, Article II, Sections 1 - 4

you cant claim you think everyone's vote should count the same,

It's not my claim, boyo. It its the Constitution's claim, Article II, Section 1, clauses 2, 3, with modification by the 12A. Read and learn. You might also take a look at the Federalist Papers, number 68, which outlines one proposal for the E.C. in March of 1788, before the Constitution was first ratified by the States in June of 1788, so the Constitution's text is more correct, but you still get a flavor of eliminating variant population differences of the states by equalizing the number of electors from each state on the strict basis of state population, making each vote equal to another elector's vote, plus electors erepreesenting all members of Congress, House and Senate. As populations and congressional memebership grew, so did numbers of electors, based, now, on an elector being equal to about 700,000 people. It started out with an elector being equal to 30,000 people. So, as U.S. population grows, so does the numbers of electors in the E.C.

Isn't thus stuff taught anymore in school? I learned this stuff is 6th grade in the 60s. But then, I am convinced education in the U.S. has degraded considerably, ever since unions took over. It's called dumbing down. Emphasis on dumb.

You aren't informing me of anything I didn't already know. You made another illogical statement that the constitution says all votes are equal under the electoral college. It says no such thing. It explains the electoral college but diesnt call everyone's vote equal. That's a You thing. So, just admit it, own that shit. Under the electoral college every vote isn't equal. That's by design.

You get your head so far up your ass on your high horse that u r constantly saying illogical things, ive noticed

Wrong. You are ignoring that the E.C. is a separate voting group than the public. There are 538 E.C. electors, and they all voted in 2024, and each vote counted equally. They are who directly elect a president, according to the Constitution, reference already noted, and which you may claim to have read, but do not get it, yet. Our vote by the public elects who those electors will be, State by State. That is also in the Constitution.

By contrast, there were, by election day of 2024, roughly 244M eligible voters. Of them, about 73.6% were registered to vote in the 2024 election, or about 180M. Of that 180M, only 152M voted for president in 2024, about 84%, higher than typical, but still representing only 62% of eligible voters. That is dsffinitively not equal, as you say, but, again, we, the voting public, do not directly vote for presidents, but for the electors, even though the candidate names are on the ballot.

For Democrat's to win they would have to have a First Lady that was a sex worker

You should then enjoy a debate I am engaged with RationalTheist right now, which he initiated, taking the Con side. I am Pro. The debts is "Resolved: This house would legalize prostitution in the United States."

the face that we use electors is irrelevant for this discussion, the way it's currently done. those electors almost always rubber stamp the will of the popular vote based on the electoral college set up.

also you said im wrong that every vote isn't equal given the electoral college, and then at the end of your argument you acknowledge that maybe every vote actually isn't equal.

you're lost in all kinds of illogic.... very educated, but finer points of logical analysis doesn't seem to be your strong point

The Epstein files will help pick the next president. It is howTrump was elected once his name was listed.

You will hate the DEM nominee regardless, so changing your mind here is impossible.

->Should you read it sometime, you'll find the E.C. is not contrived, but actually more fairly and accurately reflects the will of the people in every State by taking state population variance out of the equation so that WY [the least pop'd state] weighs as much as CA [the most pop'd state.

If Wyoming wants more representatives, then it should just get more people; if they can't, then that's THEIR problem.

The electoral college is Affirmative Action for states that couldn't attract many people to live there for whatever reason. But you won't change your mind because you have a party to stick too (whether you have the guts to admit it or not).

“…maybe every vote actually isn’t equal.”

show me where I said that.

“You will hate the Democrat…”

Wrong. I’m an Indie and have voted for Dems. I once volunteered in Bobby Kennedy’s presidential campaign and was at the Ambassador Hotel in L.A. when he was assassinated. You don’t know me, Bobo.

RFK is a republican.

Republican = Pro Trump.

Democrat = Anti Trump.

Me saying, "You will hate the DEM nominee regardless"="You will hate the anti Trump nominee regardless".

"RFK is a republican."

RFK is a generation removed. He is a was. You're exposing your relative youth. I said "Bobby." By known patriarchal lineage of millennia in the making, that's RFK Jr's father, boyo. He was a Democrat, though no Democrat today would accept his credentials. I would.

That is dsffinitively not equal, as you say, but, again, we, the voting public, do not directly vote for presidents, but for the electors, even though the candidate names are on the ballot

->He was a Democrat, though no Democrat today would accept his credentials.

That is correct, because democrat = anti Trump, republican = Pro Trump. Just like you wouldn't accept Liz Cheney into the republican party because she is anti Trump.

Both your Repub and Demo comparisons are only mostly true. The dichotomy is not that severe. Why have only binary choices? Expand the mind.