Yup. No fraud. Most secure legitimate election in history.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Virginia race on Monday (here we go)
- Thread starter 7.62willdo
- Start date
Hell yeah bro! Thanks! I am just gonna change the text to be: "AMERICA, where your ACTIONS determine what you become. Not race."
There was some fraud
Go look at Texas they put up money up to 1 million to prove it! And to date they had one payout of $25000 to a progressive watcher that proved a conservative voted twice
Lol
Stuff happens but it wasn’t election swinging
yes. Both parties are constrained by the fact that they must deal with the beliefs of the median voter, but the median voter in a D win and R win are significantly different. I don't understand why people believe that the base of a coalition is going to get exactly what they want when that base depends on the median for its political power.But are republicans really any different than democrats?let’s be real here.
first of all... several people have already gone to jail for 2020 election fraud in Texas and there are several more cases working through the courts. I have no idea what you are talking about.
2nd, have you not read any of the facts in this thread? There was massive fraud in several swing states, WAY more than enough to turn the election.
... Or, is this the worlds worst joke and I just missed it?
They finally put up candidates that put up a fight. The last couple of elections the Republican candidates were not attractive to voters and didn't make any effort to convince people to vote for them.
This year the candidates pushed issues that were important and publicized the policies they favored.
This year the candidates pushed issues that were important and publicized the policies they favored.
I'll actually give you a fuller answer, because you generally aren't a dick. The answer to your question is yes, they are different. Significantly. But what you are really getting at is that Susan Collins and Joe Manchin are about the same, which totally makes sense since they are basically mirror images of each other. The base thinks, for some unknown reason, that they are going to get what they want, but they never do because the base isn't big enough to get a majority, so they rely on the median senator (or representative) who is representing their constituents, who are much more centrist, for that vote to pass legislation. So most legislation looks like something a Manchin or a Collins would support, and while those two things are different, they are not as different as the bases are. TLDR version -- you think Susan Collins represents you, but she realizes that she represents a very blue state, so you don't get what you want. Ted Cruz would be happy to give you what you want, but he doesn't have the votes.But are republicans really any different than democrats?
On the other hand, the median voter in the states tends to be much closer to the base than the median voter nationally. For example, my state has huge majorities in its house and senate, 31-19 and 67-33 with no filibuster, so a lot can get done without jeopardizing majorities. Because, of course, if you lose your majority, it is the next guys turn. That is why state legislation is not only better legislation, but a weak central government, strong state system is better. It is also why, if you look at approval ratings, state governments tend to be really high and federal low. Because in the federal government nobody is really getting what they want. As an example, look at the current situation of the progressives, which really sounds exactly like the Republican base in making the comment you make above.
On the margins, though, some people are more affected by federal changes, especially if they are large taxpayers, because given the structure of government, and the filibuster, reconciliation allows for the most policy change, but that is limited to taxing and spending.
you don't actually believe this do you given every single assessment has this country still at moderate right?
Trump got more votes than anyone in history, more than Reagan and you think we're outnumbered? JHC
We're not having enough children. It's a 150 year old trend. Now add in immigration. Plus, I'm willing to bet "moderate right" is substantially different as time passes.
Actually, probably more than 150 years.
hispanics, immigrant hispanics, are generally conservative but I get the need for handouts upon infiltration (I'd fortify the border with a 20 mile buffer in Mexico if the Mexican gov't refused to do so but that's another thread discussion)
The left has full retard and it's unsettling to the moderates and 'reasonable' democrats. I see it on a few FB state threads that are litered on with dems and on other boards. Look at VA, that doesn't happen without moderates and dems voting against the loony left
Except for the problem created by the 17th: State’s Rights
if you diminish the power of the states, the fed’s fill the vacuum.
This was done by Woodrow Wilson more than 100 years ago, which should give you some understanding of how long the commie bastards have been at this.
Joe McCarthy was right.
Blacklisted by History by M. Stanton Evans: 9781400081066 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books
Accused of creating a bogus Red Scare and smearing countless innocent victims in a five-year reign of terror, Senator Joseph McCarthy is universally remembered as a demagogue, a bully, and a liar. History...
www.penguinrandomhouse.com
Edited: corrected quote
Last edited:
I definitely agree on a philosophical level. I could do without all of the progressive era amendments.
We're not as a country, however it's the evangelicals that are having 2 - 3x as many kids in this country.
Advantage R long term.
Put your Frekonomics hat on = Demonicrats abortion worship will have consequences.
With the above in mind, their emphasis on indoctrinating children with perversion & attracting as many illegals as possible makes perfect (evil) sense.
McCarthy was absolutely rightExcept for the problem created by the 17th: State’s Rights
if you diminish the power of the states, the fed’s fill the vacuum.
This was done by Woodrow Wilson more than 100 years ago, which should give you some understanding of how long the commie bastards have been at this.
Joe McCarthy was right.
Blacklisted by History by M. Stanton Evans: 9781400081066 | PenguinRandomHouse.com: Books
Accused of creating a bogus Red Scare and smearing countless innocent victims in a five-year reign of terror, Senator Joseph McCarthy is universally remembered as a demagogue, a bully, and a liar. History...www.penguinrandomhouse.com
The Senate was created to represent states, i.e. state legislators elected Senators. The 17th was sold on the premise that “ you should be able to elect your Senator” which was something “you” never had prior. Your state representative represents “you” in Congress.
Didn’t mean to imply you didn’t. Just expanding the info for other’s benefit. As it is Senators don’t really represent any interests. If the state demands, the Senator refers to his ”constituents”, if a citizen demands he is referred to his representative. The Senator does what he pleases and he is not interested in changing the 17th.
Sorry, I'm just used to getting yelled at and called a commie in here.
Religious groups in general are above average for child bearing, not just evangelicals, and not all of those groups tend to favor a conservative political view even though most evangelicals do. Jews for example are among the highest in terms of number of children per family, but they trend left in their politics, though I don't know what the actual balance between conservative and liberal is. Also, black evangelicals generally vote D. Probably others that I'm too ignorant to know about.
But, your second point is really key, not only are they indoctrinating the children of evangelicals, they're being fairly successful at it. Progressives take advantage of the fact that evangelicals, and especially their children have sympathy for poor people, and that's a perfect door to convince them that communism is the way to solve that problem.
From a 2020 Christianity Today article.
Americans in general are having fewer children today than they did two generations ago. Spiking after World War II, the fertility rate declined to around two lifetime births per woman in the ‘80s and has hovered there since, according to the Pew Research Center. Evangelicals, however, had maintained higher than average fertility rates until recently, according to University of Oklahoma sociologists Samuel Perry and Cyrus Schleifer.
Perry and Schleifer analyzed data from several decades of the General Social Survey (GSS) and found that, between 1972 and 2016, conservative Protestants went from having six percent more children than mainline Protestants to roughly the same number. Painted in broad strokes, what this means is that evangelicals now seem to be having about the same number of children as anybody else
Americans in general are having fewer children today than they did two generations ago. Spiking after World War II, the fertility rate declined to around two lifetime births per woman in the ‘80s and has hovered there since, according to the Pew Research Center. Evangelicals, however, had maintained higher than average fertility rates until recently, according to University of Oklahoma sociologists Samuel Perry and Cyrus Schleifer.
Perry and Schleifer analyzed data from several decades of the General Social Survey (GSS) and found that, between 1972 and 2016, conservative Protestants went from having six percent more children than mainline Protestants to roughly the same number. Painted in broad strokes, what this means is that evangelicals now seem to be having about the same number of children as anybody else
unbelievable but the right doesn't use the same tactics and inundate that show with complaints and threats
Similar threads
