Cameroni

Sorry, I thought you meant the ranking JD Vance proposed related to child bearing. If you mean Ranked Choice Voting, again you would need four fifths of the states to support a constitutional surgery to abolish the electoral college, it's impossible that this could happen, since many states benefit from EC and would not agree to change it. Besides, Ranked Voting has its own problems, it makes it harder to vote, harder to count the votes, and much harder to ensure a transparent and accountable democratic process.

You mean like +4 for parents with children, -2 for couples without children -4 for LGTBQ, something like this? Like JD Vance proposed?

He even said it was very nice AND we appreciate it. Such a magnanimous man, clearly the wood that great statesmen are made of. To defend Harris against all the boos of his supporters, you could not help but think "Here is an American". Beautiful.

Well, think about it, if you didn't have the electoral college you could have someone winning the presidency with 30% of the vote. So highly extremist candidates would be the norm then. That would be the true end result of "one person one vote" without system refinement. It's all moot anyway, you would need fourth fifths of states to perform constitutional surgery and those states that benefit from the EC would not support that.

It brought tears to my eyes to see such a fair and gentle man defending that lady.

Indeed! Loonie by name, Loonie by nature!

Well, he is a consumate and experienced politician, putting Kamala in might be his revenge against Pelosi. If he made that a condition of him stepping down, obviously they had to accept that.

Incredibly well put and 100% accurate.

Well, if you can read obviously you're at an advantage, the mention of Iowa and Delaware, which btw was made by the American Paula Ryan, does not claim these are the lowest population states, rather she, correctly, states they have a lower population than Florida or Texas. https://www.familyfoundation.org/blog/why-the-electoral-college-is-so-important Either way, her arguments are correct. The electoral college provides fairness and should be retained.

Well, we shall see on election day how influential she really is.

One of the biggest advantages to using this method is that it provides a more equal voice for both small and large states in the election of the president – since every state has two Senators no matter the size of its population. If the Electoral College were abolished, presidential candidates would be incentivized to focus most of their efforts in states like Florida or Texas, leaving smaller states like Iowa and Delaware left out in the cold. Aside from the fact that there are valid and practical reasons for the Electoral College system, there are other pragmatic reasons for maintaining the status quo. First of all, if we had a pure popular vote system, as many on the Left are now proposing, it would become quite difficult—because of third-party (and more) candidates—to ensure that any candidate would win a popular majority. For example, in the election of President Clinton in 1992, Clinton received a majority of electoral votes and was elected president. However, he only received a plurality – 43 percent – of the popular vote, and Ross Perot, a third-party candidate, received almost 19 percent. President Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote in the 1996 election either, but because he won an Electoral College majority, he was elected President of the United States both times. This raises the question: What would happen if we did away with the Electoral College and instead implemented a system whereby a person could win the presidency with a plurality of the popular vote? If this were to occur, every special interest group would have their own candidate, and the field of candidates would be enormous. Thus, EVERY election year would be utter chaos. https://www.familyfoundation.org/blog/why-the-electoral-college-is-so-important

Vice President Kamala Harris came under fire Wednesday as an old tweet in which she thanked now-disgraced rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs for hosting a fundraiser for her first presidential campaign resurfaced after the hip-hop mogul’s arrest on sex crime charges. Harris’ message of gratitude was sent during her previous run for the White House after Diddy hosted a town hall on racial inequality for her campaign. “Thank you,@Diddy, for hosting this town hall last night. There’s a lot at stake for our communities right now and it’s critical we bring to the forefront how coronavirus is perpetuating racial inequality and health disparities,” Harris tweeted on April 10, 2020. https://nypost.com/2024/09/18/us-news/kamala-harris-tweet-thanking-sean-diddy-combs-resurfaces/

No, he endorsed Joe Biden and is a strong supporter of the Democrats, see the article linked above.

I raised the point that the RAF had bombed Wilhelmshaven on 4. September 1939 to show that between German and Britain it was Britain who started bombing the other. And indeed 435 civilians did die due to the the RAF bombing Wilhelmshaven, thanks for confirming it. In terms of carpet bombing too, the British started it between these two nations.

Has Sean Coombs endorsed Harris already? They're all such moral people in the music business, we really should pay attention how they want us to vote. Rapper Sean 'Diddy' Combs has been a prolific supporter of Democrats Combs also said "white men like [Donald] Trump need to be banished" during a 2020 interview https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rapper-sean-diddy-combs-prolific-supporter-democrats

You're not wrong, but the working men love Trump. Not Harris. Strange isn't it?

Because Joe Biden insisted on Kamala as his condition to accept the defenestration. Both Pelosi and Obama wanted an open election, but Biden, out of revenge and spite made Kamala Harris his condition of departure. I suspect anyway.

I think you are leaving out the key fact, that this was AFTER the British had initiated area bombing of Germany.

No, I saw it, but I was aware of the history of the bombing of civilians and of course Guernica. Very regrettable.

This level of misrepresentation is starting to look deliberate now, very clearly the article states that 435 people died from the RAF bombing Wilhelmshaven, and the only reason the death toll was so low was because of the extensive bunkers which provided protection. Otherwise the death toll would have been considerably higher. But again, obviously this is a deflection. In reality, as I stated repeatedly, the British area bombing started around May 1940. Silesia was of course not the only territory the Poles annexed from Germany after 1918. Poland also annexed the following: Most of the Prussian province of Posen (This territory, btw, had already been taken over by local Polish insurgents during the Great Poland Uprising of 1918–1919, ie before it was ceded by Versailles) 70% of West Prussia (Polish Pomerania) along with a 10% German minority, creating the so-called Polish corridor. The east part of Upper Silesia was awarded to Poland after a plebiscite. Sixty percent of residents voted for German citizenship, and 40 percent for Poland; as a result the area was divided - you can see how mendacious this is, the majority wanted to be part of Germany, but rather than accept the plebiscite the territory was still divided. To provide a Polish railway line connecting Danzig and Warsaw, the area of Soldau in East Prussia was annexed by Poland . From the eastern part of West Prussia and the southern part of East Prussia in the provinces of Ermland and Masurien, this area was annexed too by Poland. It is also important to realise that all of these lands were historically German and inhabited by Germans. These were not historically Polish lands. So the territorial piracy of Poland was shameless, extensive and on a grand scale. Of course negotiation and compromise would have been better, this was seriously attempted by Germany. But with the British whispering in the Polish ear, concede nothing, of course the Poles refused to take negotiations seriously. So what other option did Germany have? Of course a war to reconstitute territorial integrity is legitimate. Completely false, Poland itself has been attacking its neighbours repeatedly, Lithuania, Ukraine, Romania, Czechs, they all know about Polish agression, even Russia! It's all in here, just google Lithania, Ukraine, Romania, Czechs, Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland

It's always so funny when they emphasize "a THIRTY-FOUR times convicted felon"...until you realise the 34 counts related to 34 payslips paid to a lawyer. You can't make it up.

I like Missouri's abortion laws. Ohio and Kansas seem moderate.

Yes, the Democrats elegantly took the voters out of the process. But obviously Trump is the threat to democracy, lol.

I really can't for history to come out with the full truth of the Democrats' coup to oust Biden. Also the role the Obamas played would be interesting to know.

No, absolutely not, the British did bomb Wilhelmshaven. 435 people died. The evidence for British area bombing is massive, and has already been referred to here, the area bombing directive, strategic bombing directive, Dehousing Paper. not to mention evidence of the actual bombings of civilians the RAF undertook.' German actions in Poland were obviously not a systematic attemtpt to implement carpet bombing, those were military operations to conquer Poland which occasionally led to civilian deaths in Poland. It is rather different to a political leader deciding to target all his Air Force resources on dehousing civilians with carpet bombing, as the British did. Utter and complete lies, or just plain shocking ignorance. Whilst Poland was handed large swathes of German land in the Versailles treaty, and German officials signed under duress, a bit like a putting a gun to man's head and forcing him to sign, in actual fact the Versailles Treaty also stipulated a plebiscite should decide the fate of Upper Silesia. So what happened? The plebiscite was held. In the plebiscite, 707,605 votes were cast for Germany, and 479,359 for Poland. However, the Poles refused to accept the result, and by violence and intimidation forced massive civil unrest, so that the question was referred to the League of Nations, who, surprise surprise, gave the largest part to Poland DESPITE the provision in the Versailles treaty providing the plebiscite should decide Upper Silesia and DESPITE the fact that the overwhelming majority of Upper Silesia had voted to be part of Germany. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Poland In fact Poland was for hundreds of years, and most of the 20th century a predatory and awful neighbour, who annexed not just German lands, but Ukrainian, Czech, Romanian, Lithuanian and many other nations' land. Very obviously Germany had a right to reconstitute its territory which the Poles stole after 1918, this was a legitimate war in 1939. Only when Hitler invaded Russia did his war become a colonial and unjust war.