All the Creeps are on Ignore

[chefist]

Mr Senda would be proud of that long ass post! Ha 

[Metron2267]

TY!

I have been percolating of late for a series of good, wordy stem-winders. After a while the brevity of meme-based interplay becomes a bit tiresome.

[Nucky Nolan]

I absolutely support that. We need a state that starts with "J".

[Enard P Farkwark]

LIAR!

Your own words:

NO THANK YOU TRUDUMB!

Keep that vote rigging and candidate bleaching up in your own walk in cooler of a nation:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/08/15/a-look-at-the-pros-and-cons-of-the-voting-system-once-touted-by-trudeau_n_11522342.html

OTTAWA â€" Justin Trudeau has promised that last fall's federal election will be the last conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.
In the past, the prime minister has expressed a preference for replacing FPTP with a system in which voters rank their choices on the ballot, although he has since said he is also open to some form of proportional representation (PR).

Under a ranked ballot, voters mark their first, second and subsequent choices. If no candidate wins more than 50 per cent of the vote, the contender with the fewest votes is dropped from the ballot and his or her supporters' second choices are counted. That continues until one candidate emerges with a majority.


Oh?

So you think the Constitution Party supports "ranked voting"?

https://www.constitutionparty.com/principles/platform-preamble/#ElectionReform

US Constitution, Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1:

“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature​​ thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing* Senators.”

The Constitutional balance of power on this matter has been destroyed by the 17th Amendment. The States no longer have a representative at the Federal level.**

The Constitution Party seeks the restoration of an electoral process that is controlled at the state and local level and is beyond manipulation by federal judges and bureaucrats. The federal government has unconstitutionally and unwisely preempted control in matters of district boundaries, electoral procedures, and campaign activities.

The Voting Rights Act should be repealed. The Federal Election Campaign Act, including its 1974 amendments, and the Federal Election Commission should be abolished.

Each citizen should have the right to seek public office in accordance with the qualifications set forth in federal and state constitutions.

Additional restrictions and obligations governing candidate eligibility and campaign procedures burden unconstitutionally the fairness and accountability of our political system.

To encourage free and fair elections, all candidates must be treated equally. We call for an end to designated "Major Party" status that gives an unfair advantage​​ to some candidates by providing ballot access and taxpayer dollars, while requiring others for the same office to gather petition signatures or meet other more stringent criteria.

We call for a repeal of all federal campaign finance laws (i.e. McCain- Feingold) due to their violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In order to avoid election fraud, we insist electronic and mechanical voting processes provide a clear, auditable and verifiable paper trail. At a minimum, elections should be​​ audited at random at the precinct level after the polls close.

There is a growing movement within the states and nation to undermine our right of a “Secret Ballot” by making people vote by absentee ballot. ​​ This move away from a “Secret Ballot” and “Vote-in-person” approach is an insecure system, not only because the Post office has been losing and misplacing mail for many years, but also because of increasing fraud and vote rigging, such as voter suppression, vote buying, and ballot box stuffing. Even though Vote- By-Mail seems to increase voting percentages in the short-term, it has proven to cause a long-term decline. Also verifying signatures “after the fact” greatly increases the cost of an election. Since true freedom requires being inconvenienced and​​ putting forth extra effort from time- to-time, we oppose any movement to codify or use Vote-By-Mail and other such schemes which undermine the liberty-preserving privilege of voting in secret, in person, at precinct-based polling places.

Article II, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states, in part:

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal​​ to the whole Number of Senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

This established the Electoral College.

The Constitution does not provide for the election of the President and Vice President of the United States by popular vote, but rather by the selection of “Electors” according to rules adopted by each state’s legislators. ​​ These electors would receive the list of certified candidates. They would then cast their vote for whomever they ascertained as best qualified to fill these two highest offices of trust with the federal government. The Constitution Party seeks a restoration of this electoral process for the choosing of the President and the Vice President of the United States.

Although the Constitution does not require the states to adhere to any specific manner in electing these electors or how they cast their votes, it suggests, by its wording, that prominent individuals from each congressional district, and from the state at large, would be elected or appointed as electors that represent that district. Under this arrangement, a voter would vote for three individuals, one​​ to represent his district and two "at large" representatives to represent his state. ​​ These electors, in turn, would then carefully and deliberately select the candidate for president. Under this system each congressional district could, in essence, select a different candidate. The candidate with the most electors nationwide would become the next president.

This was the general procedure used until the 1830's at which time all the states, except for South Carolina, changed to a "general ticket." The "general ticket" system is still in use today. Inherently, it causes corruption by the inequitable transfer of power from congressional districts to the states and large cities at the expense of rural communities.

The Constitution Party encourages states to eliminate the "general ticket" system and return to the procedure intended by the Framers. ​​ The so-called National Popular Vote is a dangerous threat to our Constitutional Republic, allowing as few as eighteen to twenty-one states to circumvent the Constitutional requirement of 38 states to amend the Constitution. The National Popular Vote process would effectively eliminate the last vestiges of the Electoral College as originally set forth in the United States Constitution. The National Popular Vote creates​​ a fake majority by forcing electors to vote against the votes cast by their own constituents.

The elimination of the Electoral College would overnight make irrelevant the votes of Americans in approximately 25 states because candidates would only be interested in campaigning in large population states making small states meaningless zeros. There is no threshold of what constitutes a “majority” under National Popular Vote. ​​ Therefore, a presidential candidate could be elected with as little as 15% of the popular vote. ​​ Under the National Popular Vote scheme, chaos would ensue in any close election. Under the Electoral College no single faction or region of the country can elect a president, ensuring broad representation across America.

The national Constitution Party opposes National Popular Vote and will work to defeat it in individual state legislatures.

Any thing there is this party you claim to support that suggests "ranked voting"?

I have no issue with your maintaining youir privacy, none at all.

I do have MAJOR ISSUES with "ranked voting" and I do not for one moment believe the CP has interest in it. If so please let me know with clear citations here and I shall avoid them like the fucking plague!

Nope. I was zoo'd by Bart for calling that scummy leftard Tiger Lily aleftarded twat!

If you have other evidence than that please feel free to provide it.

The faulty 'logic' of an utter and complete hypocrite.

Yep, as expected.

At no point in your dim witted copy and paste session did you point out any plank of the platform that specifically opposes any and all ranked voting system.  A lack of a plank specifically endorsing a particular or generalized ranked voting system does not imply all variants of such systems are explicitly opposed.

How precisely else do you suggest we open up the door for a third party to get votes for first preference if drooling nitwits like you refuse to vote your principles because you’re still making the self defeating “you’re wasting your vote” argument. I say you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing as well. You’re arguing against yourself. Not one individual at the conventions I’ve been to has ever said “oh well it doesn’t look like we can win so I’m just gonna yank the lever for another Bush”. Are you kidding me?  You made that argument.

My actions speak for me. I’ve made good on backing my principles in real life. With real money and real time. Get off your blowhard ass and do the same rather than just trying to argue with those who already are.

Additionally, I don’t expect you to know how this works because you’ve obviously never participated in the process but there was very spirited and lively debate on those committees surrounding many things like drug legalization and so forth. It is not only important what you explicitly endorse but also what you say nothing of and degrees in between.  Very good men and women had very different opinions on some things.  No one agreed on every single thing.  My argument to look at other IN PERSON voting approaches to allow voting of ones conscience wouldn’t be shared by all but would be shared by some.  People bigger than you would have a principled discussion about it rather than just shouting like a dullard. I encourage you to work on that if you ever decide to try to actually put your actions where your big fat mouth is.

[Chocolate coated jackboot]

Mr Senda would be proud of that long ass post! Ha 

B-
no needless photo attachments/superfluous Wikipedia links

[Metron2267]

At no point in your dim witted copy and paste session did you point out any plank of the platform that specifically opposes any and all ranked voting system.  A lack of a plank specifically endorsing a particular or generalized ranked voting system does not imply all variants of such systems are explicitly opposed.

The shopworn and always dismissed here - prove a negative.


The data I cited from their own platform - strictly Constitutional in origin and also application - by its very nature is diametrically the polar opposite of something as reductionist "ranked voting".

That's a leftard phenomenon practiced in Canaduh and some leftist small town elections.

YOU have less than ZERO credibility and you seem eager to demonstrate as much.

How precisely else do you suggest we open up the door for a third party to get votes for first preference if drooling nitwits like you refuse to vote your principles because you’re still making the self defeating “you’re wasting your vote” argument.

I'm not at all sure we really need a 3rd party given the observed gridlock of what multi-party coalition governance is in the real world. Do you fathom that we'd be better served by a minor 3rd party presence than by having two sides come to center on at least certain issues? Do you measure tat Canadians are more democratic than us, germans? See anything happening in the many multiparty Euro nations that you think bodes well for American politics if we create a splinter party to fragment the vote?

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2009/07/22/3-reasons-why-a-successful-third-party-wouldnt-solve-anything-n975529

Whether they be Libertarians, members of the Constitution Party, Reform Party members, angry independents, or tea partiers who don't feel either party is serving their interests, there are plenty of disaffected people agitating for a third party in America.

Although I think it's extremely unlikely that a successful third party could get off the ground, let us, for the length of this column at least, assume that the Republican Party folds and a newer, purer, more conservative party rises in its wake. Sounds great, right?

Well, not exactly.

First off, the last time this happened in American history was when the Republican Party replaced the Whigs within a couple of election cycles because of a tremendous disagreement over slavery. The Whigs, like the Democrats, supported it. The Republicans didn't.

This time, the switch wouldn't be as quick -- partially because there isn't a huge galvanizing issue like slavery to drive the switch. Additionally, there's too much of a party structure, too much big money involved, and too many people with vested interests in the Republican Party to give up on the GOP without a long, bruising fight.

Let's say (and keep in mind, we're posing fantastical scenarios here) two popular Republicans like Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity decide to break off and lead the charge for a third party. Well, Rush Limbaugh and Mitt Romney (among others) would probably be thrilled to declare that they are blockheads who are leading the party into the wilderness in an effort to peel off their supporters. Incidentally, if Rush and Mitt Romney were leading the third party charge, the reverse would be true. The names don't really matter; what does is human nature. Any popular mainstream political figure who tries to start a third party would be taking a huge gamble and competitors would assume that his/her supporters/audience members would be up for grabs. What that would likely mean is that any victory for a third party over the GOP would likely only happen after a long, slow war of political attrition.

So, let's just say instead of taking 2 election cycles for the GOP to fold, it might take 5. In the interim, because we have a winner-take-all political system, the Democrats would have absolute, unmitigated control -- even more so than they do now. You might say, “How could that happen?” Simple: you'd see a lot of results that look like this: Democrat 46%, Republican 28%, Third Party 24%.

Imagine 300 Democrats in the House, 75 in the Senate, and a Democratic President for 10-12 years -- at least. In other words, the Democrats would be able to make their wildest dreams law and stack the Supreme Court with liberal judges.
Then finally, at long last, the Republican Party goes into the dust heap of history and the new purer third party rises up, phoenix-like from the ashes to take its place. Then, everything would be right with the world!

Well, not exactly.

I say you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing as well. You’re arguing against yourself. Not one individual at the conventions I’ve been to has ever said “oh well it doesn’t look like we can win so I’m just gonna yank the lever for another Bush”. Are you kidding me?  You made that argument.

Did I?

I call strawman .

Quote me.

My actions speak for me. I’ve made good on backing my principles in real life. With real money and real time. Get off your blowhard ass and do the same rather than just trying to argue with those who already are.

Do not presume to know what I do or have done. That's another tawdry and unprovable personal demonization card and shows you for the blowhard that you play here.

Additionally, I don’t expect you to know how this works because you’ve obviously never participated in the process but there was very spirited and lively debate on those committees surrounding many things like drug legalization and so forth. It is not only important what you explicitly endorse but also what you say nothing of and degrees in between.  Very good men and women had very different opinions on some things.  No one agreed on every single thing.  My argument to look at other IN PERSON voting approaches to allow voting of ones conscience wouldn’t be shared by all but would be shared by some.  People bigger than you would have a principled discussion about it rather than just shouting like a dullard. I encourage you to work on that if you ever decide to try to actually put your actions where your big fat mouth is.

Your alleged committee jockeying aside, and as you wish privacy there is no way to verify your claims you know, this is yet another strawman argument. Since I could not be "there" the use of those events against me is morally bankrupt as well.

https://www.forbes.com/2010/05/13/third-parties-fusion-voting-elections-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html#20bdf6345f7a

Generally speaking, third parties have either been vehicles for high-profile individuals with a personal following or rigid ideological interests such as the Libertarian and Green parties. The major impact of ideological parties, however, is to drain votes away from the major party closest to their position. Green Party votes mostly come at the expense of Democrats, and those of the Libertarian Party mainly come from the Republicans.

Perhaps more important, third parties divert activists who would otherwise work within the major parties to achieve their goals into organizations that have no real electoral influence. In this sense, third parties are not merely impotent, but have perverse consequences, making the major parties less sensitive to their concerns.

Historically, this has been a good thing. Forcing extremists to work within the major parties to achieve their goals has tended to temper their extremism by forcing them to win support from those that may share their philosophy but not their priorities, build coalitions and consider issues beyond their narrow interest. By contrast, those who operate only within third parties just reinforce each other's extremism and frustration over their inevitable failure, often leading to complete disengagement from the political process.

[Enard P Farkwark]

I'm not at all sure we really need a 3rd party given the observed gridlock of what multi-party coalition governance is in the real world. Do you fathom that we'd be better served by a minor 3rd party presence than by having two sides come to center on at least certain issues?

So you just directly contradicted an ACTUAL platform statement assuming you actually pasted something accurate but it seems right from memory. This says all candidates should be treated equally and we seek to get rid of major party status. You then say wellll I don’t think we necessarily need a third party. Saying you “support” the constitution party and then make the argument that you don’t think we need a third party seems pretty contradictory to me. With friends like that who needs enemies.

To encourage free and fair elections, all candidates must be treated equally. We call for an end to designated "Major Party" status that gives an unfair advantage​​ to some candidates by providing ballot access and taxpayer dollars, while requiring others for the same office to gather petition signatures or meet other more stringent criteria.

[Metron2267]

So you just directly contradicted an ACTUAL platform statement assuming you actually pasted something accurate but it seems right from memory. This says all candidates should be treated equally and we seek to get rid of major party status. You then say wellll I don’t think we necessarily need a third party. Saying you “support” the constitution party and then make the argument that you don’t think we need a third party seems pretty contradictory to me. With friends like that who needs enemies.

I can and do support most of their principles and I can, if the Republican party expires, easily see them as a sound, even a preferable alternative.

But anyone with a lick of common sense must grasp that the transition period for the acceptance of a replacement party will be tortuous at best, perhaps even bloody.

I also support a great many, though not all, of the Libertarian Party principles.

This does not mean that I must rush into either camp, but rather that people from those parties need to try and reset the status quo positions for the Rs. The Dems are a lost cause completely having degenerated into totalitarian fascists.

In essence your little diatribe here is analogous as to the claim that 3rd parties tend to attract the least flexible thinkers and reactionaries in the spectrum. As such they often serve as little more than splinter meeting places for those too intractable to negotiate and work to commonality.

[Tootsie]

hey hey Metron.. love you 



@Metron2267

[Metron2267]

 

Hiya Tootsie!

[Tootsie]

Hiya Tootsie!

aww thanks   

[Enard P Farkwark]

Probably should start focusing on what really matters Metron and quit thinking with your dick.

I guess that’s what this is. Hope the pics were good.

[Metron2267]

Probably should start focusing on what really matters Metron and quit thinking with your dick.

Oh?

And just what do you think "really matters"?

I guess that’s what this is. Hope the pics were good.

I haven't received any pics, sorry.

Next demonization please. :

[Enard P Farkwark]

Oh?

And just what do you think "really matters"?

I haven't received any pics, sorry.

Next demonization please. :

You sound a lot like tootsie you know. Walls of text copies and pastes rather than walls of nonsense memebase gifs. I don’t think she’s smart enough for that level of gamesmanship though.

All you can do is google things and paste it all.  We all have google access so feel free to skip that bit and think for yourself.

What really matters is finding something you’re FOR and trying to advance that in the 3D world. Get out from behind your keyboard and do something.

[Metron2267]

You sound a lot like tootsie you know. Walls of text copies and pastes rather than walls of nonsense memebase gifs.

Sounds like you have a real desire to CONTROL the flow of information here, be it text or image based.

After getting your ASS handed to you on "ranked voting" i can understand why.

Better go for a Bart ban...oh wait...sorry...wrong group...fascists migrate back to ellgab...

I don’t think she’s smart enough for that level of gamesmanship though.

Well you're big on little more than personal insults, so....

All you can do is google things and paste it all.  We all have google access so feel free to skip that bit and think for yourself.

I don't use google, but that aside, what kind of simpering slackwit makes outrageous claims and then whines like a crybaby when the facts are shot back at him after multiple rounds of denials and persona demonizations. You are devoid of logic. And your last, well no your ONLY link, is so easily rebutted it's not even worth playing with.

What really matters is finding something you’re FOR and trying to advance that in the 3D world. Get out from behind your keyboard and do something.

                   Et tu, keybaord warrior regular here?

                      "qui s'excuse s'accuse."

[ZaZa]

BREAKING NEWS --- TRUE FACT !!!

Moron2267 has the worst posting style on BellGab.
Moron2267 must be senile uneducated mentally retarded doorknob.

[Enard P Farkwark]

Sounds like you have a real desire to CONTROL the flow of information here, be it text or image based.

After getting your ASS handed to you on "ranked voting" i can understand why.

Better go for a Bart ban...oh wait...sorry...wrong group...fascists migrate back to ellgab...

Well you're big on little more than personal insults, so....

I don't use google, but that aside, what kind of simpering slackwit makes outrageous claims and then whines like a crybaby when the facts are shot back at him after multiple rounds of denials and persona demonizations. You are devoid of logic. And your last, well no your ONLY link, is so easily rebutted it's not even worth playing with.

                   Et tu, keybaord warrior regular here?

                      "qui s'excuse s'accuse."

You handed no one anything. You failed to post a single thing from the platform that even has the word “rank” in it.

At no point did I say you should be banned.  You should seek mental help.

You’re a regular statesman.  Anytime someone has their own opinion... DIE IN A FIRE!!

Yes. That screams credibility

[Metron2267]

You handed no one anything. You failed to post a single thing from the platform that even has the word “rank” in it.

Because no such wording nor endorsement for "ranked voting" is to be found in their platform, as you by now must know.

At no point did I say you should be banned.  You should seek mental help.

You endorsed tootsie's ban though, you hapless strawman factory.

You’re a regular statesman.  Anytime someone has their own opinion... DIE IN A FIRE!!

Is this place too rough for you?

I can channel me some Jackstar as I see fit, snowflake.

Yes. That screams credibility

Like your bleating at me to quit posting substantive supportive links and data...yeah....such credibility in that naked retreat.